[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
.he-saptake Bay Study - Summ:,,,ry , UPPLEMENT A - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION '@'UPPLEMENTB -PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPPLEMENT C@, - THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL '47 44 7V;o 'd 'A 6A_ Chesapeake Bay Study - Summary SUPPLEMENT A - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION SUPPLEMENT B -PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ,-,_SUPPLEMENT C THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL ..... . . . . .,.. . .. . .... . .......... . . . . ... ... . ......... ..... .... . . ..... . . .. . . ... . ......... .... .. . ... . ..... . . .. . ..... .. .. ... .... . ... ......... ..... . .. 0 g N US Department of commerce qoAA coastai service .s center Librarv US Army Corps 2234 South Hobson Avenue of Engineers Cbarlesto,29 SC 29405-2413 Baltimore District September 1984 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT A PROBLEM IDENTIFICArION Department of the Army Baltimore District Corps of Engineers Baltimore, Maryland September 1984 FOREWORD This is one of the volumes comprising the final report on the Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study. The report represents the culmination of many years of study of the Bay and its associated social, economic, and environmental processes and resources. The overall study was done in three distinct developmental phases. A description is provided below of each study phase, followed by a description of the organization of the report. The initial phase of the overall program involved the inventory and assessment of the existing physical, economic, social, biological, and environmental conditions of the Bay. The results of this effort were published in a seven volume document titled Chesa2eake Bay Existing Conditions Report released in 1973. This was the first publication to present a comprehensive survey of the tidal Chesapeake and its resources as a single entity. The second phase of the program focused on projection of water resource requirements in the Bay Region for the year 2020. Completed in 1977, the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report documents the results of that work. The 12-volume report contains projections for resource categories such as navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, and land use. Also presented are assessments of the capacities of the Bay system to meet the identified future requirements, and an identification of problems and conflicts that may occur with unrestrained growth in the future. In the third and final study phase, two resource problems of particular concern in Chesapeake Bay were addressed in detail: low freshwater inflow and tidal flooding. In the Low Freshwater Inflow Study, results of testing on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model were used to assess the effects on the Bay of projected future depressed freshwater inflows. Physical and biological changes were quantified and used in assessments of potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. The Tidal Flooding Study included development of preliminary stage-damage relationships and identification of Bay communities in which structural and nonstructural measures could be beneficial. The final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study is composed of three major elements: (1) Summary, (2) Low Freshwater Inflow Study, and (3) Tidal Flooding Study. The Chesapeake Bay Study Summary Report includes a description of the results, findings, and recommendations of all the above described phases of the Chesapeake Bay Study. It is incorporated in four parts: Summary Report Supplement A -- Problem Identification Supplement B - Public Involvement Supplement C -- Hydraulic Model The Low Freshwater Inflow Study consists of a Main Report and six supporting appendices. The report includes: Main Report Appendix A -- Problem Identification Appendix B - Plan Formulation Appendix C Hydrology Appendix D Hydraulic Model Test Appendix E - Biota Appendix F -- Map Folio The Tidal Flooding Study consists similarly of a Main Report and six appendices. The rep includes: Main Report Appendix A - Problem Identification Appendix B - Plan Formulation, Assessment, and Evaluation Appendix C -- Recreation and Natural Resources Appendix D - Social and Cultural Resources Appendix E -- Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates Appendix F - Economics CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT A - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page Introduction A-1 Study Authority A-1 Study Purpose and Scope A-Z Study Area A-3 Study Organization and Management A-3 Purpose of Supplement A-6 Planning Background - Need for a Study A-6 Natural Resources of the Study Area A-7 Geology A-7 Soils A-8 Climate A-8 Surface Water Hydrology A-9 Groundwater Resources A-10 The Chesapeake Bay Estuary A-10 The Biota of Chesapeake Bay A-15 Aquatic Plants A-15 Fish and Wildlife A-16 Important Plant and Animal Organisms A-18 Plant and Animal Communities A-18 Sorio-Economic Characteristics of the Study Area A-20 Introduction A-20 The People A-20 Population Characteristics A-20 Economic Sectors A-22 Economic and Demographic Projections A-27 Land Use A-33 Existing Land Use A-33 Future Land Use A-39, Institutional Framework A-41 Introduction A-41 Riparian Doctrine A-41 Existing Federal Water Resources Institutions A-42 Existing Interstate and Basin Institutions A-45 Interstate Commission on the Potomac. River Basin (ICPRB) A-45 Chesapeake Bay Commission A-45 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) A-46 Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) A-47 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) A-49 Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) A-49 Chesapeake Research Coordination Act of 1980 A-49 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Item Page Existing State and Local Water Resources Institutions A-50 State of Delaware A-50 District of Columbia A-51 State of Maryland A-52 State of New York A-54 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania A-56 Commonwealth of Virginia A-57 State of West Virginia A-59 Water Resources Activities in the Study Area A-59 Corps of Engineers Activities A-59 Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study A-59 Pilot Estuary Water Treatment Plant A-60 Norfolk Harbor and Channels Study A-61 Baltimore Harbor and Channels Studies A-61 Other Corps Studies Specifically Authorized by Congress A-62 Continuing Authorities Program A-62 Permit Activities A-03 Other Federal Activities A-63 Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake bay Program A-63 U.S. Geological Survey Potomac Estuary Study A-65 State Activites A-0 Bi-State Working Committee for Chesapeake Bay A-65 Chesapeake Bay Commission A-65 State of Maryland Flowby Study A-6b Other State Activities A-67 Water Resourres Problems and Needs A-68 Introduction A-68 Water Supply A-68 Water Quality A-74 Municipal Wastewater A-75 Industrial Wastewater A-7j Thermal Discharges A-78 Agricultural and Urban Runoff A-78 Oil and Marine Transportation Spills A-78 Sedimentation A-78 Solid Waste Learhates A-78 High Freshwater Inflows A-78 Outdoor Recreation A-79 Navigation A-80 Current Status A-80 Future Demands A-81 Problems and Needs A-84 Tidal Flooding A-85 The Tidal Flooding Problem A-85 Existing Flood Problem Areas A-87 Future Tidal Flood Problem Areas A-87 i i TA13LE OF CONTENT (cont'd) Item Page Shoreline Erosion A-90 The Shoreline Erosion Process A-90 Existing Erosion Problems A-91 Future Erosion Problems A-92 Fish and Wildlife A-92 Electric Power A-97 Power Requirements and Generating Facilities A-97 Market Sectors A-97 Cooling Water Requirements A-101 Existing Problems and Conflicts A-101 Future Electric Power Needs, Supplies and Problems A-102 Noxious Weeds A-1.06 Selection of Problems for Detailed Study A-107 Introduction A-107 Initial Model Testing Program A- 108 Expanded Study Program A-114 Low Freshwater Inflow Study A-118 Tidal Flooding Study A-119 High Freshwater Inflow Study A-i 19 Revisions to Expanded Study Program A-120 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page A-1 Basin Characteristics of Major Chesapeake Bay Tributaries A-9 A-2 Important Chesapeake Bay Plant and Animal Organisms A-19 A-3 Population Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area A-21 A-4 Family Income Distribution for the Chesapeake Bay Study Area and the United States, 1969 A-22 A-5 Series C Projections of Population, Per Capita Income and Total Personal Income by Subregion A-29 A-6 Manufacturing Output for Chesapeake Bay Region by Industry A-30 A-7 A Comparison of OBERS Series C and Series E Projections A-32 A-8 A Comparison of Series C and Series E OBERS Projections of of Population and Total Employment for the Study Area A-34 A-9 A Comparison of Series C, Series E, and 1980 OBERS Projections by Economic Area A-35 A-10 Projected Cropland and Miscellaneous Farmland for the Chesapeake Bay Region A-40 A-I I Projected Acres of Private Commercial Forest Land for the Chesapeake Bay Study Area A-40 A-12 Institutions with Water Resources Responsibilities A-43 A- 13 Average Chesapeake Bay Area Water Supply Demands A-69 A- 14 Water Service Area Supply Deficits A-72 A- 15 Future Municipal Wastewater Treatment Needs A-75 A-16 Recent Chesapeake Bay Storms A-86 A-17 Tidal Flood Damages A-86 i i i LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Number Title Page A-18 Floodprone Communities A-88 A-19 Critical Future Floodprone Areas A-90 A-20 Length of Critically Eroding Shoreline A-93 A-21 Projected Period of Exceedence of Maximum Sustainable Yield for the Major Commercial and Sports Species A-95 A-22 Percent Contribution of Fuel Types of Total Electric Generation - 1972 A-101 A-23 Projected Land for Steam Electric Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area A-106 A-24 Potential Model Studies A-109 A-25 Problem Impact Indices A-115 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page A- I Chesapeake Bay Study Area A-4 A-2 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization A-5 A-3 Circulation in a Partially Mixed Estuary A- 12 A-4 Geographical and Seasonal Variations in Salinities in Chesapeake Bay A- 13 A-5 Employment by Economic Sectors, Chesapeake Bay Study Area and United States, 1970 A-23 A-6 Manufacturing Employment for the Chesapeake Bay Study Study Area and United States, 1970 A-24 A-7 Population and Economic Projections for Chesapeake Bay Region to 2020 A-28 A-8 Major Land Use Types - Chesapeake Bay Region A-36 A-9 Average Water Use by Type in the Chesapeake Bay Region A-70 A-10 Water Quality Problems in Chesapeake Bay A-76 A-11 Industrial Discharge Projections for the Chesapeake Bay Region with Moderate Technology A-77 A- 12 Future Waterborne Commerce - Baltimore Harbor A-82 A- 13 Future Waterborne Commerce -- Hampton Roads A-83 A- 14 Chesapeake Bay Electric Utility Market, Sector and Study Areas A-98 A- 15 Energy Requirements in Chesapeake Bay Area Market Sectors, 1972 A-99 A- 16 Energy Account f or Chesapeake Bay Market Area, 1972 A-100 A-17 Projected Energy Requirements for the Chesapeake Bay Market Areas A- 103 A- 18 Chesapeake Bay Plant Location Map, 2000 A-105 i v SUPPLEMENT A PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION INTRODUCTION Chesapeake Bay is a vast natural, economic, and social resource. Along with its tribu- taries, the Bay provides a transportation network on which much of the economic development of the Region has been based, a wide variety of water-oriented recreational opportunities, a home for numerous fish and wildlife, a source of water supply for both municipalities and industries, and the site for the disposal of many of our waste products. The natural resources and processes of the bay and man's activities interact to form a complex and interrelated system. Unfortunately, problems often arise when man's intended use of one resource conflicts with either the natural environment or man's use of another resource. It was the need for a plan to provide for the most efficient use of the Bay's resources that provided the impetus for the initiation of the Chesapeake bay Study. STUDY AUTHORITY The authority for the Chesapeake Bay Study and the construction of the hydraulic model is contained in Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965, adopted 27 October 1965, which reads as follows: (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to make a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the waters of the Baltimore Harbor and including, but not limited to, the following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of noxious weeds, water pollution, water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation. In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall construct, operate, and maintain in the State of Maryland a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay Basin and associated technical center. Such model and center may be utilized, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary, by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in connection with any research, investigation, or study being carried on by them of any aspect of the Chesapeake bay Basin. The study authorized by this section shall be given priority. (b) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed @6,000,000 to carry out this section. An additional appropriation for the Study was provided in Section 3 of the i-ziver Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1970, adopted 19 June 1970, which reads as follows: In addition to the previous authorization, the completion of the Chesapeake bay Basin Comprehensive Study, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1965 is hereby authorized at an estimated cost of @9,000,000. A- I As a result of Tropical Storm Agnes, which caused extensive damage in Chesapeake Bay, Public Law 92-607, the SU lemental Appropriation Act of 1973, signed by the President I . on 31 October 1972, included 275,000 for additional studies of the impact of the storm on Chesapeake Bay. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE Historically, measures taken to utilize and control the water and land resources of the Chesapeake Bay Basin were generally oriented toward solving individual problems. The Chesapeake Bay Study was initiated in 1967 to provide a comprehensive study of the entire Bay area in order that the most beneficial use be made of the water-related resources. The major objectives of the study were to: a. Assess the existing physical, chemical, biological, economic, and environmental conditions of Chesapeake Bay and its water resources. b. Project the future water resources needs of Chesapeake Bay to the year 2020. c. Formulate and recommend solutions to priority problems using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. In response to the first objective of the study, the initial or inventory phase of the program was completed in 1973 and the findings were published in a document titled Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. Included in this seven-volume report is a description of the existing physical, -economic, social, biological and environmental conditions of Chesapeake Bay. This was the first published report that presented a comprehensive survey of the entire Bay Region and treated Chesapeake Bay as a single entity. Most importantly, the report contains much of the basic data required to project the future demands on the Bay and to assess the ability of the resource to meet those demands. In response to the second objective of the study, the findings of the second or future projections phase of the program were provided in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report published in 1978. The primary focus of that report was the projection of water resources needs to the year 2020 and the identification of the problems and conflicts which would result from the unrestrained growth and use of the Bay's resources. That report provided the basic information necessary to proceed into the detailed study phase of the program. Given the problems and needs identified in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Reeort,'the priority problems to be examined in detail were selected and the hydraulic model testing in support of those studies was conducted. This the final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study provides both an overview of the findings incorporated in the earlier Existing and Future Conditions reports and the results of the detailed studies conducted in final phase of the study. The expertise required for the conduct of the Chesapeake Bay Study included the fields of engineering and the social, physical and biological sciences. The study was coordinated with Federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in Chesapeake Bay. Each A- 2 resource category or problem area was treated on an individual basis with demands and potential problem areas projected to the year 2020. All conclusions are based on historical information supplied by the preparing agencies having expertise in that field. As directed in the authorization, the study also included the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay. Actual construction of the 14- acre model and shelter was begun in June 1973 and completed in April 1976. Adjustment and verification of the model was completed in 1978. Testing was conducted on the model through January 1982. The hydraulic model provides a means of reproducing to a manageable scale many natural events and man-made changes thereby allowing the collection of the data necessary to assess the consequences of these happenings. As an instrument and physical display, the hydraulic model served to educate the public relative to the complexity of the Bay's problems and conflicts. As an operational focal point, the model promoted more effective liaison among the agencies working on the Bay waters, helping to reduce duplication of effort and aiding in the dispersion of knowledge among the interested parties. STUDY AREA As shown on Figure A-1, the study area encompasses the counties or Standard Metropolitan Statistiral Areas (SMSA) which adjoin or have a major influence on the estuary. The area delineated in Figure A-I is referred to as the "Study Area" or "Bay Region" throughout this report unless otherwise noted. As it relates to the Low Freshwate r-In flow Study, consideration was given to the entire Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. A more detailed description of the drainage basin is provided in that report. STUDY ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT The magnitude of the Chesapeake Bay Study, the large number of participants, and the complex spectrum of problems to be analyzed required intensive coordination of activities. The initial planning of this study was coordinated with the then National Council of Marine Resources and Engineering Development through its Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone. This study was conceived as a coordinated partnership among Federal, state, and local agencies and interested scientific institutions. Each involved agency was charged with exercising leadership in those disciplines in which it had special competence and was expected to review and comment on work performed by others. To realize these ends, an Advisory Group, a Steering Committee, and 5 Task Groups, as shown in Figure A-2, were established. The overall management of the Chesapeake Bay Study was the responsibility of the District Engineer of the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers. Sup2lement B, Public Involvement, of this report provides a more detailed discussion of the scope and nature of the study organization and coordination. A- 3 QIJTICA ALBANY* Tempt C 11 d ND@WICK Schuyler Ch.! 9. St..b.. ELMIR4, Trcq. Dole.." 0 B'X&AM .4 -T I Potter Ti.j. 0,cdf.,d S.,qu,harra 1.11-n Lack. S!DRANTON an L"o.c., % --V,,zLLlAMSlF`PRT9 -.1WILIKES BARRES ........ JjAon W-bi.) Lure- In'-' Carbon STROUDSBURG Clear' Wd re" Later' "at,, error, rhu. PUNXSUTAWNEJY be Sryd,, Sch.ylk,11 I into -@,@,ALLE@TrN 010'A ALT a op, Me, to -.o.,,. Cumberland LANCASTER o Chester Ocean rk York BurlingtoX Fro \Camde, SOMERSET 0 ..dl.rd lin Adorns f 41-am Y0,0, K lwestef% TOlq\ PA I HAGE,5,jjJ!gRd,.- Cecil Y MD -7`d,;,,;g.ry h. t salffill Atlantic Garrett Marga. hrk,l.@@ '.dei, 4o,ooi el2y ts SIR Ali .... 11' BAI@HWORE Cup,belland H..P,hi,. O%k CLARKSBURG 1Q4, -at-- of % franc, Cape INCHEITE764P jcwk. c" bla 143 Hardy MO(@ F E ttructurves or ,he .. d..h WASHI 0- It. 1, Prior. P., ........ 1"i 6#0q. C. or Go" Charter ? % > DR Rockingham So 11-lumt., Highland NBUR HAR I Green, Jorcral, Acit 172INT N' Both Laui,a -,/',.,k- a, Will el- JA-1\ If Goorhl Rover vtxlaj@ Bototourt 'lll,,ak u,kim,1im. POW tan Ill".C.HBURG that Gil.,.RCrA- IIOK@401@ Bullard 'Arrelin 'R .... k@@ npb.l I m" Ed d, y ftlt-y .'u" u".. 151. LK Rude XPat,ich Henry DANVI Me, ran, or i, k an VA. I 1 .1 -1 ::": - - _/G ... ri NF larrid, MURFFESBAFX6 ft.rtie an me to FIGUkt- A-! CHESAAEA-K-E-i@-M, s,rUDY AREA A-4 BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ADVISORY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, LIAISON, & BASIC RESEARCH A RICULTURE NAVY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DELAWARE EN RGY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ENERGY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMERCE TRANSPORTATION INTERIOR MARYLAND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY DELAWARE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION IF PC' DIST ICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT MARYLAND SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION VIRGINIA INTERIOR PENNS LVANIA C)MMEACE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ENVIETO NMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEALTH, EDUCATION IF WELFARE -T- ECONOMIC PROJECTION WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, FISH & WILDLIFE TASK GROUP WASTE TREATMENT, NOXIOU NAVIGATION, EROSION. RECREATION TASK GROUP COORDINATION GR( WEEDS TASK GROUP FISHERIES TASK GROUP COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTERIOR INTERIOR AGRIC LTURE AGENCY AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HOUSING A URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURE ENERGY TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE INTERIOR ENERGY COMMERCE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEFIC FERC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AkiENCY INTERIOR INTERIOR AGENCY DELAWARE EN FRONNIENTAL PROTECTION NAVY A ENCY TRANSPORTATION NAVY DELAWARE MARYLAND DELAWARE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PENN YLVANIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARYLAND VIRGINIA DELAWARE AGENCY PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF COLUM81A MARYLAND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELAWARE VIRGINIA P NNSYLVANIA MARYLAND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA "[W. VIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND NAVY TRANSPORTATION VIRGINIA VIRG NIA SUSQUEHANNA BASIN COMMISSION HEW .NOY REPRESENTED AFTER 1910 FIGURE A-2 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY ORGANIZATION A- 5 PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENT The purpose of this supplement is to provide a brief description of the various activities and characteristics of the Bay Region that were relevant considerations in the study effort. Recent water resources planning activities and natural, socio-economic 'and institutional characteristics of the study area are discussed. Those factors relating to the existing conditions in the Bay Region are used as a basis for projecting the future conditions which in turn serve to aid in the presentation and development of the problems and needs. Lastly, this supplement presents the rationale for the selection of those priority problems that were selected for detailed study in the final phase of the study. PLANNING BACKGROUND - NEED FOR A STUDY The need for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the Chesapeake bay area had long been recognized. The concept of developing the Nation's water resources through single-purposed programs and projects was on the wane by the conclusion of the Korean conflict. At that time, funds were made available for the conduct of a large backlog of investigations. These studies were authorized, but had not been started because of curtailment of the civil works program by Executive Order. Some of the requests for improvements appeared to be duplications and, in some cases, in direct conflict with one another. The evolution of regional concepts for the development of water resources was a logical result. In terms of Chesapeake Bay, a first step toward what might be considered a comprehensive study was the Chesapeake Bay Fishing Harbor Economics Study, Maryland and Virginia. This study provided, for the first time, a broad overview of the commercial fishing induitry and a firm and consistent basis for the comparison of primary fishing benefits among harbors throughout the Bay Area. In 1961, in response to the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources (as contained in Senate Report No. 29, Eighty-Seventh Congress, First Session, made pursuant to Senate Resolution 48, 86th Congress) that a program be formu- lated to meet the Nation's water resources needs, the District Engineer, tialtimore District, prepared a pamphlet concerning the Chesapeake Bay Area entitled An Appraisal of Water Resource Needs Projected to the Year 2060. In the spirit of the Senate Committee's recommendation, this pamphlet recommended that a cooperative study of Chesapeake Bay be made by the Federal and state agencies concerned with the bay's resources. In the same year, a basin plan for Chesapeake Bay (Basin Plan, Chesapeake Bax) was prepared by the Baltimore District in cooperation with the Norfolk District in compli- ance with instructions from the Office of the Chief of Engineers. The plan was based on readily available information and consisted of a brief description of the current status of water development and planning in the Chesapeake Bay Area. It included comments on the adequacy of the plan and future demands on the region's water resources. In addi- tion, it presented a program for bringing the basin plan up to date. Although it was the first attempt at bringing together comprehensive information on the bay's resources, it represented only a superficial analysis. Based on the two Corps reports mentioned above and similar studies and analyses conducted by other agencies it was recognized that with rapidly increasing population -and its attendant demands, the resources of the area, including water supply, waterborne commerce, seafood, recreation, and fish and wildlife resources, were receiving pressures which could only be expected to increase in the years ahead. Thus, water resources A-6 managers and scientists in the Bay Region felt that a comprehensive study of the bay and its resources was required in order to develop a bay-wide management plan. During this same period, certain Congressional representatives with districts within the Bay Region were expressing interest in a comprehensive Bay study and the construction of a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay similar to the San Francisco Bay and the Mississippi River basin models. It was envisioned that such a model would be used as part of the study decision-making process. On 23 February 1965, a bill was introduced by Congressman Hervey G. Machen of Maryland to authorize the Secretary of the Army to conduct a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. To carry out this investigation, a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay Basin and associated technical center were to be constructed. Shortly after introduction of this bill, three other nearly identical bills were introduced by Congressmen Thomas N. Downing of Virginia and Rogers C. B. Morton and George H. Fallon of Maryland. In July 1965, the Senate version of the River and Harbors Act of 1965 was introduced and it also included a section authorizing a comprehensive Bay study that was very similar to that proposed in the af orernentioned House bills. Following some changes, the authority for the study was provided in Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 signed by the President on 27 October 1965. The authority was previously quoted in this Supplement. Prior to passage of the Act and in testimony before the House Committee on Public Works, the sponsors and supporters of the legislation presented certain staternents in favor of the study. The statements by these Congressional Representatives expressed' their objectives for the Bay study and its associated hydraulic model. Generally, it was believed that the growing population and development of the Region demonstrated the need f or the creation of a fully integrated basin plan for optimum development. Increasing pressures on the Region's water and related land resources also indicated the need to alleviate the major water resource problems of the bay such as siltation, beach erosion, noxious aquatic growths, flood control, water pollution, disposal of dredged material, and protection of the shellfish industry. It was pointed out that the Bay study and its associated hydraulic model were necessary "to create a tool and facility to assist the existing agencies in carrying out their missions." The model, by providing insight into the hydraulic and hydrographic mechanisms operating in the Bay, was believed necessary to serve and preserve the Bay and would, in addition, oenefit flevery water resource problem in every state in the Nation." For a more detailed discussion of the history of the Chesapeake Bay Study the reader is referred to Supplement B, Public Involvement. NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA GEOLOGY The Chesapeake Bay Region is divided into two geologic provinces - the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau. These provinces run roughly parallel to the Atlantic Ocean in similar fashion to the Bay itself and join at the Fall Line. This natural line of demarcation generally marks both the limit of tide as well as the head of navigation. A-7 The Coastal Plain Province includes the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, most of Delaware, and a portion of the Western Shore. On the Eastern Shore and in portions of the Western Shore adjacent to the Bay, the Coastal Plain is largely low, featureless, and frequently marshy, with many islands and shoals sometimes extending far offshore. The Province is a gently rolling upland on the Western Shore and in the northern portions of the Eastern Shore. The Coastal Plain reaches its highest elevation in areas along its western margin. The composition of the Coastal Plain is primarily unconsolidated, southeasterly-dipping, sedimentary layers such as sand, clay, marl, gravel, and diatomaceous earth resting on a base of hard crystalline rock. These layers, which can be readily seen in areas where wells have been drilled, increase in thickness towards the Continental Shelf. In a few isolated areas and in locations where water has cut a deep channel, the basement rock is exposed in ridges. The Piedmont Plateau is not, as its name implies, a plateau. It is characterized by low hills and ridges which tend to rise above the general lay of the land reaching a maximum height near the Appalachian Province on the west. Many of the stream valleys are quite narrow and steep-sided, having been cut into the hard crystalline rocks which are characteristic of the Province. The parent material of the Piedmont Province is both older and more complicated than that of the Coastal Plain. The structurally complex crystalline rocks have been severely folded and subjected to great heat and pressure thereby creating metamorphic rOCKS. SOILS Soils consist of a thin layer of material made from broken and decomposed rOCK with added products of decaying organic matter called humus. The Study Area contains soils produced from the three major types of rock, namely igneous, metamorphic, and sedi- mentary. The first two types are found primarily in the Piedmont Province, whereas the Coastal Plain is composed of sediments. Climate appears to have a definite effect on soil development. Although the Study Area is generally characterized by a humid climate, local variations in temperature and rainfall produce some differences in soil type. Soil characteristics (texture, drainage, structure, particle size, physical composition, and degree of development) have had a strong role in determining soil usefulness. Richer, well-drained soils are more productive in terms of agriculture. Few crops can grow on soils which are poorly drained or which lack plant nutrients. Soils on the Coastal Plain are highly variable with regard to drainage characteristics and most need liming to neutralize their naturally acidic condition. Piedmont soils are medium-grained, easily tilled, and of generally higher fertility than those of the Coastal Plain. A few soils are impermeable when wet, retarding the movement of water and causing waterlogging. As a result, strong surface runoff causes serious erosion of slopes. CLIMATE The Chesapeake Bay Study Area is characterized by a generally moderate climate, due in � large part to the area's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. Variations occur, however, on � local, basis due to the large geographical size of the Study Area. A-8 Precipitation within the Bay Region was studied at selected stations during a 30-year sample record from 1931 to 1960. The average for the Study Area was 44 inches per year, with geographical variations from about 40 to 46 inches per year. Snowfall, included in the precipitation totals, averaged 13 inches per year and occurred generally between November and March. Three types of storm activity bring precipitation to the Region. The first type consists of extratropical storms or "lows" which originate to the west, either in the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest, or the Gulf of Mexico. The second is tropical storm or hurricane activity which originates in the Middle Atlantic or the Caribbean Sea region. The third is thunderstorm activity which is almost always on a local scale. It is this last activity which brings about the greatest amount of local variation in precipitation in the Bay Region. Evapotranspiration, which includes water losses due to evaporation from land and water surfaces and transpiration from plants, amounts to approximately 60 percent of the annual precipitation or about 26 inches per year. Authorities estimate an annual evaporation of 36 to 40 inches from the Bay itself. The average temperature for the Study Area is approximately 57 degrees Fahrenheit (OF). The Bay is oriented in a north-south direction, however, and covers a wide latitudinal area, allowing wide temperature variances. As a result, the temperature at the head of the Bay averages less than 550F, while at the mouth it averages almost 60OF, with some peripheral effect due to the nearness of the Atlantic Ocean. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The source of freshwater for the Bay is runoff from a drainage basin covering about 64,160 square miles. Approximately 88 percent of this basin is drained by five major rivers, including the Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James (see Table A- 1). These river basins are subject to periodic large, climatic extremes, resulting in large fluctuations in flow, i.e., droughts and floods. Of these, droughts are the more geographically widespread and long-term in nature. The Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers together provide nearly 90 percent of the Bay's mean annual inflow of approximately 69,900 cubic feet per second. 'rABLE A- I BASIN CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR CHESAPEAKE BAY -rRiBUTAkIES Drainage Area at River Length River Basin Mouth (Sq. Mi.) (Mi.) Susquehanna 27,510 453 Potomac 14,217 407 Rappahannock 2,885 184 York 2,857 130 James 10,187 434 A- 9 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Large reservoirs of high quality freshwater are located in the groundwater aquifers of the Chesapeake Bay Region. Aquifers are subsurface sand and gravel-type materials with relatively high ability to conduct water. Water levels in the aquifers fluctuate according to the balance between precipitation and aquifer recharge, on the one hand, and evapotranspiration, runoff, and withdrawals on the other hand. Of the average precipitation of 44 inches per year (in the Study Area), an estimated 9 to I I inches actually contributes to the recharge of the groundwater reservoirs. Of the more productive aquifers in the Chesapeake Bay area, the water-bearing formations known as the Columbia Group produce very high yields. Extensive areas on the Eastern Shore and portions of Harf ord and Baltimore Counties, Maryland, are the principal users. The Piney Point Formation is important in Southern Maryland, portions of Maryland's Eastern Shore and in areas near the Fall Line in Virginia. Lastly, the Potomac Group provides water to Anne Arundel, Charles, and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland and is the most important source of groundwater in the Coastal Plain of Virginia. THE CHESAPEAKE BAY The Chesapeake Bay is a mere youngster, geologically speaking. It is generally believed that the Bay was formed about 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, when tne great glaciers melted and poured uncountable billions of gallons of water back into the world's oceans. As a result of this great influx of water, the ocean level rose several hundred feet and inundated large stretches of the coastal rivers. The ancient Susquehanna, which had drained directly into the Atlantic Ocean near what is now the mouth of the Bay, was one of these "drowned" waterways. Because the area around the old Susquehanna was characterized by relatively low relief, the estuary that was formed by this mixing of salt and freshwater covered a large geographical area but was rela- tively shallow. This newly formed body of water was later to be named "Chesapeake Bay." Chesapeake Bay varies from 4 to 30 miles in width and is about 200 miles long. Although the Chesapeake is the largest estuary in the United States, with a surface area of approximately 4,400 square miles, the average depth of the Bay proper is only about 28 feet and about two-thirds of the bay is eighteen feet deep or less. There are, how- ever, deep holes which generally occur as long narrow troughs. These troughs are thought to be the remnants of the ancient Susquehanna River valley. The deepest of these holes is about 174 feet and occurs off Kent Island. Chesapeake Bay is a complex, dynamic system. Words like "restless," "unstable," and "unpredictable," which generally describe the young of most animal species, can also be used to describe the young estuary. The ebb and flood of the tides and the incessant action of the waves are the most readily perceptible water movements in the bay. Average maximum tidal currents range from 0.5 knots to over 2 knots (I knot equals I nautical mile (6,076 feet) per hour). The mean tidal fluctuation in Chesapeake bay is small, generally between one and two feet. Except during periods of unusually high winds, waves in the Bay are relatively small, generally less than 3 feet in height. A- 10 Within the Bay proper and its major tributaries, there is superimposed on the tidal currents, a less obvious, non-tidal, two-layered circulation pattern that provides a net seaward flow of lighter, lower salinity water in the upper layer and a flow up the estuary of heavier, higher salinity waters in the deeper layer. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure A-3. The tidal currents provide some of the energy necessary for the mixing of the two layers. Tides and wave action (as well as other types of currents) are biologically significant in several ways. They provide mixing, transportation, and distribution of inorganic and organic nutrients. These water movements also affect the dispersion of eggs, larva, spores, gametes, and smaller advanced stages of resident plants and animals; remove waste products and bring food and oxygen to fixed bottom-dwelling organisms; and circulate chemical "clues" which aid predators in locating their prey. Tides and waves are also especially important ecologically to the intertidal zone (the shoreline area between high and low tides) of an estuary because of their wetting action which is beneficial to many plant and animal species. In sheltered waters, the mixing of water by tidal and wave action is important for the prevention of excessively high temperatures and salinity stratification which could be harmful to some biota. The turbulence caused by wave action also plays a role in aeration of the waters to provide sufficient oxygen for biotic respiration. The mixing in the estuary of sea water and freshwater creates salinity variations within the system. In Chesapeake Bay, salinities range from 33 parts per thousand at the mouth of the Bay to near zero at the north end of the Bay and at the heads of the embayments tributary to the Bay. Higher salinities are generally found on the Eastern Shore than on a comparable area of the Western Shore due to the greater river inflow on the Western Shore and to the earth's rotation. Salinity patterns also vary seasonally according to the amount of freshwater inflow into the Bay system. Figure A-4 illustrates these phenomena. Due to this seasonal variation in salinity and the natural density differences between fresh and saline waters, significant non-tidal circulation often occurs within the bay's small tributary embayments. In the spring, during the period of high freshwater inflow to the Bay, salinity in the embayments may be greater than in the Bay. because of this salinity difference, surface water from the Bay flows into the tributaries on the surface, while the heavier, more saline bottom water from the tributaries flows into the bay along the bottom. As Bay salinity becomes greater through summer and early fall, bay waters flow into the bottom of the tributaries, while tributary surface waters flow into .the Bay. The natural variations in salinity that occur in the Bay are part of the dynamic nature of the estuary, and the resident species of plants and animals are ordinarily able to adjust to the changes. Sudden changes in salinity, however, or changes of long duration or magnitude, may upset the equilibrium between organisms and their environment. Abnormal periods of freshwater inflow (i.e., floods and droughts) may alter salinities sufficiently to cause widespread damage to the ecosystem. A- I I LIGHTER FRESH WATER RIVER .......... SEA FIGURE A-3 CIRCULATION IN A PARTIALLY MIXED ESTUARY A- 12 su $41 ut "A NX A R\, CHESAPEAKE SAY CHESAPEAKE SAY SURFACE SALINITY (1/6.) f SURf@ACE SALINITY I%.) Spring Average Fall Average C@opl It to w 38 21 'W IV. 20 77. FIGURE A-4 GEOGRAPHICAL AND-St-EA-S-0-NAL VARIATIONS-IN -SALI-NI-T- I ES IN CHESAPEAM@ 6AY A- 13 Dissolved oxygen is another important physical parameter. Dissolved oxygen levels vary considerably both seasonally and according to depth. During the winter the bay is high in dissolved oxygen content since oxygen is more soluble in cold water than in warm. With spring and higher water temperatures, the dissolved oxygen content decreases. While warmer surface waters stay near saturation, in deeper waters the dissolved oxygen con- tent becomes significantly less despite the cooler temperatures because of increasing oxygen demands (by bottom dwelling organisms and decaying organic material) and decreased vertical mixing. Through the summer, the waters below 30 feet become oxygen deficient. By early fall, as the surface waters cool and sink, vertical mixing takes place and the oxygen content at all depths begins to steadily increase until there is an almost uniform distribution of oxygen. While species vary in the level of dissolved oxygen they can withstand before respiration is affected, estuarine species in general can function in waters with dissolved oxygen levels as low as 1.0 to 2.0 mg/liter. Dissolved oxygen levels of about 5.0 mg/liter are generally considered necessary, however, to maintain a healthy environment over the long term. The eff ects of temperature on the estuarine system are also extremely important. Since the waters of Chesapeake Bay are relatively shallow compared to the ocean, they are more affected by atmospheric temperature conditions. Generally speaking, the annual temperature range in Chesapeake Bay is between OOC and 290C. Because the mouth of the estuary is close to the sea, it has a relatively stable temperature as compared with the upper reaches. Some heat is required by all organisms for the functioning of bodily processes. These processes are restricted, however, to a particular temperature range. Temperatures above or below the critical range for a particular species can be fatal unless the organism is able to move out of the area. Temperature also causes variations in water density which plays a role in stratification and non-tidal circulation as discussed ear lier. Light is necessary for the survival of plants because of its role in photosynthesis. Turbidity, more than any other physical factor, determines the deptri light will penetrate in an estuary. Turbidity is suspended material, mineral and/or organic in origin, which is transported through the estuary by wave action, tides, and currents. While the absence of light may be beneficial to some bottom dwelling organisms since they can come out during daylight hours and feed in relative safety, this condition limits the distribution of plant life because of the restriction of photosynthetic activity. This restriction of plant life (especially plankton in the open estuary) will reduce the benthic (i.e., bottom dwelling) and zooplankton populations which in turn will reduce fish productivity. Nutrients are the minerals essential to the normal f unctioning of an organism. In Chesapeake Bay, important nutrients include nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, iron, manga- nese, and potassium. It is generally believed that most of the nutrients required by estuarine organisms are present in sufficient quantity in Chesapeake Bay. Excesses of some nutrients are often a more important problem than deficiencies. Excesses of nitrogen and phosphorus, for example, may cause an increase in the rate of eutrophica- tion which, in turn, can eliminate desirable species, encourage the growth of obnoxious algae, and cause low dissolved oxygen conditions from the decay of dead organisms and other materials. Relatively little is known about the quantities of specific nutrients necessary for the healthy functioning of individual species, or more importantly, of biological communities. A- 14 While it is necessary to keep in mind the interactions of these physical and chemical variables when studying Chesapeake Bay, these parameters should not and, in fact, cannot be addressed separately. The Bay ecosystem is characterized by the dynamic interplay between many complex factors. As a simple example, the levels of salinity and temperature will both affect the metabolism of an aquatic organism. In addition, both salinity and temperature can cause a drop in the oxygen concentration in the water and thus an increase in the required respiration rate of the organism. While it is true the effects of these variables individually may be of a non-critical nature, the combined (or synergistic) effects of the three stresses may be severe to the point of causing death. These three parameters, in turn, also interact with other physical and chemical variables such as pH, carbon dioxide levels, the availability of nutrients, and numerous others. The subtle variable of time may also become critical in many cases. The important point is that the physical and chemical environment provided by Chesapeake Bay to the indi- genous biota is extremely complex and difficult, if not impossible, to completely understand. THE BIOTA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY The estuary is biologically a very special place. It is a very demanding environment because it is constantly changing. The resident plants and animals must be able to adjust to changes in physical and chemical parameters. The requirement for adjustment to the almost constant ecological stress limits the number of species of plants and animals that are able to survive and reproduce in the estuary. Despite the fact that relatively few species inhabit the Bay, the Chesapeake, like most estuaries, is an extrernely productive ecosystem. There are a number of reasons why estuaries are so productive. First, the circulation patterns in the area of mixing of lighter freshwater with heavier sea water in a partially mixed estuary such as Chesapeake Bay tend to create a "nutrient trap" which acts to re- tain and recirculate nutrients. Second, water movements in the estuary do a great deal of "work" removing wastes and transporting food and nutrients enabling many organisms to maintain a productive existence which does not require the expenditure of a great deal of energy for excretion and food gathering. Third, the recycling and retention of nutrients by bottom-dwelling organisms, the effects of deeply penetrating plant roots, and the constant formation of detrital material in the wetlands create a form of "self - enriching" system. Last, estuaries benefit from a diversity of producer plant types which together provide year-round energy to the system. Chesapeake Bay has all three types of producers that power the ecosystems of our world: macrophytes (marsh and sea grasses), benthic microphytes (algae which live on or near the bottom), and phytoplankton (minute floating plants). AQUATIC PLANTS As implied above, certain aquatic plants are critical to the health and productivity of Chesapeake Bay. Plants use sunlight and the inorganic nutrients in the water to produce the energy to drive the estuarine ecosystem. Thus, these plants, ranging from the microscopic algae to the larger rooted aquatics, are the primary producers-the first link in the aquatic food chain. Aquatic plants exist in the natural environment in a myriad of shapes, forms, and degree of specialization. They are also found in waters of widely varying physical and chemical quality. A- 15 "Phytoplankton" is a general term for aquatic plants of both fresh and saline waters which are characteristically free-floating and microscopic. The most important of the phytoplankton are the green algaes, diatoms, and dinof lagellates. The population of these organisms is represented by relatively few species, but when they do occur, they are present in tremendous numbers. Phytoplankton are the principal photosynthetic producers in the marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments, and will grow in the water column to any depth that light will penetrate. Blue-green algae are another type of phytoplankton organism which are not generally considered to be of importance in aquatic productivity, but are best known for the nuisance conditions caused when their growth occurs in excess. Huge populations, or blooms, of these organisms located near the surface of the water reduce the sunlight available to bottom-dwelling organisms. The blooms can also give off objectionable odors, clog industrial and municipal water intakes, and generally cause nuisance conditions. Macrophytes are, as the Greek roots of the word indicate, "large plants." Unlike the freely floating, or only weakly motile, and minute phytoplankton, the macrophytic aquatic plants are generally either rooted or otherwise fastened in some manner to the bottom. Most have defined leaflets which grow either entirely submerged, floating on the surface of the water, or out of the water with leaf surfaces in direct contact with the atmosphere. The distribution of macrophytes ranges from entirely freshwater to the open ocean. These types of plants are not only important as food and habitat f or fish and wildlife, but they are also important in the recovery of nutrients from deep sediments. The "Biotall section of the Chesapeake bay Existing Conditions Reeort and Appendices 14 and 15 of the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report include a more detailed discussion of aquatic plants - their types and distribution, importance in the ecosystem, and the problems associated with them. FISH AND WILDLIFE The energy supplied to the ecosystem by the green plants of the Bay must be made available in some manner to the meat-eating predators, including man, which are higher in the food chain. This vital link is filled by many different varieties of organisms such as zooplankton and various species of worms, shellfish, crabs, and finfish. Zooplankton include small crustaceans such as copepods, the larva of most of the estuarine fishes and shellfishes, several shrimp-like species, and other animal forms that generally float with the currents and tides. Phytoplankton and plant detritus (along with adsorbed bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and micro-algae) are consumed directly by the zooplankton and other larger aquatic species. If man through his activity interrupts an established energy flow in the environment, he may cause energy losses to the system as well as other detrimental biological effects. Man's activities, for example, may cause the loss of a detritus producing area (e.g., a stand of saltmarsh cordgrass) resulting in a decline of the organisms which primarily feed on detritus. A loss of this nature directly affects the next higher trophic level, thereby starting a chain reaction throughout the food web. Generally, in estuaries, there is a great deal of dependence of larger organisms on a few key smaller organisms that utilize detritus and micro-algae for food. A- 16 Like the aquatic plant communities, the aquatic animal communities are not spread homogeneously throughout the Bay. Although the entire estuary serves as nursery and primary habitat for finfish, spawning areas are concentrated in the areas of low salinity and freshwater in the Upper Bay and corresponding portions of the major tributaries. The northern part of Chesapeake Bay, including the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, is probably the largest of all spawning areas in the Bay. This area plus the upper portions of the Potomac, York, Rappahannock, James, and Patuxent Rivers, represent about 90 percent of the anadromous fish (i.e., those which ascend rivers from the sea to reproduce) spawning grounds in the Chesapeake Bay Region. The Bay serves as a spawning and nursery ground for fish caught from Maine to North Carolina. Some of the fish that use the Bay as a nursery include striped bass, weakfish, shad, alewife, blueback herring, croaker, menhaden, and kingfish. Oysters are abundant in many parts of the estuary. The numerous small bays, coves, and inlets between the Chester and Nanticoke Rivers along the Eastern Shore and the lower portions of the Patuxent, Potomac, York, Rappahannock, and James Rivers account for approximately 90 percent of the annual harvest of oysters. Some species of Chesapeake Bay fish and shellfish thrive in the saltier waters of the estuary. The mouth of the Chesapeake, an area of high salinity, is the major blue crab spawning area in the Bay and its tributaries. In addition to Chesapeake Bay's large resources of finfish and shellfish, the marshes and woodlands in the area provide many thousands of acres of natural habitat for a variety of waterfowl, other birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Chesapeake Bay is the constricted neck in the gigantic funnel pattern that forms the Atlantic Flyway. Most of the waterfowl reared in the area between the western shore of Hudson Bay and Greenland spend some time in the marshes of the Bay and its tributaries during their migrations. Good wintering areas adjacent to preferred upland feeding grounds attract more than 75 percent of the wintering population of Atlantic Flyway Canada geese. The marshes and grain fields of the Delmarva Peninsula are particularly attractive to Canada geese and grain-f eeding swans, mallards, and black ducks. The Susquehanna Flats, located at the head of the Bay, supports huge flocks of American widgeon in the early fall, while several species of diving ducks, including canvasback, redhead, ringneck, and scaup, winter throughout Chesapeake Bay. About half of the 80,000 whistling swans in North America winter on the small estuaries in or around the Bay. While the Chesapeake is primarily a wintering ground for birds that nest further north, several species of waterfowl, including the black duck, blue-winged teal, and wood duck, find suitable nesting and brood-raising habitat in the Bay Region. In addition to waterfowl, many other species of birds are found in the Study .1 krea. Some rely primarily on wetlands for their food and other habitat requirements. These include rails, various sparrows, marsh wrens, red-winged blackbirds, snipe, sandpipers, plovers, marsh hawk, shorteared owl, herons, egrets, gulls, terns, oyster catcher, and curlews. Many of the above species are insectivores, feeding on grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetles, flies, and mosquitoes, while others feed on seeds, frogs, snakes, fish, and shellfish. There are numerous other birds which rely more heavily on the wooded uplands and agricultural lands for providing their basic habitat and food requirements. Among these species are many game birds, including wild turkey, mourning dove, bobwhite quail, A- 17 woodcock, and pheasant. It should be emphasized that some of these species require both an upland and a wetland habitat. Modest populations of ospreys and American bald eagles also inhabit the Bay Region. The Chesapeake Bay Region is also home for most of the common mammals which are native to the coastal Mid-Atlantic Region. The interspersion of forest and farmland and the proximity of shore and wetland areas form the basis for a great variety of ecological systems. The abundance of food such as mast and grain crops and the high quality cover vegetation found on the wooded uplands and agricultural lands support good populations of white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, red fox, gray fox, gray squirrel, woodchuck, opossum, and skunk. The various vegetation types found in wetland areas provide indispensible natural habitat requirements for beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, marsh rabbit, and nutria. In addition, there are numerous species of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians which inhabit the Study Area and are integral parts of both the upland and wetland food cycles. IMPORTANT PLANT AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS As part of the work done for the Future Conditions Reeort, a survey of prominent 13ay Area scientists was conducted to determine the most important plant and animal species based on economic, biological, and social criteria. For example, a species would qualify as an "important species" if it were either a commercial species, a species pursued for sport, a prominent species important for energy transfer to organisms higher in the food chain, a mammal or bird protected by Federal law, or if it exerted a deleterious influence on other species important to man. The common names of the 124 species and genera identified according to these criteria are present in Table A-2. PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES Although the plants and animals of Chesapeake Bay have been treated separately in the previous discussion, in the real world they are inextricably bound together in communities. Bay communities are important because of the complex interactions between inhabiting organisms, both plant and animal, and between one community and another. In the Ileelgrass" community, for example, the organic detritus formed by eelgrass, plus the microorganisms adsorbed on it, represent the main energy source for animals living in the community and for animals outside the community to which detritus is transported. In addition, eelgrass performs the following physical and biological f unctions: I . It provides a habitat for a wide variety of organisms. 2. It is utilized as a nursery ground by fish. 3. It is a food source for ducks and brant. 4. The plant physically acts as a stabilizing factor for bottom sediments, which allows greater animal diversity. 5. It plays a role in reducing turbidity and erosion in coastal bays. A- 19 TABLE A-2 IMPORTANT CHESAPEAKE BAY PLANT AND ANIMAL ORGANISMS Mollusca (Shellfish) Pisces (Fiih) (Cont.) Blue-Green Alga Northern puffer Diatom (4 general) Coot clam Oyster toadfish Dinoflagellate (3 species) Brackish water clam Sea lettuce Balthic macoma Reptiles Green alga Stout razor clam Red alga Razor clam Snapping turtle Soft shell clam Diamond-backed terrapin Vascular Plants Asiatic clam Miarsh and aquatic) Aves (Birds) Arthropoda (Cr bs), Widgeongrass sh and Horned grebe Saltmarsh Cordgrass anyther Cattle egret Eelgrass Great blue heron Horned pondweed Barnacle Glossy ibis Wild rice Copepod (2 genera) Whistling swan Cattails Opposum shrimp Canada goose Pondweeds Cumarean Wood duck Arrow-arum Isopod (2 species) Black duck Wild celery Amphipod (5 genera) Canvasback Sand flea Lesser scaup Cnidaria Grass shrimp Bufflehead Sand shrimp Osprey Stinging nettle Xanthid crab (2 species) Clapper rail Hydroid Blue crab Virginia rail American coot Ctenophora (romb jellies) Urochordata American woodcock Common snipe Comb jelly (2 species) Sea squirt Sernipalmated sandpiper Laughing gull Platyhelminthes Pisres (Fish) Herring gull Ulatwo@miy Great black-backed gull Cownose ray Forster's tern Flatworm Eel Least tern Shad, herring Annelida (Worms) Menhaden Mammalia (Mammals) Anchovy Bloodworm Variegated minnow Beaver Clam worm Catfish, bultheads Muskrat Polychaete worm (4 gener) Hogrhoker Mink Oligochaete worm Killifish Otter Silverside Raccoon Moflusca (.Shellfish) White perch White-tailed deer Striped bass Eelgrass snail Black sea bass Endangered Species Oyster drill Weakfish Marsh periwinkle Spot Shortnose sturgeon Hooked mussel Blenny - Atlantic sturgeon Ribbed mussel Goby Maryland darter Oyster Harvestfish Southern bald eagle Hard shell clam Flounder American peregrine falcon Ipswich sparrow Delmarva fox squirrel Life histories discussed in the "Biota" Chapter of the Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. Life histories discussed in the "Biotall Appendix of the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report. A- 19 Appendix 15 of the Future Conditions Report presents more detailed information on the eelgrass community as well as the "oyster" community, two of the most important in the Chesapeake Bay system. It is evident from the preceding discussion that Chesapeake Bay is an almost incomprehensibly complex physical and biological system. When the human element is added, the complexities and interrelationships become even more involved. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY Ai<EA INTRODUCTION Perhaps the most changeable element of the Chesapeake Bay Region is its people. Populations grow and change over time as do the economic activities of the people. Likewise, our ability to measure, describe and forecast these changes also evolves over time. Since the study was authorized in 1965 until the preparation of this report, the population of the Bay Region has grown and changed significantly. Demographic and economic base data have been revised and updated several times most notably by the decennial censuses of 1970 and 1980. Forecasts of future growth are revised continuously as new or additional information becomes available or as a result of advances in the state-of-the-art. The analyses of this study have taken place over parts of three decades. Each analysis was done with the most current data and forecasts available at the time. Because of the duration of the study, the basic data set or forecast parameters have varied from analysis- to-analysis depending on the tirne at which the study was conducted. This sum- mary will present the data which formed the basis for various assumptions and analyses critical to the study's conclusions and recommendations. The data and discussion which follow are taken from the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report of 1978 with the addition of a brief discussion of the 198n OBERS BEA Regional Projections. THE PEOPLE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS When Captain John Smith first explored the Chesapeake in 1608, it was an estuary which had yet to feel the impact of man to any significant extent. But, even before Captain Smith's voyage, people had settled on the shores of the Bay drawn by its plentiful supplies of fish and game. These settlements were inhabited by Assateagues, Nanticoke, Susquehannock, and Choptank Indians. It was the Indian that provided the names for many promontories of land and water courses. The relatively few wastes generated by the Indians were easily assimilated by the natural cleansing action of the bay and its tributaries. Later, more and more people moved into the Bay Region, attracted first by a soil and climate favorable to the growth of tobacco, and later by the development of major manufacturing and transportation centers as well as the founding of the Nation's Capital at Washington, D.C. By 1980, 372 years after Captain Smith's voyage up the Bay, there were over 9 million people living in the Bay Region. During Colonial times, the Chesapeake Bay Region was one of the primary growth centers of the New World. However, after the decline of the Region's tobacco industry in the 19th century, population growth began to lag. This period of relative stagnation lasted until World War II when large increases in Federal spending (especially on defense) A-20 stimulated employment and population growth within all the economic subregions. As shown in Table A-3, the areas around Washington, D.C. and Norfolk, Virginia, experienced especially high rates of growth after World War 11. Over half of the total population growth in the Bay Region between the time of the Jamestown settlement to the present occurred during the 1940-1970 period. Population in the Region has in- creased since the 1970 Census at an annual rate of approximately one and one-eighth percent to the estimated total in 1974 of 8.2 million. While this rate is considerably less than the average annual rate of 2.5 percent experienced during the 1940-1970 period, it was still higher than the National rate of approximately I percent annually during the 1970-1974 period. TABLE A-3 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY ARtiA Study Area Portions of BEA 1940 1970 Absolute Percentage - Economic Regions Population Population Change Change Baltimore, Maryland 1,481,179 2,481,402 + 1,000,223 + 67.5 Washington, D.C. 1,086,262 3,040,371 + 1,954,109 + 1.79.9 Richmond, Virginia 437,103 728,946 + 291,843 + 66.8 Norfolk-Portsmouth, VA 467,229 1,121,856 + 654,627 + 140.1 Wilmington, Del. SMSA 248,243 499,493 + 251,250 + 101.2 Total Study Area 3,720,016 7,872,068 +4,152,052 111.6 Total United States 132,165,129 203,211,926 +71,046,797 $ 53.8 Source: U.S. Census Data The majority of the inhabitants of the Chesapeake Bay Region are concentrated in rela- tively small areas in and around the major cities. Approximately 90 percent of the population resided in one of the Region's seven Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) in 1970. The number of urban dwellers increased by almost 1.5 million during the 1960-1970 decade, while the rural population remained virtually the same. People have tended to move out of the inner cities and rural counties and into the suburban counties. Thirty-five of the 76 counties and major independent cities in the area experienced a net out-migration during the 1960-1970 period. On the other hand, most of the suburban counties experienced growth rates in excess of 30 percent and in-migrations of at least 10 percent of their 1960 population. In the Bay Region as a whole, net in-migration accounted for about one-third of the 1.5 million increase in population during the decade of the 19601s. Most of this in-migration was in response to large increases in employment opportunities in the Bay Region. In 1970, there were approximately 3.3 million people employed in the Study Area. About 91 percent of these worked in one of the Region's seven SMSA's. During the 1960-1970 period, total employment increased by about three-quarters of a million jobs or approxi- mately 30 percent. The National gain during the same period was 19.5 percent. Compared to the Nation as a whole, the Bay Region has a lower proportion of workers in the blue-collar industries, such as manufacturing and mining, and a higher proportion in the white-collar industries, such as public administration and services. Since employ- ment in the white-collar industries tends to be less volatile, the Study Area has had consistently lower unemployment rates over the last several decades than the Nation as a whole. Also contributing to these relatively stable employment levels are the large A-21 numbers of workers whose jobs depended on relatively consistent Federal government spending. Per capita income in the Study Area was $3,694 in 1969, which was about 9 percent higher than the National figure. Median family income levels ranged from 1$16,710 in Montgomery County, Maryland, (one of the highest in the Nation), to $4,778 in Northampton County, Virginia. As shown in Table A-4 there was a significantly higher proportion of families in the over $15,000 income bracket and fewer families whose incomes were below the poverty level in the Study Area than in the Nation. TABLE A-4 FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA AND THE UNITED STATES, 1969 Percent Below "Middle" Income Percent Above Poverty Level Families @15,000 Study Area 11.2 61.3 27.5 United States 12.2 68.6 19.2 ECONOMIC SECTORS Manuf arturing Generally speaking, the Chesapeake Bay Region has a lower proportion of its workers employed in heavy water-impacting industries than in the Nation as a whole (see Figure A-5). For example, manufacturing activities in the Bay Region employed some 524,000 workers in 1970, or about 16 percent of the total employment in the Study Area. This figure was significantly lower than the National figure of approximately 25 percent. In addition, manufacturing employment in the Bay Region grew by 6 percent during the 1960-1970 period, which was well below the National growth rate of 13 percent. Despite the fact that the manufacturing sector was not as important to the economy of the Study Area as in the Nation as a whole, this sector still has a great deal of significance. First, the navigation channels in Chesapeake Bay are used by many area manufacturers as a means of shipping raw materials to their factories and finished products to market. Second, many manufacturing firms use water in their production process, usually for cleaning or cooling purposes. This water is often returned to the bay system untreated or only partially treated. As Figure A-6 indicates, in addition to the fact that there is a relatively low proportion of workers in manuf acturing in the Bay Region, the majority of the manufacturing industries which are located in the area are not considered to be major water users (i.e., chemicals, pulp and paper, metals, petroleum refining, and food and kindred products). The heavy water users that do exist are generally concentrated in the Upper Bay around Baltimore and in the Wilmington, Delaware SMSA. Employment in the chemical and metal industries is centered around Baltimore, Wilmington, and Richmond. Food and kindred products employment is concentrated on the Eastern Shore, in the Washington SMSA, and in Norfolk. The only major pulp and paper mill in the Bay Region is located at West Point, Virginia. There is also currently only one major petroleum refinery in the Region (Yorktown, Virginia). Other significant concentrations of manufacturing A- 22 dy Area Agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries* United States 2 Mining * e. I % Contract Construction * 58% 5.9% 125.3% Manufacturing* 6.2% Transportation. Communication and Public Utilities* 6.6% IRS 19.6% Wholesale and Retail Trade 7 % Finance, insurance, Real Estate 26.1 % Services MIT2 S. 8 % 9 53% 114.4% Public Administration 10 2.5% 7.6% Armed Forces *Denotes Heavy Water-impacting Industries Source: U.S. Census Data FIGURE A-5 EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTORS, CHESAPEAKE 6AY STUOY AlktiA AND UNITED STATES, 1970 @ 1`6% Stu 31 % 0.1% 0.8% 4.8 4 9 53% 2 =5% A-23 StudyArea Furniture, Lumber and Wood Products 6.4% United States 10.7% 13.9% Metal Industries 10.1% Machinery, Except Electrical 8.3% 19.9% Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies Transportation Equipment 9.4% 8.8% Other Durable Goods (includes stone, clay, glass and concrete 9.1% products, and professionallphotographic and time keepind equipment) 9.3% Food and Kindred Products 9.3% 6.7% Textiles and Fabricated Textile Products 12.1% 10.7% Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries 5.7% Chemicals and Allied Products 5.5% 12.9% Other Nondurable Goods (includes tobacco, 9.7% paper, petroleum refining, rubber, plastics, and leather products) Source: U.S. Census of Population: 1970, "General ISocial and Economic Characteristics." FIGURE A-6 MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CHESAPEAKE 13AY STUDY AI@Et@' AND THE UNIT ED STATES, 1970 A-24 industries are: printing and publishing, the two machinery shops in the Washington area, transportation equipment around Norfolk- Portsmouth, and tobacco processing in the Richmond SMSA. A more detailed discussion of industrial activity in the Bay Region is provided in AP2endix 3 - "Economic and Social Profile" of the Future Conditions Re2ort. Public Administration The public administration sector, which includes civilian workers in the Federal, state, and local governments, is extremely important to the economy of the Bay Region. In 1970, this sector employed approximately 475,000 people or about 14 percent of the total workers. This is significantly higher than the National average of 5 percent. Employment in this sector grew 36 percent during the 1960 - 1970 decade, very close to the 37 percent rate of growth for the Nation. Although the public administration sector ranked only fourth in the total employment in the Study Area, the sector is far more important to the Region's economy than these employment figures indicate. First, earnings are higher than average in this sector. This has helped to stimulate other sectors of the economy, especially the retail trade and service industries. Second, the Federal portion of the public administration sector can be thought of as a "basic" industry since it exports its "product" (public services) to the entire Nation, thereby, bringing money into the Region and creating jobs. The bulk of the total public administration employment in the Study Area (almost 66 percent) is located in the Washington, D.C. area. Other concentrations of workers are in the Richmond, Virginia, vicinity, throughout much of the Baltimore, Maryland SMSA, and in the Norfolk-Portsmouth area. The public administration sector can be considered a "clean" industry from a water resources viewpoint. There are no special requirements for water for either processing or transportation purposes. However, fast-growing industries, such as the public administration sector, with its tremendous drawing capacity for workers and their families, can often cause rates of population growth that tax the ability of local government to provide services such as water supply and sewerage. Agriculture Although less than 2 percent of the total workers in the Chesapeake Bay Region are employed in the agricultural sector (i.e., the actual planting, cultivation, and harvesting of raw agricultural goods), these activities have a great deal of impact on the area's economy and water and land resources. In 1969 the value of all farm products sold by commercial farms in the Bay Region was approximately $589 million. Approximately 87 percent of the developed land in the Bay Region is used for agricultural purposes. Poor farming techniques, both in the past and present, have resulted in the extensive erosion of valuable soils which, in turn, has caused the siltation of many of the Bay's waterways. Run-off from fields sprayed with chemical fertilizers adds large quantities of nutrients to the waterways. This practice has resulted in an increase in the amounts of undesirable algae and other vegetation in some waters, thereby decreasing the amounts of available oxygen in the water and, in extrerne cases, causing fish kills. In addition, the use of insecticides in agricultural areas has caused in the past significant damage to fish and wildlife populations in the Bay Region. A-25 Fisheries Just as the Indians and early settlers harvested the Bay's plentiful supplies of finfish, shellfish, and crabs, modern day watermen harvest and market large quantities of the Chesapeake's living treasures. In 1973, commercial landings of shellfish and finfish totaled 565 million pounds with a value at the dock of approximately 447.9 million. This catch amounted to an average of 200 pounds per surface acre of water. In addition, sport landings of finfish and shellfish in recent years have been estimated to be as large as the commercial catch for some species. However, even when the value of the sports fishing catch is added to the commercial catch value, the total is a very small percentage of the value of agricultural products, for example, and almost negligible when compared to value added in the manufacturing sector. On the other hand, the fisheries and watermen of Chesapeake Bay add a generous amount of regional color and tradition to the "way of life" in the Bay Region. These benefits are difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Because agricultural products and seafood are often perishable, they are usually processed in close proximity to where they are harvested. As a result, the agricultural and seafood harvesting sectors in the Bay Region support locally important food processing plants. Armed Forces Still another important source of employment for residents of the Bay Region is the Armed Forces. In 1970, there were approximately 250,000 members of the Armed Forces stationed within the Study Area, representing almost 8 percent of the total employment. This percentage was significantly higher than the National figure of 2.5 percent. The cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach in the Hampton Roads area and Anne Arundel, Prince Georges, and Fairfax counties in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., areas contained the largest numbers of military personnel. Construction The construction sector in the Bay Region employed approximately 200,000 people in 197n. Construction activities have had a great deal of impact on the water resources of the Bay Region. Much of the disturbed soil on construction sites becomes sediment in streams and rivers. This silt can adversely affect fish and wildlife populations, clog navigation channels, increase the costs of treatment for city and industrial water supplies, make water-based recreation less enjoyable, and generally lower the aesthetic quality of a waterway. Unfortunately, the areas in the Region with the most construction activity are the same areas in which there are already significant industrial and residential strains on the Bay. Other Sectors The remaining Bay Region workers, which account for more than one-half of the total, are employed in one of the following sectors: 1. Wholesale and retail trade. 2. Transportation, communications, and public utilities. A-26 3. Finance, insurance, and real estate. 4. Services. These jobs are generally "supportive" of the economic sectors discussed previously. With the exception of the transportation and public utilities sectors, they do not have a significant impact on the water resources of the Region. Many of these activities, however, exist in the Region because of the proximity of the Chesapeake Bay resource. For example, the Bay's land and water resources allow for the development of certain "regionally-unique" entertainment and recreation services which help to expand the service sector. These include such activities as private bathing beaches, pleasure and fishing boat rentals, and the operation of seafood restaurants serving regional specialities. Some of the other activities (e.g., finance, insurance, retail trade, real estate, and certain services) exist in the Bay Region because it is an area which is characterized by higher than average incomes and population growth rates. The location of the Nation's Capitol in the area also attracts many workers in these sectors due to the regulatory functions of the Federal Government and the desirability of companies in the regulated industries to maintain offices in the Washington area. ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS OBERS Series C The base projections used in the future needs analysis for most of the Appendices of the Future Conditions Report were based on the Series C OBERS projections of population, income, earnings, and manufacturing output prepared by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. A special set of projections coinciding with the Chesapeake Bay Study Area and the subregions was prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. An explanation of the methodology used to prepare the OBERS projections and the special disaggregation by BEA is contained in Appendix 3, "An Economic and Social Profile." Figure A-7 illustrates the great potential for growth that lies in the Chesapeake Bay Region. The bulk of the total population and employment growth (about 52 percent in each category) is expected to take place in the Study Area portion of the Washington, D.C. Economic Area. This area is projected to experience population and employment growth rates of about 143 percent during the 1970-2020 period. The Richmond subregion and the Wilmington SMSA are also expected to grow at a faster rate than the Study Area as a whole with rates of 113 percent and 123 percent, respectively. On the other hand, the Baltimore and N orfo lk-P orts mouth subregions are projected to grow at significantly lower rates with figures of 85 percent and 45 percent. Real per capita income in the Study Area is projected to remain slightly above the National average through the projection period. Table A-5 presents projections of population and per capita income by subregion. One of the major driving forces behind the significant increases in population and incorne outlined above will be major increases in manufacturing output. As shown in Table A-6, manufacturing output in the Chesapeake Bay Region is expected to increase by 563 percent. However, the proportion of total output accounted for by the heavy water- A- 27 Population Employment Per Capita Income (in Millions) (In Millions) (in Thousands) 16.3 15.6 6.8 12.1 5.1 9.1 7.9 3.3 3.7 19 0 2000 2020 FIGUREA-7 POPULATION AND ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION TO 2020, A-28 TABLE A-5 SERIES C PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION, PER CAPITA INCOME, AND TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME BY SUBREGION (IN CONSTANT 1967 DOLLARS) 1969 1980 2000 2020 Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Population I Income Population Income Population Income Population Income (% Increase) (% increase) (% increase) (% increase) (% Increase) Increase) Baltimore, Md. 2,463.3 $3,579 2,877.6 $4,912 3,714.0 $8,556 4,596.3 $14,70 Washington, D.C. 2,985.5 3,977 3,695.0 5,653 5,314.3 9,534 7,397.2 15,612 (23.76) (42.1) (78.0) (139.7) (1444) (292.6) Richmond, Va 727.5 3,454 871.8 4,828 1,180.1 8,290 1,555.0 14,184 (19.8) (39.8) (62.2) (140.0) (113.7) (310.7) Norto Ilk- Portsmouth, 1,107.6 3,046 1,216.0 4,331 1,429.6 7,615 1,656.4 13,186 Va. (9.8) (42.2) (29.1) (150.0) (49.6) (332.9) Wilmington, Del. 492.1 4,169 612.5 5,804 851.4 9,634 1,115.7 16,142 > SMSA (24.7) (39.2) (73.0) (131.0) (126.7) (287.2) 1 7,7 3,682 9,272.9 55,182 12,489.4 $8,913 16,320.6 @15,030 N Study Area Total 76-.0 $ IND (19.3) (40.7) (60.6) (142.0 (109.9) OU8.2) All percentage changes are calculated from 1969. TABLE A-6 MANUFACTURING OUTPUT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION (IN MILLIONS OF 1967 DOLLARS) BY INDUSTRY 1969 2000 2020 Output (1) Output Percent Increase (2) Output Percent Increase (2) Lumber and Wood Products 154.8 433.4 180.0 807.4 421.6 Metals 977.4 2,279.9 133.3 4,095.0 319.0 Machinery, Except Electrical 233.0 835.8 258.7 1,885.9 709.4 Electrical Machinery 331.3 1,595.5 381.6 4,092.6 1,135.3 Transportation Equipment 815.1 2,534.4 210.9 4,979.7 510.9 Petroleum Refining 57.3 165.4 188.6 301.2 425.6 Food and Kindred Products 747.4 1,795.1 140.2 3,150.4 321.5 Textiles and Textile Products 229.8 657.4 186.0 1,230.3 435.4 Printing and Publishing 445.2 1,428.3 220.8 2,930.8 558.3 Chemicals 1,856.4 6,989.8 276.5 15,298.5 724.1 Paper and Allied Products 215.6 712.5 230.5 1,549.7 618.8 Other Manufacturing 719.3 2,207.7 206.9 4,614.2 541.5 TOTAL 6,782.6 21,635.2 219.0 44,935.7 562.5 (1) Output in the form of "gross product originating" which is defined as that portion of GNP originating in a specific industry. (2) Percent change measured from base year (1969). impacting industries as a group (i.e.9 metals, petroleum refining, food and kindred products, chemicals, and paper and allied products) is expected to decline slightly from 56.8 percent in 1969 to 54.3 percent in 2020. In addition, the manufacturing sector is expected to continue to account for a significantly lower portion of total employment and income in the Bay Region than in the United States. OBERS Series E Since the initiation of the future conditions phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study, another set of baseline projections derived from more recent economic and demographic data was prepared and released by BEA. These new projections, called the "Series El' 013ERS projections, must be considered by all Federal agencies engaged in water resource planning as directed by the Water Resource Council. The basic differences between the assumptions made in preparing the Series C and Series E projections are shown in Table A-7 and are discussed in more detail in Appendix 3 of the Future Conditions Report. The Series E population projection of 14.1 million people for the total Study Area in the year 2020 is appproximately 13.5 percent less than the Series C estimate for the same year. The Series E projections for the Study Area for 1980 and 2000 are also lower than the Series C projections for the same years by 4.5 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively. In addition, the Series E population projections for almost all the subregions are lower than the comparable Series C projections. Estimates of 1975 population by county prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census allowed a comparison of actual population trends in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area with those trends that would be expected under the Series C and Series E OBERS projections. The 1975 population estimate for the entire Bay Region is approximately 370,000 less than the Series C and 162,000 less than Series E interpolated estimates. However, seven of the thirteen Study Area subregions had 1975 populations which were greater than either the Series C or Series E estimates. Much of the discrepancy in the total Bay Region estimates ran be explained by a significant overestimate by both Series C and Series E of population growth in the Washington, D.C., SMSA. When population data for the Washington, O.C., SMSA is subtracted from the Bay Region totals, the remainder for the Region falls between the Series C and Series E estimates. Based on the preceding analysis, it can be concluded that the applicability of estimates of future resource demands based on OBERS Series C or Series E baseline projections depends on the subregion of interest. It should be emphasized, however, that 1970-75 trends may not be indicative of trends to be expected during the entire 1970-2020 projection period. Sensitivity AnalXsis The most fundamental assumption made in preparing the projections of future demands on Chesapeake Bay presented in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report is mat the Series C OBERS baseline projections of population, income, and manufacturing activity accurately reflect future trends in the Chesapeake Bay Region. In order to evaluate the impact on the resource of the Series E baseline projections, a "Sensitivity Analysis" section dealing with each resource use activity was prepared. This section presented future demands based on Series E baseline projections which could be compared to the Series C based projections of future demands. In addition, the sensitivity of future demands to changes in other parameters critical to the projection methodology was also evaluated. The findings of these analyses are discussed in detail in A-31 TABLE A-7 A COMPARISON OF OBERS SERIES C AND SERIES E PROJECTIONS Item Series C Series E Growth of Fertility rate of 2,800 Gradual decline of fertility rate Population children per 1,000 women from 2,800 to the "replacement f ertility rate" of 2, 100 children per 1,000 women. Military Projects a decline to 2.07 Projects a decline to 1.57 million Establishment million people by 1975 persons by 1975 and thereafter and thereafter a constant. a constant (due to smaller military establishment and the resultant smaller need for equipment and supplies a significantly slow rate of growth in the defense-related manufacturing industries is antici- pated). Hours Worked Hours worked per em- Hours worked per employee per Per Year ployee per year are pro- year are projected to decline at jected to decline at 0.25 0.35 percent per year. percent per year. Product Per Projected to increase Projected to increase 2.9 percent Man-Hour 3.0 percent per year. per year. Earnings Per Earnings per worker in the individual industries at the National level Man-Hour are projected to converge toward the combined rate for all industries more slowly in the Series E projections than in the Series C projections. Employed Projected to increase Projected to be between 43 and Population from 40 to 41 percent 45 percent of the total population of the total population. (higher percentages with the E Series reflects expected higher participation rates by women). A- 32 the appropriate appendices of the Future Conditions Report. Table A-8 compares population and employment projeCtions for Series C and Se-ries E for the Study Area. 1980 OBERS Since completion of the future conditions phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study and the low freshwater inflow analysis (which was based on OBERS Series E), a new set of baseline projections have been released by BEA. These new projections are called 1980 OBERS BEA Regional Projections. These projections were not used in any of the Bay study analyses, consequently, they will not be discussed in detail here. In general, these projections show lower growth rates for the Region's population, but a larger percentage of that population will be employed. Table A-9 shows a comparison of population and employment for the three sets of projections discussed above. The trend in the projections has been toward more conservative estimates of population employed. To the extent that results of Bay study analyses are dependent upon population projections and 1980 OBERS Projections are now the most accurate, it should be noted that these results are still valid, but may not be realized until later than originally expected. For example, the Series C 1980 population projection for the Bay Region is 19.7 million. This population would not be reached until about 2013 according to 1980 OBERS projections. The Series E 1980 population projection 18.9 million would be reached by about 1997 according to 1980 OBERS projections. LAND USE The development of the land in the Chesapeake Bay Region began when the first group of Indians wandered into the area thousands of years ago and established a village. Since then virtually all of the vast expanse of virgin forest which existed at that time and thousands of acres of wetlands have been cut, drained, or filled by more recent settlers. The original purpose of this development was to provide land for the cultivation of tobacco and wheat. High tobacco and wheat prices created an almost insatiable demand for land. As the productivity of the soil decreased after producing several years of crops, the land was abandoned and new land was cleared. The abandoned land returned to woodlands. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, factories, residences, port facilities, commercial establishments, and other physical manifestations of an increasingly industrialized society replaced many of the agricultural lands and second- growth woodlands. The following sections present a discussion of existing and future land use and related problems, as well as some alternative means of satisfying the identified needs. EXISTING LAND USE For the purposes of this study existing land use information for the Chesapeake Bay area was developed using remote sensing data obtained from high altitude aerial photography taken in 1970. These data were supplied by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are part of the Central Atlantic Regional Ecological Test Site (CARETS) project. Plates in Appendix 4 Water-Related Land Resources of the Future Conditions Report show the type and general distribution of the major land use activities in the area covered by the CARETS project (about 95 percent of the "Bay Region"). Based on the CARETS data, estimates of land use in the Chesapeake Bay Region were developed. These are presented in Figure A-8. A- 33 TABLE A-8 A COMPARISON OF SERIES C AND SERIES E OBERS PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FOR THE STUDY AREA* 1980 2000 2020 REGION/PROJECTION TYPE SERIES SERIES E % Difference SERIES C SERIES E I Difference SERIES C SERIES E Z Difference Study Area Portion of Economic Area 15 Population 612,600 593,900 3.1%- 851,400 744,300 12.6%- 1,115,200 878,500 21.2%- Total Employment 246,100 257,200 4.5%+ 350,300 343,700 1.9%- 465,800 398,700 14.4%- Study Area Portion of Economic Area 17 Population 2,877,600 2,614,000 9.2%- 3,714,000 2,978,900 19.8%- 4,596,300 3,281,300 28.6%- Total Employment 1,165,100 1,156,100 0.8%- 1,495,900 1,364,200 8.8%- 1,854,300 1,476,000 20.4%- Study Area Portion of Economic Area 18 Population 3,695,000 3,698,900 0.1%+ 5,314,200 5,519,600 3.9%+ 7,397,200 7,326,600 1.9%- > Total Employment 1,634,300 1,770,900 8.4%+ 2,328,500 2,682,500 15.2%+ 3,214,500 3,439,100 7.0%+ 4.1 Study Area Portion of Economic Area 21 Population 871,800 847,500 2.8%- 1180,100 1,051,700 10.9%- 1,555,100 1,199,500 22.9%- Total Employment 360,200 381,000 5.8%+ 477,100 484,600 1.5%+ 619,900 538,200 13.2%- Study Area Portion of Economic Area 22 Population 1,216,100 1,121,600 7.8%- 1,429,700 1,279,800 10.5%- 1,656,400 1,441,500 13.0%- Total Employment 498,600 496,000 0.5%- 581,200 582,000 0.1%+ 670,600 647,400 3.5%- Total Study Area Population 9,273,100 8,875,900 4.3%- 12,489,400 11,574,300 7.3%- 16,320,200 14,127,400 13.4%- Total Employment 3,904,300 4,061,200 4.0%+ 5,233,000 5,457,000 4.3%+ 6,825,100 6,499,400 4.8%- Comparison with 1980 OBERS was not possible for these geographic regions because 1980 OBERS projections have not been disaggregated to this level. * All figures rounded off to nearest hundred. TABLE A-9 A COMPARISON OF SERIES C AND SERIES E OBERS PROJECTIONS BY ECONOMIC AREA BEA ECONOMIC AREA 1980 24 2000 2020 2/ PROJECTION TYPE SERIES C SERIES E 1980 OBERS3/ SERIES C SERIES E .1980 OBERS3/ SERIES C SERIE@_E 1980 OBERS 3/ Philadelphia, Pa. Population 8,334,400 8,025,400 7,301,530 10,517,000 9,188,300 7,718,620 12,983,800 10,215,200 8,043,600 Total Employment 3,359,200 3,523,500 3,365,610 4,295,400 4,191,300 3,820,431 5,347,600 4,582,200 3,996,230 Harrisburg, Pa. Population 1,976,300 1,906,400 1,457,860 2,551,700 2,224,000 1,437,880 3,296,500 2,458,100 1,449,800 Total Employment 812,500 857,500 725,120 1,058,900 1,035,200 777,840 1,375,400 1,115,500 758,330 Baltimore, Md. Population 3,107,300 2,822,900 2,435,090 4,033,000 3,234,400 2,664,982 5,009,800 3,578,300 2,845,160 Total Employment 1,261,700 1,252,600 1,151,420 1,626,000 1,482,800 1,330,573 2,021,100 1,609,600 1,350,900 Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. Population 3,750,500 3,755,200 3,758,580 5,385,800 5,592,300 4,218,114 7,490,400 7,415,600 4,615,000 Total Employment 1,658,800 1,797,900 2,012,800 2,360,200 2,717,800 2,373,163 3,255,600 3,484,400 2,447,000 Richmond, Va. Population 1,196,400 1,162,500 1,174,740 1,597,600 1,423,100 1,441,366 2,087,800 1,610,100 1,634,680 Total Employment 487,200 515,600 606,380 643,000 653,100 791,999 834,400 724,400 851,610 Norfolk-Portsmouth, VA. Population 1,327,900 1,224,400 1,364,340 1,549,200 1,386,600 1,630,036 1,785,700 1,553,300 1,841,370 Total Employment 543,700 540,900 650,357 629,600 630,500 823,794 723,400 698,400 880,680 Total Bay Region Population 19,692,800 18,896,800 17,492,140 25,634,300 23,048,700 19,110,998 32,654,000 26,830,600 20,429,610 Employment 8,123,100 8,488,000 8,511,687 10,613,100 10,710,700 9,217,800 13,557,500 12,214,500 10,284,750 All figures rounded off to nearest hundred. 1'980 OBERS figures interpolated for comparison with 1980 and 2020 projections of other series. No-change-in-share series. URBAN LANDS 7% AGRICULTURE LANDS 36% WETLANDS 3% FOREST LAND 54% FIGURE A-8 MAJOR LAND USE TYPES - CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION A- 36 a. Urban Land: About 43 percent of the Bay Region is considered to be developed (i.e., urban plus agricultural lands). Of the 43 percent developed, 83 percent is in agricultural uses and only 17 percent is considered urban. Urban land uses are concentrated around the principal urban centers located near the head of tide on the major tributaries of the Western Shore. Many smaller urban centers are found scattered throughout the Study Area, some serving as small ports, retail and wholesale trade centers, or political centers such as state capitals or county seats. Industrial, institutional, and military reservations (of which the Bay Region has many) are also included as urban lands. Industrial activities include a variety of uses ranging from those involving the design, assembly, finishing, and packaging of light products to heavy manufacturing activities such as steel, pulp, or lumber milling, electric power generating, oil refining, and chemical processing. Most frequently, industries are found in or adjacent to urban areas where good transportation facilities and ample manpower are available. b. Agricultural Land: Land used for the production of farm commodities comprises over one-third of the Chesapeake Bay Region's land area. As such, it constitutes the second largest land use type in the Study Area, second only to forest lands. The major physical factors governing the use of land for agricultural purposes include rainfall, growing season, soil, drainage, temperature, evaporation, and the amount of sunshine. Other factors such as proximity to markets, tax laws, land tenure arrangements, and farming practices also influence the intensity and type of agriculture. The major agricultural areas in the Bay Region are located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, in the rural portions of the Baltimore SMSA, in the northwestern portion of the Washington SMSA, and around Virginia Beach, Virginia. c. Forestlands: Forestlands occupy more area in the Bay Region than any other land use type, approximately 54 percent. Since it was not possible to distinguish between public and private forestlands on the remote sensing data, both are included in Figure A-8. The Virginia portion of the Study Area accounts for almost two-thirds of the total forest land. Southern Maryland also has a high proportion of woodlands. d. Wetlands: The wetlands of the Bay Region, although accounting for only 3 percent of the total land area, are of crucial importance to the ecosystem of the Bay. Wetlands consist of occassionally flooded basins and flats, meadows, marshes, and bogs. Each of the states in the Bay area has legally defined its wetlands. Maryland defines its wetlands as all land under the navigable waters of the State below the mean high tide which is affected by the regular rise and fall of the tide. Virginia wetlands are defined as all that land lying between mean low water and an elevation above mean low water equal to the factor 1.5 times the tide range. Delaware defines its wetlands as those lands above the mean low water elevation including any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat or other land subject to tidal action and including those areas connected to tidal waters whose surface is at or below an elevation of two feet above local mean high tide. Most of the counties of the Bay Region have some wetland areas of varying types and sizes, although it should be emphasized that not all wetland types are equally valuable to the ecosystem. The ecological value of a particular wetland area depends on such factors as the type of dominant plant, flushing action in the area which affects the availability of nutrients to the aquatic community, and the intensity of use of the wetland as habitat. The major concentration of wetland areas in the Chesapeake Bay system is found along the lower Eastern Shore. A-37 e. Archaeological, Historic, and Natural Areas of Significance: The primary prehistoric archaeological resources within the Study Area are associated with Indian artifacts. The numerous Indian tribes which inhabited what is now Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware left much evidence of their existence in the form of clay pottery and stone artifacts. Thousands of archaeological sites have been recorded in the Region, but due to monetary and manpower limitations, it is believed that only a fraction of the archaeological resources have been discovered. Almost the entire shoreline of the Bay and its tributaries are thought to be potential archaeological sites. The large number of historic sites in the Bay Region provides proof of the Region's historic significance and its fundamental role in the development of the Nation. Many of the sites relate to the earliest colonial settlements, the winning of National independence, the founding of the Union, the Civil War struggle, and the lives of National leaders. Within the Study Area are found such historically important items as the U.S. Frigate Constellation, the nation's oldest warship; the Annapolis Historic District, an early colonial port and Capital of the U. S. during a short period in 1783-1784; Stratford Hall, home of Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Confederate Armies; Mt. Vernon, hoine of the first President of the United States; numerous battlefield sites commemorating some of the most important Civil War and Revolutionary War battles; the Jamestown National Historic Site, first permanent English colony in North America; Williamsburg Historic District, capital of the Virginia Colony during much of the eighteenth century and an important social and cultural center of the English colonies during that period; and nurnerous historic and commemorative sites in the Washington, D.C. area. There are certain other areas of the Bay Region which are of special importance for their ecologiral or natural significance. Many of these have been identified, and in many cases are being protected. Included in these types of areas are: important wetlands or other floral habitats, faunal habitats (especially for threatened or endangered species), and naturally scenic areas. At present, there are twenty properties within the Study Area designated as National refuges or related properties (such as the Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center). The primary purpose of these refuges is to protect wildlife including certain endangered and threatened species. Biological research is conducted at a number of these facilities while limited hunting is offered at some. Within the Study Area, there are approximately 7n state fish and wildlife management areas and related properties including game farms, sanctuaries, and preserves. The Center for Natural Areas, Ecology Program, Smithsonian Institution, has also shown concern for the Bay's significant ecological and natural areas. In 1974, this group prepared a report entitled Natural Areas of the Chesapeake Bay Region: Ecological Priorities, which surveys the endangered flora and fauna of the bay Region and the areas of significant ecological importance. Maryland and Virginia have initiated programs to identify and designate certain rivers within their boundaries as scenic rivers. The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation was directed by the General Assembly to study the Commonwealth's rivers for the purpose of designating those which should be protected to provide for the enjoyment of present and future generations. As a result of this survey, the Commission recommended in 1970 the establishment of a scenic river system. Local and State land use controls are to be imposed along with numerous other standards to guarantee the protection of those rivers designated as scenic. The Maryland Legislature also recognized that certain rivers within the State plus their adjacent land areas possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and other recreational values. The State adopted a policy which protects the water A-38 quality of those rivers and fulfills vital conservation purposes by promoting the wise use of land resources within the scenic river system. Use is limited to "horseback riding, natural and geological interpretation, scenic appreciation, and other programs through which the general public can appreciate and enjoy the value of these areas as scenic and wild rivers in a setting of natural solitude." Appendix 4 of the Future Conditions Report lists the designated scenic and potential scenic rivers of the Chesapeake Bay Region. FUTURE LAND USE The expected future distribution of land uses in the Bay Region was developed from the relevant county, municipal, and regional comprehensive land and water use plans. Appendix 4 of the Future Conditions Report presents this information based on a consistent land use classification system. Numerical estimates of future acreages for urban, agricultural, and forest lands are presented in the following sections. a. Urban: The portion of land in residential uses in the urban areas can be expected to increase at roughly the same rate as population growth if the assumption is made that population densities will remain at about the same level over the projection period. This means that the demand for residential lands will increase by approximately 18 percent by 1980, 59 percent by the year 2000, and about 107 percent by 2020. As discussed earlier, manufacturing output in the Chesapeake Bay Region is projected to increase at a rate of approximately 560 percent between 1969 and 2020. It is not valid, however, to assume that land needed for industrial purposes will also increase by this percentage since output per worker and per unit of land will probably increase during triis period. If the assumption is made that the productivity of land increases at about the same rate as the productivity of workers, about 3.0 percent annually, then the land needed for industrial purposes can be expected to increase by 28 percent over the 1969 acreage by 2000, and by 50 percent by 2020. b. Agricultural: The projections of land in crops and miscellaneous farm uses (woodland on farms is included in the "Forests" category) in the ChesapeaKe Bay Region were derived from OBERS projections of these land use categories by state. The amount of acreage in cropland and miscellaneous farmland is projected to show a steady decline during the projection period as shown in Table A-10. c. Forests: Projections of private commercial forest lands were also disaggregated from OBERS projections by state. As indicated in Table A-11, the projected acreage of private commercial forest.land within the Study Area is expected to decline steadily over the projection period. It should be noted that public forest lands are not included in these figures. d. Wetlands: Although no projections were prepared of future wetland acreages, it ran be stated with a high degree of confidence that the demand for shoreline lands for A- 39 TABLE A-10 PROJECTED CROPLAND AND MISCELLANEOUS FARMLAND* FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION (THOUSANDS OF ACRES) State 1980 2000 2020 Delaware 544 520 490 Maryland 1,614 1,490 1,360 Virginia 1,481 LL02 1,150 Total Chesapeake Bay Region 3,639 3,310 3,000 * Miscellaneous farmland includes pasture, range, lands occupied by buildings, roads, ditches, ponds, and wastelands. TABLE A-11 PROJECTED ACRES OF PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA 1980 2000 2020 Delaware 365,560 355,900 346,300 Maryland 1,983,456 1,935,300 1,860,700 Virginia 4 533 673 4,222,700 3,901,000 Total: 6:882' 689 6,513,900 6,108,000 such uses as marinas, vacation homes, or port facilities will increase in the future. However, more stringent Federal and state restrictions on the development or degradation of wetland areas along with a growing awareness of the ecological and economic importance of wetlands are likely to at least slow down the historic rate of wetlands destruction in the Chesapeake bay Region. An Executive Order signed by President Carter in 1977 sets more stringent guidelines governing Federal activities in wetland areas. As shown in the previous section, the expected increases in the demand for residential and industrial land in the Chesapeake Bay Region is approximately offset by decreases in agricultural and forest use (each projected separately). The locations in which these land use changes will occur, however, have not been clearly defined. The conflict, then, is not one of enough land for development, but where the development should take place. Often the best agricultural lands or the most productive forests are also desirable for urban development. Without proper planning, areas of special ecological, historical, or archaeological significance will continue to be destroyed in the wake of "urban sprawl." A-40 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION For the purposes of this study, an institution is an organization which uses certain administrative, political, and social processes to implement and/or manage water use and control in an area. An institution may be a formal (i.e., formed by law or contract) or an informal (i.e., formed by consensus of people, usually with no strict legal basis) body, group, or agency. For water supply management, the institution is usually formal. State governmental agencies, bi-state agencies and interstate commissions are examples. The processes utilized by these institutions may be formal (i.e., in the charter or by-laws) or informal (i.e., not written down but assumed) practices, procedures, customs or traditions. The establishing of rates or a general attitude by the institution toward financial obligations are examples. Government planning in the Chesapeake Bay Basin is conducted by three levels of government (Federal, state, and local) with three branches within each level (legislative, executive and judicial). This three by three matrix of planning cells has varied in its effectiveness in both planning and managing the water resources of the basin. The effectiveness of the planning has generally been a function of the complexity and geographical extent of the problem. Where problems have extended beyond the boundaries of traditional units of state and local government, there have been some past problems with effecting a solution. The purpose of the institutional analysis conducted as part of this study was to identify in general terms the existing institutional framework responsible for water use and/or management in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. The primary focus was the identification of those agencies and institutional agreements related to the control of the quantity of water entering the Bay from its principal tributaries. This primary focus was adopted in order to be responsive to the needs of the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. Included in this section of the report is a brief discussion of raparian water use principals applicable in the Bay Region and a detailed discussion of the water resource related responsibilities of the many Federal, state and local agencies in the Region which are listed on Table A-12. RIPARIAN DOCTRINE Various sources enunciate the legal doctrines and principles that govern and regulate water and its uses. Those of primary importance are the Federal and state constitutions, common law decisions, and statutory enactments. None of these sources alone determine the legal right pertaining to water law. Each supplements the other and serves as a basis for management of water use and flow control. A review of water law in force in the United States reveals that there is a great difference beween the Western States and the Eastern States in basic doctrine. The dividing line between east and west coincides quite generally with a line through the Prairie States, that separates those states with 2n inches or less or rainfall from those states with more than 2() inches. A-41 The group of states west of a line running from North Dakota to Texas, a water "short- age" region, operates its water laws under one form or another of what is called an "appropriation" doctrine. This doctrine emphasizes exclusive right of use of specific quantities of water at a prescribed time and place subject to the rule of beneficial use. Right of use in this case is not dependent upon ownership of land contiguous to the water supply, or even upon ownership of any land in some cases. The Eastern States, which include the Chesapeake Bay Basin states, are generally referred to as a water "excess" region and are governed by the riparian doctrine. This system emphasizes the rights of water users in common without regard to specific quantities, times, or places of use. Rights under the riparian doctrine are dependent upon ownership of land contiguous to the water supply. All such owners have equal right to co-share in the use of the waters, so long as each riparian is reasonable in his use. Riparian rights are further considered usufructuary in nature. That is, they are rights of use, not ownership, of the flowing waters. Riparianism is the only doctrine used by the Chesapeake Bay Basin states. EXISTING FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTIONS The concept of Federal responsibility for comprehensive development of the water and related land resources is embodied in legislative enactments under the Commerce and Welfare Clauses of the Constitution as well as with the gradual growth of a body of policy by repeated authorization of specific types of projects. The fundamental objective of the Congress in authorizing Federal participation in resource development has been to insure that the Nation's resources make an optimum contribution to the health and welf are of its people. At the same time, the Congress seeks to maintain a reasonable balance between the powers assumed by the Federal Government and those to be left with the states, local governmental entities, and private enterprise. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 officially identified the following as National policy and emphasized local state- Federa 1-cooperation: In order to meet the rapidly expanding demands for water throughout the Nation, it is declared to be the policy of the Congress to encourage the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, states, localities and private enterprise, with the cooperation of all affected Federal agencies, states, local governments, individuals, corporations, business enterprises, and others concerned (U.S. Code, Title 42, Sec. 1962).. Continued efforts are still being undertaken through legislation for the cooperative approach to water resources planning. Table A-12 presents those institutions that are involved in that effort on a National scale. There are basically three ways in which the Federal Government contributes to projects of regional or local benefit: directly, indirectly, and financially. Direct participation involves research, planning, preparation, operation and maintenance (or any combination of these) of one or more elements of a project by the Federal Government itself. Indirect aid includes services of information, advice and assistance f or activities of other levels of government in research, planning, engineering, and technical areas, as well as use of Federal facilities. Financial aid is usually in the form of direct grants, perhaps tied to specific purposes; loans, (repayable or nonrepayable), advances, and purchase or underwriting of bond issues. A-42 TABLE A-12 INSTITUTIONS WITH WATER RESOURCES RESPONSIBILITIES CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Agricultural Research Service 'Economic Development Administration Soil Conservation Service National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Department of Defense Administration Corps of Engineers Department of Housing and Urban Deprtment of the Interior Development Geological Survey Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency STATE AGENCIES Delaware Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Resources and Environmental Control Office of Environmental Protection Bureau of Environmental Health Office of Resources Management Distict of Columbia Virginia Department of Environmental Services Secretary of Commerce and Resources State Water Control Board Maryland Marine Resources Commission Department of Natural Resources Commission of Game and Inland Water ResourcesAdministration Fisheries Tidewater Administration Council on the Environment Wildlife Administration Division of Parks Wetland Administration Soil and Water Conservation Department of Health and Mental Commission Hygiene Secretary of Human Resources Office of Environmental Programs Department of Health State Corporation Commission New York West Virginia Department of Environmental Department of Natural Resources Conservation Department of Health INTERSTATE/REGIONAL AGENCIES Susquehanna River Basin Commission Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Potomac River Fisheries Commission Maryland-Virginia Bi-State Working Chesapeake Bay Commission Committee on Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia) A-43 Grants may be for specific projects, or they may be formula grants, in which the size of the grant depends by formula on certain criteria: population, income and geographical area. In general, there is a matching requirement to be met by the recipient. Direct loans may be made at zero or less-than-market interest rates, or if at market rates, in an amount greater than would ordinarily be available. Non-interest bearing advances are usually repayable, but may be made nonrepayable if certain conditions are met. A bond issue of a state, local, or non-governmental agency may be guaranteed or purchased outright, a loan made to such an agency might be guaranteed or purchased outright, or a loan made to such an agency might be guaranteed or insured. Detailed information concerning the specific programs of these agencies may be found in the Office of Management and Budget's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1-978). Within the Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural Research Service conducts research to provide a scientific basis and support for the land and water resource programs. The Soil Conservation Service provides assistance to localities for small watershed planning leading to works of improvements and grants for the acquisition of land, access rights, or facilities for recreation, conservation or flood protection in small watersheds. Under the Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Administration makes grants or loans for the development of land and improvements for public worl<s. The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to explore, map, and chart the global ocean and its living resources, to manage, run, and conserve those resources and to describe, monitor, and prodict conditions in the atmosphere, orean, sun and spare environment, issue warnings against impending destructive natural events, develop beneficial methods of environmental modification, and access the consequences of inadvertent environmental modifiration over several scales of time. Organizations within NOAA that are involved in Bay artivities include the National Orean Survey and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for all proposed dredging and filling operations in the navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands landward at least to the extent of mean high water. Corps of Engineers Water Resources Development Programs include structural and nonstructural elements, such as: (1) improvement of harbors and navigable channels (33 USCA 540); (2) engineering reports on streams, shores, and flood plains (33 USCA 426); and (3) flood control and related works for water supply (33 USCA 708). The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding for states and general purpose local governments for acquisition and disposition of real property, and the construction of certain public facilities, such as water and sewer lines. The Environmental Protection Agency provides grants to area-wide planning agencies for preparation of plans in areas which, as a result of urban industrial concentration, have water quality control problems. Within the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey performs evaluations of all available waters in river basins and groundwater provinces. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for wild birds,- endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife research activities. Resource management activities of the Service include biological monitoring, A-44 environmental impart assessments through river basin studies and area planning and preservation. Other Federal agencies involved in water resource programs include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission through its licensing of dams and the U.S. Coast Guard through its oil and hazardous material coastal spill responsibility. EXISTING INTERSTATE AND BASIN INSTITUTIONS Within the Chesapeake Bay Region there are several institutions which have water resource related responsibilities and functions on an interstate level. Included are the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the others discussed below. INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN (ICPI-@B) In 1940, the Congress authorized Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact providing for the creation of a conservancy district in the Potomac River Basin for "... the purpose of regulating, controlling, preventing, or otherwise rendering unobjectionable and harmless the pollution of the waters of Potomac drainage area by sewage and industrial and other wastes." (Public Resolution No. 93, 76th Congress, 54 Stat 748; 1940.) Recent Congressional action in 1970 completed what was at least a six-year effort to revise tne lceLw compact. These amendments broadened the authority of ICPRB: (1) to include water resources and assoriated land resources; (2) to allow ICPRB to cooperate with and assist public and non-publir agencies in planning related to water resources and associated land resources; and (3) to provide for the establishment of sertions consisting of the Commissioners interested in problems which affert two or more, but not all, of the signatories (Article III of the Compact). Basically, these powers are advisory. The ICPRB consists of three members from each of the four states and the District of Columbia, and three members appointed by the President. Each member provides for selertion of its representatives; for example, Virginia law requires appointment by the Governor with one member required to be a resident of the basin, one a member of the Virginia Commission on Interstate Cooperation, and the other to be appointed at large. The Commission is finanred by appropriations from the signatories and the United States. These appropriations vary depending upon the financial status of each of the signatories, as well as the number of projects under study by the Commission that Denefit the signatory. The compact allows a signatory to withdraw after one year's notice. CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION The Chesapeake Bay Commission was created by the 1980 General Assemblies of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Maryland Annotated Code, Article NR Ser. 8-302; Code of Virginia, Sections 62.1-69.5 to 62.1-69.20). The creation of the Commission was the culmination of an effort begun two years earlier, when the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission was created by the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies to examine ways in which intergovernmental roordination in management of the Chesapeake Bay could be enhanced. A-45 The primary purposes of the Commission are to assist the legislatures of the two states in responding to problems of mutual concern, and encourage cooperative coordinated planning and action by the signatories and their executive agencies. The duties of the Chesapeake Bay Commission are to: - identify specific Bay management concerns requiring intergovernmental coordination and cooperation; - recommend to the states and/or to the Federal and local governments legislative and administrative actions necessary to effectuate coordinated and cooperative management of the Bay; - collect, analyze, and disseminate information pertaining to the region and its resources for the respective legislative bodies; - represent the common interests of the signatories as they are affected by the activities of the Federal government, and assist in monitoring those activities; - provide an arbitration forum to serve as an advisory mediator for bi-state conf licts. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT (MWCOG) The MWCOG became incorporated as a non-prof it organization in 1965. Sixteen major local governments - the District of Columbia, two major Maryland and four Virginia counties, and nine cities - are represented on the MWCOG. The general membership includes all elected officials of the counties and cities (220); the District of Columbia Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and the City Councilmen; Maryland and Virginia state legislators and Congressmen who represent districts in their states that fall within MWCOG's jurisdiction; and all the members of the District committees of both houses of Congress, until such time as the District of Columbia is given Congressional representation. The Council is empowered to advise and assist local governments of the region to: (1) identify mutual problems; (2) develop and promote a comprehensive regional plan; (3) seek mutually desirable policies and develop cooperative mechanisms among local governments; (4) support and promote concerted action among the local governments; and (5) serve at the request of local governments as their representative on regional matters. The Council does not have authority to legislate, regulate, enforce or tax; and member governments can oppose any proposal or withdraw from MWCOU whenever they choose. The fact that a representative from a given community votes in favor of a proposed council action in no way obligates his or her community to follow his or her lead. MWCOG is limited by its charter to advising and assisting local governments of the region on areawide matters. Although the charter does give it authority to represent local governments on matters of regional concern upon their request, this authority has not been interpreted broadly enough to permit MWCUG to engage in the direct operation of regional facilities. As a result, MWCOG is not in a position to take advantage of certain economies of scale through regionalization, although it can and does encourage such economies through its comprehensive planning and advisory roles. A-46 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (SRBC) In the early 1960's, citizen concern regarding water resources problems in the Susquehanna River Basin flooding, drought, and water pollution stimulated the formation of the Susquehanna River Basin Association, a citizens' organization. The Association and other groups, including all levels of government, expressed the need for comprehensive river basin studies to develop solutions to resource problems in the basin. As the Susquehanna River system is interstate, it was considered desirable to have some type of regional governmental institution to deal with water resources problems, and to implement management measures on a basinwide basis. The Congress of the United States recognized a National interest in the Susquehanna River Basin, and in 1962 authorized and funded a comprehensive study of the water resources of the basin. The Baltimore District of the Corps of Engineers was assigned to manage this study which was completed in 1970. Concurrently, citizen and state activities led to the creation of an Interstate Advisory Committee for the Susquehanna River Basin, with membership derived from the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. This Committee began functioning in 1963, and after much study and deliberation concluded that a regional approach to development issues of the basin was advisable, feasible and urgently needed. The Committee thus drafted a Federal - interstate compact for the comprehensive planning management, development, use and conservation of the water resources of the basin, and recommended that the compact be adopted by the member states and the Federal government. The President of the United States signed the Susquehanna River Basin COm2act into law December 24, 1970, subsequent to its approval by Congress and the prior approval of the involved states. The Compact provided for the creation of a single administrative agency to coordinate water resources ef forts and prograrns of Federal, state, local and private interests in the basin. Within a few months of the signing of the Compact the signatory parties established the Susquehanna River Basin Commission as the administrative agency. The members of the Commission are the Governors of the signatory states or their designees and an appointee of the President of the United States. Each member may appoint an alternate to serve and act on his behalf and at his pleasure. A full-time staff serves the Commission. To meet its mandated duties and accomplish the purposes and goals set forth in the Compact, the Commission coordinates basinwide water resources planning by formulating, adopting and implementing a comprehensive plan for the basin. Inherent in this process is the coordination of the planning efforts of others affecting water resources, stimulation of public awareness, and the implementation of related action programs. The Commission serves as a water resources project development, management and operation agent, as it determines necessary. As the need is demonstrated, it will develop a capability for coordination and management of the funding and conduct of public works programs and projects in the basin. In its role as coordinator of basinwide water resources planning, the Commission seeks to integrate planning done at the Federal, state and local levels of government with that done by the private sector. It seeks to provide opportunity for all interest groups to A-47 express their views and to reconcile differences between groups when possible. Further evidence of the Commission's leadership roll in basin development is exerted through its project review function. This function is oriented towards the evaluation of projects and proposals for development, use, and management of the water resources of the basin in terms of its planning and program objectives as well as the goals set forth in the plan, and on the basis of a comprehensive public viewpoint in terms of project effects. This public viewpoint is sought through public hearings, informal contacts, and through views formally expressed to the Commission. Some examples of projects and programs considered under project review are: allocations, withdrawals and diversions of water; development of nonstructural and structural measures for flood damage reduction, water supply storage, low flow augmentation, water related recreation; water quality standards and their application; and protection and preservation of natural amenities. It should be noted that the role of the Commission for any given endeavor will vary according to the extent others act to meet the overall goal of optimum development of the basin's water resources. Where the Commission determines that the existing programs of others do not meet identified demands, it acts to encourage the appropriate signatory or signatories to accelerate programs, reorder priorities or establish new programs. The Commission may also act directly to meet demands through the exercise of powers granted it by the Compact. Extensive duties are required of the Commission and can be briefly outlined as follows: 1. Develop and effectuate plans, policies, and projects relating to water resources; adopt, promote, and coordinate policies and standards for water resources conservation, control, utilization, and management; and promote and implement the planning development, and financing of water resources projects. 2. Undertake investigations, studies, and surveys, and acquire, construct, operate, and maintain projects and facilities in regard to the water resources of the basin whenever it is deemed necessary to do so to activate or effectuate any of the provisions of the Compact. 3. Administer, manage, and control water resources in all matters determined by the Commission to be interstate in nature or to have a significant effect on the water resources and water resources management. 4. Assume jurisdiction in any matter affecting water resources whenever it determines, after investigation and public hearing upon due notice given, that the effectuation of the comprehensive plan or the implementation of the Compact so requires. If the Commission finds upon a subsequent hearing requested by an affected signatory party that the party will take the necessary action, the Commission may relinquish jurisdiction. 1 5. Investigate and determine if the requirements of the Compact or the rules and regulations of the Commission are complied with, and if satisfactory progress has not been made, institute an action or actions in its own name in any state or Federal court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with any and all of the provisions of the Compact or any of the rules and regulations of the Commission adopted pursuant thereto. A- 48 The necessary authority to act on these duties is delegated to the Commission by the Compact signatories, as are such other and different powers which are necessary or convenient to carry out its express purposes, or purposes which may be reasonably implied therefrom. It is clearly presented in the Compact that the very extensive authority granted the Commission is conditioned to preserve and utilize the functions, powers and duties of existing offices and agencies of the signatory parties to the extent consistent with the Compact. The SRBC Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in December 1973 and periodically amended several times since, forms the basis for multi-purpose water resource planning. The plan addresses six major areas of water resource concern and sets important goals and objectives in each of these areas. The policy, review and prograrn activities of the Commission flow from the requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION (ASMFC) The states of the atlantic seaboard have entered into a compact f or the better utilization of fisheries. The compact, which was induced by an act of the 76th Congress of the United States, entitles each member state to be represented by three commissioners on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. ASMFC is composed of four regionally functional units, one of which is the Chesapeake Bay Section comprised of the States of Maryland and Virginia. The Commission is responsible for the promotion of better use of fisheries by developing a joint Federal-state program for promotion and protection of fisheries and by preventing their physical waste. Activities include coordination of states, regulatory powers, drafting and recommending state and Federal fishery legislation, promoting research on marine environments and fisheries resources, consulting with and advising state administrative agencies on fishery problems and educating public and government officials on the importance of environmental and fishery resources and on the need for preservation. The Commission may also have regulatory authority over fisheries of common interest to two or more states if this authority is granted by the states involved. POTOMAC RIVER FISHERIES COMMISSION (PRFC) The PRFC is a Maryland and Virginia bi-state Commission created by the Maryland- Virginia Compact of 1958. This Commission is a semi-autonomous agency, but its work and policies are tied in very closely with the Department of Natural Resources of Maryland and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. The Commission is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a program of conservation and improvement of the seafood resources of the Potomac River. The largest part of the Commission's budget is always devoted to oysters. The regulation and licensing of fisheries in the Potomac River are also functions of this Commission. CHESAPEAKE BAY RESEARCH COORDINATION ACT OF 1980 The Act calls for establishing a Chesapeake Bay Research Board--composed of various Federal, state, local, and private sector representatives--to coordinate Bay area research and to perform certain specific functions, such as developing a research plan and A-49 evaluating Federal research programs. The Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to select seven members and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia to select four members each. The Act requires also that an Office for Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination be established within the Department of Commerce to serve as the staff of the Research Board. The basic intent of the Act is to coordinate research of the Chesapeake Bay area effectively. Clearly, however, the Act has other purposes as well. The Act requires the Research Board to: (1) develop a research plan and update the plan biennially to reflect changing priorities and the need for fundamental research; (2) periodically review Federal research programs pertaining to the Bay and determine the extent to which the research programs are consistent with the research plan; and (3) submit an annual report to the Congress and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia on current and planned research programs pertaining to the Bay and their relationship to the research plan, together with recommendations for improving research coordination. In addition, the Act requires the Office for Research Coordination to carry out a number of specific activities, such as establishing a Chesapeake Bay research exchange to enhance the dissemination and use of information pertaining to ongoing, completed, and future research projects. In December 1981, Maryland and Virginia's Bi-State Working Committee on the Chesapeake Bay requested that the Department of Commerce (NOAA) establish an ad hoc group of Federal agency representatives involved in Bay area research to assist in developing a research plan. NOAA accepted the proposal and formed an ad hoc committee, composed of representatives from the Departments of Army and Interior, Smithsonian Institution, National Science Foundation, EPA, and NOAA. A NOAA official has been designated the Committee's Executive Secretary. It is NOAA's intent to have the ad hoc committee interact with officially appointed representatives from Maryland and Virginia and thus form a mechanism to address a variety of Federal-state research issues involving the Bay. The act has a termination date of September 30, 1984. EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTIONS The Chesapeake Bay and its shores are owned by the states and their local subdivisions. Included in the following paragraphs are a description of the primary responsibilities of those state agencies concerned with water resources management in the Chesapeake Bay Region. In general more detailed descriptions are provided for Maryland and Virginia agencies as these two states have a much greater influence on the Bay. STATE OF DELAWARE For the most part, the State of Delaware does not play a major role in the protection or the enhancement of water resources within the Bay. The jurisdiction of the State over waters entering the Bay is confined to the headwaters of tributaries on the Eastern Shore and to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The official Delaware water resources management agency is the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The Water Resources Section of the Environmental Control Division, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, focuses on three mission areas: water supply (allocation for consumption), planning (with respect to PL92-500), and water pollution control (NPDES permit program, A- 50 review of construction grant permits, and a compliance monitoring program). A technical services group provides sampling and analytical services in support of the Division's responsibilities. In support of the Delaware Environmental Protection Act, the Water Resources Section collects samples on a regular basis from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. In the enforcement of Title 17 of the Delaware Health and Safety Code, the Bureau of Environmental Health is responsible for the quality of drinking water, waters utilized for swimming, institutional and camp health, and general sanitation within the State. The Bureau conducts monitoring of streams (ones used as sources of potable water) and shellf ish waters. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The executive power of the District is vested in the Mayor who is the chief executive officer of the District Government. The Mayor's office is the central planning agency for the District. He is responsible for the coordination of planning activities of the municipal government and the preparation and implementation of the District's elements of the comprehensive plan for the National Capital which may include land use elements; urban renewal and re-development elements; a multi-year program of municipal public works for the District, and physical, social, econornic, transportation and population elements. The Mayor's planning responsibility does not extend to Federal and international projects and developments in the District, as determined by the National Capital Planning Commission, or to the United States Capitol buildings and grounds. With respect to water supply for the District, the legal position is encapsulated within the power of the U.S. Government. Congress has dealt with the water needs of the District by the establishment of the Washington Aqueduct and delegation to the Chief of Engineers of the planning and operational responsibilities relative to providing the District and certain nearby suburban communities with their supply of potable water. (Act of March 3, 1859; 11 Stat. 435). The District of Columbia's water management agency is the Department of Environmental Services. Under the Mayor and the Council, a Department of Environmental Services exists to provide a safe, healthful, and aesthetically attractive environment in the District. The functions are: (1) plan, provide, operate and maintain sanitary services, systems and facilities which will maintain, improve, and promote the well-being of the community and its people, including distribution of water, control and disposal of storm water collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage; administration of revenue and special fund activities relating to water, sewer, and other services, cleaning of streets and alleys, and collections, processing and disposal of refuse; (2) prepare and recommend to the Commissioner, environmental criteria and standards, as well as rules, regulations and plans for their enforcement, for the following: air quality, water quality, radiation, noise, solid waste storage, collection and disposal and other areas of environmental quality problems in the District of Columbia; (3) [email protected] planning research and monitoring activities designed to detect, and provide an early warning of potential environmental quality problems in the District of Columbia. A-51 STATE OF MARYLAND The right to use water in Maryland has developed through court decisions as a part of the Common Law of the State. Maryland's adoption of an appropriation permit program is a system by which Maryland's sovereign prerogatives over water withdrawals within its territorial boundaries are recognized and assessed. Under this system, Maryland's authority over withdrawals under a "riparian" permit system is not to allow it to deprive any lower riparian of a reasonable use of river waters. Maryland, therefore, is to insure that an adequate supply of water is available to the competing interests within the framework of Maryland's sovereign authority to regulate the appropriation of water within its boundaries. Although most of the water management decisions and controls are handled by the major State agencies (described below), water supply services are also provided by local governmental units, State-created sanitary districts, county sanitary districts and planning commissions, and private companies. Counties, cities and towns in Maryland derive their water supply management activities from several areas of the Maryland Code. Sections 78 to 91 of Article 23B of the Maryland Code outline the powers a city or town has in regard to water supply. A city or town may construct, operate and maintain a water system and water plant. Article 25 includes provisions allowing counties to establish public drainage associations and public watershed associations and to provide for erosion control. The powers and responsibilities of counties in regard to providing water supply are not specifically set forth anywhere in the Maryland Code. Under sections of Article 43, the counties may indirectly provide these services through creation of water authorities and sanitary districts. However, water authorities, may not compete with existing public or private utilities. County governing bodies include the County Commissioners, sanitary and planning commissions, and health departments. The sanitary commissions are responsible for the construction and maintenance of works of improvement for water and sewerage f acilities. The commissions are directly accountable to the County Commissioners, who provide or approve funds for the projects. The responsibility of the planning commissions is to prepare and adopt a plan for the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing the coordinated, adjusted and orderly development of each county. These plans must include an inventory of existing and expected water supply and sewage disposal needs. The county plans are intended to provide a detailed comprehensive listing of water supply, and wastewater management and project needs pictured at the county level. Environmental health services are the responsibility of the county health departments, each of which has a resident Deputy State Health Officer. The health departments issue permits for sewage treatment plant operations. Municipal governing bodies usually have their authority vested in the mayor. According to the statutes, municipal authorities may take or acquire other property in fee or as an easement, within or outside the municipality for the construction, establishment, extension, alteration or maintenance of any facility for a water supply, sewage, drainage, or refuse disposal project. The larger incorporated towns have planning, wat er and sewage departments. The various agencies that have water resources management responsibilities are discussed below. A-52 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The Department of Natural Resources was created in 1969, and gives Maryland the opportunity to effectively plan the conservation and development of its water and land related resources. The Department was established to review, unify, coordinate and promulgate all natural resources policies, plans, programs and practices of State, county, regional and Federal agencies and institutions. It insures the management of all Natural resources f or the greatest benef it of the State and its citizens. The many agencies organized under the Department are charged with the responsibility of protecting the natural resources and enf orcing the regulations designed to conserve and protect the environment. The central agency within DNR which deals with water resources management is the Water Resources Administration (WRA). The powers and duties of the Administration include: (1) preparing and developing a general water resources program which contemplates the proper development and management of the waters of the state on a multiple- purpose basis; (2) making surveys, maps, investigations and. studies of the water resources of the State; (3) controlling, through the issuance of permits, the appropriation and use of the surfare and underground water of the State (except for agricultural use); (4) construction, reconstruction and repair of dams, reservoirs or waterway obstructions; (5) permits for conduits, pipes, etc. pertaining to the Potomac River; (6) regulate well drilling through the licensing of well drillers, and issuance of pert-nits to drill wells. (7) pollution control- comprehensive powers on all aspects including enforcement. Other agencies within DNR that are involved with water resources management include the Tidewater Administration, the Wildlife Administration, and the Wetlands Administration. The Tidewater Administration is responsible for several programs which are applicable to the tidal waters and adjacent areas, including coastal resources management Uncluding the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program), enhancement of tidal fisheries, and improvement of navigable waterways through specific projects. The Wildlife Administration regulates hunting and manages wildlife populations and habitats. The Wetlands Administration regulates and develops permits for the dredging and filling of state-owned wetlands. The DNR is primarily a regulatory and resource management agency. It also includes the Maryland Environmental Service, however, which constructs and operates wastewater treatment plants and potable water treatment and supply facilities. A- 53 Department of Health and Mental Hygiene The Department exercises responsibility for the general supervision and control over the sanitary condition of the waters of the State as related to public health. This responsibility is carried out by the Department's Office of Environmental Programs. It's powers and duties include the following: (1) supervise and control the waters of the state, insofar as their sanitary and physical conditions affect the publci health or comfort; (2) investigate all sources of potable water and all points of sewage discharge; (3) examine all existing public water supplies, sewerage systems, and refuse disposal plants with power to compel their operation to protect the public health and comfort, and order their alteration, extension or replacement by other structures when deemed necessary; (4) review the design and construction of all public water supplies, sewerage systems, and refuse disposal plants; (5) govern the individual water supply and sewage disposal systems for homes and other establishments in the counties of Maryland where public water supply and sewerage systems are not available; (6) promote the construction of water, sewerage, and solid waste facilities win the use of Federal and State funds; (7) consult with and advise county and municipal authorities and others on water supply and waste disposal problems; (8) encourage basin-wide plans leading to the intergration of communities to be served by single treatment facilities where possible. STATE OF NEW YORK The New York State jurisdiction over waters in the Chesapeake drainage area is confined to upper part of the Susquehanna River Basin (23 percent of total Susquehanna drainage). The underlying principle of New York's water policies, as indicated by the State's constitution and its statutes, is that water is a natural resource, not to be conquered by man, but to be sought, recovered, processed, utilized, reclaimed, and reutilized. The new era in water resources management in New York State began in 1960 when the Conservation Law was revised, and a new Article 5, called the Water Resources Law was passed by the Legislature. The Declaration of Policy in Article 5 of the Water Resources Law sets the course to be followed by the State. Among the major declarations of public policy concerning water supply are that: (a) the acquisition, storage, diversion, and use of water for domestic and municipal purposes shall have priority over all other purposes; and A-54 (b) in addition to other recognized public beneficial uses and control of water as provided by this Article 5, or by any other statute, the regulated acquisition, storage, diversion, and use of water for the supplemental irrigation of agricultural lands within this state is a public purpose and use, in the interests of the health and welfare of the people of the State and for their interest (Conservation Law, Section 401). The structure of local government in New York is remarkable for the multiplicity of types of political subdivisions employed. The state is divided into 62 counties and the counties are in turn divided into varying numbers of cities and towns. Town boundaries are contiguous so that every portion of the state outside of the corporate limits of a city is included in a town. Two types of municipal corporations exist in New York State-the village and the city. Although various agencies have been charged with the preparation and administration of water management programs ranging from hydroelectric power generation to municipal water supply and navigation, the majority of water management activities have been grouped within the Department of Environmental Conservation. Its major responsibilities and duties include: (1) planning, developing, and managing the State's water resources; (2) undertaking studies on a regional basis, preferably with local participation, for the protection, conservation, development, and use of water resources within any region of the State; (3) apportioning water for public water supply systems; (4) investigating the purity of public water supply systems and the works constructed; (5) controlling well drilling on Long Island; (6) licensing certain public corporations for the diversion of certain water used in the generation of power; (7) classifying the waters of the State and establishing standards of quality and purity; (8) draining agricultural lands, primarily through districts set up for this purpose; (9) regulating rivers and river improvements through districts set up for these purposes; (10) implementing flood control and flood plain management and planning public water supply systems for intermunicipal areas; and, U 1) protecting stream beds from disturbance, controlling dredging and fill in navigable waters, and controlling the construction of dams and docks. A-55 The principal agencies outside the Department of Environmental Conservation that have water management responsibilities are the Department of Health, for municipal water supplies; the Department of Transportation, for management of the State Barge Canal; the Office of Parks and Recreation, for recreational uses of water; and the Power Authority of the State of New York, for hydroelectric power generation. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA A portion of the Potomac River Basin and a majority of the Susquehanna River Basin waters (76 percent) are under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania's current constitution (effective I January 1968) there are no stipulations in connection with the administration and management of natural resources. Instead, the constitution invests supreme executive power in the Governor for the execution of all laws. The General Assembly has the power to prescribe other executive officers through legislative procedures, and approves the Governor's appointments of agency heads in the executive department of State government. Pennsylvania's formal organization for administering its water resources development and regulation has been, until recently, a decentralized pattern of several State agencies. These agencies were assigned different administrative and technical aspects as water resources problems developed. However, a revision to the Administration CodeL which became effective on January 19, 1971, was a major step toward centralizing water management functions. This legislation combined the powers, organization, and responsibilities of those agencies and bureaus concerned with natural resources into the Department of Environmental Resources (DER). The agencies within DER that are responsible for water resources management are the Office of Environmental Protection and the Office of Resources Management. The extent of their water resources authority, and powers include: (1) water supply: power to grant water rights to municipalities and to investor- owner companies for the purpose of providing public water supplies frorn streams and impounded reservoirs; (2) water impoundments: power to impound surface waters for purposes of water supply, conservation, and recreation, and the power to set minimum release rates from water impoundments located in the state; (3) dams: power to regulate the site, design, construction, and maintenance of dams on all streams in the state; (4) encroachments: power to prevent or to remove any structure or fill within the channel or along the banks of any stream in the state. In the case of bridges and culverts, such power includes the authority to insure adequate waterway capacities for future floods; (5) stream channels: power to control and regulate the location and cross section of any stream channel within-the state for flood control and conservation purposes; (6) water diversions: power to control the transfers of water between watersheds, regardless of purpose; and, - A-56 (7) water quality: power to protect any surface waters within the State from any active or potential sources of pollution. The next political subdivision after the State is the county. In Pennsylvania, the county is subdivided into townships, of which there are two classes: first class, those that are generally urbanized and are found adjacent to cities, and second class, those that are generally rural. Incorporated urban centers are the cities, which are categorized by population into three classes, and boroughs. Formal associations between political subdivisions and state water-related agencies are usually initiated by elected representatives, although at times local public petitions are used by smaller units, such as boroughs. Informal relations are usually limited to exchanges of information below policy-making levels. By far the largest share of formal relations is with urban centers, followed by first class townships. County governments are not organized to deal with water-related problems except for planning. Problems are handled in the townships. These units have frequently joined together with urban centers to form public corporations called authorities to simultaneously solve financing and regional problems. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Virginia follows the reasonable use formula of riparian law with respect to water in natural streams. The Virginia courts have, over the years, evolved a doctrine which gives high priority to domestic uses, which are defined as uses to serve household needs, watering of livestock, and irrigation of the household gardens. This priority is so strong that a particular riparian owner is permitted to exhaust the flow of a stream in order to serve his domestic needs. Other uses, such as agricultural, industrial, and municipal are subject to the balancing concept of the reasonable use doctrine. The Virginia General Assembly has frequently legislated in the area of water resources, but has always been careful to express its intent that such enactments are not meant to modify common law riparian rights. The principal enactments are the Water Resources Act of 1972, the enactments of delegating various powers to localities, the Groundwater Act of 1973, and the State Water Control Law of 1946. In essence then, power is basically with the localities-the cities, counties and towns-and only to the extent necessary to enable the localities to engage in the provision of water to their inhabitants. Localities are specifically granted the authority to engage in the business of water supply, and one or more localities may also accomplish this through several types of semi-autonomous bodies-sanitary districts, water authorities, and service districts (Virginia Code Annotated Secs. 21122.22 to 21.118.3, Repl. vol. 1975; Secs. 15.1-1239 to 15.1-1270, Repl. vol. 1973; Secs. 15.1-1420 to 15.1-1441, Repl. vol. 1973). Cities and towns may regulate and inspect public and private water supply systems. They also have specific powers to provide and operate water supply systems, or to contract with others for the provision of such services. Counties, cities and towns may finance the establishment, extension, or improvement of water supply systems by issuing revenue bonds or general obligation bonds. The establishment or extension of water supply systems to serve three or more connections must be approved by the county in which the system is located. A-57 The Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act authorizes the governing body or bodies of one or more political subdivisions to create by ordinance, or resolution, a water authority. An authority may acquire, construct, extend, operate and maintain any water system. Authorities also have the power to enter into contracts with the Federal government, the Commonwealth of Virginia and any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or with any unit, private corporation, association, or individual for the furnishing of water services to them or the provision of such services by them. A reorganization of the State planning system through the Virginia Area Development Act of 1968 formed Planning District Commissions throughout the State. The Act listed two primary purposes of the Planning District Commissions: 1. To promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, social and economic elements of the district by planning, and encouraging and assisting governmental subdivisions to plan for the future. 2. To prepare a comprehensive plan for the guidance of the development of the district. The Commonwealth of Virginia is divided into 22 planning districts which are to serve as the fundamental local planning units for water quality and supply planning efforts. In the'Virginia Code, the term "public utility" includes those companies providing water or sewerage facilities either directly or indirectly to the public. Companies furnishing water or sewerage facilities to more than 50 customers cannot provide service without a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission. The application for the certificate must include detailed plans of the facilities and a statement of qualification to engage in such activities. There are several agencies in the Commonwealth of Virginia that have water resources responsibilities. The two major regulatory agencies are the State Water Control board and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Other agencies include the State Department of Health, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Division of Parks, the Council on the Environment, the State Corporation Commission, and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The State Water Control Board formulates policies, plans, programs, and regulations for development, conservation, utilization, and management of state water resources; enforces laws and regulations in the areas of water pollution control, water resources planning, and groundwater management; and provides advice on flood plain management. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission manages and regulates the wetlands, subaqueous lands, commercial fishery resources, and the use of the marine environment in the Tidewater Virginia area. The Department of Health responsibilities include control over public water supplies, regulation of sewage disposal, control of seafood sanitation, and regulation of disposal of solid waste and toxic substances. The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries manages all game and terrestrial forms of wildlife in Virginia -and all freshwater fishery resources; and administers and enforces state boating laws to ensure safe operation within territorial limits. The Division of Parks (within the Department of Conservation and Economic Development) is involved in the planning aspects of scenic rivers. The Council on the Environment advises and coordinates all environmental policy; and reviews A-58 policies for compatibility with the State's environmental policy. All of the above agencies are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources with the exception of the Department of Health which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Human Resources. The State Corporation Commission is an independent agency concerned with the regulation of water supply and sewer companies and the approval for dams operated by a public utility. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission has established the Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service to advise property owners regarding shoreline stabilization. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Situated to the west of Chesapeake Bay, West Virginia contains and has jurisdiction over only a largely rural portion (24 percent) of the Potomac River watershed. The major water resource management agency is the Department of Natural Resources. The objective of the Department is to provide a comprehensive program for the exploration, conservation, development, protection, enjoyment and use of the natural resources of the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Conservation Commission, formed in 1933, was the forerunner of the Department of Natural Resources, created by the Legislature July 1, 1961. The State of West Virginia participates actively in the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River (ICPRB). WATER RESOURCES ACTIVITIES IN THE STUDY AREA Over the 17-year period that the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study has been underway there have been numerous Federal, state and local water resources activities conducted in the Bay Region. Some of these activities and/or studies have been comprehensive examinations of the entire Region, while others have addressed only a small geographical area. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the major water resources activities that are the most relevant to water resources planning in the Chesapeake Bay Region. CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTIVITIES METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AREA WATER SUPPLY STUDY The Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study was a comprehensive examination of the water supply problems facing Washington, D.C. and seven surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia. Severe water supply shortages had been forecast for the Metropolitan Washington Area, and the study was undertaken to identify and evaluate alternative methods of alleviating future deficits. The study was initiated in 1976 and was conducted in two distinct phases over the course of seven years. The first, or early-action, phase examined the most immediate water supply problems and proposed solutions that could be implemented locally. A Progress Rgort describing the results of the early-action phase was released mid-way through the study (August 1979). This document was published so that decisions concerning high A-59 priority water supply programs could be made as soon as possible. The second, or long- range, phase was completed in 1982 and included an analysis of the full spectrum of water supply alternatives available to the Metropolitan Washington Area. The Final Report contains a discussion of both the early-action and long-range phases of the study. As the study progressed non-Federal agencies and organizations made great strides toward a regional solution to their water supply problem. These ef forts were aided in large part by the Corps of Engineers' work. The most significant of the accomplishments to solve the water supply problem included a contract to purchase all water supply storage in Bloomington Lake, an agreement to construct the Little Seneca Lake project for the benefit of all of the major water service areas, endorsement of water conservation programs, and a commitment to cooperatively manage the entire water supply system as a single regional resource. With the implementation and continued execution of these programs and several others not mentioned, the water supply shortages once forecast for the Metropolitan Washington Area should be effectively eliminated through the year 2030, for the major water supply utilities (Washington Aqueduct, Fairfax County Water Authority, and Washington. Surburban Sanitary Commission). Some of the smaller utilities surrounding the metropolitan area still face potential shortages before the year 2030, and the report suggests alternatives for their f uture consideration. In light of the significant advances in regional cooperation among the major users, the region's recent commitment to certain high priority water supply programs, and the creation of local institutional mechanisms to implement these water supply programs, the District Engineer recommended that no additional water projects or programs be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. He did recommend, however, that the Corps, report be transmitted to Congress as an information document in response to the authorizing legislation, Public Law 93-251. PILOT ESTUARY WATER TREATMENT PLANT Section 85b(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 directed the Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of using the Potomac Estuary as a source of water supply. The authorization further directed the construction, operation, and evaluation of a pilot project for the treatment of estuary water. The purpose of the plant was to determine the feasibility of producing potable water from the Potomac River Estuary. The experimental plant was located on a two-acre site at the District of Columbia Blue Plains Water Pollution Control Plant. The plant was designed for a 1.0 mgd maximum flow rate with unit processes that, based on the present knowledge and technology, may produce treated water for many uses. The overall objective of the project was to determine the technical and economic feasibility of using the Potomac, River Estuary as a supplemental source of potable water in the MWA. Achieving these objectives required the answer to a number of key questions: 1. Using the best available analytical techniques, what quality of water can be produced by commonly used water treatment processes? 2. Is the water produced by the demonstration plant of potable quality? A-60 3. What are the optimum process combinations which will ensure production of potable water at a minimum cost? 4. What is the operational feasibility and reliability of a water treatment plant that would be operated only intermittently? 5. Finally, what are the estimated costs of such a water treatment plant with hydraulic capacities of 100 and 200 mgd? The project was designed to provide answers to the above questions. Cost constraints limited the project duration to three years, including approximately six months of plant start-up, two years of plant operation, and six months of plant deactivation and preparation of the final report. Based on the two years of plant operation, it appears technologically feasible to treat Potomac Estuary water to provide a potable water supply source. There may be some undetermined health risks, however, in using a source that is subject to discharges from large wastewater treatment plants and from many untreated non-point sources. The final report on the results of the testing was submitted to the Congress in 1983. NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS SrUDY The Norfolk Harbor and Channels Study was authorized by the Senate Committee on Public Works Resolutions of 20 June 1969, and 24 June 1974, and by resolution of the House Committee on Public Works dated October, 1974. The study which was conducted by the Norfolk District of the Corps, was initiated in 1971 and completed in 1980. The report is presently under review at higher authority within the Corps. In the current survey investigation, consideration is being given to deepening the existing 45-foot channels serving the Port of Hampton Roads to a depth of 55 feet and providing additional and/or improved anchorage areas. In addition, consideration is being given to deepening the existing 40-f oot channel on the Elizabeth River and the Southern Branch to 45 feet and the existing 35-f oot channel on the Southern Branch to 40 feet up to the Gilmerton Bridge. Testing was conducted on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model in connection with the proposed deepening. BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS STUDIES The proposal for deepening Baltimore Harbor and its approach channels began with a 1958 resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives. The June 1969 review report prepared under the above resolution resulted in a 1970 authorization for a project. The authorized project consists of deepening channels in both the Virginia and the Maryland portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia channels, which consist of the Cape Henry, York Spit, and Rappahannock Shoal channels, will be deepened to 50 feet. In the Maryland portion, the main approach channels from the mouth of the Magothy River to Fort McHenry and the Curtis Bay Branch Channel will be deepened to 50 feet, while the Northwest Branch Channel, divided into an east and west channel, will be deepened to 49 feet and 40 feet respectively. Material dredged from the Rappahannock Shoal and York Spit channels will be placed overboard in previously used disposal areas in the Bay. Some material from the Cape Henry Channel will be placed at Fort Story for future beneficial reuse, while the remainder will be placed in one of two approved ocean sites. All the material from the Maryland channels A-61 will be placed in the State's Hart-Miller Island diked disposal area. The Baltimore District completed the draft combined Phase I-II General Design Memorandum (GDM) and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the authorized project in May 1981. It should be noted that testing was conducted on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model as part of the analysis for the GDM and EIS. A public meeting was held in June 1981 for soliciting views and comments from interested parties, as well as for compliance with Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. The final GDM and EIS were circulated to the public for review and comments in September 1981. A Supplemental Information Report (SIR) which addressed all oral and written comments presented at the public meeting, was prepared and circulated as information to all parties which had received the final report. The final EIS and GDM were forwarded to Congress by the Secretary of the Army in March 1982. Surveys, drilling and testing, and preparation of plans and specifications together with environmental monitoring in Virginia waters will be performed during 1983. OTHER CORPS STUDIES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS In addition to the previously mentioned studies, there were several other major studies conducted while the Chesapeake Bay Study was underway. None of these studies required hydraulic model testing; however, there was a mutual exchange of data among the various programs. These studies are listed as follows: Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island Study Smith Island Study South Branch, Elizabeth River Study Hampton Roads Drift & Removal Study Delaware Estuary Salinity Intrusion Study Newport News Disposal Area Study Willoughby Spit Study Virginia Beach Study CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to plan, design, and construct certain types of water resource improvements without specific Congressional authorization. Such improvements come under the heading of the "Continuing Authorities Program." The legislation for this program specifies Federal cost limitations for each separate project authority. Each project selected must also be economically justified, complete within itself, engineeringly feasible, and environmentally acceptable. The Continuing Authorities Program consists of several legislative authorities including the Small Flood Control Project Authority, authorized by Section 205 of the 'Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended; Small Navigation Project Authority, authorized by Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960, as amended; Small Beach Erosion Control Project Authority, authorized by Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended; Authority for Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control, authorized uy Section 208 of theFlood Control Act of 1954, as amended; Authority for Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Protection of Public Works and Non-prof it Public Services, authorized by Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended; Authority for Snagging and Clearing for Navigation, authorized by Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945; and Authority for Mitigation of Shore Damages attributable to Navigation Projects, authorized by Section I I I of the River and Harbor Act of 1968. In the Chesapeake Bay Region, planning under the Continuing Authorities Program has led to authorization and construction of numerous beach erosion control, flood control, and A-62 navigation projects. Studies have also produced, in many instances, data that local and state level agencies have used to implement their own solutions to water resource problems. These have generally occurred where solutions exist, but Federal interest is lacking due to lack of economic justification or where non-Federal interest desires more rapid implementation than is possible through the Federal planning process. There are in existence, other Federal and state programs which have similar missions to those granted to the Corps under the Continuing Authorities Program. Through extensive coordination during the planning process and in accordance with formal agreements, every effort is made to eliminate duplication of efforts. As a result, the respective programs complement each other in that certain non-Federal programs can be used to both fund non-Federal shares of project costs as well as to implement solutions where Federal involvement is not warranted. PERMIT ACTIVITIES Under the law of the United States, Congress has given the Corps of Engineers regulatory responsibility to protect navigation channels and harbors against encroachment (Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899), and more recently to restore and maintain water quality by regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material in coastal and inland waterways and wetlands. The basis for the Corps of Engineers' responsibility to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material is Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). The purpose of this program, which is part of the Corps of Engineers overall regulatory authority, is to insure that the chemical/biological integrity of waters of the United States is protected from the irresponsible and unregulated discharges of dredged or fill material that could permanently destroy or alter the character of valuable water and related resources. This program provides for the consideration of all concerns (environmental, social, and economic) in the Corps' decision to either issue or deny permits. OTHER FEDERAL ACTIVI'rIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM In fiscal year 1976, Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a five-year $25 million study of the environmental quality and management of Chesapeake Bay resources. Through this study, known as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the EPA was directed to coordinate research to assess the principal factors adversely impacting the Bay's water quality by coordinating pollution research to analyze, store, and distribute research data; and to determine which government agencies have resource management responsibilities and ways to optimize coordination among them. Existing Bay research and management activities involve a broad spectrum of interests and jurisdiction from Federal, state, and local government agencies to research institutions, commercial interests, and the public. In recognition of this diversity of concerns, EPA designed its program to facilitate a cooperative and coordinated approach towards assuring the Bay's protection. To assure the continuance of the cooperative effort represented by the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA encouraged state (Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) participation in all aspects of the program. This enabled EPA to receive assistance and support from state agencies in the areas of program planning, technical support, data compilation and A-63 processing, scientific planning, and technical program development and implementation. The lead agency in Maryland was the Water Resources Administration of the Department of Natural Resources. Its counterpart in Virginia was the Virginia State Water Control Board, and in Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Resources in conjunction with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. These agencies served as liaisons between the Chesapeake Bay Program and other stage agencies. This interactive effort was accomplished through the participation of state personnel on program policy, management, and working level committees. The Chesapeake Bay Program was designed to complernent current environmental studies being done by other agencies, institutions, and citizens groups. Its objectives were to describe historical trends and to help determine the current state of the Bay by evaluating ongoing research and providing new research eff orts to fill in the missing pieces. 'f he Program also projected future conditions and used this information to develop and identify control and management strategies for Bay resources and to develop implementation plans for these strategies. The three principal areas of focus f or the EPA study were 1) the presence of toxic substances, 2) nutrient enrichment, and 3) the disappearance of valuable submerged aquatic vegetation. The EPA study was completed in 1983. A list of the final products of the study includes: Final reports on individual research projects, with summaries of each report. Descriptions of the Program's computer model of the Chesapeake Bay system. Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem -explains important ecological relationships and serves as a reference for the synthesis report, the characterization report, and the CBP management alternatives. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis -su mm arizes and explains the technical knowledge gained from the research projects funded by this program in the areas of nutrient enrichment, toxic substances, and submerged aquatic vegetation. It provides an understanding of the processes which af f ect the quality of Chesapeake Bay. A Profile of Environmental_@Chan @e-Assesses trends in water quality and living resources over time, and examines relationships between the two. A Framework for Action- Identifies control alternatives for agriculture, sewage treatment plants, industry, urban runoff, and construction; estimates costs and effectiveness of different approaches to remedy "hot spots." Findings and Recommendations-A short summary of the program and its findings and recommendations. A-64 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY POTOMAC ESTUARY STUDY The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is making an interdisciplinary study of the Tidal Potomac River and Estuary. This study blends USGS research with river quality assessments in the study of an estuarine environment. The overall goal is to understand the major aspects of hydrodynamic, chemical, and biological processes and their interaction in a tidal river-estuarine system. The study started in 1977 with the first field data collection efforts and was completed in 1983. STATE ACTIVITIES BI-STATE WORKING COMMITTEE FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY The Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland signed an agreement in August 1979, establishing the Bi-State Working Committee for Chesapeake Bay and coastal areas. The purpose of this Committee is to provide a forum through which common administrative and management problems could be approached and resolved. It is an arm of the executive branch of the state governments and, consequently does not actively formulate and submit legislation. Rather, it advises the Bi-State Commission (a commission formed by the legislature) on the need for changes to existing laws or new laws. Committee members are responsible to the Secretaries of Natural Resources for each state. The Committee was very supportive of the Chesapeake Bay Model and through its efforts, the Virginia delegation entered into the Congressional record a statement supporting continued operation of the model after the rompletion of the Corps studies. CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION The Chesapeake Bay Commission was created by the 1980 General Assemblies of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Maryland Annotated Code, Article NR Sec. 8-302; Code of Virginia, Sections 62.1-69.5 to 62.1-69.20). The creation of the Commission was the culmination of an effort begun two years earlier, when the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission was created by the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies to examine ways in which intergovernmental coordination in management of the Chesapeake Bay could be enhanced. The primary purposes of the Commission are to assist the legislatures of the two states in responding to problems of mutual concern, and encourage cooperative coordinated planning and action by the signatories and their executive agencies. The duties of the Chesapeake Bay Commission are to: - identify specific Bay management concerns requiring intergovernmental coordination and cooperation; - rerommend to the states and/or to the Federal and local governments legislative and administrative actions necessary to effectuate coordinated and cooperative management of the Bay; A-65 - collect, analyze and disseminate information pertaining to the region and its resources for the respective legislative bodies; - represent the common interests of the signatories as they are affected by the activities of the Federal Government, and assist in monitoring those activities; and, - provide an arbitration forum to serve as an advisory mediator for bi-state conf licts. The commission maintains an office and staff in Annapolis, Maryland. The staff is available to assist any member of the General Assembly of either state on any matters pertaining to Chesapeake Bay. STATE OF MARYLAND FLOWBY STUDY In 1978, the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement was developed to provide an interjurisdictional mechanism for allocating water among the various Potomac water suppliers during periods of critical low flow. Signatories to the "Agreement" include the United States of America acting by the Secretary of the Army through the Chief of Engineers, the State of Maryland acting by the Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, the Commonwealth of Virginia acting by the Governor and the Chairman of the State Water Control Board, the District of Columbia acting by its Mayor, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission acting by its chairman, and the Fairfax County Water Authority acting by its chairman. The portion of the Potomac covered by the "Agreement" extends from Little Falls Dam to the farthest upstream limit of the pool of water behind the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company rubble darn at Seneca, Maryland. The need for maintaining sufficient water in the Potomac to protect in-stream values during periods of critical natural low flow is established in Article 2.C of the "Agreement". Article 2.C reads in part as follows: In calculating the amount of water available for allocation, the Aqueduct will determine, in consultation with the parties, and based upon then current conditions and information, any amount needed for flow in the Potomac River downstream from the Little Falls dam for the purpose of maintaining environmental conditions (environmental) flow-by and shall balance such need against essential human, industrial and domestic requirements for water. The Aqueduct's determination shall be based upon the data and shall give substantial weight to conclusions for environmental flow-by submitted by the State (of Maryland). In July of 1978, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a Memorandum of Intent for clarification of the environmental f lowby/allocation formula portion of the "Agreement". The Memorandum of Intent stated that: A-66 ...the Washington Aqueduct will include along with the amount of water withdrawn from the subject portion of the river that amount designated as the environmental flowby. Thus, when the Washington Aqueduct determines that the amount withdrawn, combined with the environmental flow-Dy amount, is equal to or greater than eighty (80) percent of the total daily flow, the Restriction Stage will be put into effect and allocation will begin. Article 2.C established the primary "charge" and objective of the environmental flowby study conducted by the State of Maryland-that is, the development of "conclusions" (environmental flowby recommendations and impact associated with low flows) for the establishment of an "amount needed for flow in the Potomac River downstream f rom Little Falls dam for the purpose of maintaining environmental conditions." Beyond the primary study "charge" and objective, data collection and analysis was expanded in an ef f ort to make a thorough examination of low f low eff ects on a broad range of environmental values and recreational activities from Seneca Pool to Little Falls, including a portion of the extreme upper estuary. Expansion of the study scope provided an information base that will enable the development of future management alternatives for the Potomac beyond the immediate and necessary need for the establishment of a flowby below Little Falls dam. During the early phase of study design it was determined that only the lower fluvial portion of the Potomac (between Little Falls and Seneca Pool) would be measurably affected by potential low flows and water withdrawals. Previous Federal and state modeling efforts, as well as, some modeling done in conjunction with the flowby study, indicate that the tidal Potomac Estuary is not adversely affected by cyclic low flow conditions. Thus, the data collection and analysis focused on the f luvial Potomac. Primary data collection for the study was conducted in the summers of 1978 and 1980 during periods of low flow. The final report to include the recommended flowby was completed in December 1981. The principal recommendation of the study as it relates to Chesapeake Bay was that a minimum flow of 100 mgd be maintained into the Potomac Estuary during even the most severe droughts. This recommendation for a minimum flow-by of 100 mgd was subsequently adopted by the signatures to the LFAA. OTHER STATE ACTIVITIES It should be noted that the states, most particularly Maryland and Virginia, have numerous on-going studies and programs relative to the water resources of the bay Region. Because of the extensive nature of these activities it is suggested that the reader direct inquiries to the states for the most current inventory of state studies and/or programs. A-67 WATER RESOURCES PROBLEMS AND NEEDS INTRODUCTION Water resources problems and needs in the Chesapeake Bay Region were identified and discussed in detail in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report (FCR). The following sections summarize the significant findings of the FCR. As noted earlier, the projections of population and economic activity used in the future problems and needs analysis were based on the Series C OBERS projections of population, income, earnings, and manufacturing output prepared by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. A special set of projections coinciding with the Chesapeake Bay Study Area was prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. After the initiation of the future conditions phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study, another set of baseline projections derived from more recent economic and demographic data was prepared and released by BEA. These new projections were called the "Series Ell OBERS projections. Due to time limitations, however, Series E projections were not used in the FCR. In general, the Series E projections of population and economic activity are less than the comparable Series C figures. For more detailed information concerning the problems and needs discussed below, please refer to the appropriate appendix of the FCR. WATER SUPPLY Water is required to meet the needs of the many communities, industries, and agricultural activities that exist in the Study Area. The total use of water f rom streams, rivers and reservoirs and from subsurface aquifers (ground water) to meet these needs averaged about 2,470 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1970, (see Figure A-9). Approximately 96 percent of the total was used in municipal and industrial systems. Of this, 900 mgd was brackish water used in industrial processes, and 122 mgd was municipal wastewater reused in industrial cooling processes. The balance of the water was used by people living in rural areas for domestic purposes, livestock and poultry production, and irrigation. Of the Study Area's 7.9 million residents in 1970, approximately 6.5 million, or 82 percent, were served by public water supply systems. These systems ranged in size from those serving as few as 2n persons in small developments to large municipal systems serving commercial, institutional and industrial establishments and millions of individuals. Total water use provided through the central systems was 868 mgd in 1970. Water for use in manuf acturing (industrial water supply) totaled 1,620 mgd in 1970, including water from surface fresh and brackish water sources, ground water, and public water supply systems. Of interest is the fact that 99 percent of the total water intake was used by only 3 percent of the approximately 4,800 manufacturing establishments in the Bay Region. In addition, water use was concentrated within specific types of industries-82 percent of gross water use was accounted for by three groups of industries: paper and allied products, chemicals and allied products, and primary metals. Rural domestic water supplies are required to serve the needs of persons that live in rural locations and that are not served by central water supply systems. Of the A-68 almost 1.4 million who lived in rural areas in 1970, about 7 percent resided on farms. The non-f arm component of the population included a substantial number of persons that lived in the suburbs of the major metropolitan areas. The total water use for rural' domestic purposes amounted to approximately 63.1 mgd in 1970, or about 3 percent of all water use in the Bay Region. Water for livestock and poultry includes the supply necessary for sustenance of the beef and dairy cattle, sheep, hogs, horses, chickens, and turkeys, as well as the water necessary to produce farm products for the market place. In the Chesapeake Bay Region, livestock and poultry water consumption amounted to 14.7 mgd in 1967, or less than I percent of all uses Bay-wide. The amount of water used for irrigation purposes in the Study Area amounted to 8 billion gallons in 1969. This was applied to only about 2 percent of the total land in crops, indicating the relative unimportance of agricultural production in the Bay area. The major irrigated crops, in terms of acreages, were corn, small grains, cropland/pasture, and other field crops (39 percent), vegetables (52 percent), and nursery and other crops (9 percent). Future increases in water supply demand will occur in the Study Area in conjunction with projected population and economic growth. Demands for water supplied through central systems, for example, have been projected to increase by approximately 170 percent Bay-wide by 2020 (see Table A-13). The Baltimore and Washington SMSA's are expected to account for the largest share of the centrally supplied water at 75 percent of the total demand in both 2000 and 2020. TABLE A-13 AVERAGE CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS (Million Gallons Per Day) 1970 1980 2000 2020 Municipal 870 1,090 1,590 2,320 Industrial 1,620 1,580 IP400 1,820 Agricultural* 160 480 900 1,470 TOTAL 2,650 3,150 32890 5P610 Includes irrigation use during a dry year. A-69 868mgd, 15mgd, 22mgd, 1503mgd, 35.2% 0.6% 0.9% 60.8% ol FIGURE A-9 AVERAGE WATER USE BY TYPE IN THE CHESAPaAKE 13AY A-70 Industrial water withdrawals are expected to experience a 13 percent decline between 1970 and 2000 from 1,620 to 1,400 mgd, as shown in Table 3. This is due to expectations of increased recycling within industry in order to reclaim waste products and/or aid in achieving goals for water pollution control. By 2020, industrial withdrawals are projected to reach 1,820 mgd. The amount of water actually used in industrial processes as a proportion of the amount of water actually withdrawn (the recycling rate) is projected to increase from 1.6 at present to about 9.5 in 2020. Future increases in agricultural water use shown in Table A-13 are due primarily to irrigation during a "dry year." These demands would account for a full 92 percent of the agricultural use in 2020. A major portion of the increase in total irrigation demand in the Study Area over the projection period is due to increases in the corn acreage and the proportion of corn acreage irrigated. Slightly over one-half of the irrigation in 2020 would occur on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The rural domestic component of water requirements is projected to increase 67 percent to about 100 mgd over the 50-year study period. Non-farm water use in the suburban areas is expected to be by far the largest component of total rural domestic water use in the future, accounting for 97 percent by the year 2020. Future water use for livestock and poultry is expected to decline slightly by 1980 and then remain fairly constant at about 12 mgd through the balance of the study period. Although slight increases are projected in the rural counties near Baltimore and on the Eastern Shore portion of the Study Area, an overall decline of about 19 percent is anticipated through 2020. An analysis of the available developed water supply capability of 48 communities in the Bay Region was used to identify potential water shortages. During a hypothetical 30-day maximum demand period, occurring during the driest year in 50, a deficit of 47 mgd was identified for 24 communities in 1980. This deficit increases, however, to 396 mgd for 35 communities in 2020. Table A-14 shows the water service area supply deficits for communities in the Chesapeake Bay Region for 1980, 2000, and 2020. Certain problems occur in conjunction with the provision of water for the people, industries, and farms of the Bay Region. Growing affluence and economic development, with accompanying increases in demands for water, will require expansion of water systems and water source development. In most urban areas that are located on or near the tidewater portions of the Bay, such as Baltimore, Newport News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, nearby sources of freshwater have long since been developed. Increased competition for new sources at longer distances from the urban centers is thus occurring. The economic, institutional, and engineering problems associated with these large-scale projects are substantial. Seasonal variations in flow and longer-term cyclical trends in climate and hydrology can cause problems for systems dependent for their supply on surface water. Forexample, the periods of highest demand for water often coincide with the lowest river flow in Washington, D.C., where supplies are obtained primarily from the Potomac River. The low flow of record, which occurred in 1966, would not be sufficient to meet today's maximum demands. A-71 TABLE A-14 WATER SERVICE AREA SUPPLY DEFICITS Water Service Deficits In The Area Existing Source of Water Maryland 1980 2000 2020 Aberdeen 4.1 10.8 20.6 Annapolis 1.5 2.6 3.2 Baltimore 0.0 0.0 72.0 Bel Air 1.1 2.8 4.4 Cambridge 0.9 1.8 3.2 Centreville 0.0 0.0 0.2 Chestertown 0.3 0.6 1.0 Crisfield 0.5 0.6 0.8 Crofton 0.4 1.2 1.3 Delmar 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denton 0.0 0.1 0.2 Easton 0.3 1.4 3.0 Edgewood (Perryman) 1.2 4.1 9.3 Elkton 0.0 0.0 0.0 Havre de Grace 0.0 0.0 0.0 Joppatowne 0.1 0.2 0.5 King's Heights (Odenton) 1.0 1.7 2.3 Leonardtown 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lexington Park 0.7 3.9 10.0 Maryland City 1.4 2.9 4.8 Pocomoke City 0.0 0.1 0.5 Princess Anne 0.0 0.1 0.4 Salisbury 0.0 0.6 2.0 Severna Park (Severndale) 4.0 5.0 9.3 Snow Hill 0.0 0.2 0.6 Sykes ville-Freedom 0.0 0.1 1.0 Westminster 0.1 1.0 1.8 Waldorf 0.6 4.0 10.4 Washington Metropolitan Area Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 0.0 0.0 0.0 Washington Aqueduct 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alexandria, Va. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fairfax County Water Authority 0.0 0.0 0.0 Goose Creek (Fairfax City), Va. 6.8 27.6 63.1 Manassas, Va. 0.0 2.0 3.4 Manassas Park, Va. 0.2 1.8 4.3 A-72 TABLE A-14 (cont1d) WATER SERVICE AREA SUPPLY DEFICITS Water Service Deficits in the Area Existing Source of Water Delaware 1980 2000 2020 Seaford 0.0 0.3 1.3 Virginia Ashland 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colonial He ights- Petersburg 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fredericksburg 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hopewell 8.6 15.3 35.6 Mechanicsville 1.0 4.3 11.0 Newport News 4.2 0.0 21.0 Norfolk 1.0 26.4 57.0 Portsmouth 4.0 15.0 29.2 (Incl. Suff olk) Richmond 0.0 0.0 0.0 Smithfield 0.0 0.3 0.9 West Point 0.0 0.0 0.0 Williamsburg 3.0 4.7 7.0 Sources of water supply that become degraded are also a major problem for water users in the Bay area. Surface waters, both reservoirs and free-flowing streams, are especially susceptible to pollution from municipal and industrial waste discharges, agricultural activity, and other upstream sources. Water supply systems which are dependent on ground water as their source are also susceptible to contamination. Seepage from septic systems and landfills are notable sources of pollution in ground water supplies, and saltwater intrusion is another problem affecting some areas around the Bay. Conflicts also arise in attempts to develop new water supply sources. On-stream reservoirs and pumped storage reservoirs are solutions to requirements for surface water development, but increased competition for land and other economic, social, institutional, technical, and environmental problems must also be considered in the planning effort. Also, there is concern at several levels of society regarding proposals for large scale water diversions to serve the major water-short areas. Diversion of water from one watershed to another causes direct reduction of strearnflow by the amount withdrawn, and may generate problems in the depleted reaches of the river. One of the most significant problems associated with reduced or low freshwater inflows is the increase in salinities which may prove to have serious detrimental effects on the Bay's ecosystem. For example, prolonged periods of depressed inflows due to man- related modifications or drought may destroy valuable grasses, alter the spawning patterns and range of finfish, change the distribution of shellfish in the Bay, or permit diseases and predators to extend further into the Bay. In addition, the social and economic integrity of the Bay and its tributaries may be adversely affected. The location of commercial fishing areas may be altered with higher salinities, which could A-73 affect the livelihood of many of the Bay's watermen. Finally, increased salinity regimes could adversely aff ect those industries which require water of relatively low salinity f or their cooling and processing activities. The exact effects of low freshwater inflow on the Bay are not presently known. The severity of the problem, however, is expected to increase substantially with potential increases in consumptive losses in the major tributaries feeding Chesapeake Bay. As will be discussed in more detail later, the problems associated with low freshwater inflows were selected for detailed analysis in the final phase of the study. WATER QUALITY Water quality is the term used to describe the biological, chemical, and physical condition of the water in a river, bay, ocean, or underground. What is termed as "good" water quality differs depending on the intended use. Man requires water for drinking that is free of color, pathogenic bacteria, and objectionable taste and odor. Industries, which use water primarily for cooling and steam production, require water free of materials such as chlorides, iron, and manganese which may be harmful to equipment. Agriculture requires still a different quality of water that is free of degrading materials toxic to plant and animal life. Finally, each form of aquatic life requires water of varying qualities in order to assure its healthy existence. Water quality problems generally arise when the waste loads imposed by man exceed the water's capacity to assimilate them adequately. The resulting degradation can be very costly, both economically and ecologically. Increased cost of water treatment for municipal and industrial use, the closing of shellfishing areas and the resulting income loss for persons employed by the fishing industry, the loss of valuable recreation areas, the degradation of aesthetic values, the corrosion of structures exposed to water, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats, and the general reduction in the use of receiving waters are all costs of polluted waters. Characterizing the quality of Chesapeake Bay's waters is difficult because of the wide variety of conditions encountered in an area of this size. As quoted from the findings of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program: "Chesapeake Bay Program findings clearly indicate that the Bay is an ecosystem with increasing pollution burdens and declines in desired resources. It is also evident that actions throughout the Bay's watershed affect the water quality of the rivers flowing into the Bay. Degradation of the Bay's water and sediment quality can, in turn, affect the living resources. Thus, effective management of the Chesapeake Bay must be based on an understanding of, and an ability to control both point and nonpoint sources of pollution throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin." The most severe water quality problems occur in the tributaries near areas of high population concentrations. Figure 10 summarizes the major water quality problems of the larger tributaries. In general, municipal and industrial wastes have been found to be the major problems in the populated areas of Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, and Norfolk. Other less populated areas suffer mainly from agricultural and land runoff as well as smaller amounts of municipal discharges. As noted above, the overall systern is being impacted by the collective pollutants and nutrients from its tributaries. A-74 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER. Increasing levels of population and per capita income in the Chesapeake Bay Region will mean increased municipal wastewater volumes. As shown in Table A-15, the future wastewater flows (as projected in the Future Conditions Report exceed the 1975 treatment plant capacity in all of the river basins for which projections were available. In addition to the need for more capacity, treatment plants providing more advanced treatment of the wastewaters will be required in most areas of the Bay Region in order to meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). TABLE A-15 FUTURE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS Existing Projected Flow Capacity Deficit River Basin Year (mgd) (mgd, 1975) (m d) Lower Susquehanna 1995 3.27 1.87 1.40 Patapsco 1990 261.60 238.76 22.84 West Chesapeake 2000 32.80 19.40 13.40 Patuxent 2000 96.30 39.40 56.90 Washington Metro. 2000 543.80 344.64 199.16 Northern Virginia 2020 363.30 1 111.98 251.32 Rappahannock 2020 19 541 8.38 11.16 York 2020 39:60 2.98 36.62 James (Lower) 2020 386.00 163.97 222.03 Acromark- Northampton 2000 1.26 .74 0.52 Poromoke 2000 3.00 2.65 0.35 Nanticoke 1995 13.56 12.80 0.76 Elk 1995 4.99 3.40 1.59 lBased on total population and not population served. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER. Industrial discharges will have a great bearing on the achievement of water quality management goals in the future, especially in highly industrialized areas such as Baltimore, Rich mond- Hopewell, and Norfolk. The industrial discharge projections presented in Figure A-11 are median range values which balance projections reflecting simple historical data on one hand and maximum attainable recycling technology on the other. The curve shown in Figure A-11 shows that, while recycling rates will indeed continue to improve, it is more likely that a lesser degree of implementation of technology in industrial water reuse will occur. Although the discharge projections do not specifically address actual concentrations of waste projects or projected discharge loadings, they do serve as an indicator of the marked decrease in industrial discharges that may be expected in pursuit of National water quality goals. A-75 SU6(WEHANNA RIVER PA. r4utri te -Raffimantntion MD@ Ft* Modificatio'n PATAPSCO BACM RIVERS C D COA" Municipal and Industfial Disch. & Spoil Dispo -al BALTIMORE R EAS E SHORE PATUXENT R VE@___" i - Nu ients, Sedi en n, lo I Modificati , Boatiij Urbanization, Munici )al Di h. c@ 0 a ity, Et Spoil Dispasal ermal isc ., Et Offshore e WASHINGTON POTo AC RIVER MU ic, Thermal isch., Urba n, Et Sedimen tion Ile (C) 09 I ---DEL. Ln '4 EASTERN SHO ral runoffzprocessin waste ffs fbi deve p nt YO@RK RAPPAH OCK R S Sedimenta n, Boa ctivity, il Spill; Industrial s 0 7,",RICHMOND LO ER Municipal and Industrial Dis Heavy Metals and Pesticid Spoil disposal and Boating ac NORFOLK FIGURE A-0 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY A-76 DISCHARGE (mgd) Cl M; to C:: M 1-3 0 F-3 M w n 0 1--la m tri > 1-3 m 0 4 C-4 14 @j w n F3 M F-f z 0 0 z t.A co 0 0 --3 t3j tLj THERMAL DISCHARGES. Increases in the demand for electric power will create the additional problem of the disposal of heated cooling waters. Withdrawals for 1980 were 8,500 mgd. A major concern is the effect such heavy concentrations of heated waters will have on the aquatic environment. AGRICULTURAL AND URBAN RUNOFF. With approximately 40 percent of the Bay's land area in agricultural use, polluants such as nutrients, pesticides, sediment, and animal waste products can be expected to continue to contribute a significant loading. Although the percentage of land in agricultural use is projected to decrease, intensive farming practices which attempt to grow the same or greater amounts of crops.on smaller land areas may contribute even greater loadings than before. Urban runoff may be expected to increase markedly as population growth and urban expansion continues. OIL AND MARINE TRANSPORTATION SPILLS. With the projected increase in both total traffic and the total amount of oil products shipped on Chesapeake Bay, the probability of accidental spills may also increase. other hazardous chemicals in transport will also be subject to accidental spills as Bay traffic increases. SEDIMENTATION. Sedimentation, a natural phenomenon the level of which has been increased due to man's activities, can also be expected to increase in the future as population gro-,,Vs in the Bay Region. A projected doubling of population in the Chesapeake Bay Region between 1970 and 2020 means that the existing number of residences, office buildings, and factories will also significantly increase implying a tremendous amount of construction activity with its potential for causing sedimentation problems during the projection period. SOLID WASTE LEACHATES. Seepage from the ever increasing number of solid waste dumps and sanitary landfill sites may also pose a serious threat to water quality in the future, especially in the contamination of ground water supplies. Protection of both private and public water supplies by sealing them off from the potentially high amounts of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and organic pollutants characteristic of this leachate will be necessary to avoid contamination problems in the future. Also, some means of treating the collected leachate will be necessary. HIGH FRESHWATER INFLOWS. Tropical Storm Agnes was an example of the type of effects high freshwater inflows can have on the Bay's water quality. Problems are created when large amounts of various compounds are added to the water including, dissolved nitrogen, dissolved phosphorous, phosphates and nitrates. High flows can also be responsible for higher concentrations of trace metals, pesticides, and dissolved oxygen. A-78 OUTDOOR RECREATION The physical characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay Region make it an attractive place f or such water-related recreation activities as sailing and boating, swimming, camping, and picnicking. Recent state inventories of the above activities show that the Study Area has an existing public supply of approximately 440 boat ramps, 20,200 camping sites, 26,000 picnic tables, and 2,500 acres of beach and swimming pools. When available supply is considered in terms of demand, there presently exists a surplus of swimming and camping facilities in the Bay Region. In many cases, however, the provision of public recreation facilities has not kept pace with the burgeoning demand. The number of picnic tables and boat ramps are not sufficient to meet existing public demand. It is estimated that an additional 13.600 picnic tables and 130 boat ramps are needed. Only about one-half of one percent of the water surface area of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries would be required to meet current boating and sailing demands. The inability to satisfactorily meet these current demands, however, is not due to an absence of water surface area, but as indicated above, to an insufficient supply of public slips and launching ramps. Generally, the current shortages in all recreational facilities are most acute in the large urban centers of the Bay Region such as Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond. In terms of future recreation demands, the now defunct Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) projects the need for swimming beaches and pools to increase significantly during the next 50 years with the largest supply deficiencies projected for Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond. On the other hand, large supply surpluses are projected for the Maryland and Virginia Eastern Shore, Delaware, and Hampton Roads where sizable expanses of ocean beach exist. In similar fashion, the supply of campsites is expected to be deficient in the large metropolitan regions while in a surplus in the less populated regions and smaller urban areas. The existing deficits in picnic tables are projected to increase substantially so that by 2020 the Region will be 95,000 tables short of the total demand. Again, deficits are expected to be greatest in the largest metropolitan areas. The demand for boating ramps is expected to exceed the existing supply by almost six times by the year 2020. The only areas in the Bay Region predicted by HCRS to have a surplus of ramps through the year 2020 are the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia and the tidewater portion of Virginia. Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond will again display the most critical supply deficits. From the standpoint of the general public, Chesapeake Bay is one of the most inaccessible estuaries in the Nation. Much of the recreationally desirable land available is in competition with other forms of land development such as private homes, utility development, or military reservations. For example, in urban areas where recreation opportunities are most urgently needed, the shoreline has often been developed as major port and industrial complexes. A significant percent of the publicly-owned shoreline is held by the Federal government, primarily the military, and is unavailable for use by the general public. Other factors interfere with the maximum recreational utilization of the Bay and its tributaries. Water quality has deteriorated in many sections of the tributaries precluding body-contact water recreation. This problem is especially severe in the urban areas where demands are the greatest. The stinging sea nettle and the closely related comb A-79 jeffies or ctenophores which reach peak abundance in the summer months also discourage water contact recreation. Other deterrents to recreation activities include the existence of extensive and often valuable wetlands and the occasionally objectionable growth of certain aquatic plants such as the Eurasian watermilfoil and water chestnut which inhibit boating and swimming. Recreational use of the Bay and its tributaries has created problems and conflicts in itself. For example, many boaters are responsible for degrading water quality by dumping refuse overboard, discharging sewage effluent, and spilling gas and oil into the water. The result is unsightly debris, and in some cases, the closing of certain areas to both water-contact recreation and shellfish harvesting. In addition, recreational boating frequently conflicts with other aquatic activities such as swimming, fishing, commercial shipping, and private shore front property use (brought about by erosion of the shoreline from boat wakes). Finally, recreational boating has led to overcrowding of certain waterways particularly those most accessible to the large urban areas. This has created dangerous, undesirable conditions for both boaters and swimmers. NAVIGATION CURRENTSTATUS A total of approximately 160 million short tons of cargo was shipped on Chesapeake Bay during 1974. About 80 percent of this freight passed through the ports of Baltimore or Hampton Roads. Approximately 70 percent of the total freight traffic in these two ports is foreign in origin or destination. Baltimore is basically an importing port. The major commodities coming into Baltimore are metallic ores and concentrates, petroleum and petroleum products, gypsum, sugar, iron and steel products, salt, and motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The port is one of the Nation's leaders in the importing of automobiles and ore. The movement of bulk oil, coal, metallic ores, and grain accounted for 78 percent of the total tonnage passing through the port in 1974. Hampton Roads, on the other hand, is an export-oriented port. Approximately 70 percent of the total freight tonnage passing through Hampton Roads in 1974 was coal and lignite to be exported. Hampton Roads leads the Nation in this category. The port's location in relation to the coal-rich Central Appalachians gives the port a locational advantage over the other East Coast ports in the coal exporting business. Hampton Roads also conducts important trade in the exporting of corn, wheat, soybeans, tobacco leaf, and grain mill products, as well as in the importing of petroleum products, gypsum (limestone), lumber and wood products, and chemicals. Although Baltimore and Hampton Roads are the only major international deepwater ports in the Chesapeake Bay Region, there is also a significant amount of traffic in the harbors of some of the smaller ports such as Richmond, Yorktown, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Alexandria, Virginia; Piney Point, Annapolis, Salisburg, and Cambridge, Maryland; and Washington, D.C. The major commodities shipped through these ports are petroleum and petroleum products, construction materials, fertilizers, and seafood. In addition, the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal handles large quantities of general cargo and petroleum products. A-80 Due to the increasing size of oceangoing vessels during the past 100 years and the economies involved in the use of these ships, repeated deepenings and widenings of Chesapeake Bay's ship channels have been necessary. The present main channel depth in Baltimore Harbor is 42 feet, although in December of 1970 Congress authorized a deepening of the channel to 50 feet. In Hampton Roads the main channel was deepened to 45 feet in 1965. The Norfolk District of the Corps has completed a report recommending that the channel be further deepened to 55 feet. With the exception of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which primarily services the Port of Baltimore and the York River Entrance Channel, which handles petroleum products for a major petroleum refinery, the remaining Federal channels are 25 feet in depth or less and handle barge traffic almost exclusively. FUTURE DEMANDS As shown in Figures A-12 and A- 13, the bulk commodities (i.e., metallic ores, coal, petroleum, and grain) are projected to continue to dominate waterborne traffic in the port complexes of Baltimore and Hampton Roads. General cargo movements in both ports, however, are expected to increase at a very high rate over the projection period so that by 2020 the general cargo tonnage moved is expected to be higher than any other commodity category in Baltimore and behind only coal in Hampton Roads. Waterborne commerce on the "smaller" waterways is also generally projected to increase over the projection period and is expected to continue to be dominated by oulk oil movements. Especially high rates of increases in bulk oil movements are expected for the Potomac (270 percent) and York (205 percent) Rivers. Generally speaking, the level of traffic and the rates of increase for the waterways on the Western Shore are greater than those on the Eastern Shore because of higher levels and growth rates of population and economic activity projected for the Western Shore area. The C&D Canal, while expecting moderate increases in bulk oil movements, is projected to experience an increase in general cargo movements of approximately 130 percent by 2020. The ships carrying the bulk commodities of iron ore, coal, and petroleum products are generally the largest that ply Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The average iron ore vessel is in the 40,000 to 60,000 deadweight tonnage (dwt) range with 38 to 42-foot drafts. Occasionally, however, dry bulk vessels of well over 100,000 dwt bring iron ore into the Bay. The largest tankers carrying bulk oil into Chesapeake Bay are from the refineries on the Gulf Coast of the United States and range in size up to 75,000 dwt with 42-foot drafts. The average size vessel exporting coal is in the 50,000-75,000 dwt range with 38 to 46-foot drafts. However, as in the case of iron ore, vessels of over 100,000 dwt are not unrommon. The world fleet of tankers and dry bulk carriers is expected to continue to increase in average size in the future. The majority of the waterborne movements on the Eastern Shore tributaries and smaller Western Shore rivers are by barge. A-81 60 Typical Goal Year Sequence 50 40 oil C4 8 .0 C4 t 0 0 30 20 10 0 Ins, 11 Bulk Oil Bulk Coal Bulk Ore Bulk Grain Miscell- General (inbound) (Exports) (imports) lExports) aneous Cargo Bulk 00 "00 10. FIGURE A-12 FUTURE WATERBORNE COMMERCE - BALTIMORE HARBOR A-82 60 501 0 0 30 MEN .2 20 10 0-m Bulk Oil Bulk Coal Bulk Grain Miscell- General (inbound) (Exports) (Exports) aneous Cargo Bulk @R.a @n., @R., I @krn I f.., FIGURE A-13 FUTURE WATERBORNE COMMERCE - HAMPTON ROADS A-83 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS The following sigrifficant existing and future waterborne commerce related problems and needs were identified in the FCR. 1. A need to accommodate large bulk vessels expected to dominate the world bulk trade in petroleum, coal, and iron ore. Serious economic. inefficiencies result when the larger vessels moving these commodities are unable to fully load. When these efficiency losses are severe enough to outweigh any competitive advantage an area might have for the movement a certain commodity, severe economic consequences may result. In the case of importedraw materials processed in the port area, economic losses may be serve enough to cause cutbacks in production or even plant closings resulting in the loss of jobs, income, and tax revenues to the region. 2. A need for an economically and environmentally acceptable method of dredgd material disposal. In the Baltimore area, maintenance dredging by the Corps of Engineers and other public and private interests has been repeatedly delayed because of the lack of agreement on an economically and environmentally acceptable disposal site for the dredged material. While the State of Maryland has constructed a containment area for dredged material at Hart and Miller Islands near Baltimore Harbor, this disposal area will not completely satisfy long term disposal needs. The dredge material disposal situation has not been nearly as critical in the Hampton Roads area as in Baltimore due to the existence of the Craney Island Disposal Area in the middle of the Hampton Roads port complex. Total dredging requirements over a 50 year project life for a deepened Norfolk Harbor and associated channels, including new work dredging and future maintenance, would be approximately 380 million cubic yards. Disposal of this quantity is planned to be divided primarily between Craney Island Disposal Area and other approved alternative disposal sites, including ocean disposal. Dredged material disposal in the smaller waterways and harbors is normally not a problem. 3. A need to alleviate potential congestion problems in port, channel, and anchorage areas. As vessel traffic on Chesapeake Bay increases in the future, congestion will also probably increase. Increased congestion means the potential for accidents and the resultant discharge of hazardous substances into the water may also increase. The traffic associated with these facilities would significantly increase the level of potentially hazardous substances moving on the Bay. 4. A need to minimize the potential conflicts between commercial and recreational users of the Bay's waters and beaches. Recreational fishing and boating can be disrupted by the wakes from passing ships. In addition, large areas of the Bay and its tributaries are precluded from recreational uses because of their use as anchorages, ship channels, or dredge disposal areas by commercial navigation interests and/or the military. On the other hand, large commercial and military vessels must be constantly on the alert for the smaller recreational vessels to avoid collisions or swampings. 5. A need to minimize the erosion damages from waves caused by coin mercial and military vessels. In some areas of the Bay Region (e.g., the area around the Elk River entrance to the C&D Canal) the wave action caused by passing ships is a major cause of shoreline erosion. A-84 6. A need to provide additional lands to accommodate expanding port facilities. The development of a major port is dependent on the concurrent development of land- based port-related facilities. However, the development of shoreline land for terminal facilities may in some cases conflict with existing wetlands or proposed recreational use of the same land. In addition, port-related facilities, because of their location, may be subject to tidal flooding and shoreline erosion. TIDAL FLOODING THE TIDAL FLOODING PROBLEM Since man first settled on the shoreline of Chesapeake Bay, he has been subject to periodic tidal flooding which has resulted in immeasurable human suffering and millions of dollars of property damage. Serious tidal flooding in the Chesapeake Bay Region is caused by either hurricanes or "northeasters.11 Hurricanes which reach the Middle Atlantic States are usually formed either in the Cape Verde Region or the Western Caribbean Sea and move westerly and northeasterly direction in the vicinity of the East Coast of the United States. As a hurricane progresses over the open water of the ocean, a tidal surge is built up, not only by the force of the wind and the forward movement of the storm wind field, but also by differences in atmospheric pressure accompanying the storm. The actual height reached by a hurricane tidal surge and the consequent damages incurred depend on many factors including shoreline configuration, bottom slope, difference in atmospheric pressure and wind speed. Generally, the tidal surge is increased as the storm approaches land because of both the decreasing depth of the ocean and the contours of the coastline. An additional rise usually occurs when the tidal surge invades a bay or estuary as hurricane winds drive waters to higher levels in the more shallow waters. Tidal surges are greater and the tidal flooding more severe in coastal communities which lie to the right of the storm path due to the counterclockwise spiraling of the hurricane winds and the forward movement of the storm. ViNortheaster" is a term given to a high intensity storm which almost invariably develops near the Atlantic Coast. These storms form so rapidly that an apparently harmless weather situation may be transformed into a severe storm in as little as 6 hours. Most northeasters occur in the winter months when the temperature contrasts between the continental and maritime air masses are the greatest. The East Coast of the United States has a comparatively high incidence of this type of storm, with the area near Norfolk, Virginia, being one of the centers of highest frequency. In the course of recorded history, the Chesapeake Bay Region has been subjected to about I()0 storms that have caused damaging.tidal flooding. The accounts of most of the storms that occurred prior to 1900 are very brief and are usually found only in early newspaper articles and private journals. The elevation and the area inundated by these early tidal floods was seldom accurately documented and it was not until the early part of the 20th century that a program to maintain continuous records of tidal elevations was initiated. The damages and loss of life suffered during these early floods is also not well documented. A-85 Shown in Table A-16 are the recorded tidal elevations at several locations for the most severe floods that have occurred in this century. It should be noted that the relative severity of flooding varies around the Bay since it is a function of changes in storm paths and variances in climatological and astronomical tide conditions. TABLE A-16 RECENT CHESAPEAKE BAY STORMS Storm Tidal Elevations (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) Norfolk Mid-Bay Washington Baltimore August 1933 8.0 7.3 9.6 8.2 September 1936 7.5 - 3.0 2.3 October 1954 "Hazel" 3.3 4.8 7.3 6.0 August 1966 "Connie" 4.4 4.6 5.2 6.9 August 1955 "Diane" 4.4 4.5 5.6 5.0 April 1956 "Northeaster" 6.5 2.8 4.0 3.3 March 1962 "Northeaster" 7.4 6.0 - 4.7 The hurricane of 23 August 1933 was the most destructive ever recorded in the Bay Region. The hurrican center entered the mainland near Cape Hatteras, passed slightly west of Norfolk, Virginia, and continued in a northerly direction passing just east of Washington, D.C. It moved at or near the critical speed for producing the maximum surge, and its time of arrival coincided with the astronomical high tide as it proceeded upstream. The results were tides ranging from 8.0 feet above mean sea level (i-nsl) at Norfolk to as high as 9.6 feet (msl) at Washington, D.C. In addition to flooding damage, the high winds associated with this storm generated very destructive waves which caused extensive shoreline erosion. Shown in Table A-17 is an estimate of the damages that were caused by the four most damaging storms that have passed through the Bay Region. The estimates reflect the actual physical damages that occurred, updated to reflect 1983 price levels. These figures do not reflect the damages that would result from a recurrence of these storms under today's conditions due to differences in development in the flood plain. TABLE A-17 TIDAL FLOOD DAMAGES Location Storms and Damages in Millions of Dollars Oct 1954 Aug 1955 August "Hazel" "Connie" Mar 1962 Baltimore Metro Area $43.5 $12.8 21.3 Washington Metro Area 22.2 8.9 0.6 Maryland Tidewater Area 21.1 16.8 3.3 Norfolk Metro Area 15.7 8.9 Virginia Tidewater Area 45.7 *Negligible A-86 EXISTING FLOOD PROBLEM AREAS Existing flood problem areas were initially identified by considering the degree of tidal flooding that would be experienced by those communities located along the shoreline of the Bay and its tributaries. The analysis was limited to communities or urbanized areas since residential, commercial, and industrial development would suffer the greatest monetary losses as a result of a tidal flood. The initial ste- in the analysis was to identify all Bay communities having a population of 1,000 or greater that are located either in total or in part within the "Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain." The Standard Project Tidal Flood (SPTF) is defined as the largest tidal flood that is likely to occur under the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the geographic region. The Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the U.S. Weather Bureau determined that for the Chesapeake Bay Region the SPTF -would average approximately 13 feet above mean sea level (rnsl). The above figure is a static or standing water surface elevatlDn which would occur in conjunction with an astronomical high tide and does not include the effects of waves. Waves characteristic of a hurricane that would produce a tidal surge of 13 feet above msl, would be approximately 5 feet in height. Based on the above combination of tidal surge and wave action, the SPTF would inundate areas up to approximately 18 feet above msl. However, for ease in delineating the flood area on the best available topography, an elevation of 20 feet above rnsl was assumed for the SPTF elevation. While an elevation of 20 feet above msl is considered to be conservative, it was considered appropriate for the initial screening of possible floodprone communities. The next step in the flooding analysis was to identify those communities that should be classified as "floodprone.11 In order for a community to be designated as floodprone, at least 50 acres of land that were developed for intensive use had to be inundated by the SPTF. Intensive land use was defined as residential (four dwelling units/acre or greater), commercial (including institutional), or industrial development. The 59 Bay Region communities Mentified as floodprone are shown on Table A-18. Approximately 82,000 arres of land in these communities were found to be located in the SPTF flood plain. FUTURE TIDAL FLOOD PROBLEM AREAS The criteria used for designating an area as future floodprone was that 50 acres or more of land proposed for intensive land use fall within the Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain. Areas ,ere considered to be "critically" floodprone if 25 acres or more of land proposed for intensive land use were within the 100-year flood plain. The additional flood plain areas found to be critically floodprone are shown on Table A-19. Based on a comparison of the existing and future acreage, an additional 58,432 acres of land is proposed for intensive development within the Standard Project Tidal Flood Plain and 19,461 acres of land within the 100-year flood plain. A-87 TABLE A-18 FLOODPRONE COMMUNITIES State of Maryland State of Maryland (Cont'd) Anne Arundel County Harford County * Arundel on the Bay Havre de Grace *Avalon Shores (Shady Side, Curtis Pt. to Horseshoe Pt. and West Kent County Shady Side) *Rock Hall Broadwater Columbia Beach Queen Anne's County *Deale Dominion Eastport *Grasonville Franklin Manor on the Bay Stevensville and Cape Anne Galesville St. Mary's County Rose Haven Colton *Piney Point *Baltimore City St. Clement Shores St. George Island Baltimore County Back River Neck Somerset County *Dundalk (Including Sparrows PQ *Crisfield *Middle River Neck *Smith Island *Patapsco River Neck Talbot County Calvert County Easton Cove Point Oxf ord North Beach on the Bay *St. Michaels Solomons Island *Tilghman Island Caroline County Wicomico Countt Choptank Bivalve *Denton Nanticoke Federalsburg *Salisbury Cecil County Worcester County Elkton *Pocomoke City Northeast *Snow Hill Charles County Cobb Island Dorchester County *Cambridge A-88 TABLE A-18 (cont1d) FLOODPRONE COMMUNITIES Commonwealth_of Virginia Independent Cities King George County *Fredericksburg *Dahigren *Hampton *Norfolk King _William County *Portsmouth *West Point *Virginia Beach *Chesapeake Northampton County *Cape Charles Accomack County @5n-anrock Westmoreland County Saxis *Colonial Beach *Tangier Island York County *Poquoson *Washington, O.C. *Indicates "critically" floodprone communities. A-89 TABLE A-19 CRITICAL FUTURE FLOODPRONE AREAS State oLMaryland State of Maryland (cont'd) Anne Arundel County Talbot County Arundel on the Bay St. Michaels Baltimore CountX WicOmico County Dundalk (Including Sparrows Point) Salisbury Cecil CountX Worcester County Elkton Pocomoke City Northeast Kent CR@! @t Commonwealth of Virginia Rock Hall Independent Cities Hampton Queen Anne's County Norfolk Grasonville Virginia Beach Stevensville Chesapeake Somerset County York County Smith sland Poquoson SHORELINE EROSION THE SHORELINE EROSION PROCESS The shorelands of Chesapeake Bay are composed of three physiographic elements- f astl and, shore, and nearshore. The f astland is that area landward of normal water levels. The shore is the zone of beaches and wetlands which serve as a buffer between the water body and the f astland. Lastly, the nearshore extends waterward f rom the mean low water level to the 12-foot depth contour. In the Chesapeake Bay proper, the nearshore is generally comprised of a shallow water belt more than 1,000 feet wide before the 6-foot mean low water depth contour is encountered. From the 6-foot contour outward, the depth increases at a more rapid rate. While the causes of shoreline erosion are complex and not completely understood, the primary processes responsible for erosion are wave action, tidal currents, and groundwater activity. Waves generated by wind are the cause of most of the shoreline erosion in the Bay Region. The amount of wave energy which reaches the shoreline is dependent on the slope of the nearshore. A shallow nearshore will dissipate more wave energy than a deep nearshore. In addition, less wave energy is received by a shoreline if there is a shoal, tidal flat, or aquatic vegetation immediately offshore. Similarly, a wide beach is better than a narrow beach for wave dissipation. Conversely, where the shoreline has none of the above natural features and wave action is strong, undercutting of the ground landward of the beach will cause sliding, slumping,.and resultant loss of f ast land. A-90 Waves associated with hurricanes or other large storms can also be extremely damaging. These storms can generate very large, steep wind waves which can remove considerable material from the shore zone and carry it offshore. Strong winds of these storms often raise water levels and expose to wave attack lands of higher elevation that are not ordinarily vulnerable. Erosion problems caused by tidal currents are usually most severe in constricted areas such as inlets to lagoons and bays or at entrances to harbors. In addition to creating currents which cause erosion, the tides constantly change the level at which waves attack the beach, thereby aggravating the problem. Another process which contributes to the erosion of the shoreline is the seepage of ground water through the fastland and into the exposed shore zone. Water percolates downward through porous soils and flows out through exposed bank faces often causing an erosion of bank materials. This process is accelerated where man has removed the natural cover on the land adjacent to the banks thus increasing the amount of rainfall seeping into the ground. To a much lesser degree, three other factors contribute to the shoreline erosion problem in Chesapeake Bay. First, the long term rise of sea level has resulted in the inundation or loss of land to the Bay. An average rise of 0.0 1 feet per year has been recorded in the lower Chesapeake Bay. At Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, the National Ocean Survey tide gage indicated a 0.6 foot rise in mean sea level between 1902 and 1962. These seemingly insignificant rates of increase can, over the years, inundate significant land area particularly where shorelands have very gentle slopes. Second, rainfall runoff can cause or contribute significantly to shoreline erosion, particularly in areas where the adjacent shoreline is rolling and broken and soils are made up of easily erodible materials. Lastly, in some areas of the Bay, especially around busy harbors and waterways such as the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the wakes from passing ships are a significant erosive force. EXISTING EROSION PROBLEMS The natural processes discussed in the preceding paragraphs have claimed thousands of acres of land around Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Over the last 100 years alone, approximately 45,000 acres of land have been lost due to erosion. The most significant impact of the loss of this amount of land has been on the landowners who have witnessed the loss of both valuable shoreland and improvements that may have been constructed too close to the shoreline. Attempts to try to arrest the rate of erosion through either poorly designed or constructed protective measures have further frustrated property owners when their efforts proved futile. In many cases, man has accelerated the rate of erosion by eliminating natural protective devices such as vegetative cover that inhibit erosion. Sediment, the product of erosion, has also had significant impacts on both the natural environment and man's use of the resource. Sediment from shoreline erosion may eventually be deposited in either natural or man-made navigation channels requiring maintenance dredging and the problems normally associated with the disposal of the dredged material. In addition, sediment also has a considerable impact on water quality and the biota of the Bay. The sediment can cover productive oyster beds and valuable aquatic plants. The reduced light penetration into turbid waters can also be very detrimental to aquatic life. A-91 In order to define those areas or reaches of tidal shoreline along the Bay and its tributaries that are suffering "critical" losses of land, an inventory of historical erosion rates and the adjacent land use was compiled. Using these erosion rates together with the land use information, reaches were designated as having critical erosion problems if they met or exceeded the following criteria: 1. The erosion rate was equal to or greater than 3 feet per year regardless of adjacent land use. 2. The erosion rate was equal to or greater than 2 feet per year and the adjacent land use was intensive, i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial. Approximately 402 miles of shoreline were identified as existing "criteria erosion reaches." Table 11-1 of Appendix 11 of the Future Conditions Report lists each critical reach by county and state, the land use in the reach, each length, erosion rate and an evaluation of existing structural shoreline protection measures within the reach. Taole A-2n lists the amount of critically eroding shoreline by county for Maryland and Virginia. FUTURE EROSION PROBLEMS The method employed to delineate future problem areas is essentially the same as that used to define the existing critical areas. It was assumed that the historical erosion rates were reflective of future erosion rates in the same reaches. It was further assumed that future land use adjacent to the shoreline would develop as shown in the latest regional, county, or municipal land use planning documents. Given the historical erosion rates and projected future land use adjacent to the shoreline, the entire Bay shoreline was surveyed to determine if any future development was proposed in areas subject to significant shoreline erosion. It was determined that an additional 44.4 miles of Bay shoreline has the potential to become a serious problem. This is in addition to the over 400 miles of shoreline that is currently classified as critical based on existing development. FISH AND WILDLIFE The fish and wildlife of the Chesapeake Bay Region contribute in many .ways to making the Bay what it is today, both in terms of cornmercial markets and in terms of recreational enjoyment. Increasingly, people are turning to the out-of-doors for use of their leisure time, and fish and wildlife contribute both directly and indirectly to the value of the outdoor experience. Sport hunting and fishing, for example, are major activities of outdoor enthusiasts, as are such activities as birdwatching and nature photography. In addition, commercial interests rely on fish and wildlife resources as an important source of income and employment. The average commercial landings of finfish in Chesapeake Bay during the period 1966 to 1970 totaled 409 million pounds worth $31.2 million-. Finfish consist of both edible and industrial species. The latter include mainly menhaden and alewives. Menhaden alone accounted for approximately 88 percent of all finfish landings by weight in 1970. Edible finfish types include striped bass, weakfish, shad, catfish, bluefish, spot, white perch, croaker, flounder, and herring. A-92 TABLE A-20 LENGTH OF CRITICALLY ERODING SHORELINE Length of Critical County/City Shoreline Miles MARYLAND Anne Arundel 32.4 Baltimore 5.0 Calvert 9.6 Cecil 9.3 Charles 8.2 Dorchester 61.6 Harford 5.7 Kent 9.9 Queen Anne's 24.0 Somerset 23.0 St. Mary's 20.6 Talbot 27.1 Wicomico -23.1 Subtotal 259.5 VIRGINIA Accomack 24.2 Essex 7.6 Glouchester 7.0 Hampton 14.2 Isle of Wight 7.7 Lancaster 8.4 Mathews 9.7 Middlesex 7.7 Northampton 10.4 Northumberland 18.3 Richmond 3.5 Surry 3.8 Virginia Beach 6.0 Westmoreland 10.4 York -4.0 Subtotal 142.9 TOTAL 402.4 A-93 Shellfish, which are commonly harvested commercially, include crabs, oysters, soft clams, and hard clams. Shellfish harvests averaged 88 million pounds worth $23 million between 1966 and 1970. That shellfish represent the big money crop in Chesapeake bay is evidenced by their 78 percent share of total harvest value while comprising only 24 percent of the commercial harvest by weight. In addition to the commercial fishing effort, catches of finfish and shellfish by recreationists make up the balance of the total fishery harvest. Several species of fish are particularly sought by the recreational fisherman, including in order of pounds landed in 1970: spot, striped bass, white perch, weakfish, shad, croaker, flounder, yellow perch, catfish, and bluefish. It is estimated that all of these but striped bass, flounder, and catfish actually exceed the commercial catch, demonstrating the importance of recreational fishing in the Bay. Shellfish are also taken by a considerable number of people on a recreational basis. It has been estimated that blue crabs are sought by as many people as are game fish, and that the recreational quantity caught may equal the entire commercial harvest. The fishermen responsible for catching the finfish and shellfish resources of the Bay constitute the harvesting sector of the commercial fishing industry. Employment in the harvesting sector was 17,400 full and part-time fishermen in 1973. This figure has remained relatively constant since 1955, ranging between 16,000 and 20,000 each year. In addition, 7,100 persons were employed in wholesaling and in processing plants in 1973 in Maryland and Virginia. Wildlife that are trapped for commercial purposes in the Study Area attained a value of $1.8 million in the 1971-1972 season (including the meat value of animals such as muskrat). Fur bearing species commonly trapped in the Study Area are beaver, gray fox, red fox, mink, muskrat, opossum, otter, raccoon, skunk, weasel, and bobcat. The muskrat is of primary economic importance since it provides approximately 69 percent of the total income of Bay trappers. Hunting in the upland forests, farms, wetlands, and open water areas of the Study Area is a widely practiced form of recreation. Animals such as deer, rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, raccoon, and opossum, and game birds such as turkey, quail, and dove are hunted in the uplands. In the open water and wetland areas, waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and other birds such as rails and woodcock, are the most significant sources of hunting experience. The wetlands and uplands of the Study Area are also inhabited by plants and animals which are enjoyed strictly for their presence as part of the outdoor experience. Wild untraveled areas provide a source of recreation to large numbers of people who enjoy birdwatching, nature walking, and photography. It is estimated that the number of people in the U.S. in 1970 that participated in these non-consumptive outdoor activities was about 9 percent higher than the number of people fishing and hunting. Projections of future demands for finfish and shellfish resources in the Bay show the relation between catch and the estimated maximum harvest that can be sustained over time without causing damage to the standing stock population. Sustained harvesting beyond this "Maximum Sustainable Yield" (M SY) results in an eventual decline in the species population due to overharvesting. Results of the analysis conducted as part of the Chesapeake Bay Future C2nditions Report are presented in Table A-21. A-94 TABLE A-21 PROJECTED PERIOD OF EXCEEDENCE OF MAXIMUM SUSTAINA6LE YIELD (MSY) FOR THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL AND SPORTS SPECIES Percent Prior Species 1,000 lbs MSY to 1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 Blue Crab 61,373 94 ------------------------ -X Oysters 23,740 79 ---- ------------------------------------ X Softshell Clams 5,412 90 ----------------------------------------- X Menhaden 449,790 90 ----------------------------------------- X Alewif e 21,110 84 ----------------------------------------- X Spot 14,193 96 ----------X Striped Bass 11,159 96 ----------------------- - X White Perch 7,225 64 ------------------------- X Shad 7,120 93 ------------------------- X Weakfish (Sea Trout) 52174 81 - ----------------------- X Flounder 4Y575 89 ------------------------- X Catfish 2,440 54 ------------------------------ - ------------- Scup 29281 35 --------------------------------------------- Sea Bass 29084 42 - ----------------------------- - ------------ American Eel 1,692 99 ----------------------- - X Yellow Perch 11511 44 --------------------------------------------- NOTE: Represents commercial plus recreational catch except for blue crabs, oysters, and soft clams. All of the commercially and recreationally important species, with four exceptions, are projected to experience commercial and recreational pressures in excess of their MSY's prior to 2020. MSY is expected to be exceeded for half of the species by the year 2000. With the exception ofthe blue crab and American eel, recreation catches are the major reason for MSY exceedence. Oysters, soft clams, menhaden, and alewife are primarily commercial species which explains, at least in part, the later period for MSY exceedence. Catfish, scup, sea bass, and yellow perch populations are capable of withstanding significant increases in fishing intensity, without adverse effect. All four species are presently underutilized. As the total harvest of a species approaches the MSY, it was assumed that recreational catches will have precedence over those in the commercial sector. As a result, commercial catches of many recreationally important species are actually projected to decline over the projection period. Manpower in the harvesting sector of the commercial fisheries industries is anticipated to decline along with the projections of reduced commercial harvests. Even with the expanded commercial harvest projected for oysters, the existing number of fishermen working the Bay is expected to remain adequate through 2020. Employment in the processing sector, projected as a function of commercial catches of alewife, menhaden, oyster, blue crab, and clams, is also expected to remain essentially constant or at least at rurrent levels through 2020. Future hunting effort for big game and waterfowl was seen primarily as a function of the amount of land available as quality habitat for wildlife and the degree of access by the public to it. Hunting effort is projected to increase by 70 percent for waterfowl and by A- 95 141 percent for big game by 2020. Small game hunting is projected to decline over the study period. Based on the hunting demand analysis, land access requirements for hunting should increase by 7, 35, and 61 percent by 1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively, over the amount available in 1970. Non-consumptive wildlife utilization in terms of recreation days in the Chesapeake Bay Region (excluding nature walking) is projected to increase at a slightly higher rate than the population. Nature walking is expected to increase at a rate equal to population growth. A total increase in activity of 34.6 million recreation days is projected to occur by the year 2020. As in the hunting analysis, the factors most affecting the provision of a quality non-consumptive recreational experience are the availability of suitable habitats for wildlife and access by the public to it. Compared with the 814,000 acres of public land presently available, about 1.9 million acres of public land will be required by 202n for non-consumptive outdoor activity. There are many activities associated with the fish and wildlife resources of Chesapeake Bay which either harm the resource itself or hinder its utilization. Conflicts have arisen between the need for more intensive use of the existing land and water resources and the need for these same resources to maintain fish and wildlife populations. This is especially true in the wetland areas where dredge-and-fill operations have been performed to develop industrial and agricultural lands, and to provide for second home development and marinas. Water quality problems, which have also become more pronounced with increased economic development and population growth, have serious implications for fish and wildlife. Almost every activity of man in the Chesapeake bay Region produces a waste product that often is most conveniently dumped in a nearby river or stream. These tributaries invariably flow to the Bay. Conflicts and problems also arise within the internal workings of the various elements of the fish and wildlife management structure. This is because management of the wildlife, fisheries, and shellfish resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is the responsibility of several organizations including the Federal Government, the States of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. The inconsistencies in laws promulgated by these organizations create conflicts in the management practices and utilization of the resource. The most notable management conflicts in relation to fish and wildlife occur in the areas of migratory birds, wintering crabs, and anadromous fish. Fluctuations that occur in finfish and shellfish populations are a problem influencing both the resource itself and the volume of harvest by man. Historically, the populations of many species have varied cyclically over periods of years, due to complex biological f actors such as predator-prey relationships; physical and chemical factors; and man induced factors such as pollution or level of exploitation of the resource. In this regard, sperial concern has been voiced over the possible habitat destruction that may occur in the Bay due to increased consumptive losses from the Bay's sources of freshwater inflow. Recent experience with the intrusion of MSX and the devastating impacts on the oyster serve as an indicator of how changes in freshwater inflow change salinity intrusion and in turn may permit the extension of undesirable species. The interrelationships and subtle influences of the many causative factors involved in population fluctuations are far from being totally understood. A-96 Future growth in population in the Study Area will require much in the way of additional land and water habitat for fish and wildlife if a quality outdoor experience is to be maintained for future generations of hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. A decision must be made, however, as to whether it is in the best overall interest to grant the public increased access to prime land and water habitats. Achieving this increased access would require new public land acquisition and/or arrangements with private land owners. ELECTRIC POWER POWER REQUIREMENTS AND GENERATING FACILITIES In studying the electric power resources of Chesapeake Bay, a geographic area encompassing the electric utilities serving the Bay Region was defined. This area, the Chesapeake Bay Market Area, is served by a total of 74 utilities (see Figure A-14). The utilities are of varied ownerships: private corporations, municipalities, consumer cooperatives, and the Federal government. Investor-owned utilities provide 90 percent of the energy requirements for the Market and are responsible for 95 percent of the electricity generated. The municipally-owned utilities are small and derive most or all of their energy from the large investor-owned utilities with only minimal generation of their own. The cooperatively-owned utilities for the most part purchase all their energy from other utilities. Where they do have generating capacity, it is in small plants with relatively little output. There is only one Federal utility in the Market Area, the Kerr and Philpott Project, which is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The utilities within the Chesapeake Market Area operate as bulk power suppliers, wholesale generators, or wholesale purchasers. The bulk power suppliers operate substantially all of the generating and transmission facilities in the Chesapeake Market. Besides furnishing their own franchise requirements, they sell large amounts of energy to other utilities, mainly municipalities and cooperatives. Wholesale generators operate a generating plant and sometimes associated transmission lines and sell the entire output to other utilities under long-term contracts. Wholesale purchasers are the most numerous of the utilities in the Chesapeake Market. They buy energy at bulk rates from bulk power suppliers or wholesale generators and resell it to their own retail customers. MARKET SECTORS In recognition of the geographical and technical characteristics of the Market Area utilities, the Market was divided into three sectors; Chesapeake West, Chesapeake East, and Chesapeake South. Chesapeake West includes the Baltimore-Washin ton corridor of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland power interconnection (PJM P03; Chesapeake East takes in the Delmarva Peninsula portion of the PJM Pool; and Chesapeake South covers the Virginia portion of the Virginia-North Carolina-South Carolina power interconnection (VACAR Pool). Figure A-15 shows the relative energy requirements in each market sector as of 1972. - Figure A-16 shows the "energy account" for the Chesapeake Bay Market Area in 1972. This energy account is a flowchart showing the source and disposition of energy for each of the three Sectors. A-97 Dotowdre Rir*r 7 PENN. ver [email protected] .e- MD. !-'SAlLTlVoPtE S NGTON ------- - - - - ....... .... - - ------ - - ----- - -------- --------- -- - ------- - -- - - - - - -- - ----------- -- ---- --- - - - -------------------------- -- - ... ... . ....... ...... - - ----- .... ....... ------- 16 --- - --- --- k --- - -- NA ON NEWS - - ----- --------- tj --- - ------ . ...... ... . . . ...... ---------- -I..ri v - ;N; ------------ OUTK@ ... 1 .... . .... . .. '@JNIA BEACH VfF ---------- - ------ ----------- - -- ---------- --- ................ ................... VA - --------- - --------- ........... --- - ------ ol N. C. ------ ----- ........... - _. LEGEND ------ ... ... .. - - -------------- ----- ----- --------- ..... .. -------------- %.00 MARKET AREA BOUNDARY - SECTOR BOUNDARY -------- ---_---------- - --------- STUDY AREA BOUNDARY - ------- 011. .......... ........ ..... ... ..... . . ...................... ............... ......... MAJOR CITIES -------------- ------- - - -------- - ------------ - ---- ----- --- SECTOR AREAS - -- --------- ... .... ----- ----- - em CHESAPEAK EAST ........... CHESAPEAK WEST CHESAPEAK SOUTH FIGURE A-14 CHESAPEAKE BAY ELECTRIC UTILITY MARKET SECTOR AND STUDY AREAS A-99 Chesapeake East 7,400 Gwh Chesapeake South 29,500 Gwh 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 00*00006::*0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 Chesapeake West 28,300 Gwh -IGURE A-15 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA MARKET SECTORS, 1972 1972 A-99 OUTSIDE CHESAPEAKE BAY fossil combustion fossil hyifro combustion 112 31189 2 6804 563 1 2426 847 6429 22 3/04 32311 2129 4231 8876 CHESAPEAKE WEST CHESAPEAKE -EAST 28252 7370 fossil combustion 23710 nuclear hydrO 564 "@\ @;y 26414 CHESAPEAKE SOUTH L-8- 29474 109 616 101 73 (gigawatthours) FIGURE A-16 ENERGY ACCOUNT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY MARKET AREA 1972 68047 4 A-100 As shown on Table A-22, approximately 91 percent of the electric power produced in the Market Area was generated by fossil steam generation plants using coal, oil, or gas as fuels. The remainder of the electricity was produced by hydropower, nuclear or combustion facilities. TABLE A-22 PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF FUEL TYPES TO TOTAL ELECTRIC GENERATION - 1972 Fossil Steam Generation Hydro- Sector Coal Oil Gas power Nuclear Combustion Chesapeake East 29 42 2 25 2 Chesapeake West 48 48 - - - 4 Chesapeake South 26 64 - 7 1 2 TOTAL MARKET AREA 36 54 1 6 1 3 COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS The production of electricity by the steam cycle involves the condensation of exhaust steam back to water and the consequent release of waste heat. Nearly all existing steam-electric plants use cooling water in the process of removing the waste heat frorn the power generating system. The heated cooling water, having accomplished its task, can be pumped into cooling towers or returned to its source, in this case, usually Chesapeake Bay or one of its tributaries. All but three of the steam plants in the Chesapeake Market employ "once-through" cooling (i.e., as opposed to re-cycled cooling waters). The rate of flow of the cooling water through the plant and the rise in cooling water temperature differ among plants because of variations in design and operating conditions of the facility. In eneral, the temperature rise of cooling water in the plant is usually in the range of 1009to 250 F (60 C to 140 C). Maximum allowable temperature increases are established by Federal and state regulations. Large nuclear steam-electric plants, however, require approximately 50 percent more cooling water f or a given temperature rise than a fossil plant of equal size. This has a great deal of significance since nuclear plants are projected to supply a much larger portion of the Region's energy in the future. EXISTING PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS In addition to the conflicts of use which may arise in the Study Area as a result of multiple demands f or water or land, the resolution of certain social issues currently affecting the utility industry could also influence use of water and land for the generation of electric power in the Study Area. Prevailing controversies concerning the generation of electric power and its impact on the environment include such issues as esthetics, air pollution, water quality, impingment and entrainment of fish, radiological effects, and the disposal of nuclear wastes. A-101 Steam generating plants are expansive installations that can present a relatively unsightly overall appearance which often intrude on scenic areas. Concealment of transmission towers and transmission lines is sometimes difficult; they cannot always be placed out of view or effectively blended into the surroundings. The types and quantities of emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the production of electric power created a demand for air pollution control as a major siting criteria in planning future plants. The effects of releasing large quantities of cooling water in a heated condition and its impact on aquatic life are other issues of controversy. During their operation, nuclear power plants are permitted to release, under well controlled and carefully monitored conditions, low levels of radioactivity. Current technologies for the treatment and storage of radioactive wastes are characterized as adequate. The adequacy of these technologies, however, is controversial. With increasing emphasis on environmental protection, the utility industry, in cooperation with the Federal Government, some state governments, and some research institutions, has ongoing programs which are attempting to find ways to minimize the environmental impacts of electric power generation and still maintain a reasonable cost for electric power. FUTURE ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS, SUPPLIES, AND PROBLEMS Projected Demands In general, the projections of demand for the Future Conditioa@@or@t were developed by extrapolating various historical trends and subjectively modifying those trends to reflect judgments regarding factors currently in force and which could plausibly continue into the future. The projections chosen reflect a belief that growth in the use of electric power will continue but at a somewhat reduced rate. This approach is believed to be moderately conservative with regard to the potential for energy conservation but recognizes the significant role electric power will continue to play in the National economy. Even with "conservative" growth rates, the total use of electricity in the Chesapeake Bay Market Area is expected to increase by a factor of over five times by the year 2000 and approximately 13.5 times by the end of the projection period. As shown in Figure A-17, the Chesapeake South Sector which includes the major metropolitan areas of Norfolk- Portsmouth, Hampton-Newport News, Richmond, and the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., is expected to experience the highest rate of increase. While the rates of growth for the other sectors are lower than those of Chesapeake South, the rates still reflect significant increases in electricity requirements for these sectors by the year 2 -020. Supply Methodolgy The power supply facilities projected through 1985 are either in service, under construction, or in the advanced design stage. Accordingly, the projected supply picture through this period reflects the generation already planned by utilities in the Market Area at this writing. A-102 600 500 J 111 400 300 200 100 oo@; LEL Year 1972 2000 2020 1972 2000 2020 1972 2000 2020 0000%1%%% 0000%,% 00 Chesapea Chesapeake Chesapeake East est S t P, ppr, ke URE A-17 PROJECTED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY MARKET AREAS A-103 For the years after 1985, the supply projections utilized current and expected trends in the relative proportions of steam generation to total generation and of nuclear generation to fossil. The capacity projected assumes aff units prejected for meeting Market Area loads after 1985 are located within the Market Area. With regard to future water consumption and withdrawal rates by power plants, once- through cooling is prohibited under the present EPA regualtions; on all plants scheduled for service in 1985 and thereafter. Plants scheduled before 1985 employing the once- through system may retain them throughout the remainder of their useful lives. For this study, it is assumed that all projected capacity on line after 1985 will employ the wet towers cooling method. Projected Supply and Plant Location It is projected that by the year 1985, approximately 44 percent of the Market Area's total energy will be generated in nuclear power plants. By 2000, the percentage is expected to increase to 67 percent and to 72 percent by 2020. Fossil fuel steam plants are expected to remain the major source of electric power to the year 1985 at whcih time they are expected to generate 50 percent of total Market Area energy requirements. By the year 2000, however, fossil fuel's share dips to 29 percent and to 26 percent by 2020. It is anticipated that the remainder of the energy requirements will be met by hydroelectric and combustion type plants and possibly other generating modes presently not available. For the plant locations shown in Figure A-18, considera 'tion was given only to steam- electric plants, both nuclear and fossil fuel, because of their demands for cooling water and consequent potential impacts on the aquatic environment and shoreline areas. These two means of generation are expected to produce about 96 percent of the electrical energy required in the Chesapeake Bay Market Area in 2000. The locations of future facilities is fairly well known through 1985; but, for installations scheduled beyond 1985, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding specific sites. The location of these plants was based on several criteria including the availability of amply water supply, proximity to lead centers, and the need to keep transmission lines short. In addition, sites in Maryland were selected in accordance with criteria developed by the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, although these sites were not necessarily those chosen under the Siting Program. Because of the degree of uncertainty attending site location in the long-range future, no attempt was made to prodict where plants would be located beyond 2000. Cooling Water Considerations Water withdrawals are expected to decrease over the projection period so that by 2020 withdrawals will be considerably less than those in 1972. Water consumption, however, is projected to increase at a greater rate. This apparent discrepancy is due to two factors. First, once-through cooling systems, which have much higher withdrawal rates that other types of coiling systems, are prohibited on all plants scheduled to begin service during or after 1985. Second, it was assumed that cooling towers would be used for all projected plants after 1985. The result of this increase in water consumption will be reduced freshwater inflows into the Bay. As pointed out earlier in this chapter, this could disrupt the Bay's ecosystem and impact negatively upon the social and economic integrity of the Region. The effects of reduced inflows must be carefully investigated. A- 104 f one 0 %:- Jo.. CL Ammm it C. "mme 090 LEGEND MARKET AREA BOUNDARY women STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 0 FOSSIL STEAM g NUCLEAR STEAM -GURE A-18 CHESAPEAKE BAY PLANT LOCATION MAP 2000 A- 105 Land Use of Power Facilities Estimates of electric utility land use in the Chesapeake Bay Study Area were restricted to that required for large steam electric plants and the related high-voltage transmission rights-of-way. No attempt was made to estimate land use requirements associated with subtransmission or distribution facilities. Table A-23 shows projected land requirements for power plants within the Chesapeake Bay Region. The magnitude of the land needed for future power plant sites is obvious when it is realized that the area of Washington, D.C., is about 42,900 acres. TABLE A-23 PROJECTED LAND FOR STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY AREA (ACRES) 1985 2000 2020 Chesapeake East 3,300 8,400 21,800 Chesapeake West 6,700 16,500 41,300 Chesapeake South 6,100 2t@E 262700 TOTAL CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION 16,100 34,100 89,800 It is reasonable to assume that the land occupied by future transmission lines will also increase significantly in the future, especially considering the fact that nuclear plants will have to be located f urther away f rom population centers f or saf ety reasons. This is somewhat offset by the fart that transmission lines will probably have a higher capacity in the future. NOXIOUS WEEDS As previously mentioned, the aquatic plants which inhabit Chesapeake Bay waters are very important and serve as the primary producers or vital lifeline for other Bay species. However, as with any resource, an overabundance can also lead to problems. With some aquatic plants, excessive growth or heavy concentrations can cause conflicts and actually restrict the use of other resources. At this point, these plants become a hindrance and are termed "noxious weeds." Problems arise when the plants occur in such a place or to such an extent that they limit other beneficial water related uses such as navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and public health. While certain aquatic plants have caused problems in the Bay Region in the past, today only an occasional isolated report of a noxious weed problem can be found. The problem species are still present in the Bay waters, but only as mere fragments of previous volumes, and none in sufficient numbers to require comprehensive control measures. A- 106 The three types of aquatic plants which have, in the past, caused the most widespread problems in Chesapeake Bay include Eurasian waterrnilfoil, water chestnut, and sea lettuce. Eurasian watermilfoil, a submerged aquatic plant which flourishes in water ranging f rom f resh to 15 ppt salinity, caused some problems in the late 1950's to early 1960's in the Gunpowder and Middle River areas of the northern Bay and in tributaries of the Potomac and Rappahonnock Rivers in the lower Bay Area. Water chestnut problems, which occur near tributary headwaters, (as the plant can tolerate no salinity) have been documented in the Gunpowder and Sassafras Rivers around the early 19601s. Finally, sea lettuce, growing in saline waters over 12 ppt, has caused problems in tributaries of the Potomac River and near the Norfolk Area in the mid-19601s. Although present water resource utilization is not hindered by the presence of aquatic plant growth in the Chesapeake Bay, the potential exists for problems to develop in the future. An emergency aquatic plant problem is the increase in Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) in the Washington, D.C., area. The Potomac River and several freshwater impoundments in the Washington area are becoming invested with hydrilla at an alarming rate. Planning ef forts are presently underway to address the problem. SELECTION OF PROBLEMS FOR DETAILED STUDY INTRODUCTION As can be seen from the findings of both the Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report presented in the preceding section, there are a myriad of either existing or emerging water resource related problems in the Chesapeake Bay Region that require resolution. Depending on the nature and the Bay-wide significance of these problems, the responsibility for addressing a specific problem and then implementing a solution rests with either the local, state, or Federal government or a combination of various levels of government. In this regard, there are numerous studies and research programs underway at all levels of government that are addressing various Bay-related problems. In order to select the detailed study and model testing program, an analysis was conducted to establish what role the Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study played within this spectrum of ongoing studies and research. In defining this role, emphasis was placed on (1) selecting problems for study that were considered to be high priority and that have Bay-wide significance, (2) maximizing the use of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model, (3) avoiding any duplication of work being conducted under other existing or proposed programs, and (4) being responsive to the original intent of the Congress as specified in the study authorization. Based on the previously mentioned Existing and Future Conditions reports and specific inquiries of potential users, a list of high priority problems that had potential for study and hydraulic model testing was developed and is included as Table A-24. Because there was not sufficient time to adequately address all the problems arrayed on this table, the list was screened and the study program was selected based on the criteria discussed in the preceding paragraph. The following 'paragraphs discuss this selection process in detail. A- 107 INITIAL MODEL TESTING PROGRAM The initial screening of the potential model studies listed on Table A-24 was conducted in concert with the Advisory Group and the Steering Committeee. It was assumed there would only be a one-year testing program and that the Chesapeake Bay Study would ter- minate after the initial year of testing. Under this approach, no in-depth analysis would be made of the data collected. Given the large number of potential studies it became necessary to conduct a formulation exercise to select a testing program. One element of the formulation process involved assigning a priority to each individual study to insure that the one year of available testing was used in the most productive and economic manner. The priority rating was established based on the probable environmental, social and economic impacts of the various problems that would be addressed through each potential test. Each problem impact category (i.e., environmental, social, and economic) was rated by estimating both its magnitude and severity. The magnitude of an environmental impact was based on the area of the Chesapeake Bay systern affected. Social and economic impact magnitude were expressed in terms of the number of people affected. Problem severity for each problem impact category was expressed as an estimate of the intensity of the insult. The numerical index value of problem magnitude and severity for each impact category (environmental, social, and economic) was based on an ascending scale of I to 5. The number I indicates a mild impact-the number 5 indicates a most severe impact. The criteria used to develop the index values for the magnitude of the environmental, social, and economic impacts for this analysis are shown below: PROBLEM MAGNITUDE INDEX Index Value Magnitude 1 Area: Less than 5 percent total water area of the Chesapeake Bay system Population: Cities less than 100,000 population, county or groups of counties less than 150,000 2 Area: 5 percent to 15 percent total water area Population: Cities 100,000-500,000 population Small groups of rural counties (e.g., Southern Maryland) 3 Area: 15 percent to 25 percent total water area Population: Cities 500,000 to 1,000,000 Moderate size group of counties (i.e., Northern Neck of Virginia) 4 Area: 30 percent to 50 percent total water area Population: City larger than 1,000,000 Large group of rural counties A- 108 TABLE A-24 POTENTIAL MODEL STUDIES ESTUARINE PROCESSES STUDIES Low Freshwater Inflow Study High Freshwater Inflow Study Water Exchange Among. Tributaries Determination of Circulation Patterns Tidal Flooding Study Movement of Hydrogen Sulfide in Lower Bay MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY STUDIES Potomac River Estuary Water Supply Baltimore-Susquehanna River Diversion Rappahannock River Estuary Water Supply Susquehanna-Potomac Water Diversion Upper James River (Hopewell and Richmond) Water Supply James-York Diversions POWER PLANT EFFECTS STUDIES Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study Proposed Lower Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study Upper Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study Lower Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study Potomac River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study James River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study York River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study Rappahannock River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study NAVIGATION STUDIES Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study North Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study Norfolk Harbor Channel Enlargement Study South Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study Bay-Wide Dredged Materal Disposal Study York River Channel Enlargement Study Crisfield Harbor Construction Study Cape Charles Harbor Channel Enlargement Study WASTEWATER STUDIES Upper and Lower Bay Wastewater Dispersion Study (EPA) Potomac River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study Patuxent River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study James and Elizabeth Rivers Wastewater Dispersion Study Patapsco River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study A- 109 TABLE A-24 (Cont'd) POTENTIAL MODEL STUDIES Back River Wastewater Dispersion Study Chester River Wastewater Dispersion Study Choptank River Wastewater Dispersion Study York River Wastewater Dispersion Study Rappahannock River Wastewater Dispersion Study Upper and Lower Bay Nutrient Equilibrium Study DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERICAL MODELS Determination of Dispersion Coefficients Verification of Numerical Tidal Model Determination of Water Masses in Three Dimensions Calibration of Numerical Hydrodynamic Model SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES Sediment Transport in Upper Bay Sediment Transport in Potomac River Estuary Sediment Transport in Rappahannock River Estuary Sediment Transport in York River Estuary Sediment Transport in James River Estuary Sediment Transport in Chester River Estuary A- I 10 5 Area: Greater than 50 percent total water area Population: Several large metropolitan areas Problem magnitude indices were relatively simplistic reflecting the population and water area impacted by various problems. These indices were applied to all of the three problem impact categories (environmental, social, and economic) quite easily. On the other hand, development of indices reflecting problem severity was a much more involved process, in that many more parameters were considered. The important factors considered in generating indices expressing the severity of environmental problems related to disruption of ecologically important areas or species (wetlands, spawning areas, waterfowl habitat, oyster beds, fish of both sport and commercial value). These disruptions, though they can occur naturally, (floods, erosion problems, etc.) are primarily a function of the works of man, (wastewater dispersion, heated discharges, increasing nutrient levels, upstream water diversions). The criteria used for developing indices of the severity of the environmental impacts f ollow: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SEVERITY INDEX Index Value Problem Severity I Minimal temporary disruption of a few species or areas. No irreversible losses. 2 Significant temporary disruption of a few species or areas. No irreversible losses. 3 Permanent destruction of a few important species or areas. The overall ecosystem of the area, though permanently altered, will retain most of its original basic characteristics. 4 Permanent destruction of several important species or areas. The overall ecosystem of the area as well as some of its basic characteristics will be altered. 5 Permanent disruption of the entire ecosystem or resource area beyond any recovery. When there was uncertainty concerning the potential severity of the environmental impacts, a conservative approach that considered the long-term integrity of the environment was followed. There were many factors considered in deriving severity indices describing the social impact of problems. Among these were threats to public health and safety frorn severe bacteriological and chemical water pollution, dislocations of people or industries because of water quality, erosion/ sedimentation or flooding problems, destruction of aesthetic or recreational areas, and limiting fields of personal development, to name a few. The criteria establishing the social severity index value follow: A- I I I SOCIAL IMPACT SEVERITY INDEX Index Value Problem Severity I Minimal loss of recreational opportunities. All types of recreation still available with some curtailment, minor reversible aesthetic degradation, no threat to public health or possibility of population dislocation. 2 Significant curtailment of recreational opportunity. Significant aesthetic degradation. No threat to public health or possibility of population dislocation. 3 Total loss of several important recreational opportunities, curtailment of others. Considerable aesthetic degradation. Minor threat to public health. Some minor population dislocation. 4 Total loss of many recreational opportunities, curtailment of others. Severe aesthetic degradation. Major population dislocation due, for example, to extensive flooding. Significant threat to public health. 5 Total loss of water-related recreational opportunity. Severe threat to public health. Major population dislocations due to major flooding, erosion, etc. The important factors considered in assessing the degree of economic impact consisted of the impact on employment and income, the impact on the competitive advantage of the area with respect to suitability for new or existing industrial location (for instance, water transportation costs in an area may increase because of siltation problems; this would decrease an area's competitive advantage for industries which rely on raw materials shipped by water), effect on water treatment cost for municipalities and industries, and damages or losses of property due to flooding or erosion problems. These combinations were interpreted into indices for measuring the economic impact of the various problems as follows: ECONOMIC IMPACT SEVERITY INDEX Index Value Problem Severity I Minimal effects on employment and incomes, some impact on water treatment costs, minor losses or damages to property due to occasional minor flooding or low rates of erosion, insignificant losses in competitive advange or efficiency, but not enough to affect the decision of a company not to locate, close down, or expand. A- 112 2 Minor effects on employment and incomes, significant impact on water treatment costs, minor losses or damages to property due to frequent minor flooding or moderate rates of erosion, significant losses in competitive advantage or efficiency, but not enough to affect the decision of a company not to locate, close down, or expand. 3 Significant effects on employment and incomes, major increases in water treatment costs, significant damages and losses in property due to frequent minor flooding or occasional to moderate heavy floods, or moderate rates of erosion, sufficient losses in efficiency and competitive advantage to cause some firms which would have located in the area in the absence of the problem not to locate there, or cause some existing firms to cut back production or close down. 4 Severe impact on employment and incomes, significant losses or damages to property due to frequent minor flooding or moderate rates of erosion, significant loss in efficiency and competitive advantage to cause many firms which would have located in the area in the absence of the problem not to locate there, or cause many existing firms to cut back production or close down. 5 Severe impact on employment and incomes, heavy losses or damages to property due to frequent heavy floods or very high rates of erosion, severe loses in competitive advantage sufficient to prevent most water-dependent firms from locating in that area, and causing most existing firms to close down. Given the aforementioned impact indices, the potential model studies were evaluated and an overall rating was assigned to each study. Table A-25 lists the ratings that were assigned to each study. It should be emphasized that the ratings were subjective and all but meaningless standing by themselves; however, the ratings did serve as one means of comparing the various studies. In addition to the above impact ratings the following criteria were also used in the decision process. a. The importance of the particular study to the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. b. The formulation of a hydraulic study program that can be completed within the funding and time constraints of the presently authorized Chesapeake Bay Study, and that most economically utilizes the available resource, e.g., labor, instrumentation, etc. c. Hydraulic studies that are not only presently necessary, but may be of use in the future. d. Hydraulic studies that demonstrate the utility and versatility of the hydraulic model. e. The demand for a particular study by other public agencies or interested groups. A- 113 The list of studies was then examined in light of the foregoing criteria for the purpose of selecting those study problems that should be accomplished during the first year of model testing. The selected first year program consisted of the following studies. 1. Low Freshwater Inflow Study The purpose of this investigation was to study the effects on the salinity regime of the Chesapeake Bay system of decreased freshwater inflows due to drought and man-related modifications. 2. Baltimore Harbor Study This work defined the effects on the estuarine system of deepening the Baltimore Harbor channels to a depth of 50 feet. Included were studies concerned with rates of harbor flushing, dispersion of wastes, salinity intrusion, and changes in shoaling rates and patterns. 3. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Waste Water Dispersion Study. This study was designed to explore the ramifications of using the Potomac River Estuary as a supplemental source of water supply for Washington, D.C. One of the primary concerns regarding using the estuary as a source of water supply was the possibility of recyling wastewater into the water supply intake system during periods of low freshwater inflow and the possibility of changing salinity levels and current patterns in the Potomac Estuary. EXPANDED STUDY PROGRAM During the selection of the above first year program it became apparent that there were many problems in the Chesapeake Bay which could be solved only in the context of hydraulic model studies program far beyond that which could be accomplished in a one year period. It was also apparent that if such a model studies program were undertaken, it should be formulated in the context of a resources study which would provide for the development of a meaningful hydraulic model studies program. Further, the model studies data should be used in the resources study as an aid in formulating problem solutions. In 1975 the Corps prepared a revised scope of work recommending an expanded study program and a total of four years of model testing. Following approval of the concept of an expanded study and model testing program, a study program was selected and documented in the Revised Plan of Study published in October 1978. In selecting the study program recommended in the October 1978 Revised Plan of Study the potential study candidates listed in Table A-24 were again reviewed. Based on this review it appeared that at least a portion of the future study and model effort to be funded by the Chesapeake Bay Study should be directed toward studies of extraordinary natural events that have Bay-wide impact or significance. A- 114 TABLE A-25 PROBLEM IMPACT INDICES Environmental Social Economic Impact Indices Impact Indices Impact Indices Indices echnical Problem Areas Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Bay-Wide General Tests 1. Low Freshwater Inflow Study 3 5 3 4 2 4 21 2. High Freshwater Inflow Study 2 5 3 4 2 4 20 3 Tidal Flooding Study 2 5 3 4 3 4 21 Municipal Water Supply 1. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply Study 2 2 4 4 2 2 18 2. Baltimore-Susquehanna River Water Supply Diversion 1 3 1 4 1 4 14 Power Plant Thermal Discharge Studies 1. Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study 3 1 2 5 2 5 18 2. Cumulative Lower Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study 3 1 2 5 2 5 18 3. Cumulative Upper Bay Thermal Effects Study 3 3 2 5 2 5 20 Navigation Studies 1. Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 2. North Bay Dredged Material Disposal Study 5 1 3 4 4 4 21 3. Norfolk Harbor Channel E nlarge m ent S tudy 3 2 3 3 4 3 18 4. South Bay Dredged Material D Is posal Study 4 1 3 3 4 3 18 5. York River Channel Enlargement Study 3 1 3 1 3 1 12 Waste Water 1. Potomac River Estuary Waste W ater D ispersion Study 3 2 3 4 1 4 17 2. Patuxent River Estuary Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 1 3 2 1 2 12 3. James and Elizabeth Rivers Estuaries Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 2 3 4 1 4 17 4. Patapsco River Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 2 3 4 1 4 17 5. Back River Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 1 2 4 1 2 13 A-1 15 More specifically, these rare natural events include: 1. Periods of prolonged low freshwater inflow from the Bay's tributaries. 2. Periods of high freshwater inflow from the Bay's tributaries. 3. Tidal flooding caused by unusual climatological/ meterological conditions. In considering the advisability of conducting additional studies of these rare events, the following points were considered to be pertinent. 1. These events all have significant Bay-wide impacts on the natural resource. 2. The impacts of these rare events are intensified because of man's use of the Bay and its resources. 3. There is a lack of data/understanding of the physical changes that occur in the estuarine system as a result of these rare events. Further, the impact on both the resource itself and man's use of the resource is not well defined. 4. There is no existing Federal or state program that is addressing the nature and impact of these rare events on a Bay-wide basis. 5. The problems and resource conflicts associated with these events have all been ranked as high priority by the Steering Committee. 6. All of these rare events may be dupticated'and evaluated using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. Based on the above considerations there appeared to be strong justification for conducting comprehensive studies of these rare events as part of the expanded study program. A further review of the potential tests listed in Table A-24 yielded some additional candidates for study under the expanded program. Chief among these candidates were the Bay-wide Nutrient Equilibrium Study and the Bay-wide Dredged Material Containment Study. While these two studies would definitely be addressing problems that have Bay-wide significance, they were not considered to have as high a priority as those previously mentioned. In addition, both of these studies had some potential for overlap with existing programs. The time required to conduct both the initial testing program and the tests specifically requested by others was such that the time remaining in the testing period was not sufficient to warrant consideration of any tests in addition to those studies discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Given the initial program, the work for others, and the five potential studies, the next step in the selection process was to formulate an optimum extended program that was responsive to the established criteria and that also provided ample opportunity for testing by others. The testing program identified in the first screening appeared to be valid; however, a modification to the Low Freshwater Inflow Test enhanced the compatibility of this test with the work contemplated in the expanded program. This test was expanded to provide A- 116 the initial data needed for a comprehensive low freshwater inflow study which was considered to be the highest priority study in the extended program. Even with extending the length of the Low Freshwater Inflow Test, the Potomac Estuary Test could still be conducted in time to provide the required input to the Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study. Proceeding in this manner appeared to be very attractive in that it did not disrupt the work accomplished to date on the initial program, yet it provided data that would be of immediate use in the expanded program. The initial program as reformulated above required nearly two years of model testing. Following the above tests, the next two tests from a priority standpoint were a series of Thermal Effects Tests requested by the State of Maryland and the Tidal Flooding fest which would be required in support of a comprehensive Bay-wide tidal flooding study. As the Thermal Eff ects Test was considered to be of slightly greater importance and all tests to this point in the program were Corps funded, it was considered desirable to conduct the Thermal Effects Test before the Tidal Flooding Test. The addition of these tests raised the total model testing time to approximately 2 years and 9 months. With the addition of the two preceding tests, approximately 8 months of testing time remained within the testing program. The tests remaining for consideration in the program included the High Freshwater Inflow Test, the Dredged Material Containment Area Test, the Nutrient Equilibrium Test and the EPA Wastewater Dispersion Testing. Of these four remaining tests, the High Freshwater Inflow Test and the EPA Wastewater Dispersion Testing have the highest priority. Since the scope of the EPA testing and a committment from EPA were not available at the time, the High Freshwater Inflow Test was to be conducted following the Tidal Flooding Test. The remaining 3 months of the four year testing program was tentatively scheduled for the EPA tests. In the event a testing program could not be developed in concert with EPA, the remaining testing period could be used for either of the two remaining tests. It was considered to be premature at that time to assume that any particular test would be substituted for the EPA testing. Based on the formulation process explained in the preceding paragraphs of this analysis, it was recommended that the expanded Chesapeake Bay Study and Testing Program be composed of the following testing and studies: 1. Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Test 2. Comprehensive Low Freshwater Inflow Testing 3. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test 4. Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Test 5. Upper Bay Cumulative Thermal Effects rest 6. Tidal Flooding Testing and Study 7. High Freshwater Inflow Testing and Study 8. Bay-wide Wastewater Dispersion Test Of the above, the Low Freshwater Inflow, Tidal flooding and the High Freshwater Inflow Tests were the three programs selected for detailed analysis as part of the Chesapeake Bay Study Program. The other testing was to be conducted in support of other Corps' studies or the programs of others. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the scope and objectives of the three studies selected for detailed analysis in the Chesapeake Bay Study. A- 117 LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW STUDY As an estuary, Chesapeake Bay is dependent on the inflows of freshwater from its drain- age basins to maintain the salinity regime that characterizes its ecosystem. Although the many species that live in the Bay year-round and others that utilize it only in various portions of their life cycle are generally able to thrive in the daily seasonal, and yearly variations in salinity, drastically reduced inflows during a drought period, or reductions in inflow of less drastic magnitudes over a longer period of time, can impose environmental stress by threatening the health or even survival of species sensitive to particular ranges of salinity. Periods of low freshwater inflow can limit spawning opportunity and also alter existing estuarine flushing characteristics and circulation patterns. In addition to possible impacts on the Bay's biota, this phenomenon may have serious implications in the area of wastewater dispersion. In short, the character of Chesapeake Bay and the health and well-being of the ecosystem are dependent on established physical, chemical, and biological patterns in the Bay. These are in turn intimately related to the volumes of freshwater inflows to the Bay and the seasonal variations in those flows. The potential for damage to the Bay from reduced inflows has provoked concern on the part of the scientific community and the public at large. As stated in the.Susquehanna River Basin Report of 1970, for example: It is important to note projected changes in Susquehanna River flows in order to assess the impact of developments in the Susquehanna Basin on the Bay ecosystem. Research and analysis to date have been insufficient to permit determination of the effects of incremental modification in Susquehanna River-Chesapeake Bay hydrology on the ecology of the bay. The report states further that due to these problems: Carefully conceived research, including the use of hydraulic and mathematical models, is essential to the development of needed information for sound future policy and management decisions concerning the Chesapeake Bay. It is recognized that continued growth and development in the basins above the Chesapeake will require additional amounts of water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes. In addition, the development of electric power generation facilities in the future may markedly increase the amounts of water consumed. In the Susquehanna River Basin, for example, consumptive losses due to power generation activities are projected to increase from 30 cfs in 1970 to 300 efs in 2020. Concern about the effects that these losses may have in Chesapeake Bay has been enough to prompt written requests from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for testing on the hydraulic model. The types of problems associated with future growth in the Susquehanna Basin apply equally well to other major Bay tributaries. The Low Freshwater Inflow Study was conceived through the identified need for management of freshwater inflows to the Bay. The study was to provide a better understanding of the relationship between Chesapeake Bay salinities and the freshwater inflow from its tributaries. The study's second objective was to define the environmental and socio-economic impacts of both short and long term reductions of the freshwater A- 118 inflow into Chesapeake Bay. The third objective was to recommend those minimum flows that should be provided by the major tributaries in order to maintain the integrity of the Bay. A major portion of the work to be done was to be based on the results of testing conducted on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. These tests provide the base data needed to describe the salinity-inflow relationships occurring under a variety of freshwater inflow conditions. TIDAL FLOODING STUDY It has been the Bay Region's good fortune not to have experienced a major tidal storm for a number of years. During this time, development within the flood plain has intensified. The attractiveness of the shore environment has caused continued development of large tracts of land adjacent to the bay for residential as well as commercial and industrial purposes. Thus, the potential for increased loss of life and property, hazards to health, disruption of normal economic activities, and the cost of evacuation and rehaoilitation will be greater than those experienced in past floods. As noted in the Water Resources Problems section of this supplement, 60 communities are considered to be floodprone based on an assessment of how many acres of intensive development would be inundated by the occurrence of a Standard Project Tide. Of these 60 communities, 30 were determined to have critical problems. The flood problem was considered to be critical if 25 acres or more of intensively developed land wouldbe inundated by the Intermediate Regional Tidal Flood (i.e., approximately the 100-year tidal flood) and if it also appeared that the existing development would suffer significant damage from that same flood. The Tidal Flooding Study had three primary objectives. First, to provide a better under- standing of the tidal flood stage-frequency relationship in the Bay Region as a whole and also in communities which are subject to tidal flooding. Second, to define the environ- mental and socio-economic impacts of tidal flooding in flood-prone communities. Finally, to recommend structural or non-structural tidal flood protection in those com- munities where it is found to be economically and environmentally feasible and socially acceptable. HIGH FRESHWATER INFLOW STUDY The third study that was to t)e conducted as a part of the Chesapeake Bay expanded program was the High Freshwater Inflow Study. As witnessed by the @42 million in Bay damages caused by the large influx of freshwater from Tropical Storm Agnes, high volumes of freshwater can be detrimental to both Chesapeake Bay itself and the residents of the Bay Region. A special study entitled Impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay, prepared by the Baltimore District, noted the impacts and many problems associated with this high flow event. Among the impacts investigated were hydrologic, geologic, water quality, biological, economic, and public health. The major findings for each type of impact were: Hydrologic -- a 15 times greater than normal flow rate near the mouth of the Susquehanna River resulting in a 30 nautical mile translation of saline waters down the Bay. A- 119 Geologic - increased erosion rates on Bay shorelines and the deposition of nearly 31 million metric tons of sediment into the Bay from the Susquehanna River; more than had been contributed in the previous 10 years. Water Quality -- high concentrations of raw sewage in most of the Bay's tributaries as well as the input of over 1500 tons of phosphorus and 2500 tons of nitrates frorn the Susquehanna drainage area. Biological -- heavy mortalities suffered by the softshell clams and oysters because of their inability to move to more saline waters and a large reduction in submerged aquatic plants. Economic -- damages to the shellfish and finfish industries totaled nearly $34 million; the recreation industry suffered damages of approximately $7 million; and boat and shipping industry damages amounted to nearly $2 million. Public Health - the Bay-wide closure of both shellfishing areas and Maryland bathing beaches for a period of nearly one month. Based upon the magnitude of these impacts and in response to requests from the scienti- fic community to more adequately describe the physical changes that occur in the Bay during high flow events, the High Freshwater Inflow Study was proposed. The High Freshwater Inflow Study had three major objectives. First, to provide a better under- standing of the relationship between Chesapeake Bay salinities and high freshwater inflows from its tributaries. Second, to define the environmental and socio-economic impacts of high freshwater inflows into Chesapeake Bay. Finally, to identify those structural or management measures that could be used to prevent or reduce the adverse impacts of high freshwater inflows. REVISIONS TO EXPANDED STUDY PROGRAM For a number of reasons, the most significant of which being the lark of sufficient funding, the study and testing program as recommended in the 1978 Revised Plan of Study was not conducted. Rather, the expanded study program was limited to the Low Freshwater Inflow Study and theTidal Flooding Study. Both of these studies were also somewhat reduced in scope from that originally planned. For a complete description of these studies and their findings the reader is referred to the Chesapeake bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study and the Chesapeake Bay Tidal Flooding Study The testing that was conducted for others is discussed in more detail in Supplement C - The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. A- 120 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Baltimore, Maryland September 1984 4 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Table of Contents Item Page Introduction Purpose of the Program B-1 Publir Involvement Program B-1 General Information B-3 Interaction - Dialogue B-3 Review - Reaction B-3 The Program and its Relationship to the Planning Process B-3 Study Organization and Coordination B-5 Corps of Engineers Management B-6 Advisory Group B-6 Steering Committee B-8 Original Task Groups B-8 Eronomic Projections Task Group B-8 Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Needs Task Group 8-9 Flood Control, Navigation, Erosion, and fisheries Task Group B-9 Recreation Task Group B-9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Group B-10 Reorganization of Task Groups 13-10 Study Coordination 13-10 History of the Study and Coordination Activities B-13 Initial Study Phase B-13 Existing and Future Conditions Phase B- 16 Final Study Phase B-19 An Evaluation of the Public Involvement Program B-23 List of Figures Number Title Page B-1 Gearing Public Involvement to the Publics 13-2 B-2 Framework for Public Participation B-4 B-3 Original Chesapeake Bay Study Organization B-7 B-4 Revised Chesapeake Bay Study Organization B-11 B-5 Chesapeake Bay Study Coordination and Review Process B-12 i Table of Contents (cont'd) Attachments Number Title B-1 Chesapeake Bay Public Involvement Program Analysis, December 1979 B-25 B-2 Chesapeake Bay Study Committee Representatives B-80 B-3 List of Public Involvement Activities B-86 B-4 Pertinent Correspondence B-88 B-5 Comments and Responses on Draft Final Report B-170 B-6 News Circulars B-223 List of Plates Number Title 1 Sequence of Significant Events ii SUPPLEMENT B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INTRODUCTION Citizen interest in water and related land resource planning and the desire to take part in the planning process has resulted in public involvement becoming an integral part of the planning process. This increased citizen interest requires a commitment from both the citizen and the planner to be willing to communicate with each other. Once effective communication is established, common goals can be defined, conflicts resolved, and agreement reached on proposed solutions to the problems. The public involvement program discussed in this supplement was designed to establish effective communication between the planners and the many "publics" during the conduct of the study. The term "public" is defined as "any affected or interested non-Corps of Engineers entity." This includes other Federal, state and local government agencies as well as public and private organizations and individuals. PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM The overall purpose of the public involvement program for the Chesapeake Bay Study was to provide an organized set of activities which served to establish functional two-way communication between the study participants and the many "publics" represented in the Bay area. The specific objectives of the public involvement program were as follows: 1. To further identify all those elements of the public that are affected by and interested in Chesapeake Bay including Federal, state, and local agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. 2. To identif y as a continuing eff ort the most ef f ective means of involving the public in the Chesapeake Bay Study. 3. To inform the public of the Chesapeake Bay Study to include information on both the resource study and the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. 4. To obtain the public's comments and perceptions of problems, needs, desires, and related impacts with regard to the Bay's resources and use priorties, and incorporate those opinions into program recommendations by the most effective means possible. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM The three basic measures used to promote the public involvement program stressed a two-way communication process. These three measures provided for: (1) general information, (2) interaction-dialogue, and (3) review-reaction. Each measure was designed to reach different levels of the public in the study area, as shown in Figure B- 1. Likewise, each measure was geared to evoking a different degree of involvement and response from each level of the public. B-1 Measures Publics Involvement Population of Study Area ISO Affected Public Interested Public Invohfed Public Decision- cc Makers most FIGURE B-1 GEARING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TO THE PUBLICS B-2 GENERAL INFORMATION The objective of this measure was to distribute information about study progress and results to as many people as possible. Usually, it provided for only one-way communication with the public. Mechanisms such as newsletters, newspaper articles, special publications, public displays, press releases, and announcements through the media were used to reach most levels of the public. INTERACTION-DIALOGUE Interaction-dialogue provided for a two-way communication between the planners and the public. It required a certain amount of involvement by the interested public to obtain a better knowledge of the planning process, as well as a certain amount of involvement by the planners to find out public needs and desires. Interaction-dialogue mechanisms such as workshops, planned educational programs, speeches to organized groups, interviews and tours of the hydraulic model were techniques that were employed to reach those who were either interested, involved, or were decision-makers. REVIEW-REACTION Review-reaction was used to obtain feedback from those who were most directly involved with the study. Special committees or advisory groups were formed to accomplish this purpose. Committee meetings, formal public meetings, progress reports, interim reports, and draft and final reports were used to garner the important opinions and values of the involved public and the decision-makers. Figure B-2 depicts the approach that was used in the public involvement process. THE PROGRAM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE PLANNING PROCESS The planning process employed in this study followed Corps of Engineer's guidelines for implementing the Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines for Planning Water and Related Land Resources. The planning process consists of a series of steps that identifies or responds to problems and opportunities associated with the Federal objective and specific state and local concerns, and culminates in the selection of a recommended plan. The process involves an orderly, systematic approach to making determinations and decisions at each step so that the interested public and decision- makers can be fully aware of the basic assumptions employed, the data and information analyzed, the areas of risk and uncertainty, and the significant implications of each alternative plan. The planning process consists of the following major steps: 1. Specification of the water and related land resources problems and opportunities (relevant to the planning setting) associated with the Federal objective and specific state and local concerns. 2. Inventory, forecast, and analysis of water and related land resource conditions within the planning area relevant to the identified problems and opportunities. 3. Formulation of alternative plans. 4. Evaluation of the effects of the alternative plans. B-3 FAYff 0WOf * f()r PUbft PalftOW1017 Pubft hValvwnem Pmwam F@"- InfarTnation hit* I-I'm agoom r R"ew-Raacticn7 Nw*vlaftv wwww" Comte" Mendngs Now Arddw EducebwN P.cgw. PUNC Meal" Pubft Dwp" to GnPAS Progr@ Pow pren pkft@ Model Tours &.to& pApoft Sw Dreft & Finai R"a %FMWAU& TV) FIGURE B-2 FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION B-4 5. Comparison of alternative plans. 6. Selection of a recommended plan based upon the comparison of alternative plans. Plan formulation is a dynamic process with various steps that should be iterated one or more times. This iterative process, which may occur at any step, can sharpen the planning focus or change its emphasis as new data are obtained or as the specification of problems and opportunities changes or becomes more clearly defined. The public involvement program was conducted throughout the aforementioned planning process with particular elements of the program emphasized as appropriate during the various phases of the study. Following an overview of the study organization and coordination, the scope and results of the program will be discussed as they relate to 1) initial coordination and preparation of the Plan of Study, 2) preparation of the Existing and Future Conditions reports and 3) the final phase of the study. This discussion will fully document all public involvement activities including those related to both the Tidal Flooding Study and the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. Only a cursory discussion of public involvement will be provided in the specific reports on these two studies. The public involvement program was developed through a series of comprehensive analyses that identified both the interested public and the most cost effective measures that could be employed to achieve the overall public involvement goals. Identifying the interested public was a continuing effort that involved developing mailing lists and identifying those agencies, organizations and individuals interested in learning about and providing input to the study. The analysis of alternative public involvement measures or techniques included a rigorous examination of the advantages and disadvantages, cost, and use-experience. Attachment B-1 is a copy of the most recent of these analyses. Included is a description of the program adopted for the final stages of the study. STUDY ORGANIZATION AND COORDINA HON Due to the large geographic area comprising the Chesapeake Bay Region and the complex problems which face the estuary, a large number of Federal, state, and local agencies and interstate commissions are involved in various aspects of water resource management in the Region. Federal concern with natural resources is founded on the fact that these resources form the basis for much of our National wealth and future well-being. The concern for water resources, in particular, is shown by many legislative enactments by the Congress. A continually developing body of law has established varying degrees of regional concern as evidenced by the existence of numerous Federal agencies with priority in such areas as navigation, flood control, drainage, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, water supply, and water quality. Water resources management is not the exclusive domain of the Federal government. state and local governments also play a vital role. Such governments often have their own management and construction programs, as well as the responsibility to review and comment on proposed Federal projects. They are also an invaluable source of information due to their detailed knowledge of the areas within their jurisdiction. The States usually have one major executive level department responsible for natural resources. However, there are often additional state agencies and commissions in charge B-5 of certain aspects of water resources management outside of this organizational structure. In addition to the Federal, state and local agencies with water resource responsibilities, there are two inter-state agencies organizations which are directly involved in water resources management in the Chesapeake Bay Region: the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac, River Basin. The magnitude and multi -dis cipli nary nature of the Chesapeake Bay Study required intensive coordination among those agencies and institutions concerned with water resources planning in the Bay Region. This study was conceived as a coordinated partnership between Federal, state, and local agencies and interested scientific institutions. Each involved agency was charged with exercising leadership and providing input in those disciplines in which it has special competence. Toward this end, a special interdisciplinary study group was formed within the Corps of Engineers and several interagency committees were created. These are discussed in the following sections. CORPS OF ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT The study was conducted under the general direction of the District Engineer, Baltimore District. Because of the high priority nature of the study, the District Engineer had a high degree of involvement in the coordination of the overall study activities. The routine coordination and study activities were conducted under the supervision of the Chief, Planning Division and the Chief, Chesapeake Bay Study Branch, in order of rank, respectively. The professional staff in the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch either directed or conducted the coordination and public involvement activities. ADVISORY GROUP The Advisory Group was established in 1967 as the principal coordinating mechanism for the study. As shown on Figure B-3, the Advisory Group is composed of representatives from I I Federal agencies, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the States of Delaware and Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The individuals serving on the Advisory Group were designated by the heads of their respective Federal agencies or the Governors of the involved states. Table I in Attachment B-2 to this supplement lists both the past and present Federal and state representatives on the Advisory Group and their period of service as a member. Since its establishment, the Advisory Group has advised the District Engineer regarding study policy and has provided general direction under which all study participants have operated. More specifically, the duties of the Advisory Group were established as follows: a. To advise the District Engineer in the coordination of study efforts. b. To consider the views of all participants as reported to the Group and make recommendations to the District Engineer. c. To review reports from all participants. B-6 BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS F ADVISORY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE, LIAISON, & BASIC RESEARCH AGRICULTURE NAVY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DELAWARE EN AGY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ENERGY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMERCE TRANSPORTATION INTERIOR MARYLAND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY DELAWARE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PENNSYLVANIA COMMI ION(FPCI DISTA CY OF COLUMBIA HOUSING A URBAN DEVELOPMENT MARYLAND S ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION VIRGINIA INTERIOR PENNS LVANIA COMME13CE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEALTH EDUCATION f, WELFARE. . ......... -7 MIC PROJECTION WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY. Ll FLOOD CONTROL. ECONO WASTE TREATMENT, NOXIOUSS NAVIGATION, EROSION. REATION TASK GROUP Co FISH TI ILDLIFE TASK GROUP WEEDS TASK GROUP FISH ORDINA ON GROUP COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTERIOR INTERIOR AGRIC LTURE AGENCY AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURE ENERGY TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE INTERIOR ENERGY COMMERCE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Co FERC FERC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC, RPS OF ENGINEERS INTERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NAVY INTERIOR AGENCY DELAWARE AGENCY TRANSPORT TION NAVY DELAWARE MARYLAND DELAWARE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PENN YLVANIA C CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIF30NMENTAL PROTECTION MARYLAND VIRGINIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELAWARE AGENCY PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PARYLAND DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA ENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND DELAWARE VIRGINIA VIRGINIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA "E.. PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND NAVY TRANSPOR TATION VIRGINIA V RGINIA SIUS UEHANNA BASIN COMMISSION HEW HEW@ NOT REPRESENTED AFTER 1910 F16URE B-3 ORIGINAL CHESAPEAKE B -AY STUDY 0 RGANI ZATION J TECTI.14 @A B-7 d. To assist the District Engineer in providing information to the public and encourage participation by the public at hearings and other meetings. Generally speaking, the Advisory Group was convened whenever it was necessary to coordinate study efforts, to review and comment on study results, and to determine future study direction and activities. Numerous meetings of the Group were held over the course of the study. In addition to these official meetings, continuous coordination among the members was maintained on an individual basis. The District Engineer, Baltimore, and members of his staff also met with one or more agency representatives on an as-needed basis to accomplish the objective of full coordination. STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee for Liaison and Basic Research was charged with reviewing the work of the other study task groups in order to bring to their attention and to the attention of the District Engineer any pertinent technological advances in water resource development or the environmental sciences that may not be explicit in the tasks assigned to these groups. In addition, the Steering Committee formulated plans for scientific activities that became a necessary adjunct to the study. The Federal agencies and the states represented on the Steering Committee are shown on Figure B-3. Table 2 in Attachment B-2 lists past and present Steering Committee representatives and their period of service as a member. ORIGINAL TASK GROUPS Five task groups were originally established for the Chesapeake Bay Study to include: a. Economic Projections Task Group b. Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task Groups c. Flood Control, Navigation, Erosion, and Fisheries Task Group d. Recreation Task Group e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Group Each task group was concerned with related study categories and functioned as a, basic work group. The chairman designated for each task group was from the Federal agency most closely associated with that particular field of study. For example, the Recreation Task Group was chaired by the then Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of the Interior. A brief description of each task group and its major functions is provided below. The agencies serving on each of these original groups are shown on Figure B-3. ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS TASK GROUP The Economic Projections Task Group was responsible for establishing the Chesapeake Bay Economic Study Area which consists of those Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) and non-SMSA's adjacent to the Bay and its tidal tributaries or which exert a major influence on Chesapeake Bay. The task group was also responsible for determining the scope and type of projections of income, population, and employment to be prepared f or the study. In addition, the group was assigned the task of making B-8 economic evaluations of various proposed solutions to priority problems. This task group was chaired by a representative from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY WASTE TREATMENT, AND NOXIOUS WEEDS TASK GROUP As outlined in the Plan of Study prepared in 1970, the duties of the Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task Group included the development of a water quality plan for the maintenance or enhancement of the water quality of Chesapeake Bay. Subsequent to this, the 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This legislation provided that the Environmental Protection Agency assist the state and other local governmental entities in the development and implementation of area-wid6 wastewater treatment management plans and practices which would achieve the goals of the act. The passage of this act had a marked influence upon the Chesapeake Bay Study as it provided for the accomplishment of much of the water quality and waste treatment work originally envisioned for the Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task Group. It was apparent that to continue with this type of work in the Chesapeake Bay Study would not be in the national interest; rather this interest would be better served by integrating the state plans into the ongoing work of the Chesapeake Bay Study Program. The area-wide wastewater management studies directed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 were conducted by the involved states. The Environmental Protection Agency established a comprehensive system of communication, coordination, and review. Because of this ongoing program and the already established coordination and review procedures, the water quality and waste treatment related duties of the Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task %Group was revised and the work was divided into two phases. Phase I of the Task %'-group's work was concerned with the integration of the state wastewater management plans into the Chesapeake Bay Study's Future Conditions Report In this phase, the state wastewater management reports were summarized in accordance with a format established by the Task Group. This summary assessment of the Region's water quality was included in the Future Conditions Report This completed summary of the water quality served to identify those areas which had high priority problems deserving further study. The second phase of the Task Group's water quality work consisted of determining those high priority problem areas which should be the subject of additional study and hydraulic model testing. The work involved in the other components of the Task Group mission was conducted as previously agreed upon by the Task Group with the primary responsibility for performing the studies related to water supply and noxious weeds resting with the Corps of Engineers under the direction of the Task Group. The Task Group was chaired by a representative from the Annapolis Field Office of the Environmental Protection Agency. FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, EROSION, AND FISHERIES TASK GROUP As denoted by the name, this Task Group was responsible for study matters related to tidal flooding, shoreline erosion, foreign and domestic waterborne commerce and commercial and sport fisheries. In the course of the study, this group established the purpose and scope of all studies regarding the existing and expected future conditions B-9 relative to the aforementioned resource categories. All portions of both the Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report dealing with these categories were prepared and reviewed by this group. This Task Group identified high priority problems relative to flooding, navigation, erosion and fisheries, that should be addressed under the Chesapeake Bay Study. The Group was chaired by a representative from the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers. RECREATION TASK GROUP This Task Group was responsible for defining, conducting, and reviewing study efforts relative to the existing and future use of the recreation resources within the Study Area. This group, was chaired by a representative from the Northeast Regional Office of the then Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION GROUP This Task Group provided the mechanism for coordination between all Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. Its primary task or responsibility was to collect, develop, refine, and disseminate data and views related to the fish and wildlife resources of the study area. The Group was chaired by a representative from the Northeast Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. REORGANIZATION OF THE TASK GROUPS At a January 1980 meeting of the Advisory Group, a discussion was held concerning the five original task groups and the role that they would have in the final phase of the study. Although these groups had served well during the first two phases of the study, it had become apparent that a reorganization was desirable. It was agreed that the groups, as organized along "resource category" lines, would have little meaning for the final study phase and that the work could best be accomplished by groups organized along specific study lines. It was therefore recommended by the Advisory Group, and so adopted by the Corps, that the five original task groups be replaced by two new groups - the Tidal Flooding Task Group and the Freshwater Inflow Task Group. The Tidal Flooding Task Group provided input to the Tidal Flooding Study and the Freshwater Inflow Group was responsible for the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. However, because the study completion date was advanced over 2 years, the Freshwater Inflow Group never met. The responsibilities of both the Advisory Group and the Steering Committee remained as discussed above. The revised study organization is shown on Figure B-4. STUDY COORDINATION The specific tasks or responsibilities of the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and Task Groups, as outlined in the preceding section, were all part of the overall study coordination and review process. As characterized in Figure B-5, coordination and review was an iterative process that flowed between the District Engineer, Baltimore, and the various elements of the study organization. The District Engineer, who was responsible for the management of the study, established overall study goals and objectives based on the study -authority, budgetary limitations, and advice from the Advisory Group and Steering Committee. The Advisory Group and Steering Committee also suggested the overall studies that should be conducted by the B-10 BALTIMORE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEER ADVISORY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE Department of Agriculture Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Energy Department of Housing & Urban Develop. Department of Interior Department of Interior National Science Foundation Department of Transportation Smithsonian Institution Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Delaware National Science Foundation District of Columbia Navy Maryland Smithsonian Institution Pennsylvania Delaware Virginia District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia FRESHWATER INFLOW TIDAL FLOODING TASK GROUP TASK GROUP Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Interior Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency Inter. Comm. on Pot. Riv. Basin Federal Emergency Mgmt Agency Smithsonian Institution District of Columbia Susquehanna River Basin Commission Maryland Delaware Virginia District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia FIGURE B-4 REVISED CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY ORGANIZATION B-11 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY COORDINATION AND REVIEW PROCESS DISTRICT ENGINEER BALTIMORE DISTRICT (1) Provides overall goals (2) Requests advice (3) Conducts final review (4) Makes recommendations (5) Publishes and distributes reports ADVISORY GROUP STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Provides policy guidance (1) Provides technical guidance (2) Suggests studies to be conducted (2) Suggests studies to be conducted (3) Reviews work of Task Groups (3) Reviews work of Task Groups TASK GROUPS (1) Formulate detailed work plans (2) Assign work to members (3) Review work conducted by members TASK GROUP MEMBERS (1) Accomplish assigned work (2) Review work of other members FIGURE B-5 B- 12 Task Groups in order to meet the objectives that were established for the study. The Task Groups were charged with formulating the specific study work plans for those resource categories that were within their area of responsibility. The specific work plans were then assigned to the appropriate Task Group members for accomplishment of the required work. Following the completion of an assigned work package by a Task Group member, the review process began with all members of the Task Group reviewing the completed work. If the work was considered satisfactory, the report was forwarded to the Advisory Group and Steering Committee for review. It should be noted that if in the course of the review process the report or work was found to be unsatisfactory, the necessary actions were taken to resolve problems. Following the review within the study organization, the final product was forwarded to the District Engineer for final review and further action. Further action consisted of proceeding to the next phase of the study and/or submitting a final report on the findings of the study. It was through the above coordination and review process that all reports to include the Plan of Study the Existing Conditions Report the Impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay, the Future Conditions Reports and this the final report of the study have been prepared and reviewed. It should be noted that public input was also an integral part of the aforementioned coordination and review process. Through public meetings, citizen group reviews, and other measures, the viewpoints and concerns of the public were identified and the findings were incorporated into the above mentioned reports. HISTORY OF THE STUDY AND COORDINATION ACTIVITIES The following paragraphs provide an overview of both the history of the study and the most significant public involvement activities that were conducted over the course of it. The discussion addresses the three phases and/or time periods of the study. The initial phase is defined as the time period from study authorization through approval of the-Plan of Study (June 1970). The existing and future condition phase covers the period from the.Plan of-Study to the publication of the Revised Plan of Study. in 1978. Lastly, the detailed study phase covers the period from 1978 to completion of this final report. Included as Attachment B-3 to this supplement is a chronological listing of the most significant public involvement activities conducted over the course of the study. Also included is Plate B-1 which is a sequence diagram showing the most significant study and public involvement activities for the study. Pertinent correspondence for all study phases is included as Attachment B-4. INITIAL STUDY PHASE The need for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the Chesapeake Bay area had long been recognized. The regional concept of developing the Nation's water resources was evolving. In terms of Chesapeake Bay, a first step toward what might be considered a system analysis was the'Chesapeake Bay Fishing Harbor Economics Study, Maryland and Virginia. This study provided, for the first time, a broad overview of the commercial fishing industry and a firm and consistent basis for the comparison of primary fishing benefits among harbors throughout the Bay area. B- 13 In 1961, in response to the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources that a program be formulated to meet the Nation's water resources needs, the District Engineer, Baltimore District, prepared a pamphlet concerning the Chesapeake Bay area entitled An appraisal of Water Resource Needs Projected to the Year 2060. In the spirit of the Senate Committee's directive, this pamphlet recommended that a cooperative study of Chesapeake Bay be made by the Federal and state agencies concerned with the Bay resource. In the same year, a basin plan for Chesapeake Bay (Basin Plan, Chesapeake Bay was prepared by the Baltimore District in cooperation with the Norfolk District and in compliance with instructions from the Office, Chief of Engineers. The plan was based on readily available information and although it was the first attempt at bringing together comprehensive information on the bay's resources, it was only a very superficial analysis. Based on the two Corps reports mentioned above and similar studies and analyses conducted by other agencies, it was recognized that with rapidly increasing population and its attendant demands, the resources of the area were receiving pressures which could only be expected to increase in the years ahead. Thus, water resources managers and scientists in the Bay Region felt that a comprehensive study of the Bay and its resources was required in order to develop a Bay-wide management plan. During this same period, certain Congressional representatives with districts within the Bay Region were expressing interest in a comprehensive Bay study and the construction of a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay similar to the San Francisco Bay and the Mississippi River basin models. It was envisioned that such a model would be used as part of the study decision making process. on 23 February 1965, a bill was introducted by Congressman Hervey G. Machen of Maryland to authorize the Secretary of the Army to conduct a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. To carry out this investigation, a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay Basin and an associated technical center were to be constructed. Shortly after introduction of this bill, three other nearly identical bills were introduced by Congressmen Thomas N. Downing of Virginia and Rogers C. B. Morton and George H. Fallon of Maryland. In July 1965, the Senate version of the River and Harbors Act of 1965 was introduced. It also included a section authorizing a comprehensive Bay study that was very similar to that proposed in the aforementioned House bills. Following some changes, the authority for the study was provided in Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 signed by the President on 27 October f-965. Although the Chesapeake Bay Region ties within three Engineer Districts, the Baltimore Norfolk, and Philadelphia Districts, the study was formally assigned to the Baltimore District Engineer on 3 December 1965. In November 1966, the Baltimore District received the initial funding for the Chesapeake Bay Study. It was at this tirne that broad study concepts were first developed, advanced planning to define the scope of the authorized model and technical center was initiated, and model site investigation was begun. In February 1967, the Division Engineer of the North Atlantic Division, in the interest of setting up a Chesapeake Bay Study Advisory Group, invited appropriate Secretaries at the Federal Cabinet level along with the District of Columbia and the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania to designate representatives to work closely with the District Engineer, Baltimore District, on the overall study goals and objectives and to serve as the chief coordinating mechanism for the study. By September B- 14 of 1967, the 13 original members of the Advisory Group had been appointed and the first meeting of that Group was held to discuss study objectives and how related tasks might best be assigned and accomplished. Since the Advisory Group was first established in 1967, there have been numerous changes in both the agencies represented on the Group and the representatives themselves as noted in Attachment B-2. In March 1969, a Steering Committee and Five Task groups were established and initial meetings were held to discuss the scope of the study and identify the initial work to be accomplished by each of the Task Groups. In addition to establishing the above groups as a mechanism for obtaining input f rorn other Federal and state agencies and the scientific community, a series of public meetings was held in November and December 1967 to obtain public input. The meetings were held in Baltimore and Salisbury, Maryland, and Newport News, Virginia, to inform the public of the initiation of the study and to obtain their views on problems in the bay Region. With regard to the hydraulic model during this early stage of the study, staff from the Baltimore District Office first visited the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in February 1967 to determine the support which WES could provide in the design, construction, and adjustment or verification of the model. As a result of the February 1967 meeting, it was agreed that WES would provide design, construction, and operation support for the Bay model. At approximately the same time, a meeting was held in the Baltimore District with representatives from various elements of the Corps including the Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE), WES, the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC), and the North Atlantic Division and the Norfolk District of the Corps of Engineers. Also in attendance were those Federal and state agencies involved in research, regulation, and/or management of the Bay's water and related land resources. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the problems facing the Bay which might be solved by the hydraulic model. One of the important decisions to be made early in the study was model site selection. A consultant was hired to conduct a detailed siting study and three sites were recommended in the consultant report submitted in October 1967. In November 1967, the Governor of the State of Maryland formally offered 65 acres of land at Matapeake, Maryland on Kent Island for the model. The offer was accepted by the Baltimore District in December 1967 and title transfer occurred in January 1971. In the spring of 1968, during its hearings on the appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1967, the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives requested that the Corps of Engineers review the scope and cost of the Chesapeake Bay Study program and provide a report on the findings to the Committee. The report, which was formally submitted to the Committee in April 1969, found that the total cost of a study program responsive to the enabling legislation would be approximately $15 million. Subsequently, the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1970, which was passed on 19 June 1970, incre --$15 million. ased the study authorization from @6 million io The first major public document of the Bay study program was the Chesapeake Bay Plan of Study which was published in June 1970. The Plan of Study, which was reviewed and coordinated with the study organization, outlined the scope of the study, the Study Area and objectives, and how the study was to be conducted and coordinated. B- 15 The most important public involvement activities in the first phase of the study were the formation of the study organization; the holding of a series of public meetings; and the preparation, review and coordination of the Plan of Study. The public involvement activities, particular the coordination with the study organization, were very important in shaping the overall scope and direction of the study. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS PHASE With the Plan of Study serving as the planning guide, work proceeded- on the program in two primary areas-the comprehensive resource study and the hydraulic model. Based on the 'Plan of Study and the advice of the study organization, it was decided that the resource study portion of the Chesapeake Bay Study would be conducted in several phases. Each phase of the study would culminate with the publication of a milestone report that would present the findings of the study to that point. These milestone reports would provide all who are concerned with the management of the Bay a better understanding of the problems outside their own activities and also provide baseline data and a starting point for the next phase of the study. In the fall of 1971, Congress requested the Corps of Engineers to reanalyze the Chesapeake Bay Study program with a view toward reducing its overall cost. In February 1972, a document was forwarded to Congress which indicated that the minimum cost of the program at November 1971 price levels would be $15,000,000. This, in effect, reduced the financial resources available to the study by an amount equal to price escalation between July 1969 and November 1971. In order to achieve this, it was necessary to make numerous reductions in the scope of the resources study and model facilities including the deletion of the technical center. Based on a series of Advisory Group and Task Group meetings held in 1971, it was decided that the first phase of the study would result in aniExisting Conditions Report that described the existing physical, biological, economic, and social conditions of the Bay and its resources. The report would also identify existing resource problems and conflicts and the various resource management programs and responsibilities. The Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report was published in December 1973. This seven volume report presented in one document a comprehensive and detailed picture of Chesapeake Bay and its resources and marked the conclusion of the inventory phase of the study. Following completion of the Existing Conditions R@@rt work was started on the future projections phase of the study. In this phase, the projections were made of the future demands to be placed on the Bay and its resources and resource problems and conflicts were identified. The work was initiated in 1974 and the results were presented in the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report. It should be noted that prior to the completion of the Future Conditions Report a series of public meetings was held in June 1976 in Williamsburg, Virginia, and Annapolis and Cambridge, Maryland. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the public regarding the progress to date on the overall study program; to present the findings of the Future Conditions RepoEt; and to solicit the public's comments, views, and perceptions of the Bay's problerns and needs. In June 1972, while work was underway on the Existing Conditions Report the Chesapeake Bay Basin was subjected to one of the most devastating storms the Region has ever witnessed- Tropical Storm Agnes. The massive amounts of freshwater, sediment, and other pollutants that entered the Bay as a result of this storm caused B- 16 considerable environmental and economic damage to it. As a result of the damage and concern as to the long-term effects of the storm on the Bay, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1973 included $275,000 for a special study of the effects of the storm on the Bay. The Act was signed by the President in October 1972 and the study was subsequently assigned to the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, where it was to be conducted concurrently with the Chesapeake Bay Study. The following objectives were established for the special Agnes Study: a. Determine and document the effects of the storm on the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. b. Locate any changes in the bottom geometry of the Bay and its tributary arms and determine if these changes were of sufficient magnitude to warrant a change in the design of the hydraulic model. In pursuit of the first objective, a contract was let in June 1973, to determine the physical, biological, economic, and public health impacts of the storm on the Bay system. In order to determine if bottom geometry changes warranted a change in the hydraulic model design, hydrographic surveys were made in several areas to determine the extent of the changes. Based on the results of the contractual work, a report titled Impact of Tr02ical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay was prepared, reviewed by the study organization, and published in October 1975. Concurrent with the conduct of the resource study, work also proceeded on the hydraulic model. Based on a series of meetings held in 1967 and 1968, a prototype data collection program for the model was formulated. In order to verify the model's operating similarity to the Bay (prototype) system, tidal elevations, tidal current velocities, and salinities had to be measured at many locations in the prototype. These prototype data were used as a basis for both model adjustment and final verification that model hydraulic and salinity phenomena are in acceptable agreement with those of the prototype. In June 1970, contracts and interagency agreements were awarded for the collection of salinity, tidal and velocity data. By the summer of 1974, all of the prototype data required for the adjustment and verification of the model had been collected. Because of the hydraulic model's small scale and the resultant precision required in collecting data, the model had to be protected from wind, rain, and windborne debris. The detailed design and the preparation of the plans and specifications for a shelter to house the model were completed in 1972. Subsequently, a contract for the construction of the shelter was awarded in February 1973 and a formal groundbreaking ceremony was held in June 1973. In April 1974, as a result of more refined estimates, actual construction bid experience and substantial overruns on the construction of the shelter for the hydraulic model, the Chesapeake Bay Study program was again reviewed in detail and four options for accommodating the cost increases were evaluated. The final report on this reanalysis recommended that the scope of the resource study portion of the program be reduced as total compensation for the cost increases. In this reanalysis, which was an internal Corps document, it was recognized that there were not sufficient financial resources available within the imposed ceiling to produce a comprehensive management plan for Chesapeake Bay; and it was recommended that the resource study terminate in a final report to Congress on the Bay's present and future water resources problems and needs. Model related work would consist of a one year program oriented to gaining increased B- 17 knowledge of the Bay's hydrodynamics and/or providing data needed to solve pressing problems. Concurrent with the design and construction of the model shelter, the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was designing the model and the required hydraulic appurtenances. The model design, which included the design and in some cases fabrication of the various elements of the model's hydraulic systern and the plotting of approximately 26 miles of templates, was completed in the summer of 1974. Construction of the model was started in October 1974 and the approximately 9 acre model was completed in April 1976. A formal dedication ceremony sponsored by the Commissioners of Queen Anne's County was held on 7 May 1976. This dedication ceremony marked the beginning of an adjustment and verification period that was completed in June 1978. During the conduct of the studies associated with the projection of the future needs phase of the resource study and in the formulation of the one year program of tests to be conducted on the hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay, it became apparent that there were many problems in Chesapeake Bay which could be solved only in the context of a hydraulic model studies program far beyond that which could be accomplished in the one year period recommended in the April 1974 reanalysis. It was also apparent that if such a model studies program were undertaken, it should be formulated in the context of a resources study which would provide for the development of a model studies program and which would use the model studies output data as an aid in formulating problem solutions. In recognition of this need, an internal document entitled "Reanalysis and Revised Scope of Work, Chesapeake Bay Study" was prepared and submitted to Corps higher authority on 14 March 1975. In this report, four alternatives for expanding the resources study and model testing program were presented. It was concluded that continued studies were desirable in order to be responsive to the Congressional authorizing legislation. The recommended program consisted of a 5-year expanded resources study oriented to the formulation of solutions to priority problems. In order to accomplish this, three additional years (total of 4 years) of testing on the Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay would be required. The recommendation for an expanded program was approved and a detailed plan of work for the final study phase was prepared and presented in the Revised Plan of Study published in October 1978. During the existing and future condition phase of the study, there were a significant number of important public involvement activities. The study organization to include the Advisory Group, Steering Committee and Task Groups, met on numerous occassions to shape the scope and content of the Existing and Future Conditions reports. The study organization also provided valuable advice and support relative to the recommendation for an expanded study in the 1978 Revised Plan of Study This phase of the study was also marked with a number of special public involvement events related to the model to include the groundbreaking ceremony in 1973 and the dedication ceremony in 1976. The dedication ceremony also marked the start of public tours of the model. The model tours were extremely beneficial in providing the public with an understanding of both the study and the complexities of Chesapeake Bay. The release in April 1973 of a specially prepared film which presented a discussion of the Chesapeake Bay, the study and the hydraulic model also provided a means to reach large numbers of people with general information about the program. The film was shown on local TV and was used over the next several years for literally hundreds of presentations around the Study area. B-18 During this phase of the study, the Citizens Program f or Chesapeake Bay, Inc (C PC B) was f ormed and adopted by the Corps as the study's Citizens Advisory Committee. Members of CPCB reviewed and provided comments on both the Existing and Future Conditions Reports. Prior to publication of the Future Conditions Report, a series of three public meetings was held around the Bay area to present the preliminary findings of that phase of the study and to solicit any additional public comments. Lastly, the first News Circular for the study was published and distributed to a mailing list of nearly 10,000 interested parties. Pertinent correspondence and materials documentary the public involvement activities may be found under Attachment B-4. Copies of all the News Circulars published as part of the study are included as Attachment 13-5. As noted above, the public involvement program was very active during the second phase of the study. A wide range of public involvement measures were employed to ootn disseminate information and to solicit advice. Further, the measures used were targeted for a wide spectrum of Bay interests f rom the general public to bay scientists and state/local officials. FINAL STUDY PHASE With the approval in 1978 of the Revised Plan of Study work proceeded into the final study phase. As recommended, the three high priority areas of study were Tidal Flooding, Low Freshwater Inflow and High Freshwater Inflow. With regard to the Tidal Flooding Study, detailed flood damage surveys were conducted in 1979 in those flood prone communities selected for detailed study. Following the completion of preliminary alternatives analyses and other environmental and socio- economic studies, a Stage 2 Report was published in August 1980. Based on the Stage 2 findings, it was recommended that more detailed studies of several selected communities and the development of Bay-wide stage-f requency relationships be carried into Stage 3. A Technical Studies Work Plan detailing the stage-frequency related work was prepared an approved. In 1981, work was initiated on the stage-frequency analyses and the supporting Storm Surge Test was conducted on the hydraulic model in 1984 Concurrently, more detailed study was underway for those communities recommended for further examination in the Stage 2 Report. Work on the Low Freshwater Inflow Study started in 1979. It included defining the economic, environmental and social impacts associated with reduced f reshwater inflows and developing a methodology for a detailed assessment of the impacts of reduced flows on Bay biota. The initial hydraulic model test (Problem Identification Test) was completed and the results were used to develop an understanding of the low flow hydrodynamics of the Bay and to define the biota-reiated impacts. As the majority of the effort was being placed on the two above mentioned studies, early work on the High Freshwater Inflow Study was limited to a literature search and collection of data needed for environmental, economic and social assessments. Testing on the hydraulic model was initiated in July 1978 with the Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Test. The Baltimore Harbor Test was followed in turn by the Low Inflow Operational Procedure Test and the Potomac Estuary Test. Major maintenance of the model was performed after the first 8 parts of the Potomac Estuary Test were completed in June 1979. This maintenance took approximately 4 months to accomplish and included substantial modifications to the devices controlling the flow of freshwater into the model. In view of the fact that this work had not been anticipated when the B- 19 Revised Plan of Study was prepared, it was necessary to reduce the number of tests to be conducted if the established time frame for completion of the Chesapeake Bay Study was to be met. The Wastewater Dispersion Test for the Environmental Protection Agency was therefore deferred as it did not appear that this agency would be prepared to provide the input data for it until after the completion of the tests specifically required for the Chesapeake Bay Study program. In the spring of 1980, during the conduct of the second eight parts of the Potomac Estuary Test, it was found that the hydraulic model was not repeating the pretest stability conditions characteristic of those portions of the Potomac Estuary Test previously run. Upon investigating this problem, it was discovered that some of the concrete slabs in the model were visibly heaved as evidenced by differential vertical displacement of adjacent portions of the concrete at the expansion joints. Expansion joint material was tightly compressed in some areas, and on a model-wide basis, sealant material was being extruded from the joints. An intensive investigation of the problem was initiated in order to ascertain the cause of the heaving and to determine the extent of the damage. The leveling surveys revealed that the model had heaved, in some places, as much as 0.2 feet. The bulk of the concrete movement took place between Kent Island and the model ocean, in the broad expanse of concrete forming the southern portion of Chesapeake Bay. In turn, survey data showed that the northern portion of the model and all the tributary arms on both the Eastern and Western shores remained relatively stable. Approximately 10 percent of the model was found to have had significant uplift. As a result of this analysis, it was concluded that the heaving of the concrete in the model was caused by thermal expansion cornplicated by an insufficient number of expansion joints in the model to relieve the stress generated in the concrete. A plan for the rehabilitation of the model was developed and approved by the North Atlantic Division. Repair of the model concrete was started in October 1980 and was completed in February 1981. This was followed by a period of adjustment and reverification which was completed in September 1981. Following verification, the Storm Surge Test was performed for the Tidal Flooding Study. This test consisted of obtaining surface water elevations throughout the bay resulting from the ocean tide, a surge wave, a combination of the above two, and fluvial discharge. The results of this test were to be used to adjust and calibrate a numerical storm surge model being developed by the Waterways Experiment Station. From October through December 1981, The Norfolk Harbor Channel Deepening Test was performed for (and funded by) the Norfolk District of the Corps. Because of funding constraints, the model was placed in a state of operational readiness for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1982. During fiscal year 1983, efforts on the resource study were devoted primarily to the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. This consisted of making assessments of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of reduced freshwater inflows on the users of the Bay. Work activities also included formulating preliminary alternative solutions to identified problems and developing a relationship between salinities and freshwater inflows to the Bay using the results of the Problem Identification Test. This relationship was used to assist in determining those inflows needed to mitigate the adverse effects of reduced f reshwater inflows. B- 20 Funds in Fiscal Year 1983 were not sufficient to allow the conduct of any model tests and the model was therefore maintained in a state of operational readiness. This combined with the period of operational readiness in Fiscal Year 1982 meant that no testing was performed on the model for 21 consecutive months. By maintaining the model during this period, deterioration of the model and its equipment was held to a minimum. During the development of the Fiscal Year 1984 budget, the decision was made that the Chesapeake Bay Model should be closed in Fiscal Year 1983. It was further decided that by reorienting the study to accommodate the model closing and reducing its scope, the study could be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 1984. Because the facility was closed, the following remaining hydraulic model tests could not be conducted: The Potomac Estuary Water Supply Test (Last 8 parts) The High Freshwater Inflow Test The Low Freshwater Inflow Sensitivity Test The Low Freshwater Inflow Plan Test With the decision to close the model in 1983 and complete the study by the end of Fiscal Year 1984, there were a number of significant modifications made to the program. The original scope of work for the Low Freshwater Inflow Study provided for the formulation of those "schedules" of freshwater inflow to Chesapeake Bay necessary to maintain and enhance socio-economic and environmental values. In order to achieve this, alternative salinity regimes were to be identified based on analyses of environmental and socio-economic impacts. The freshwater inflows required to achieve these salinity levels would then be identified based on results of the hydraulic model tests. Socio-econornic and environmental impacts of the upstream measures required to achieve these inflows were also to be considered. Institutional analyses would focus on the arrangements required to implement these plans. The resulting data from these analyses and the hydraulic model would have been used in the selection of the final "schedule" of flows to be recommended for each of the major tributaries. This "schedule" of flows was to be verified through tests on the hydraulic model. Under the reduced scope, the screening process was not carried as far. The result is an identifiration of the most promising alternative plans and an estimation of the required freshwater inflows. The hydrologic and hydraulic feasibility of achieving these freshwater inflows is assessed, but, upstream flow modification measures or impacts are not specifically addressed. With the deletion of the Sensitivity and Plan Tests on the model, the results of the Problem Identification Test were the sole basis for determining the salinity-freshwater inflow relationship and for translating desirable salinity levels to freshwater inflow requirements. The final report on the Low Freshwater Inflow Study contains an assessment of the socio-economic and environmental consequences of reduced freshwater inflows to Chesapeake Bay and an identification of the most promising alternative solutions to the problems caused by these flow reductions. As noted earlier, Stage 2 of the Tidal Flooding Study was completed and the Stage 2 report was submitted in August 1980. All remaining work, as originally formulated, was to be based on the development of a storm surge numerical model which would define the flood-stage-frequency relationship for the Chesapeake Bay. The results of this model would be used in assessing the feasibility of providing structural or nonstructural B- 21 protection to floodprone communities. In order to accelerate the completion of the study, however, the storm surge numerical modeling effort was deleted from the program. Therefore, all feasibility analyses were based on existing available flood-stage- frequency information rather than the refined data expected from the numerical modeling effort. The major effort left on the Tidal Flooding Study consisted of reviewing and revising the Stage 2 report based on updated information when available. The final report of the Tidal Flooding Study provides an analysis of the feasibility of providing structural and nonstructural protection for floodprone communities and recommendations for survey scope authorization studies in those communities where some form of flood protection is found to be economically and environmentally feasible and socially acceptable. With regard to the High Freshwater Inflow Study, all work on that study was predicated on the availability of data from the hydraulic model tests. Since the model was no longer available and this data cannot be obtained by any known conventional method, the High Freshwater Inflow Study was deleted from the program. An extensive examination of the potential future uses and/or need for the model was done by a task force established by Congressman Roy Dyson of Maryland. It was found that the model is not required for any further testing; however consideration should be given to maintaining it as a multi-use center. It should be noted that effective August 1984 the State of Maryland has assumed the maintenance on the hydraulic model pending the transfer of the model to the state. The final phase of the study was completed in 1983 and a draft final report was circulated for review in March 1984. Included as Attachment B-5 are copies of the review comments received and the disposition of those comments. Based on the review comments, the report was revised and the final report was published in September 1984. Public involvement activities during the final phase of the study were similar to those conducted during the first two phases of the program. Advisory Group and Steering Committee meetings were held to seek advice on the conduct and findings of the Tidal Flooding and Low Freshwater Inflow Studies. Three additional News Circulars were published (Attachment B-6) to keep the general public advised of study progress and findings. In cooperation with EPA, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia two large portable displays were prepared in January 1979. These displays consisted of a discussion with appropriate photos and graphics of the Bay related programs of the Corps, EPA and the two states. The displays were circulated throughout the Bay area for exhibit in public buildings, schools, festivals and other appropriate Bay related events. In November 1979, the Corps and the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. jointly sponsored an educational seminar to discuss the Bay and the capabilities and potential uses of the model. The seminar was held at the newly opened visitor center at the hydraulic model and was attended by engineers, scientists and academicians from the Bay area. It should be noted that because of the schedule for completing the study was advanced several years, there was little opportunity for participation by a citizens advisory committee. Perhaps the most significant public involvement activity of this period was the model tour program. While model tours were actually initiated in 1976, a visitors center was not completed until August 1979. The visitor center facility and the tour provided a complete Chesapeake Bay and hydraulic model experience. The lobby of the visitor center had numerous displays which explained the Bay and the hydraulic model. The B-22 visitor could then enter the auditorium for a 20 minute professionally prepared and narrated slide show which further described the Bay and its problems and the Corps' study and Hydraulic Model. Lastly the visitor received a 30 minute guided tour of the model with an even more detailed discussion of how the model operated and a description of the testing being conducted at that time. Generally speaking, the tours were provided three times a day for the entire period between June 1976 and August 1983. The model was also open on selected weekends for such events as Chesapeake Appreciation Days. During the period the model was open, it is estimated that approximately 200,000 people from every state and numerous foreign countries visited the model and received some appreciation and understanding of the Bay and the Corps program. The public involvement program was judged to be quite extensive during the final study phase. The model tours and related events were probably the most visible activities; however, the coordination and review work with the study organization and other interested parties was most important in developing the final recommendations of the study. AN EVALUATION OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM A documentation of the public involvement program for the Chesapeake Bay Study would not be complete without an evaluation of the results and/or effectiveness of the program. While a comprehensive, objective assessment is difficult, the following paragraphs provide a general assessment of the program. As a point of fact, the public involvement program for the Chesapeake bay Study was probably the most comprehensive and expensive program of its type conducted by the Baltimore District to date. Literally thousands of hours of manpower and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in providing information to and seeking input from the public. In total, the expenditure of time and funding appears to have been worthwhile. In particular, the public and special tours of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model were extremely valuable in educating the public relative to the importance and complexity of Chesapeake Bay. The understand gained from the model tours by both school child and legistator was important to not only the Corps study but the future of Chesapeake Bay as well. The coordination with the scientific community during the course of this study is also noteworthy. The study and hydraulic model provided a focus which led to improved coordination among those members of the scientific community concerned with the resources of Chesapeake Bay. Many of the analyses conducted as part of this study were considered to be "state-of-the-art" and as such, there was a productive exchange of information and ideas among Corps and non-Corps professionals. While there was certainly not universal agreement on the nature and importance of all of the technical findings, there was a spirit of working toward an overall goal of maintaining or enhancing the Bay's resources. Unlike most previous studies, the Corps study focused on the total Bay and all of its resources rather than one subestuary of the Maryland or Virginia portion of the Bay. Because of this total resource concept, the coordination aspects of the study supported and, in some cases, fostered an even greater degree of cooperation among the many political subdivisions concerned with the Bay. It is felt that this study made a significant B-23 contribution toward legislative actions relative to management of Bay resources on a Bay-wide basis. An important factor to be considered in evaluating the public involvement program is the effectiveness of the program in disseminating information to the general public. In addition to the model tours mentioned earlier, the news circulars, public presentations, news releases, and reports were successful in educating an interested public. To say that all of the millions of people within the Bay area are fully attuned to the study and its findings is an overstatement; however, there is a strong indication that the general public does have a better understanding of the Bay and its problems. The level of understanding is attributable to the media coverage of Bay related problems and activities; the studies and public involvement activities of others such as the EPA Chesapeake Bay Study; and the Corps' study efforts. Lastly, the study organization as used for this study proved to be a most effective means for the preparation, review and coordination of study efforts. In a complex, multidisciplinary study that required considerable input from agencies outside the Corps, the concept of a layered study organization composed of an overall policy advisory group, a technical steering committee and working task groups worked well. The documentation referenced earlier indicates that the various study committees met relatively frequently throughout the course of the study and that the advice and/or input gained was most valuable to the study ef fort. B-24 ATTACHMEN r B-i CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS B-25 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS Table of Contents Page Alternative Public Involvement Measures B-28 Public Meetings B-28 Public Hearings B-30 Workshops B-31 Publications B-33 Citizens Advisory Committee B-39 Public Speeches/ Presentations B-46 Citizens Surveys/Questionnaires B-46 Public Forums B-48 Exhibits B-48 Delphi Panels B-49 Seminars B-49 Charrette B-50 Paid Advertising B-51 Radio/TV Call-in Shows B-52 Audio-Visual Techniques B-52 Bay-Model Tours B-54 Special Events B-54 Study Coordination and Organization B-55 Initial Alternatives Evaluation B-56 Analyses of the Most Effective Mechanisms and Elements to be Used in Reaching the Interested Public B-60 Public Meetings B-60 Workshops B-61 Publications B-62 Citizens Advisory Committees B-63 Public Presentations B-64 Seminars B-64 Slide Shows B-65 Model Tours B-66 Special Events B-66 Study Coordination and Organization B-66 Recommended Program B-67 Public Meetings B-67 Workshops B-68 Publications B-69 Citizens Advisory Committee B-70 Public Presentations B-71 B- 26 Table of Contents (cont1d) Page Seminars B-71 Slide Shows B-72 Model Tours B-72 Special Events B-72 Study Coordination B-73 Total Program Cost 13-74 List of Tables Number Title Page Table I EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program - Citizens Steering Committee Members B-42 Table 2 Maryland Coastal Resources Advisory Committee B-43 Table 3 Initial Alternatives Evaluation Matrix B-57 Table 4 Total Program Cost B-74 B-27 December 1979 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS I/ ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEASURES In order to determine which public involvement techniques have the most impact on Bay- related publics, it was necessary to conduct extensive research using all available public involvement manuals, studies, and other publications. In addition, interviews with public involvement specialists provided insight as to which means and mechanisms have been used effectively in other public participation programs. It was also important to draw upon past public involvement experience during the conduct of the Chesapeake k3ay Study to determine effective ways of involving the public. The following short summaries provide information on those public involvement techniques which appear to be the most beneficial in water resources planning. They also constitute the most frequently used techniques. A bibliography of those reports and other materials used to further define the Bay study's public involvement prograin is attached. a. Public Meetin s. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide for the exchange of information between the public and the planning agencies. It gives the public an opportunity to learn what the agency is doing and to allow the agency to hear the public's reaction to work accomplished to date. Public meetings are commonly broken down into several phases. The first, the initial meeting, is to let citizens known a study has begun and what is involved. The second, the formulation meeting, presents alternatives which were developed during study formulation. The third, the last stage, presents the most promising alternatives and reasons for selection. The fourth phase is the special meeting, and its purpose is to fulfill some special need which has arisen during the project (the second series of public meetings held for the Chesapeake bay Study was of this type - conducted to inform the public of the findings of the future conditions phase of the study). (1) Composition - As the name implies, the public meeting is geared for attendance by the general public. Public notices are distributed to Federal, state, and county officials; representatives of quasi-public agencies; special interest groups; news media; as well as interested individuals. The meetings are generally held by the planning aeency in the evening hours in a public building centrally located in the area of public interest. All testimony is recorded and an official transcript is prepared. I/This is a copy of a staff paper prepared in 1979. It was used as the basis for -formulating the public participation program for the final phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study. B-28 (2) Objectives - Some of the major objectives of a public meeting include: - To make the planning process more meaningful to both the public and the planning agencies. - To provide a good method for the planning agencies to furnish information to the public. - To legitimize planning decisions reached in planning workshops. (3) Advantages and Disadvantages. - The advantages of a public meeting are as follows: - public meetings allow for the agency to receive public reactions while the planning work is still underway - because they are less formal than a public hearing, they may be somewhat less intimidating to the average citizen - public meetings provide opportunities for the agency to inform the public, thereby providing for public reaction to the study's progress - meetings allow the agency to reach a large number of people with information at a single time The public meeting has certain disadvantages, however. These include: - large meetings do not allow for interaction between groups and, as a result, do not provide opportunities for discussion, negotiation, or dialogue between opposing points of view. - large meetings may encourage polarization of positions and allow dominance by vocal minorities - public meetings may not be well attended unless issues are controversial - without skillful leadership, meetings may result in a negative reaction towards the agency and its programs (4) User Experience - Two series of public meetings concerning the bay study have been held. One series took place at the initiation of the study and the other toward the end of the second or future projections phase of the study. Public notices were distributed to Federal, state, and county officials; representatives of quasi-public agencies; special interest groups; news media; as well as interested individuals. Me format for these two series of meetings has been for the Corps to open the meeting with a brief description of the study and then to allow anyone who desires to ask questions and to voice their opinions. The pertinent information that is derived at the meeting is incorporated into the study. B-29 In 1967, during the first full year of actual work on the Chesapeake Bay Study program, a series of three public meetings were held. The purpose of these initial public meetings was to inform the public of the initiation of the study program and to solicit their views as to what direction the study should take. As a convenience to the public, meetings were held at three dif f erent locations within the Region. A total of I 10 persons attended the initial public meetings, including representatives from Congressional, Federal, state, local, and private interests. All speakers voiced support for the study, citing the need for comprehensive planning for the use of Chesapeake Bay's water resources. The more recent series of public meetings was held in June 1976. The purpose of these meetings was to inform the public regarding progress to date on the overall program; to present findings in terms of needs and problem areas as identified in the Future Conditions Report and to solicit the public's comments, views, and perc ions of problems, needs, and related impacts. As was the case with the first series of public meetings, centrally located cities were selected as sites. Attendance totaled approximately 250 people at this series of meetings. Speakers at this latest series of meetings asked questions concerning specific findings of the,Future Conditions Report the direction of the next phase of the study, and the types of tests which can and will be performed on the hydraulic model. Great concern was voiced over the continuing degradation of the Bay's land and water resources. There was also general concern expressed on lack of coordination between Federal and state agencies and private groups conducting research on Chesapeake Bay. As with the first series of meetings, the majority of the speakers voiced continued support for the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study program. Public meetings are a very popular means of involving the public in the planning process and are consequently sponsored by most organizations (The Corps is required to hold a certain number of public meetings during the course of a study). The Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay (CPCB) has held numerous public meetings dealing with EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. These meetings are advertised by circulating large numbers of "Fliers" announcing time, place, and purpose of meeting. Mass distribution is made to the concerned organizations and groups who in turn further distribute these fliers to their members. CPCB has not always had good attendance at these meetings due to the fact that the meetings have not been advertised far enough in advance. They have all served a useful purpose, however, by building an important rapport with interested members of the public who were in attendance. b. Public Hearings. (public inquiries) The purpose of the public hearing is to allow the public a chance to present testimony for or against a proposed program or project. (1) Composition - Public hearings are characterized by legalistic procedures in which. an agency hears highly formal testimony from groups of individuals. The attendance may range in number from 50 to 1,000. As in the case of a public meeting, all testimony is recorded and an official transcript is prepared. (2) Objective - The chief objective of a public hearing is for the compilation of testimony fo-justify a decision regarding a project or program. (3) Advantages and Disadvantages - Because of their formality, experts generally agree that public hearings, unless required by law, should be avoided. Other B-30 techniques such as public meetings or workshops can be effectively substituted. About the only advantages of a public hearing are that they are generally accepted by the public as an integral part of the planning process because of their long history as a participatory technique; and they do assure citizens an opportunity to challenge the actions of the public agency. Their disadvantages far outweigh their advantages, however. These include: - the legalistic proceedings of the hearing tend to intimidate all but the best organized groups - the nature of a hearing encourages highly emotional presentations and polarization of positions so that disagreements within a community may actually increase - the public may tend to feel that important decisions have already been made and that the hearing is merely a f ormality - public hearings do not allow for discussion, negotiation, or dialogue between opposing points of view (4) User Experience - Probably because of their formality and lack of public acceptance, there have been no public hearings held during the Chesapeake Bay Study. Other organizations have held what they refer to as public hearings although these "sessions" appear to have been less formal than a public hearing in the strict sense. Thus, the public hearings which have been held by the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program and the State Water Control Board (208 Program) may be more characteristic of public meetings than public hearings. (c) Workshops. Workshops are working sessions in which agency staff and citizens work together toward some specific planning objective. They offer an opportunity for planning agencies to include community interest groups in the process at a "policy-making level." Workshops may be conducted for a variety of purposes including problem identification, development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, projecting future trends, and negotiation regarding alternatives. Because workshops allow for intense interaction, they should be carefully planned and conducted by a skilled meeting leader. Emphasis should be upon mutual problem solving rather than the taking of fixed positions. (1) Com osition - While the planner workshops are generally open to the public, it is most important that community leaders, representatives or organized interests and other citizens interested in water resources planning be represented. Leadership for the workshop should be provided by strong, knowledgeable individuals, with planners providing technical support and monitoring the discussion. (2) Objectives - The workshop has a number of objectives including the following: - To provide citizen involvement in the planning process which cannot be effectively achieved through other participation activities B-31 To lay groundwork for continuous feedback from local interests in developing and assessing planning alternatives - To obtain a degree of consensus on planning decisions - To gain an expression of local needs, desires, and goals from local interests. (3) Advantages and Disadvantages - the advantages of workshops include: - they allow for extensive interaction, discussion, and negotiation among agency staff, and various publics - they allow for the development of concrete "products" which contribute to the progress of the study - workshops allow for participation by all in attendance and reduce opportunities for dominant individuals to control the meeting - by working together to produce a "product," relationships are formed between publics and agency staff Two disadvantages of workshops exist. First, because attendance at workshops is limited, there is some danger that certain individuals or groups may feel excluded. Second, without careful planning and skilled leadership, workshops can be a frustrating experience brought about largely because certain individuals may dominate to the exclusion of others or because discussion may "get off" onto some irrelevant subject. (4) User Experience - The Corps frequently sponsors public workshops in connection with planning investigations. For example, a series of 16 public workshops was recently held in the Potomac River Basin to obtain local opinion on water supply in the Metropolitan Washington Area, to inform the public about the Corps' Metropolitan Washington Water Supply Study, and to address the public's concerns over water-related issues. The workshops were co-sponsored by two groups through separate contract arrangements: the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Generally, it was believed that these workshops served a useful purpose by facilitating discussion among the Corps, representatives of planning and utility agencies and the general public. Although the workshops represented only a small percentage of the "publics" in the basin, they served several educational functions including: - providing the general public with information on water supply planning - allowing citizens the opportunity to express their opinions on water supply-related issues The -workshops were held throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area. Various civic, environmental, and business organizations were invited to serve as "participating organizations" in the meeting. Also invited were local legislators, mayors, county executives, and planning agency staff. The general public was invited, although few "walk-in" citizens were present. Attendance at each meeting averaged around forty. B- 32 The Virginia Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Program has sponsored a number of public workshops in the tidewater portion of Virginia. A large 2-day workshop was held in Hampton, Virginia in June 1977 in order to solicit from the public specific recommendations for the management of Virginia's coastal land and water resources. In addition to the large Hampton workshop, the Virginia CRM program has cosponsored a number of smaller public workshops together with certain planning district commissions within the coastal zone. While the Hampton workshop was the most productive, the small workshops helped establish good working relationships with community groups.The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program has, also sponsored a number of public workshops, primarily during the early program formulation stage. Workshops can be very time consuming and dissatisfaction may occur if the participants feel their views are not being properly considered. While workshops can be useful in eliciting public response, they are very difficult to "carry-off 11 effectively. In addition, they require a great deal of skill to organize and conduct. One of the most difficult tasks is to convey to the participants that their input will be considered in decision making, but that the input will not be blindly or automatically incorporated in the planning process. d. Publications. Publications are one of the most effective means of disseminating information to the public concerning study objectives and outputs, history, current status of the study, and other meaningful data. (1) Composition - Some of the publications best suited to inform the public of and about the study include: (a) Press releases are issued to the mass media at times when it is essential for information to be disseminated quickly and concisely. Such developments as authorization of the study, completion of study reports, study findings, and model test results are worthy of press releases. In order to make a story newsworthy, there are certain requirements to be followed. The story should show the importance of the study. It should be timely and appeal to the emotions in order to appeal to human interest. If a story is carried by the newspaper, a large number of people have@ been reached with a minimum cost and expenditure of effort. (b) Information brochures are distributed at meetings and exhibits or mailed to various groups and individuals in order to provide information on a specific aspect of a study. Normally, brochures provide more information on the study than press releases, but their distribution is much less extensive. (c) News circulars, or information bulletins, are distributed on a more regular basis than information brochures. They usually contain information summarizing the current findings of a study, current opportunities for participation and any decisions that have been made to date. Those stages at which news circulars are most typically issued are: to announce the start of a study after problem definition upon identification of a set of broad alternatives B- 33 � when impacts have been identified for the alternatives � to present the selected alternatives � to announce the completion of the study Frequently, news circulars are issued as a means of maintaining a continuing interest in the study as well as documenting the progress on the study in a highly visible manner. This visibility may be especially important during those phases of a study which are primarily technical in nature and offer few opportunities for participation. (d) Fact sheets are frequently used to present factual study information in a concise manner. Such information is often presented in outline form. (e) Newspaper and journal articles represent an additional means of publishing information on a study. Newspaper and journal articles are more lengthy than press releases, thereby providing more information. Journal articles normally appear in professional or academic publications whereas newspaper articles are usually written for the general public. (f) Reports constitute a major element of a public participation program because of the large amount of information pertaining to study methodology or findings which can be disseminated through this medium. The purpose of those reports distributed as part of the Chesapeake Bay Study has been, in part, to educate the public concerning the direction of the study and about the existing and future conditions of Chesapeake Bay's land and water resources. In addition, the report, Impact of Tropical Storm Adnes on Chesapeake Bay documented the socio-economic and biological effects of Agnes. (2) Objectives - One of the basic objectives of all study publications is to disseminate information to the public. Certain publications are aimed at informing specific publics of study news, while other types are aimed at enlightening the public as a whole. A second objective is to develop interest and support for the study through the dissemination of information. (3) Advantages and Disadvantages - Each type of publication has its own advantages and disadvantages. (a) Press releases constitute an easy and simple method of obtaining publicity for a study. They are particularly advantageous because they can reach a large portion of the study area's population. In the case of newspaper press releases, there is no control over where in the paper press releases will appear - a critical factor in determining how many readers see the press release. In addition, it is impossible to control on what day and in what issue the press release will appear. (b) Information brochures are excellent vehicles for providing information to the public in an attractive manner; however, as in the case with most other publications, brochures produce only one-way communication. The planning agency receives literally no feedback from the public. (c) News circulars are advantageous because they are a direct means of providing a substantial amount of information to large numbers of people at low costs. They also serve as a permanent record of what has transpired in the prograrn. B- 34 (d) Fact sheets are especially useful for distribution to the press in preparation for a news article or press release. They enable the interested public to gain rapid and easy insight into the study. Often, the fact sheet is used by the Public Affairs Office to gain an overview of a particular study so that accurate and objective information can be provided in a relatively short amount of time. One essential requirement is that the fact sheet be updated periodically. (e) Newspaper and journal articles have many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the information brochure. Journal articles are usually read by members of special interest groups as dissemination is to an already established group of subscribers. Both newspaper and journal articles have a much larger circulation than a brochure and dissemination is more rapid. One of the primary problems of relying on published journal and newspaper articles as a means for public involvement is that it is frequently difficult to get an article published, particularly at the most beneficial time. (f) Reports can provide a wealth of study information which no doubt can be of use to at least certain elements of the public. It is this characteristic which provides a drawback, however. Reports are frequently too voluminous to be of benefit to the majority of the interested public. A fact sheet or information brochure may provide sufficient information to satisy the majority. (4) User Experience - The Chesapeake Bay Study, the Baltimore District, and other Bay-related programs have used various publications to inform the public of their respective programs. The following is a description of user experience of each. (a) Press releases have been issued on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Study to announce public meetings, the release of study reports and to make important model- related announcements. These releases have usually been issued to Bay area newspapers and radio and television stations. In addition, the releases have been sent to Bay and environmental related magazines. The Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (CPCB) has found that weekly newspapers are particularly anxious to receive information in the form of press releases, especially if the information deals with a subject of interest to a large number of people- -such as the Bay. Thus, these newspapers are generally receptive to information on studies such as the Chesapeake Bay Study. CPCB is planning to continue use of press releases in order to expand public knowledge of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and to solicit comments. The Virginia State Water Control Board is planning a "media blitz" for rural areas of the Commonwealth in order to inform the public of the 208 Program. Part of this blitz will include newspaper, radio, and TV announcements concerning points of interest about the 208 Program. (b) Information brochures - The Chesapeake Bay Study Branch has prepared two leaflets, one early in the study program to describe the hydraulic model and its capabilities. The second brochure included, in addition to the information contained in the first brochure, information on model construction, operation, the collection of model data, and model adjustment. The brochure has been widely distributed as handouts at Corps' meetings with groups, at exhibits, at the hydraulic model, and at special events. Copies have also been sent out as inclosures to letters. To date, the brochure has been very successful in disseminating information on the model to the public. B-35 The CPCB has published a brochure briefly describing EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, its objectives, and information on how the public can obtain further information or express their concerns about the Bay. The public involvement specialists with CPCB believe that such a brochure can make the public much more aware and informed on a study. It is also a useful tool to show how a study will impact personally on the public. In order to distribute such information as widely as possible and to make it available to as many people as possible, CPCB has sent brochures and other Bay-related information to a large number of representative libraries throughout the Region. (c) News circulars - The Chesapeake Bay Study has published in a series of news circulars. The purpose of these publications was to keep the public inf ormed on both the resource study as well as the hydraulic model testing program. The Baltimore District has published news circulars for several other planning investigations. The District, in cooperation with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, put out a series of four news circulars in connection with its Susquehanna River Basin Study. In addition, a Citizens Advisory Committee created in connection with the Binghamton Wastewater Management Study, published three newsletters. Recently, a series of five "Water Forum Notes" have been published for the Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study. Each of these series attempted to inform the public about the respective study and to elicit public response concerning the same. Other Bay-related organizations are currently issuing newsletter type publications. The CPCB initiated a series of newsletters in April-May 1978 entitled Chesapeake Citizen @t@eort. This newsletter is being published as part of the public involvement prograrn for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and is distributed on a bi-monthly basis. Articles are also contributed by the States of Maryland and Virginia in connection with their respective coastal zone management programs, by the 208 programs within the Bay Region, and by the Baltimore District in connection with its Chesapeake Bay Study. CPCB's long range plan is to create a type of "Bay-wide" newsletter dealing with all Chesapeake Bay programs. Various state and Federal agencies would contribute articles concerning their respective Bay-related programs. The State of Maryland has been publishing a bi-monthly newsletter entitled Coast and Bay Bylines in connection with its Coastal Zone Management Program. The State has found this method of information dissemination to the public to be quite effective. Preparation of this newsletter is partially f unded by the Of fice of Coastal Zone Management, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Delmarva Advisory Council puts out a monthly publication entitled the Delmarva Report, and the Virginia State Water Control Board issued its first bi-monthly newsletter in June 1978 called Waterlogue which reports on Virginia's project 208 water quality efforts. This latter publication is being funded by the EPA as part of its 208 Program. In addition to these publications, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin publishes a monthly newsletter entitled Potomac Basin Report. This publication reports on the work of the Commission plus any other news affecting the Potomac River basin from a water resource standpoint. The Chesapeake Bay Region appears to have a proliferation of newsletter type publications. Those mentioned above are but a few of the. public and private newsletters concerned with some aspect of the Bay's resources presently being published. Each is effective in its own way in disseminating information to the interested public. The question must be raised, however, as to whether the public is being bombarded by these publications to the point where their effectiveness is being reduced. B-36 (d) Fact sheets - The Chesapeake Bay Study together with EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, the Coastal Zone Management Programs of Maryland and Virginia, and the 208 Water Quality Management Programs of Maryland and Virginia put out a joint fact sheet to describe their respective programs and studies. These fact sheets were distributed to the public through a number of means including at the hydraulic model. The CPCB has put out a number of one or two page fact sheets dealing with various aspects of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. These fact sheets known as the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Information Series include: (1) Managing the Bay's Resources a description of major programs being conducted on the Bay including the Corps' study. (2) EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, a description of the EPA Study organization. (3) Toxics in the Bay a discussion of one of the three major study areas of the EPA program. (4) Bay Grasses, a discussion of one of the three major study areas of the EPA program. (5) Eutrophication a discussion of one of the three major study areas of the EPA program. In FY 79, CPCB is planning on producing and distributing six fact sheets and two brochures to update program progress. In addition, the citizens group will be providing minutes, summaries of technical reports, scopes of work, and other pertinent materials on various aspects of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to citizens upon request. (e) Newspaper and journal articles - In the fall of 1973, Water SpecLrum, a Corps of Engineers magazine, published an article on the Chesapeake Bay Study program entitled, Model for a Study. Reprints of the article were obtained and distributed to persons who inquired about the study. In May 1975, Mariners Weather Lo&, a publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, updated and adopted Model for a Study for their magazine. Reprints of this updated article were obtained and distributed in similar fashion to the Water Spectrum reprint. Media interest in the study program has been quite high primarily because of public interest in the environment. The Chesapeake Bay constitutes a valuable resource and, as such, generates interest, particularly with reference to the problems which beset it. The Bay study's hydraulic model has also produced considerable public and media interest. Since the model's completion in May 1976, the number of stories initiated by newspapers, magazines, and television stations has increased substantially. Several newspapers within the Bay Region have run feature articles about various aspects of the Bay and the problems plaguing it. For example, the Baltimore Evening Sun featured a series of articles in 1969 entitled The Chesapeake at Bay which reported on water pollution in the Bay. The same newspaper ran a similar series in 1977 entitled, The Chesapeake: Still at Bay The Washington Post in a feature article entitled, The Chesapeake Bay Region: The Way We Use It (January 1975) discussed the Bay Region in terms of its resources, its history, and its problems. In addition, the article examined the rontent of the.Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. B-37 Frequently, certain catastrophic events such as an oil spill or devastating storm will result in a flurry of articles dealing with the Bay. At other times, a conference or seminar dealing with some aspects of the Bay will generate a number of newspaper stories. In each rase, District personnel have responded to media requests for information and assisted writers in preparing their stories. In FY 80 CPCB is planning to produce two newspaper supplements on the Chesapeake Bay Program and will arrange for wide distribution through county weeklies. It has been found that such weeklies are frequently quite receptive to information dealing with the Bay. As it has done in the past, CPC8 is also planning to write articles dealing with newsworthy events. (f) Reports - To date, the Chesapeake Bay Study's planning reports include the Plan of Study (1970), the Existing Conditions Report (1973), the Impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay (1975), the Future Conditions Report (1977), an a Revised Plan of Study (1978). (1) Plan of Study. The Plan of Study was published in June 1970. It was prepared by t Baltimore District in consultation with the Chesapeake Bay Study's Advisory Group. The document outlines how the study program was to be managed and conducted. So that other interested Federal and state agencies could be informed of the study, copies were widely distributed. In addition, a limited number of copies were sent to individuals and groups who were working closely with the Baltimore District on the study. (2) Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report (ECR). The ECR is an inventory of the existing chemical, physical, environmental, biological, and economic conditions of the Bay Region. It is primarily a working document for the study participants, but it does contain information that would be of interest to other individuals and groups. The report is available for inspection at the Baltimore District Office and for purchase by the public through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Due to the high public interest in the bay study, complementary copies of the ECR were distributed to U.S. Congressmen, Federal, and state agencies participating in or interested in the study, and major public and college libraries throughout the Bay Region. (3) Impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay. This report was the product of a special study assigned to the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers to determine the effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay. The report, prepared under contract by the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., is available at the Baltimore District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The principal findings of the study were: - while the Bay suffered considerable immediate economic and environmental damage as a result of the massive freshwater inflows, the Bay demonstrated its resiliency by returning to pre-storm conditions shortly after Agnes subsided; - while there were some changes in bottom geometry, the changes did not warrant a redesign of the hydraulic model at this time. (4) Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report (FCR). Like the ECR, the FCR serves a dual role as a study working tool and as a public information document. The B-38 purpose of the FCR is to project the future water resources needs and problems of the Chesapeake Bay to the year 2020. The report also includes recommendations for future studies and the model testing required to develop a comprehensive management program for the Bay. The public distribution was similar to the ECR: copies were sent to all interested Federal and state agencies, to interested research institutions, and to public and college libraries. This report is also available for purchase through NTIS. (5) Revised Plan of Study (Revised POS). The Revised POS represents a blueprint for the third and final study phase. The selected study program, including model tests to be conducted, and methodology to be used, is discussed in detail. Other water related study programs within the Chesapeake Bay Region have published reports and made these reports available to the public. For example, the Virginia State Water Control Board as part of its 208 Program, is distributing Best Management Practices Handbooks to interested individuals. These handbooks present information on the most eff ertive, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with National water quality goals. The handbooks will be an important part of the 208 Program effort to educate the public. The Maryland Coastal Zone Unit, together with the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management, has published a final environmental impact statement on the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program entitled State of Maryland Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prior to publication of this, the State put out a number of drafts of that document for public review and comment. The distribution of these drafts has -formed a major part of their public involvement program. The Environmental Protection Agency has also published a number of reports in conjunction with its Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA and the states have both sent their respective reports to representative libraries along with other useful information on their programs. These libraries have been requested to place all Bay- related materials together in one section to create a sort of "Chesapeake Bay repository". (e) Citizens Advisory Committee. A citizens advisory committee is usually established for the life of a study and serves as a sort of sounding board for the planning agency. It also serves as an advisor on study decisions and on the public involvement program itself. One important requirement of the committee is that it be representative of the major interests affected by the study. This may necessitate a large citizens committee, which is in itself a drawback, because the group may become unwieldly. These general guidelines should be observed when establishing citizens committees or task forces: Clearly define the limits of authority of the citizens committee or task force. Typically it is easier to define the authority of a task force because it is working on a specific problem or objective, but it is extremely important that the authority of a citizens rommittee be defined as there is frequent confusion as to the difference between a citizens committee and a decision-making body. Experience suggests that it is easier for citizens committees to cope with limits to their authorities if they are clearly defined at the beginning of the study. If expectations are created of greater authorities than actually exist, their sense of betrayal is often greater than if there had been clearly defined limits in the first place. B-39 - Citizens committees must be representat ive of the full range of values within the community A citizens committee that represents only a few limited viewpoints may serve to mislead the agency and embitter those publics who are not included in the committee. Typically, citizens committees are large enough so that it is possible to have direct representation for all the different viewpoints. One of the greatest problems in establishing citizens committees is devising an adequate method of selection so that the public does not feel that the agency has stacked or biased the group to assure that positions of the agency are approved. (1) COm2osition - In determining the composition of the citizens advisory committee, it is important that the entire study area be represented. Also, a minimum of four public factions to include conservation groups, industry, political action groups and public service agencies should be represented. (2) Objectives - A citizens advisory committee has as its objectives the following: - To provide a line of two-way communication between the public and the planning agency to insure the inclusion of public preferences, and desires at each level of the study ef fort. - To allow groups with diverging interests to exchange VLewpoints and compromise on issues. - To provide input, that is, the proper mix of social, political, environmental, and economic factors to f ulf ill needs of the public and meet overall approval. - To art as a spokesperson for both water resource planning agencies and the general public. (3) Advantages and Disadvantages - There are both a number of advantages and disadvantages to a citizens committee. The advantages include: - The citizens committee can serve as an effective sounding board for the agency in identifying study issues and providing reactions to study alternatives. - Citizens committees provide continuing visibility and credibility to the study process. - Citizens committees can provide substantial assistance in designing public involvement programs and may even assist in carrying them out. - Participation by a citizens committee can create an emotional commitment or vested interest in the planning product. Disadvantages include: - Difficult to create a committee that is representative of a large, diverse area. B-40 - Citizens committees tend to spend considerable time on organizational details and procedures, such as Robert's Rules of Order, etc., rather than focusing on the content of the study. - Membership on an advisory committee tends to be time consuming for members of the public and this can breed resentment unless tne public feels that their participation on the citizens committee has made a difference in the planning process. In addition, travel is expensive if a large study area is involved. - Membership on a citizens committee may be frustrating because of differences of expertise between the members. - Citizens committees may assume an "adversary" relationship between themselves and the agency, and as a result be unable to work effectively with the agency staff. - Without substantial technical assistance, citizens committees and task forces typically cannot hold their own with the technical expertise of the professional and end up serving as a rubber stamp for the policies of the agency. (4) User Experience - For the Chesapeake Bay Study, an informal liaison has been maintained with the CPCB. The CPCB was organized in 1971 and is a Bay-wide umorella organization for other organizations that have some interest in Chesapeake Bay or its water resources. Membership is open to organizations, businesses, industries, and individuals. Serving as the Chesapeake Bay Study's Citizens Advisory Committee, the CPCB reviewed and commented on the drafts of both the Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report. Insofar as is practicable, the draft reports were revised to incorporate the CPCB1s comments. In addition, Corps' planners have met with and corresponded with CPCB representatives in order to coordinate activities. EPA, as part of its Chesapeake Bay Program, has established a Citizens Steering Committee (CSC) to provide "a focal point for two-way communication between the public and the officials in charge of the program." The CSC is a diverse group composed of 16 citizens who represent a wide cross-section of Bay constituencies, populations and users. Table I lists CSC membership. The group has been assigned a number of responsibilities including obtaining information from citizens on water quality in Chesapeake Bay and providing information in return on the EPA program, its purpose, content, and progress. The CPCB, which is responsible for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program's public involvement program, has also successfully utilized a f orm of citizens advisory committee for the special purpose of obtaining input on a specific issue or "to bounce ideas off of." Such a group, known frequently as an "ad hoc" committee, serves an useful purpose even though it is utilized on a temporary basis only. The Maryland Coastal Zone Management program has established a Coastal Resources Advisory Committee (CRAC) to represent all organizations with responsibilities relating to coastal area management. Groups presently represented on CRAC are shown on Table 2. The purpose of CRAC is to provide a public forum whereby voting members can be kept aware of coastal zone management program actions and present their views on proposed programs. Members include special interest groups, local government representatives, local planning staff, state and Federal agencies, and academic institutions. B-41 TABLE I EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM CITIZENS STEERING commi-rTEE MEMBERS Mr. W. Cranston Morgan Mr. Donald W. Mathias White Stone, Virginia 22578 Room 809, City Hall Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Dr. Elizabeth Bauereis Baltimore Gas & Electric Company Mr. Marvin Hedgepeth Charles Center Hampton Institute Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Hampton, Virginia 23669 Mr. Davidson J. Gill Mrs. Merilyn Reeves Remlik Hall Farm 16506 Forest Mill Court Remlin, Virginia 23175 Laurel, Maryland 20810 Mr. James E. Gutman Mr. Russell C. Scott 233 Wiltshire Lane 513 Mutual Building Severna Park, Maryland 21146 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. Larry Bowlby Mr. Larry Simns Calvert County Court House 48 Maryland Avenue Prince Frederick, Maryland 20768 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Mr. Walter B. Harris Mr. Lawrence T. Whitlock Blooming Neck Farm Vice-Chairman Worton, Maryland 21678 3409 Coastal Highway Ocean City, Maryland 21842 Mr. Erik Jannson Friends of the Earth Mr. Donald A. Wilber 620 C Street, S.E. Route 6, Box 709 Washington, D.C. 20003 Salisbury, Maryland 21801 Mr. J. William Mapp Mr. George M. Hagerman Box 26 Executive Secretary Onley, Virginia 23418 5 East Queen Street Hampton, Virginia 23669 Mr. Philippe Masiee Lavino Shopping Company Mr. Richard H. Demmy 32 South Street Roy F. Weston, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Westchester, Pennsylvania 19380 Mr. Richard Fox Standard Oil Company 1000-16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 B-42 TABLE 2 MARYLAND COASTAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTING MEMBERS Anne Arundel County Somerset County I Baltimore CityI St. Mary's Countyl, Baltimore CountyI Talbot CountyI Calvert CountyI Wicomico County I I I Caroline County Worcester County Cecil CountyI Chesapeake 13ay Foundation Charles CountyI Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association Dorchester Countyl Chesapeake Bay Research Harford County Consortium Kent Countyl Home Builders Association of Maryland Ocean Cityl Bethlehem Steel Corporation Prince George's CountyI Delmarva Advisory Council Queen Anne's County I Izaac Walton League of Maryland ITwo representatives. B-43 TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) NON-VOTING MEMBERS - STATE League of Women Voters of Maryland Lt. Governor's Office Maryland Aggregates Association Maryland Boat Act Advisory Committee Maryland Association of Realtors Maryland Department of Maryland Association of Soil Agriculture Conservation Districts Maryland Department of Maryland Banker's Association Economic & Community Development Maryland Chamber of Commerce Maryland Environmental Trust Maryland Conservation Council Maryland Department of Health Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc. & Mental Hygiene Maryland Petroleum Association Maryland Department of State Planning Maryland Watermen's Association Maryland Department of Maryland Wetlands Committee Transportation Maryland Wildlife Federation Maryland Port Administration Regional Planning Council Applied Physics Lab Tri-County Council for Southern Chesapeake Bay Center for Maryland Environmental Studies Utilities Representative Chesapeake Bay Institute At-large Citizen Representatives (5) University of Maryland Center for Estuarine and Environmental Studies University of Maryland Graduate School B-44 TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) NON-VOTING MEMBERS - FEDERAL Federal Energy Regulatory U.S. Department of Energy - Commission Region III Federal Highway Administration U.S. Geological Survey National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service U.S. Navy U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Environmental U.S. Heritage Conservation and Protection Agency and Recreation Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Air Force U.S. Maritime Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy B-45 In similar fashion to other programs, the Virginia State Water Control board for its 208 Program, has established both a State Policy Advisory Committee and seven areawide policy advisory committees. Each is to provide public input from private citizens and locally elected officials to the Virginia 208 Program. f. Public Speeches/ Presentation. Speeches are most often given to interested civic, environmental, and professional groups and business and trade associations on some aspect of the study. These talks are usually accompanied by slides or perhaps a film providing additional description of the study. (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - Public presentations are effective in providing information to interested groups. In ad dition, the planning agency can get a certain amount of feedback from these groups concerning public needs and desires. It is also a useful means of stimulating interest in the study. The chief disadvantage is that it is time consuming for the planning agency representatives and only a relatively small percentage of the total public is involved. (2) User Experience - Due to the public interest in the Chesapeake Bay Study and especially the Bay model, many requests have been received for Corps officials to speak to various organizations. The requesting organizations were generally: engineering or other technical societies; local civic or service groups; environmental organizations; Bay- related businesses; or schools. Geographically, most requests have come from Maryland's Eastern Shore and the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan areas. The format for the presentations varied, but usually included a speech by the District Engineer, Chief of the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch, or other District official with either slides or movies as visual aids. To date, hundreds of presentations have been made with a total audience numbering in the tens of thousands. These figures do not include briefings to other Federal and state agencies, Congressional interests, and local government officials. For the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, the CPCB is planning a large number of public presentations throughout the Bay Region (96 presentations in FY 79 alone). The presentations will be given to environmental, civic, and other interested groups to provide current information on the Chesapeake Bay Program and to solicit opinions. A record of citizens' comments obtained at these meetings is kept. Comments will be directed to the appropriate EPA and/or state staff for action and efforts will be made to report to the citizens on action taken. g. Citizen Surveys/Questionnaires. Citizen surveys are aimed at determining the public attitudes, values, preceptions, and sentiments on various issues. Such a survey normally employs a methodology which ensures participation that is representative of the community being sampled. Methods of sampling usually include phone, mail, or personal interview, but may even employ newspapers, magazines or television (with some sort of return ballot). (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - The major advantage of surveys is that opinions are received from a more general public, not just those publics which are most directly affected. In addition, if survey results are based on a "representative sample" they may assist in evaluating whether the opinions being expressed by active participants in other public activities e.g., public meetings, are representative of a cross-section of the B-46 community. The advantages of a survey are far outweighed by its disadvantages as shown below: - Surveys usually do not provide for interaction so there is no way to evaluate the background or basis for the answers givens. It is possible to design surveys to allow inter-action, but this is costly and complex. - If the issue is not of broad public interest, a substantial number of survey respondents may be uninformed about the issues covered by the survey. The fact that the public is poorly informed about an issue can itself be important information, however. - Surveys cannot substitute for political negotiation between the significant interests. - Surveys provide a picture of public sentiment at one point in time, and therefore do not reflect changing public attitudes without costly longitudinal studies or other complex techniques. - The cost of developing statistically reliable surveys is high. - Unless surveys are carefully designed, they may not produce reliable or meaningful data. - Questionnaires require prior approval by higher authority under the Federal Reports Act. Obtaining such approval may be long and tedious. (2) User Experience - The Baltimore District together with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Citizens Advisory Committee co-sponsored a questionnaire as part of the Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine what the public felt should be studied as part of the Water Supply Study. Questionnaires were mailed to about 25,000 people and about 10 percent were returned. Although the results could not be considered statistically valid, they were useful as input in determining the direction of the study. EPA, as part of its Chesapeake Bay Program, will be sponsoring an "assessment of user needs" in the Bay Region. This survey will help identify the needs and uses of the less visible users of the Bay. In 1978, the CPCB mailed out almost 2,000 questionnaires to environmental, commercial/businesses, and water-related organizations to determine how much knowledge these organizations had of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, of water quality problems in the Bay Region, and what they felt the high priority problem areas to be. The response to this questionnaire was as high as 30 percent in some portions of the Bay Region (Virginia). The CPCB is also planning another questionnaire for FY 79, to be sent out as a supplement to a number of weekly newspapers. This will be closely followed by a TV program on PBS stations to discuss the EPA program and related impacts, and problems which the program will address. The general public will be requested to fill out the questionnaire and mail it back to the CPCB office. B- 47 h. Public Forums. Public forums are generally used to both obtain information and to inform and educate the public. Forums can be used in a variety of ways including meeting with citizens groups or technical organizations to discuss study problems and answer questions; and meeting with other Federal and state agencies to discuss study coordination and problems. The forum is also valuable in bringing certain experts and authorities together in a formal setting to discuss specific, aspects of a study program. (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - The chief advantage of a forum is that it allows for relatively small groups (10 - 12 participants) to sit down together in a "round table" fashion to discuss problems and answer questions on a one-to-one basis. It demonstrates to the public that the planning agency is making a genuine effort to respond to the public's needs. The primary disadvantage is that to be truly productive, public forums require a considerable amount of preparation and can only involve an extremely small portion of the public at any one time. (2) User Experience - The CPCB has held two public forums in connection with the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. The first was held in July, 1978 and constituted an informal fact-finding session dealing with herbicides. The second took place in November 1978 and dealt with the water quality effects of dredging and spoil disposal in the Bay. More forums of this type are planned for FY 79. The forums are to be geographically distributed in the Bay area, and will be timed to provide public input to EPA prior to key decision points in the program. Pertinent information will be provided to attendees and responses will be solicited from what is expected to be a broad cross- section of the public. The Delmarva Advisory Council sponsored a series of public forums on the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program during the spring of 1978. The Council's reaction to these public forums was that while they were well publicized, they were not well attended. The explanation given for this poor attendance is that people are I'meetinged" to death. That is, they are tired of being bombarded by many Federal and state programs and efforts to "involve" the public in the planning process. i. Exhibits. (1) Purpose - Exhibits are effective as a way of bringing visual information to citizens at locations which are frequented by large groups. In some cases, exhibits may even encourage citizens to take a more active role in a study. A big advantage of an exhibit is that it ran be used over and over again in a variety of locations. (2) User Experience - Many persons became aware of the Corps, Chesapeake Bay Study through the Bay Study Model Exhibit. The exhibit was displayed at inany places around the Bay Region, including libraries, engineering centers, and special exhibitions. (Examples of special exhibitions were the Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland Flower Show, Maryland's Scout-O-Rama, and the Baltimore Boat Show.) The exhibit format changed as the study progressed. Originally, the exhibit consisted of a scale table-top model of the shelter with the leaflet previously described as a handout. Later, posters were added: For some of the exhibitions, movies, such as Planning for a Better Bay or Speaking of Models were shown in an adjoining room. In mid-1975, a 5-minute slide-tape show was prepared and used as an alternative or supplement to the- movies. B-48 The Baltimore District, together with several other Federal and state agencies conducting Chesapeake Bay related programs and studies produced a joint exhibit dealing with the Bay. The exhibit, entitled The Chesa2eake Bay - Partnership in Use and Protection is an attempt to inform the public of Chesapeake Bay-related programs and at the same time demonstrate the cooperative efforts of a number of Federal and state agencies toward improving Chesapeake Bay and its resources. The exhibit describes the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, the Maryland and Virginia Coastal Zone Management Programs, and the Maryland and Virginia 208 Water Quality Management Programs. Numerous other exhibits have been prepared by the Corps for use at various events. The Commonwealth of Virginia, in an effort to make the public more aware of its Coastal Resources Management Program, also put together a number of exhibits for display at various festivals and public "outings" during 1977. j. Delphi Panels. The delphi panel is made up of a group of experts selected to reach a consensus on a problem through the completion of questionnaires. These experts can be either technical experts or knowledgeable about the interests of some segment of the public. There may be four questionnaires in the series. The first is mailed; responses are received and the results are analyzed and reported in the second questionnaire. Panel members are then asked to respond in light of the responses from others. The process is repeated two more times until a consensus is reached. (1) Advantages and Disadvantages. - Experience with these panels shows that a remarkable degree of consensus can be reached. Delphi panels can be composed of as many as 100 people. Because the responses of the panel members remain anonymous, more f rank opinions ran be expected. This technique also prevents personality dominance such as sometimes occurs in conferences and allows each panel mernoer to work out his answers to the questions independently. The disadvantage of a delphi panel is that it is unlikely to be a group representative of the entire citizenry. The findings and consensus from the gro up should therefore be considered as an additional analysis useful for clarifying and diagnosing a problem and not as the last word on the subject. (2) User Experience - The Maryland Coastal Zone Unit is considering use of the I'delphill approach. As tentatively planned, a representative group of interested people would be sent questionnaires. They would fill out the questionnaires and mail them back. The responses would be analyzed and reported in a second questionnaire. The process would be repeated several times until a consensus from the group is reached. The Coastal Zone Unit believes that although the cost may turn out to be a hindrance to its use, the delphi approach may be useful. k. Seminars. A serninar is a useful mechanism for discussion of issues by agency representatives and by non-agency experts. The seminar is normally focused on a very narrow subject or set of issues. Presentations are made by one or more of the officials and experts. This is followed by a discussion by all other attendees. B-49 (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - The seminar, if properly organized and run, is particularly useful in developing a better understanding of an issue. To be successful, however, a significant amount of time and effort is required in selecting participants, developing format and topics of discussion and in putting together follow-up proceedings. (2) User Experience - The Chesapeake Research Consortium, under contract with the Baltimore District to study the impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on Chesapeake Bay, sponsored a symposium in March 1974 at College Park, Maryland for discussion of Agnes, eff ects by all members of the Chesapeake Bay scientific, technical, and managerial community. Western Eco-Systems Technology, under contract with the Corps to perform a biota assessment in connection with the Low Freshwater Inflow Study, held three seminars during the course of their study. The first seminar was held at the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model on November 15, 1979, and the second in Colonial beach, Virginia, on March 20, 1980. Working papers were presented at each seminar on the selection of species, the habitat classifications and the biota assessment study methodology. The third seminar was a scientific conference held on October 29, 1981, at the Naval Academy. At the conference, information was presented was showing the rationale and basis for the biota assessment and the preliminary findings. There have also been two major regional conf erence-type seminars held since 1968 dealing with Chesapeake Bay and its related resources. The first, called the "Governors Conference," was held at the Wye Institute in September, 1968 and addressed such topics as the Federal perspective on Chesapeake Bay, the role of state government in Bay management, and organizing for coordinated resources management in the Bay. The second conference, the "Bi-State Conference," was requested by principal state officials from Maryland and Virginia, planned and convened by the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. and supported and participated in by the Corps, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Science Foundation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This second conference was held in April, 1977 at the Naval Air Test Center on the Patuxent River. Focus of the conference was on the "government of Chesapeake Bay" and included discussions of progress achieved and some of the major current problem areas perceived by local, regional, state, and Federal officials. Both conferences provided an enlightened forum for interest groups, agency personnel, and citizens concerned about the future of the Bay. The success of and interest generated by such conferences assures that more will be held in the future. The cost and time involved in preparing and conducting such an activity, however, requires a multi -organizational effort. To conduct something of similar magnitude practically precludes one agency or group from such an undertaking. 1. Charrette. A Charrette is a problem solving process which brings together all the essential publics in a highly intense and prolonged meeting (or series of meetings) in an attempt to achieve mutual agreement on an overall plan. In order to be effective, all major publics must be present so that a consensus can be reached. Also, participants must agree to stay in a highly intense interaction for however long it takes to resolve differences. A charrette differs from a workshop in the sense that it is much more intense, usually longer, and unlike a workshop, the charrette continues until its objectives are achieved or the problem is solved. B-50 (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - A charrette has a number of both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, the charrette may be an effective means of achieving a consensus among conflicting groups or interests. Second, since all the critical actors are involved, a successful charrette should result in a committment by all significant groups to support any plan which was agreed upon. The intensive nature of the charrette results in changing perspectives or deeper understanding of the positions held by the various groups. Finally, by working together in this intensive manner, previously conflicting interests may develop a feeling of teamwork and cooperation which may extend long beyond this particular study. In terms of disadvantages, charrettes are effective only when all major publics are willing to enthusiastically participate. Second, since charrettes are inherently time- consuming, it is difficult f or some citizens to participate. In addition, it is difficult to get the involvement of key decision makers for the length of time required by the charrette. Finally it is frequently difficult to get participants to change or compromise their views and attitudes. (2) User Ex2erience - Due to the large commitment of resources required for its success, the charrette is rarely used as a public involvement activity. None of the ongoing Bay-related programs have used the charrette or have had any experience with it. m. Paid Advertising (newspaper, radio, TV) Paid advertising has the advantage over press releases or public service announcements in that the planning agency can be assured of proper coverage for a study or meeting. In some cases paid advertising has been looked upon by the public in a favorable fashion as a genuine effort to consult with the public. In other situations, the expenditure of public monies for advertising has been viewed as wasteful. (1) Advantages and Disadvantages - There are advantages and disadvantages associated with paid advertising for each of the three media involved. Newspaper advertising has the advantage of allowing for the communication of the largest amount of information. However, a newspaper ad typically is a one-time thing and has a life space of approximately 24 hours. Radio advertising has the advantage of a frequently repeated meassage for costs similar or lower than newspaper ads, but the amount of information that can be communicated in a radio ad is somewhat limited. Television advertising has the advantage of reaching the largest number of individuals, but again is limited in the amount of information that can be conveyed. It is also the most expensive media. There are a number of other advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, paid advertising will frequently reach larger populations than press releases and advertisements in legal notice sections of newspapers due to the fact that such advertising will probably not be relegated to some obscure place in the paper as a press release might. Also, paid advertising communicates a genuine desire on the part of the agency to reach a larger public. On the negative. side, the use of government funds for paid advertising is not acceptable in all communities. Secondly, the cost of paid advertising may be relatively high for the number of additional people who are reached as a result of the advertisement. B- 51 (2) User Experience - Due to the very nature of paid advertising, its use by government agencies is infrequent. The Corps requires that the District Engineer approve all paid advertising (ASPR, Section 4, Part 8 addresses "Paid Advertisement"). In addition, there must be suitable justification for the advertising. Probably the biggest hindrance to use of paid advertising is its high cost. As an example, a series of classified ads appearing for one week in the Washington Post, Washington Star, and several area weeklies would cost approximately @7,000, (two classified columns, six inches deep). n. Radio/TV Call-In Shows. Call-ins are effective as a means of both stimulating interest in the planning program as well as receiving some preliminary comment f rom the public. Many radio and TV stations have call-in or interview shows, and are eager to grant time on subjects of interest to the public. One of the most useful formats is where an agency obtains a block of time and conducts a call-in show on the issues. A time-lag system allows the questions or comments to be played to the audience. A moderator or perhaps a small panel answers questions. In this way, the public is directly involved in the activity. (1) Objectives - A TV-Radio forum program has as its objectives the following: - To be responsive to direct questions from the public and to inform the public of the purpose and direction of the study. - To involve the public in discussion of water resource planning. - To stimulate interest and support in the study. (2) Advantages and Disadvantages There are several advantages of radio and TV rall-in shows. First the audience is frequently quite large. Second, the technique is convenient for the public since they can sit in their own homes and respond by phone or mail. Finally, a well-prepared program can be effective in educating the public relative to the issues addressed by the study. There are disadvantages as well, however. The audience viewing the program may not be representative. In addition, unless some participation occurs in designing the program, the agency may not accurately or objectively describe all the issues. (3) User Experience The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program has had considerable local television and PBS coverage in the Hampton Roads area which proved ef f ective in making the public aware of the program and in obtaining information on public concerns with regard to coastal resources. The Virginia State Water Control Board is planning PBS programs featuring an EPA video tape on the 208 Program as part of its "media blitz." The CPCB, as part of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program is planning a coordinated television/press program in each of the major population centers for FY79. This program will be designed to emphasize conflicting uses and problems in order to obtain the concerns of viewers. o. Audio-Visual Techniques (A-V Techniques). Audio-visual techniques can be among the most informative, entertaining, and graphic communication tools available to the planner. A-V techniques can be quite effective in both disseminating study information and gathering support for the study. B-52 (1) Composition - Two of the most widely used A-V techniques are films and slide shows. Both can be distributed for viewing to schools, PTA's, planning commissions, industry, public service organizations, political action groups and conservation/environmental groups. Each can also serve as a useful supplement during public presentations. (a) Films - 16 mm documentary films are produced in order to visually describe some aspect of a study. Information likely to be incorporated includes background information on the study, problems identified during the study, alternatives available and likely solutions to identified problems. (b) Slide shows - the composition of a slide show is likely to be similar to that of a 16 mm film. Things to be photographed for both films and slide shows must be carefully planned for maximum visual effectiveness. (2) Advantages and Disadvantages - films are useful because they can be shown to unlimited--numbers of citizens. They also can serve as the key ingredient in reaching the largest single audience possible - through television. The chief drawback is the price required to produce a professional film. A second disadvantage is that a film can become quickly out-of-date. Slide shows have most of the same advantages as films plus they cost substantially less than films and can be easily and inexpensively updated on a regular basis. The only disadvantages are that they probablywould not prove effective if shown on TV and are not quite as attention-grabbing as films can be. (3) User Ex2erience - (a) Two education films have been used in the public participation program for the Chesapeake Bay Study: Speaking of Models and Planning for a Better Bay. Speaking of Models was produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. The 28-minute film shows how hydraulic models have been used to obtain information as part of a number of water resources studies. Many of the tests shown in this film ran be effectively accomplished on the fixed bed, geometrically distorted Chesapeake Bay Model. Speaking of Models was originally used by the Baltimore District to educate interested groups about hydraulic modeling techniques in general. Because it is technically oriented, however, Speaking of Models has been used primarily for engineering groups following the release of Planni for a Better Bay In 1973, Planning for a Better Bay, a film on the Chesapeake Bay Study, was released. This 25-minute film was produced under contract for the Baltimore District. The first half of the movie described the Bay's geologic history, water and related land resources, and problems. The second half described the Chesapeake Bay Study with emphasis on how the Bay model was to be employed in studying the Bay's water-related problems. Planning for a Better Bay has been widely shown. Distribution of the movie has been accomplished by several different methods: presented as part of a speech by Corps, officials, part of a display at exhibitions; and mailed to groups who requested permission to show it at their meetings. The movie was first shown publicly in April 1973, and by the end of the year, it had been viewed by 39 groups with an audience of over 4,000 persons. In addition, the film was broadcast by a Baltimore, Maryland, television station thereby greatly increasing its exposure. By September 1977, Planning for a Better Bay had been viewed by over 15,000 B-53 persons (not including the 1973 television audience) at approximately 150 separate showings. The film was also shown at the hydraulic model during tours at that site, however, the number of viewers above does not reflect the number which saw the film at the model. Because the film is out-of-date, it is no longer being shown. In July 1978, the CPCB produced a film concerning the EPA Study. The film features a sailboat race down the Bay along with coverage of the Maritime Heritage Festival held in Baltimore in June, 1978. The film was shown on CBS affiliated stations in the Bay Region in August, 1978. CPCB is also planning to produce three ten-minute films, one each on toxics, eutrophication, and submerged aquatic vegetation. These films are to be shown on television and at meetings. (b) Most Federal and state agencies have had at least some experience using slide shows as a public involvement technique to describe a particular study or project. Some agencies are having slide shows prepared professionally. Such productions frequently incorporate two sets of slides which are set up so that as one slide "fades out," another "fades in." The result is almost a continuous picture being shown on the screen. A recording frequently accompanies the slides to provide the dialogue. The Chesapeake Bay Study has a large collection of slides which address the various resource categories with which the study has dealt. Also included are slides dealing with the hydraulic model, study program, management, and findings of the Existing Conditions and Future Conditions reports. These slides have been used frequently for various public presentations. The following public involvement techniques are unique to the Chesapeake Bay Study. Each will be discussed in terms of how they were used by the Chesapeake Bay Study during the first two phases of the study. p. Bay Model Tours. Public tours have allowed interested people to personally view the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. During the shelter and model construction phases, model tours were limited to scheduled groups. Since the dedication ceremony, the model has been open to the public. Three tours are given daily, Monday through Friday (except holidays) at In a.m. and I and 3 p.m. The tour consists of a 20 minute slide presentation highlighting the Bay and the problems besetting it and the purpose and scope of the Chesapeake Bay Study and the hydraulic model. The slide presentation is followed by a 40 minute walking tour of the model during which the guide answers questions and directs attention to key points of interest. Special tours for various civic and professional organizations can be scheduled and if the size of the group warrants, several tour guides can be available. Attendance at the public tours has averaged as much as 125 people per day. During certain days, when large groups are scheduled as many as 350 to 400 visitors have toured the model. Between June 1976 and May 1979, over 53,000 people visited the model. Plans are currently being developed to allow interested model visitors to add their name to the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list by filling out a special form available from the tour guide. B-54 q. Special Events. Special events were used to promote public awareness of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Three special events, all linked to the Bay model, have been held: groundbreaking and dedication ceremonies, and an open house. The groundbreaking ceremony, sponsored by the County Commissioners of Queen Annes County, and was held on 11 June 1973. Over 200 persons attended the ceremony. The presiding officer was Julius Grollman, President of the County Commissioners, and the ceremony included speeches by the late J. Millard Tawes, former Governor of Maryland and first Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources; and the late Rogers C. B. Morton, former Secretary of the Interior, f ormer Secretary of Commerce, former U.S. Representative, and an original supporter of the Bay study program. On 7 May 1976, the Chesapeake Bay Model dedication ceremony was held to publicly announce completion of the model's construction and initiation of the adjustment and verification phase. As with the groundbreaking, the dedication was sponsored by the County Commissioners of Queen Annes County. Mr. John M. Ashley, Jr., President of the County Commissioners, was the presiding officer and the late Rogers C. B. [Morton was the keynote speaker. Approximately 1,000 persons attended the dedication, which included the filling of the Bay model with water. Following the formal ceremony, visitors were given the opportunity to tour the model at their leisure. Corps personnel were stationed at key locations to answer questions. Media coverage of the dedication included staff from a number of newspapers and several television stations. While the model was under construction, an open house was sponsored in conjunction with the 1975 Chesapeake Appreciation Weekend held at Sandy Point State Park. Shuttle buses and boats took people from the park to the model and over 1,800 people viewed by Bay Model during that weekend. Each year after that, the completed hydraulic model was again open to visitors during Chesapeake Appreciation Days. Attendance during each of those events was good. r. Study Coordination and Organization. Not to be neglected are the number of program activities that serve a public information and participation role, but are primarily supportive of the coordination portion of the total Chesapeake Bay Study. The Corps defines "public" as any affected or interested non-Corps entity, to include other government agencies and officials; public and private organizations; and individuals. The Chesapeake Bay Study was conceived as a coordinated partnership between Federal, state, and local governments and interested scientific institutions. Each involved agency is charged with exercising leadership in those disciplines in which it has special competence and is expected to review and comment on work performed by others. To realize these ends, an Advisory Group, Steering Committee and five task groups, each made up of various Federal and state agency representatives, were established. The overall management of the study is the responsibility of the District Engineer of the Baltimore District. Since its establishment in 1967, the Advisory Group has served as the principal coordinating mechanism for the study, advising the District Engineer regarding study policy and providing general direction under which all study participants have operated. Generally speaking, the Advisory Group has convened whenever it has been necessary to coordinate study efforts, to review and comment on study results, and to determine future study direction and activities. B-55 The Steering Committee for Liaison and Basic Research is charged with reviewing the work of the other study task groups in order to bring to their attention and to the attention of the District Engineer any pertinent technological advances in water resource development or the environmental sciences that may not be explicit in the tasks assigned to these groups. In addition, the Steering Committee formulates plans for scientific activities that may become a necessary adjunct to the study. Five task groups were established for the Chesapeake Bay Study to include: a. Economic Projections Task Group b. Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task Group c. Flood Control, Navigation, Erosion, and Fisheries Task Group d. Recreation Task Group e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Group Each task group is concerned with related study categories and functions as a basic work group. The chairman designated for each task group is from the Federal agency most closely associated with that particular field of study. The continued coordination between the Corps and the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and five task groups has kept important elements of the public informed of study progress and offered them the opportunity to participate in study affairs. A considerable amount of coordination has taken place with local governments, research institutions, and other non-Corps groups and individuals during the collection of raw data from the first two phases of the study and with the dissemination of study information whenever requests have been made. INITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Based on the previous analysis, it was possible to screen out those public involvement alternatives which have little or no value for use in the Chesapeake Bay Study. Information provided in Table 3 below summarizes all those alternatives considered earlier and indicates whether or not the technique is recommended for use and why. B- 56 TABLE 3 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX Technique To Be Utilized Summary Explanation for Retention or Elimination 1) Public Meeting Yes Required by regulation; Allows potentially large numbers of the public to be kept informed of study progress and to present public input to the study. 2) Public Hearings No Too formal a technique to allow for effective 2-way communication with the public. 3) Workshops Yes Allows for extensive interaction and negotiation between agency and various publics; concrete products can be produced from a well organized and well run workshop. 4) Publications a. Press Releases Yes Useful in informing large portions of total population of study information; relatively inexpensive considering the number reached by this technique. b. Information brochures Yes Effective means of providing detailed information in an attractive format; useful as handouts and for mailings to interested members of the public. c. News circulars Yes Enables study news to be reported on a periodic basis to a relatively large number of the interested public; an inexpensive means of distributing sizeable quantities of study information. d. Newspaper and journal Yes Reaches members of the public who might not be reached by other means; artilces by inexpensive considering the only cost is in preparation of articles; circulation is large. e. Fact sheets Yes Useful for distribution to the press in preparation of a press release; can present basic information in a brief format. Can provide a wealth of study information for use by many elements of the public. 5) Citizens Advisory Yes Serves as an effective sounding board in identifying issues and Committee evaluating alternatives and recommendations. Can be useful in disseminating important study information to elements of the public. 6) Public Speeches/ Yes Allows for provision of important study information to interested Presentations groups; provides an effective forum for discussion of questions which the public has concerning the study. 7) Citizens Surveys/ No Requires OMB approval; representative sample is difficult to obtain Questionnaires and results are equally difficult to interpret. 8) Public Forums No To be productive, the techniques requires considerable amount of preraration; involves only a small portion of the public. B-57 TABLE 3 (cont'd) INITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX Technique To Be Utilized Summary Explanation for Retention or Elimination 9) Exhibits Yes Relatively inexpensive to create; can be viewed by a sizable portion of the public at important conferences and events within the study area@ can be effective throughout the life of the entire study. 10) Delphi Panel No Panel is not representative of the population as a whole, therefore, its usefulness is limited. 11) Seminars Yes Significant preparation time and effort is required in order for the seminar to be successful; only a limited number of the public can be involved. 12) Charrette No Extremely time consuming to conduct and attend; difficult to get key persons to participate; only effective when all major factions of the public are represented. 13) Paid Advertising No Use of Government funds for paid advertising is frequently not acceptable to the public; costs are relatively high. 14) Radio/TV Call-In Shows No While the viewing audience is large, actual participation is limited to only a few; questions may not be appropriate; audience is not captive - that is, they may "tune-out" at any time 15) Audio-Visual Techniques a) Films No Costly; can become quickly outdated. b) Slide talk Yes Can be shown to unlimited numbers; can be updated easily and inexpensively; effective means of providing study information. 16) Hydraulic Model Tours Yes Effective means of informing interested elements of the public of the hydraulic model and its capabilities; the model constitutes one of the most important elements of the study and it is one of the most interesting aspects of the study from a public standpoint. 17) Special Events Yes Constitute important occasions when relatively large numbers of the public gather to commemorate an event. Can be used effectively to inform the attending public of the study and to show the Corps' interet in what is being celebrated. 18) Study Organization Yes A necessary and integral part of a water resource study. The Chesapeake Bay Study was conceived as a coordinated partnership betweer Fedo-al and state agencies, therefore good study organization is important in order to achieve this coordination. B-58 ANALYSIS OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS AND ELEMENTS TO BE USED IN REACHING THE INTERESTED PUBLIC The following is a discussion of those elements which, based on the screening discussed in the prior section, appear to meet the objectives for the Chesapeake Bay Study public involvement program. As such, they should be given further consideration for use during the final study phase. Each will be examined in further detail below in terms of such things as degree of implementation and cost. a. Public Meeti2gs. There are three levels of implementation that should be considered for a public meeting program - state, regional and community. With the state level meeting, one meeting would be held for the entire state. As such, state-level meetings are frequently unresponsive to public needs and preferences because the geographic area which must be "covered" by each meeting is too large. People are not willing, or are unable to drive the great distances required to attend such a meeting. Regional level meetings, such as those held for the Chesapeakel3ay Study in 1967 and 1976, cover smaller geographic areas and can, thus, be more responsive to the public's needs. Good dissemination of information is possible as is coordination among the public and the planning agencies. The major negative aspect of regional meetings is that total population representation is not possible as in the case of community level public meetings. In the case of the community level meetings, however, there is an excessive cost for the planning agency associated with holding the large number of meetings necessary when a large study area or diversified subject matter is involved. Staff time required to attend such a large number of meetings is also a negative factor. The estimated cost of holding a public meeting includes cost of preparation, per them (for long distance meetings), cost to print public notices, and cost of recording, publishing, and distributing minutes. One public meeting within the Chesapeake 13ay Region is estimated to cost approximately $10,000. Cost breakdown is as follows: 1. Preparation $7,600 a. Public notice b. District Engineers' Remarks c. Graphics d. Clerical 2. Printing of Public Notice 500 3. Travel (per diem) $35/day, 4 attending meeting 140 4. Recording, publishing, and distributing minutes 1,800 TOTAL COST $ 10,040 5. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 B-59 Total cost associated with each of the three levels of public meetings described above differs slightly due to differences in per them and staff time required to attend. Thus, the state-level meeting is the least costly since there are only two meetings to attend (one in Maryland and one in Virginia). For the regional level, three meetings would be required for the Chesapeake Bay Region. The community level is the most costly because of the large number of communities. b. Workshops! To conduct a planner workshop involves preparation, printing of public notices, travel (per diem), and recording, publishing and distributing the results of the workshops (transcripts). The cost of performing these is estimated to be approximately $11,600 per workshop. Cost breakdown is as follows: 1. Preparation $9,050 a. Public Notice b. Format, goals, objectives, discussion topics c. Graphics d. Clerical 2. Printing of public notice 600 3. Travel (per diem) $35/day, 3 persons attending 105 4. Recording, publishing, and distributing results of workshops (transcripts) 1,800 TOTAL COST $11,555 5. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 Consideration is given to two levels of implementation for the planner workshop. The following paragraphs discuss each of these levels with regard to composition and approximate cost of each. County and/or Community Level - at this level, representatives from each county and independent city within the study area would be encouraged to participate in workshops associated with the Low Flow, High Flow, and Tidal Flooding studies. Based on the number of counties and independent cities within the Study area (70) plus the fact that perhaps two sets of workshops would be held for each of the three studies, the total cost of the workshop, at this level, will be approximately $112,800. In addition, the cost for three staff members (GS-13, and two GS-121s) to attend each workshop will increase the cost of holding "community" level workshops substantially. The cost breakdown per set of workshops at this level together with supervisory and administration costs is presented in Inclosure 1. B-60 Regional Level - at this level, six regional workshops would be held for both the Low Flow and High Flow studies (2 on the Eastern Shore, 2 on the Western Shore of Maryland; and 2 in Tidewater Virginia) and approximately six for the Tidal Flooding study (one in each flood-prone community under consideration). Cost of conducting two series of workshops for each of the three studies at this level will be approximately $72,500. Cost breakdowns at this level is provided in Inclosure 1. Considering that there may be several series of workshops for each of the three resource studies, the total cost of adopting a county level workshop program appears to be prohibitive. In addition, to use in-house planning staff for attendance at 70 workshops would prove quite undesirable. This, however, should not preclude having county or community level workshops if the need arises or if specific problems develop. The regional planning level appears reasonable f rom a cost standpoint and should provide the vehicle for sufficient local input. As most problems to be addressed in the study are of a regional or multi-county scope, the regional workshops should be advantageous. c. Publications. Due to the effectiveness of publications in disseminating information, six types of publications are being considered for the final study phase. Each will be discussed below. (1) Press Releases - They are most effective if they are printed on an as-needed basis. Total cost involved in releasing a news bulletin to the press consists of preparation time in making up the article which is estimated at $150 per press release. The Public Affairs Office will also need to review and comment on each press release, however, it is estimated that the cost to do so will be negligible. Although news will be released to the press when necessary, it is estimated that on the average six press releases a year will be required. (2) Leaflet/ Brochures - During the final study phase, information published in a brochure to describe the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model and testing program could be simply updated as needed or entirely revised on an annual basis. If the model brochure were updated, the total price would include in-house preparation, $500; the cost of a new set of negatives; plus the cost of printing 20,000 brochures. This would cost approximately $4,500. There would only be a need for possibly two updates during this study phase, for a total cost of $9,000. To completely revise the brochure on an annual basis would require in-house preparation and reproduction costs totaling approximately $8,400 per issue. If the brochures were revised for each year remaining in the study, the total cost would run $42,000. A cost breakdown for the information brochure together with supervisory and administration costs is found in Inclosure 1. (3) News Circulars - This type publication could be printed on either an "as-needed basis" or a more regular basis, perhaps twice per year. A third option to be considered is to simply contribute articles to newsletters of other Bay-related programs. The cost of producing a news circular in-house would be approximately $5,700 per issue to include preparation and printing costs. The cost of contributing articles to other newsletters would simply include preparation costs or $875 per article. A cost breakdown f or in-house preparation appears in Inclosure I along with supervisory and administration costs. B-61 A regularly prepared news circular offers the advantage of a more structured preparation and publication deadline. In addition, the public learns when to expect the issue. The major disadvantage, however, is that there may not always be "newsworthy" information available at the time the news circular is to be published. This is the decided advantage of printing a news circular on an "as-needed basis." If study developments warrant printing of two news circulars in one year, then so be it. If few major developments occur during the year, however, than only one newsletter will likely be needed. While contributing articles to other news circulars is less expensive than printing in- house, it has certain disadvantages. First, one cannot be assured that a particular article will appear when requested, or even if it will appear at all. Secondly, by publishing an in- house news circular for a particular study, that study is given greater public exposure. In addition, format, content, and orientation of a news circular can be determined by the study team, not by some outside group. (4) Newspaper and Journal Articles - As in the case of press releases, newspaper and journal articles are most effective if they are released on an as-needed basis. Costs associated with newspaper and journal articles involves in-house preparation (writing) and review of the article. Preparation time is dependent on the length of the article. An average article is estimated to take two weeks to prepare (at the GS-12 level) and one week for review and revisions (at the GS- 13 level) by the appropriate Planning Division staff as well as Public Affairs Office. Total cost, per article, is estimated to be $1,750 plus supervisory and administration costs of $1,175. If an article is released or published per year for the remainder of the study, it will cost approximately $8,750 for newspaper and journal articles. (5) Fact Sheets - These should be updated whenever changes in the Study warrant or when significant study progress occurs. Costs associated wilth such updates are negligible since only preparation costs are involved and these should be minimal. d. Citizens Advisory Committees. The selection of a body or bodies to serve as the Chesapeake Bay Study Citizens Advisory Committee(s) is a difficult task since there are so many existing groups which represent hundreds of special interests. The first decision in this selection, however, is the number of groups to serve in this advisory capacity. For this analysis, consideration was given to four levels of implementation for citizens advisory committees. The following paragraphs discuss each of these levels with regard to composition and approximate cost of implementation. (1) Bi-County Level - At this level, adjoining counties within the study area would be asked to form an advisory committee. This approach would result in approximately 35 committees which would undoubtedly be representative of the Bay area public. Assuming Federal study participants would meet with each committee at least eight times during the remainder of the study (4 years), the total cost of preparation for the meetings and per them is estimated at approximately $24, 100 (this does not include staff time for attending the meetings, which for a GS-12 and GS-13 would amount to an additional $57,400). This assumes that two staff members would be able to meet with two citizens advisory committees within one day. For the bi-county level, it was assumed that the advisory committees would be close enough geographically, so that the planning staff could meet with two committees in one day. For the other levels, the committees would not be close enough to do this, therefore a separate day would be required to meet with B- 62 each committee. A breakdown of costs for the bi-county level advisory committee is shown in Inclosure I along with supervisory and administration costs. (2) Regional Planning Level - At this level, the regional planning areas which have been established within the involved states would each be asked to form a citizens advisory committee. This would consist of 16 committees representing the Baltimore Regional Council, Southern Maryland Regional Office, Upper Eastern Shore Regional Office, Lower Eastern Shore Regional Office and the Washington Metropolitan Council in Maryland; Planning Districts 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 in Virginia; and one group each from Pennsylvania and Delaware. Costs for this level were based on the same assumptions used f or the bi-county level. Total costs f or implementation at the regional planning area level are estimated at $23,000, (assuming the planning staff could only meet with one committee per day). Cost in "staff time" to attend these meetings would be an additional $49,200.. (3) State Level - On the state level, four citizens advisory committees would be established - one each in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. As above, the cost for the program is based on the Federally sponsored meetings of the committee and periodic dissemination of information to each of the committees. The estimated cost of this program is $16,200 (assuming the planning staff could only meet with one committee per day). "Staff time" to attend a total of 40 meetings would cost $12,300. (4) Study Area Level - At this level, one advisory committee would represent the entire study area. This level Would present the least costly alternative with a total estimated cost of $14,300. This represents preparation time for 8 meetings but includes per them for only 4 meetings since half couldprobably be held in close proximity to the Baltimore District Office. The establishment of one comprehensive citizens committee would provide the water resource planner with the maximum ease in coordination and feedback from one group of knowledgeable, water resource influentials at the expense of some loss in responsiveness to regional and local needs. The cost of "staff time" to attend these meetings would be $3,300. It should be noted that costs for various levels of implementation do not vary in terms of preparation time, but rather in terms of per them and "staff time" required to meet with these committees. e. Public Presentations. Public presentations or speeches dealing with the Chesapeake Bay Study are given on an as-needed basis. Judging on past experience, approximately 12 speeches per year are given (one per month). Preparation for a public speech makes up the chief unit cost. However, once a speech is prepared, it can be used again and again with only rninor modifications to fit the group and occasion. Preparation costs are estimated to be $875 (one man-week for a GS-12). The standard Chesapeake Bay Study speech will probably have to be significantly modified approximately three more times during the remainder of the study for a total cost of approximately $2,600. f. Seminars. An educational seminar, held at the hydraulic model, would increase understanding of the hydraulic model by the academic and scientific communities. Such a seminar would also be useful in informing certain elements of the public of the findings and results of model tests. The agenda for an educational seminar might include a discussion of hydraulic modeling, the Chesapeake Bay Study program, description of the Chesapeake Bay B-63 Hydraulic Model operation and tour of the facility, and use and application of model data. Cost to conduct such a seminar consists primarily of preparation which is expected to amount to $3,350. A breakdown of these costs is as follows: Professional preparation (1/2 - GS-12 man-month) $ 1,750 Clerical 600 Total 2,350 An additional cost of preparing for the seminar is the cost of staff required to actually conduct the seminar. This would run about $19000 assuming that the senior staff from the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch were involved. Total cost of conducting an "educational seminar" at the hydraulic model is $3,350. Supervisory and administration costs are estimated at $5,150. g. Slide Shows. A slide show for use with the general public during the final study phase would likely include the following: (1) Background information on the Chesapeake Bay Study (how and why it was authorized, the need for the study, authorizing legislation). (2) Description of the resources and uses of the Bay. (3) Current threats and problems facing the Bay - conflicts. (4) Construction and verification of the hydraulic model. (5) Information on model capabilities and potential tests to be run. (6) Description of the formulation of a hydraulic model testing program. (7) Description of the tests to be run including the Low Flow, High Flow, and Storm Surge Tests. (8) Information on the public involvement program. The chief costs associated with putting a slide talk together include time required to take the slides, processing and editing of slides, and preparation of the talk to accompany the slides. This totals approximately $5,900. A breakdown of cost includes: Photography $3,500 (1 man-month for a GS-12) Processing 150 Editing 500 Preparation of the talk 1,750 (1/2 man-month for a GS-12) Total $735,900 B- 64 An alternative to a slide show prepared in-house employing conventional audio-visual equipment is to employ a "dissolve unit" and to have the slide show professionally prepared. The "dissolve unit" fades one slide out while fading another slide in. The tape recorder provides the dialogue and background music. The cost of this equipment, including the two projectors, dissolve unit, and recorder is approximately $1,000. The cost of having a slide show prepared professionally is $4,000 plus the cost of administering the contract. To administer such a contract would take a GS-12 about one month for a cost of $3,500. The advantage of this alternative is that the end product may be better. The obvious disadvantage is the increased price. h. Model Tours. A possible means of improving tours of the model includes administration of a short questionnaire that could be filled out if desired by model visitors. The tour guide would advise visitors of the purpose and availability of the questionnaire. A second means of improving tours would be to give interested visitors the opportunity to add their name to the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list so they could receive important study information and announcements. Cost of making either or both of these changes is negligible. i. Special Events. While participation in special events is both important and necessary, the cost to conduct such events for the remainder of the study is difficult to determine. Therefore, no attempt will be made to do that here. j. Study Coordination and Organization. Continued coordination with the study organization, to include the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and five task groups will be a necessary and important aspect of the final study phase due to the significant role which these groups will play during this phase. Total cost to coordinate with the study organization depends on level of coordination. Cost includes preparing for, coordinating, and distributing the minutes for the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and Task Group meetings. Cost to hold three more Advisory Group Meetings (FY 80, 81, and 82), three more Steering Committee meetings (FY 79, 80, and 91), and two meetings of each of the five Task Groups (FY 79 and 81) is estimated to be $43,000. For each of these groups to meet once per year for the remainder of the study would cost about $70,000. While the cost for this greater level of coordination is substantially more, it may be necessary due to the nature of the final study phase. A breakdown of cost for the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and the Task Groups is provided in Inclosure I along with supervisory and administration costs. In addition to the coordination meetings planned with the study organization, there is also a very strong need for day-to-day coordination. Also, the Advisory Group and Steering Committee representatives will be asked to review key program documents such as the various test proposals for the model, WES reports on testing results, and any interim resource study reports. Input which these bodies might provide in review of these materials will prove invaluable in the overall study results. B-65 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM Based on the above analyses of public involvement techniques which have proven effective in dealing with the public and which are applicable for use in the Chesapeake Bay Study, the following is a detailed description of the recommended program for public involvement during the final study phase. a. Public Meetings Two series of public meetings are recommended for the final study phase. Each series will combine discussion of the Low Flow, Tidal Flooding, and High Flow studies. The first series is scheduled for Fiscal Year 1981 and will have as its overall purpose to present information on the various alternatives being formulated as part of the Low Flow, High Flow, and Tidal Flooding studies. More specifically, for the Low Flow Study, information will be provided on those alternative levels of freshwater inflow that are under consideration in the study and the identified social, economic, and biological impacts of those flows. Comments will be obtained concerning the public's views of the impacts associated with these alternative inflows. For the Tidal Flooding Study, information will be presented on the results of both the flood damage surveys and the average annual damages calculated for those flood prone communities which have been singled out for further investigation. These communities for which feasible solutions to tidal flooding problems may exist will be identified as will the alternative structural and non-structural means available to prevent or reduce flooding problems in these communities. Public response will be gathered on perceived impacts of various flood frequencies as well as what the public views as the most acceptable means of providing protection. With regard to the High Flow Study, the public will be asked to present their views on the impacts of various high flow events, such as Tropical Storm Agnes, on the Bay Region. Due to the nature of discussion at this series of public meetings, both the regional level and community level meetings are required. Regional level meetings will be held in the same general locations as those of prior Chesapeake Bay StUdy public meetings: Baltimore - Annapolis; Tidewater Virginia, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The community level meeting will be held in the community or communities where some form of flood control is feasible. It is assumed, then, that there will be a total of four meetings held during this series (three regional, and one com m unit y-level). Cost for this series is estimated to be $10,500. The second series of public meetings, to be help in Fiscal Year 1983, will again be multipurpose. First, to present information and gather public response on the final alternative low flows recommended in order to maintain the Bay's socio-economic and environmental integrity. Second, to present the set of specific structural and/or non- structural measures to be recommended for each community which are responsive to the Tidal Flooding Study planning objectives, and to gather public response on these measures. Finally, to allow the public to respond to any high flow recommendations which might be offered. Discussion at this series of meetings, will require both the regional level and community level meeting. Each will be held in the same approximate location as the first series of public meetings. In addition, however, a regional level meeting may be required in B- 66 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania since considerable discussion will deal with low flows to be maintained on the Bay's tributaries and the very broad, general means of achieving these inflows. Since the Susquehanna River is the Bay's major tributary, the value of holding a meeting in that basin is obvious. The cost for this second series of meeting will be approximately $10,600. The total cost for both series of public meetings for the final study phase is thus $21, 100. The cost of staff to attend these meetings is estimated to be $5,500 (assuming, first, a GS-14, two GS-131s, and two GS-121s attend each meeting and second, each meeting would take approximately one-half day). b. Worksho2s. Two series of workshops are recommended for the final study phase. Each will coincide with the respective series of public meetings and will be held at the same approximate times and locations as the two series of public meetings. Each series of workshops will be organized into three sessions with each session addressing one of the three studies: 'the Low Flow, Tidal Flooding, or High Flow study. At the low flow session during the first series of workshops, (tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 1981) participants will be asked to reach some consensus as to what they perceive the socio-economic and environmental impacts of various low freshwater inflows to be. The feedback obtained from this session will be useful in better understanding the public's priorities for maintaining the Bay in the future. This information will be used as input in the formulation and evaluation of alternative flows required to alleviate the identified low flow problems. During the tidal flooding workshop session, the impacts of the various flood frequencies run on the hydraulic model will be discussed as will some of the structural and non- structural measures under-consideration in each identified flood-prone community. The output of this session will be used in the early stage of formulating and evaluating the detailed alternative means of tidal flood protection. At the high flow session, emphasis will be placed on a discussion of impacts associated with various high flow events, such as Tropical Storm Agnes, and any structural or management measures that could be used to prevent or reduce the adverse impacts of high freshwater inflows. The High Flow Model Test will be underway at the time this series of workshops is held, therefore, no model results will be available for discussion or consideration. At the second series of workshops, participants will again be given the opportunity to attend one of three concurrent sessions, each dealing with a specific study. At the low flow session, discussions will center around the final set of low flows to be recommended and the perceived socio-economic and environmental impacts associated with this set of flows. The results of this session will be used in the final alternative analysis. At the tidal flooding session, the specific structural and/or non-structural measures proposed for each community will be discussed along with assessments of the impacts of each. Results of this session will provide analysis of the final flood control recommendations. B-67 The high flow session will address the results of the high flow model tests and the impacts associated with any structural or management measures to be recommended. The cost of conducting these two series of workshops is estimated to be $24,500. This figure does not include the cost of staff time required to attend the workshops. This is estimated to run about $2,900 for a total of nine workshops (assuming first, a GS-13, and two GS-12's attend each workshop and second that a workshop will last one-half day). Past experience of the Baltimore District in using outside organizations and groups to assist in the conduct of workships has been very positive. It is therefore recommended that a contractor be considered for use in assisting with the two series of workshops planned for the final study phrase. The contractor would be expected to aid in development of format and in organizing, conducting, and assessing the results of the two series of nine workshops. The advantage of contracting workshops is that it frees planning staff for other tasks. One possible group which could be used as a contractor to assist in planning and runnin.- the workshops is a citizens advisory committee. c. Publications. News circulars have been shown to be an effective means of informing a large portion of the area's population of activities and developments affecting the Chesapeake Bay Region. The success of the Chesapeake Bay Study's first two news circulars is particularly encouraging. Because of their usefulness, it is recommended that a total of at least seven additional news circulars be published during the remainder of the study (FY 79 - FY 83) on an "as-needed" basis. Articles will deal with the results of specific hydraulic model tests and information on the resource study such as socio-economic and biological impacts of high and low flow conditions and tidal flooding on the Bay Region, and information on those flood prone communities selected for detailed study. As with the first publications, news circulars will be distributed to those entries on the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list including Federal, state, and local government agencies, Congressional representatives, locally elected officials, news media, concerned civic and environmental groups, and interested citizens. The total cost of preparing and printing eight news circulars will be approximately $45,600. Articles dealing with the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study will be contributed to other Federal and state agencies involved in related programs for inclusion in their news circulars. This is an inexpensive way to pass information on to members of the public who might not be on the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list. It also provides a good opportunity to coordinate with related Federal and state programs. This is estimated to cost $3,500 (assuming one man month for a GS-12 for the remainder of the study). The widespread circulation of newspapers makes them an important information media to be used. Studies have shown that press releases to newspapers, and radio and television networks along with the issuing of newspapers and journal articles are the most effective and cost efficient means of reaching the largest number of people. It is therefore recommended that both press releases and newspaper and journal articles be issued whenever newsworthy study developments occur. Due to the large size of the Study Area, there are a large number of newspapers, and radio and TV stations which must be B- 68 contacted for the dissemination of information. The number of newspapers which would be involved in a Bay-wide distribution totals approximately 160. TV and radio stations total an additional 165. Each of these 325 newspapers, and TV and radio stations are currently on the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list. If each of these were to issue a press release, a large percentage of the Bay region's total population could be reached. The cost of issuing approximately 30 press releases during the remainder of the study is estimated to be $4,500 (this assumes that although press releases are issued on an "as- needed" basis, there will be an average of 6 per year). The cost is solely for preparation since networks normally donate free "air-time" for public service type announcements and there should be no charge for placing information in newspapers. The cost of releasing an average of one newspaper and/or journal article per year for the remainder of the study is estimated to be approximately $8,750. Fact sheets are recommended for use during the final study phase. The cost of updating fact sheets is negligible, however, since preparation costs will be minimal. Making reports available to the public is an important and necessary part of a public involvement program. The final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study will be available to the public through representative libraries in the Region and through the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service. The final report will be composed of several segments. The first segment will include a summary of all the existing and future water resources problems and needs of the Bay Region as identified in both the Chesapeake Bay Existing Condiltions and the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Reports The second segment of the report will include a discussion of the methodology used to formulate and select those priority problems to be addressed in the third and final phase of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Lastly, the third segment of the report will include the findings and recommendations of the detailed Low Flow, Tidal Flooding, and High Flow studies. In reference to information brochures, it is recommended that the current model brochure be updated periodically rather than completely revised. The information currently contained in this publication is of such a nature that complete revision is unnecessary. Information dealing with specific model tests which might be incorporated into a revised brochure can be reported in the series of news circulars which are to be published during the final study phase. Cost of updating and printing the brochure twice during this study phase will be $9,000. d. Citizens Advisory Committee. The inefficiency associated with maintaining coordination with a large number of county level advisory committees or even several regional or state level groups makes their use prohibitive. Therefore, it is recommended that liaison be maintained with only one group - one that is representative of the overall Bay Region population. Due to the nature of the final study phrase, a citizens advisory committee should assume a more formal role than that held during the first two study phrases. Specifically this committee should take on several new responsibilities over what it has had, to date. First, the committee should be asked to review proposals for the public involvement program and make recommendations regarding these proposals. This would be a "continuing responsibility" in that throughout the remainder of the study, the committee B-69 would advise the Baltimore District on its Chesapeake Bay public involvement activities. The Committee would also serve as a two-way channel of information - providing feedback on the public's interests, needs, and concerns, and in turn carry information through their organizational newsletter, to the public on major decisions and outputs of the Chesapeake Bay Study. A second major responsibility, as mentioned earlier, might be for the citizens advisory committee to serve as the contractor during the planning, conduct, and assessment of the series of workshops planned for Fiscal Years 1981, and 1983. Specific duties as contractor might include: 1. Providing a list of persons and organizations to be invited to the workshop. 2. Arranging for a meeting place and taking care of all other preparations. 3. Assisting in development of a workshop format and topics of discussion. 4. Providing an assessment of the workshops to be used as input for the District's overall assessment. A third responsibility would be for a representative of the citizens advisory committee to sit as an observer during Chesapeake Bay Study Advisory Group meetings. The representative would be able to provide public input, thus assisting the Advisory Group in their decision-making duties. With a citizen representative serving on the Advisory Group as an observer, the public would feel as though they had some input into the decision-making process and the overall planning process would be enhanced as a result. The cost of coordination with the citizens advisory committee for the remainder of the study is approximately $14,300. This includes cost of preparing for a total of eight citizens advisory group meetings to be held during the remaining five years of the study. The cost of two staff members attending each of these meetings would be an additional $3,300. These prices do not include the day-to-day coordination which will be required in addition to the more formal meetings. e. Public Presentations. It is recommended that public presentations (speeches) be given whenever requests are made by the public. Due to the fact that the total number of presentations will depend on the number of requests, it is difficult to estimate the total cost or the time of the individuals giving the speeches. The cost of preparing speeches for the remainder of the study is estimated to be approximately $2,600 (assuming that only about three separate speeches should have to be prepared and then revised or updated to "fit" the occassion). f. Seminars. It is recommended that two educational seminars be held at the model in order to better educate the academic and scientific communities of the capabilities and accomplishments of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. The first seminar was held in November 1979, the second is scheduled for 1981. The purpose for conducting a second seminar is twofold. First, testing will have been completed by 1981. Results of most of these tests will be available for analysis and should provide interest to those attending. B-70 Secondly, many who were unable to attend the first seminar will be given an opportunity to attend the second. The cost of conducting two seminars is estimated to be approximately $6,700. g. Slide Show. It is recommended that the District Public Af f airs Of fice (PAO) produce and f und a professionally prepared slide show. A "dissolve unit package" (2 projectors, an audio- visual type tape recorder, and a dissolve unit) is suggested for use to present the slide show. While such a slide presentation will cost more than a similar one prepared in- house, the quality will most likely be greater. Considering the intensive use which such a show will receive, the increased cost will be more than compensated. Cost to produce a professional slide show (including contract administration) and to purchase a dissolve unit package is estimated to be approximately $8,500, to be borne by the PAO. h. Model Tours. The success of the model tours during the period in which the model has been open to the public (since May 1976) warrants their continuation as a means of informing the public of the model and of developing interest in the study. The cost for a full-time tour guide (GS-4) makes up the primary cost associated with these model tours. The cost of conducting tours for the remainder of the study is estimated to be $68,800. This does not include supervisory and administration costs. In September 1979, a new visitors center at the model was ready for use by the public. The center includes an exhibit area, and 150 - seat wood-paneled auditorium. The cost to construct this visitors center was approximately $186,000. Visitors at the hydraulic model represent an important, but as yet underutilized resource in terms of public involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Study. By requesting certain information of those persons touring the model, it will be possible to obtain some valuable information on members of the public who have expressed an interest in the Chesapeake Bay Study. First, it is recommended that forms be made available to those visitors who wish to have their names added to the Chesapeake Bay Study mailing list so that they may be kept informed of study progress. Second, it is suggested that either a short questionnaire dealing with the study or a suggestions and comments sheet be made available for visitors to fill out, if they desire. i. Special Events. Based on the amount of public interest generated by special events such as Chesapeake Appreciation Weekend and Queen Anne's Day Celebrations, it is recommended that the Chesapeake Bay Study be represented during Bay-related special events. Participation will likely include opening the model for tours during celebration weekends; preparing remarks or speeches which address the Chesapeake Bay Study, to be given at designated times during the ceremony; and distributing written information discussing certain aspects of the model or overall study. Cost to participate in such events would run about $1,000 per event. The cost of providing tour guides and physically opening the model to the public would constitute the greatest portion of this cost. Materials to be distributed would already be in existence and remarks presented at the celebrations could be taken from existing speeches; therefore, these costs would be minimal. Total costs for participating in two such events for the balance of the study will run 1$10,000. These costs are to be taken from PAO's budget since they are model-related. B-71 j. Study Coordination. The need for full coordination with the study organization has been discussed earlier. It is recommended that the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and each of the study's five task groups meet on the average of once per year for the remainder of the study in order to maintain the coordination necessary to conduct an effective study. Cost for this level of coordination is estimated to be $70,000. Staff costs to attend are estimated to be $22,000 (assuming, first, a GS-14, Two GS-131s, and two GS-121s would attend; second there would be a total of 24 meetings held; and third, each meeting would take approximately I day). In addition to coordinating with the study organization, it is also recommended that emphasis be placed on coordinating public involvement activities with those of other related Federal and state programs in an attempt to avoid duplication of effort and to demonstrate to the public that existing programs are complementary rather that duplicative. To date, coordination efforts are underway. Articles dealing with the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study have appeared in the newsletter prepared by the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program entitled "Chesapeake Citizen Report" and in the newsletter prepared by the Delmarva Advisory Council entitled "Delmarva Report." Design and construction of a joint Chesapeake Bay exhibit/display was recently carried out by the Corps', the Citizens Prograrn for Chesapeake Bay (on behalf of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program), the coastal zone management programs in Maryland and Virginia, and the 208 programs in Maryland and Virginia. The exhibit is being used in libraries throughout the Bay Region and for display at Bay-related conferences and seminars. The exhibit shows the main thrust of these programs and demonstrates the cooperative efforts between them. A joint "Fact Sheet" has also been completed to describe in some detail each of the above programs. The fact sheet is being distributed at the hydraulic model as well as at the Chesapeake Bay Exhibit. Cooperative efforts such as the above have been well received by other the participating Federal and state agencies as well as the general public. Other potential cooperative efforts between the Corps' Bay study and related programs might include joint workshops, forums, and/or a film. The advantages of sharing in any or all of these are obvious: time and cost involved in planning for, conducting, and assessing a joint workshop or forum would be cut considerably. The same with a film. In addition, the public would see firsthand how two or more programs were coordinating in an effort to find solutions to the Bay's problems while avoiding duplication. An example of such a cooperative effort might be a workshop jointly sponsored by the Corps and the Maryland CZM program to address tidal flooding problems within the State. The objective of such a workshop might be identical with those workshops described in earlier sections. The CZM unit may be interested in cooperating in such a workshop in order to make citizens aware of Maryland's program to identify state critical areas suitable for conservation. The total cost of coordinating Bay-related programs with various Federal and state agencies during the balance of the study is estimated to be $15,000. B-72 TOTAL PROGRAM COST In order to carry out the recommended public involvement program for the final study phase, a total of $225,600 is needed. The breakdown of this cost figure is presented in Table 4 below. TABLE4 Public Meetings (two series) $ 21,100 Public Workshops (two series) 240500 Publications News Circulars (eight) 45,600 Articles Contributed to Other News Circulars 3,500 Press Releases (30) 4,500 Newspaper and Journal Articles Ove) 8@800 Information Brochures (two) 9,000 Citizens Advisory Committee 14,300 Public Presentations 20600 Seminars 6,700 Coordination with Study Organization 70,000 Coordination with Related Federal and State Programs 15,000 Chesapeake Bay Study Public Involvement Program Cost SUBTOTAL $225,600 Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 28,100 (CBSB) Public Affairs Office (PAO) Costs $273,300 (Visitors Center, tour guide, slide show, special events) TOTAL $ 527,000 B-73 Bibliography - public Involvement Program 1. Baltimore District Corps of Engineers. "Public Involvement Program" Plan of Study Metro2olitan Washington Area Water Supply Study 1979. 2. Bishop, A. Bruce. Public Participation in Water Resources Planning IWR Report 70-7, December, 1970-. 3. Brumburgh, Scott. Interview with coordinator for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program. 4. Cox, Kitty. Interview with Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program. 5. Engineering Regulation 1105-2-280 Planning: Public Involvement Program Deve!2p the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers. Enent. (Draft) Department of Washington, D.C.: 1976. 6. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide 1, Effective Public Meetings. Washington: Office of Public Affairs, 1977. 7. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide 2, Working Effectively with Advisory Committees. Washington: Office of Public Affairs, 1977. 8. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide 3, Effective Use of Media. 9. Environmental Protection Agency. Public Participation Handbook for Water Qualqx Management. Washington: 1976. 10. Federal Interagency Counciton Citizen Participation. At Square One. Washington: Proceedings of the Conference on Citizen Participation in Government Decisionmaking, 1977. 11. Flanigan, Frances. Interview with the Maryland Coordinator for the Public Participation Program for the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 12. Haffner, John and Stone, Harry. Interview with Public Involvement Specialists with the Delmarva Advisory Council. 13. Hagerman, George. Interview with the Executive Director of the Public Participation Program for the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 14. Hanchey, James R. Public Involvement in the Corps of Engineers Planning Process. IWR Research Report 75-R4, October 1975. 15. Institute for Water Resources. Public Involvement, Participant's Workbook (Advanced Course). 16. Maddox, Vicki. Interview with the Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia State Water Control Board's 208 Program. B-74 17. Planning Associates - Class of 1977. "Public Involvement," Manual for Water Resources Planners. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. 18. Ragan, James F. Jr., Public Participation in Water Resources Planning An Evaluation of the Programs of 15 Corps of Engineers Districts. IWR Contract Report 75-6, November 1975. 19. Synergy Consultation Services. Synergy Lupertino, Calif: 1976. 20. Thuesen, Gerald J. A Study of Public Attitudes and Multi2le Objective Decision Criteria for Water Pollution Control Projects Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1971. 21. Warner, Katharine P. Public Participation in Water Resources Planning Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1971. 22. Willeke, Gene E. Identification of Publics in Water Resources Planning. Atlanta: George Institute of Technology, 1974. B-75 DETAILED COST ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES Technique/Major Tasks Involved Costs A. Workshops - Regional Level (6 workshops per series) 1. Preparation $ 9,050 a. Public Notice b. Format, Goals, Objectives, Discussion Topics c. Graphics d. Clerical 2. Printing of Public Notice $ 600 3. Travel (per diem) $35/day, 3 persons attending each workshop 630 4. Recording, Publishing, and Distributing results of workshops (transcripts) 1,800 Total Costs (Regional Level) $ 12,080 5. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 B. Workshops - Community Level (70 workshops per series) 1. Preparation a. Public Notice b. Format, Goals, Objectives, Discussion Topics r-. Graphics d. Clerical 2. Printing of Public Notice 6no 3. Travel (per diem) $35/day, 3 persons attending each workshop) 7,350 4. Recording, Publishing, and Distributing results of workshops (transcripts) 11800 Total Cost (Community Level) 5. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 Inclosure I B-76 Detailed Cost Estimates for Public Involvement Techniques (con't) Technique/Major Taks Involved Costs C. Information Brochures 1. In-House preparation $ 4,400 2. Reproduction a. Creation of negatives 300 b. Printing (20,000 copies) 3,700 Total Cost $ 8,400 3. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 D. News Circular 1. In-house preparation $ 3,900 2. Printing a. Creation of negatives 300 b. Printing 1,500 Total Cost $ 5,700 3. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 3,750 E. Citizens Advisory Committee (Bi-County Level - 35 groups)* 1. Preparation for meetings $ 1,750 a. Professional preparation b. Clerical r. Graphics 2. Travel (per/diem) $35/day, 2 persons attending each meeting 1,260 Total Cost (per Community Level meeting) $ 3,010 3. Supervisory and Administration Costs 2,575 *It should be noted that considerable staff time would be required to attend this many Advisory Group meetings. Thirty-five groups meeting eight times during the remainder to the Study would result in 280 meetings. This means that 7 man-months of meetings are required if a GS-13 and GS-12 are able to attend two meetings per day. Total cost for "staff time" to attend these meetings is, thus, $57,400. B-77 Detailed Cost Estimates for Public Involvedment Techniques (cont'd) F. Coordination with Study Organization 1. Advisory Group (per meeting) a. Preparation $ 3,800 b. Distribution of Minutes 200 Total Cost $ 4,000 c. Supervisory and Administration Costs 2,575 2. Steering Committee (per meeting) a. Preparation $ 3,800 b. Distribution of Minutes 200 Total Cost $ 4,000 c. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 3. Task Groups (per meeting) a. Preparation $ 1,700 b. Distribution of Minutes 200 Total Cost $ 1,90o c. Supervisory and Administration Costs $ 2,575 Inclosure 3 B-78 ATTACHMENT B-2 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES B-79 ADVISORY GROUP DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Edward R. Keil, 1967-70 C. Douglas Hole, 1970-72 Graham T. Munkittrick, 1972-76 Gerald R. Calhoun, 1977-84 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Phillip K. Reiss, 1967-68 Howard J. Marsden, 1968-70 Henry L. DeGraff, 1970-83 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Gerald W. Ferguson, 1967-70 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Mark Keane, 1967 Jerome E. Parker, 1967-68 Thomas M. Croke, 1968-76 Lawrence Levine, 1976-84 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Eugene T. Jensen, 1967-68 Lloyd W. Gebhard, 1968 Mark Abelson, 1968-73 Ellen Jensen, 1973 J. David Breslin, 1973-75 Roger S. Babb, 1975-78 William Patterson, 1978-83 Anita Miller, 1983-84 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Philip E. Franklin, 1967-70 ADM E. C. Allen, Jr., 1971 Capt. Winford W. Barrow, 1971-72 Capt. G.H. Patrick Bursley, 1972-74 Capt. Keith B. Schumacher, 1974-78 Capt. J.W. Kime, 1978-81 Capt. J.C. Carlton, 1981-84 B-80 ADVISORY GROUP (cont'd) ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Dr. Jeff Swinebroad, 1968-73 Dr. Ford A. Cross, 1973-75 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Dr. W. Roland Taylor, 1975 Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton, 1975-76 Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton, 1976-84 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Lloyd W. Gebhard, 1971 William M. Blankenship, 1971-73 Larry S. Miller, 1973-74 Green Jones, 1974-76 Leonard Mangiaracina, 1976-79 Dr. Tudor T. Davies, 1979-83 Thomas P. Eichler, 1983-84 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION) Paul H. Shore, 1967-72 John H. Spellman, 1972-74 Angelo Monaco, 1974-76 James D. Hebson, 1976-84 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. William A. Niering, 1968 Dr. Edward Chin, 1968-70 Dr. Richard C. Kotf, 1970-74 Dr. Edward H. Bryan, 1974-84 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Dr. 1. Eugene Wallen, 1968-71 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson, 1971-75 Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan, 1975-83 Dr. David L. Correll, 1983-84 B-81 ADVISORY GROUP (cont'd) U.S. NAVY CDR J. A. D'Emidio, 1967-70 LCDR P. J. Parisius, 1970-71 Edward W. Johnson, 1971-84 DELAWARE BG Norman M. Lack, 1967-68 Austin N. Heller, 1970-73 John C. Bryson, 1973-78 John E. Wilson, 111, 1978-84 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LTC Tom H. Reynolds, 1967 LTC Louis W. Prentiss, Jr., 1967-68 Roy L. Orndorff, 1968 Norman E. Jackson, 1968-72 Paul V. Freese, 1972-73 Robert R. Perry, 1973-75 William C. McKinney, 1975-76 Herbert L. Tucker, 1976-80 William B. Johnson, 1980-84 MARYLAND Joseph H. Manning, 1967-71 John R. Capper, 1971-73 James B. Coulter, 1973-82 Dr. Torrey C. Brown, 1982-84 PENNSYLVANIA Clifford H. McConnell, 1967-83 Nicholas DeBenedictis, 1983-84 VIRGINIA Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., 1967-83 Betty J. Diener, 1983-84 B-82 STEERING COMMITTEE FOR LIAISON AND BASIC RESEARCH U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Michael A. Kolessar (Chairman 1968-70) William E. Trieschman, Jr. (Chairman 1970-72) Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. (Chairman 1972-84) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Russell T. Norris, 1968-76 William Gordon, 1976-78 Dr. Robert L. Lippson, 1978-84 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Albert H. Swartz, 1968-71 John T. Gharrett, 1968-70 Dr. Oliver B. Cope, 1971-74 Dr. Daniel L. Leedy, 1974-76 Dr. W. Sherman Gillam, 1976-78 Dr. Glenn Kinser, 1978-84 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Dr. Jeff Swinebroad, 1971-73 Dr. Ford A. Cross, 1973-75 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Dr. W. Roland Taylor, 1975 .Dr. Jackson 0. Blanton, 1975-76 Dr. D. Heyward Hamilton, 1976-84 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. Tudor T. Davies, 1979-80 Dr. David A. Flemer, 1990-84 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. William A. Niering, 1968 Dr. Edward Chin, 1968-70 Dr. Richard C. Kolf, 1970-74 Dr. Edward H. Bryan, 1974-84 B- 83 STEERING COMMITTEE FOR LIAISON AND BASIC RESEARCH (cont'd) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Dr. 1. Eugene Wallen, 1968-71 Dr. Francis S. L. Williamson, 1971-75 Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan, 1975-83 Dr. David L. Correll, 1983-84 DELAWARE BG Norman M. Lack, 1968 Norman G. Wilder, 1971-73 John C. Bryson, 1973-78 John E. Wilson, 111, 1978-84 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Norman E. Jackson, 1968-72 Paul V. Freese, 1972-73 Robert R. Perry, 1973-75 William C. McKinney, 1975-76 Herbert L. Tucker, 1976-81 James H. McDermott, 1981-84 MARYLAND Frederick W. Sieling, 1968-75 Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, 1968-84 Dr. Donald W. Pritchard, 1968-84 Albert E. Sanderson, 1968-79 Howard Wilson, 1979-80 L. E. Zeni, 1975-84 Dr. Walter R. Taylor, 1979-84 Dr. Sarah J. Taylor, 1980-84 PENNSYLVANIA Marshal S. Goulding, Jr., 1968-70 William N. Frazier, 1970-80 Steve Runkel, 1980-84 VIRGINIA Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., 1968-84 B- 84 ATTACHMENT B-3 LISTING OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES B-85 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Date Event Participants Topic Jan 1967 Study Initiation Corps As noted Feb 1967 Advisory Group Established Corps Corps establishes Adv. Group Mar 1967 Interagency Meeting Corps, Federal and State Agency Potential Model testing July 1967 Interagency Meeting Corps, Bay-area Scientific Organ. Prototypedata requirements Sept 1967 Ist Adv. Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Scope of Study Nov 1967 Gov. of Md. offers land for model Corps, State of Md. As noted Nov-Dec 1967 Initial Public Meetings Corps, Public Announce Study initiation Dec 1967 Corps accepts land for model Corps, State of Md. As noted Mar 1968 Adv. Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Establish Steering Com. & Task Gps Apr-Ray 1968 Ist Task Group Meetings (All) Corps, Task Group Members Scopes of Task Group Work June-July 1968 Task Group Meetings (All) Corps, Task Group Members Work by Task Groups July 1968 Prel. Plan of Study Published Corps As noted June 1970 Plan of Study Published Corps As noted Dec 1970 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Work for Existing Conditions Report Jan 1971 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Committee Members Public participation; biological studies Feb 1971 Task Group meetings (All) Corps, Task Group Members Work for Existing Conditions Report (ECR) May 1971 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Status report on study Sept 1971 Task Group Meeting (WQ) Corps, Task Group Members Water quality work for ECR Sept 1971 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Committee Members Biological work Sept 1971 Citizens Program for Ches Bay Mtg (CPCB) Corps, Fed & State Agencies, Public Public involvement in Ches Bay May 1972 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, &dv. Group Members ECR and public involvement 00 Oct 1972 Meeting Corps, CPCB representatives Citizens Advisory Group ON Nov 1972 Meeting Corps, CPCB representatives Citizens Advisory Group April 1973 Release of film Corps Corps film on Study released - Planning for a Better Bay" June 1973 Groundbreaking ceremony Corps, local officials and public Groundbreaking for Chesapeake Bay model Oct 1973 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Future cdtiditions phase of the study Dec 1973 Publish Existing Condition Report Corps As noted March 1974 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Advisory Group Members Scope and objectives of program Apr-May 1974 Task Group Meetings Corps, Task Group Members Future conditions phase May 1974 Symposium Corps, CRC, Scientific Community Effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on Bay January 1975 Draft Agnes Study completed Corps As noted May 1975 Adv. Group & Steering Com. Meeting Corps, Adv. Group & Steering Com Formulate model testing program Oct 1975 Publish Final Agnes Report Corps As noted Nov 1975 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv Group Members Long term management of the Bay model April 1976 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Steering Committee Members Fist year of model testing April 1976 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Review Study progress CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES (CONT'D) Date Participants Topic May 1976 Dedication of Hydraulic Model Corps, public As noted; Model tours begin June 1976 Series of public meetings Corps, public Advise public of proposed study plans April 1977 Bi-state Conference on Ches. Bay Corps; Federal, state, & local agencies; public Condition of Ches. Bay May 1977 Model open for Kent Island Days Corps, public Model open on weekends each year following June 1977 Model open for Queen Annes Day Corps, public As noted Oct 1977 Model open for Ches Appreciation Days Corps, public Model open each year for this observation Dec 1977 Publish Future Conditions Report Corps As noted Apr 1978 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Adv. Group Members Review draft of Revised Plan of Study June 1978 Steering Committee Rooting Corps, Steering Com. Members Review draft of Revised Plan of Study June 1978 Meeting with CPCB Corps, CPCB representatives Public involvement in final study phase June 1978 Meeting with Virginia officials Corps, Virginia State officials Public involvement in Virginia Oct 1978 Publish Revised Plan of Study Corps As noted Oct 1978 Dedication of T. Walter Denny Memorial Corps, public Memorial located at model Nov 1978 Development of Joint Day Display Corps, EPA, States Joint display discussing agency programs Feb 1979 Bay Display completed Corps, EPA, States As noted Aug 1979 Model Visitor Center complete Corps As noted Oct 1979 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Steering Com. Members Results of Model Testing Oct 1979 NATO Committee Model visit Corps, committee As noted Nov 1979 Educational Seminar at Model Corps, CRC, scientific community Status of Day and uses for model Nov 1979 Biota Seminar at Model WESTECH, Corps, scientific community As noted Nov 1979 Meeting with CPCB Corps, CPCB Public invilvement in last stage of study Dec 1979 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Steering Com. Members Biota assessment contract Jan 1980 Advisory Group Meeting Corps, Advisory Group Status of Study and Model Feb 1980 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Steering Com Members Biota assessment Feb 1980 Reorganization of Task Group Corps As noted March-Oct 1980 Model open for tours on weekends Corps As noted , Mar 1980 Biota Seminar at Colonial Beach, VA WESTECH, Corps, scientific community As noted Apr 1980 Steering Committee Meeting Corps, Steering Committee Biota assessment Apr 1980 Md-Va Joint Resolution on Model States As noted June 1980 Steering Committee Mtg Corps, Steering Committee Biota assessment Oct 1980 Adv Group & Steering Com. Mtg Corps, Adv. Group & Steering Com. Concrete problem at Model Apr 1981 Meeting with CPCB Corps, CPCB Establishment of Ches. Bay Info Center May 1981 Steering Committee Mtg Corps, Steering Com Status of Model and Study Oct 1981 Biota Seminar at Naval Academy WESTECH, Corps. scientific community As noted Dec 1981 Complete Model testing Corps As noted June 1983 Publish News Circular Corps As noted July 1983 Steering Committee mtg Corps Steering Com Biota assessment how Low Study Aug 1983 Model closing Corps Model closed; tours stop Dec 1983 Ches, Bay Conf Corps, EPA, states Condition of Ches. Bay ATTACHMENT B-4 PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE Table of Contents Date Title Page 24 Feb 67 Letter of Notification of Chesapeake Bay Study to Governor Agnew of Maryland B-94 27 Oct 67 Notice of Public Hearing B-95 2 Nov 67 Letter from Governor Agnew to District Engineer b-96 21 Dec 67 Letter of Appreciation from Queen Anne's County B-96 21 Feb 68 Letter of Notification of Chesapeake Bay Study to Atomic Energy Commission B-97 27 Jul 70 Cover Letter - Chesapeake Bay Plan of Study 6-98 15 Jan 71 Cover Letter to All Task Group Chairmen Describing Study Objectives B-98 3 Feb 71 Memorandum of Recreation Task Group Meeting B-99 10 Feb 71 Memorandum of Flood Control, Navigation, Erosion, and Fisheries Task Group Meeting B-100 12 Feo 71 Memorandum of Econornic Projections Task Group Meeting B-100 17 Feb 71 Memorandum of Water Quality and Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious Weeds Task Group Meeting B-101 9 Mar 71 Memorandum of Fish and Wildlife Coordination Group Meeting B-101 12 May 71 Memorandum of Meeting with EPA Regarding Chesapeake Bay Study b- 102 29 Jun 71 Notification of Citizens Program for the Chesapeake bay B-103 14 Sep 71 List of Participants in Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay B- 104 19 Sep 71 Memorandum of Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay b- 104 29 Nov 71 Chesapeake Bay Study Organization and Management Update Letter b- 109 B-89 'Table of Contents (contd) Date Title Page 4 Oct 72 Memorandum of Meeting with Dr. Eugene Cronin of Natural Resources Institute B-110 15 Nov 72 Memorandum of Meeting with the Steering Committee of I the Citizen's Planning Committee for the ChesapeaKe Bay (CPCCB) B-110 11 Jun 73 Model Complex Groundbreaking Ceremony Program B-111 3 Feb 75 Memorandum of Annual Meeting of the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay B-113 14 May 75 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Requests for Studies to be Performed on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model B-114 23 May 75 Federal Power'Commission Comments on Model Testing B-10 27 May 75 Soil Conservation Service Comments on Chesapeake Bay Study Draft Report B-118 27 May 75 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Comments on Chesapeake Bay Study Draft Report B-119 27 May 75 U.S. Department of the Interior Comments on Chesapeake Bay Study Draft Report b- 120 27 May 75 U.S. Department of the Interior Comments on Model Testing B- 121 28 May 75 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Comments on Model Testing B- 124 28 May 75 Water Resources Management Administration Comments on Chesapeake Bay Study Draft Report B- 125 28 May 75 U.S. Coast Guard Comments on Model Testing B-126 7 May 76 Dedication Ceremony Leaflet B-126 7 May 76 Dedication Ceremony Program 13-129 16 Aug 76 Citizens Program for the Chesapeake bay (CPCB) Comments on Draft Report 13-133 13 Dec 76 Request by CPCB for Additional Copies of Appendix 13 Electric Power B-133 B- 90 Table of Contents (cont1d) Date Title Paee 13 Der 76 Correspondence Between CPCB and Maryland Rural Af fairs Council, University of Maryland B-134 13 Dec 76 Cover Letter from CPCB to Mr. Edward I Vinmcomb Requesting Review of Draft Report B-134 9 Feb 77 Request by CPCB for Additional Copies of Draft Report B-135 22 Mar 77 Request by CPCB for Additional Copies of Various Appendices B-135 24 Mar 77 Memorandum of Meeting with SRBC on Low Flow-Test B- 137 31 May 77 SRBC Review Comments 13-138 7 Jul 77 Letter of Appreciation from Queen Anne's County for Participat.ion in Queen Anne's Days Activities b-139 19 Aug 77 Cover Letter for Chesapeake Bay uture Conditions Report b-139 22 Nov 77 Response to Questions Raised by SRBC 13-140 20 Mar 78 Cover Letter for Chesapeake Bay_Future Conditions Report 13-141 30 Mar 78 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Response to their Review of Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report B- 141 2 Apr 78 CPCB Response to their Review of Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report &142 5 Jun 78 Memorandum of Meeting with CPCB and Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program B- 142 26 Jun 78 Memorandum of Meeting with CPCB, Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program, and Virginia State Water Control Board B-145 6 Jul 78 Request for Future Model Studies b- 148 7 Jul 78 Cover Letter for Summary of Remarks from the Chesapeake Bay Study Steering Committee b- 150 B- 91 Table of Contents (cont'd) Date Title Page 13 Jul 78 Memorandum of Meeting with Maryland Coastal Zone Management, CPCB, and Delmarva Advisory Council 13- 1 jo 20 Mar 79 Invitation to Visit the Hydraulic Model Extended to the Dean, College of Engineering, University of Maryland B- 151 16 Apr 79 News Release 13-152 27 Jun 79 Update to Maryland Department of Natural Resources B-154 6 Aug 79 Information Bulletin on Low Freshwater Inflow Test B-156 26 Sep 79 Invitation to Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Seminar B-156 7 Nov 79 Memorandum of Visit by NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society to the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model B-157 14 Nov 79 Educational Seminar at the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model B- 159 7 Feb 80 Joint Resolution to Congress Requesting Funds for Continued Operation of the Chesapeake Bay Model B- 159 7 Feb 80 Cover Letter for Public Participation During Problem Solving Phase of Chesapeake Bay Study 13-161 15 Feb 80 Reorganization of Task Groups b- 161 14 Apr 80 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Comments on Chesapeake Bay Study Public Involvement Program Final Study Phase Report t@- 162 10 Sep 80 CPCB Letter Declining Future Participation in the Citizens Advisory Committee B-163 20 Ort 80 Kent Island Heritage Society, Inc., Request for Use of Facilities at the Chesapeake Bay Model 6-164 2 Jan 81 Permission for the Kent Island Heritage Society to Use Parking Facilities at the Chesapeake Bay Model B-164 9 Feb 81 Response to CPCB's Declining to Serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee B-165 9 Mar 81 CPCB Rejection of Participation in the Citizens Advisory Committee B-166 B- 92 Table of Contents (cont'd) Date Title Page 2 Apr 81 Memorandum of Meeting on Formation of CPCi3's Chesapeake Bay Information Center B- 166 22 Apr 81 Response to CPCB's Rejection of Participation in the Citizens Advisory Committee B-167 7 Dec 81 Notification of Intent to Downgrade the Model to a State of Operational Readiness ti- 168 14 Apr 83 Notification of Chesapeake Conference to be Held in December 1983 B-168 10 May 83 Acceptance of Invitation to Chesapeake Conference in December 1983 13-169 B- 93 NADPL 24 FEB 1967 Honorable Spiro T. Agnew Governor of Maryland Annapolis, Maryland Dear Governor Agnew: Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965, authorized and di- rected the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to make a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin including the waters of Baltimore Harbor. The study will include but not be limited to the following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, beach erosion, and recreation. Included in the authorization is the construction, operation and maintenance of a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay and an associated technical center to be located in the State of Maryland. The authoriiza- tion further provides that the model may be utilized by other departments, agencies, or instrumentalistics of Federal government and the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania in connection with any research, in- vestigation, or study being carried on by them of any aspect of the Chesa- peake Bay Basin. This study has been assigned to the District Engineer, Baltimore Dis- trict, Corps of Engineers for accomplishment. However, the wide scope of this study makes it desirable to solicit cooperative participation of the several Federal departments and the three States having interests, and concerns with the Bay area as a water resource. It is presently consi- dered that the following would be involved: the State of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; and the Departments of Navy, Interior, Agri- culture, Commerce, Transportation, Health Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Federal Power Commission, and the District of Columbia. Honorable Spiro T. Agnew I am aware that the States and agencies cited are involved in other cooperative water resource investigations and that attendence of the li- mited personnal available at frequent coordinating committee meetings is imposing a considerable burden. Nevertheless, I consider it essential for the successful conduct of this investigation to obtain the active participation of all the above agencies. As an alternative to the establishment of a formal coordinating com- mittee, I am proposing that each agency designate an individual who would serve as a direct working contact with the District Engineer to present the views and coordinate the participation of his agency, and that all such representatives would be convered as a group only at such times in the course of the investigation as is necessary to reach basic decisions and to review and comment on the course of the study. I believe this procedure will meet the objective of providing for full cordination and involvement of all the agencies with a minimum of time and effort. Accordingly, I am requesting that you designate an individual to re- present, as well as coordinate and direct the active participation of your organization throughout the course of the Chesapeake Bay study. Sincerely yours, F. P. KOISCH Brigadier General, USA Division Engineer cc: NADEN w/d 2 BALTIMORE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 1715 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 NABEN-R 27 October 1967 They will be afforded full opportunity to express their views concerning the character and extent of water utilization, control, and development in NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING the Chesapeake Bay Basin, and the solutions considered appropriate. CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY Oral statements will be heard, but for accuracy of record, all impor- MARYLAND & VIRGINIA tant facts and arguments should be submitted in writing, as the records of the hearing will be forwarded for consideration by the Department of the Army. Written statements may be handed to the undersigned at the hearing TO WHOM IT MAY CONCER or mailed to him beforehand. It is requested that they be presented in quadruplicate. Pursuant to Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965, adopted 27 October 1965, the Baltimore District Engineer has been directed to make Please bring the foregoing@to the attention of persons known to you a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the to be interested in the matter. Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the waters of the Baltimore Harbor, and including, but not limited to, the following: Navigation Water pollution Fisheries Water quality control FRANK W. RHEA Flood control Beach erosion Colonel, Corps of Engineers Control of noxious weeds Recreation District Engineer In order that all information pertinent to the problems may be con- sidered in these studies, public hearings will be held throughout the study area, as follows: Location Time Assembly Room, War Memorial Building 2:00 p.m., War Memorial Plaza 29 November 1967 Gay and Lexington Streets Baltimore, Maryland Newport News Courthouse 7:30 p.m., 2501 Huntington Avenue 7 December 1967 Newport News, Virginia Circuit Court Room 2:00 p.m., Wicomico County Court House 8 December 1967 Salisbury, Maryland All interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the above times and places, including representatives of Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies, and those of commercial, industrial, civic, highway. railroad, water transportation interests, and property owners concerned. 2 1'11E IG0UN'I't' EXECUTIVF- DE:PARTMENT OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21404 CENTRI-WILLE, NIARYLAND IRO T. AGNEW November 2, 1967 December 21, 1967 LILLIAN C. CALLAWAY. CLERK WILLIAM it. COLEMAN. Pai-a- LEONARD K- SMITH JAMIES 9. THOMPBON. JR.. ATT0116V JULIUS GROLLMAN Colonel Frank IV. Rhea District Engineer, Baltimore District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1715 Colonel Frank W. Rhea, USA Baltimore, Maryland Z1203 U. S. Army District Engineer Baltimore District Dear Colonel Rhea- Baltimore, Maryland It is my understanding that your office is currently considering Dear Colonel Rhea: the merits of several alternative sites for construction of the hydraulic On behalf of the citizens of Queen Anne's County model of the Chesapeake Bay and for an associated technical center. as well as the members of this Board, we wish to express Queen Anne's County's appreciation of your I hope that you will give serious consideration to the State-owned interest and efforts during the past several months property at Matapeake, where a tract of land approximately 65 acres in which have successfully culminated in the decision size could be made available without cost to the Federal government. of the Corps of Engineers to locate the Chesapeake You are, I am sure, familiar with this area and the many advantages it Bay Hydraulic Model at Matapeake. offers. The Matapeake site is close to the Wye Institute; it is also ser- We cannot over-emphasize either the importance of viced by airport and marine police facilities. your contribution to the effort or the significance of the decision. It is my personal feeling that much is to be gained by locating the model within sight of the Bay, since it will undoubtedly be a major Very truly yours, attraction to tourists and groups of students who visit the City of 10 THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS aN Annapolis and the Wye Institute. OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY As Governor I wish to assure you that the State of Maryland will offer all possible cooperation to the Army Corps of Engineers in the planning and in the development of the model of the Chesapeake Bay. Pres a Sincerely, CC:c a A) NEW YORK 7, NEW YORK NADPL-F 21 FEB Mr. Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission Germantown, Maryland 20767 Dear Mr. Seaborg: Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 authorized and directed the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to make a complete investigation and study of water utilization and con- trol of the Chesapeake Bay Basin including the waters of Baltimore Harbor. The study will include but not be limited to the following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of noxious weeds, water pollution. water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation. Included in the authorization is the construction, operation, and maintenance of a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay and an associated technical center to be located in the State of Maryland. The authoriza- tion further provides that the model may be utilized by other departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of the Federal government and the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania in connection with any research, investigation, or study being carried on by them of any aspect of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. This study has been assigned to the District Engineer, Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, for accomplishment. However, the wide scope of this study makes it desirable to solicit cooperative participation of the several Federal departments and the four States having interests and concerns with the Bay area as a water resource. It was considered that the following would be involved: the States of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; and the Departments of Navy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Health Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Federal Power Commission, and the District of Columbia. I am aware that the States and agencies cited are involved in other cooperative water resource investigations and that attendance of the limited personnal available at frequent coordinating committee meetings was imposing a considerable burden. Nevertheless, I considered it essen- tial for the successful conduct of this investigation to obtain the active participation of all the above agencies. Mr. Glenn T. Seaborg 21 FEB 1988 As an alternative to the establishment of a formal coordinating committee, I proposed that each agency designate an individual who would serve as a direct working contact with the District Engineer to present the views and coordinate the participation of his agency, and that all such representatives would be convened as a group only at such times in the course of the investigation as is necessary to reach basic decisions and to review and comment on the course of the study. In this connection, an Advisory Group. with representatives from the above cited States and agencies, was organized on 27 September 1967. I believe this procedure meets the objective of providing for full coordination and involvement of all the agencies with a minimum of time and effort. It has been suggested by the Committee on Multiple Uses of the Coastal Zone of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, authorized by the Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-454), that your agency may wish to designate a representative. Accordingly, I am inviting you to designate an individual to represent, as well as coordinate and direct the active participation of you organization throughout the course of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Sincerely yours, F. F. KOISCH Brigadier General, USA Division Engineer cc: HABEN-E ENGCW-PD NADEN, w/d Same letter sent to: Dr. S. Dillon Ripley Secretary, Smithsion Institution Smithsion Institution Building The Mall Washington, D.C. 20560 2 Leland Hawaith NSF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BALTIMORE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOX 1715 BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21203 NABPL-C 15 January 1971 NABEN-B 27 July 1970 TO ALL TASK GROUP CHAIRMEN, CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY TO ALL PARTICIPANTS ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY Our allotment of funds for Fiscal Year 1971 for the Chesapeake Bay Study is sufficient to reactivate this most important study. In I am pleased to inclose the June 1970 version of the Chesapeake Bay Plan of December, I held meeting of the Adisory Group which was also Study and would appreciate receiving any comments or corrections. attended by members of the Steering Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to agree upon study objectives and the overall concept Since my letter of 2 March 1970, the study has taken a step forward. An of the study program so that work on the specific study items could inter-agency support agreement was made with the Coast and Geodetic Survey for be renewed. the installation of the permanent tide gage network in the bay. Contracts were I have inclosed for your information, desciptions of the study also awarded to the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland for hydrographic studies on the Potomac River, and to the Virginia Institute of Marine objective and the general explanation of the conduct of the study Science for studies on the Rappahannock River and Mobjack Bay. Negotiations which were agreed upon by the Advisory Group. Your attention is specifically invited to the section on outputs of the study. Six are nearing completion with the State of Maryland for the acquisition of the distinct reports will be published, each following a phase of the property at Matapeake, Maryland. study. The first, a report on existing conditions, is scheduled for completion at the end of Fiscal Year 1972. It is imperative that On 19 June 1970, P.L. 282 was signed by the President which increased the immediate action be taken to initiate the items of work required to authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Study to $15,000,000. Although the study prepare this report. is programmed in the President's Budget for $330,000 in FY 1971, the Appropriations Bill, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, Inclosed is a detailed activities sequence diagram showing specific items of work which have been identified as being necessary to accom- includes $1,330,000 for the study and model. In addition, there are no restrictions in the bill on the design of the Hydraulic Model complex. If these additional plish the study. Write-ups on the work packages, which are scheduled funds are approved, we should be able to reactivate the task groups and begin for accomplishment in Fiscal Year 1971 and early in Fiscal Year 1972, work on both the resource study and the model. are enclosed. After funds are appropriated, which should be about October, I will schedule The first page of the work packages provides a description of the meetings of the task groups and Advisory Group. information contained in each work package. I request that you convene your work group to discuss the aforementioned work items and be prepared to report an the results of your meeting to the Sincerely yours, Advisory Group in February. It is imperative that we reach agreement an these items so that the appropriate interagency agreements can be executed and the actual work be initiated. Special attention should be paid to the description of the work, what contributions the agencies represented on your Work Group can make to each work package, whether I Incl W. J. LOVE the required information is readily available, and the adequacy of As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers the time and fund requirements. The agency which has been tentatively District Engineer cHE'SAPEAKE BAY STUDY TO ALL TASK GROUP DATE: 3 February 1971 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Frank M. Basile. designated as having the responsibility for a work packelte is For Bureau of Outdoor managam4kni purposes only; all u4mbere of the task group will undoubtly, Recreation contribute to each work package. The decision on which agency should be responsible for management of each work item should be made at the ATTENDANCE task group meeting. Also, it In requested that you review all the work packages. not just those of your task group. Frank M. Basile Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Richard T. Huber Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife In addition to consideration of the work packages and the sequence David A. Kimball National Park Service diagram, the task groups should consider how the data vill. be presented. Harold I. Lessem National Park Service in the siciating conditions report. Also, the type and extent of physical, Harold E. Scholl Soil donservation Service biological. chemical, and economic data required for work Itens related Frederick D. Knapp, Jr. Water Quality office, EPA to the future conditions report should be determined so we can further Capt. Lester A. Levine U.S. Coast Guard identify the needs for our data collection program. Alfred E. Robinson Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Dr. James H. McKay, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District A current list of the members of your task group is inclosed. I have Noel E. Beegle ch member shown on Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District sent a copy of this letter and the inclosures to as John C. Diering, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District the List. Charles G. Stone Corps of Engineers, N. Atlantic Division Marshall M. Cook Md. Fish & Wildlife Administration I an sure that the Corp@ of Engineers' representative an your task William A. Parr Maryland Dept. of Forests & Parks group will be able to answer specific questions on the information Albert E. Sanderson, Jr. Maryland Dept.of Water Resources Inclo,sed. William J. Hopkins Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Sincerely your*, George E. Fogg Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources Rob R. Blackmore Virginia Comm. of Outdoor Recreation SUMMARY 4 Incl, W. J. LOVE 1. The group discussed the recreation work packages and agreed existing As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers Federal and state recreation inventories would be updated to a base District Engineer year of 1970. rc: Planning Division 2. The inventories will reflect only the four basic Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) recreation activities - swimming, boating, picnicking and camping - rather than all activities shown in the plan of study. 3. BOP plans to use a new Environmental Quality Rating system as part of the existing conditions report. 4. The study areaas defined at this meeting, included economic sub- regions 1 thru 4, plus the Delaware Portion of subregion 5. 5. The sequence diagram and time Schedule for the recreation work was considered appropriate; however, BOR would prefer combining the work packages on demands (R-3) and needs (R-4) into a single demand-Supply- needs analysis. 2 . ... .......... ...... . ......... ........ ..... . . . ... .... ...... .. .I FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, EROSION, AND FISHERIES TASK GROUP ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS TASK GROUP 14EETING DATE: 10 February 1971 CHAIRMAN: Mr. John P. O'Hagan, DATE: 12 February 1971 CHAIRMAN: Mr, Henry L. DeGraff, Corps of Engineers, Office of Business Baltimore District Economics ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE John W. Baumeister Water Quality Office, EPA Noel E. Beegle Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Donald W. Roeseke Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District David K. Bowen Soil Conservation Service Noel E. Beegle Morris Colen Corps of Engineers, N. Atlantic Division Paul Danis Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District W. Wayne DeMoss Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources Henry L. DeGraff Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Stanley A. Feitler U.S. Bureau of Mines Dept. of Commerce, Office of Business George E. Hoerichs Maryland Fish & Wildlife Administration Roger Matson Economics Edgar H. Hollis Maryland Fish & Wildlife Administration Dept. of Commerce, Office of Business Richard T. Huber Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Economics Edwin B. Joseph Virginia Institute of Marine Science Frederick Bell Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Ted S. Y. Koo University of Maryland Fisheries Service Carl D. Matthias Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Dr. P. Thomas Cox Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research G. Liberatore Naval Ship Research & Development Lab Stanley Feitler Service Herbert Linthicum Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Mines Captain W. A. Montgomery U.S. Coast Guard Frede'rick D. Knapp, Jr. Water Quality Office, EPA George J. Moorehead D. C. Department of Sanitary Engineering Robert Griffis Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of John P. O'Hagan Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Planning Turbit H. Slaughter Maryland Geological Survey Mr. Ellis Harned Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Thomas P. Whelley Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Planning Board SUMMARY SUMMARY 1. The group discussed each of the task group's work packages with regard to content and the adequacy of cost and time estimates. The 1. Discussion at the meeting centered on work packages EP-1, EP-2, and group generally found the work packages were sufficient; however, the EP-3, as described in the preliminary draft "Chesapeake Bay Study Work National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) took exception to the Corps Packages" distributed on 15 January 1971. of Engineers preparing work packages N-2 and N-3, stating that the Department of Commerce was in a better position to collect this data. 2. The principle area of discussion regarding EP-1 was the definition It was suggested that the NMFS advise the District Engineer regarding of the study area. It was generally agreed that the study area Should its capability to perform the aforementioned work. be limited to the Bay area, recognize State planning districts, and eliminate the Philadelphia SMSA while including the Wilmington SMSA. 2. The group agreed that the inventory data should have a base year It was further agreed OBE would draft a study area proposal for review of 1970, and that the adoption of standardized mapping would be and comment by all task groups. advisable. 3. Discussion of EP-2 centered on the use of the OBERS projections. It 3. Regarding better public response to the study, the group felt was generally agreed that OBE and ERS would have major responsibility for newsletters, public meetings and personal contacts, were important, preparation of this package and that the primary task would be disaggregating but that television coverage was the best method of making the OBERS projections to the study area defined in EP-1. general public aware of the study. 4. A meeting of the Economic Projections Task Group has been scheduled for 25 May 1971. FISH AND WUDLIFE COORDINATION GROUP MEETING NOXIOUS WEEDS TASK GROUP MEETING DATE: 9 March 1971 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Herbert A. Hunter, DATE: 17 February 1971 CHAIRMAN: Dr. James H. McKay, Jr. Bureau of Sport Fisheries Corps of Engineers, Wildlife, Department of Baltimore District the Interior ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE Johan A. Aalto Water Quality Office, EPA Herbert A. Hunter Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Thomas H. Pheiffer Water Quality Office, EPA Richard T. Huber Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife R. Kenneth Tinsley Water Quality Office, EPA Robert L. Schueler Natural Marine Fisheries Service W. F. White U.S. Geological Survey Marvin F. Bousso Natural Marine Fisheries Service Dr. Jeff Swinebroad Atomic Energy Commission John W. Baumeister Water Quality office, EPA Robert L. Schueler National Marine Fisheries Service Arthur D. Bradford Pennsylvania Fish Commission Stanley A. Feitler U.S. Bureau of Mines J. F. McInLeer, Jr. Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries Comm. Harold B. Summey U..S. Coast Guard Morris L. Brehmer Virginia Institute of Marine Science Arnold Speiser D. C. Department of Sanitary Engineering Charles A. Lesser Dept.of Natural Resources & Environmental Albert E. Sanderson, Jr. Maryland Department of Water Resources Control, State of Delaware Noel C. Valenza Maryland Department of Health Fred W. Sieling Maryland Fish & Wildlife Administration A. W. Hadder Virginia State Water Control Board Edwin H. Barry Maryland Department of Natural Resources Dr. James H. McKay, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District William E. Trieschman, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Harold L. Nelson Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District John C. Diering, Jr. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District John P. O'Hagan Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Noel E. Beegle Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District SUMMARY .0 S L201A RY 1. The group discussed each of the task group's work prackages, and there was general agreement on the content and time and cost estimates. 1. The group agreed that this coordination group was still necessary in that it provides a mechanism for coordination between all Federal and 2. It was agreed standardized mapping would be advisable and that state fish and wildlife agencies. the study area should be limited to the Bay area proper where practicable. 2. The representatives from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 3. The various agencies represented at the meeting indicated that (BSFW) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed that the while they could provide the Corps with existing data, they had no responsibilities and working relationships of the two agencies would capability for additional work this fiscal year. remain as they were prior to the Department of the Interior's reorgani- zation. With this consideration the work package assignments were considered appropriate. Both BSFW and NMFS indicated they had capability to proceed this fiscal year with the work designated in the various fish and wildlife work packages. 3. It was agreed that the report titled "Fish & Wildlife Resources as Related to Water Pollution" will serve as the basic document to be updated for the fish and wildlife inventories. All data will be updated to a base year of 1970. NABPL-P 21 May 1971 Memo to the File SUBJECT: Meeting with Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the Chesapeake Bay Study 1. On 11 May 1971 a meeting was held in the Baltimore District Office to discuss the role of the Water Quality Office (WQO) of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Chesapeake Bay Study. A list of the persons attending is included as inclosure 1. 2. The meeting was held at the request of WQO to discuss the water quality work packages (content and funding); the date which was available in the offices of WQO and the various state water quaility agencies; and the applicability of a mathematical model currently under study by WQO. a. Mr Phiffer indicated Mr. Lloyd Gebhart, Interim Regional Coor- dinator, WQO, would be designated as an acting member on the Advisory Group pending further appointments in the WQO. Mr. Phiffer also indicated WQO would like to be represented on the Steering Committee. The undersigned suggested this desire be included in the letter to the District Engineer regarding Mr. Gebhart's appointment. b. Mr. Horn discussed the "STORET" date retrevial system that is currently in use in WQO and several of the state agencies. This office indicated studies of various data retrevial systems were underway and it was agreed Mr. Crews would discuss the "STORET" system in depth with Mr. Horn later this week. Mr. Horn urged the "STORET" system be used for the water quality inventories with the data to be transferred to a more comprehensive system at a later date. c. Mr. Sloan discussed the mission of the Maryland Environmental Service and the sampling program currently underway in the Baltimore Harbor. Mr. Sloan explained that in addtion to the county water and sewer plans both metropolitan regional and basin 5-year treatment plans are being prepared. The basin plans will be prepared by the State of Maryland (Dept. of Water Resources), while the metropolitan plans will be prepared by the community (A/E contract). The plans will include recommendations for an early action plan (1980) and a long range plan (200-2020). The plan for the Baltimore Regional area is scheduled for completion in July 1972. d. In the afternoon session, Mr. Crim made a brief presentation on the mathematical model of the Chesapeake Bay being developed by WQO. While a detailed explaination of the capability of the math model was not made, it appears a math model once verified with prototype and NABPL-P 12 May 1971 Memo to the File SUBJECT: Meeting with Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the Chesapeake Bay Study hydraulic model data would be a valuable tool for the study. WQO was provided a copy of the type and extent of the field data currently being collected under contract for model verification. This information was provided to aviod WQO collecting duplicate data for verification of their math model. e. Work packages WQ-1 through WQ-6 were discussed. Mr. Crews outlined the work that had been accomplished by this office to date on WQ-1, 2, 3. and 5, and sample data formats were provided WQO. WQO intends to review further the time, cost and content of the work packages; determine the data available in the state agencies; and make a work proposal to this office. Mr. Horn said WQO agreed in general with the existing work packages. It appears this office will complete work pack- ages WQ-1, 2, 3, and 5, with WQO accomplishing the work in WQ-4 and 6. f. In response to a question by Mr. Horn, WQO was assured monies would be available for water quality work next fiscal year; however, WQO should make a work proposal based on work identified in the work packages. While WQO was eager to collect water quality samples in the field this summer, they were cautioned strong justification would be required for Corps' funding of this type of activity prior to completion of the existing conditions report. g. This office agreed to furnish WQO copies of the research planning study ("The Chesapeake Bay") proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation. 3. The meeting was adjourned at 1530 with WQO agreeing to furnish this office as soon as practicable a proposal for work to be accomplished by their office. 1 Incl BEEGLE As stated the Conference. This is a difficult task and we will obtain the assistance of professional CHESAPEAKE BAY people in the field of questionnaire design and presentation. Obviously your questions may be Box 38 restated and combined with others in th final Solomons, Maryland 20688 questionnaire. We will send you a copy of that questionnaire and a full summary of the opinions June 29, 1971 expressed at the Conference. We feel some real regret that we can't invite you to send a large group because of your unique Col. W. J. Love knowledge and responsibilities. That has been done SPONSORS District Engineer at previous conferences, however, and we believe that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the distinctive character of this one, which limits Central Atlantic Baltimore, Maryland 21201 it to citizen expression and opinion, is worth this Environment Service Dear Col. Love: special emphasis. Chesapeake Bay Foundation The participants in the Conference may, or We would like to invite you to participate may not, decide to develop some further expression Conservation Council in a unique effort to learn what the citizens of of their opinions and a citizens' plan. In any of Virginai the Chesapeake Bay region wish for the Bay in the case, we hope that the total Conference and its Isaah Walton League future. products will be of constructive value to you and of America your associates who carry the real burden of con- A group of citizen organizations indicated to trolling the present uses and assuring the best League of Women Voters the left as sponsors are inviting about 175 organizations future uses of this great resource. to send one or two representatives each to a Conference at College Park on September 16, 17 and 18. No state I would especially appreciate designation of an or federal agencies will be represented as such. We observer and receipt of your suggested questions by COORDINATION hope to draw from the group expressions of opinions 15 July, if possible. Further suggested questions Natural Resources Insitute, and preference which can be of unique value to your can be submitted at a later date if you wish. University of Maryland agency and others. The Steering Committee has been aware that it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain Cordially an expression of the public will and the public wish. We hope that this Conference can contribute toward that objective. L. Eugene Cronin Your role in the Conference is, however, of the Project Director greatest importance. You are most cordially invited to designate an observer who will be welcome in all mgm parts of the Conference and may serve as a source of information. We hope he or she will obtain useful information even before the report from the Conference is completed. Second, we request that you send me a set of the questions and choices on which you would like to obtain the opinion of "the public." we are assembling such questions from a rather wide group of state and federal agencies to incorporate them in a questionnaire to be completed by all registrants at "We the People and the Bay 1776-1976" Phase 1 of this Program, the Working Conferenc, is supported in part by Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1963 NABPL-F 19 September 1971 Memo to the Files Subject: Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay 1. During the period 16-18 September the undersigned attended a citizens' conference to discuss the Chesapeake Bay held at the Adult Education Center of the University of Maryland. This confer- ence was coordinated by the Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland under the direction of Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, and was financed in part by a grant from the U.S. Office of Educa- tion. Additional funding was provided by the sponsers which include the Central Atlantic Environment Service, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Conservation Council of Virginia, Izaak Walton League of America, and the League of Women Voters. The purpose of the conference was to learn what the citizens of the bay region wish for the bay in the future, and to discuss whether the variety of bay uses could be maintained for the next 100 years without destroying the bay's quality. In addition, consideration was to be given to formation of a citizens organization for continued action regarding the bay. A list of conference participants is included as inclosure I. 2. It should be noted that the undersigned as well as those individual representing the other Federal and state agencies were asked to participate in the conference only as observers who would serve as a source of information on Federal and state programs. As a result no formal presentations were made by the observers; however, the discssion periods, social hours and meals, provided ample opportunity to discuss the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study. Numerous questions were raised regard- ing the Corps study particularly with regard to the hydraulic model. 3. Reference is made to the conference agenda which has been included as inclosure 2. The following comments are provided regarding the program events indicated on the agenda. a. Following brief opening remarks by the conference chairman, Mr. Edward Alton, and chancellor C.E. Bishop, an excellent history of the bay region was presented by Dr. Carl Humelsine. Dr. Humelsine's presentation was highlighted by one of the most comprehensive and high quality slide presentations this writer has seen. b. The "challenge" for the conferees was next provided by Mrs. Beverly Holmberg and Mr. Arthur Sherwood. Both speakers tended to over dramatize the environmental condition of the bay in order to spur the attendees to "save our bay". The objectives of the conference were then stated as mentioned in paragraph 1. c. The afternoon session was started with Dr. L. Eugene Cronin's presentation entitled "The Scientific Viewpoint". Dr. Cronin's presentation is included in it's entirity as inclosure 3. Dr Cronin was followed by Dr. Steve Hanke who viewed the bay's problems from an economist's standpoint. Unfortunately, Dr. Hanke's theories on "optimal pollution" were not understood by the majority of the attendees in this writer's opinion. d. The next major presentation was made by Mr. Norman G. Wilder, Delaware Wildlands and Wildlife Federation, who gave a chronology on the events leading up to the recent passage of Delaware's shoreline use plan for the Delaware Day. It should be noted, Mr. Wilder is a member of the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study's Steering Committee. e. After diner, speakers were "Commodore" Frank Hennsey, public relations representative for the National Brewing Company, who narrated a film presentation on the bay, and Mr. Frank Gregg emphasized that while the Federal and state government can develop an independent comprehensive program for a basin, the responsible citizens' group should assist in the development of the program and also support the implementation of the program. Mr. Gregg also discussed the type 2 study program of the Water Resources Council and was quite generous in his praise for the Corps as a planning agency. f. For the second day of the conference, discussion groups were formed to talk about the problems and desired solutions to the various water resources needs. Each group aslo discussed what future action, if any, should be taken by a citizen's group. Following the discussion each group prepared a report consisting of various findings and recommenda- tions which were presented to the conference on the third day. A summary of these recommendations is included as inclosure 4. g. The evening presentations on the second day of the conference were highlighted by a film presentation and talk by Mr. Joseph Bodovitz, San Francisco Bay Study Commission. Mr. Bodovitz outlined the problems in San Francisco Bay and the steps which have been taken by both govern- ment and citizens groups to solve these problems. Mr. Bodovitz was very generous in his praise of the Corps planning efforts in the San Francisco Bay area and the responsiveness of the Corps with regard to changes in con- servation and environmental policies. A pamphlet outlining the San Francisco Bay Paln and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission is included as inclosure 5. 2 recommendat ions of the discussion groups outlined in paragraph 3f above., list of candidates and inviting those selected, following a review by the results of a questionaire distributed at the beginning of the con- the Advisory group, to participate in a Citizens Advisory Group for ference,and consideration of alternatives for future action. A sample the Corps study. Regardless of the alternative s;elected the timing questionaire which indicates the results of the conference survey is appears right to pursue the public information and participation included as inclosure 6. Pegarding future action,the alternatives programs very vigorously. considered are given in inclosure 7. After some discussion alternative three was adopted by the attendees with the pencil changes as indicated. Following this action the conference was adjourned. 4. In addition to the above, the following general comments are 'I Incl B E E C Llr)@ offered regarding the conference. as a . From an examination of the attendance list, it is apparent that the conferees were more representative of the ecologically oriented sector rather than all bay interests. Th-is fact should not be overlooked in reviewing the discussion group recommendations and questionaire results. b. With few exceptions the attitude of the conferees toward the overall program of Corps was good. Some criticism was directed by several individuals at stream channelization projeIcts; spoil disposal practices at navigation projects; and several proposed projects to include Salem Church Dam (Norfolk District) and the six dams proposed for the Potomac River Basin. With regard to the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study in particular, support for the early construction of the model and shelter was very strong. There was, however, a definite lack of knowledge as to the scope and objectives of the resource study. It was also apparent that some individuals view the hydraulic model as providing answers to all bay questions. Both of the above misconceptions point to the need for a strong public information program. c. Regarding the dissemination of information on the study and model, the undersigned questioned the officials of several of the represented organizations to obtain mailing lists and distribution preferences. Some organizations would rather prov-ide information to their members via their own newsletters based on material furnished to the headquarters, while others operating on a smaller budget would prefer a direct mailing of a Corps information pamiphlet or newsletter. d. Regarding formation of a citizens planning committee, this writer feels the establishment of a citizens advisory group is essential in order to gain a more direct and meaningful citizen input to the Corps study. Two of the alternatives open to this office include (1) relying on the conference steering committee to organize a citizens group which 3 4 CITIZENS PROGRAM FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKING CONFERENCE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SEPTEMBER 16-18, 1971 NAME AFFILIATION Mrs. Agnew, Marion Northern Virginai Conservation Council Aiton, Edward W. Izaak Walton League (Md.) Allen, Leo Fishermans Clean Water Project Allison, James T. Md. Dept. of Water Resources Mrs. Barnes, George Potomac River Assoc. of St. Mary's County Beegle, Noel E. U.S. Army Engineer District (Balt.) Bergoffen, William W. Natural Resources Institute Mr. & Mrs. Blake, Homer National Campers & Hiker Assoc. Blumberg, Barry D. Baltimore Junior Assoc. of Commerce Bodovitz, Joseph San Francisco Bay Study Commission Mrs. Bohler, Jack C. Junior League of Norfolk, Inc. Mrs. Bright, J. Paul Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland, Inc. Burgess, Robert H. Mariners Museum, Newport News, Va. Buxbaum, Robert E. Natural History Society of Md. Buxton, J.T. Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Norfolk Canada, Joe Republican Party of Virginia Capper, John R. Chesapeake Bay Affairs Carothers, Charles G. III U.S. Department of Interior Mrs. Carren, Lorraine Md. Wilderness Assoc. Mrs. Carter, Virginia Maryland Wetlands Committee Charsee, Gould Ecology Action NAME AFFILIATION 2 Ciucci, Joseph V. Jr. Amer. Inst. of Architects, Virginia Chapter Coch, Linda Holland College, Virginia Mrs. Cole, Gloria League of Women Voters, Md. Mrs. Comstock, George W. Maryland League of Women Voters Conklin, Ken Harry Lundberg Seamanship School Crawford, Robert C. National Science Foundation Mrs. Cronin, Alice C.P.C.B. Steering Committee Cronin, L. Eugene Natural Resources Institute Crosswhite, Chris Ecology Action Cunneen, Wallace V. Izaak Walton League, Rossmoor Chapter Cyr, Leo Bay Fishing & Boating Committee Delmar, Eugene A. MICEP - AIA Dennis, Robert T. Central Atlantic Environment Service Mrs. Dent, Gwen American Assoc, of University Women, Va. Dowd, Richard Mrs. Eastman, Thomas Junior League of Baltimore, Inc. Fisher, John C. IWLA - Md. State Division Mrs. Ford, Ellen Junior League of Washington, D.C. French, Warren B., Jr. Republican Party of Virginia Mrs. Gallagher, Germaine League of Women Voters (Md.) Gentry, Charles Environmental Protection Agency Mrs. Gilson, Gabriel Maryland Wilderness Assoc. Golden, Clifton W. Virginia Wildlife Federation Gottlieb, Bertram Transportation Institute Mrs. Granger, Christopher Conservation Education Council of Md. N AME AF @ I L I'A I i UN 1%, , A L A 111 LVI- Gregg, Frank New England River Basins Commission Liddick, K.E. Bethlehem Steel-Corporation Hanke, Steve H. The Johns Hopkins University Longwell, John R. Md. Dept. of Water Resources Harris, Walter Conservation Education Council of Md. Mrs. Magargle, Helen Audubon Naturalist Society for Central Atlantic States, Inc. Mrs. Hartwell, Elizabeth Northern Virginia Conservation Council Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac Mahoney, William W. Maryland Petroleum Assoc. Harvey, Holger H. Delaware Wildlands Mrs. Mathes, Ruth Central Atlantic Environment Service Mrs. Hastings, Peggy Council for Environmental Quality Matthias, Carl D. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Norfolk) Hennesey, Frank "Commodore of the Chesapeake" McGinnis, Frank Oyster Gra.4ers and Packers Mrs. Hennesey, Frank Merrill, Arthur S. NOAA Mrs. Holmberg, Beverly League of Women' Voters (Va.) Meyer. Donald B. American Oil Company Mr. & Mrs. Humelsine, Miller, Alan J. National Audubon Society Carlisle L. Colonial Williamsburg Miller, Fred Conservation Education Council Huss, Harry 0. Maryland Society of Professional Engineers Murray, E. Churchill Chesapeake Environmental Pmtective Assoc. Mrs. Jackson, Dodie Junior League of Hampton Roads, Inc. Mrs. Mullen, Gail Citizens Against Pollution Jennings, Joseph Bay Fishing & Boating Committee Myers, Don Johns Hopkins H.ospital Mrs. Jensen, Belva L. Charles County Community College Neale, William F. ASCE. Md. Section Johnson, Carl J. Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin Odland, Russel K. American Chemical Society, Va. Section Mrs. Johnscn, A. Reid Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland Pankowski, Ted Conservation Council of Virginia Johnson, Wheeler Outdoor Writers Assoc. of America Pheiffer, Thomas H. E.P.A. (Va.) Julian, William H. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Mrs. Phillips, Robert L. Junior League of Hampton Roads Keiley, Steven The Nature Conservancy Pittman, Mel .vin A. Old Dominion University Kellam, Alec Prier, Bob Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Assoc. Mrs. Kellam, E. Polk The Garden Club of Virginia Quick, George A. Association of Marylatid Pilots Kindle, Earl C. Old Dominion University Rogers. S.M. Marine Resources Commission (Va.) Lankford, T.T. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Roy, Rob The Johns Hopkins University Levin. Alan E.P.A. Mrs. Rutledge, Ann League of Wonen* Voters (Md.) Lewis, Lloyd 1"orfolk Ledger-Star 6 NAME AFFILIA110N NAME AFFILIATION Mrs. Scott, Barbara A. Maryland League of Wown Voters Wills, George Md. Envirunwntal Trust Mrs. Skeppstrom, Joan C. Citizens Against Pollution Wilmot, George Southern Md. Audubon Society Sherwood, Arthur Chesapeake Bay Foundation Wineman, Andrew N.A.S.A. Sieling, Fred Fish & Wildlife Administration (Md.) Wisner, Tom Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. NRI Smith, Gary A. Md. Dept. of Transportation Mrs. Wright, J.M.P. Md. Environmental Trust Smith, John P. Natural [email protected] Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Warren N. Maryland Charterboat Assoc. Sommerville, Alan J. Dept. of Environmental Resources (Pa.) Mrs. Stern, Robert L. Virginia League of Women Voters Mrs. Stockett, Charles League of Women Voters, Md. Mrs. Taylor, Ralph E. Maryland Federation of Women's Club Thompson, Robert Izaak Walton League (Md.) Thurston, Jack T. Northern Neck of Va. Audubon Society U5 Tiller, R.E. Charles County Community College Tribukait. Robert F. Md. Dept. of State Planning 00 Valliant, Jeremiah Boat Act Advisory Committee U.S. Power Squadrons Vinnicombe. Edward J. Citizens Committee on Modernization of Maryland Courts & Justice, Ind. Wallace, David Wallace. McHarg, Roberts & Todd Mrs. Wallace, Elizabeth M. Shellfish Institute of North America Walsh, Donald E. Old Dominion University Ward, Herbert H. Upper Chesapeake Bay Wa.tershed Assoc. Wentworth, Marchant Ecology Center Wilder, Norman G. Delaware Wildlands & Wildlife Federation Williams, Fielding Governor's Council on the Environment (Va.) PARTICIPANTS TN THE WORKJNIG CONFERENCE NABPL-C 29 November 1971 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SEPTEMBER 16-18, 1971 TO ALL PARTICIPANTS, CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY NAME, AFFILIATION Beavin, Benjamin Beavin Company Consulting Engineers I would like to bring you up-to-date on the organization and management of the Chesapeake Bay Study within the Baltimore District. Mr. Alfred E. Beers, Roland The Johns Hopkins University Robinson, Jr., who was formerly Assistant Chief of the Planning Division, has been designated Chief of the Chesapeake Bay Study Group. Two sections, Bormel, Joseph Comptrollers Harbor I'Ollution Comm. the Study Coordination and Evaluation Section and the Technical Studies and Data Development Section, have been established within this Group. Culbertson, Steele National Fisheries Institute & Mr. Robinson can be reached at (301) 962-4710. National Fish Meal Association Mr. Noel E. Beegle has been designated Chief of the Study Coordination Fraser, Donald M. Republican Party of Virginia and Evaluation Section. The functions of this section will include over- all management of the study and model, liaison and coordination with other Mrs. Gerber, George YWCA Environmental Task Force agencies, coordination of work with other agencies and other elements of the District, a public participation program, and formulation of plans Harding, Diller Virginia Oyster Packers Association and water resource management strategies of the Bay. Mr. Beegle can be reached at (301) 962-2558. Jones, T. Ray Citizens Council for A Clean Potomac Dr. James H. McKay, Jr., has been designated Chief of the Technical Studies Nickerson, Paul State Health Department (Md.) and Data Development Section. The functions of his section will include collection of data as report input for evaluation of management and Perkins, K.E. Dept. of Natural Resources (Md.) product alternatives, liaison and coordination of overall data collection activities for the study and model, administration of requirements for water resource development, and preparation of designs and cost esti7mates Sanford, Calvin Republican Party of Virginia for water resource oriented projects in the Bay. Dr. McKay can be reached Sommerville, A.J. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at (301) 962-3204. Sougel, K.P. Health Department (14d.) If you have any problems or need information, please do not hesitate to call on any of the aforementioned gentlemen. Also, I request that you Stern, Helen Virginia League of Women Voters keep this office informed of any changes in addresses or representatives of your agency participating on the study. Stevens, N.T. Civil Engineering Department (POA)' Sincerely yours, Tallon, Philip American Institute of Planners & Md. Interprofessional Comm. on Envir. LIcsign Tompkins, Janes Dept. of Recreation, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM E. TRIESCHMAN, Jr. Van de Velde, Louis I BM Chief, Planning Division Ward, Yathryn Upper Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assoc, Zimmerman, Raymond Izaak Walton League (Rossmoor) NABPL-C 4 October 1972 NABPL-C 15 November 1972 I4EMO TO THE FILE MEMO TO THE FILE SUBJECT: Meeting With Dr. Eugene Crcnin of the Natural Resources Institute SUBJECT: Meeting with the Steering Committee of the Citizen's Planning 1. on 28 September 1972, the undersigned and Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. Committee for the Chesapeake Bay (CPCCB) attended a meeting at the University Of Maryland with Dr. Eugene Cronin of the Natural Resources Institute. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss 1. On 8 November 1972 Mr. Noel Beegle and the undersigned attended a meeting the Public Participation and Information Program which was developed for the at the Wye Institute with the Steering Committee for the Citizen's Planning Chesapeake Bay Study. Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. The general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the creation of a Citizen's Advisory Group for.the Chesapeake Bay Study. 2. A question concerning the establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Group for the Chesapeake Bay Study to help provide functional two-way communication 2. In attendance besides the representatives from the Baltimore District were between the planner and the "publics" was raised. Dr. Cronin suggested that the following members of the Steering Committee: members of the Citizen's Committee, set up during the working conference of the Citizen's Program for the Chesapeake Bay at the University of Maryland a. Mr. Jack Kimberly, Chairman in September, 1971, be asked to establish this Citizen's Advisory Group. Dr. Cronin contended that the Citizenks Committee could select members to b. Mr. Edward Aiton, Izaak Walton League (Md.) serve who were good representatives of such public factions as conservation groups, public service agencies, industry, and political action groups. c. Dr. Eugene Cronin, Natural Resources Institute 3. A question was raised as to whether Study funding could cover such expenses d. Mr. James Nelson, Wye Institute incurred by Advisory Group members as traveling costs and per diem. It was decided that the possibility of such funding would be investigated. e. Hr. William Prier, Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industry Association 4. if a positive decision is reached by the Study Group regarding selection f. Mr. Jeremiah Valliant, Boat Act Advisorv Committee and U.S. Power Squads of the Citizen's Advisory Group by the Citizen's Committee, a program will be presented at the next meeting of the Committee's Executive Council out- g. Mr. Edward Vinnicombe, Jr. , Citizen's Committee on Modernization of lining the composition, objectives, and outputs of the Citizen's Advisory Maryland Courts and Justice, Inc. Group. If the Executive Council reacts in a positive manner, the proposal will be presented to the Citizen's Committee itself. Not in attendance but also a member of the Steering Committee is: M's. Beverly Holmberg, League of Women Voters (Va). 3. The Chesapeake Bay Study Group is in the process of setting up a Citizen's Advisory Group as part of its Public Participation and Information Program. It RAUSCH was decided that, if possible, an existing Citizen's Group should be selected since such a group would take advantage of the organization, resources, and CF: Ch, Planning Division local contacts already developed by that group. An existing group might also form the Advisory Group as a subcommittee of the parent agency and invite par- ticipants from other groups to serve on the subcommittee. 4. The Chesapeake Bay Study Group was interested in determining whether or not the CPCCB would be the appropriate committee to set up this Citizen's Advisory Group. The specific purpose of this meeting, therefore, was to find out more ab6ut this committee and, in turn, to inform them about the Chesapeake Bay Study. A I, "@.J 0 L i "A @"Awihu dw,,.P"L@@d X@dAjd Ad fig "'t ,J.A.BPL-C 15 November 1972 SUBJECT: Meeting with the Steering Committee of the Citizen's Planning Cevemciay Committee for the Chesapeake Bay (CPCCB) '77777,731-7- . . -1 7@7 5. The CPCCB is a group made up of members of organizations concerned with implementing and assisting in the achievement of a published plan and program for managing the resources of the Chesapeake Region. The Committee has held two working conferences, one in College Park, Maryland, and the other in NES Fredericksburg, Virginia. A Steering Committee composed of chairmen of various subcommittees has been set up and meets periodically to develop policy and set tasks. 6. After being informed of the Chesapeake Bay Study, its purpose, objectives and status, the Steering Committee members affirmed their interest in the Study's Citizen's Advisory Group. 7. Upon receipt of additional information from the Steering Committee out- A lining what they have done and who their members consist of, a decision will be reached by the Study Group regarding selection of the Citizen's Advisory Group by the CPCCB. A formal proposal in the form of a letter will then be drawn up and sent to the Steering Committee. Upon affirmation of this pro- posal by the Steering Committee, a presentation will then be made to the 706 Committee as a whole for their approval. -fUD RAUSCH 4b LUAUI 4P %A JUNE 11, 1973 2 Sponsored By THE COUNTY. COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 5 THE BAY MODEL PR As part of the Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study, the Hydraulic Model will be the single most valuable tool available for gaining a better understanding of the Chesa- peake Bay. Water resource planners, engineers, and scientists from Federal and State agencies and educational institutions will use the Model to study both the existing conditions of the Bay and the impact of man induced changes on this large and complex estuarine sytstem. Information from the Hydraulic Model tests will be a vital factor in the formulation of a "water-land management program." This management program will provide both public and private groups with guidelines on how the numerous, but limited, resources of the Bay can best be used while maintaining the beauty and dignity of the Chesapeake Bay. PROGRAM presiding JULIUS GROLLMAN, PRESIDENT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY LUNCHEON - 11:00 AM Invocation The Reverend Roy B. Phillips Introduction Address Colonel Louis W. Prentiss, Jr. District Engineer Baltimore District Luncheon Announcements GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY - 1:00 PM Invocation The Reverend Thomas Hurley Introduction Address Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton Secretary of the interior Honorable J. Millard Tawes Former Governor State of Maryland "Groundbreaking" BENEDICITON The Reverend Thomas Hurley Queen Anne's County High School Band Richard Bentz, Director NABPL-C 3 February 1973 MEMO TO THE FILE SUBJECT: Annual Meeting of the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 1. On the 6th and 7th of January 1975, the undersigned attended the annual Julius Grollman, President meeting of the Citizens Program for the Cheasapeake Bay in Newport News, Virginia. The purpose of the meeting was to address the following areas John M. Ashley, Jr. of concern: Leonard E. Smith a. The desirability of establishing a Bay-wide basin commission James E. Thompson, Jr., Attorney b. Progress and plans in coastal zone management in Maryland and Lynda H. Palmatary, Clerk Virginia Jeannette S. Coleman, Deputy Clerk c. Progress made toward solutions of water quality problems affecting the seafood industry of the Bay U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS A copy of the program format in included as Inclosure 1. MG Richard H. Groves, Division Engineer, 2. Mr. Warren Fairchild's speech concerning the function and operation of North Atlantic Division Title II river basin commissions to included as Inclosure 2. Speakers COL Louis W. Prentiss, Jr., District after Mr. Fairchild expressed concern over the formation of one more bur- Engineer, Baltimore District eaucracy and the possibility that a Chesapeake Bay commission might merely duplicate the efforts of the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. Concern was also expressed about the fact that the State governments would be under-represented in relation to Federal members CHARLES E. BROHAWN AND BROTHERS, INC. on a Title II commission. It was felt that it would be easier to coordi- Lee A. Brohawn, President nate the activities of Maryland and Virginia alone rather than the two States plus all the Federal members of the commission. H. Douglas Fox, Project Engineer 3. on the other hand, it was felt that a Title II commission would provide the necessary regional approach to the Bay's problems as well as promote WHITMAN, REQUARDT AND ASSOCIATES coordination between the various Federal agencies. In addition, a Title II CONSULTING ENGINEERS commission is flexible enough to meet the needs of the specific region, is easily formed (and disbanded if it doesn't work), and generally speaking if Charles F. Millard, Partner the States are against a proposal or plan there is very little chance that it will be seriously considered or implemented. 4. My general impression was that most of the meeting participants were in favor of a Title II type commission for Chesapeake Bay with the reser- vations mentioned above. 'ABPL-C 3 February 1975 SLWECT: Annual Meeting of the Citizens rrogram for the ChesapeaVa Bay 5. There were several speakers on the subject of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Programs (CZW) in Haryland and Virginia. These programs have Just JAMES 13. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR. recently received funding and are in their initial stages of development. SECACTAAV STATE OF MARYLAND DEPUTYSECRETARY The public participation programs seem to be the moot developed with slide shown being prepared by each State. It woo generally agreed that offshore DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TAWES STATE OFFICE UILDING drilling for petroleum is the most pressing problem facing the C7?9's at ANNAPOLIS 214BOI this time. 6. It v" the opinion of the speakers on water quality problems affecting May 14, 1975 the seafood Industry that existing and soon to be effective Federal and State regulations controlling industrial. municipal. and military discharges will be highly beneficial to the aeafood industry. Accidents, such as oil spills, vill probably continue to be a major problem especially In view of the fact that one major oil refinery (173,000 barrels/day) has been proposed Mr. Alfred Robinson and Another rumored for the HaMton Roads area. It was also mentioned Department of the Army that more study is needed for many chemical effluents whose toxicity levels Baltimore District are unknown or imprecise. Corps of Engineers 7. The proceeding of this meeting will be published at a later date. P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Dear Ted: Secretary Coulter may be unable to attend the meeting 2 Incle AIMERSON of the Chesapeake Bay Study Advisory Group on may 280 and has as asked me to represent him at this meeting in case he is unable to attend. I have prepared for the Secretary a priority listing of the studies requested by the various units of this Department. A copy of this list as approved by the Secretary is attached. You will note that there are four major categories, each of which include similar study requests from several different units of the Department. I hope this will satisfy the request expressed in Bill Trieschman's letter to Secretary Coulter dated 11 February 1975. I will see you on the 280. Sincerely, 2 /Paul W. McKee Assistant Secretary PWM:fcg Enclosure C1!ESA1'FJLKE BAY HYDRAULIC 1-IODEL--PRIORIU-, LISTING OF THE FOUR RMOR CATEGORIES analyzing more than two sources simultaneously (for cumulative inpact), and methodology for simulating the entrainment of planktonic organisms has not been developed. If these two deficiencies were remedied, the Bay I. Dispersion of various components, sediment, spoil, waste discharpes, chemi- Model's versatility would be greatly increased. cal, radiologicI:L, thernal. Water.Resources AcImini stration- -Studies of sediment dispersal in the Bay and II. Determination of circulation patterns and flushing rates of Bay's sub- indirectly study of the dispersal of pollutants that are absorbed to sedi- estuarie ments. Determination of such dispersal patterns are necessary because some pollutants such as oil both tends to float on the surface and to become Water Resources Administration- -Determination of existing water circulation absorbed to suspended sediments and sink to the bottom. Thus, their move- patterns and flushing rates of the Bay's sub-estuary. Preliminary informa- ment depends upon both surface and bottom conditions. tion should be related to ambient water quality and known discharges to calculate the assimilative capacity of each sub-estuary. This data could Fisheries Administration- -Dispersion of spoil in various parts of the Bay then be related to proposed works and discharges associated with such works and major tributaries. Study of movement of various particle size to deter- to determine necessary restrictions on or relocation of these works. To do mine direction and severity of turbidity and siltation from the source of a this, dye studies should be performed in areas subject to specific types of su'o,strate disturbance such as dredging and spoil disposal using various types wetlands development. These areas should correspond directly to both exist- of bottom material under various materials. ing and potential sites for marinas and urban development and locations that correspond directly with historic pressures to dredge. Fisheries Administration- -Determine extent of nutrient transport, accumula- tion and dilution as a means of explaining plankton blooms and the possible Major centers of urban development include Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and disbursing of obnoxious blooms. Queen Anne's Counties. Specific sub-estuaries within these counties subject to extensive development include: Maryland Environmental Servic e- -Determination of dispersion coefficients and their relationship to freshwater inflow for the major estuarine tributaries AA - Magothy, Severn, and South Rivers of the Bay and in the Bay proper. This information would be useful in devel- BA - Patapsco, Back, and Middle Rivers oping bio-chemical mathematical models for pollution control studies. QA - Kent Narrows, Wye, and Chester Rivers I-later Resources Admini strat ion- -The studies of current velocities and preva- Fisheries Admini stration- -Delineation of movements and currents in order to: lent winds occuring on the Bay can give the Water Resources Administration (a) determine movement and dispersion of oyster larvae, fish eggs and a knowledge of such probable spill trajectories within Chesapeake Bay which larvae, crab larvae, and clam larvae; (b) pinpoint origin of floating would be useful in evaluating the potential impact of an oil spill within masses of dead fish; and; (c) plot dispersion and movement of aquatic the Bay, determining the most desirable location for a pipeline corridor if plant seeds and fragments as a means of predicting infestation routes of A one is desired, and aiding clean-up operations in the event of a spill. noxious plants and possible revegetation of certain areas. The spill trajectories could be to reasonably well predict the disper- Fisheries Administration- -Measurement of water volume and flushing rates in sion and movement of major wastewater discharges (say approximately 50 mgd). tributaries and embayments to provide basic information prerequisite to This information, in turn, could then be used to fine-tune mathematical decisions on locating discharge points for sewage, heated water, industrial models, for example, the prediction of the movement and dispersion of spoil effluentS3 at cetera, in relation to probable effects on the water and biota materials placed in Pooles Island Deep. of an area. Power Plant Siting Progr --The Power Plant Siting Program has begun negotia- Water Resources Administration--- One of the major areas that the Hydraulic tions with the Corps of Engineers related to the early use of the Bay Model Model can provide some reasonable answer to is that of the probable effect to analyze several potential power plant sites in the Upper Bay. These sites on water movement in Baltimore Harbor if changes in the bottom contour were will. include Bainbridge, Chesapeake City, and Stillpond Neck (if the latter considered such as that resulting from the utilization of discontinued spoil is purchased by PPSP). The tests will investigate the dispersion of water- disposal areas for spoil containment. This is an important area of applica- borne chemical, radiological, and thermal effluents. Unfortunately, discus- tion for the Hydraulic Model since the driving force in Baltimore Harbor is sions with the Corps to date indicate the Bay Model is not capable of due to the strong tidal currents originating from the Chesapeake Bay. M,-xyland Geological Survey--One of our needs is current velocity data for the Bay tributaries. A study of this type is within the capabilities of the model. 2 1I. (Continued) V. Prediction of storm tide inundation. Fisheries Admin! strat ion- - Determin,@ effects of jetties, piers, and sand bars water Resources Adndnistration--Irediction of storm tide inundation areas. on water movement and flushing rate of small water bodies in order to describe We know that flood plain encroaclxient in riverine areas can have an adverse modifications to aquatic co=unities. effect on the hydraulics of the s,@stem. There may be similar problems associated with flood tides in coastal areas. If extensive land filling on land surrounding the Bay, to meet the requirements of F.I.A. (Federal III. Study the causes and determine the effects of flow regrime modifications. Insurance Administration) is done, there may be adverse hydraulic effects. If the sufficient land areas have been included in the Model, the study may miaryland Environmental Service- -Investigate effects of flow regime modifica- be able to determine this effect. tions caused by changing land use on salinity profiles of the Bay and its major estuarine tributaries, i.e., what effect would a land use change that resulted in x% increase in basin wide runoff have on the salinity profile of VI. Yerify the Chesapeake Bay Mathematical Model. a given subsystem or the Bay itself. Solve for a range of percentage flow increases to determine sensitivity of salinity profile to freshwater flow. Water Resources Administration- -Finally, the Hydraulic Model could be used This kind of information would be very useful in determining what percentage to add another level off-co-r-TiMence to our Chesapeake Bay Mathematical Model. of a watershed can be paved over before we start to worry about causing major (If one model checks the other model, you tend to feel that much more certain changes in the estuarine eco-system. of your modeling capability and predictions.) maryland Environmental Servi ce- -Investigate the impact of major inter-basin transfers of freshwater on the salinity profiles of the Bay and its major estuarine tributaries, i.e., diversion of water fram the Susquehanna and Potomac to other sub-basins for water supply purposes. Fisheries Administration- -Study effects of C & D Canal enlargement on isoha- lines in the upper half of the Bay. Water Resources Administration--The effects of the reduction of flow of the Susquehanna River due to increased withdrawals. Water Resources Administration- -Effects of upstream channel modifications on the salinity, hydraulics of the Bay's estuaries. Water Resources Administration--The effects of salinity regimes due to in- @T-eased runoff caused by impervious surface from increased urbanization. IV. Study the formation of thermoclines and the influences that change them. Fisheries Administration- -Determine rapidity of water temperature change in various areas to explore causes of mass mortalities in aquatic animals, particularly fish. Examine related effects of other hydrographic factors such as water depth, volume, inflow, wind direction and velocity, turbidity, and color on water temperature fluctuations. Fisheries Adndnistration--Deterndne influences of various hydrological and metrological conditions on the formation of thermoclines in deep tidal waters and the volume, persistence, and movement of de-oxygenated waters. Fisheries Administration- -Measure extremes of temperature, salinity, oxygen, etc. , in deep holes and channels to evaluate importance of these areas for fish' survival, particularly during winter freezes. - 3 4 @@u rcuerai rjazz@ evaitrating radioactivity associated with nuclear plants. New York-, New Yorl, 10007 Our interest in the above exarnples is not direct, as noted previously, but only insofar as they may influence the adequacy arid reliability of power supply in the Chesapeake Bay May 23, 1975 Basin. Conceivably, further model tests could indicate the need for changes in location, size, and type of prime mover in order to comply with standards of water use, and in this manner be a valuable tool in system planning. Colonel Robert S. McGarry District Engineer Sincerely, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Baltimore District P.O. Box 1715 A. M. Monaco Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Regional Engineer Dear Colonel McGarry: Reference is made to your letter of April 21, 1975, inviting our comments on the first year testing program of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model now tinder construction. Since our primary con- cern is in the field of electric power our remarks are directed to the effect on electric operations that controls on the Basin's water rz=@-,:rcc: -:y ha-:-@, ac rc,.-ca2-d by -cl@@_I! T@- P""' Commission is not an action agency and has no jurisdiction over the construction and operation of electric facilities, other than non- Federal hydroelectric power projects and associated primary trans- mission. Utility system components that would be most seriously affected by restraints on use of Basin waters are steam-electric generating stations, both nuclear and fossil fired. As in the proposed "Upper Bay Power Plant-Thermal Effects Study,', the case of capacity employ- ing once-through cooling (existing, under construction, and scheduled), model tests will indicate whether or not thermal discharge character- istics are acceptable. Please noteghowever, that in studies of future power supplies engaged in by this office, steam-electric plants sited on a body of water such as Chesapeake Bay would be assumed to use cooling towers in keeping with the trend in that direction. This would, of course, result in substantial increases'in consumptive water use indicating that salinity tests would be useful in helping to de- termine if the projected evaporative losses could be tolerated. i i'vi LLAN iU k' ^ k.2 r1t 11- U 1- 4 L) r,( r- SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE - 4@21 Hartwick 1oad Comments on Chesapeake Bay College Park, Earyland 20740 Hydraulic Model Study May 27, 1975 The following are comments made by the Delmarva River Basins Survey Staff on the draft of the Chesapeake Bay Study - Hydraulic 14odel Col. Robert S. McGarry, District Engineer Program. Department of the Army The area on the Delmarva Peninsula draining into the Bay is Daltir-ore District, Corps of Engineers very small in land area and population compared to other areas P- 0. Box 1715 draining into the bay. The Problem 1.1agnitude Index as well as Baltimore, 1,11aryland 21203 the Social and Economic Impact Severity Indexes seem to be based Dear Col. McGarry: primarily on populationo Therefore, the Peninsula will be discriminated against in getting any high priority for studies. Also, because of the small land area and small percentage of In response to your letter dated April 21, 1975, the Soil Con. runoff to the Bay almost any of the impact indexes will be very servation Service submits the following cowments on the low thus giving a low priority. prelininary first draft of your Chesapeake Bay Study report cove.ring the proposed first year hydraulic studies program: -There are a number of studies needed that would effect the Del- marva area. The following are a few of the studies that would 1. The SCS is involved with many projects in Delaurare give some needed answers to decision makers: and on the Eastern Shore of Maryl2nd where local 1) Effects of enlarged channels to facilitate drainage of ag- sponsors request the reconstruction of raJor charnel ricultural land outlets in ordcr to provide relief for floodv,-,tcrs 2) Effects of runoff from agricultural land (sediment, nutrients and agricultural drainage systeirs. Can or vill the and/or pesticides) low and hi-h freshwater inflow studies be run with 3) Study of sediment movements in the Bay so that toxic sed- inflow hydrographs that reflect natural conditions iman+ -rina nn+n mirc+- h@AQ onn hp eiptp@inpri in nriv@r,'@p ana prouosea L:oaified cn-,-Lnel systersy Ir so, tn1s .the.reb.y.keeping the impacts on the shellfish and related will aliow a better analysis of the probable effects industry to a minimum of these nodifications on the Chesapeake Bay Systen. 4) Study of effects on the Bay of water desalination for municipal water supply for Virginia Eastern Shore 2. It would be better to call the Lnvironrental InDact 5) Effects of dredging on the Wicomico River. Severity Index discussed on pages 13 and 14 and'oher places in the report an Ecological Impact Severity@ Concerning the Low and High Freshwater Inflaw Studies, would Index, since-you are using as an index value orly the effects of freshwater flow from the Delmarva Peninsula be 00 species and ecosystems rather than the total environr.ent. evaluated? Also, information gained for the freshwater inflow study would give valuable information, but bocause of economic and political reasons very little could be done with the in- 3. Additional comments develoDed by the SCS, Delmarva formation in the near future. River Basins Survey Staff iocated at Salisbury, Maryland, are attached. More consideration should be given to the Chesapeake Bay Tidal Flooding Study. This is a vital problem confronting the counties Thank you for the opportunity to COr1nent on this report. The and individuals along the coastal area because of the Federal SCS is very interested in the results of the hydraulic studies Flood Insurance Programs and its regulations and concerns with program and look forward to your test reports on these studies. the height of the 100-year frequency events. Knowledge is needed If we can be of any assistance in this testing program, please immediately on heights of the 100-year frequency events for tidal advise. flooding. This type of information would be beneficial economic- Sincerely, ally and environmentally not only to those living in the coastal areas, but all taxpayers because of the high cost of the flood insurance program and other Federal grant programs to offset extensive property damage caused by continued development in the Graham T. Munkittrick flood prone areas. State Conservationist Attachment VC. Col. Robert S. McCarry May 27, 1975 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES In reply refer to that it is needed and we look to the hydraulic model to supply these answers. 1. 0, .0. -, R11-R Also, we do not feel that the inflow to Conowingo pool is equivalent to the H^PR1%a'JRG.PEhftSYLV^N- 17120 F 70:4 inflow into the Chesapeake Bay. We have pointed out that the storage behind the Conowingo Darm, the diversions from the pool (existing and planned), and May 27, 1975 the variable releases from the dam should all be taken into account to determine the flow downstream of this dam. Col. Robert S. McCarry Under our State Water Plan program, we have developed a low flow District Engineer criteria which we are using for planning purposes. We are also considering Baltimore District - Corps of Engineers Custom House - Second and Chestnut Streets the advisability of using the proposed criteria for making regulatory decisions Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 on water allocations. The basic principle of our low flow criteria is that the existing low flow conditions of Pennsylvania streams should not be reduced in the future because of increased consumptive uses. To achieve this goal, Dear Colonel McCarry: the criteria specifies that when the flow reaches the 10-year 7-day level, that all increased incremental consumptive uses must be replaced until the low We have reviewed the draft report on the Chesapeake Bay Study flow conditions increase above that level. This means that the existing flow which includes the first year hydraulic studies program. We feel that conditions from Pennsylvania can be considered as representative of flow con- the priority ranking of individual studies has been done in a fair manner ditions that will persist into the future. Therefore, we feel that the hy- and is consistent with the nature of the individual problems. 140 are draulic model should examine the full spectrum of low flow that has existed pleased that the low fresh water inflow study was designated as having up to this time. We are opposed to any flow augmentation scheme that would the highest priority. require maintaining a minimum flow. We do, however, strongly support flow augmentation for the purpose of making up consumptive losses during low flow This particular study is of foremost importance to our State conditions. because it will provide answers to the question or how important the We appreciate the opportunity for input into your model study, and fresh water inflow is to the Chesapeake Bay. we hope that we can be of future assistance in providing guidance. It is stated in the text that as part of this study, hydro- graphs for the followi 11 g conditions will be examined: Sincerely yours, I - Average annual flow year 2 - Average low flow year 3 - Intermediate low flow year 4 - Extreme low flow year C. H. @Ic @onnell, rD_eputyC'___@-_'V1 Secretary While these four conditions may cover the full range needed for an alyses, Resources Management because of a lack of definition of these terms we cannot be sure that these will be satisfactory. As you are probably aware, the present guide- encl. lines (see attachment) being used in the Susquehanna River Basin CoffLnission's Comprehensive Plan state that, "low flow to the Chesapeake Bay shall not be reduced. Low flow to the Chesapeake Bay is defined as the one-in-twenty year low flow in the months of August, September, and October (the flows of 3,500 cfs, 3,050 cfs, and 2,820 cfs into Conowingo Reservoir during August. September, and October respectively are selected surrogates for low flow into the Bay at the mouth of the Susquehanna River during these months.") it is understood by the four signatory parties of the Commission that this guideline is being utilized temporarily until more information is developed which would indicate better guidelines. Although Pennsylvania has agreed to this temporary gui;.Ieline, we feel that it has not been proven 1 07 United States Department of the Interior Off"ICE 01" IVATIA, RESEARC!! ANJ) TECHNOLOG), IN kFPLV "rER 10: in Table 1, Item A-1, the value of 3 under severity of environmental impact indices would indicate "permanent destruction of a few important %VASIII.NGTON, UC 2024U species. " Is this really what is meant, or is it intended to indicate mortality of a few individuals of a species? Presumably, page 22, paragraph 2, line 3 to 5 and Table 2, time estimates MAY 2 Y for data inalysis and report writing for the various studies proposed must-have been made to develop cost estimates for these activities; kilty Colonel Robert S. McGarry not include them? District Engineer Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Chapter 3 P. 0. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 The proposed Low and High Freshwater Inflow Studies of Bay-wide scope Dear Colonel McGarry: would appear to be of considerable interest to various Interior Department agencies and, as pointed out, should be helpful for planning purposes. This is in response to your request of April 21, 1975 that written comments concerning the first draft report on the Chesapeake Bay Study-be brought to the Kay 28 meeting of the Advisory Group and - Chapter 4 Steering Committee. No additional coriments. Studies seem well cunceived. Because of death or retirement, representation of the Interior De- partment -- through th2 Cffice of Water [email protected] and Technology during the past ten year -- has been interrupted, with three different indi- Appendix A viduals involved. During my tenure of slightly over a year, the Steer- ing Committee apparently has not met. Xy comments should be evaluated, The Department of the Interior, would I believe have considerable interest therefore, with the knowiedgC cnat my uorktng C .. @,:Zj@zt t!i- lln-- R-v Pnwir 'Plant - Thermal Effects Studv. has been very limited and my dealings with the various agencies concerned If possible, addition to the Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study have been on raostly on the other matters. of investigations on sedimentation and turbidity resulting from the chan- nelization, would be of interest. I doubt if all the impactswould be treated under the North Bay Dredge Naterial Disposal Study. The saue introduction would seem to apply for the Norfolk Harbor Channel Enlargement Study and the South Bay Dredge Material Disposal Study as well as the York Harbor No comment except to note that it is difficult to manipulate physical Channel Enlargement Study i.e, what happens to the silt stirred up in parameters in a model that duplicate conditions in the real world estuary; dredging which isn't conveyed to a disposal site? nonetheless the model should be helpful in predicting biological stress. Chapter 2 With respect to the Environmental Impact Severity Index, page 14, it would seem to'me that a separate rating--probably 5-A--should be used in lieu Daniel L. .Leedy of index values 3 and 4 in the criteria which mention permanent destruction of a "few important" and "several important" species but I don't think they should apply to spRLI@es_-when they are gone, they are gone forever. With respect to the Social Impact Severity Index, is it implied that cur- tailment of recreational opportunities is a threat to public health? uniLtu oi.a-Les i,@Lpai unem. oi 'Litt 111ttl 101 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY survey data and the addition of specific equipment in the model is necessary NORTIIEAST REGION to implement this capability. We endorse leg islation to the Congress requesting JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING supplement appropriations that wquld include this additional parameter in the ROOM 2003 J & K modeling program. BOSTON, NIASSACHUSETIS 02203 May 27, 1975 We can appreciate your efforts to produce a numerical rating system in order to-assist in prioritizing the proposed test. We generally agree District Engineer with your parameters and t iheir numerical rating; however, some of the ratings in Table 1 on Page we feel may be in error. For example: Baltimore District .1 Corps of Engineers 1. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply Study -- It is given Post Office Box 1715 a rating of 2 in magnitude. In severity it is rated Baltimore, Maryland 21203 "T' meaning significant temporary disruption of a few Dear Sir: species or areas no irreversible loss." The Potomac Water Supply Study will definitely impact a large population center. Washington, D. C., and suburbs will further the impact of The U.S. Department of the Interior considers it a privilege to be represented additional major withdrawals from the Potomac Basin and on the Chesapeake Bay Study Advisory Group and Steering Committee. Chesapeake will have an impact on the entire subsystem. The water Bay is a most productive coastal estuary. However. the mushrooming population withdrawal at present exceeds recorded low flow of the of the northeast United States (Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Norfolk) basins. With an additional water supply demand placed on continues' to exert its influence on this valuable coastal ecosystem. Chesa- the system, the following could be impacted: peake Bay is probably one of the most studied estuaries in the country; yet, each day we are faced with resource management decisions, and we 1. A negative flow.from the Potomac Basin if water realize how little we really know about this dynamic estuary and its is exported from the basin; resources. We must continue to make the decisions that confront us, hoping we are right. We look at the Chesapeake Bay Model as one ot the lancimark 2. with saitwater intrusxon Up Lhe babill, 1L,cLeabct; tools to aid decision ma .king in this area in the future. oyster bars and MSX mortality at the mouth of the river; our Secretary Morton, who was in attendance at the ground-breaking ceremony of this model, was enthusiastic about the model and its contribution to the 3. A buildup of chlorine and chloramens in the Chesapeake Bay Resources. Now, some years later, we are close to seeing Potomac Basin, impacting shellfish reproduction; the model complete and are drafting the first year of tests to be completed with this valuable tool. The Department of the Interior is confident that 4. Creating demands for upstream reservoirs to the information generated.by the first year of testing will be invaluable augment stream flow and water supply; and would request to receive copies of all reports generated as a result of the testing program. 5. Impingement and entrainment of organisms on intake structures. As I am sure you are In your letter of April 21, you requested our specific comments on the aware, most water resource proposals also possible studies, testing priorities, and tentative recommendations for have impacts which we cannot foresee and, the first year of modeling. thus, this is a cursory analysis of Table 1. The Department would suggest that the We noted in the description of the model capabilities that sediment priority of projects to be run on the model distribution studies are within the scope of the model analysis. Yet, be analyzed on those studies that we need to further into the draft report it is stated that five years of hydrographic answer management decisions within the capability of the model itself, including time and money restraints. -2- A C) 76 Lets Clean Up Amefica F9r0w2OOthffsr1hday We have no objection to the selection of tile four major tests you expect to run in the first year of operation, as MUCh Of tile data generated will have immediate application. We would hope that those studies which involve Test 7 - Baltimore Harbor Channel. tnlarg@:nent alLdl model geometry alteration will soon follow the first year of study, as many management decisions are also petiding on those data. As we assume that the We realize this test will not be run during the first year of testing model testing program is designed to, as closely as possible, simulate real as it will involve alteration of the model gcoLietry. This test wlien conditions, we have comments on the Individual Test Descriptions which, if run should closely follow and or be incorporated with Test 9. Tile implemented, we feel will result in more biologJcally significant informa- model-geometry should also be changed to -52 feet rather than -50 feet tion. which is tile Congressionally authorized channel depth. The minus 52 feet will represent the channel and the allowable overdepth dredging. Test 1 - Chesapeake Bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study This test should be run by itself and in conjunction with Test 8 which includes a -55 foot channel into Norfolk Harbor. Both channels in During the low flow testing program, Phase I and Phase 2, the daily average combination could result in significant bay salinity changes. Mnile or weekly average flow is not the kind of data needed from a biological both channels are being simulated on the model Test 11 the York Harbor standpoint. As biological systems survive,or expire on extremes, a simu- Channel should also be run to determine the salinity changes which lation of actual flows from the Conawengo Dam showing fluctuations caused may occurr in that system. Also the very large channel necessary for by actual power plant operation, including zero releases at night and on access by "Brown & Root" to their Accomack County location should be weekends, would be more valuable. simulated. During the establishment of base conditions with an average inflow year, Test 8 - North Bay Dredge Material Disposal Study it would be extremely valuable to sir@ulate pre-1964 peaking flow flue- tuations as they actually occurred at Conawengo (not daily averages). In This test will greatly assist in decisions to create a diked disposal the second half of base conditions with an average inflow year, it would area for deposition of dredge spoil from Baltimore Harbor. The test be valuable to simulate post-1964 peaking flow fluctuations as they actually will involve model geometry revision thus it will not be run during occurred at Conawengo (not daily averages). This should also include the the first year of testing. Any channel and rehandling basins needed to pimp grnrn!P w4rhArptini frnm rnnawenon Of -rffl, %ral". n"Iti h. .4.t-@ accomodate spoil disposal should also be incorporated in design of tests. generated in the months of April thr@ugh September. As a commitment of approximately 1000 to 2000 acres of estuarine area is Involved in this proposal, the model testing should not limit the During the testing of average low flow year, intermediate low flow year, Baltimore District study away from upland and within harbor disposal and the extreme low flow year, the CO Canal impact at its present -35 feet, sites, also. If the ultimate location of the spoil area is found to plus two foot allowable overdredge depth, should be closely monitored. be in the Bay the model should simulate the most adverse physical Also during these three low flow conditions, the proposed water withdrawal conditions'that the disposal area will be exposed to (high freshwater by the City of Baltimore should be incorporated to evaluate the additional inflow and high tides). system stress. If this is better simulated in a separate test, the three low flow conditions should be utilized. Test 9 - Norfolk.Harbor Channel Enlargement Study Generation of the data from this test should be available as soon as Based on past reports we have recommended to the Corps that this possible, as Conawengo and the other upstream FPC hydro projects Are up project not proceed until its impact could be simulated on the for relicensing in the next year or two and will be invaluable in the hydraulic model. We realize that model geometry will have to be changed to complete this test and thus it will not be run in the first decision-making process. year of testing. This channel should be run in tests by itself Test 2. Chesapeake Bay High Freshwater inflow Study however, it should also be run in combination with other proposed channels as discussed in Test 7. It is noted in this three-phase testing program that the tidal effects will be average, as high freshwater inflow could and frequently is Test 10 - South Bay Dredgenterial Disposal Study associated with a tropical depression. The test would be more indicative of prototype if extreme high tides and extreme low tides were also injected This test will greatly assist in decisions to create diked disposal into the system*. Depending on tropical storm locations in relation to the area for deposition of dredge spoil from Norfolk Harbor or York River Harbor. The test will involve model geometry revision thus it will not be run during the first year of testing. Any channels and/or -3- -5- very valuable seed oyster production area and this text will provide Norfolk District study away from upland disposal sites. If the ultimate very valuable information necessary for management decisions. location of the spoil area is found to be in the Bay tile model should simulate the most adverse physical conditions that tile disposal area Test 15 - Patapsco River Waste Water Dispersion Study will be exposed to (high freshwater inflow and high tides). We realize this study will not be run in the first year of testing. Test 11 - York Harbor Channel Enlargement Study When the test is run the volume of dye at each discharge should be carefully monitored as additional biological impacts can be This test will involve alteration of the model geometry and thus will extrapolated from the test as indicated in Test 13. Also the thermal not take place in the first year of model testing. The model will plume of the Wagner fossil fuel and Banden Shores nuclear power plants be run with average low steady state freshwater inflows. As pointed should be incorporated into the test as the heated discharge will out earlier in our comments the environmental resources survive on significantly influence the impact of the wastewater discharge. extremes. The model should be run with high tides and low freshwater inflows to monitor the most extreme conditions the ecosystem will Test 16 - Back River Waste Water Dispersion Study be subjected to. Also as mentioned in Test 7 the model should be run with the Baltimore Harbor Channel, Norfolk Harbor Channel and This test will not be run in the first year of model verification. the York Channel in place, careful monitoring of salinity changes as When the test is run the dye volume should be carefully moitored a result of hydrologic efficiency should be carefully analyzed. Daily indicated in Test 13. fluctuations are more important than averages and should be obtained if possible. Test 17 - Combined Potomac River Estuary Water Supply And Waste Water Test 12 - Potomac River Waste Water Dispersion Study Dispersion Studies This test will be run in the first year of model verification and is This test is combined with the Potomac Water Supply test and will a combination of tests 4 and 12. As pointed out in the NEWS study be discussed later in our comments. the Washington D.C. area is faced with critical water supply problems. Test 13 - Patuxent River Waste Water Dispersion Study information will have immediate application as many permtis for water This test will not require model changes but will not be run during withdrawal are pending in the Potomac Basin. We feel that the test results will be distorted as presently proposed. When low or zero the first year of testing. When this test is run additional biological flows occurr in the Potomac basin simultaneous low flows occurr in the information can be obtained if an additional monitoring effort is other major tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay area. To leave the other incorporated. One of the future problems with shellfish production in basins at average flow while reducing the Potomac would not truly reflect Chesapeake Bay is the build up of chlorine and chloramine in the possible salt water intrusion. The dye volume discharged to simulate estuarine systems. The biological degradation of chlorine in coastal waste water discharges should be carefully monitored as indicated in systems is a known factor. If the dye is injected into the model Test 13. The proposed Douglas Point Nuclear Power Plant and other fossil test and carefully monitored in volume the accumulation and possible fuel powerplants on the Potomac River should be implemented in this area of impact of chlorine can be statistically calculated. The test as they will significantly effect wastewater impacts on the Patuxent River Power Plant discharge should, if possible, also be estuary. The various water withdrawals should also be simulated with injected into this test as the heated effluent would significantly the projected releases from the Sixes Bridge Reservior. This would influence the impact of wastewater discharges within the estuarine aid greatly in projecting the reservoir management potential and its system. impact on the Potomac River System. Monitoring data in this test should Test 14 - James And Elizabeth Rivers Waste Water Dispersion Study show daily extremes in salinity, flow etc if possible not daily averages or weekly averages. We realize this study will not be run in the first year of testing. We are in hopes that the above comments assist you in the model study When this test is run the volume of dye at each discharge should be carefully monitored as additional biological impacts can be extrapolated formulation. We are confident the information generated will have immediate application in daily management decisions. We appreciate from this test as indicated in Test 13. The lower James River is a the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Sincerely yours, Roger Sumner Babb -6- -7- S.B. COULTER SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPUTY SECRETARY TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 May 28, 1975 CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL FIRST YEAR STUDIES The staff of the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers is to be congratulated on doing a fine job of defining project priorities for the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model first year's study program. The rationale behind the selection of study priorities and formulation of the proposed testing program is clearly explained and appears to be logical. The high priority studies selected for incorporation into the proposed first year program should produce a high yield of management oriented information within the given temporal and financial limits. However, the Department of Natural Resources has the following comments and recommendations: One of the areas of hydraulic study of interest to the Department of Natural Resources is that of shoaling rates and sediment distribution. Pages 8 and 9 of the Chesapeake Bay Study draft refers to these studies as not desirable during the first year of operation due to budgetary and data limitation. Table 1 of pages 19, 20, and 21 does not list shoal- ing and sediment distribution studies. There is a stated interest in this area of study by State agen- cies as indicated on the attached priority listing of Department of Natural Resources study requests which is provided in response to the Corps' letter to Secretary Coulter of February 11, 1975. It is hoped that the Corps will find this of sufficient interest to warrant scheduling such studies. Other than the above, the Department of Natural Resources has the following suggestions: 1. Page 19, Table 1, Problem Impact Indices - Item C.1 - Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study - Since proposed power plants in upper bay would impact on spawning areas which are calculated to provide - 30% of Chesapeake Bay striped bass, "magnitude of environmental impact indices (3)" should be given a score of 4. Therefore "Indices Total (8) should be 21. 2. Page 20, Table 1, Problem Impact Indices - Item C.3. Cumulative Upper Bay Thermal Effects Study - It is our opinion that cumulative thermal effects due to power plants in upper bay will be negligible. Changes in salinity due to cumulative consumptive loss may be of greater significance. Therefore we would appreciate this study to read "Cumulative Upper Bay Salinity Effects." The Environmental Impact Indices (2) + (3) should be changed to scores of 4 and 5 respec- tively. Therefore, "Indices Total (8) should be 23. The Power Plant Siting Program has $80,000 in their Fiscal Year '76 budget for Item C.1. It is planned to include funds in FY '77 budget for Item C.3 (as modified) after re- ceiving Corps estimate of costs. Other than these comments relating to sediment distribu- tion studies and the above modifications, the Department of Natural Resources supports the First Year Hydraulic Studies Program and Methodology for determining the study priorities. Paul W. McKee Assistant Secretary Comments on Proposed Study Program for the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model May 28, 1975 My comments will be brief. As I read the first part of the draft study proposal, I thought of suggesting that the Potomac River estuary water supply and waste- water studies be combined. However, the Chesapeake Bay Study staff anticipated my thoughts by recommending just the later in the proposal. Naturally, the District of Columbia approves of the fact that the combined Potomac River estuary water supply and waterwaste study is being considered for the first year of model operation. The District of Columbia is keenly interested in the information the model could provide because: (1) an emergency water supply pumping station is to be constructed at the upper end of the estuary; (2) Congress has directed the Corps of Engineers to construct and opeate a prototype facility to be used to determine the treatability of estuary water; (3) the concept of using the estuary as a permanent supplementary source of public water supply appears to be receiving increasing emphasis in some quarters; and (4) the EPA recently notified the District of Columbia that the construction of nitrogen removal facilities at the District's Water Pollution Control Plant would be deferred. During the period of deferral, EPA plans to conduct water quality studies to determine the value of nitrogen removal in water quality improvement. I have two suggestions. One is that, if it is necessary to strenghten the justification for including the Potomac River estuary study during the first year, this might be achieved by performing an impact and priority analysis on the combined study. My second suggestion is to recommend consideration of a higher (greater than 200 mgd) pumping rate. This suggestion sterns from preliminary estimates recently developed by the NEWS Study staff, which indicate a one-day deficit in the year 2000 as high as 356 mgd and a seven-day deficit of as much as 240 mgd. Arnold Speiser, Chief Planning Division Water Resources Management Administration Comments by Captain Keith B. Schemacner, USCG, Department of Trans- portation, on the First Year Hydraulic Studies Program. 28 May 1975 PUBLIC INTEREST/TIMLINESS We might take cognizance of two other factors which are present and can be evaluated; these are public interest and timliness. As with the original draft proposal, these are not final determinations but merely aids in establishing priorities and order of accomplishment. PUBLIC INTEREST Index Value 1. Relatively few people involved. No current interest in new media. 2. Significant public interest. Some news media releases. 3. Vocal and widely distributed public interest. Recurring news media items. 4. Heated public controversy. News media treating as a public issue to be aired. 5. Bitter and continuing public controversy with sharply drawn factions and/or widespread confusion and distress. News media giving frequent in depth coverage and possibly taking sides. TIMLINESS Index Value 1. At least 5 years before issue or action is to be decided; answers now would have to be restated then. 2. At least 4 years before issue or action to be decided. 3. At least 3 years before issue or action to be decided. 4. At least 2 years before issue or action to be decided. 5. Issue or action to be decided within the next 2 years, that is within the time of first year testing results. These matters could each be assigned a separate number, thereby raising the highest possible score from 30 to 40. They might also be combined to lessen their weighting; this could give a maximum possible score of 35. Combined Previous New Technical Problem Areas Interest Timliness Average Total Total Technical Problems Areas Interest Timliness average total total A. Bay Wide General Tests E. Waste Water 1. Potomac River Estuary 2 1 1.5 17 18.5 1. Low Freshwater Inflow 1 1 1 21 22 Waste Water Dispersion Study 2. Patuxent River Estuary 2. High Freshwater In- 1 1 1 20 21 Waste Water Dispersion 1 1 1 12 13 flow Study 3. James and Elizabeth 3. Tidal Flooding Study 2 1 1.5 21 22.5 Rivers Estuaries B. Municipal Water Supply Waste Water Disposal 1 1 1 17 18 4. Patapsco River Waste 1. Potomac River Estuang 2 1 1.5 18 19.5 Water Dispersion 1 1 1 17 18 River Water Supply 5. Back River Waste 2. Baltimore-Susquehanna 2 1 1.5 14 15.5 Water Dispersion 1 1 1 13 14 River Water Supply Division C. Power Plant Thermal Dis- PRIORITY INDICE TECHNICAL PROBLEM TIME COST charge Studies RANGE TOTAL WEEKS DOLLARS 1. Proposed Upper Bay 2 2 2 18 20 SCORE Power Plant Thermal 25.5 D2 North Bay Dredge Material 16 230,000 Effects Disposal 2. Cumulative Lower Bay 2 2 2 18 20 23.5 Dl Baltimore Harbor Channel 16 230,000 Power Plant Thermal Enlargement Effects 3.Cumulative Upper Bay 2 3 2.5 20 22.5 22.5 A3 Tidal Flooding 14 510,000 Thermal Effects Study 22.5 C3 Cumulative Upper Bay Thermal 7 105,000 D. Navigation Studies Effects 1. Baltimore Harbor Chan- 2 3 2.5 21 23.5 22 Al Low Freshwater Inflow 23 410,000 nel Enlargement Study 21 A2 High Freshwater Inflow 9 170,000 2. North Bay Dredged 4 5 4.5 21 25.5 20 Cl Proposed Upper Bay Power 5 80,000 Material Plant Thermal Effect 3. Norfolk Harbor Chan- 2 2 2 18 20 20 C2 Cumulative Lower Bay Power 9 140,000 nel Enlargement Plant Thermal Effects 4. South Bay Dredged 2 2 2 18 20 20 D3 Norfolk Harbor Channel En- 10 155,000 Material Disposal largement 5. York River Channel 2 1 1.5 12 13.5 20 D4 South Bay Dredged Material 18 250,000 Enlargement Disposal page -2- page - 3 - DEDrAoXION Sponsored by the BOARD of COUNTY CERENXWCOMMISSIONERS of QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY Time: 2:30 p. m. Date: Friday, May 7, 1976 Place: Matapeake, Maryland. The Bay Model is located on M IV AV Maryland Route 8 ATUUmC Approximately 2 miles south oct- of the US Route 50 intersection. LIMITS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BA Y MODEL The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model will provide infor mation necessary to plan for the wisest use of the Bay's water resources. Covering an area of 9 acres, the Bev Model Is the largest estuarine hydraulic model in the world. Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers %"E CHESNWAWEAKE BAY HYDR4ULIC MODEL s-- = 'D X. I=i c lo r- u 0 11 "n to CD S- 0 lo F- oo Us- cL aj.@ al c:) X -c C 4JQS-12 0 0 'o X U 4J -0 4J 4J 11 CD c; nm X 41 @a D)= X (D rz s- E4@ cD X (D X CD cz. cD x 9 `=@ 'Zi o 17o x G X CD Cz. In -D X W o.8 113 X c. `0 C x cn 1W .1 ej0 41 0o0 vs u 3- EL X Lu cL F- 'D 4-0 Gj r-0 at (7 lo cD C) 41 '0 r-E ro CWW(M v) s- a) Qj Lu CD C:' .1 'A C3 'a cn f- >1 CD cn, a A Ln ea 1;; Ln cz, m Q) 4J 0U =10 C) Q) CD n (D co -3 (D "ocu r- cu o lu rn In 41 Q) a 'Wj a) ccIl I 'cnn .1@ o ul 43 aj 'a c: , 2o n-2 n, (D c' a, v, s- C <j Lj c) 10 41 1; C@ C: 'a c' m s- r- a) -9--c c; o Q) nj S.- - v) Q@ n,5m a) m"-- u nI u 4- co `0 o a) c: -D C) Gj 0 41 V1 r- C cn Q, a) .; .. o a -11 "jo 4-- S- 13- 128 cL o .:2 , r lo a) (D 0 4- o a lo 'o `0 - .@7 'Q- - -9 '@; U.S Army Engineer District, Baltimore CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL DEDICATION THE CHESA- CEREMONY PEAKE BAY STUDY Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest bay. The Chesapeake, her tributaries, and shoreline areas are rich in many natural resouces, and our use of these water and land resources plays a vital role in the lives and economy of the Bay Region. But, the Bay is faced with many problems which threaten our continuted use of her resources. The Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study is a comprehensive investigation into the people's needs and desires for the Bay's resources and the ability of the Bay to provide them. Working closely with the Corps on the Bay Study are other Federal agencies, the Bay Area States, and institutions and individuals who are concerned about Chesapeake Bay. These study participants include engineers, water resource planners, biologists, social scientists, and concerned citizens. The single most valuable tool in studying the Bay will be the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. The Bay Model will reproduce to scale such physical characteristics as salinity, current speeds and directions, and tides. Through model tests, a more complete understanding of how this complex estuary operates will be obtained. Furthermore, model tests will be able to predict how proposed man- induced change will alter the Bay's physical characteristics. By applying the knowledge gained from the Chesapeake Bay Study and the hydraulic model, plans can be for- mulated that will insure a balanced approach to developing the Bay's numerous-but limited-resources while protecting her natural environ- ment and beauty. SPONSORED by the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY MAY 7, 1976 AGENDA CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL DEDICATION CEREMONY Master of Ceremonies John M. Ashley, Jr., President Queen Anne's County Commissioners INVOCATION The Reverend Robert A. Gourlay THE NATIONAL ANTHEM INTRODUCTIONS ADDRESS Honorable Rogers C.B. Morton Chairman, President Ford Committee DEDICATING THE BAY MODEL MUSCIAL INTERLUDE THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL Brigadier General Robert S. McGarry District Engineer, Baltimore U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BENEDICTION The Reverend Robert A. Gourlay Following the ceremony, visitors are invited to tour the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model at their leisure. Guides are stationed around the model to answer questions. Music by Queen Anne's County High School Band, Mr. John E. Peterson, Director Queen Anne's County High School Chorus, Mrs. Nancy Cook, Director BUILDING THE BAY MODEL The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model lies next to the bay that it duplicates. Land on Kent Island was donated by the State of Maryland for the model project. A 14-acre shelter was designed and constructed to house the Bay Model. Construction began on the frame struc- ture in 1973 and was completed in about 18 months. The shelter is neccessary to protect the Bay Model from the wind, the rain, and debris that would adversely affect the precise measurements during testing. While the shelter was being designed and constructed, the Bay's hydraulic characteristics that would be duplicated on the model were being monitored. Tidal elevations were recorded at 72 locations. Salinity and current speeds and directions were sampled at 750 locations. The 4 year Chesapeake Bay Data Collection Program was ac- complished for the Corps of Engineers under contract by the National Ocean Survey, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The first task in constructin the Bay Model itself was the plotting of the Bay's topography on masonite templates. the templates depict cross-sections of the Bay's topography at one-half mile inter- vals. Over 26 miles of templates were required. After the templates were cut, placed, and set to the proper elevation, concrete was poured and graded to the configuration of the templates. Topographic details between templates were drawn in by sketchers who used the latest maps and nautical charts. Modeling craftsmen, following the sketchers instructions, then carefully hand-molded over six acres of the Bay Model. The last construction step was to imbed 700,000 metal resistance strips into the model. The completed chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model is the largest estuarine model in the world. It covers an area of 9 acres adn is 1,100 feet long and 680 feet wide. Compared to the Bay, the Bay Model was built so that 1,000 feet of the Bay would equal 1 foot in the model horizontally, and 100 feet would equal 1 foot vertically. Given these scales, the 4- mile Bay Bridge is 21 feet long in the model. The deepest part of the model is 21 inches, which corresponds to a 175 foot depth off Kent Island. Since the Bay is generally shallow, however, two-thirds of the model will have a water depth of less than three inches. Before the model is operational for tests, it will undergo a year of fine tuning and verification to insure that it accurately represents Chesapeake Bay's hydraulic characteristics. The resistance strips and water inflows from the model's Atlantic Ocean and tributaries will be adjusted so that the tides, currents, and salinity in the model conform to data that was collected during the Data Collec- tion Program. Once it is verified, the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model will be ready to help solve the Bay's most pressing problems. The 14-acre Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Sketchers drew in topographic details between Shelter. templates. WALKING TOUR 1. The Tide Generating System 6. The Chesapeake and Delaware These structures aee the heart of the Canal. The Chesapeake and Delaware hydraulic model in that they function Canal is a major artery of commerce together to generate tides in the model connecting two important estuarine ocean. The lixator tank supplies brine water bodies having different tidal solution to simulate ocean salt water. Salt regimes. To properly model the canal A current meter is placed during the Data Six acres of the model were hand-molded by water flows by gravity from the elevated required the installation of another tidal Collection Program. craftsmen. water supply sump through the headbay control mechanism in Delaware Bay. into the model to simulate the flooding of the tide. In turn, water flows from the 7. Concowingo Dam. The head of model, back through the headbay and tide in the Susquehanna River is the into the return sump to simulate the cbb Conowingo Dam. The Susquehanna of the tide. A 12-hour tidal cycle in nature provides approximately 50% of the total is reproduced in the model in ap- freshwater that flows into the system, proximately 7.5 minutes. exerting a profoud effect on the salinity regime of the Bay. Freshwater simulating 2. Pocomoke River. from this the flow of the river is introduced into the station we can see the Pocomoke River as model through the adjustment of a valve well as the town of Crisfield, Maryland. at this point. This area is not only ecologically unique, but it also produces a sizable seafood 8. Water Treatment Plant. The harvest. water used during the operation of this Templates duplicate cross-sections of the model is pumped from a ground water Bay at one-half mile intervals. 3. Salisbury, Maryland. Loooking aquifer that lies approximately 700 feet towards the west from this point, underground. As the water is highly Salisbury, Md, and the Wicomico are mineralized, it has to be conditioned for important features of the Eastern Shore. both model and domestic use. This plant 4. Cambridge and Easton, can provide up to 700 gallons per minute Maryland. Two of the larger residential of water, enough for a town of 10,000 and commercial communities located in people. Dorchester and Talbot Counties. 9. Baltimore. The point of Baltimore 10. Annapolis, Maryland. The har- 5. Kent Island, The Chester exerts great impact on the economy of the bor of the State Capital, the Severn River. River, and Centreville, Maryland. State of Maryland. The navigation and the William Preston Lane Memorial This model is located on Kent channels and all piers have been Bridge as constructed in the model are Island. The town of Centreville is the meticulously formed in concrete as it visible from this station. County Seat of historic Queen Anne's presently exists. The approach channels county. are constructed so they can be altered and studies will be made of the hydrodynamic effects of different navigation channel sizes and configurations. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY John M. Ashley, Jr., President Julius Grollman, Commissioner Leonard E. Smith, 11. Washington, D.C. from this station we can view the Potomac River George W. Aldridge, Jr., Administrator Estuary. This estuary is particularly Robert R. Price, Jr., Esq., Attorney important for the well-being of the Lynda II. Palmatary, Clerk nation's capital city. Jeannette S. Coleman, Deputy Clerk 12. Fredericksburg, Virginia. At this station the Rappahannock River Estuary (as) be seen coursing U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS southeastward towards Chesapeake Bay. Lieutenant General William C. Gribble 13. York River, Virginia. The Mat- Chief of Engineers taponi and the Pamunkey Rivers meet at West Point, Va, to form the-York River. Major General James L. Kelly The exhibit at this station shows a cross- Division Engineer, North Atlantic section illustrating the construction of an estuarine hydraulic model. Brigadier General Robert S. McGarry District Engineer, Baltimore it Richmond, Virginia. From this station can be seen the headwaters of the Colonel G. Harrison Hilt James River in the vicinity of Richmond. Director, Waterways Experiment Station Some of she most important seed oyster beds in the Chesapeake Bay System are located in the James. SHELTER CONSULTANT Whitman,Requardt & Associates SHELTER CONTRACTOR Charles E. Brohawn & Brothers, Inc. 0 Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,Inc. 500 Esplanade, N. Apt.601 Venice,Fla.33595 Dec.13,l976 Alfred E. Robinson,Jr. Baltimore Dist.Corps of Engineers CPCB SECRETARIAT E. Gordon Riley P.O. Box 1715 VPI & ST Industrial Consultant Baltimore,Maryland, 21203 322 HUTCHENSON HALL Route 3, Box 368 BLACKBURG Severna Park, Md. 21146 VIRGINIA 24001 Dear Al, Rcf:NABPL-C Thank you for arranging for transmittal of copies of your latest draft reports to me here. We will make an ernest effort to get citizen reaction for you on a board EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE front.Telephone conversations last week and again this I have just received another set of four morning with Noel Beagle were very helpful about overall Future Conditions reports in the Corps of Of strategy of the report. If you have a draft of the topics Chairman Engineers series.As you know, CPCB has a committ- and areas of concern that will be treated in future issues sent to review and comment on these, I have been such a list list would be helpful to me in our future reviews Crampton Morgan reasonably successful in getting good responses by CPC3. It would, I hope, minimize concerns about major Spanish Institute of North America from appropriate members on the earlier four voids such as the ones I mentioned to Noel this morning. drafts sent to us. Would you be willing to review the draft is excellent,in my opinion, and you are to be congratulated report titled "Appendix 13, Electric Power", please? on the great improvement om tjos Future Conditions report Or, if your time does not permit on such short over and above the treatment of Agriculture in the Exist- notice can you arrange with another competent in conditions report that I saw, much earlier. Perhaps it Engineer or "Consumer" to do so? The Corps requests Is more detailed than will be appreciated by the average that comments be forwarded to William E. Trieshoun reader. But I was deeply impressed by its precise treatment Baltimore District Corps of Engineers, Box 17116 and avoidance of missleading generalities. By Jan.7,1977, a rather unreasonable deadline for this time of year, I would say. I understand from Noel that future reports will deal with forestry and some aspects of Land Use. May I I am taking the liberty of asking the Corps suggest that a contact with Dr. Frank Bentz, Vice Pres. for to send you a copy of the Electric Power report Agriculture University of Maryland, College Park, would to the above address. I will read and review this be fruitful for you. The Maryland General Assembly has in-hand copy but more competent authouriy is commissioned a study on Preserving Agricultural Lands. needed in addition to my consumer viewpoint". The U of M is doing an in-depth job on this. Another good If you wish a copy be sent to someone else will contact for Virginia Polytech. Inst. and s.11. at Blacksburg. you please contact Al Robinson,tel. 962 2512 or A mention of CPCB or my name with each of these fellows Noel Beagle at 962 3410. in this context would be appreciated. I think that some treatment of the weather and climate innacts of Agricultural vs. Urban or Industrial Thanks very much for your conssideration and means of land is needed in your study report so-where lie your help. Oxygen consumption and excess CO2 are genuine concerns. Sincerely, The role of plant life as a cleanser may be significant. Ed Alton Again congratulations on the Agricultural Water supply report, I am truly respectful that somehow I did not get into cc: Alfred Robinson the action on it earlier but it appears to be in good hands. We are making distribution of the Fish and Wildlife report Gordon's Telephone number is 301 647 3999 and I may need to ask for more copies in order to arrange cities in both Maryland and Virginia. Sincerely yours, Edward Alton, Pres. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 400 Esplanade N. Apt.601 500 Esplande, N. Apt. 601 Venice, Fla. 33595 Venice, Fla., 33595 Dec. 13,1976 Dec. 13, 1976 EDWARD J. Vinnicomb Marvin J. Bernof, Exec. Secy. McCormick Road Maryland Rural Affairs Council Cockeysville, Md., 21030 Dear Ed, University of Maryland College Park,Md.20q742 Dear Ed, Probably you know that CPCB has a committment Dear Marvin, to the U.S. Corps of Engineers to assist in the public review of their reports and management As you know, CPCB has a committment to review appraisals connected with their Future Conditions draft reports of the Corps of Engineers Future reports in their Chesapeake Bay Study. In past months Condition Reports of the Chesapeake Bay Study,as we have been sent draft copies of four sections and I have arranged with appropriate members or affiliates I have arranged with appropriate members or affiliates of CPCB for them to critioise or comment on the these come out of their drafting rooms. It is volun- proposed content and recommendations. teer work but important from the viewpoint of Citizen New four more sections are ready and I have one four draft sections Earlier we arranged review of of each for review. 0ne of these is Appendix 9, Navigation. four others. With your long and wide experience in this important Can you arrange review of two of these reports, titled "Noxious Weeds" and "Flood Control", please? field, would you be willing to review a copy and send I am asking Charlie Coale to do the same at V PI. copy of their transmittal letter, please? Or, if you I will read and send comments also, on each of the cannot do it on such short notice, can you refer it four,but more competent authouity is needed for this. to another competent person who will? It is unfortunate The Corps staff will arrange for review by all that so little time is allowed for this, in view of the appropriate U.S.Government agencies, so please do not Holiday season crush. I will read and review it too, ask such groups to help via our suspices. Research but my experiences is inadequate for a significant departments of the University would be OK, I think,if contribution in this area of vital concern to Bay the response mentions this request from CPCB. users. I am taking the liberty of having the Corps staff I am taking the library of asking that another send a copy of each of these two draft reports to review copy of this report be sent directly to you you for your action, since time is regretably short for from the Corps office in Baltimore, I am not advised this crowded Holiday season. Perhaps you can save even of the mail address you listed on your recent, more time for review by contacting the Corps by phone. welcome membership contribution. Hence I hope that Telephone either Alfred E.Robinson, 301 962 2512,or Mrs. Flannery will be our intercediary for this, Noel Beegle,301 962 3410, both in Baltimore. Maybe you are enjoying the sancity of Eastern Shore congeniality and leisure???? Thank you very much for your consideration. I hope Thank you for your consideration of this request. that all is well in your diggings,as it is with Helen We feel that citizen review of these proposals is of Sincerely yours, course, aburdenim volunteers (who have no secretaries and can't type well either) but hopefully it is a cc: Alfred E.Robinson Edward Alton,Pres. worthy purpose. cc: Alfred Robinson Dear Al, Mrs. Flannery Very truly yours, Bennof's phone is 301 454 5486 Charles Coals Edward Alton, Pres. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 500 Esplanade,N. Apt 601 500 Esplanade, N. Apt 601 Venice, Fla. 33595 Venice, Fla. 33595 March 22, 1977 Feb.9,1977 William E.Trieschman,Jr., Planning Division Baltimore Dist.Corps of Engineers Mr. Noel Beegle P.O.Box 1715 Dept. of Army,Corps of Engineers Baltimore.Md. 21203 Chesapeake Bay Study Program RE: Ches. Bay Future Conditions Report P.O. Box 1715,Baltimore,Md. 21203 Appendix 7, Water Quality Dear Sir, Dear Noel. Your letter dated 15 March enclosing the above draft I received recently one copy each of final drafts report plus two others, arrived here yesterday. I hope to Study Organization History and Coordination. I will have my review of it in the mail in a couple of weeks. send a review of the Shoreline Erosion Appendix very soon. In accordance with our previous arrangement, please At this stage in your program it would seem futile to inject suggestions Into the Appendix I subject so we send additional review copies to the members of CPCB will not attempt to review it. listed below.Hopefully they may be able to send their comments directly to you by your too rapidly approaching deadline of 8 April,1977. In order to facilitate a rapid review of the Shoreline Erosion Appendix 11 will you please have your Cranston Morgan, Shellfish Institute of No. America staff send review copies to the following: Box 193 2 copies to: Dr.Charles Coale White Stone, Va. 22578 Blacksburg,Va. 24061 George Hagerman. Virginia Conservation Council 2 copies to: Marvin J.Bennef.Exec.Secy. 6007 Oceanfront Rd. Maryland Rural Affairs Counsel Virginia Beach, Va. 23501 Suite 4109. McKeldin Library University of Maryland Dr.Charles Coale College Park.Md. 20742 322 Hutcheson Hall, Dept. Agric. Econ. E.Polk Kellam,Jr. Virginia Polytech Inst. & S.U. Blacksburg, Va. 24081 I trust that our folks in CPCB will be able to send you pertinent reactions and suggestions on this Dr. Elwin Deal, Coop. Extension Service draft report.But I doubt that all reviews can be returned 1215 Symons Hall to William E.Trieschman by 21 February,1977,as requested University of Maryland by him in his transmittal letter dated Jan.19,1977. College Park, Md. 20742 Obviously the U.S. Mail are not operating that fast,these days. E. Gordon Riley, Industrial Engineer Sincerely best wishes, 410 Henderson Rd. Soverna Park, Md. 21146 Edward Alton,Pres. Best Wishes, Edward Alton. Pres. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 500 Esplanade,N Apt 601 Venice, Fla. 33595 March 22,1977 William E. Trieschman,Jr. William E.Trieschman.Jr. Chief. Planning Section Chief,Planning Division Baltimore District,Corps of Engineers Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Box 1715 Baltimore. Md. 21203 Baltimore,Md. 21203 Dear Sir, Re: Draft Chesapeake Bay Study Report Appendix 5,Municipal and Industrial Appendix 2, Public Part. & Inf. Water Supply Dear Sir, Yesterday I received a copy of the above draft With your letter dated March 15, I received report,along with others, for review by our organization. yesterday a copy of the above report along with two two I will have my reactions in the mail within a couple of weeks. Asper previous arrangement with Noel Beegle, Asper previous arrangements with Noel Beegle and please transmit additional review copies directly to Ted Robinson, please send additional review copies to the the members of CPCB listed below.I am not confident members of CPCB listed below. that all of them can meet your deadline 8 April,1977. I am not sure that they can all meet your deadline I trust that each will review this draft personally date 8 April,1977. But I am confident that these or arrange for a specialized associate to do so and persons can either offer good counsel themselves or send reactions directly to you as soon as possible. arrange for a worthy reaction by specialized persons associated with them. E.Gordon Riley,Industrial Engineer 410 Henderson Rd. George Hagerman, Pres., Va. Conservation Council Severna Park,Md. 21146 6007 Oceanfront Edward J.Vinnicomb Virginia Beach,Va. 23451 Box 217 Oxford, Md. 21654 Betty Jane Gerber, Junior League of Washington Mrs.Ajax Eastman 1309 Ballantree Ct. George Hagerman,Pres. Virginia Conservation Council 6007 Oceanfront Rd. 322 Hutchenson Hall Virginia Beach,Va., 23451 Virginia Polytech, Inst. & S.Us Blacksburg, Va. 24061 Dr.Charles Coale 322 Hutcheson Hall, Dept. Agric. Econ. Virginia Polytech.Inst. & S.U. Dr. Elwin Deal, Coop.Extension Service Blacksburg.Va. 24061 University of Maryland 1215 Symons Hall College Park, Md. 20742 Sincere Best Wishes, Sincere regards and Best wishes, Edward Alton, Pres. Edward Alt NABPL-C 24 Karcn i@oll NABPL-C 24 March 1977 SUBJECT: Meetint with SRBC on Low Flow Test MEMO TO THE FILE 7. The proposed consumptive losses and diversions to be used in the study SUBJECT: Meeting with SRBC on Low Flow Test were then reviewed. Many of those at the meeting felt that most of the figures were high. Mr. Goulding said that SRBC would provide this office with updated figures by the end of June. 1. On 23 March 1977, Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., and the undersigned attended a meeting at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission's offices in Harrisburg to discuss the proposed Low Freshwater Inflow Model Study. A list of attendees is attached. 1 Incl JO@ 'C D@IE% 2. Mr. Robinson started the meeting by giving some background on the study as Chesapeake Bay Study Branch and describing the Low Flow Study. He pointed out that the main objective of this study was not to determine the effects of consumptive losses on the Bay but rather to determine how salinities in the Bay react to decreases in freshwater inflows. 3. Mr. Goulding then expressed the new regulation in the Basin which states that each water user must make up the water which he consumess over and above that consumed in 1971, when the flow of the river of the point of intake drops below the 7-day 10-year flow. Mr. Goulding felt that the flows in the Susquehanna River during the low flow test should be indicative of what might occur under this new regulation rather than to decrease the flows by the entire projected consumptive losses. 4. Mr. Robinson explained that this would be improper because of two reasons. First, since the flows in the remaining tributaries will be depressed by the projected losses, the flows in the Susquehanna River should be simulated using the same criteria. Secondly, if someone were to test or fight the new regulation or take It to court, information 14 would be needed as to the effects of depressed flows on the Bay assuming the regulation was not in effect. Mr. Robinson further explained that the second phase of the study in which only the Susquehanna River flows will be depressed should not be changed since this will be needed to isolate the effects of the Susquehanna River from the total effects as determined in the first phase. 5. Mr. Goulding agreed and suggested that a third test be added to the Low Flow Study in which the new Pennsylvania regulation would be tested. It was agreed that this would be best but that the test would have to be funded from outside of the Corps. Mr. Goulding said he would send a letter to the district requesting this additional test and a cost estimate. 6. It was further suggested that during the first phase of the study, the annual-average hydrographs following the 3 years of depressed hydro- graph also be depressed since this would simulate a more realistic con- dition. Mr. Robinson felt that this was a good idea and said that he would investigate it further. 2 Col. G.K. Withers 2 May 31, 1977 SUSQUEHANNA i'ZiNYEA BASIN COMMISSION 5012 L e ;1 krS i r e v t M C h S b r g P e -1 n 5va 17055 -our d varia7.ce between figures projecte by office and those hich f !ay 1)77 have been determined by t ,ionwea th of Pennsylvania. It is 31, lie Cora 1 From the otfice ot the our understanding that the Pennsylvania data resuited from a fair- Execu!-ve Director ly recent and rather extensive questionnaire effort and tends to support the current as well as projected levels of use and losses noted herewith. Similarly, we have drawn from data provided by the State of Faryland and the State of New York. Colonel G.K. Withers, District Engineer Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Overall, the water loss data for the electric Dower indus- Department of the Army try has been drawn from the Master Siting Study conhcted by the P. 0. Box 1715 electric utility industry and provided to the SRBC. An updating Baltimore, MD 21203 of this study will be available June 9, 1977 and any significant modifications of data will be provided as quickly as possible. Dear Colonel Withers: At the March 23rd meeting, our staff raised the prospect of having your program consider a third phase in the Low Fresh Water On March 23, 1977, at the request of the Chesapeake Bay Inflow Study. We assume that the initial studies might show that Study Branch of your office, we hosted a meeting of interested projected levels of consumptive losses in the Basin could have a state and Federal agencies to discuss matters pertinent to the marked effect on salinity levels in the Upper Chesapeake Bay. forthcoming testing program on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic The model testing program as presently structured does not take Model. The discussion focused primarily on the proposed Low account of the recently adopted SRBC consumptive loss makeup cri- Fresh Water Inflow Study and the need for determining and pro- terion. Our objective in proposing an extension of the initial viding consumptive water use data for the Susquehanna River Ba- test program would be to determine the effect of the SRBC ' Regu- sin as input of vital interest and substantial significance in lation on salinity and other quality or quantity parameters of this first test program. concern to the Upper Chesapeake Bay. The SRBC staff along with other interested agencies had pre- In discussion with Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief, Ches- viously provided comments to your office with respect to the over- apeake Bay Study Branch, Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, all testing program elements and scheduling. There has seemingly it was agreed that the SRBC staff would provide a proposed out- 00 been concurrence by everyone on the proposed two-phase testing line of model testing objectives and procedures that would be e- procedure outlined for the Low Fresh Water Inflow Study. Based valuated by your staff and a general cost estimate derived to ac- on the discussion at the meeting and on information subsequently complish this additional model investigation. Ile have developed received in this office from Pennsylvania and Maryland, we would the material as agreed and would appreciate your review and eval- like to take this opportunity to comment on several aspects of uation relative to the possibilities of conducting such a test in the study dealing first with the basic data inputs being consid- the event that the appropriate agreements and funding support can ered relative to consumptive water use in the Susquehanna River be achieved. Basin. We greatly appreciate the opportunity afforded us to contin- We have prepared the attached table which summarized con- ue participation in this very worthwhile and essential model test- sumptive water losses throughout the basin using the best avail- ing program. If, at any time, there is need for additional in- able information for current usage as of the year 1975, and pro- formation or input from the SRBC, please don't hesitate to contact jected usage for the target year 1990. We have separated con- me. sumptive loss attributable to the electric power industry and aggregated consumptive losses for all other purposes including Very truly yours, out-of-basin diversions. We have chosen the projected target year of 1990 as being the most reasonable point to which we can ascribe with any certainty the levels of water use and loss pro- jections. Concern has been expressed regarding the very wide Robert J. Bielo Executive Director Attachments OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY PO. BOX 1715 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 CENTERVILLE, MARYLAND 21617 PHONE 758-0322 19 August 1977 JULIUS GROLLMAN JOHN M ASHLEY JR. Col. G. K. Withers, District Engineer TO ALL PARTICIPANTS, CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 Dear Colonel Withers: The second or future projections phase of the Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study has been completed. Inclosed for your use in this study are the appendices to the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report. Appendices I and 2 (Volume 2) contain information describing the history and conduct June 17th, 18th and 19th, 1977, were days which will be long various Federal and State agencies, scientific institutions, and the remembered and appreciated by the Citizens of Queen Anne's County. public. Appendices 3 through 15 (Volumes 3 through 11) each contain The events of Queen Anne's Days, 1977, were conducted in a precise, information on specific water and related land resource uses to include professional, flawless and dignified manner. We have had hundreds an inventory of the present status and expected future needs and problems. of compliments on the conduct of the activities, as well as dozens Appendix 16 (Volume 12) focuses on formulation of the initial testing of written communications praising this historical success. Our program for the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. The summary Report is guest of honor, Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, commented several currently under review and will be contained in Volume 1 of the Future times that she had never seen a program more efficiently planned and Conditions Report. That volume will be forwarded shortly. executed. Queen Anne's Days could not have been a success without the Any comments or requests for additional information on this Report should cooperation and team work of many. Interested, dedicated citizens be directed to Mr.Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief, Chesapeake Bay Study did the right things in the correct ways at the right times. Branch. Sincerely yours, You and your department were major contributors to the perfect execution of Queen Anne's Days, 1977. Please convey our appreciation and commepdation to every member of your organization who had a part in these events. They have our sincerest admiration for making the Queen Anne's Days, 1977, a memorable success. Their extended efforts will be remembered by Queen Anne's Countians for generations to come. WILLIAM E. TRIESCHMAN, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Yours very truly, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY LEONARD E. SMITH, PRESIDENT JULIUS GROLLMAN JOHN M. ASHLEY, JR. CC:bap NAMPL-C 27 November 1977 Mr. Robert J. Halo LMPL-C 22 November 1977 this office feels that the protected year 2000 leases as presented during the meeting held in your office. on 23 March 1977 should be used to depress the flows in the Low Flow Test. It is agreed, however, that the protected loss for power production for the year 2020 will have to be revised. This work will be coordinated with your office. Mr. Robert J. Bielo Executive Director Your letter proposed: A third phase of the Low Freshwater Inflow Study Susquehanna River basin Commission utilizing the historic flows of 1329 through 1933. In our Low Freshwater 1721 North Front Street Test, however, we are using an inflow hydrograph Land on historic 1929 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 through 1931 inflows followed by two carrupted average year inflow hydro- graphs. We will use the data collected from the model during the flows simulating 1929-1931 time period to determine the effects of drought flows on the system, while an estimate of entuarine recovery time will be Dear Mr. Rielo: derived frod data collected from the model during the two average inflow year hydrographs. The average year hydrograph will also be used to deter- This is in response to your letter of 31 May 1977 concerning the Chesapeak mine if the possibility of permanent change in the colinity region exists. bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study proposing an additional set of freshwater You may wish to consider the possibility of substituting average inflow inflow conditions to be simulated on the hydraulic modell. hydrographs for the last two years of your proposed testing scheme. This will provide a common base to which the resulting model test data can be In your letter, you expressed concern over the wide variance between the compared. projected consumptive looses computed by this office and those which were determined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The reason for this Based on the description of the test as described in your letter our apparent difference is that the figures determined by Pennsylvania were best estimation at this time to perform the work is between $115,000 and yearly averages, while those computed by this office are monthly values $130,000. It should be noted that Gome cost navign due to model prepa- which reflect seasonal variations in demand and loosen. However, when ration tine could be realized if the test is performed immediately after both sets of figures are compared on the same haste, the difference is the second phase of our proposed study. This estimate is also based on not an grent. For example, for our year 2000 projections, the total the assumption that all of the freshwater inflow data required for the yearly average for diversions, municipal and industrial losses, and model test will be provided by your office. irrigation is 364 cfs. When compared to your vent 1990 projections of of 906 cfs which excludes the 172 cfe lose for power production. the difference It is requested that this office be informed as soon as practicable as to is less than 5 percent. On the other hand, It is agreed that there is a your intentions concerning the proposed Phase III test. If you have any large difference between the projected losses for electric power production, questions or need further information, please call Mr. A. E. Robinson, Jr. and our figures will be adjusted based on the 9 June 1977 Master Siting Study. Sincere Yours, It should be noted that in order to perform a more comprehensive analysis of the effects of depressed freshwater inflows, the incremental differences between the flows in the Base and Plan Tests should he an large as possible. but still consistent with real world probabilities. For this reason. the Chesapeake Bay Study Steering Committe and Advisory Group both recommended WILLIAM E. TRIESCUMAN that the maximum conceivable consumptive looses for the year 2020 be used. Chief, Planning Division since the primary objective of the Low Flow Test is to reflect a wide incremental flow copies with consumptiive losses being used only as a guide. CF: Patrick J. Delaney NABPL-C Mr. Gerald R. Calhoun State Conservationist, Maryland DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES In reply refer to Room 523, Hartwick Building P. 0. BOX 1487 RM-R College Park. Maryland 20740 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 F 70:4 B March 30, 197 Your Ref. NABPL-C Dear Mr. Calhoun: The second or future projections phase of the Corps of Engineers Chesa- peake Bay Study has recently been completed and the Chesapeake Bay Colonel George K. Withers, Jr. Future Conditions Report, which describes the findings of this second District Engineer study phase, has been distributed. Daring the third and final study Baltimore District - Corps of Engineers phase. solutions to high priority problems will be formulated and recorn- P. 0. Box 1715 mended based on testing conducted an the Chesapeake Bar Hydraulic Model. Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Inclosed for yaw review and comment Is the find draft of the Chesapeake Attention: Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. Bay Study Revised Plan at Study which provides a detailed description of the work to be accomplished during the final study phase. This Draft is currently under review by the Office, Chief of Engineers and. until approved by that office, the contents of the draft a" not available for Dear Colonel Withers: public use. On March 14, 1978, your office sent us a copy of the Summary Report to the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report, and stated that the future Group on 27 April 1978 to discuss the Revised Plan of Study and the projections contained therein will be the basis for the plan formulation phase final phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study. The meeting is scheduled to of the Chesapeake Bay Study. We appreciate being kept informed of the study's begin at 9:30 AM In Rom G-30 of the Federal Office Building, 31 Hopkins progress. Plaza, Baltimore Maryland. Our interest continues in the anticipated inflows from the susque- I look forward to meeting you and hearing your comments with regard hanna River for maintaining the Upper Bay biota. We are, consequently to this document and the final phase of our study. Should you have any looking forward to the results of the Chesapeake Bay Model studies of salinity, questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me or particularly the effects of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal enlargement and the Mr. Alfred E. Robinson. Jr.. Chief. Chesapeake Bay Study Branch at 500 MGD withdrawal for Baltimore's water supply needs. (301) 962-2512. we find the Summary Report an exceptional document in clarity, Sincerely yours, conciseness and completeness, and an excellent basis for the final phase of the Study. O knel G. K. WITHERS Sincerely Yours, As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer C.H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Resource Management Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. NABPL-C SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinardinator for the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program CBCB SECRETARIAT VPI & SU 522 Hutcheson Hall Blacksburg Alfred E. Robinson, Jr. Chief MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE Virginia 24061 Chesapeake Bay Study Branch Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers 1976 OFFICERS AND P.O. Box 1715 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Baltimore, Md. 21203 Chariman Dear Tod and staff, 1. On 1 June 1978 the undersigned met with Mrs. Frances Flanigan, Maryland Cranston Morgan Thanks to you and your Staff for arrnging that I Coordinator for the Citizens Program for Chesapeak Bay's Public Involvement Shellfish Institute of North America receie a set of the final drft Futuro Conditions Program, and later with Mr. Scott Brumburgh, Coordinator for the Maryland Vice Chairman Rports and Apppendices. Also, we note that copies were Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program. Germaine Gallagher sent to Mssrs. Morgan,Valliant and Hagorman. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the formulation of the Chesapeake League of Womens Voters of Maryland Bay Study Public Involvement Program for the final study phase. (It should be I have re-read enough of them to find that this noted that the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay (CPCB) has been contracted President & Civil Executive Office Edward Alton draft contains substantial improvements, including by EPA to conduct the public involvement progra, for its Chesapeake Bay Program). Isaak Walton League many that we commented about in our reviews by CPC Vice President for Maryland members and associates. 2. There were three major objectives to be reached at each meeting. These Gordon Riley Industrial Consultant It appears to me that these documents comprise an included; excellent base-line review for future planninng and Vice President for Virginia a. To further determine who the interested and affected public is with management activities related to th Bay, I am sure that regard to related water resources studies in the Region. Betty Jane Gerber we in CPCS will find the reports exceedingly useful and I hope that the several agencies will be spared J. Kevin Sullivan the nessity of starting from zero base. Resource planner b. To determine what means and mechanisms have been effectively in other public participation programs to invol It has been a very pleasant winter for Helen and other public participation programs to involve the public. Aquistoral Secretary we here in Venice. We ecxpect to follow the swallows north to c. To determine the beat means available to coordinate the Chesapeake Barbara Fine Lusby about the first of May. Bay Study Public Involvement Program with other related programs. Treasurers Thanks again for your consideration, We appreciatie 3. During the meeting with Flanigan, the following major points and comments J. Paul Williams the several mentions of CPCS in your sections on Public were raised: Kelham Distribution Co. Inc. a. EPA will soon be contracting for an assessment of "user-needs" in !be aimed at individuals who are not as vocal Arthur Sherwood the Chesapeake Bay Region in connection with its study. This assessment will Chesapeake Bay Foundation be aimed at individuals who are not as vocal or as well known as those people traditionally identified as having an interest in Chesapeake Bay. The sur- vey will determine who the users are and what their needs are. This informa- tion should prove useful to our study. Flanigan will provide us more informa- tion on the assessment when it is available. Technical and Educational Advisory Great L. Eugene Cronin University of Maryland b. CPCB is currently computerizing a mailing list for the EPA study. This list has been compiled from mailing lists provided by each of the five CPCB regional offices set up to administer the public involvement program. Flanigan can make this list available to us upon request. SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinator for the Citizens Program for SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinator for the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program Participation Program c. The Baltimore Environmental Center (a private environmental group) is and available for use in an advisory capacity is the Coastal Resources Advisory composing a handbook containing descriptive information on State, regional, Committee (CRAC), a group set up as part of the Maryland CZM program to help and local organizations and citizens groups. Flanigan will check on the in identifying and addressing the public's needs and concerns related to status of this handbook and attempt to get us a copy or find out how we can coastal zone issues. order it. The handbook will be useful to us in further identifying who the interested public is. h. Workshops can be useful tools in eliciting public response, however, certain disadvantages exist. They are very time consuming and dissatisfaction d. An easy and effective means of advertising public meetings is to put may occur if the participants feel that their views are not being properly out a "flier" (Inclosure 1) announcing time, place and purpose of meeting. considered. Flanigan indicated that she herself has not had personal experience Mass distribution is made to concerned organizations and groups who in turn with workshops. Brumburgh, however, is a good source of information since will further distribute to their members. he organized several workshops during the early formulation stage of the e. Newletters, distributed to mailing list entries, are one of the best Maryland CZM program. ways of informing the "concerned" public about a study. Flanigan indicated I. CPCB has utilized representative libraries throughout the Region to that at least two ne letters currently in existence are available to us for disseminating inform ry- send not only reports but any other useful information on EPA's Chesapeake Wn on the Chesapeake Bay Study. These are the Ma Bay Program. The libraries have been requested to place all of this plus land Coastal Zone Management's (CZM) Coast and Bay Bylines and CPCB19 IC,.hnesa- any other Bay-related materials together in one location. The undersigned peake Citizen (a bifimonthly initiated in April/May 1978). Within a year. explained that the Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report and Future Con- Flanigan hopes to have initiated a "bay-wide" newsletter which would include ditions Report have been similarly distributed to libraries. Flanigan urged information on all studies being conducted within the Bay Region. It is ex- that any other useful information be sent to these libraries in order to in- pected that EPA will initially fund this newsletter. At the conclusion of crease information available on the Bay. EPA's Study, however, s6me other organization will have hopefully taken over publication responsibilities. J. In terms of coordination of public involvement programs, Flanigan was very receptive to our making use of CPCB's Public Involvement Program for f. Flanigan indicated that while public meetings are not always well our needs. For example, she encouraged us to provide information for CPCB's attended, they do serve a useful purpose by helping to build an important newsletter. She also suggested that the Citizens' Steering Committee established rapport with interested members of the public. by EPA for their Chesapeake Bay Program be used as an "Ad Hoe" Committee in order to provide us with public input on alternatives, recommendations or g. Public involvement is a two-way process - first, to inform the public impacts. Flanigan indicated that a major concern of hers was that we not about a study, and second, to elicit certain information concerning needs and duplicate efforts of other organizations such as CPCB or Md. CZ14 in the area desires from the public. Flanigan maintains that there are In turn two ways of public involvement but rather that we dove_@ail our activities wherever to Inform the public about a study - First, through general or "awareness" possible. She maintained that citizens would be more eager to cooperate with information where no response is required. Such information is found in agencies if they felt there was coordination of efforts between these agencies. newsletters, news releases, brochures (See Inclosure 2), tabloids distributed to weekly or monthly newspapers for inclosure in their publication (according k. Due to the nature of our final study phase, Flanigan suggested that to Flanigan, weekly and monthly newspapers are generally more receptive than we may wish to keep our public involvement program at a low-key, primarily daily newspapers to information on studies similar to the Chesapeake Bay Study); informational level during the next year or two. At that time more intense and fact sheets (to be distributed to libraries and to the interested public public input would be required for alternative assessment and we could then at meetings). The second way is through draft reports, questionnaires and elicit public response. By not "psyching" the public up into expecting surveys where a response is both important and expected. There" also a immediate results is advisable to promising them an active public involvement number of ways to gather information from the public. One of the most effective program which we cannot deliver at this time. The undersigned indicated that ways Flanigan has used is an informal "Ad Hoc" committee convened for the the public involvement acitivities requiring active public participation would special purpose of obtaining input on a specific issue or to "bounce ideas off of". Another existing group which Flanigan feels is very representative not occur until the latter part of FY 80 when our first workshops are scheduled. NABPL-C 5 June 1978 NABPL-C 5 June 1978 SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinator for the Citizens Program for SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinator for the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government Participation Program Participation Program 1. One of the major goals of the CPCB public involvement program is to a. Brumburgh has organized and participated in a series of workshops held develop a public involvement program which will last far beyond EPA's Chesa- early in the formulation of the Maryland CZM Program. He indicated mixed peake Bay Program and deal with all of the studies and on-going programs feelings concerning the success of these workshops. They are very difficult affecting Chesapeake Bay. By our coordinating our public involvement efforts to carry-off effectively and require a great amount of skill to organize and with those of CPCB and the Md. CZM program a major step will be taken toward conduct. One of the most difficult tasks is to get across to the participants achieving this goal. that the input they are providing will be considered in the decisions being made but that the input will not bevlautomatically incorporated into the plan- 4. During the meeting with Brumburgh, the following major points and comments ning process. Jah'adly or were raised: f. Brumburgh is planning to use a "delphi" approach of obtaining informa- a. The Maryland CZM program has compiled a list of about 5,000 names for tion from the public. With this method of public involvement, a representative their mailing list. This can be made available to us upon request. group of interested people are sent questionnaires. They fill out the question- naires and mail back. The responses are analyzed and reported in a second b. Brumburgh is preparing a handout containing information on thase questionnaire. The process is repeated several times until a consensus from citizens committees which have been given a mandate to accomplish some obafto. the group is reached. Brumburgh believes the method may be useful in clari- Groups to be included are CRAC, 208 Regional Planning Advisory Committees fying and diagnosing problems. One of its main drawbacks, however, is its cost. (3 Committees are being established, one for the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, one for the Washington, D.C. metro area, and one for the rest of the State), g. Brumburgh has found the newsletters to be an effective vehicle for and the Metropolitan Advisory Board (a collection of governments, government conveying information to the public. Along with Flanigan, he urged us to agencies, and citizens groups with a common interest in effective coastal utilize the Md. CZM newsletter (Coast and Bay Bylines) to disseminate informa- zone management in the Baltimore Region). He will provide us with this in- tion about the Chesapeake Bay Study. formation which will include how the group works, what its duties and responsi- bilities are, who belongs to the committee, what the committee's future act- h. Brumburgh indicated a need for related Study programs to use, where- ivities will be. what its legislative mandate is, its source of funding, its ever possible, mutual public involvement elements, such as newsletters, or major accomplishments, who its chairman or director is, who the lead agency advisory groups such as CRAC. He felt that the general public would be far is, and how it cooperates with the bodies. Information on these committees more receptive to programs if duplication of efforts was avoided and where should prove useful to us in defining both who the interested public is and obvious coordination was attempted. He stated that much effort has been made how they become informed. A draft of the handout should be available by the during the last two years to develop mechanisms whereby fewer numbers of end of June. groups would be responsible for providing public input into water resources planning efforts, particularly as they relate to the coastal zone. He felt c. Brumburgh will send us a list of the most active State and regional it would be in our best interests to utilize these mechanisms wherever and groups with whom he has worked in connection with the CZM program. This whenever possible during the conduct of our public involvement program. willVconstitute an important portion of the interested public within Maryland. 21go i. Brumburgh cautioned that because there are many related studies being d. Brumburgh reinforced Flanigan's convictions that CRAC represents a conducted on Chesapeake Bay and its resources, it is extremely important that group with strong ties to citizens groups, planning staffs, local government the public be made aware of what the objectives of our study are and how they officials, special interest groups, and State and Federal governments. As - are different from those of other related studies. sucho it would serve as an excellent means for us to disseminate information to the public and to gather public input concerning impacts, alternatives, 5. Both meetings appeared to be quite fruitful in helping to formulate the and recommendations. He urged that we use this group in an advisory capacity public involvement program for the final study phase, and specifically, in because it is well established, has been given certain legal powers, and is furthering our knowledge of who the interested public is and how they find quite representative of the interested public. He indicated that the Soil out about what is taking place with regard to the Bay and its resources. Conservation Service will be asking CRAC to provide input into one of its programs and that the same could eventually be done by us. for SUBJECT: Meeting with the Maryland Coordinator for the Citizen NABPL-C 26 June 1978 Chesapeake Bay's Public Involvement Program and the Coordinator for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management's Public and Local Government SUBJECT: Meeting with the Executive Director, Citizens Program for Chesapeake Participation Program Bay, Public Participation Program; the Public involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management It was concluded at each meeting that continued coordination between the Program; and the Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia undersigned and both Flanigan and Brumburgh was important to a successful State Water Control Board's 208 Program. Public involvement program. MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE 2 Incl RAUSCH as 1. On 20-21 June 1978,the undersigned traveled to Richmond, Virginia, to meet with several individuals directing public involvement programs associated with various water resources planning efforts. At a joint meeting held on 20 June in the Virginia Office of Commerce and Resources, the undersigned met with Mr. George Hagerman, Executive Director of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay's Public Participation Program and Ms. Kitty Cox, Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (this program is being directed within the Office of Commerce and Resources). On 21 June, the undersigned met with Ms. Vicki Maddox, Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia 208 Program being directed by the Virginia State Water Control Board. 2. There were three major objectives to be reached at each meeting. These included: a. To further determine who the interested and affected public is 4__ with regard to related water resources studies in the region. b. To determine what means and mechanisms have been used effectively in other public participation programs to involve the public. c. To determine the best means available to coordinate the Chesa- peake Bay Study Public Involvement Program with other related programs. 3. During the meeting with Hagerman and Cox, the following major points and comments were raised: a. Hagerman invited the undersigned or someone from the Baltimore District to attend the business meeting of the Citizens Steering Com- mittee of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to be held in St. Michaels. Maryland on 18 July 78. The purpose of attending would be to first inform the committee of the Chesapeake Bay Study objectives, outputs to date, and final study phase;and second, initiate discussion on effective means of public involvement and coordination of the two Chesa- peake Bay studies (particularly with regard to pitblic participation). b. Hagerman, while under contract with the Virginia Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Program assisted Cox in sponsoring a large 2-day work- shop in Hampton, Virginia. The purpose of the workshop was to solicit NABPL-C 26 June 1978 NABPL-C 26 June 1978 SUBJECT: Meeting with the Executive Director, Citizens Program for SUBJECT: Meeting with the Executive Director, Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay, Public Participation Program; the Public Chesapeake Bay, Public Participation Program; the Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program; and the Public Involvement Specialist Management Program; and the Public Involvement Sepcialist for the Virginia State Water Control Board's 208 Program. for the Virginia State Water Control Board's 208 Program. from the public.specific recommendations for the management of Virginia's as much as a 30% response. He will have each regional office of the coastal land and water resources. A copy of the workshop program is public participation program send a list of those organizations and included as Inclosure 1. Hagerman stressed the need for strong, know- indicate which have responded to the questionnaire. It can probably ledgeable workshop leaders who are capable of keeping the workshop on be assumed that those groups responding have the most interest in the track toward achieving its goals and of assuring that no one person Bay. This will be useful information to us. dominates group discussions. For a large workshop to be successful, (up to 3 months) extensive preparation is required. In addition, g. During FY 79, CPCB, as part of its Public Participation Program, coordination and assistance from local citizens groups is extremely is planning to take part in 96 public presentations. These presentations helpful in setting up and running the workshop. It is also important will be given to environmental, civic, and other interested groups. to invite key persons to the workshop although an announcement is Hagerman welcomed us to participate in some of these presentations in normally sent to the entire mailing list (thus, no one feels overlooked). order to better inform the public of our Study and to stimulate public Finally, attendance at workshops is probably best if the workshop is discussion on various aspects of the Study. The Regional Offices are held at night.0-Fe, Hagerman indicated that there are two important aspects to put together an agenda listing those presentations scheduled for to a successful public involvement program. First, the level of public their region. Hagerman will see that we receive these agendas if we awareness with regard to the study must be raised. It must be shown desire. The undersigned indicated interest in this project. that the study is going to impact on the public, personally. Second, the public must be educated with regard to the study. Newsletters and h. Both Hagerman and Cox indicated that many of those more "aware" fact sheets are effective means of achieving both of these. members of the Virginia public are not familiar at all with the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study and considerably more effort on our part is re- d. Hagerman is currently working on several public involvement quired to rectify this situation. activities for the EPA Study. A film is being produced concerning the EPA Chesapeake Bay Study. In the film, Senator Mathiats will make i. Virginia, as part of its CRM Program, has sponsored one large several statements in support of the Study. The film will feature a workshop (discussed earlier) as well as a number of public workshops sailboat race down the Bay, and shots of the Maritime Heritage Festival sponsored by the planning district commissions within the coastal zone recently held in Baltimore. The film will be shown on CBS during prime of Virginia. The large workshop, according to Cox, was the most pro- time before the end of July. In October, Hagerman is planning to send ductive of the workshops, although the small workshops were also help- 4-- out questionnaires as a supplement to a large uumber of weekly newspapers. ful (particularly in establishing good working relationships with com- This will be closely followed by a T.V. program on PBS stations to dis- munity groups). The CRM program has also had considerable local tele- cuss th@ EPA program and related impactsand problems which the program vision and PBS coverage (particularly in the Hampton Roads area) which will address. The public will be asked to respond to the questionnaire was effective in making the public aware of the program and in obtain- and mail to Hagerman's office. He stressed that it is important to both ing information on public concerns with regard to coastal resources. consider the public's views as well as let the public know that you are Virginia also sponsored a "coastal awareness celebration" in the fall. considering their views. of 1977 (prior to a series of public hearings on the CRM program). Groups and organizations were asked to sponsor activities to help e. Hagerman would like to incorporate in one newsletter information make the public more aware of the coastal resources. For example, boat on as many Chesapeake Bay related studies as possible. He has gotten rides on the Bay were sponsored by certain groups as were walks into the Don Budlong, director of the Virginia CRM Program, to agree to purchase Dismal Swamp. Exhibits were put together for display at various festi- one page of the CPCB Newsletter (Chesapeake Citizen) for discussion of vals and other "awareness" techniques were employed at fairs and carnivals. Virginia's CRM program (The CRH program does not have a newsletter of This "awareness celebration" was generally successful although it was its own). Cost will be $100/page. Hagerman is naturally very receptive organized too late to be as effective as it could have been. AIW to our contribution articles to the CPCB newsletter. J. The following groups and organizations in Virginia were identi- f. Hagerman has put together a list of about 1,000 organizations fied by Hagerman and Cox as being particularly useful in assisting with who have an interest in Chesapeake Bay. Questionnaires have been mailed and interested in water resources planning: to these organizations on a regional basis. Response to the question- naires has been varied, with some regions (tidewater Virginia) having Izaak Walton League League of Women Voters Chesapeake Bay, Public Participation Program; the Public Chesapeake Bay, Public Participation Program; the Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Involvement Specialist for the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program; and the Public Involvement Specialist Management Program; and the Public Involvement Specialist for the Virginia State Water Control Board's 208 Program. for the Virginia State Water Control Board's 208 Program. Junior League in public participation. The undersigned believes that these series State Chamber of Commerce of meetings in themselves have been quite useful in furthering public County Farm Bureaus knowledge of the Chesaepake Bay Study and that a good working relation- Soil Conservation Districts ship has been established with these valuable resource people. Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay Foundation, York Chapter Virginia Seafood Council Virginia Petroleum Industries 4. During the meeting with Maddox, the following major points and comments were raised: a. The State Water Control Board (S9B) has just issued its first newsletter entitled Waterlogue. The bimonthly publication contains extensive information on the Virginia 208 Program (included here -as Inclosure 2). The publication has some good ideas in terms of format and may be useful to us in preparation of our News Circular. Much of the distribution of the 208 newsletter will be in large quantities to regional and statewide organizations who have, in turn, agreed to further distribute to their membership. We have been placed on the mailing list to receive Waterlogue. b. SPICB is planning a "media blitz" for rural areas in order to inform the public of the 208 Program. The blitz will include radio and TV announcements concerning points of interest about the 208 4- Program, public broadcasting station programs featuring an EPA video 14 tape on the 208 Program, and a series of public hearings in order to answer cluestions and hear public testimony regarding the 208 Program. c. SWCB is also planning to distribute F-est Management Practices Handbooks to interested individuals. These handbooks will present information on the most effective, practicable means of presenting or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. The handbooks will be an important part of the 208 program effort to educate the public. d. A Statewide Policy Advisory Committee is presently being establish- ed and will be composed of private citizens, and local elected officials. Seven Areawide Policy Advisory Committees have already been established and have proved effective in providing public input into the 208 Program. 5. As with the series of meetings held in Annapolis on 1 June 1978, to discuss public involvement efforts in Maryland, these meetings appeared fruitful in two respects. First, in helping us formulate the public In- volvement program for the final study phase and second, in providing im- portant insight on our program to those individuals involved, first hand, NA13PL-C Dr. Pobert Lippson I recognize that your needs for the hydraulic niodel and the funding to NABPL-C support it cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty; however, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of your Input as It relates to the future use and avallability of the Ilydraulic Model of Chesapeake BAy. Dr. Robert Lippson N,itional Marine Fisheries Service Sincerely, Lab for Ecology and P.Ahology of Marine Organisms oxford. Maryland 21654 1 Incl LOBINSON. Jr. 'T@ALFRED E. r As stated Chairman Chesapeake Bay Study Steering Committee Dear Dr. Lippson: The Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay Is now entering Its second year of testing. To date, the model has been used primarily to develop hydro- dynamic data for use in determining the effects of deepening the Baltimore Harbor and approach channels from 42 to 50 feet and the effects of using the Potomac Estuary an a supplemental source of water supply for the Washington. D.C. Metropolitan area. Other testing related to the C & D C tnal and oil spills in the Norfolk. Virginla area has also been conducted. As you will note on the inclosed schedule. a full program of testing is scheduled through the and of Fiscal Year 1981. which marks the close of the presently authorized testing program. The testing presently scheduled is in support of both the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study and the studies of ,P- several Federal and State agencies. Generally. work to be done under the 01 auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Study will be limited to Bay-wide tests with widespread beneftts. Funding for studies related to localized/spacific problems or problems whose solutions will be Implemented by other agen- cies will be the responsibility of the agency requesting the study. In addition to providing the above status report on the model testing program, the purpose of this letter is also to request a listing of any future model studies desired by your agency. While a seemingly full program of testing is scheduled through the end of Fiscal Year 1981. there may be ample oppor- tunity to conduct any desired testing either concurrent with the present program or to reorder the testing priorities. Further, in order to develop a longer range plan for the disposition of the hydraulic model. any testing desired beyond FLscal Year 1981 should also be Identified. In this same regard, I would also appreciate your views and/or recommendations relative to other needs for the hydraulic model beyond the present program. 2 Dr. Glenn Kinser CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY Division of River Basin Studies CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING SCHEDULE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1825 B Virginia Street Annapolis. Maryland 21401 FISCAL YEAR 1979 Mr, Albert E. Sanderson, Jr. Baltimore Harbor Test Water Resources Administration C & O Canal Test Tawes State OffiCe Building Potomac Estuary Test Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Hampton Roads Oil Spill Low Freshwater Inflow Test Mr. L. E. Zent Administrator Tide-water Administration FISCAL YEAR 1980 Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building Maryland Power Plant Test Annapolis. Maryland 21401 Complete Potomac Estuary Complete Low Freshwater Inflow Test Dr. L. Eugene Cronin Storm Surge Test Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. 1419 Forest Drive Suite 207 FISCAL YEAR 1981 Annapolis. Maryland 21403 High Freshwater Inflow Test Dr. M. Grant Gross EPA Bay-wide Wastewater Dispersion Test Director Low Freshwater Inflow Plan Test Chesapeake Bay Institute Wastewater Dispersion Test (Old Dominion University) The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Dr. Donald W. Pritchard Marine Science Research Center Building G. South Campus State University of New York at Stonybrook Stonybrook, New York 11794 Mr. William N. Frazier Chief. Water Resources Branch Bureau of Resources Programming Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 NABPL-C 13 July 1978 SUBJECT : Meeting with staff members from the Maryland CZM, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Incorporated, and the Delmarva Advisory Council to discuss a cooperative Chesapeake Bay Display NABPL_C MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE Dr. Robert L. Lippeon Research Coordinator. Environmental Assessment Branch Laboratory for Ecology and 1. On 11 July 1978, the undersigned met with Mr. Scott Brumburgh of the Patholo of ?bWLrA Organisms Maryland Coastal Zone Unit, Ms. Frances Flanigan of the Citizens Program Ojdor4. &;;L2d 21654 for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. , and Messrs Harry Stone and John Haffner of the Delmarva Advisory Council. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of developing a mutual Chesapeake Bay display for use in libraries throughout the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay Region. Dear Dr. Ltppsoni 2. One of the main objectives of the display would be to demonstrate that a number of State and Federal agencies are working cooperatively InC10904 for your review is IL Co of the Summary of Remarks toward improving Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland CZM unit and the CPCB from the Chesapeake Bay S" Uring Committee meeting held agreed to provide funding for the display. Each organization represented on 8 June 1978. A07 comments you may ha" concerning the at the meeting will provide graphics and/or photos demonstrating how that Revised agency is working to better the Bay. A specific theme will be decided on Plan of Stutp the hydraulic model testing to be conducted in the final phase of the program. or the Summary of Remarks. later. should be provided an soon an practicable. Should you have any questions concerning this matter. please do not hesitate to call me 3. Detail concerning the display's physical characteristics, where it at (301) 962-2512. would be placed, and what might be included on it were discussed at the meeting. The important points discussed include: Sincerely yours. a. The display would be placed in a library for about a month and then moved to another location. It was agreed that the main branch of an Eastern Shore County library would be the best place to Initiate the I Incl ALFRED E. ROWNSON, Jr. display. Several libraries will be contacted to determine their interest An stated Chairman, Chesapeake Bay in and facilities for such a display. Study Steering Committee b. Three types of displays are being considered: a free standing (self-supporting) type, a table-top type, and a window display. Cost, overall effectiveness, and library preferences will be considered in determining which of the three will be best. Requirements for the dis- play are that it be portable for easy transport by one person, that it be professional looking, that it have some kin@ of self illumination, and that it be a static exhibit - free of moving (and expensive) parts. c. Handouts will accompany the display so that if the public is interested. they can find out more about a particular study. The pos- sibility of including a return mailer on each piece of literature was discussed. The cost of "mail-backs" may be a hindrance to this practice, h",ever. PECT: Meeting with staff members from the Maryland CZ4, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay. Incorporated, and the Delmarva Advisory Council to discuss a cooperative Chesapeake Bay Display 20 March 1979 d. The major programs which will be shown in the display include the MaryLatxd Coastal Zone Management Program, the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study@ and the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. Depiction of other Yederal and State agency programs and activities will be considered fov i4ntlusion, however. Dr. George E. Dieter, Dean College of Engineering e. It was agreed that the display may be more effective if its initial University of Maryland use coincides with the Chesapeake Bay Appreciation Weekend at the evtd of College Park, Maryland 20742 October. This would also give the participating groups enough time to create the display. The display will be used only in libraries, ix@itially; Dear Dr. Dieter-. later (depending on its success) it may be placed in other public areas including the Maryland Academy of Sciences,banks, convention centers, The Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is and at related conferences. operating a unique hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay at Matapeake, on Kent Island near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge above Annapolis. The f. It was agreed that in order to achieve a professional looking model was completed in 1976, verification tests were conducted until display, It would be best to talk with a contractor concerning format, May of 1978, and a series of projects has now been completed. type of materials to be included on the display (graphics or photos), the various types of displays available and the costs associated with each. The Baltimore District and the Chesapeake Research Con@ortium If the cost is not prohibitive, a contractor may be retained to do the invite you or an interested associate to visit the Model for an informal design and construttion of the display. Brumburgh will have lead re- Seminar on June 27, 1979. The Model is the largest estuarine hydraulic sponsibility in.contacting consultants since the Maryland CZM will be model in the world and is of exceptional interest as an engineering providing most of the funding for the display. accomplishment and tool. We believe that scientists and engineers of the region might wish to see the Model, hear a series of presentations 4. & meeting is planned for August to discuss what Brumburgh has found on the design and conduct of the massive prototype studies, construction out with regard to display costs and formats. of the Model, verification against the prototype, and the conduct of experiments. TestS have been ron or are in progress on (1) the effects 5. tt is suggested by the undersigned that rho PAO be kept ivformed of of completing a 50-foot channel from 0altimore to the Capes in Virginia, the status of this project And may even wish to attend a future coordina- (2) the feasibility of using the Potomac estuary as a source of water for the Washington metropolitan area. (3) the distribution of heated effluents from power plants and (4) effects of reduction of fresh water tA-L inflow into the Bay system. This should provide an excellent Opportunity to review the capabilities and limitations of this model and to consider RAUSCH any use it may have in the education of undergraduate or grad-oate students or in your research programs. A test w! I I be in progress on the day Of the Seminar. Principally, however, we invite you to spend a day wit@ interested associates learning more about an exceptional regional facility, A ten- tative agendum for the Seminar is enclosed. ChesapeAe Research Corisortium, rncorporated 1419 Forest Drive, Suitt 207 -The Johns Hopkins Vniversily Annapolis, Alaryland 21403 Univrrsily of Alay)-lond (301) 20-0884 Smithsonian Institution Yirgini@ Institute 01 Alarine science Dr. George E. Dieter, Dean DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BALTI.0019 DISTRICT. CORPS OF' 9N41#4EEIta 20 March 1979 P.O. sox 1710 Page 2 24LTIMORS. MARYLAND XIAOS We are limiting participation to 30, so that we would especially AI'Ll TO -ITI.T.04 OF'. appreciate early information on the name of you or your associates who NABPA- wish to participate. The visit will begin at 9 a.m., a dutch treat box 16 April 1979 luncheon will be provided, and we should be finished by 4 p.m. SUBJECT: Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test We look forward to the Seminar. If convenient, please respond by 15 April. TO: Members of the News Media Cordially, 4S.' L. E;uee Cronin The inclosed News Release (Incl--ure 1) announces the initiation of the For the Baltimore District Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test on the and the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. A press briefing will be held on Chesapeake Research Consortium 25 April 1979 at 1000 hours at the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model facility located at Matapeake. Maryland. Included as Inclosure 2 is a map to the model site. The purpose of the briefing is to allow members of the press LEC/dmr to tour the hydraulic model and to observe the Potomac test firsthand. The Enclosure press will be allowed tp photograph the hydraulic model and its appurtenances. It Is requested that the Baltimore District Public Affairs Office be contacted at (301) 962-4616 if a representative from your office plans to attend the press briefing. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: h' 2 Incl M. R. STEVENS As Chief, Public Affairs Office United States Army Corps of Engineers 1st add Potomac River PA79-44 NEWS RELEASE Baltimore District conditions, while the second phase will define impacts of freshwater inflows United States Army Corps Of Engineers Baltimore District P.O. Box 1716 Baltimore, MD. 21203 Public Affairs Office Tel. (301) 862-4616 under conditions at a future date. Model testing is expected to be concluded by October. FOR IMMEDIATE LEASE PA79-44 RE The Baltimore District Corps of Engineers is currently conducting tests -30- on its Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Mode located at Matapeake, Maryland, to explore the effects of using the Potomac River Estuary as a supplemental source of water supply for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Area. This test Is being conducted In conjunction with the Corps' Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study. The Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay is a scientific tool used by the engineer, scientist, and water resource planner to analyze hydraulic problems that cannot be resolved from test books, experience, or mathematical treat- went alone. The hydraulic model can reproduce to a manageable scale phenomena that occur throughout this large and complex estuarine system. The model encompasses the entire Chesapeake Bay and tributaries to the head of tide and the surrounding land area to an elevation of 20 feat above mean sea level. A brochure describing the Bay model and its characteristics to attached. For the Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test, the model will be used to define the salinities and wastewater dis- persion patterns in the estuary under varying Potomac freshwater inflows and to determine.the impact of withdrawing water from the upper Potomac Estuary at Washington, D.C. Once the impacts associated with varying fresh- water inflows and withdrawing water from the Estuary are known, it will be possible to determine effects on man and his environment including impacts on Potomac River fisheries and water contact sports in the Potomac. Model testing will be conducted in two phases. The-first phase will determine impacts of various freshwater inflows under present or existing M 0 R E NABPL-C Honorable James B. Coulter I recognize that your needs for the hydraulic model and the funding to NABPL-C support it cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty; however, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of your input as it relates to the future use and availability of the Hydraulic Model of Honorable James B. Coulter Chesapeake Day. Secretary Sincerely, Department of Natural Resources Annapolis, Maryland 21401 I Incl G.K. Withers As stated Colonel Corps of Engineers Dear Mr. Coulter: District Engineer The Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay is now entering Its second year of testing. To date. the model has been used primarily to develope hydro- dynamic data for use in determining the effects of deepening the Baltimore Harbor and approach channels from 42 to 50 feet and the effects of using the Potomac Estuary as a supplemental source of water supply for the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. Other testing related to the C & D Canal and oil spills in the Norfolk. Virginia area has also been conducted. As you will note an the inclosed schedule. a full program of testing is scheduled through the end of Fiscal Year 1981, which marks the close of the presently authorized testing program. The testing presently scheduled Is in support of both the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study and the studies of several Federal and State agencies. Generally. work to be done under the auspices of the Chesapeake Bay study will be limited to Bay-wide tests with widespread benefits. Funding for studies related to localized/ specific problems or problems whose solutions will be implemented by other agen- cies will be the responsibility of the agency requesting the study. In addition to providing the above status report on the model testing program. the purpose of this letter is also to request a listing of any future model studies desired by your agency. While a seemingly full program of testing is scheduled through the and of Fiscal Year 1981, there may be ample oppor- tunity to conduct any desired tasting either concurrent with the present program or to reorder the testing priorities. Further. in order to develop n longer range plan for the disposition of the hydraulic model. any testing desired beyond Fiscal Year 1981 should also be identified.. In this same regard, I would also appreciate your views and/or recommendations relative to other needs for the hydraulic model beyond the present program. AM IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO: Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr. Director - Virginia Institute of Marine Science r. Gerald R. Calhoun Mr. Lawrence Levine Gloucester Point. Virginia 23062 ate Conservationist. Maryland Environmental Officer oom 522. Hartwick Building Department of Housing and Mr. Paul W. Eastman 121 Hartwick Road Urban Development Executive Director ollege P-trk. Maryland 20740 Curtis Building Interstate Commission on the Potomac Philaddlphia. Pennsylvania 19106 River Basin 1055 First Street r. Henry L. DeGraff saistant Chief Mr. William Patterson Rockville, Maryland 20850 egional Economic Analysis Divislon Region4l Environmental Officer ureau of Economic Analysis Northeast Region Dr. Maurice K. Goddard 01 K Street ' . Department of the Interior Chairman oom 309 (BE-61) 15 State Street Susquehanna River Basin Commission ashington, D. C. 20230 Boston. Massachusetts 02109 Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 1487 .r. Austin P. Olney Dr. Edward H. Bryan Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17105 icretary Program Manager ,tpartment of N;vtural Resources Directorate for Engineering and ,Mr. Robert N. Davis and Environmental Control Applied Science Executive Director dward Tatnall Building National Science Foundation State Water Control Board . 0. Box 1401 Room U28 P.O. Box 11143 over. Delaware 19901 1800 G Street. N. W. Richmond. Virginia 23230 Washington. D. C. 20550 :r. Herbert L. Tucker irector Mr. Edward W. Johnson epartment of Environmental Environmental Protection Division. OP-45 Services, D.C. Government Office of the Chief of Naval Operations .5 12th Street. N.W. BD 766, Pentagon ashington, D. C. 20004 Washington, D.C. 20350 r. D. HeywardHamilton ''Mr. CliffordH. McConnell cological Research Division Deputy Secretary ffice of Health and Environmental Resources M-.inagement Research Department of Environmental Resources .S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 14 67 ashLngton. D.C. 20545 Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120 .r. James D. Hebson Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan egional Engineer Director. Chesapeake Bay Center ederal Energy Regulatory Commission for Environmental Studies epartment of Energy Smithsonian Institution 3 Federal Plaza P.O. Box 2 8 ew York, New York 10007 Edgewater, Maryland 21037 r. Tudor Davies Captain J. W. Kime.USCG irector. Chesapeake Bay Program Captain of the Port nvironi-nental Protection Agency Customs House . 0. Box 417 Baltimore, )Aaryland 21202 rownsville, Maryland. 21032 A f@:@ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS qvmw-qv@ -1-URE P 0 .0. 1715 BAL11MORE, MARV@ANO 21203 26 September 1979 RE- TG ATTENTiON OF NABPL-C 6 August 1979 SUBJECT: The Low Freshwater Inflow Hydraulic Model Test Dr. Frank Fang Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 TO: Interested Federal and State Agencies, Institutions, Groups, and Dear Frank: Individuals The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Seminar, co-sponsored by the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Chesapeake Research Consortium, has been rescheduled for 14 November 1979. The new Visitor's Center at the Model will be available and In August 1979, the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, as part of comfortable at that time. The principal purpose is to inform academic its Chesapeake Bay Study, will begin conducting a Low Freshwater Inflow institutions of the region of the nature of the Model and to explore Test on its Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model located at Matapeake, Mary- its potentials in research and teaching. land. The test constitutes an important part of the Low Freshwater Inflow Study. The Low Flow Study has three basic objectives which are: Since our original contact was with Dr. Hargis, we are sending him a copy of this invitation. Either or both of you would be welcome. 1. To provide a better understanding of the relationship between Chesapeake Bay salinities and the freshwater inflow from its Please respond at your earliest convenience. We must know by tributaries. November lst, at the latest, who will be attending. A dutch treat box lunch will cost approximately $4.00. 2. To define the environmental and socio-economic impacts of both short and long term reductions of freshwater inflows. The tentative agendum and a map of the area are enclosed. Please let us know if you have questions or suggestions. We hope 3. To recommend those minimum flows that should be provided by the that you can participate. major tributaries to maintain the integrity of the Bay. Cordially, The model will be used to define the salinity inflow relationships occurring under a variety of low freshwater inflow conditions and to determine the influence of each of the major tributaries on Bay salinities. L gene Cronin Based on the testing results, biological, economic, and social impact F@@the Baltimore District assessments will be conducted to determine the effects of changes in and the salinity and to define both existing and potential problems related to Chesapeake Research Consortium freshwater inflow reductions. Alternative flows to alleviate the iden- tified problems will then be formulated and evaluated. The model will again be used for a Low Flow Plan Test, to be run in 1981, in order to LEC/dmr help select final recommended flows. Enclosures For more information on the Low Freshwater Inflow Study and related model cc: Dr. Hargis testing, it is suggested that Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief of the Chesapeake Bay Study Branch be called at (301) 962-2512. Sincerely yours, Cbcsapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated 1419 Forest I)ri%-c, Suite 207 The Johns flophins University AM E. T SCHMAN, Jr. Annapolis, @faryland 21403 University of Alaryland Chief, Planning Division (301) 263-OSS4 Smithsonian Institution Virginia Institute of Alarine Science DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY @S 0' [email protected] BIL-ORE 015TRICI CO- po BOX 171% 7 November 1979 BALTIMORE MARYLAID 21203 NABPA SUBJECT: Visit of NATO Committee on Challenges of Modern Society to the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model, Matapeake, Maryland, After 01 Action Report 'KABPA 7 November 1979 8. According to Mr. Gallup of the State Department, the visitors were SUBJECT: Visit of NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society to quite impressed with the Chesapeake Bay Model and the briefing they the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model, Matapeake, Maryland, After received. He further indicated that the Model would be considered for Action Report future tours of this type. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: THRU: Division Engineer, North Atlantic 0 ATTN: NADPA TO: HQDA 1 Incl M.R. STEVENS ATTN: DAEN-PA as Chief, Public Affairs Office Washington, D.C. 20015 1. On 25 October 1979, members of the NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society visited the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. 2. Prior communications between Mr. Jeff Gallup of the State Department and the Baltimore District Public Affairs Officer indicated that approximately 50 members of the Committee (many of Ministerial rank) would attend. 14 3. Due to changes of plans for some of the Committee members only 22 people were on hand for a tour and briefing. (A list of the attendees is attached.) 4. Colonel James W. Peck, District Engineer, conducted the briefing and answered questions. Members of the Chesapeake Bay Study Group and the Public Affairs Office were on hand to assist Colonel Peck. 5. Packets of information on the Chesapeake Bay Model, the Corps of Engineers, and the Baltimore District were provided to each member attending. 6. After a tour of the Model the group departed for the U.S. Naval Academy. 7. Colonel Robert L. Friedenwald, OCE, Assistant Director for Atlantic Division, was present as an observer. 2 CD LIST OF NATO COMMITTEE, CHALLENGES OF MODERN SOCIETY, ATTENDING TOUR Italy- V. Schiavone United States: Delegate Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., and Mrs. Bennett Luxembourg: Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Colonel Albert Lucas Mr. Jeffrey C. Gallup office of National Security EUR/RPM - CCHS Officer Luxembourg Mr. Harry Blaney Norway: Economic Advisor - USNATO Kjell Glomnes Mr. Michael Saks Chief Engineer USICA Ministry of Environment Oslo Miss Edwina Campbell Liv Eckhoff Consultant - EPA Head of Section Mo. Mitzi Shitanda Ministry of Environment Office of U.S. Coordinator - EPA Oslo T Canada: United Kingdom: @.A Carol Martin W. McIndoe, Read of Delegation 00 International Programs Branch Deputy Secretary Department of the Environment Department of Environment Ottawa London Denmark. J. M. Hope Assistant Secretary Mr. Jorgen Hartnack Department of Environment Delegate London Germany, Federal Republic of Peter D. Burgess Department of Environment Dr. Juergen Pankrath London Federal Environmental Office International Staff: Berlin Mr. Paul Van Campen (Netherlands) Greece: Director, Secretary General's office Dr. Thomas Dimitriadas Head of Geothermal Department Miss Elizabeth Borgman Brouwer (Netherlands) Public Power Corporation Personal Assistant to Secretary General Athens Dr. Phillip Remily (U.S.) Acting Asst. Secretary General for Scientific Environmental Affairs Mr. Moran (Britain) Secretary for CCMS (office Director) Educational Seminar Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model 14 November 1979 JAMES E. COU LTER LOU IS N PHIPPS. JR SECRETARY STATE 01 MARYLAND CEPUTY SECRETARY [email protected] OF NATURAL RESOURCES CO-Sponsored by Corps of Engineers and Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILOING ANNAPOLIS 21401 0900 Welcome - Opening Remarks (Col. Peck, District Engineer, Baltimore Area (301) 269-2784 District and Dr. Peter Wagner, Chesapeake February 7, 1980 Research Consortium) 0915 Chesapeake Bay Study Program (Mr. Ted Robinson, Baltimore District) 0930 Overview of Hydraulic Modeling (Mr. Henry Simmons, Waterways Experiment Colonel James W. Peck Station) District Engineer Baltimore District 0950 Prototype Data Collection Program (Dr. Robert Ulanowicz, Chesapeake U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Biological Lab) P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 1010 Chesapeake Bay Model (Mr. Richard Sager, Waterways Experiment Station) Dear Colonel Peck: 1045 Model Operation (Mr. Dave Bastian, Waterways Experiment Station) This is to inform You of the status of the joint resolution requesting 1115 Model Tour (Dr. James McKay, Baltimore District) and Salinity the Congress to appropriate the necessary funds for the continued operation Stratification Demonstration (Mr. David Bastian, Waterways Experiment of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model at Matapeake. Maryland after Fiscal Station) Year 1981 (See enclosed Resolution). As you will note, several steps have been taken. 1230 Buffet Lunch First, the State of Maryland has been able to find a sponsor to introduce YU 1330 Use and/or Application of Hydraulic Model Data (Dr. William Hargis, the Resolution during this session. Second, the Commonwealth of Virginia has Virginia Institute of agreed, through Secretary Rowe's office, to introduce the Resolution at its Marine Science and current session. Third, Dr. Eugene Cronin has stated that he will seek supple- Mr. Noel Beegle, Balti- mental support of the Resolution by the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory more District) Committee. 1430 Complementary Use of Numerical Models (Dr. Donald Pritchard, State Toward the end of this month, the sub-comittee from the Bi-State Working University of New York at Committee, which helped to draft the Joint Resolution, will meet in order to Stony Brook) begin to develop the support data needed to substantiate the continuation of the Model's operation. 1500 use of the Hydraulic Model by Others (Mr. Ted Robinson, Baltimore District) I will keep you informed about the progress of the Resolution as soon as I hear of anything definite. 1515 Summary - Closing Remarks (Dr. Eugene Cronin. Chesapeake Research Consortium) Sincerely. 1530 Adjournment (Mr. Ted Robinson, Baltimore District) or. Sarah J. Taylor Director, Coastal Resources Division SJT/cjg cc: Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr.. Chesapeake Bay Study Branch Chief Mr. Noel E. Beegle, Study Coordination and Evaluation Section A JOINT RESOLUTION to Request the Conqress of the United States to Appropriate the Necessary Funds for the Continued operation of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Day Hydraulic Model at Matapeake determined and recommended to the Congress by a committee of represeAtatives Maryland After Fiscal Year 1981. of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland. WHEREAS, the hydraulic model was constructed as part of the comprehensive study for the Chesapeake Bay, which was authorized by Congress in Section 312 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965; and mmb.S, continued funding for the hydraulic model will be terminated after Fiscal Year 1981; and WHERE As, it has only been since Fiscal Year 1979 thai studies have begun to be undertaken using the model's capabilities in the areas of harbor, canal, estuary, low flow, high flow, wastewater and dispersion tests; and WHEREAS, the research probl.- that are capable of being handled are more extensive than the tests being addressed to the end of Fiscal Year 1981; and WHEREAS, the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic model is a scientific tool capable of being used in the future by the engineers, scientists, and water reso=ces planners fro different levels of government and from different academic institutions to analyze hydraulic problems that ca=at be resolved from text books, experience. or the recently emergent r-rical modeling field; and T WHEREAS, the model as an instrument and physical dis@play Is unexcelled in its potential for the education of an interested public in the ON scope aad magnitude of the problem and conflicts that affect this vaauaL-" resource-both now and in the future; and WHERsm, the model as an operational focal point promotes more effective liaison among the many agencies working in tl,e Chesapeake Bay waters and helps to reduce duplication of research effort; and WHEREAS, by applying the knowledge gained from the Chesapeake Bay Study and tj,.& hydraulic model, plane can be formulated that will insure a balanced approach to developing the Chesapeake Bay*s numerous but limited resources while protecting her natural beautyl and WHEREAS, the model is in place and operational after the expenditure of significant resources involved in its design, construction. adjustment and verification, and is a readily available tool to analyze phenomena of the Nation's largest estuary; BE IT RESOLVED BY TIM STATE OF MILEMLIM4E) MAID THE COM=MWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, that the model be kept operational beyond Fiscal Year 1981 and that funds necessary to keep the model operational be appropriated by the -odel uses Congress of the United States, with required resources and r Mr. John E. Wilson 7 February 1980 Acting Secretary Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Edward Tatnall Building Mr. Jeremiah Valliant P.O. Box 1401 President and Chief Executive Officer Dover, Delaware 19901 Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay P.O. Box 215 Oxford, Maryland 21654 Dear Mr. Wilson: At the 16 January 1980 meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Study Advisory Group, a discussion was held concerning the five existing task groups on the study and the role that they would have in the final phase of the study. Although these groups Dear Mr. Valliant: had served well during the first two phases, it was becomming apparent that a reorganization was desirable for the final phase. It was agreed that the groups, as During Your November meeting with Mr. A. Robinson Of my staff, he noted organized along "resource category" lines, would have little meaning for this phase that we were in the process of preparing a document detailing the plan and that the work could best be accomplished by groups organized along specific for public participation activities to be carried out during the problem study lines. It was, therefore, agreed by the Advisory Group to replace the five solving phase of our Chesapeake Bay Study. It was agreed that comments existing work groups with two new groups; the Tidal Flooding Task Group which on it by members of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay would be would provide input to the Tidal Flooding Study and the Freshwater Inflow Task desirable. The draft of this document is now completed and we are Group which would be responsible for both the Low and High Freshwater Inflow inclosing one copy of it for vour personal review. Studies. Descriptions of these studies are inclosed. In order to establish these new groups, I am asking the members of the Advisory Mr.Robinson has talked with Fran Flanigan and she has Suggested that he Group to appoint representatives to one or both of these groups. These send several copies of the report to her for distribution to other members of the program. We are therefore, by separate letter forwarding two representatives should be at the appropriate level whereby they will be able to copies of the report to Ms. Flanigan. Thank you very much for your work closely with my staff during the final phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study. cooperation. Based upon the tasks to be performed during the remainder of the study, I would recommend that the State of Delaware have a representative from the Sincerely yours, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control on the Freshwater Inflow Task Group. Since these groups will be activated shortly, I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. If you should have any questions or need further I Incl WILLIAM E. TRIESCHMAN,Jr. information, please call Mr. Alfred E. Robinson, Jr., Chief, Chesapeake Bay Study As stated Chief, Planning Division Branch at (301) 962-2512. Sincerely yours, James W. Peck I Incl Colonel, Corps of Engineers As stated District Engineer U, .COULTER STATE OF MARYLAND LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR. Mr. Noel Beegle RETIAY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPUTVSKCRETARI April 14, 1980 TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION Page Two TAWES STATE CFFICE BUILDING 301-269-2784 ANNAPOLIS 21401 place under Maryland's CZMP and complementary Bay programs. AS proposed, April 14, 1980 the Advisory Committee has no direct and meaningful relationship in the Study's coordination structure involving the Advisory Group, Steering Committee and five task forces (pages 58-59). And, the provision for a single observer from the Advisory Committee to the Advisory Group Mr. Noel Beegle, chief may not be adequate for accountability purposes nor as the ultimate Study Coordination and Evaluation Section role for the public in resolving differences on Study progress not included Chesapeake Bay Study Branch in other public participation activities (budget allocations, contractual Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hiring, assessment criteria and developing alternative recommendations P. o. Box 1715 at various stages of Study progress). Baltimore, Maryland 21230 6. As for Public Meetings and Workshops - the experience of VIZ049- Dear Mr.-Beegle: public participation programs in dealing with Chesapeake Bay issues and plans indicates very little new, meaningful information is derived from The following comments pertain to the assessment of the such meetings for use in such a complex and technically-oriented Chesapeake Bay Study Public Involvement Program Final Study Phase study. Instead, it is recommended that meeting emphasis be reoriented Report on which a State review was requested. The following are toward establishing working relationships with crucial existing advisory comments to the Report: bodies in the Bay region which can help provide thorough, representative public comment with other on-going Bay research and management 1. In Section 1, page 5, Identifying the Interested Public - activities. These groups are also capable of assisting in determining in which reference is made to the Maryland CZMP public information need and sponsoring public meetings to obtain citizen comment still section; the assembling of a descriptive information piece on.Bay area considered important to the Corps that otherwise cannot be found. citizen advisory bodies is no longer a priority and may be omitted. Workshops, when coordinated with existing advisory body expertise and professional human relations consultants can better assure that valid, 2. In Section 2, page 25, Alternative Public involvement lasting recommendations are forthcoming which benefit participants @1_ Measuret - in which reference is made to the Maryland CZMP Coastal invited-as well as those unable to attend but affected by the subject Resources Advisory Committee representatives; replace "two representatives" matter. for local government list with "citizen and governmental representatives". Also, on page 32, reference to the use of a Delphi-type communication In summary, what is recommended is that the Corps representatives by the Maryland CZMP should state this undertaking as part of a staff- consider meeting with public participation staffs of Maryland and advisory committee training program to improve the working relationship Virginia Bay-related programs to enable consideration of alternative between the Coastal Resources Division staff and the Coastal Resources suggestions for designing a citizens advisory committee and related Advisory Committee members. activities built on existing public participation resources that can better assure active,. knowledgeable involvement which supports the 3. Throughout the Report, "Coastal Zone unit" should be Corps study efforts. The design of the program is well-intentioned, changed to "Coastal Resources Division". but it fails to get much beyond a strong public education and information exchange strategy. If that remains as the Corps objective, then a 4. In Section 4, Analysis of the Most Effective Mechanisms - this budget of $527,000 to accomplish that work seems excessive, particularly is a good exploration of basic, useful techniques that are the framework since it does not include a way to demonstrate or evaluate the effectiveness of any public participation effort. of the public involvement effort. 5. In Section 5, pages 55-56, Recommended Program - it appears should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me as if the establishment of a new Citizen Advisory Committee, which has aL t301) 269-2784. virtually no other role than to guide the public participation element, is not in keeping with the level of commitment and involvement with the Since 1 affected public required under the Coastal Zone Management Act and in Dr. Sarah J. Taylor, Director Coastal Resources Division w, I 1,k)w tkiii 4-,)1 kil*c ilk%_ page Chesapeake Bay Studv Advisory Group should be a single individual to insure continuity. Even if there was one member in Virginia and another in Mar and P, i to attend meetings held in the respective states, there would be a loss in 5 La,l Quven, WaN. continuity. Any further dilution of these representatives would result in all @Lirnpton, Virginia 23coo loss of continuity. This same reasoning can be applied to the representatives (&N @ 723-0774 to the Tidal Flooding and Freshwater Inflow Task Groups. In addition to require September 10, 1980 a member of the .CAC to participate in all public meetings and workshops at his L-956-80 own expense is just something that CPCB feels that it cannot guarantee. In response to the second aspect of the program outlined in your letter CPCB, at this time, is not interested in being a contractor. At a later date we might Mr. william E. Trieschman, Jr. be interested in sphedul in. and conducting workshops. Chief, Planning Division In closing we would like to em Iphasize that CPCB feels that it made a valuable Department of the Army contribution to the two previous studies and hopes that the District Engineer Baltimore District Corps of Engineers can make appropriate arrangements whereby CPCB can continue its assistance to P. 0. Box 1715 the Corps of Engineers. Baltimore, Maryland 21023 Dear Mr. Trieschman: If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact US. In reply to your letter of August 1, 1980, the following comments are made. Yours fo a Better Bay, The subject of the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake BaY, Inc. (CPCB) being involved in the Corps' public partici- pation program as outlined in your letter was discussed at a e an recent Board of Directors meeting. Mr. Ted Robinson of your xecu i e Dir ctor ON office also attended the meeting. The Board is prou@! of the GMH/cac W fact that CPCB has been involved with the Corps during their cc: CPCB Board of Directors Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions and the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions reports. The Board feels that the uniqueness of CPCB was a significant factor in the contribution that CPCB was able to make to these studies. The Board would like to participate in the three current studies as outlined in your letter. However, the situation within CPCB has changed during the past few years. As you are aware, CPCB is now actively engaged in three separate grants. These include the EPA Chesapeake Bay Public Partici- pation Program, the Development of a Chesapeake Bay Use Ethic, and a mini-project program from the Virginia Environmen,,al Endowment. At this time the Board is reluctant to undertake the role of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on a purely volunteer basis. The Board also feels that this would be a serious moral commitment to the Corps. On a strictly volunteer basis they are not certain that they could completely honor this Yours ro a "T y' __ - i e t a @@n - M4 le @ur.,e D r or commitment. For example, the representative of the CAC to the NABPL-C THE KENT ISLAND HERITAGE SOCIETY, INC. Stevensville, Maryland 21619 October 20, 1980 Mr. Julius Grollman Chairman The Kent Island Heritage Society, Inc. Col. James W. Peck P.O. Sox 321 District Engineer Stevensville, Maryland 21619 Department of the Army Baltimore District - Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Dear Mr. Grollman: Dear Col. Peck: This is in response to both your letter of 20 October 1980, and the In accordance with my conversation with Mr. Robinson, I would conversation between you and Jim McKay of this office on 4 December 1980, like to make a formal request for the use of the facilities at concerning Kent Island's 350th Anniversary celebration. the Chesapeake Bay Hodel for the major events taking place during the three days of Kent Island's 350th Anniversary Cele- The Corps of Engineers will be pleased to cooperate with you and the Kent bration which will be held an August 14, 15, 16, 1981. Island Heritage Society in this matter by making available the parking area at Matapeake for visitors. The use of facilities at Matapeake is granted At the present time our plans include a formal opening ceremony, contingent upon two conditions. The first condition is that in con- a pageant and concerts. We will be pleased to provide you with sideration of the Government's assent to the use of the parking area at additional information as our plans become more specific. Matapeake for visitors to the events taking place during Kent Island's 350th Anniversary Celebration, the Kent Island Heritage Society agrees to Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. hold and save the United States free from damages due to the use of such facilities, except for damages due to to the fault or negligence of the Government. The second codition is that the use of the facilities does not, in any way, interfere with the normal operation of the hydraulic Very truly yours, model of Chesapeake Bay. In the light of the above, it is requested that this office be kept informed as the planning for this event progresses. If there are any questions or comments concerning this matter, please call Julius Grollman, Chairman upon Ted Robinson or Jim McKay at (301) 962-2512 or this office at your Kent Island's 350th Anniversary convenience. Steering Committee Sincerely yours, JAMES W. PECK Jg/mw Colonel, Corps of Engineers The planning for this event is in the District Engineer vary preliminary stages. Mr. Grollman was called on the telephone on 10 Nov 80, And visited on 21 Nov & 4 Dec 1950. There are no more specific needs stated for the celebration other than parking. Mack NABPL-C Mr. George M. Hagerman Given above position that citizen services must be voluntary and that NABPL-C the costs associated with individual travel will be substantial, it is my intention to forego the concept of creating one Bay-wide citizen committee Mr. George H. Hagerman and to adopt a more "informal" means of citizen coordination. Under this Executive Director approach we would pursue citizen input through coordination with existing Citizens Program for the Bay-wide and regional citizens groups such as CPCB and the state of Maryland's 5 East Queens Way Coastal Resources Advisory Committee. Comments and/or review would be solic- Hampton, Virginia 23669 ited from all groups and each group would provide input within the capability of their own resources. Please be assured that we will continue to keep CPCB advised of study progress and to seek your views relative to our study process and findings. Thank you for your efforts in considering our proposal and I hope we can Dear Mr. Hagerman: continue to work together to plan for the best use of the Bay and its resources. Reference is made to your 10 September 1980 letter and subsequent conversations with Mr. Alfred E. Robinson. Jr. of my staff regarding Sincerely yours, Citizen's Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (CPCB) participation as the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Corps' Chesapeake Say Study. JAMES W. PECK Colonel, Corps of Engineers As you are aware, CPCB was invited to serve as the Citizens Advisory District Engineer Committee for several reasons to include the diversity and geographical representation in your organization, the outstanding service that you provided on the earlier phases of our study and the credibility your organization has established through your on-going work for the Environ- mental Protection Agency. In examining your reasons for declining our offer I can appreciate your concerns that to insure quality input from your organization requires a strong commitment and continuity of repre- sentation on the various elements of our study organization. Considering the geographical extant of the study area, I can also appreciate that the travel expenses associated with attending our study meetings could be a considerable burden for any individual to assume. While I recognize the merite of the above arguments, I still feel very strongly that citizen advisors, either Individually or collectively, should serve in a completely volunteer capacity as it relates to serving on committees designed to provide citizen input to our studies. I believe it is in the beat interest of both the individual and the Corps not to present the appearance of having "paid" advisors that could be accused of not presenting an objective viewpoint an matters as important as the future of Chesapeake Bay. 410 iienderson Roa4 Severna Park, Md..." 21146 NABPL-C 2 April 1981 March 9, 1981 Col. James W. Peck, District Engineer Corps of Engineers MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD P.o. box 1715 Baltimore, ZMaryland 21203 SUBJECT: Chesapeake Bay Information Center (CBIC) Dear Col. Peck, As a Director of the Citizens'Propram for&the Chesapeake bay, Inc., 1. Meeting held at National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., to discuss I have received a copy of your 9 February 1981 letter to Mr. :eorge N. formation of CPCB's Chesapeake Bay Information Center. Agenda and list of Hagerman Concerning participation of CPCd, Inc. as the Citizen Advisory attendees are attached. Committee for the Corps' Chesapeake day Study.. 2. A National Science Foundation grant has been awarded to cPCB to set up the Your position that citizen services must be voluntary is under- Information Center in conjunction with NSF's mandate from Congress to "support standable and has not been questioned. It is doubtful the Corps budget and foster science education in the U.S.A.". People will identify the problems. could cope with the fees normally received by qualified citizens for CBIC will provide the information. Purpose of Center will be to foster infor- their services. However, your further position that such citizen volun- matioa exchange from scientists, polit icians, and engineers to policy makers teers should also pay their expenses associated with such services it arm organizations, urban rather contrary to my understanding of U.S. - in the public sector (business, commerce, shipping, f Joverrjaent policy. groups, etc.). Citizens who may volunteer for such services to the Corps or any 3. By March 1982, a plan is to be developed for the Information Center. other branch of the U.S. Government have already paid Federal taxes from Following a workshop scheduled for 11-12 June in Fredericksburg, a planning which Congress has authorized programs such as the Corps'. To expect committee will be formed to make policy decisions and run the 11 month develop- such citizens to pay expenses for free service to the Corps is, in effect, ment project. A subcommittee will also be formed to do the actual work in requesting that they pay additional taxes for donating their services to development of the Plan: the Government. It would be interesting to know if the Congress intended such action when they specified citizen participation as part of the a) inventory existing information sYst-s- IF Corps Chesapeake Bay Study. b) determine role of media in Chesapeake Bay affairs. c) uses for conflict resolution. ON Over the years I have been associated with many Federal propramst d) survey techniques to apply technical data to assessment of issues- both as a volunteer and as a contractor. This is the first time I have e) determine kinds of data needed. for information Center. ever experienced a Government agency indicating it expected a private f) determine set-up. staff, budget, location, etc., citizen to help financially support a Government program by paying his expenses as well as donating his time and experience. 4. it was noted that it will be difficult for the Center to avoid appearance of advocate for or against a project. Also, many groups (watermen, marine tradi My thoughts expressed herein are my own, and are not necessarily , etc.) have been already identified in Frai those of other Directors of CPC3, Inc. Our Directors did meet several recreationists, environmental groups ted that the Chesapeake months ago, and at that time agreed that in view of the previous work Flanigan's citizen's Program for EPA. it was also no of CB1c. CREX has as a done for the Corps Chesapeake day Study at our own expense, and the Research Exchange (CREX) will interface as an element ibly past) research extent of the work outlined by your Mr. Alfred E. Robinsono Jr*, they goal to enable public to have access to current (and poss did not feel justified in participating unless the associated out-of- to aid in policy decision making. 1, 1981. pocket expenses would be paid by the Corps. 1, for one, cannot accept your viewpoint that reimbursement for expenses incurred would "present 5. Another organizational meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 1 the appearance of having paid advisors." For several years I have enjoyed working- with Mr. Robinson and several other of the Corps staff. In the future I stand ready and STEGNER willing to assist further in any way possible, provided expenses incurred specifically for such work is reimbursed. ATTA-e-4 I - Sincerely NABPL-C Mr. E. Gordon Riley committees for several other studies and none receive (or have asked for) reimbursement. After consideration of the special problems imposed in obtaining citizen participation from the large geographical area covered by the Bay, I have Mr. E. Gordon Riley reached the conclusion that citizen input to the Chesapeake Bay Study must Director. Citizens Program for be garnered through means other than a bay-wide Citizens Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Bay I am, therefor, presently in the process of formulating a program that will 410 Henderson Road achieve maximum possible citizens input with a minimum of expense for the Severna Park, Maryland 21146 private citizen. One of the keys to the success of this program in the continued active participation of you and the rest of the members of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay. I appreciate the fact that you took the the time to write to me. The views of a Dear Hr. Riley: person such as you, who expresses his concern for Chesapeake Bay through many hours of unselfish volunteer work, are particularly important to me. I trust This is in reply to your latter of 9 March 1981 in which you expressed that we will continue the valuable relationships we have enjoyed. concern over my decision relative to the payment of travel expenses for volunteers participating on a Citizens Advisory Committee for the Chesa- Very truly yours, peaks Bay Study. I believe that the success of a planning effort is enhanced by the full consideration of the views of the private citizen. In the past, the effectiveness of using a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist in JAMES W. PECK ascertaining these views has been clearly demonstrated through the partici- Colonel, Corps of Engineers pation of the Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay in our Chesapeake Bay District Engineer Study. I am not sure, however. that the concept of one bay-wide Citizens Advisory Committee to still a workable one. If such a committee Is to function effectively, it must meet fairly regularly and at least one of its members should attend the Advisory Group and Task Group meetings. As you pointed out in your letter. however, some expenses would be incurred In participating in such activities. I understand that socks citizens could consider this to be an undue burden. I am not proposing that private citizens financially support a government program as suggested in your letter. I will contract for technical expertise beyond the District capability that I feel Is necessary for the study effort. I am seeking input from citizens who have an interest and desire to contribute a different perspective and who are motivated by their concern for the Bay and the Outcome Of the study. I know that this concept can be successful because I receive citizen input from individuals and ad hoc 14A'JPL-F 1983 CHESAPEAKE BAY CONFERENCE Dr. Robert Lippoon National Marine Fisheries Service April 14, 1983 Lab for Ecology and Pathology of Marine Organisms oxford, Maryland 21654 Colonel Gerald C. Brown, Commander Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 1715 Dear Dr. Llppsont Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Upon completion of the Norfolk Harbor Channels Deepening Test at the end of Dear Colonel Brown: December. the hydraulic modal of the Chesapeake Bay will be placed in a state In October, 1982, the Governors of Maryland and Virginia announced of operational readiness until June, 1982. their intention. together with the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to convene a conference concerning the Chesapeake Bay. Now set for December 7, 8, During the period of operational readiness, the hydraulic model and its and 9, 1983, at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, the dual pur- appurtenances will be maintained. by a minimum staff, in condition to be able pose of this conference is to identify public policy issues related to to respond within a very short period of time to requests for testing. the Chesapeake and its watershed and to recommend changes to protect and enhance the living resources of this unique tidal system. The Corps of Engineers would like to make this period of tine between January and June available to other governmental agencies or educational institutions Sponsored by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, for testing that they require on a cost reimbursable basis. Time for testing the Chesapeake Bay Commission, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, and the will vary,as to the 64as of the test required, the numbqr,o.f people to do the, ct of Columbia, the conference is being designed to fulfill the need Th " "'* Distri test, and the amount of modal preparation required for Individual tests. a , for public education, awareness, and invQlvement in a concerted action time will vary from a few days to a few weeks, In turn, it may be possible to effort. 'It will be managed by the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake run two small tests simultaneously, affecting significant economics for all Bay. Inc. LT) concerned. To aid in this challenging task, we are encouraging the active parLi- It Is requested that hydraulic modal testing requirements for your organi- 00 cipation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal government, state satlon be forwarded to this office as soon an possible. If you have any agencies, research institutions, and private organizations. questions concerning this matter, please call upon fit. A. E. Robinson, Chief. Chesapeake bay Study Branch at (301) 962-2512. The conference will be preceded by a series of intensive workshops designed to produce issue papers and recommendations to be presented Sincerely to the full conference. Goals include clarification of policies, solutions to problems, and formulation of an action plan to be presented at the conference. JAMES W. PECK We are inviting you to join us in this challenging process by Colonel, Corps of Engineers participating in important pre-conference workshops. Since the vital Commander and District Engineer focus of this conference is on design of regional solutions to problems of conflicting use and resource protection, it is particularly appropriate and very important that the Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study be involved. Planning Division Colonel Gerald C. Brown April 14, 1983 Page Two Mrs. Frances Flanigan Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay Our Planning group will be asking you to name a senior staff member 6600 York Road to help in the critical process of translating Ideas into stated goals Baltimore, Maryland 21212 . Maryland 21212 and commitments. Frances Flanigan, Conference Manager for CPCB, and work- shop chairperson will be in touch with you to discuss appropriate partici- Dear Mrs. Flanigan: pation from your organization. We look forward to having your contribution This is in reply to the April 14. 1983 letter from Ms. Betty J. Disner, to this challenging project. Secretary of Commerce and Resources Of Commerce and Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Sincerely, Mr. Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr., Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and Dr. Torrey C. Brown, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for the State of Maryland, requesting our help in planning for the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Conference. We would be glad to participate in this function. Mr A.E. (Ted) Robinson, will attend the pre-conference workshops. As you Betty J. Diener, Secretary Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr Torrey C. Brown, M.D. know, Ted is my staff person responsible for the Chesapeake Bay Study. Also, of Commerce and Resources Chairman Secretary, Department I would appreciate the opportunity to present a paper on the Chesapeake Bay Commonwealth of Virginia Chesapeake Bay of Natural Resources Study. Please feel free to call upon us if we can be of any further help or if you would like us to present papers on any other aspects of our work. Sincerely, Gerald C. Brown Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Copy furnished: Ms. Betty J. Diener Mr. Joseph V. Gartlan,Jr. Dr. Torrey C. Brown ATTACHMENT B-5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT FINAL REPORT B-17n ATTACHMENT B-5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Date Title Page 3 Apr 84 Comments from National Science Foundation B-172 5 Apr 84 Comments from Commonwealth of Virginia B-173 Response to Commonwealth of Virginia B-180 6 Apr 84 Comments from State of Maryland Department of State Planning B-183 Response to State of Maryland B-190 29 May 84 Comments from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania B-193 Response to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania B- 195 5 Jun 84 Comments from the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control B-197 8 Jun 84 Comments from the State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources B-198 20 Jun 84 Comments f rom the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated B-199 27 Jun 84 Comments f rom State of Delaware Office of the Budget B-201 28 Jun 84 Comments from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission B-202 28 Aug 84 Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III B-203 29 Jun 84 Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. B-205 29 Jun 84 Comments from Smithsonian environmental Research Center B-206 2 Jul 84 Comments from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service B-207 3 Jul 84 Comments from U.S. Department of Energy B-208 12 Jul 84 Comments from Virginia Institute of Marine Science B-209 20 Jul 84 Comments from Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. B-210 I Aug 84 Comments from U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service B-222 B-171 NATIONAL SCICNCE FOUNDATION WA',HIN(@rON DC 2115@0 April 3, 1984 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Department of the Army Baltimore District Corps of Engineers PO Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Dear Mr. Trieschman: This letter is in response to your. letter of March 27 and receipt, under separate cover, the draft of the Final Report, Chesapeake Bay Study. I appreciate your providing the chart that explained the organization of the report and suggest its incorporation Into the Summary Report volume to assist the reader. COMMENTS INCORPORATED AS NOTED I have limited my review to date of the first three volumes and decided to call your attention to the points noted to date in the event I do not have time to do more. The points noted are as follows: 03 1 1. On page I of the Summary Report, the sentence:(line 7) "Unfortunately, 14 problems sometimes arise when people's use of the resources conflict with NJ the natural environment or other intended uses," doesn't make "sense." A better "bridging" sentence between the two where it lies might read something like: "These activities may conflict with each other in competing for the limited resource values of the natural environment." 2. On page A-44 of Supplement A, the title of the paragraph "Raparian" should be "Riparian." 3. Typographical errors in Supplement B noted are: On page 41, it's Richard H. Demmy (not Richary). On pages 81 and 83, Dr. Niering's tenure is noted as being "1968-68." If it was for only one year, it probably should read simply "1968." I hope you find these comments of value. Sincirely yours. ward H ry n. Ph.D., Program Director, E vironm; tal nd Water Quality Engineering Z ry n @ta EHB/eb COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA WILLIAM A. PRUITT COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Commissioner STUART W COMMOCK Department of Planning and Budget POST OFFICE BOX 1472 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR RICHMOND 73211 ROBERT D CRAFT Marine Resources Commission (804) 768-7455 Administration and finance P.O. Box 756 Law Enforcement 2401 West Avenue NORMAN E LARSEN Newport News. Virginia 2360 Environment Telephone: 247-2200 S M ROGERS Engineering April 5. 1984 May 9, 1984 Colonel Gerald C. Brown Mr. Charles Ellis, III District Engineer Council on the Environment Baltimore District 903 Ninth Street Office Building U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richmond, Virginia 23219 P.0. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Dear Charlie: ATTN: Mr. Ted Robinson This responds to Mr. Kirby's letter to Mr. Pruitt of April 3, 1983 asking that we review the Baltimore District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study and provide written comments to you by May 14, 1983. Dear Colonel Brown: This letter is to inform you of the manner in which the Commonwealth of We have reviewed the three summary reports but, because of a lack of technical Virginia will review the final volumes of the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. As expertise, have made no effort to review the technical or scientific accuracy the state's 'single point of contact for the review of the wide range of of the fifteen, supporting volumes. federal documents. I am notifying you that the Council on the Environment will work with state agencies and institutions to develop a state response to the General Comment: Say Study documents. Virginia's planning district commissions are being asked to send their comments directly to the Baltimore District. I. The study embraces the period 1967 through 1983, a period of 16 years. It is generally well recognized that this was a period of sharply increasing Sincerely. environmental awareness and rapidly developing environmental regulatory programs at all levels of government. Additionally, the scientific body of knowledge was expanding dramatically. Evaluation of the Summary Reports leads one to question whether the study kept pace with either Robert H. Kirby development. Since much of the effort was apparently an elaborate literature intergovernmental Review Officer search, this is probably to be expected. RHK/5677/WPAS/nb 2. In spite of the sobering sums of public funds expended on this and similar research into the problems of the Bay, it is disconcerting to note the number of recommenclations which advocate yet more research. Specific Comments: A. Summary Report 1) In spite of the responsibilities of the Marine Resources Commission in living resource and marine habitat management, this agency is conspicuously absent; particularly on page 33. 2) Study Organization. Figure 23, page 107, indicates involvement by Virginia on 7 important committees. In spite of extensive telephone Mr. Charles Ellis Page Two Council on the Environment May 9, 1984 research, I have found no one willing to acknowledge even modest partici- pation. (It may well be that Dr. Hargis did participate extensively COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA but because of unavailability, I have not been able to confirm his involvement). I have, however, obtained the names of all other Office of the Governor persons listed by the Baltimore District as participants on one or Richmond 23219 another of the committees. All of the representatives reportedly appointed to the Present Conditions Study have long since retired, moved or are otherwise inaccessible. Many of those on the Future Conditions Study appear to fit that category as well. Similarly, June 7, 1984 those currently credited with contributing in a significant way to the study would, I believe, be surprised to find themselves so Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. classified. Chief, Planning Division Baltimore District In summary. I am of the distinct impression that participation by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Virginia representatives was extremely limited because little or P. 0. Box 1715 nothing was asked of them after appointments were made. Baltimore, MD 21203 B. Low Freshwater Inflow Study - Main Report Dear Mr. Trieschman: 1) Page 37. Detailed Tidal Marsh Inventories conducted by VIMS show The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the J) there are 215,000 acres of vegetated tidal wetlands in Virginia. draft of the Final Report of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Our review vice the 90,000 acres shown. of this document was coordinated by the Council on the Environment with cooperation from the Department of Planning and Budget, whose 2) Pages 53-55 under State and Local agencies, no mention is made intergovernmental Review Officer has been designated as the of this agency. State's Single Point of Contact for receipt of federal review documents. The following state agencies and institutions took 3) Page 88. (a) Plans should eventually part in this review: address problems such as low-flow-. State Water Control Board (b) SAV Reestablishment. The conclusion regarding reestabl-ishment. Office of Emergency and Energy Services of SAFF&E seems-inconsistent with Chesapeake Bay Initiatives to Department of Health fund such an effort. Marine Resources Commission Virginia Port Authority (c) Virginia has a similar long-established Virginia Institute of Marine Science and reasonably success-fuTprogram which should be mentioned. University of Virginia Old Dominion University 4) Page 101 and table V-1. Finfish restocking Bay wide appears to be a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. ludicrous alternative. To be effective, the size of such a facility would defy both imagination and sources of funds to support such an Local governments and regional planning district commissions effort. are commenting directly to you. C. Tidal Flooding Study - Main Report In general, the Commonwealth has no significant comment to make on the draft study documents. The entire set of Study No specific substantive comments are offered. documents provides necessary background information and the Low Freshwater Inflow and Tidal Flooding Studies will be useful Sincerely, planning documenTs. NEL/slp ssistant Commissioner for "s @ ' EV *Environmental Affairs CC: Mr. William A. Pruitt Mr. Robert H. Kirby Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Page Two June 7, 1984 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Virginia Port Authority As was noted in your draft documents, the Study, despite its 600 world Trade Center many accomplishments, fell somewhat short of its initial Norfolk, Virginia 23510 expectations because of funding and technical constraints. Cable Address Vastports Comments on these and other points are attached. Tekphone 804-623-8000 TWX 710 8811231 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. When you are ready to distribute the final version, please contact Larry Minock of the Council on the Environment, (Ninth Street May 10, 1984 Office Building, Room 903, Richmond, VA 23219, or telephone 804/786-4500) regarding the number of copies needed by Virginia agencies and institutions. Mr. Charles H. Ellis, III Cordially, Environmental Impact Coordinator Virginia Council on the Environment 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Betty J. Diener Dear Charlie: CC: Ms. Sheila M. Prindiville, Council on the Environment Enclosed are our comments on the Chesapeake Bay Study. Mr. Richard N. Burton, State Water Control Board Mr. Norman E. Larsen, Virginia Marine Resources Commission Mr. R. Todd Coyle, Virginia Port Authority If you have any questions, please call me. Mr. Addison E. Slayton, Jr., Office of Emergency and Energy Services Sincerely yours, Dr. Alfred B. Rollins, Jr., Old Dominion University Dr. Frank L. Hereford, Jr., University of Virginia Dr. Frank 0. Perkins, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Mr. Robert H. Kirby, Department of Planning and Budget R. Todd Coyle Director of Planning RTC/cw Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert H. Kirby 2. A need for an economically and environmenta 'lly acceptable method of dredge material disposal. In the Baltimore area, maintenance dredging by the Corps of Engineers Insert A and other public and private interests has been repeatedly delayed because of the lack of agreement an an economically and environmentally acceptable disposal site for the dredged Total dredging requirements over a 50 year project life for a deepened material. While the State of Maryland has constructed a containment area for dredged Norfolk Harbor and associated channels, Including new work dredging material at Hart andMiller Islands near Baltimore Harbor, this disposal area will not completely satisfy long term disposal needs. The dredge material disposal situation has not and future maintenance, would be approximately 380 million cubic yards. been nearly as critical in the Hampton Roads area as in Baltimore due to the existence of the Disposal of this quantity is planned to be divided primarily between Craney Island Disposal Area in the middle of the Hampton Roads port complex. This site s Craney Island Disposal Area and other aoproved alternative disposal eftpoeieyr*,e@ With 60-PlIeW "06 Dredge "64'r, + sites, including ocean disposal. material disposal in the smaller waterways and harbors is normally not a problem. A 3. A need to alleviate potential congestion problems in part, channel, and anchorage Insert 8 areas. As vessel traffic on Chesapeake Bay increases in the future, congestion will also probably increase. Increased congestion means the potential for accidents and the resultant discharge of hazardous substances into the water may also increase. The problem may be The Norfolk District Engineer has recommended that the channels be compounded by the location of a liquid natural gas handling facility at Cove Point, Maryland, deepened. Congressional approval Is pending. which began operation in 1978, and the potential location of several new petroleum refineries in the Region. The traffic associated with these facilities would significantly increase the level of potentially hazardous substances moving on the Say. 4. A need to minimize the potential conflicts between commercial and recreational IF users of the Bay's waters and beaches. Recreational fishing and boating can be disrupted by the wakes from passing ships. In addition, large areas of the Bay and its tributaries are 14 precluded from recreational uses because of their use as anchorages, ship channels, or dredge a% disposal areas by commercial navigation interests and/or the military. On the other hand, large commercial and military vessels must be constantly on the ale" for the smaller recreational vessels to avoid collisions or swampings. 3. A need to minimize the erosion damages from waves caused by commercial and military ves"Is. In some areas of the Bay Region (e.g, the area around the Elk River entrance to the C&D Canal) the wave action caused by passing ships isa major cause of shoreline erosion. 6. A need to provide additional lands to acrommodate expanding port facilities. The development of a major port is dependent an the concurrent development of land-based port- related facilities. However, the development of shoreline land for terminal facilities may in some cases conflict with existing wetlands or proposed recreational use of the same land. In addition, port-related facilities, because of their location, may be subject to tidal flooding and shoreline erosion. TIDAL FLOODING THE TIDAL FLOODING PROBLEM Since man first settled on the shoreline of Chesapeake Bay, he has been subject to periodic tidal flooding which has resWted in immeasurable human suffering and millions of dollars of property damage. Serious tidal flooding in the Chesapeake Bay Region is caused by either hurricanes or "northea5ters." Hurricanes which reach the Middle Atlantic States are usually formed either in the Cape Verde Region or the western Caribbean Sea and move westerly and northeasterly direction in the vicinity of the East Coast of the United States. A-94 -7) J- :Z @, " r" / 4- A MEMORANDUM CHARTERED 1493 State Water Control Board COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY 2111 North Hamilton Street P. 0. Box 11143 Richmond. VA. 23230 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CORPS. CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY (SUMARY) SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE fto" (004) 642-2111 TO: LARRY MINOCK , 1 @@7.,' 9 May 15, 1984 FROM: JOHN ROLAND DATE: JUNE 6. 1984 COPIES: 00014 -4 Mr. Charles 0. Ellis, III FILE % the council on the Environment .17 W 903 Ninth Street office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 We have reviewed the Corps report entitled: "Draft, Chesapeake Bay Study," Dear Mr. Ellis: and have the following comments to offer: We have reviewed the draft of the final report on the 1) We have a major concern that the study area did not include Chesapeake Bay Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage. Not only did their study have no suggestions for revisions or additions. The lack of area stop at the fall lines, but it appears that some of comments is due to the quality of the work and the prior the study area was outside the drainage basin. By excluding involvement of VIMS' personnel during the development of the areas above t he fall line and including areas outside the documents. 14 basin the results of their findings and evaluations are mis- 4 leading. Thank you for the opportunity to review this important contribution. 2) Page 33, Table S. Under the Virginia agencies list the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission should be listed. Sincerely, 3) Page 118. Hampton Roads area should also include the City of Newport News. Frank 0. Perkins 4) Page 121. Recommendations. A storm surge model has already Dean/Director been developed by VIMS. FP: jmr 5) Page 122. Many of the recommendations listed are being cct Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. , Chief, Planning Division, addressed via the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Baltimore Distric@t, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Robert H. Kirby, Intergovernmental Review Officer, Should you have any additional questions regarding these comments, please Department of Planning and Budget, Commonwealth of Virginia feel free to call. :nep 5/84 OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY MARINE SCIENCE FACULTY COMMENTS ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY BY THE BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY We found the objectives of the studies were quite ambitious: 1) VirCINIA 23508 to assess the existing chemical, biological, economic and environmental NORFOLK. C., ig L conditions of the Chesapeake Bay; 2) to project the future water re- 0.1 f i -le r"511-1.1t source needs of the Bay region to the year 2020; and 3) to formulate and recommend solutions to priority problems using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. Reports summarizing the findings of studies designed to address the first two objectives were published in 1973 and 1978, May 11, 1984 respectively. The final report series currently under review summa- rizes all three areas, but emphasizes topics related to the third ob- jective. The summary report has three supplementary volumes covering the areas of: council on the Environment 3600 West Broad Street A. Problem Identification: Summarizes background, politi- Richmond, VA 23230 cal. sociologicaT7-economics, environmental, regulatory and resources data on the Chesapeake Bay. TO: Council on the Environm B. Public Involvement: Identifies organizations involved in FROM: Alfred B. Rollins, Jr. J1 the studi-e-s-Tn -question. It describes the organization President and purpose of task forces an topics of concern. This As requested by Mr. Kirby, the Commonwealth's Intergovernmental volume also indicates how the public was to be informed and how comments, perceptions and desires were solicited Review Officer, I have asked our experts to review the final from the public. The bulk of this particular volume can- report of the Chesapeake Bay study conducted by the Corps of -4 sists of copies of correspondence received concerning the 00 Engineers. Thpir comments are provided herewith for your program. information. C. The Chesapeake lay _raullc Model: This volume consists gly at engineering. , rayon a testing Information on ABR/svb the Hydraulic Model. Enclosure Since these three report supplements are extremely detailed, and cc: Robert H. Kirby, the basic information is presented in the summary report. we will only address our comments to this summary report. Intergovernmental Review officer Department of Planning and Budget The first sections of the summar .y report present the participants !n the program. Numerous federal, state, and citizens groups were .identified, but the only representative which I could find from the State of Virginia was O@, Hargis. Therefore,l believe that participa- tion was mainly from representatives of the State of Maryland. The background portion of this summary report summarizes the historical, environmental, land use and resource information for the Chesapeake Bay, as well as regulatory responsibilities and projected future de- mands. The section on problems, needs and opportunities first describes nine major areas of concern: 1) water supply; 2) water quality (re- sixinsibility for this area was passed to EPA); 3) recreation; 4) navi- ation; 5) tidal flooding; 6) shoreline erosion; 7) fish and wildlife; electric power; and 9) noxious weeds. Following the presentation of each of these areas, the criteria for selection of high priority areas were stated. Basically, studies which maximize the use of the Navigation Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model, avoided duplication of effort else- where, and satisfied the intent of Congress in funding the Model were There are three major Federal navigation projects in Hampton Roads. These are the the ones to be selected. Two types of studies were identified. First, Thimble Shoal, Norfolk Harbor, and Newport News Channels. These projects provide 45- the resource study which was essentially an environmental management/ planning study involving plan formulation, assessment and evaluation. foot deep channels which connect the I lampton Roads Harbor with the Atlantic Ocean.,4- The second type of study was a model study in which the Chesapeake Bay There are also a number of lesser depth channels. Private interests such as coal pier Hydraulic Model was used for testing or demonstrating a physical pat- operators, shipbuilding and numerous maritime interests, as well as the U.S. Navy have tern. All in all, over four dozen potential studies were identified as dredged from the Federally maintained channels to their docks and piers. Dredging has being appropriate for the program. The section ends up with a dozen also been done to improve navigation in the vicinity of marinas. planning objectives based upon federal guidelines and environmental Water Quality laws. Unfortunately, the entire section ends with a paragraph which indicates that due to financial and technical problems, only two Point sources of water pollution may be defined as those continuous sources which are studies were successfully completed despite the extensive progran plan- discharged to a receiving water body via an outfall structure, usually a pipe. Prior to its ning/justification phase presented in the report. discharge, the wastewater is ordinarily treated to a specified level. Point sources may be composed of primarily domestic or process wastes or a combination thereof. The next two chapters of the summary report summarize the two spe- cific studies which were successfully completed. The first was what Within the Hampton Roads city complex, there are many existing municipal wastewater was classified as a resource study of the potential tidal flooding facilities. Additional facilities are programmed for construction. Practically all of problem in the Chesapeake Bay region. The chapter presents the causes these municipal facilities are owned and operated by the Hampton Roads Sanitation of flooding, lists the existing and future areas expected to have prob- District Commission. Numerous municipal facilities in the area have undergone or are lens with tidal flooding and provides the criteria used for the screen- presently undergoing extensive expansion and upgrading construction programs to meet ing of communities which were selected for the detailed planning/ treatment reqWrements as mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act analysis phase of the study. Unfortunately, due to funding and techni- Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). The Hampton Roads Sanitation District cal problems, neither the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model nor numerical Commission is carrying out an aggressive construction program to bring facilities up to models which may have aided in the prediction of areas potentially the level of secondary treatment. Construction programs are currently in progress to subjected to tidal flooding were used for this study. Rather, data on expand and upgrade existing residual solids disposal facilities. Digestion is the -'ierage annual damages and tidal stage-frequency information were used predominant disposal method in the area. The Hampton Roads Sanitation District to produce damage- frequency relationships for each of the communities. 14 Commission is presently investigating such techniques as sludge farming and sludge These data were evaluated 'in light of the relative cost and effective- composting as potential methods of disposal. ness of solutions such as structural and nonstructural flood control alternatives. Although this approach may be entirely justified, we had The area contains many industrial facilities which discharge waste overboard to receiving concern over soft of the data being used, particularly for the Hampton waters. These discharges consist of process waste, cooling water, wash water, drydock Roads area of Virginia. It was stated that although the cities of discharges, and storm water runoff from site drainage. Military reservations and Hampton Roads were all classified in the "critically" flood prone operations which discharge overboard to receiving waters are also assigned to this areas, only the small community of Fox Hill was used in the evaluation category. In Virginia, the Virginia State Water Control Board has issued National due to intense development elsewhere. Exactly why the intense level of Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to industrial dischargers on a development in the Hampton/Norfolk/Chesapeake/Portsmouth region would case-by-case basis. The majority of industries (excluding Federal facilities) are preclude study is not clear and why Fox Hill should be considered rep- achieving their current NPDE5 permit limits for flow, BOD3 and total suspended solids. resentative of the region is not justified. Moreover, the data used Additional parameter limitations such as ^ temperature, and heavy metals are also in for the Hampton Roads area was based upon flood damage reports which progress. were over twenty years old at the time of study. Certainly. the devel- opment or redevelopment in the Hampton Roads region over the past Nonpoi@t pollution may be defined as pollutants emanating from land activities twenty years would bring such a data base into question. A final prob- transported to receiving waters during rainfall events and may be categorized as either lern with this particular study which was pointed out in the summary discrete or diffuse. Generally, a storm sewer collection system or a defined drainage report is that no storm surge effects were taken into account when ditch is associated with the discrete type, whereas a diffuse type may be thought of as tidal flooding damage was evaluated. Particularly in our region, which sheet runoff and has no collection system or defined point of discharge. Special non- the report states is the area of greatest incidence of storms such as point sources may include, but are not limited to, runoff from animal feed lots, solid northeasters on the east coast, this particular effect would quite waste disposal areas, coal pi@srs, dredge disposal areas, large construction areas, large likely overshadow many of the other aspects of tidal flooding. parking lots, and storage areas. In addition to the above special sources, marinas and The second study concerns the potential effects of low freshwater inflow into the Chesapeake Bay. The objectives of the study were: 1) to define the relationship between the magnitude of freshwater inflow B-13 J S-1 Arfe-kA iA B . and the salinity patterns in the Chesapeake @ay; 2) to define socio- economic and environmental impacts due to short and long tern reduction of inflow; and 3) to identify promising alternative solutions to prob- -1715 Ions caused by reduction in inflow. The basic problem with low fresh- water inflow stems from the large growth of popul 'ation in the July 25, 1984 Chesapeake Bay region. Consumptive use of water associated with popu- lation growth was shown by the tests run at the Chesapeake Bay Model to Planning Division represent up to 50% of the total inflow into the system. Such a reduc- tion of freshwater inflow may cause an increase in salinities of up to 5 parts per thousand throughout the mainstream of the Chesapeake Bay and be a particular problem in extending salt wedges up the estuaries. The primary problems identified concerned this change in salinity prob- Ns. Betty J. Diener lem in decreasing the range of potentially beneficial species and in- Secretary of Commerce and Rescumes creasing the range of potential nuisance species. Although these prob- Office of the Governor lems are certainly quite serious, other associated problems were com- Richmond, Virginia 23219 pletely ignored. For instance, the change in freshwater input would likZly change nutrient input, flushing rates, non-tidal circulation Dear Me. Ueners pat erns (particularly in estuaries), the migration of planktonic forms which may be affected by the change in circulation/stratification, and ftank you for your letter ofJun* 7. 1984 transmitting sediment transport processes which may be associated with the movement Virginia's comments on the Chesapeake Say Study draft report. of the turbidity maximum zone (e.g. the sort of shoaling problems which We appreciate your effort In coordinating the review anong have occurred in Charleston Harbor once freshwater input was the many state agencies and institutions. A paper is enclosed artificially reduced). which addresses each of the counionwealth's comments. should you have any questions regarding this matter. please In addition to the problems in assessing the potential effects of J3 reduced freshwater flow into the Bay, the study proposed two potential call Mr. A. R. Robinson, of my staff, at 301-962-4720. 1 solutions to the problem: conservation; and upstream storage of fresh- 00 water for release during periods of low inflow. We do not believe that Sincerely, Z) either of these solutions would be very feasible. Conservation would appear to have a fairly small affect, particularly If there were no economic Incentives (e.g. such as occurs during the water rationing of draught periods) and in view of an increasing demand associated with William R. Trieschman, Jr. population growth. The upstream water storage alternative does not Chief, Planning Division- seem to fit with politico-economic realities: it is highly unli.kely - that upland counties will approve the use of )and for reservoirs when the water resources will be used elsewhere. Such an opposition would Encloamn be particularly strong during periods of draught when the water sup- plies would be lost from the region because the supply is being STEGNER/pk/24710/NASPL-C released into the Say solely for the purpose of maintaining salinity patterns. Scientifically, we agree with the philosophy of trying to prevent the adverse effects of low freshwater flow into the Bay, but C4'3JBINS0N/NABPL- ,#uJ 76 -vv @, realistically, such a solution would only be feasible if the storage NELSON/NABPL projects occurred on federal lands where local politics would not play such a major role. The Lake Gaston issue is a prime example of a simi- TRIESCHKAN/NABPL lar sort of situation. Much of the information in the summary report as well as in the .Supplementary documents may be particularly valuable in educating the public in the characteristics and resources of the Bay region and the potential problems which may be associated with man's use of the region. For this forum, we feel that the report is adequate although many of the sections could probably be cut down in size. If, on the other hand, the document is meant to be a technical report for the sci- entific cormunity. I feel that the tone is quite simplistic and the in- formation not sufficiently documented. ACCOMMODATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA'S successes, at a modest level. for selected species. More In-depth studies COMMENTS ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY of the feasibility of finfish restocking are necessary before it can be included In an action plan for Chesapeake Day. Marine Resources Commission Virginia Port Authority General Comment All comments have been Incorporated. The findings and recommendations of each of the phases of the Chesapeake Bay Study were based on what were, at the time. the latest environmental regulatory programs and extent of scientific knowledge. The number of State Water Control Board recommendations for additional research presented In our report are based on our study findings which show insufficient understanding of the Bay's From the beginning of the Chesapeake Bay Study. the study area has Included physical. chemical, and biological processes. The nutrient budget. sediment these counties or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are conti- transport processes, biological interactions, and ecosystem processes are guous to. or have a major socie-economic or environmental interaction with, examples of areas needing a better understanding. Both the assessment of Chesapeake Say. This area was selected through coordination with the study the adequacies of plans already implemented and formulation of future organization, which, as noted earlier. involved representatives appointed plans are dependent on a better understanding of these processes. by the Governor of Virginia. To some extent. the area was dictated by the breakdown of socio-economic data, as prepared by the U.S. Department of Specific Comments Coutmerce. A. Summary Report The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission has been added to the list of Virginia agencies. We have noted the Commissioner's comment on Virginia's participation in the Chesapeake Bay Study. We have attempted to emphasize public input, Our study of the tidal flooding problem in Chesapeake Bay did not identify 00 at all levels, throughout the study. All work was closely coordinated Newport New! as one of the critically floodprone communities in the Hampton with the people designated by the Governors of the involved states and the Roads area. heads of Federal agencies for participation on the Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and Task Groups. We are convinced that this public participa- For the purposes of this study, a complete investigation was not conducted tion program has been on intensive one and has been conducted at a level on the feasibility of structural measures in the entire Hampton Roads area. consistent with the types of investigations done in the various phases of Rather, several small typical areas within Norfolk and Hampton were In- the study, the types of recommendat ions being made, and the recent revisions vestigated relative to the applicability of structural measures. in scope dictated by available funding. In the final report. a table of acknowledgements has been prepared shoving all participants. including many Four areas along the Lafayette River and Wayne Creek in Norfolk were in- people from Virginia, vestigated to determine the feasibility of constructing tidal flood barriers at the four points where existing bridges crossed these small tidal streams. B. Low Freshwater Inflow Study - Main Report Based on field investigations. the above plans were not found to be prac- The first two comments, relating to the inventory of tidal wetlands, and ticable and no further analyses are included in this report. A fifth location the listing of the Commission as a state agency have been incorporated. investigated was the Fox. Hill area of Hampton. The structural protection considered was a 6.200-foot floodwall that protected approximately 50 To date, success in SAV bed re-establishment has been irregular in the Bay. structures to the 100-year flood level. Therefore. this option was not included as a most promising alternative In this study. However. we fully support current initiatives into research in As with the structural measures, no investigations were made of the entire this area. and encourage consideration of this option In all future planning. Hampton Roads area relative to the feasibility of nonstructural plans. However, the Fox Hill area was chosen as & sisaple area for nonstructural Mention of the Virginia oyster bed restoration program has been Incorporated plans. Based on a field survey of the 379 structures In Fox Hill. a sample in the report. area which includes 61 homes was selected for study. Two nonstructural plans which provided 25- and 100-year levels of protection for these 61 We agree that finfish restocking for Chesapeake Bay would be an ambitious homes were developed. The nonstructural measures considered consisted undertaking, and probably questionable from a cost-benefit perspective. solely of raising the existing structures. It has been retained as a promising alternative, however, In view of past 2 The Corps has done a thorough investigation of tidal flooding surge models in Chesapeake Bay and believes that more sophisticated models are needed to resolve questions relative to frequency of occurrence. We are encouraged that investigations by the EPA are proceeding along lines consistent with our recommendations. Old Dominion University An "acknowledgement" section has been added to the Summary Report which lists the representatives on the study from the Commonwealth of Virginia. The major variable used in the assessment of the effects of low freshwater inflow was salinity. Other variables. such as nutrients. non-tidal circu- lation. etc.. are insufficiently well know In terms of their end effect In the estuary due to a perturbation such as a reduction in freshwater inflow. Recommendations presented in our study reflect the need for addi- tional research in many of these areas. Con::rvation investigations from around the country have shown that savings of e magnitude shown can be realized. We acknowledge that the costs may be very high. However, the programs required would involve a combination 00 of retrofitting of existing domestic and commercial facilities and revision of plumbing codes to make future water using appliances more efficient. Numbers shown include war.: savings in public-domestic-commercial, irriga- tion, and power water useage. The Corps' assessment of the feasibility of upstream water storage, to alleviate the effects of reduced freshwater inflow, was focused primarily on hydrologic cost considerations. We have carefully framed the report so a to'avoid the impression that we are recommending the construction of Nservoirs. Reservoir storage. however. is one potential solution and we believe it should be retained for consideration, in future more in-depth :nslyses of flow needs for the Say. n general. the Chesapeake Bay Study has not been prepared as a technical ocument. The intended audience, especially for portions of the report such as the Summary and Main Reports, Is the educated lay person and the 3 MARYLAND MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 301 W. PRESTON STREET 301 W. PRESTON STREET BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201-2365 BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201-2305 HARRY HUGHES HARRY HUGHES CONSTANCE LIEDER GOVERNOR June 18, 1984 GOVERNOR SECRETARY April 6, 1984 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Mr. William E. Trieschman. Jr. Chief, Planning Division Chief, Planning Division Department of Army Department of the Army Balto. District Corps of Engineers Baltimore District P. 0. Box 1715 Corps of Engineers Baltimore, Md., 21203 P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore. MD 21203 SUBJECT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Reply Due: May 7, 1984 State Identification Number: MD 84-4-507 State Identification Number: MD 84-4-507 Applicant: Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Army Location: Chesapeake Bay Area State Clearinghouse Contact: Samuel Baker Recommendation: Endorsement with Comments RE: Chesapeake Bay Study Dear Mr. Trieschman: The State Clearinghouse has coordinated the intergovernmental review of the referenced Dear Mr. trieschman: subject. Acting under Article 88C of the Annotated Code of Maryland and Code of Maryland Regulations 16.02.03, the State Clearinghouse received the following comments: This is to acknowledge receipt of the referenced subject. We have initiated the Tri-County council for Southern Md., Calvert County, Talbot County, Regional Planning Council and its member jurisdiction, Dept. of Transportation, Dept. of Economic and Community Develop- Maryland intergovernmental review a, I coordination process as of this date. You department, including their Maryland Histroical Trust section, Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Environmental Programs, and the Department of State Planning stated that the subject date indicated. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact is consistent with their plans, programs and objectives as of this date. the staff member noted above. Maryland Dept. of Transportation noted (copy attached) that the following items needed The State Identification Number must be placed an any financial assistance clarification or verification. application form and used In future correspondence. -Page 40, Table 7: Reference is made to the Choptank River (to Denton) and listed with an authorized depth of 8 ft. The department noted that the federal authorized channel depth up to Choptank River to their facility at Cambridge, Maryland is 25 ft. We are interested in the referenced subject and will make every effort to ensure (12 ft. at Denton). a prompt review. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, -page 41, second Par,; Listed an a significant navigation and waterborne commerce problem is A need to minimize erosion damage from waves used by passing vessels. The Guy W. Rager Department noted that this item has appeared many times during the past decade without Director, Maryland State Clearinghouse adequate justification and they are not aware of this as a serious problem. for Intergovernmental Assistance GWM/ cw - Summary Report, Supplement A Page A-91; The statement that container ships will probably not increase in size is not true as these ships that are already under construction are larger than those employed the past 10 years. TELEPHONE: 301-383-7875 OFFICE OF STATE CLEARING HOUSE TELEPHONE: 301-383-7875 OFFICE OF STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Date: 7@ Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. ";IrYlalld SUIte "earinghouse (84-282) June 18, 1984 for Intergovernmental Assistance 11AY 10 11V Page Two 301 West Preston Street Caltimore. !.In 21201-2365 - Page 92, Figure A12; The portion of the chart pertaining to coal exports from the SUBJECT: RLVICW COKHENT AND RECOMMENDATIO.4 Port of Baltimore is in error. Page A94 2nd Par.; Cove Point LNG terminal is closed and the likelihood of any petroleum State Identification Number: MD 84-4-507 refinery development in the State of Maryland is remote. Applicant: Corps of Engineers. Dept. of Army Regionkl %onning Council advised (copy arl.ched) that the following comments are being Description: Chesapeake Say Study [email protected] , th_ _ d ith more detailed comments to be submitted at a later date: - The Regional Planning Council noted that public involvement has been minimal even though the report states that this is a key element of the process. The Council feels Responses must be returned to the State Clearinghouse on or before 5/3/84 that local and regional planning agencies be more involved than in the past. - The Council noted that the report is very narrow, focusing on only two issues. Based on a review of the notification Information provided, we have determined that: . E'13t ing and Future Conditions. They felt that both of these analyses are superficial n i d d d not reveal any new information. - The Planning Council noted that coordination with the EPA Bay Program was minimal It is consistent with our plans. programs, and object .Ives (and when with the Corps basically noting the results, but not connecting them with their study, applicable, with the Coastal Zone Management Program and Historic The Council suggested a more comprehensive evaluation of the data and an extensive Preservation Standards). public review of the entire document and major revisions before the report is published. XXX 2) It is generally consis tent with our plans, protrams. and objectives. tiagment of Natural Resources and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental tut the qualifying comment below is submitted Or consideration. 00 taine Studies have not responded as of this date; however, if comments are received they will be forwarded. 3) It raises problems concerning compatibility with our Plans. programs, or objectives, or it may duplicate existing program activities, as D&2&Et2LqL of S;@ate P4nning noted that the demographic, land use, economic and related indicated in the comment below. If a meeting with the applicant is information utilized as-i-he basis for projecting needs and future conditions are outdated. requested. please check They felt that the projections used are much higher than current projections of population, employment, etc. They indicated that more recent land use data, recreation 4) Additional Information Is required to complete the review. The inventory and other needs data could be secured from the Department of State Planning Information needed is Identified below. If an extension of the and other state agencies. The Department further noted that while the study documents review period Is requesl.,@d. Please check here these shortcomings, it should be emphasized that the basic data is not current. It does not require our comments. As a result of the review, it has been determined that the subject is consistent with Maryland plans, programs and objectives as of this date. The State process recommendation COMMENTS: Items in several settions needing clarification or verification are as is endorsement with comments. We appreciate the opportunity to formally comment on this studY and look forward to follows: SummarV Re- Page 040, Table 7 cooperatively working together to achieve the objectives of the study. Reference i@ -A, - - ---- nk River (to Denton) and listed with an authorized Sincerily --t-11a, comments may be placed 011 11- Vack or on separate sheets of -Paper-) e tached) r u 4 Signature: G @.R.e Di r.,,.r S tate Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance Name: rl@A. V GWH;mmk VK1- Or Transportation PTa-nning Organization: MOOT cc: Bruce Gilmore Will Horst Michael Pugh Anthony Redman -v- COX U/55 - BW1 Airport Clyde Pyers Scrib Sheafor Kristen Hughes Linda Nabb Address: MD 21'>AA-.- Lowell Frederick Dennis Taylor Frank Jaklitach Edward Cox 11 - I '-" - T*---' r. @A@r@ (P4-()Q?) 11 - 1, , I$- (84-282) Regionirl Planning Council 2223 North Charles Street Baltimore. Maryland 21218-5767 (30J)383.5838 State identification Number: MD 84-4-507 J. Hugh Nichols, Chairman Walter J. Ko-alczyk, Jr.. Extrume Direct@ Applicant: corps of Engineers, Dept. of Army Description: Chesapeake Say Study Date. April 27, 1984 Department of State Planning depth of 8 ft. specifically related to transportation matters, the federal 301 W. Preston Street authorized Channel depth up to Choptank River to our facility at Cambridge, Baltimore, Maryalnd 21201 Maryland is 25 feet(and 12 feet at Denton.) (2) p. 41, second paragraph Listed as a significant navigation and waterborne commerce problem is *A need to minimize erosion damage from waves used by passing vessels". This item has surfaced many times during the past decade without adequate RE: Metropolitan Clearinghouse Review justification. if there is a serious problem, then we are totally aware and Referral Memorandum. Project: of the magnitude of same. udv Summary Report, Supplement A: Page A-91, 3rd paragraph State Clearinghouse 84-4-507 The statement that container ships ill probably not increase in size Dear Mr. Hager: simply is not true. As we submit these comments. container ships are already DO under construction which are significantl larger than those employed 10 11A years ago. Th tached review and referral memorandum Is certification that the above re;e:tenced project has undergone review and comment by the Regional Planning Page A-92, figure A-12 Council and a recommended action has been determined based on the Council's findings. The portion of this chart pertaining to coal exports from the Port of Baltimore is grossly in error. Comments on this project were requested from: Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City. Baltimore County. Harford County. Page A-94, 2nd paragraph Comments from the following jurisdictions are included with the Clearinghouse Cove Point LNG terminal is closed and the likelihood of any petroleum review. Baltimore City, Baltimore County. refinery development in the State of Maryland is remote. Tidal Flooding Study Appendix D We appreciate your attention to Metropolitan Clearinghouse procedures. If Page D-7, first paragraph you have any questions, please contact us at 383-7110. The statement referring to the -existing State dredged channel" is somewhat Sincerely, misleading, since this is a federally authorized channel and has been for quite some time. a For more information please contact Mr.Louis Willett, Maryland Port Administration, I ;r@n Horst, oordinator at (301) 659-4794. Metropolitan Clearinghouse Attachment Eat-toreCQ@ AireAfwnde.Co@,,:@ Ba1!,,@,,eC,,-!y Ha11O,0C(-n1v @coarcC,_n!, S-a1,,11.'w,a1_1 FRO:-,: Mr. Larry Reich. Director DATE: April 9, 1984 Dept. of Planning 222 E. Saratoga Street R P C Meeting: April 27, 1984 Baltimore, Marylarid 21202 f--1 Joint RPC/CIHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days) SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SU@CIARY TO: Mr. Larry Reich, Director Date: April 9, 1984 Department of Planning A7p**tvrrr-Referral Source: Department of State Planning 222 E. Saratoga Street Baltimore, Naryland 21202 Project: Chesapeake Bay Study SUBJECT: PROJECT REVIEW FORN R L R File %umber: 84-092 ----APPli4A2J-:--Referral Source: Department of State Planning Comments should be returned by: 4/18/84 Project: Chesapeake Bay Study - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ This project has been forwarded to the following local departments or &;encies R&R File Number: 84-092 (Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies): Planning ---Public Works Comments should be returned by: 4/18/84 Check One -33 - Environmental Protection ___Human Relations This agency has no comments on this proposal. I . Others (Specify) 00 A.ZThis project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment of local (7N --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- comprehensive plans, goals and objectives. This project raises issues concerning compatibility with local plans or inter- JURISDICTION'S CO.'@';LNTS governmental problems an.d a meeting with the applicant -is rec:uested. (Explain below) Check One This jurisdiction has no comments on this proposal. ____This project raises issues concerning compatibility with local plans or inter- governmental problems; ho4ever. a meeting with the applicant Is not requested. VIThis project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment of local (Explain below) comprehensive plans, goals and objectives. This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying comments are necessary. (Explain below) This project raises problems concerning compatibility with local plans, or intergovernmental, environmental or civ'l rights Issues and a meeting with Comments the applicant is requested. This project raises problems concerning compatibility with local plans. or intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights issues; however. a meeting with the applicant Is not requested. -This project is generally consistent with local plans, but uslifying comments are necessary (attach comments). ----------------------------------------- I plans, but ualif, & cOMM-5 RETURN TO: Signature Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse Title RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDI%ATOR Signature Regional Planning Council NAMED ABOVE ------------ 2225 North Charles Street Agency Title Baltimore, Naryland 21218 Date Agency C i)LA K@Q lt@'6 FRO: i: Mr. James Hoswell DATE: April 9, 1984 Office of Planning & Zoning County Courts Building R F C Meeting: April 27, 1984 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, Maryland 21204 Joint RPC/CIIHSA Review Cycle (up to 60 days) TO: Mr. James Poswell Data: April 9. 1984 Office of Planning 4 Zoning SUBJECT: REFERRAL COORDINATOR REVIEW SM2LARY County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue ApP114AAL--Referral Source: Department of State Planning Towson. Maryland 21204 Project: Chesapeake Bay Study SUBJECT: PROJECT REVIEW FORM APP11-r-t4teferral Source: Department of State Planning R 6 R File Number: 84-092 Project: Chesapeake Bay Study Comments should be returned by: 4/18/84 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R&R File Number: 84-092 This project ties been forwarded to the following local departments or agencies (Check appropriate blanks and attach comments from the reviewing agencies): Commients should be returned by: 4/18/84 Planning ___jublic Works Check One T __Environmental Protection Human Relations This agency has no comments on this proposal. Do Others (specify) This project Is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment of local 14 comprehensive plans. goals and objectives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This project r aises issues concerning compatibility with local plant or inter- governmental problems and a meeting with the applicant Is requested. (Explain JURISDICTION'S coz=NTS below) Check One This project raises issues concerning compatibility with iocal plans or inter- governmental problems; however, a meeting with the applicant Is not requested. his jurisdiction has no comments on this proposal. (Explain below) ViThis project is consistent with or contributes to the fulfillment of local This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying comments comprehensive plans, goals and objectives. are necessary. (Explain below) This project raises problems concerning compatibility with local plans, or Commeqts intergovernmental. environmental or civil rights Issues and a meeting with the applicant is requested. This project raises problems concerning compatibility with local plans, or Intergovernmental, environmental or civil rights Issues; however, a meeting with the applicant is not requested. This project is generally consistent with local plans. but qualifying comments are necessary (stta@h comments). -------------------------- - --------------------------------------- RETURN TO: Signature 1@ @'w / RETURN TO LOCAL REFERRAL COORDINATOR Signature 141 Coordinator, Metropolitan Clearinghouse Title .1k.jL.V# A All.:--- NAMED ABOVE Tit Regional Planning Council Agency 2225 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Agencym REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL RPC Meeting April 27, 1984 2225 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 RPC Meeting Arpil 27, 1984 REVIEW AND REFERRAL MEMORANDUM REVIEW AND REFERRAL MEMORANDUM I HEREBY CERTIFY that at Its 235th meeting, held April 27, 1984 Project: 84-092 Chesapeake Bay Study. The Baltimore District Corps the Regional Planning Council concurred go this Review and Referral of Engineers, Department of the Army, has prepared a Memorandum and incorporated it into the minutes of that meeting. Summary Report Draft "Chesapeake Bay Study." This Is the third phase of a study initiated in 1967, at which time 3 major study objectives were defined and sub- WALTER J KOWALCZYK, JR sequently reported. In this third phase report the most April 27, 1984 pressing Bay problems have been defined and preliminary DATE Walter J. KOWALCZYK solutions formulated. The two most pressing problems Executive Director receiving attention are: (1) tidal flooding along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines; (2) low freshwater inflow to the Bay. The Hydraulic Model developed in earlier stages of work was used in analysis of these problems. Referral Source: Department of State Planning COMMENT More detailed comments will be submitted to the U.S. Corps of Engineers after review of supplements to this "Summary" report. In the meantime, the following com- 0 ments are offered following review of the material at hand. Although this study states that public involvement was a key element of the process, that has not been the case. The Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay (CPCB) was involved only briefly 10 years ago in reviewing a draft of the Future Conditions Report. At no time were local or regional planning agencies in the Baltimore area given more than a brief printed status report and final documents. The scope of the report is very narrow, focusing on only two Issues. Overall Information on the Bay Is limited to the two earlier reports. Existing and Future Conditions. on Both these analyses are superficial and did not reveal any new information. Problems, such as "obnoxious weeds" 'Cited in earlier reports are dismissed as no longer a pro- blem, without an analysis of the reason. Coordination with the EPA Day Program was minimal. with the Corps basically noting the results, but not connecting them with their own study. We suggest a more comprehensive eval- uation of the data and an extensive public review of the entire document and major revisions before the report is published. Recommendation: ENDORSEMENT IS RECOMENDED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE COMMENTS. MARYLAND Regional planning Council DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 2225 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-5767 301 W. PRESTON STREET J. Hush Nichols, Chairman Walter J. Kowalczyk,jr., Executive Director BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201-2365 HARRY HUGHES CONSTANCE LIEDER GOVERNOR SECRETARY May 14, 1984 May 7, 1984 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division William E. Trieschman, Jr. Department of Army Chief, Planning Division Baltimore District Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Baltimore, Maryland 21203 P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore. Maryland 21203 RE: State Clearinghouse Project MD84-4-507, Chesapeake Bay Dear Mr. Trieschman: Study Dear Mr. Trieschman: We have recieved your letter of April 30,1984 regarding transmission of the 17-volume draft final report on The Chesapeake Bay Study per our re- This Is to inform you that the reply date noted in our April 6th correspondence quest and look forward to receiving the reports. cannot be met due to several requests for more time to submit reviews. We will forward any comments arising from review of this material through The Clearinghouse will make every effort to complete the review of the reference Guy Hager, Director of the State Clearinghouse DO project during the week of May 21st. Thank you for your cooperation in this ma Your cooperation concerning this matter is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Sincerely, W. Wilson Horst, Coordinator Metropolitan Clearinghouse Guy W. Hager, Director Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance cc: G. Hager A. Gwynn GWH:cs TELEPHONE: 301-383-7700 TTY for Deaf: 301-383- 7556 Baltimore City, Anne Arunndel County Baltimore Counyy Carrol County, Harford County, Howard County, State of Maryland OFFIE OF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BALTIMORE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.0. BOX 1718 -1715 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21208 April 30, 1984 July 17, 1984 Planning Division Planning Division Mr. Wilson Horst Mr. Guy W. Hager Regional Planning Council Director 2225 North Charles Street state Clearinghouse for Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Intergovermental Assistance Dear Mr. Horst: Maryland Department of State Planning 301 West Preston Street As requested in your telephone conver ation of April 26th Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2365 with Mr. Ted Robinson, of my staff, I am sending you, under Dear Mr. Hager: separate cover, the remaining 17 volumes of the draft final report on the Chesapeake Bay Study. The report is divided into Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1984 transmitting asummary of the entire study and specific reports on both the Maryland's comments on the Chesapeake Bay Study draft report. Low Freshwater Inflow and Tidal Flooding Studies. A chart As suggested by Mr. Sam Baker, during his July 11th telephone showing the organization of the entire 18-volume report is conversattion with Mr. A. R. (Ted) Robinson, we are enclosing a enclosed for your information. It should be noted that the Map paper addressing each of the comments. Folio (Appendix F to the Low Freshwater Inflow Report) will be printed twice the size in the final report. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please Any comments you may have should be sent to the Director call Mr. Robinson at 962-4710. of the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Sincerely, Assistance to be incorporated with the official state comments. Should you have any questions concerning the report, please call Mr. Robinson at 962-4710. Sincerely, William E. Trieschman, Jr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Chief, Planning Division Enclosures Accommodation of State of Maryland's We have closely followed the progress of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Comments on the Chesapeake Bay Study through the participation of EPA on our Advisory Group and Steering Committee. We should note that the reports on the EPA program were not available at the time the majority of work on our study was being done. In general. a number of the comments are on the summary of the findings We therefore were not able to display its findings In much detail. However, of the Future Conditions Report. Because this report was prepared in the we will expand our discussions of these findings In our final report. But. mid-1970's time pe iod-,much of the information has become dated. However, connection of the results with our study beyond the level already done is it was not possible to revise most of these findings within the authority not only inconsistent with the stated scope and objectives of our study, and funding available to us. In fact. we have recommended that the appro- but. In some cases, beyond that which is possible with the present state priate agency do a thorough update of the Future Conditions Report. For of the art knowledge of Chesapeake Bay processes. The nutrient budget our final report. we will reflect EPA's li-testfindings in the section on is an example of this. On the other hand. we are hopeful that the con- water quality. We will also re-,emphasize the origination date of infor- tinuing EPA program will fully consider all aspects of freshwater inflow mation In the Future Conditions Report. to Chesapeake Bay and will provide for an adequate public review of Its findings. Maryland Department of Transportation Department of State Planning Page 41: This was a finding of the Future Conditions Report. Its primary reference was to the C&D Canal approaches where ship wakes were a reported We have noted the Department's concerns about the outdated nature of much shore erosion concern. of the information presented in the Future Cond!t!on:,Il:port* A. noted above..ve will more carefully clarify the natur f 1 information and Page 92: The coal export projections for the Port of Baltimore are based will recommend that it be updated. on commodity trend analyzes done as part of the FCR. As previously noted. we are recommending that the appropriate Agency update all projections contained in the Future Conditions Report. Page 40 and 'Supplement A, Pag;osuA-91 and A-94: These sections of the report to reflect have been revised r comments. Regional Planning Council We have noted the Regional Planning Council's comments on public participa- tion and agree that public input at all levels is important. Us have, therefore, emphasized this throughout the study. All work was closely coordinated with the people designated by the Governors of the involved states and the heads of Federal agencies for participation on the Advisory Group, Steering Committee. and Task Groups. Public meetings and workshops were hold at appropriate times during the study, newsletters and Informa- tional brochures were distributed to thousands of people. all reports in- cluding the final report have been reviewed by a variety of agencies, councils, commissions, and lay persons, hundreds of presentations were made to groups of'all types, and a Citizens Advisory Committee participa- ted in the identification of the problems and the formulation of the study focus. in addition, over 150.000 persons were Informed about the study through the tour program at the Chesapeake Bay Model. We are convinced that this public participation program has been an Intensive one and has been conducted at a level consistent with the types of investigations done In the various phases of the study, the typea of recommendations being made. and the recent revisions in scope dictated by available funding. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 301 W. PRESTON STREET BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201-2365 HARRY HUGHES CONSTANCE LIEDER GOVERNOR SECRETARY July 25, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: Addressees FROM: Guy W. Rage Director, S e Clearinghouse for Intergover-Intal Assistance SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project #MD 84-4-507 Chesapeake Bay Study Enclosed for your information is the reply to comments submitted by your agency and included in the June 18, 1984 Clearinghouse closeout review letter. If your agency requests any further information regarding these comments, please contact the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, directly and send -a copy of any correspondence to the State Clearinghouse. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. GWH/Cw Enclosure Addressees: DECO Frederick Kent Co. - Hughes DNR Gilmore Calvert Co. - Jaklitsch MOOT Pyers Q.A. Co. - Gardner OEP Eisenberg Talbot Co. - Redman RPC Horst (4 copies) Dorchester Co. - Nabb TCCSMD - Hodge Somerset Co. - Massey DOA Cawley St. Mary's - Cox CEES Taylor CORP Smith Cecil Co. - Pugh Information Copy: William E. Trieschman, Jr. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA William E. Trlwhman, 3r., Chief -2- May 2 9, 1984 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. 0. B.x 1467 not explain the problems adequately and even seem to diminish their Importance. liarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 We believe the report, In Its present form, would cast a real question of credibility May 29, 1984 on Federal and state participation In both effortL We suggest that the Corps (70) 717-2969 In reply refer to solicit EPA assistance to beef up these and other portions of the report which deal RM-WR with water quality to put the problems In proper perspective. If this is not done, F70:4B we believe the states will have a difficult time maintaining public support In cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay which Is just now starting to generate fully. Pennsylvania presently Is developing a nonpoint management strategy William E. Trieschman, 3r., Chief to address nutrient and sediment loadings to the Bay, particularly with regard to Planning Division agricultural activities. With one-third of the Bay region Involved In agricultural Baltimore District - Corps of Fngineers land use activities, It seems appropriate to promote additional land protection P.O. Box 1715 measures for these areas. The State Conservation Comn-Jssion, through the PL-366 Baltimore, MO 21203 Small Watershed Protection Program, Is promoting such nonstructural protection measures to reduce soil erosion and nutrient losses to Bay tributaries. These Dear Mr. TrIeschman: protection measures involve Best Management Practices on agricultural lands. In response to your letter of March 27, 1994, the Department has In addition to improving water quality, these practices will result In reviewed the draft of the final report on the Chesapeake Bay Study. While the more natural surface and groundwater conditions. By promoting natural hydro- CommonweaM of Pennsylvania Is not included in the study area for the Chesapeake periods, these land protection measures provide another alternative to Improving Bay Study, Pennsylvania has participated In the Advisory Group and Steering flow supplementation to the Bay. Committee for the Chesapeake Bay Study during most of the period of study. Our Department has particularly been interested in the Low Freshwater Inflow portion The Low Freshwater Inflow Study tested the effects of long-term of the study, which investigate ' the possibility of utilizing existing and potential drought events and Increasing consumptive uses on Chesapeake Bay salinity, and torage reservoirs in Pennsylvania arW elsewhere for combating higher Chesapeake these salinity Impacts were translated Into habitat changes and ultimately to salinities. impacts on critical Bay species. Study findings demonstrated that existing and potential basin storage, Including the Susquehanna River Basin within Pennsylvania, The draft of the final report has been reviewed by the Department's was of Insufficient magnitude to control salinity during a drought of record occur- Bureaus of Water Resources Management, Soil and Water Conservation, and Water rence such as that which occurred during the drought of the early 1960's. However, Quality Management. This letter incorporates the comments of these Bureaus the study Indicated that potential quantities of storage could be made available or into a single response for the Department. developed for mitigating the Impacts of future Incremental consumptive uses particularly during summer and fall periods. The Department takes exception to In view of the recent completion of EPA's "Chesapeake Bay Program" both the high consumptive use projections used In the Chesapeake Bay Study, and study the Corps' "Chesapeake Say Study" report should clearly explain the relation- the contention that large amounts of storage within the Basin can be made avail- ship between these two major Federal efforts. We suggest that this be done UP able for flow augmentation to combat higher Chesapeake Bay salinities. front In the Summary Report. The Cheaspeake Bay Program is referred to on page 8 of the Summary Report only rather Incidentally as "One other important Table 23 on page 100 of the Summary Report Indicates that between study...". We think the clarification Is justified in view of the fact that one of the 710,000 and 1,270,ODO acre-feet of flow augmentation storage would be needed in objectives of the CorpV study was "to assess the existing physical, chemical, the Susquehanna River Basin to mitigate the Impacts of future Incremental biological, economic and environmental conditions of the Chesapeake Bay." Except consumptive uses during summer and fall periods. Currently, under 600,000 acre- perhaps for the economics part, this is exactly what the EPA program did at a feet of conservation storage exists In six reservoir projects within the Pennsylvania cost of about $30 million compared to about $15 million for the Corps' study. portion of the Susquehanna River Basin. Over 83% of this storage is located In the Raystown Lake Project. On page 94 of the Summary Report you have Indicated The Corps suggests later In the report that the EPA program provided that 20% of the existing conservation storage could be reallocated (120,000 acre- water quality input to its study, but it appears that the Information used was very feet). Therefore, between 390,000 and 1,130,000 acre-feet of new flow augmen- general, the discussion shallow and, in some cases, confusing. Supplement A of tation storage would need to be developed within the Susquehanna River Basin In the Summary Report, page A-94, for example, says that "...the water quality of order to Implement the summer and multi-seasonal plan which you have indicated the Bay itself is good with most of the severe problems occurring In the on page 100 of the Summary Report. The Department fully recognizes the diffi- tributaries..." and * ... the water quality problems which currently plague Bay water$ culty of developing major new reservoir sites within the Commonwealth. High can be expected to continue to cause problems". These statements not only sound interest rates, Increased construction costs, and environmental and social contradictory, but lack a real description of the problems contained In the constraints have all combined to virtually preclude the development of large EPA program report. Figure A-10 and the discussion that follows in the report do reservoirs even where the need Is urgent. We feel that It is unrealistic to consider William E. TrIeschman, Jr., Chief -3- May29, 1994 William E. Trieschman, Jr., Chief May29, 1984 alternative plans for the Chesapeake Say Study which require high levels of flow species without knowing the full consequences of these actions on the remainder augmentation and correspondingly large amounts of upstream reservoir storage. of the species Is not prudent, environmentally acceptable or cost effective. In addition, the adverse Impacts of developing and Implementing substantial amounts It has been our observation that the same economic conditions which of additional upstream storage must be considered. We. therefore, request that currently preclude large reservoir development, also have significantly slowed the the Baltimore District-Corps of Engineers reevaluate their findings and redefine increase in consumptive use. Our State Water Plan consumptive use projections, their multi-seasonal plan to Include more realistic alternatives which are more which are lower than those used In the Chesapeake Bay Study, show a growth in conservative and allow for uncertainties In biological prediction. consumptive use in the Pennsylvania portion of the Susquehanna River Basin from 373 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990 to 329 mgd In 1990, an Increase of We sincerely hope these comments will be helpful to you in further 156 mgd. On page 97 of the Summary Report, incremental consumptive losses auessing and developing your alternative plans for the Chesapeake Bay Study. It through the year 2020 are projected to be 992 mild for the Susquehanna River there are questions concerning our comments, please feel free to contact Basin. Over 76 percent of the Susquehanna River Basin drainage Is within Steve Runkle of our State Water Plan Division at 717-787-3008. Pennsylvania. Therefore, a considerable discrepancy exists between the Pennsylvania State Water Plan and Chesapeake Bay Study consumptive use Since ly, projections. Most of the Susquehanna River Basin's consumptive use Increase Is expected in the power generation and agricultural irrigation sectors. Recent power generation water requirement projections received from the Electric Utility Companies of Pennsylvania indicate lower forecasts for the future than the State Ick J. lano Water Plan projections had originally indicated. Similar trends are occurring in ty Secretary the manufacturing and mineral industry sectors. By way of comparison, Figure 14 for Resurces Management on page 48 of the Summary Report projects a 12-fold Increase in Chesapeake Bay Region power plant consumptive use requirements. While this Region includes areas other than Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River Basin, we feel a significant discrepancy exists. For these reasons we would strongly question future flow requirements and flow augmentation based on year 2020 consumptive use Increases &mounting to 2,490 mgd for the Chesapeake Bay drainage. The Department's State Water Plan reports for the Susquehanna River Basin Indicate the Commonwealth's willingness to fulfill the Susquehanna River Basin Commissionts regulation to make up from storage all additional Incremental consumptive uses within the Susquehanna River Basin whenever flows drop below the 7-day, 10-year frequency low flow trigger level. We feel existing and planned modifications to existing reservoir storage facilities within the Commonwealth are adequate to provide these storage requirements. However, to make up for additional consumptive uses throughout the Chesapeake Say drainage an a frequent multi-seasonal basis Is asking too much of existing reservoir storage facilities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In our review of the Biota Evaluation Panel's findings and recommen,- dations for the Chesapeake Bay Study, we did not get the impression that the panel felt salinity control in the Bay, through extensive strearnflow augmentation, was desirable or recommended. Their recommendation No. 3 states that "a highly conservative policy toward alteration of freshwater Inflow should be pursued in view of the high biological value of the Chesapeake, the indications of Important detrimental effects and the limits on predictive capability". Their recommen- datiorks further state that it should be recognized that flow modification and @ 'Y' Jklr ty y resultant effects are site specific and time specific, as well as accumulative and require individual evaluation. In summary, we are quite concerned about the direction the Chesapeake Bay Study has recently taken. To consider alternative plans which call for sub- stantial strearnflow augmentation to control salinity for specific Chesapeake Bay July 20, 1984 "It is realized that demographic and economic projections more recent than those used In this study indicate that the magnitude of consumptive losses used as the bases for the foregoing analyees may not be realized in the year 2020. It is believed, however, that under any circumstances, PLANNING DIVISION the magnitude of increases In consumptive losses will be sufficient to be of real concern and that this Low Freshwater Inflow Study provides patrick J. Solano a framework for the development of corrective actions." Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Further, the time frame within which the Future Conditions Report was Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 completed will be emphasized where necessary in the Chesapeake bay study Report. Dear Mr. Solano: We recognize your concerns over the quantities of storage required to Thank you very much for your letter dated May 29, 1964 commenting on the "make up for" consumptive losses, anf have carefully framed the report so as Chesapeake ray Study draft report. We have found these comments most useful to avoid the impression that we are recommending the construction of in the editing of this report. reservoirs. Reservoir storage, however, is one potential solution and we believe It should be retained for future consideration. In order to clarify As you have noted In your letter, tile discussion of water quality in our position, we have added to the Summary Report. the Main Report on Low Freshwater Inflow, and the Plan Forulation Appendix the statement shown on supplement A Is Indeed somewhat confusing in the light of the EPA's recent the enclosed pages. findings. The information contained In Supplement A is a summary of the Future Conditions Report prepared in 1978. It reflects the EPA's assessment We have discussed this matter with Mr. Steve Runkle and trust that these of the condition of Chesapeake Bay In the mid-seventies. In order to avoid revisions respond to your concerns. If there are any further comments or any further confusion, this section will be clarified in the context of the questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Again, the consumptive loss projections used in the Low Freshwater Inflow Sincerely, Study were calculated in the late 1970's. These projections were based on tile then most current Series E OBERS Economic and Demographic projections and specific projections of electrical power demand and resulting consumptive losses furnished to this office by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The 03ERS 1980, as well as the revised losses due to electrical power William E. Trieschman, Jr. generation were not available. unfortunately, until after the completion of Chief, Planning Division the hydraulic model testing program. Because of this, we were unable to include them In our base data set. We are well aware, however, that they Enclosure appear to be somewhat less optimistic than the projections available for use In 1977, and that there is a possibility that the projections used in our work may not be realized until sometime after the year 2020. This has been fully addressed in the "Sensitivity" section of the report. To alleviate any confusion, the following paragraph has been added to the conclusions found In both the Summary Report and the Low Freshwater Inflow Study Kain Report: Supplementing low freshwater inflow into Chesapeake Bay from reservoir storage will produce substantial benefits in the Estuary. However, it must be emphasized that no recommendations are being made for the imme- diate implementation of any alternatives addressed in this study. Rather, considerable further analysis of each measure identified for copying with the effects of how freshwater inflow must be completed before any recom- mendations for action can be made. In particular, upstream socio-economic as well as environmental impacts must be identified in detail to determine that the total benefits involved with any alternative would outweigh the total costs, including the use of reservoir stgorage. A further important ingredient in these studies will be the delineation of the local, regional, and national perspectives arising in the consideration of the variour alternatives. Another point that will be emphasized is the meaning of the word "reasonable" as it relates to quantities of storage. This determination is based solely on technical considerations and experience in previous studies. For the most part, it is a funchtion of the amount of water that can be stored without materially affecting the natural variability of flows in the main stem of the rivers. Ther work associated with this study appears to indicate that the storage of a quantity of water equivalent to the amount of con- sumptive lossed that will accumulate in two seasons during a severe drought in the year 2020 is the outer limit of technically feasible "reasonable" storeage. Certainly, more detailed studies are needed to ascertain if this level of storage can be economically, socially, and environmentally justified or if some lesser level of storage is more appropriate. STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 89 KINGS HIGHWAY PO BOX 1401 DOVER DELAWARE 19901 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TELEPHONE (302)736-4403 June 5, 1984 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Dear Mr. Trieschman: The draft of the final report on the Chesapeake Bay Study NO RESPONE NECESSARY has been revieved by this Department. The report is extremely comprehensive in its scope and because the recommendations are based on a thorough review of the literature and extensive experi- mentation, we concur with those presented in the Draft Summary Report. I Am hopeful that this report, along with the recently com- pleted Chesapeake Bay Report and subsequent legislation will lead to an improvement in the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Thank you for providing the material for our review. I look forward to receiving the final reports. Sincerely, John E. Wilson, III Secretary Comments on the Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study TORRE C GROW16. M D STATE OF MARYLAND sEcRIT"v DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OIEIVTVKcR""1 TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 General-Comments 1) There is some redundancy in the general background text throughout the report. It was noted that some scientific points were missed June 8, 1984 due. to the padding. 2) There were a number of comments regarding the map folio. It is assumed that the quality will improve with the proposed enlargement. Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. S22cific Comments Chief, Planning Division Corps of Engineers 1) In the Summary Report: Baltimore District Post Office Box 1715 Page 9 - Under the estuary description it states that the Bay was Baltimore, Maryland 21203 formed about 100,000 years ago. The end of the Wisconsin Dear Mr. Trieschman: Stage is approximately 18,000 years before the present. a; 15 - The description of estimated groundwater recharge may more I Thank you for forwarding copies of the draft final report on the correctly be 8.5 to It inches. I'D Chesapeake Bay Study. Staff of the Department have reviewed the docunent - 00 and found it to be especially valuable in providing a consolidated and 23 - In the last paragraph, substitute "swamps" for "bogs". coherent perspective of the vast array of activities and investigations conducted in the Chesapeake Bay since 1967. The Corps of Engineers' 33 - On Table 5, under Federal Agencies, "Office of Chesapeake Study is cleArly the most authoritative and comprehensive compendium ever -Bay" is mentioned but it is not clear under what agency. prepared on the Chesapeake region. For your use, a few detailed comments are included on the attached 49 - In the first paragraph, hydrilla should be mentioned as a sheet. problem plant. The &rps is to be congratulated on completion of this first truly 2) In the Low Freshwater Inflow Hain Report: holistic investigation of the Bay. Page 113 - Under Findings and Recommendations, item 7 mentions previously Sincerely, unknown salinity patterns. It may need more explanation, particularly on how the "tongue" of freshwater may affect the sediment transport pattern. Torrey C. Brown, m.0. 3) Appendix D: Plates D-23 through D-94 are upside down. TCB/TCA/mw, Encl: Comments on Study cc: Verna Harrison Thomas Andrews COMMENTS INCORPORATED AS NOTED (301) 269-3041 June 1984 Dept. of Natural Resources DRAFT CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY General Comments - LEC - 19 June 1984 June 20, 1984 LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW STUDY APPENDIX A Mr. Alfred E. Robinson. Jr. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Chief. Chesapeake Bay Study Group Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers 13 June 84 P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, NO 21203 1. Simpler straight-forward prose would sometimes be an improvement. Dear Ted: So would all possible reduction in redundancy. I am returning four volumes of the Study with notes. Review is 2. It is not sufficiently clear that salinities are for surface only. both a massive task and a difficult one, and I have not been complete. OK for SAV, EAV. not for plankton, benthos or non-avian vertebrates. V suggest that someone consider my notes in the following order, 3. p. 109 - on "potential habitat". "known habitat" and "true habitat" which I followed: (my addition). This is exceptionally, even fundamentally, important. and should be re-written. Appendix A Appendix 8 The known habitat is within the potential habitat, and so, we think, Main Report is the true, but we know little about the % of the potential which is Summary occVpied by a species, except that It is highly variable over time (SA s). season (crabs. fish, etc.) and by species. Some comments: Suggestions. like your writing. flow in that sequence. I have not Perhaps the most useful approach is to make clear reasonable always repeated them. statements showing that you are aware of these difficulties, Congratulations on much fine work, good thinking and effective state a working assumption -.and go ahead. Perhaps the assumptions writing. There will be value for many decades. are: What will be done with the Study's extensive literature collection? That the area of potential habitat will be increased or If there is danger that it will be disposed of, I offer to take it and decreased by inflow alteration. distribute it usefully. That the area of utilized habitat will increase or decrease Cordially, over time in proportion to the change in potential habitat. That, therefore. change in the potential habitat can be em- ployed to approximate usefully the direction and magnitude of the area of used habitat after significant environmental L,tgene Cronin alteration. tor D These do not say that you can approximate the known, true or used habitat by nowing the potential habitat - apoint subject to serious criticism. LEC:sw 4. 1 know this is usual Corps format, but I wish for more attribution to sources. authors, etc. Enclosures 5. I'm too chicken to comment on sections on economics and other tough parts. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated 4800 Atwell Road 77se Johns Hopkins University Shady Side, Maryland 20764 University qfMaryland (301) 867-7392 Smithsonian Institution from Washington Virginia Institute qfMarinc Science 261-5978 2. LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW STUDY APPENDIX B PLAN FORMULATION 13 June 84 1. With necessarily limited review, I do not detect clear expression and analysis of the broad option of preventing. by law or regulation, further consumptive loss from the principal tributaries. This appears to be included under Conservation on p. B-3, but not clearly on B-41 or in Attachment B.I. 2. Sorry, but I haven't time for more thorough study. LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW STUDY MAIN REPORT 14 June 84 COMMENTS INCORPORATED AS NOTED 1. Comments on Problem Identification and, especially. Plan Formulation. might carry over to this Report. 2. 1 again wish that sources had been given. 3. The section on "THE BIOTA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY". pp. 34-43, is of special Interest. Much good, but some is inaccurate or imprecise. I haven't reviewed it in deiZail, and will only if requested. I suspect that I would suggest a number of small changes, but the general content and flow is good. 4. 1 am still very much concerned that Chapters IV. V and VI do not adequately address regulatory prohibition of extraction or seasonal contraints or similar prevention of extraction. I think this must be effectively considered. CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT 1. This was seen last. I have made a few notes. but suggest that someone review my comments In Appendix A, Appendix 8 and the Main Report and carry forth into the Summary Report. 2. My strongest feelings are: Don't use measure, determine or other implications of precision when you mean estimate or approximate. Include regulatory prevention of extraction among the valid and preferred measures. STATE OF DELAWARE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE BUDGET D0VER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPH0NE (302)736-4205 June 27, 1984 Mr.William E. Trieschman, Jr. Ch I . Planning Division Department of the Army P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 NO RESPONSE NECESSAR Dear Mr. Trieschman: RE: Chesapeake Bay Study The office of the Budget in its capacity as the State Clearinghouse (State Single Point of Contact) has reviewed the subject report and has no negative comments to offer. This report complies with federal. state and local regulations. Sincerely. Stephen T. Golding State Budget Director STG:FB:kg cc: Ted Robinson 0855Y Mr. W. Trieschman 2 June 28, 1984 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 1721 North Front Stiect Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 not considered, contrary to the current COwanesque Reformulation June 28, 1984 Studies Program. The storage requirements to achieve even a F(Orh the Gff,CG Of the slight enhancement of the base drought condition are very E-cutive Directof substantial and, with little question, are probably not attainable (estimates for the Susquehanna Basin ranging from 650,000 to 1,630,000 acre feet) without construction of one or more new storage reservoirs. Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. we question several points relative to the rather dramatic Chief, Planning Division increase projected for consumptive water use (130 mgd in 1972 to Baltimore District, COE 1170 mgd in 2020). The report cites this is due to increased P.O. Box 1715 ower generation alone. Were this to be the case, it suggests the Baltimore, Maryland 21203 P addition of about 40 power plants the size of the PP&L Susquehanna plant at Berwick by the year 2020. Dear Billt The study recommendations will be carefully considered in formulating and implementing SRBC programs regarding water quantity and quality and effects on the Chesapeake Bay from SRBC staff has reviewed the draft of the final report on the Susquehanna River freshwater inflow. Chesapeake Bay Study submitted with your letter of March 27, 1984. Our review focused primarily on the quantitative aspects Very truly purs, of the Low Fresh Water Inflow portion of the study. C@ Several matters of concern have already been discussed directly with Mr. Robinson of your staff. Among these are the loss projections which were apparently Executive Director water use and consumptive Robert J elo based on the National Water Assessment. Although the power generation water use projections were modified to reflect data which we had provided earlier$ the overall increase in projected use (the greatest being in manufacturing usage) should be adequately qualified throughout the report. The report acknowledges slower growth rates than previously anticipated, thereby impacting the time frame within which water demands may occur. If nothing else, the perceived need for urgency of action is altered. There is an apparent discrepancy in text reference to a five-fold increase in consumptive losses from 1965 to 2020, while Figure 18 of the report indicates a seven-fold increase. Through discussion with Mr. Robinson, it appears that the figure in question has been mislabeled. Among alternative measures con;idered for mitigating impacts of reduced freshwater flows to the Chesapeake Bay Was the reformulation of upstream reservoirs to provide flow augmentation storage. The discussion in this portion of the report was not clear although it deals in part, with the Susquehanna Basin. it appears that existing storage sites (regardless of purpose) and proposed sites shown as feasible in recent studies, were considered. However# reallocation of existing flood storage was COMMENTS INCORPORATED AS NOTED t 0 s 1. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RFGION III REGION III Chesapeake Bay Program Chesapeake Bay Program 839 BESTGATE ROAD 839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740 ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 FTS-922-3752 August 28, 1984 DATE August 21, 1984 SUBJECT: Review of Corps of Engineers Report FROM Gail Mackiernan, Environmental Scien ti Mr. William Treischman Chesapeake Bay Program, 3CBOO st@r Chief, Planning Division Baltimore District Corps of Engineers TO William W. Horne, Director P.O. Box 1715 Chesapeake Bay Program, 3CBOO Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Dear Mr. I have recently reviewed the draft report, "Chesapeake Bay Study: Low Freshwater Inflow Study." This is a multi-volume document, so by necessity Attached is our review of your recent draft report, "Chesapeake Bay my review is somewhat-limited in scope. Study: Low Freshwater Inflow Study." This appears to be a useful and F informative report and we have already used some of your findings in our own The study seeks to determine what impacts could be expected if freshwater work. inflow to Chesapeake Bay were reduced by drought, by consumptive loss, or a combination of the two. Ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic impacts Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft document. We are were addressed. The Chesapeake Bay Study itself involved a number of groups, looking forward to receiving the final report. including citizens, scientific community, managers, government, and defense interests. The description of the organization and management of the study Sincerely, is interesting and could provide insight into potential CBP options. 00" Tests were conducted on the Chesapeake Bay hydraulic model at Matapeake to determine changes in salinity caused by reduced freshwater inflows. Four eilliam W. Horne, Director conditions were simulated: Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office a. Base Average - long term average inflow; Attachment b. Future Average - base average flows reduced by consumptive losses predicted by year 202U; c. Base Drought - recreation of historical inflows occurring in years 1963 - 1966; d. Future Drought - base drought inflows reduced by 2020 consumptive losses (the "worst case"). Ecological impacts were based on habitat alterations for representative Bay organisms, which included ecologically, economically, or recreationally important species. These ranged from phytoplankton to waterfowl. Economic impacts were estimated based on changes to commerical fisheries, shipping, and industrial users of water, as well as to recreationally - based industries such as sport fishing, boating, swimming, operation of marinas, hunting, and tourism. Potential social impacts included subtle effects such as changes of traditional ways of life due to alteration in shellfish or finfish pOpUldtions. -3- Finally, strategies to mitigate or reduce magnitude of these impacts were natural seasonal variations in freshwater inflow." evaluated. These measures included water conservation, drought emergency measures, upstream storage and release of water, interbasin transfer of water, Other recommendations which relate to CBP goals involve research needs, groundwater development, growth restrictions, as well as resource augmenta- including: Bay hydrodynamics, delineation of nutrient budgets, sediment tions measures. input and distribution, relationship between freshwater inflow and water temperature, life cycles and interactions of organisms, development of a Review three-dimensional numerical hydrodynamic model for prediction and need for a real time monitoring system for various parameters. In general, this is an interesting and valuable report. The organization is somewhat confusing. The chart on page vii helps somewhat, but a brief description of the relationship of the studies, reports, appendices, etc to one another would help. One overall comment, the biological assessment did relatively little compari- son between recent ecosystem responses to reduced flows (in 1980 - 1983) and predicted effects. If this information is available, it should be fdCtored into the final report. Admittedly, the biological responses to temporary drought (as opposed to permanent consumptive loss) will differ in degree, but the comparison is worth making. For example, recruitment of riverine spawning fish has been poor. There have been increases in oyster mortalities due to MSX and "dermo" disease moving into Maryland waters. During the early 198U's, many beds of SAV in the mid Bay region decline or failed to regrow in spring; this was apparently due at least in part to excessively high salinities in these usually low mesohaline reaches. Some this material does show. up in the appendices. However, as this sort of empirical evidence strengthens the COE case, it should be included in the main report as well. Appendix E, the Biota Assessment, contains a useful summary of ecological c data on various Bay species. Apparently, there is also a map atlas showing nactual" and "potential" distribution in Chesapeake Bay, based on an average flow year (pg B-1). This would be good reference material to include with the species descriptions in Appendix A. Table III-1 on page 68 has Gammarus daiberi favored by low flow conditions. This oligohaline species is correcf]7 -shown as being adversely impacted in both Appendix A & E. The table should be corrected. The same table lists "depletion of oxygen" being favored by low freshwater inflow. Actually, high inflows, which increase stratification, appear correlated to the anoxic pheno- menon. This is what most of the field data indicates (see EPA "Profile" report). Also, the report tends to combine conceptually "tidal fresh" and .1oligohaline" phyto- and zooplankton, SAV, marshes, etc. These are not at all the same. It would be clearer to list in Table 111-1 as Tidal Fresh/ CW24ENTS INCORPORATED AS NOTED Oligohaline ----------- for example. Otherwise a reader gets the superficial erroneous impression that tidal fresh areas are not impacted. The findings and recommendations appear, generally, reasonable. One important recommendation which relates to the Chesapeake Bay Program is, "All future efforts related to solving the problems of Chesapeake Bay and all plans for use of its waters fully consider the effects of the proposed actions on fresh- water inflows to the Bay. Where possible, all plans should incorporate fea- tures that minimize adverse impacts associated with increasing consumptive loses of water and drought events. They should also strive to maintain the I Aft Ti UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 June 29, 1984 OFFIC OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Mr. William E. Trieschman. Jr. Department of the Army Chief, Planning Division Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 Dear Mr. Trieschman: I have reviewed the draft final report, entitled *Chesapeake Bay Study'. It is well organized and a complete description of the program. The report should provide much useful information to those responsible for the management of Chesapeake Bay's resources. NO RrSPONSE NEC17SSARY I appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of the program's t1a review process. Sincerely David A. Flemer, Ph.D. Water and Land Division June 29, 1984 Mr. William F. Trieschman. Jr. Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore. Maryland 21203 NO RESpONSE NECESSARY Dear Mr. Trieschman: Please excuse my delay in responding to your request for comments on the draft report on the Chesapeake Bay Study. The Smithsonian has no suggestions for changes to be incorporated in the final report. Sincerely. David L. Correll Assistant Director Edgewater DLC/mlm United States Soil 4321 Hartvick Road, Room 522 Department of Conservation Agriculture Service College Park, Maryland 20740 July 2, 1994 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Department of the Army Baltimore District. Corps of Engineers P 0. Box 1715 Baltimore# Maryland 21203 Dear Mr. Trieschman: I have reviewed the draft of the final report on Chesapake Bay Study and have no constants to offer. NO REsponSE NECESSary Sincerely, GERALD R. CALHOUN State Conservationist Department of Energy Washington. D.C. 20545 JUL 3 04 Mr. A. E. Robinson, Jr. Department of the Army Baltimore District Corps of Engineers P. U. Box 1717 Baltimore. Maryland 212U3 Dear Tea: As per our prior discussion I nave briefly looked through the Draft Summary Report for the Chesapeake bay Study and read the chapter on the low freshwater inflow study. It seems generally well set out to me; the probability of future drought years like those of the mid-sixties and the consequences whict) could foilow are certainly sobering thouglitS. NO RESPONSE NECESSARY 1 believe I noticed somewhere the conclusion that inter basin transfers were ruled out as an abatement procedure. I don't disagree with the conclusion, NJ` but it's my understanding this already exists on a large scale, as in late D summer half of the (nec, non-tidal) flow in the Patuxent is in fact water from the Susquehannah passing through Columbia. Inanks for the opportunity for review and comment. Sincerely yours, D. Heyward Hamilton Ecological Research Division, ER-75 Uffice of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research -4 @,l k1. i: !,,,I A111) 'IA k I 1116 @,:A 1(,@ ri i U i!JAH IN L SCI ENCL SCHOOL OF %1AMNE SCIENCE F-t. V-11A 23062 12 July 1984 Ph- (804) 642-2111 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 Dear Bill: I received the Draft set of the final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study a few months ago. Your request for comment was included. NO RESPONSE NECESSARY Because of my earlier involvement with the comprehensive review of the low-flow project and with continuing reviews of the other phase& of the work, as well as the press of other duties which prevented a thorough reading of the 17 documents involved. I decided that no further input from me was necessary. And I did not comment formally. Dr. James McKay called yesterday and indicated that a "close-the- loop" letter would be desirable. Here it is. As indicated to Dr. McKay I have no comments to make on the draft of the final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study. I presume that the project will terminate when the final report to submitted and accepted. Should these occurrences signal the end of our regular contacts I wish to say that it has been a privilege and pleasure to work with you, Ted Robinson, Jim McKay. the several District Engineers who have come and gone during the fifteen or so years of the program, Noel Beagle and the several others from the district office on this project. If I can assist the Corps in other Bay-related or estuarine, coastal and marine efforts, please do not hesitate to call on me. I look forward to receiving a complete set of the final version when it is printed. Please be sure that one is forwarded to me. It will be of use in my future studies of the Say. Best wishes for the future. Sincerely yourai William J. Hargis, Jr. Professor of Marine Science WJHjr:ss (4@@Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. -2- Perhaps the best way to express our general view of the Future Conditions Report is that while one may argue over the specifics of the "time-table", the events projected are virtually certain to occur at some July 20. 1984 point. We are particularly concerned that the Report's warnings about the adverse effects of continued diversions and extractions of freshwater flows into the Bay will not be given sufficient credence in long-range planning carried out by the Bay communities. Unless there is general Mr. William E. Trieschman. Jr. Chief public recognition and understanding of the deleterious consequences of Planning Division, Baltimore District substantial tapping of the flows of the Bay's tributaries, the ecological U S Corps of Engineers dynamics of the Bay are cert in to change. as the report describes. to P:O: Box 1715 the unquestionned detriment of ecological, social. and economic bases of Baltimore, MD 21203 the entire Say community. We hope that this portion of the report will Dear Mr. Trieschman: be highlighted and disseminated widely throughout the Bay region. Those portions of the report dealing with public participation in On behalf of the Citizen's Program for the Chesapeake Say. Inc.. Z am developing standards for the report and identifying both resources and pleased to comment on the draft of the final report on the Corps of sectors of the concerned public are in accord with our recollection. Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study. The comments concerning events that Several members of the CPCB, Inc., at the time (1973 to 1978) notably Mr. involved the CPCB, Inc. early in the study, are paraphrased from those of Morgan, Mr. Edward Aiton, and Mr. Charles W. Coale. Jr. individually and the Chai man of the Board of Directors of the CPCB, Inc., Mr. W. Cranston through the medium of public meetings which they helped organize. NJ Morgan. Further, we have not attempted to provide a review of the entire contributed substantially to public involvement in the study. More report. Those portions of the report dealing with Tidal Flooding Study, recently, while the direct relationship has not been as close, the CPCB, for example, are outside our specific interests. It is our view that Inc., under grants from the Environmental Protection Agency has continued tidal flooding will continue to be a problem for the several communities an active public participation program related to the EPA Chesapeake Bay that lie at elecvations near mean elevations of the Bay's surface. That Stud rf- In several respects that is where concerns of the two studies several such communities are certain ultimately to disappear Is ove apped, the benefits of'the EPA financed activity have been available inevitable. However. we recognize that there will continue to be a need to the Corps of Engineers study. for afford these c(x=unities reasonable protection for an indefinite period. At some time in the future, however. when costs of protection In as much as the Report fdontiffes the reduction of freshwater become exhorbitant, they will hove to be abandoned. inflows to the Bay as perhaps the most serious and far-reaching phenomenon to impact the Bay, we believe it would be desirable in the We believe the report to a highly organized and detailed report that listing of "Recommendations* to give those related to reduction of dequately covers the issues that were to be addressed. It is certainly freshwater inflow greater significance by placing them at the beginning tremendous compendium of Bay-related Information. We consider the of the *Recomendations". Those numbered 4 to 7 inclusive deal with this general conclusions to be accurate and reflect the public interest. problem and could be made more effective if given first ranking. Naturally, projections of future conditions must be predicated on We would recommend-further that Recr Plidation 7 which calls for a demographic changes as well as the dynamic evolution of natural systems. continuing program for "research into 8 areas of cruclal significance to Such projections are always hazardous, because it is impossible to the Bay's future be emphasized in any future revisions of the Report. We predict what unexpected events will occur. are apprehensive that as a result of the completion of this study, and that of the Environmental Protection Agency, there will be a tendency on A classic current example is that of the accidental introduction of the part of the governments involved to give less attention to essential the water plant.Hydrilla, which now is spreading in the Potomac and is studies. While we agree that action on the Bay's demonstrated problems found in other water bodies tributary to the Chesapeake Say. Like water should not be delayed *pending further studies". it Is nevertheless chestnut and Asiatic milfoil, Hydrill; must be lived with. yet it is imperative that a strong study program be continued on the Bay in the impossible to predict with accuracy at that will entail. areas the Report suggests. Recommendation 12 proposes a Odata Information and retrieval system". We believe that you are aware that the CPCB, Inc. with a grant from the National Science Foundation. studied the feasibility of and itizens Program for the Chesapeake Bayjnc. proposed the establishment of a Chesapeake Bay Information Center in 1982 a nd 1983. A copy of the report developed under that study is attached. Also, we are enclosing a copy of a proposal for a grant for funding such July 12, 1984 11 CBIC. This proposal has been forwarded for consideration to the Virginia Envirorunental Endowment, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. If funded, the proposal would go far toward meeting the requirements of Recomendation 12. Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy Executive Director We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the report. Virginia Environmental Endowment 700 East Main Street Sincerely yours, Richmond, Virginia 23206 Dear Mr. McCarthys 9.h. S. G4tschalk President CPCB, Inc. on behalf of the Citizen's Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., I am pleased to transmit herewith a proposal cc: CPCB Board (Attachment A) for major funding for the creation of a NJ Chesapeake Bay Information Center. The need for such a center has become acute with the growing public and offiCial intorest and concern for the future of the Chesapeake Bay. As an organization, we became involved in the problem of dissemination of Say-related material several years ago. Our study of the feasibility of a Chesapeake Bay Information Center under a grant from the National Science Foundation was the result. A copy of the report emanating from that study is attached to our proposal (Attachment B). The st ates of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have come together through the Chesapeake Bay Council to carry out a program for the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake. The need for a mechanism to link this cooperative effort with t1te many Bay constituencies is critical. we believe our proposal, if accepted and supported, will be the keystone in assuring continued citizen interest at a high level of understanding, and an equally important tool in maintaining cooperation between the various local, state, and federal agencies directly involved in the undertaking. It can result in the ultimate model of public-private interaction in the improvement of decision making capabilities related to public policy affecting the Chesapeake Say. It will be a major adjunct to the clarification and resolution of critically important water resource issues involving the use of the Chesapeake Bay now and in the future. mr. Gerald P. McCarthy - 2 - July 12, 1984 1412 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036 As you will see by an examination of the proposed budget (Attachment C), we are making a request to the VEE for essential start-up and first year funding. We expect, however, to pursue vigorously the securing of additional funds from other private sources, and intend to submit this proposal to THE CHESAPEAKE SAY those sources in the expectation that support will be INFORMATION CENTER forthcoming from them in subsequent years to substantially reduce dependence on the VEE in years 2 and 3 and subsequently. The proposal herewith submitted has been prepared with the assistance of several members of the Planning Committee that studied the information center idea under the NSF grant. The principal authors were Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan, Secretary of the I CPCB, Inc., and Mrs. Frances Flanigan, Program Director of the CPCB, Inc. In support of our proposal, there are also enclosed a brief A Proposal SutVitted description of the CPCB, Inc., consisting of an article to the prepared by Linda Griffin (Attachment D); a list of our current VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL ENDOWMENT Board of Directors (Attachment E); and a copy of the letter from the Internal Revenue Service dated May 8, 1978 indicating that the CPCB, Inc. is tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and that we are not considered a private foundation under Section 509(a) of the Code (Attachment F). Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, we have never been nor are we now under investigation by the IRS with respect to these matters. If you desire further information, the individuals indicated above are listed with their telephone numbers and addresses as members of the Board of the CPC9. Inc. in the attachment. by the Citizens Program 'for Y rs very truly, Chesapeaki Say Inc. n S Go schalk esident @j CPCB, Inc. r s v S ';e i dbe ATTACK-1ENT A INTRUDUCTIUN it is the contention of the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, A remarkable opportunity exists in the Chesapeake Bay region to Inc., based on careful analysis. that the current and proposed demonstrate that natural resource management and water quality institutional framework for the multi-state, public-private effort to improvement can be successfully accomplished when sci 'ence, goverment. restore the Bay is lacking. What is needed is an adequate link between business and the public work together toward a common, well-defined goal. goverment and the private sector to assure delivery of'timely, accurate The completion of the EPA study and the signing of the Chesapeake Bay information on the progress, success, costs, and needs of the clean-up program. Without this link, the Chesapeake Executive Council will be Agreement of 1983 have created this unprecedented opportunity. The unable to sustain the momentum generated in the past 11 months, and the states in the region, especially Virginia and Harylfnd gave substances promises of the 1983 Governors' Conference will likely not be realized. to promises made at the Governors Conference when, n ih 1984 sessions of their General Assemblies, legislation and budgets were enacted which We are proposing to create a mechanism that will link goverment will enable a significant acceleration of Bay clean-up programs. The agencies. academic and scientific institutions, the business community states and EPA have been meeting regularly to discuss implementation and the public through an information network. If this link is plans and schedules for the Bay. All of this activity suggests that successfully established, long-range, complex policy issues can be goverment, using new information provided by the scientific community addressed using the best objective information available, generated by a and responding to the forcefully articulated concerns of the public, is non-biased. professional organization dedicated only to the well-being of prepared to tackle the enornous job of *saying the Say". the Bay. This proposal addresses the three most fundamental aspects of the Chesapeake day clein-up program, Its complexity, its long-term nature and PROPUSAL the need for public involvement. In order to succeed, the program must be understood by citizens of the region so that they can provide the CPCb. Inc. proposes to establish a Chesapeake Bay Information Center continuing support necessary for goverment to accomplish its goals. and network in Virginia and Maryland, to be governed by an independent Therefore citizens, public officials and legislators will need access to board of directors, staffed with fund s from the private sector. and timely and accurate information. The need for and role of information is the subject of this proposal. supported with in-kind contributions from federal and state governmental agencies. The current state of the Bay*has recevied widespread publicity and The goe'l of the Center is to make possible sustained, effective caused substantial national concern as evidenced in the remarks of public involvement in the long term implementation of strategies agreed President Reagan in his 1984 State of the Union address. As a result, to by the state and local governments and the EPA to clean up Chesapeake the federal goverment has made a substantial commitment of resources for Say. initiating clean-up activities and the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia have undertaken large scale pollution control The Center will offer a wide range of services to meet this goal. programs. However, the magnitude and complexity of the efforts necessary Center staff will refer clients to identified personnel within agencies, to restore the bay to its earlier healthy state are vitually research Institutions and private organizations, who can respond to unprecedented. In other bodies of water where water quality has been of specific questions. Ability to perfo rm-this service implies that Center concern (e.g., The Great Lakes, Lake Tahoe, the Ohio River) the solution staff must become extremely knowledgeable about the multitude of agencies to the problem has been relatively simple and clear-cut: upgrade sewage which now manage the Bay.. The Center will compile a director of sources treatment facilities. In the Lhesapeake, the solution is far more: to aid in accomplishing this task. It will identify and make available complex and touches every segnent of society in the Bay's watershed. educational materials about the Bay, develop public information materials Solutions must include the farmer in seeking to reduce nutrients*ahd a6but specific Bay issues, and act as a resource for clarifying such sediments in agricultural land run-off; the city dweller in upgrading issues. The COIC also will establish linkages with existing information municipal sewage treatment plants; the suburban resident in providing sources, either by automated means or by referral. Access to the Center storm water management programs and land use controls for dealing with will be through toll-free phone numbers, written request. or walk-in to non-point sources of pollution; and industry in cleaning up toxic waste. the two offices. Moreover, etfective action will require sustained effort for more than a decade. To be effective, it is essential that the Center be sustained by non-govermental funding. While it is clearly in the long range interest of goverment to have such an entity operating in the Chesapeake Bay area, its services and products may be questioned if they were to be seen as goverrment-produced. The value of the new institution we are proposing lies in its ability to generate material that is impartial and 3 4 - o ec t' discuss public friforwation needs and participation aspects of the long bi ive. Because its focus will be on policy questions related to long range Say management, independent support, qualified staff, and a range clean-up plans which are being launched by Maryland and Virginia. governing board with impeccable credentials are critical elements of the proposed Chesapeake Bay Information Center. Because of the support anticipated from EPA and the states, the CBIC will be able to operate with a relatively smal) staff'and budget. The The Enviromental Protection Agency has expressed its approval of the executive director will be responsible to the board of trustees, and will concept of an Information Center by agreeing to provide office space for share with the trustees the responsibility for fund-raising, program an office, to be co-located with the EPA office in Annapolis. The EPA design and oversight, and public relations. Information specialists in also would provide access to their 'CHESSEE' information system, which is the Virginia and Maryland offices will deal with requests for the central depository of all data and information developed in the information, access to computer-stored information. generation of a fact Chesapeake day Program, and share a portion of its data management staff sheets and other materials for the public. One additional person will be time to serve CisIC needs. EPA's offer obviously represents a major responsible for the technical aspects of computer-generated information. commitment to the CSIC both in terms of easy access to a major information system and in administrative and logistical support. In If limited funds can be secured by September 1984, with operational Virginia, the COIC office would be located at the Virginia Institute of funds available January 1, 1985, the following implementation schedule Marine Science of the College of William and Mary. VIMS manages the can be met: largest and most sophisticated set of information systems dealing with the Bay, and has a long tradition of providing user oriented public IMPLENENTATION SCHEDULE informiation. In addition to making office space available for the CBIC. VIMS would incorporate the Center into its education and outreach The following sequence of events are planned for establishment of the programs in the recently completed Watermens Hall. A substantial amount CBIC: of drop-in and tour visitation is planned at the Hall which should guarantee high visibility and use of the CBIC office. September I - December 30, 1984 - Pre-Operational Period. During the second year of the project, other satellite offices will 1. Establish a Board of Directors for the Center; be sought in Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and elsewhere In Piaryland and Virginia. 2. Recruit staff for January 1985 opening; Many of the major federal. state and local agencies concerned with the @ay have indicated that they would designate a CBIC liaison person 3. Locate and define data and information sources available in who would be responsible for directing the C61C, staff to the appropriate federal, state and local agencies, university laboratories and source of information wiihin the agency. This liaison system would private organizations; provide a network of persons who are familiar with CSIC needs and have 4. Identify key contact persons in each agency-, the authority to meet information requests relevant to each agency. Finally, the cpca has requested support for the C81C as an adjunct to 5. Develop and implement a publicity program for CBIC opening; the work of the Chesapeake Executive Council. The Executive Council will 6. Plan for space and other logistical requirements in EPA and VIMS consider this issue at its July 23 meeting in Washington, D.C. offices. The concept of a Chesapeake Bay Information Center was developed by 7. Establish phone and computer liaison between Annapolis office and CPCb in 1982, after. an intensive year-long feasibility study spons6red by the Virginia office; the Rational Science foundation. During this study, CPC8, assisted by a planning committee composed of gobernment and private sector individuals 8. Seek incorporation of the Center. with expertise in the areas of information generation and delivery, assessed the effectiveness of exiiting programs with regard to public January 1, 1985 - December 30; 19as - Year I Operation information, the need for policy-relevant information, the potential users of an information center, and an array of alternatives services and Operational Activities structures which could meet the identified need. The conclusion of the CPCB study to recommend creation of a new institution to serve the 1. Respond to referral requests; information needs of the Chesapeake Bay publics, is contained in a report to the National Science Foundation (see Attachment 8). Enthusiasm for 2. Prepare a directory of information sources; the idea was reaffimed at a workshop convened by CPCb in April 1984 to 5 PROJECT EVALUATION PLAN 3. Continue outreach activities, 4. Prepare information 'briefs" on a regular basis; A project evaluation system consisting of two levels of policy arid activity review is proposed. These would consist of first, a continuing 5. Implement in-trouse information system-, regiew process conducted by a special committee of the CPCB, Inc. This committee would be established by formal action of the CPC8. Inc., and 6. Conduct at least one annual workshop on Chesapeake Bay would be composed jointly of members of the Board of the CPCB, Inc. and infomation needs and sources. persons who were members of the Chesapeake Say Information Center Planning Committee that produced the National Science Foundation funded Planning and Development Activities Information Center report. This committee would serve as the direct linkage between the CPCB, Inc. Board of Directors and the staff of the I. Identify other satellite office locations; Information Lenter. It would be instructed to meet an a bi-monthly basis to review the activities of the Information Center, and would report to 2. Continue Inter-agoncy liaison efforts; the CPCB. Inc. Board or Executive Committee promptly after each of its meetings. 3. Seek financial support; The second level of project review and evaluation would be 4. Begin compilation ot Say-oriented education materials; accomplished by an independent board of project monitors. There would be three members of this board, one from academia with experience in S. Begin planning a Chesapeake Bay computer graphics education information theory, one with a practical background in information system. transfer technology. and one representing the concerns of the interested citizen. Specifically we have in mind Dr. Linda Scanlon, professor at 13UDGETS Norfolk State University, who served in a similar capacity for the original planning study; Dr. Nelvin Day, former director of the National The proposed budget for the pre-operational and first years operation Technical Information Service. and presently president of the Washington at the CdIC is shown in Figure 1. It will be noted that in-kind support Knowledge Network of ITG; and Dr. Gilbert Gude, Director of the from cooperating agencies Is also Identified and represents a substantial Congressional Research Service. These individuals have not been, but will be approached to see if they would be willing to serve. However, contribution to the operation of the Center. These budgets reflect the f t conduct of activities enumerated in the 1 1 they illustrate the character and capabilities o hose who would be Tlementation Schedule. recruited for the.independent monitoring responsibility. Joh S. Gotts Ik The project monitors would meet thrice during the project year, first P dent at initiation, next at approximately six months into the project, and C Inc. again at the end of the project period. At the beginning of the project July 12. 1984 they would establish familiarity with the project, and thus be in a position to critically examine the products of the Center during the course of the project year. It would be expected that they would 4ndividually provide written comments on the character and conduct of the Center's activities following each of their formal meetings. The evaluation of the project would be based on 5 principal criteria, a)l of which relate to the primary objective of the Infomation Cehter, that is, to provide a Center for the acquisition and timely dissemination of Chesapeake Bay related information. The criteria are designed to establish a basis, as follows, for Judging the effectiveness of: 1. The overall capability of the Center to provide an essential 4oh I @k' S tts P di nt C Inc. service to the Chesapeake day community (Public Service). 2 FIGURE 1 2. The "outreach" system in informing the public and specific user START-UP AND YEAR I BUDGET groups of the availability and capability of the Information CHESAPEAKE BAY INFOI44ATION CENTER Center (Public Involvement). (Amounts in dollars) 3. The institutional linkages between the Center ind sources of original data and information (Coordination). S.TART-UP Requested Contributed Total 4. The Center management system in terms of developing and Administrative Planning 10,000 5,000 15,000 controlling the functions of the Center Management). Travel 900 500 7,400 5. The Center staff and the adjunct support system (initially, the Supplies 200 200 CPCB, Inc., subsequently the independent corporation) in 11,000 S'Soo 16.600 developing a satisfactory funding system (Funding). YEAR I (CENTRAL OFFICE) Salaries: Executive Director 35,000 35,000 Resources Information Specialist 22,000 22,000 Information Management Specialist 2S.000 25,000 Secretary 16,000 16,000 Total Salaries 120,OOU 120,000 Benefits OW 12,000 12,000 Total Salaries and Benefits 132,000 132.000 Other Costs: (A) Uffice rental 8.000 8,000 (8) Computer Services 7.000 7.000 10 Consultant Services 3.Ooo 8,000 (0) Information Services 25.000 25,000 Supplies 800 Boo Utilities 2,400 Postage 5;; Soo Phone 3,000 3,000 Printing 1,000 1,000 Travel 2,500 2,500 Total Other Costs 12,800 ffij2O 57.2DO TbTAL CENTRAL UFFICE COSTS 144,800 45.400 189,200 ATTAC41ENT C 2 3 YEAR I (Virginia uffice) Requested Contributed Total CBIC Board (12 members) Salaries 4 meetings/year Resource Information Specialist 22,000 22,000 Stipends l00/meeting/person) Typist (1/2 time) 8,000 8,000 Travel (Ave. $1,400/meeting) Total Salaries 30,0OO 30,000 Per Diem (Ave. $75/person/meeting) (E) benefits (sec. note) 10,350 10,350 Total Salaries and Benefits 40,350 40.350 Evaluation Program Other Uirect Costs Office rental -- 2.000 2,000 EvalUation Committee (5 members): Computer services Soo 2,000 2,500 Two meetings (in addition to regular Consultant services Soo 1,500 2,000 Board meetings) at same rate as above Information services -- (see Central Off) -- Monitors (3 persons, 3 site visits/year) Supplies 200 200 Utilities Stipends ($200/person/meeting) Postage Travel (Ave. $600/meeting) Phone -- Per Diem (Ave. $75/person/meeting) I Printing 200 200 Travel 1000 1 DOD Total Other Direct Costs 2,400 5,500 7,900 Total Direct Costs 42,750 5,500 48,250 Indirect Costs (WIMS 46 ) 19,665 -- Him TOTAL VIRGINIA OFFICE COSTS 62,415 70,445 TOTAL YEAR I CBIC COSTS 207,215 50,900 259,645 13UDGET EXPLANATION (A) Estimated value of equivalent rented office space in Annapolis and Gloucester Point (8) Computer services represent the estimated value of the use of data processing facilities by the CSIC at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Chesapea e. Bay ks (C) Contributed consultant services are provided by the EPA and VIMS for assistance in software development and InfOrmation Cent programing. Direct consultant services are to be used er, for user surveys and other special technical project 41@Q '' These were estimated at $200 per day for 25 A--- needs. days of consulting time in the central office (2-1/2 days at VIMS). t the staff time in the (0) Information services represen @A Rej6rt of t@e various Say-related state and federal agencies that Citizens Progmm for the Ch@sa-p'eake Bay, Inc. will be contributed to the CBIC in referring or responding to information requests originally made to stu y,c-a on a feasibilit d o ucted for the the CBIC. Na tional Science FoUndation' t"i 4S benefit rates are 44.51 on the information April 1983 (E) V 11 specialist (a full-time pos7ti,n) and 7% on the 00 part-time clerical position. ir OW -44@@k F 0 R E WAR D Recommendation and Need A In 1979, the Citzens Program for (he Chesapeake Bay (CPCB) approached lie Planning Committee, after a year-long review of the management representitives of management agencies, research institutions and citizens dissemunation of Chesapeake Bay information, recommends that; organizatons to determine if these groups thought a need existed for more T effective and efficient production and dissemination of information about the Chesapeake Bay. Concern about this issue stemmed from the proliferation of A Chesapeake Bay Information Center should be created as a new federal and state programs impacting the Bay in the 1970's and the resultant independent, non-partisan. incorporated organization, operating fragmentation of information available to citiziens interested in policy and under a Board of Directors representing the interests and needs management issues. Over 100 management agencies arid 30 research institutions the Chesapeake Bay community. were identified as sources of Bay-related information. Many of the publications and newsletters of these groups contained similar material and. in some cases, The need for such a center was explored by Planning Committee me the material presented might have benefited from information available in who outlined their perceptions of deficiencies in the generation and transfer of another agency. It was also clear that a more centralized and coordinated information. Later. a workshop attended by 100 people including scientists approach could substantially improve the effectiveness of existing information legislators. management officials and Bay users discussed access to existing delivery systems, including dissemination efforts aimed at reaching groups not information, the usefulness of the information. and effective ways of traditionally involved in Bay affairs. disseminating information. The workshop attendees charged the Planning To address these issues, the CPCB suggested that a planning study be Committee to evaluate the need for establishing a new information exchange undertaken to determine; (1) whether a need existed for a more coordinated system. approach to information management and dissemination; and (2) if a The workshop also recommended that the Planning Committee conduct a Chesapeake Bay inf-mation center or network would be feasible. Support for survey of existing information sources in the Bay region. to identify gaps t such a study was expressed by public and private institutions including the currentlv exist. Generators of Bay information answered questions concern Smithsonian's Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, Chesapeake their mission, the type of information they produce, the form in which it Research Consortium, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. the University and the way in which it is made available to users. The survey results were of Maryland's Sea Grant Program, and stare and federal resource departments as compiled into a Directory of Chesapeake Bay Information Sources, serving well as by citizens with an interest in the Bay region. As a result. the CPCB working document for the feasibility study. prepared a planning study proposal that was submitted to the Science for According to the Planning Committee's survey, four reasons exist for Citizens Program at the National Science Foundation. The proposal was impro,mg the generation and transfer of issue-oriented information about approved and funded in January 1981 as the Chesapeake Bay Information Center Bay: (CBIC) project. The study proceeded in three stages an introductory workshop; the formation and operation of a project Planning Committee. composed of is The format of available information is not always appropriate to the user's individuals from the private sector. government information officers, -at" need. Synthesized reports are often needed to aid user's in gaining quality and resource program managers, extension agents, librarians, legislators. perspectives on issues of interest. The user's ability to apply inform scientists and writers; and a final evaluation conference. to specific issues is a problem; We age pleased. as members of the Planning Committee, to present this summary of the Final Project Report for the Chesaapeake Bay Information Center Feasibility Study submitted to NSF in January 1983. We have outlined the issues Timelv access to. as well as awarerness of, existing information sources is considered in regard to the feasibility of an information center and have a problem. The 'community" of information sources is not well recommended the necessary steps to implement such a center. organizi.ed. and the use and exchange of information is informal and piecemeal; Though scientists and government managers have a great deal of information exchange within their own communities, few mechhanisms exist to transfer that information into a form appropriate form for users who need it to participate in decision-making; Users have trouble framing questions to elicit the desired information Expectations including success with 3 single phone call, rapid deliver quality information including current data and an interview of the ~0 S~ervices/Scope/F~easibility Audience T he Com~i~n~o~t~e~c ~e~v~in~im~eJ in ~d~e~i~.~ul a -d~e ~i~r~r~a~N it ~c~n~i~c~c~s ~t~h.~i~r in a p~t~unr~e~d ~n~o~t early in the Planning Committee~q's t-n~i,~i~n~, ~n ~c~,~,- ~r ~u~j~u~:~h~t ~p~e~r~l~"~r~o~'~ Th- include d~u,~c~i-~v~. referral and I ~I~r~l~e ~r~qr~i~an~y potential audiences for the kinds ~o~f services ~b~t~b~l~i~o~i~;~r.~@ph~i~c ~tun~c~t~i~o-~, education and ~ou~tr~e~i,~h ~ac~t~i~s ~m~e~s~. and ~confl~,c~t Center. Thew include special interest groups~, the c~qt~qen~qt ,:-~q@u~t~q;~,~-n ~a~n~d ~i-~e ~i,~l~en~t~i~l~i~c.~i~(~i~on ~s~e~r~@ ices. among others. Each o~f di~v,~e government officials, educators and the general public. care ul ~v define.] ~a,~s ~t~o %~li~1p~p~pecific options could realistically be otf~er~ed and ~a~c~kn-~l~e~cI~g~e~t~! the need to target the ~r~r~(~l~x~*~c~d services t ~%h~.~i~r tun~c~i~t-~3 ~t~h~e~% could ~p~er~io~rm~The ~w~r~%~i~c~e~s that were ~b~t~l~t~e~%~e~d to be of audience to keep the center manageable in scope and to ~g~r~e~a~i~e,~t value in meeting ~in~torm~a~tt~i~m net& ere the following: duplicating the efforts of other ~or~g~an~u~a~r~i~on~s. The C~qom Directory Se~nic~e~s-~Pr~,~,,i~d~e current ~i~nt~orm~it~i~on on s~,~)~ur~c~e~s ~i~t Bay primary initial audience (of the Center is the concerned ~in~form~i~t~ion. This %~,~)~old include production ~i~f a l~i-~cl~e~a~l or m~i~cr~o~l~ich~e groups and individuals who arc attempting to involve t~qh director,; formulation ~q" d~eci~si~on-~making matters concerned with Referral ~S~e~r~vi~c~e~s-R~e~spon~cl to individual requests for assistance, ~3~qW~I~C~MC~$. including especially local officials, Will also d~eT~erni~tn~e exact needs of ~r~e~4~t~i~e~s~to~r ~an~d ~pr~i~m~i~d~e specific source contacts. by the CB~I~qC~. Initially, however. the concerned public w pro%id~e r~e~t~ercnc~e~s b~y which the ~f~e~qu~e~s~t~,~)~t ~c~an contact consultants or audience. ~@p~ec~i~ah~s~as ~in ~sp~e~c~it~ic ~in~torm~at~i~on needs. issues or mediation ~s~er~v~ic~"~; Education an~d Outreach Ser~vi~c~e~i~i~q-P~ro~v~id~e a ~lo~c:~at~i~un %here a wide r~in~g~e ~4 B~a~s~r~-~r~e~l~a~r~e~d materials may be v~tew~ed~@ work with interested parties Staffing and Budget to ~mit~i~a~t~e and ~c~@~x~v~chn~a~r~e the ~l~i~r~t~A~lu~c~t~i~on o~f Ba~y-r~e~l.~t~i~e~d education materials, ~a~l~i~qt~l~d~'k with interested parties to initiate B~av-r~e~ia~t~ed community education he Planning Committee identified a minimal level l~e~ad~e~r~,h~i~p p~n~,~gr~am~s; TCB~IC in ~i~t~s initial phase. The activities to he con~qd Issue Identification and Clarification ~Se~rvic~e-~Iden~i~d~y issues ~u~f interest ~t~,~i the B~a~v ~c~ommur~u~r~@~, prepare nor~i~b~u~s~e~d descriptions clarifying all sides of I Preparing a directory of information sources; each issue~: no~t~i~t~y the public. ~2~. ~r~1~s~iv~e~l~op~i~n~g the exp~e~rt~u~e necessary for referral ~qof The feasibility ~o~f the proposed CB~IC is d~e~@~,n~d~tn~t upon its ability to be ~F ~ta~t~e information source; compatible with existing 1~q4~off~na~lk~)n generators ~a~n~d distributors. The utility of 3. ~q; ~6q7~q4~qm~in~g a pilot project on a single issue to a ~t~he Center is directly related to ~i~t~s ability it) p~r~o~v~kk a unique ~s~e~r~v~K~e~, not to CBIC ~il~l~e~t~il~in~g with issue identification and cl~qar~qt duplicate the ~run~c~t~ion~@ ~o~f existing sources o~t information, a~n~d to work in a 4. ~C~A~u~t~illuc~tin~g a campaign to acquaint potential u~qs~qo ~c~,~n~,~,~,~,c~,~,~,~, ~W- .~,~th the ~ac~a~s~it~n~u~c and governmental units concerned with the ~t~h~e Center. Bay. It was the ~C~!C~af ~C~s~P~C~C~f3~t~icn of the Planning Committee that the CBIC To perform these functions. the In~for~i~s~t~a~t~ion Center d~e~%~e~l~o~p a r~i~on~-~corn~r~c~r~i~t~i~v~e ~p~t~~tu~ir~e designed to enhance th~e constructive efforts budget ~o~f $11~5~,0~00.00. ~4 ~g~t~i~v~ernm~ent ~and academia to p~n~i~e~t~t~l~e ~i~n~t~orm~at~i~on to the public. S~i~n~cr~al ~o~t the services ~ev~alu~a~r~e~l ~b~v th~e Planning C~omm~i~tt~" were discarded because they are already or c~an ~be ~p~er~torm~ed better by academia ~or government. P~ro~qJ~ect~ed Ph~a~t~se I Annual Budget The ~CB~IC~' ~~i intended ~t~o serve as an ~in~h~wm~a~t~i~on c~x~@,~d~i~w~r ~t~o ~er-r~e that ~t~he ~b~u~,~in~q" ~(~i~f managing Ch~e~s~a~p~e.~i~k~e B~~i~% is accomplished %~i~th the ~o~p~i~,~,~rtun~lt~% t~or ~l~o,~t ~, m-~h~e~m~e~n~t ~K ~th~e public. The Center .,I[ nor ~F~e ~in Executive Director ~ad~v~i~@~ar~e. but it ~%ki~i~l ~tr~y to provide the most ~c~,~,mpl~et~e~, current and ~z~i~c~c,~ir~a~rc Administrative A~s~s~i~stant/S~c~i~z~i~re~t~ary ~in~v~i~r-m~iuo~n ~i~n ~m~ir~,~)~t~r~an~t ~i~s~,~su~c~i. B~w r~e~n~,~,~rt~ir~i~@~, ~on the extent of the technical Technical Analyst u-~i-~t~and~in, ~q ~a p.~ir~i~t~c~ul~ar ~i~m~u~e. the ~r-~s~i~bl~e c~,~,~1~j~r-~s )I action, the ~i~n~t-~P.~A~e~l I"". ~Md ~t~h~e ~t~im~efr~am~e r~e~qu~ir~e-~I ~i~o~r d~e~c~i~s~i~on-m~ak~m~i~t, th~e C~,~n~,~,- Benefits a u~.~, Jet~, ~'~. the Operating Costs (rent. supplies, ~C~h~'~s~a~l-~k~e ~B~a~y ~r~"~i-. Ir~i as ~c~s~V~. .~t~i~,~n ~1~1 -~u~t~S~, ~t~h~e Ce~r~~@~er %ill not attempt ~i~t~) ~an~a~M~e ~r~e~chr~o-I telephone, travel. etc.) ~J ~it, ~i~t to ~s~e~@~ -~en~m~i~t: ~f~in~ch~n~o~~[).~,~e~ri~i~en~t ~t~e~c~l~in~ic~A ~@~)~r~m~wn~s will 1-~s~e TOTAL ~;-7- ~i~t~,d. l~e.~,~ ~e ~h-~c~e or h~.~,~I~, ~c~o -~;~,~r to the ~p~t~i~b~h~c 1. ~i~t~,~~. ~t~h~e ~~n~:~, r ~@ ill ~~i~%~@ ~i~d L~e ~p~,~r~en~t~ul p~u~r~d~l~i~s inherent in an% ~a~t~em~p~ts ~r~o ~a~i~i~a~l~t:~e~. ~m~r-~, ~@~c~t it~; ~r -~in.~r.~l~a~i~, -~o~m~c Steps to Implementation To implement the Planning Committee's concept, the following actions have NO RESPONSE NECESSARY been undertaken by the Board ofDirectors of the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.: CPCB is serving as interim sponsor for theCBIC, assuming responsibility for the administrations and procedural details necessary to bring CBIC into existence; CPCB is seeking incorporation, non-profit and tax-deductible status for the CBIC: CPCB is preparing a brochure for the CBIC's fund-raising and publicity efforts. In addition to CPCB's effors to implement the CBIC, the following actions must occur to make to CBIC a reality; Establish bay-wide interest and support-The CBIC will not achieve success unless it receives widespread endorsement from key citizens and user groups, state and federal management agencies, and the academic community. A substantial effort must be made to obtain such endorsement; Identify funding sources-It may be possible that the CBIC could be initiated with a relatively small amount of direct funding, relying on in- kind support from existing organizations for space, administrative assistance and staff. However, carrying out the functions specified for the Center by the Planning Committee will require a significant source of direct funds. The identification of these sources should be a high priority; Establish a board of directors-Since the CBIC will be an independent organization, it must have its own Board of Directors. The Planning Committee recommends that the CPCB as the initial sponsoring organization should appoint a Board; Locate a permanent home; Conduct a pilot project to demonstrate what the center can do. Possible pilot projects include; Expand the directyory of Chesapeake Bay Information Sources; Develop background information on an issue; Conduct a media workshop Create a Bay speaker's bureau: materials to teach citizens how to ask appropriate questions directory; United States Department of the interior FISH AND %%ILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SER\ ICES IS23B VIRGINIA STREET ANNAPOLIS. \IARN'LAND 11401 August 1, 1984 Mr. William E. Trieschman, Jr. Chief, Planning Division Baltimore District. Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203 Dear Mr. Trieschman: We have received your letter of March 27, 1984 and the draft of the final report on the Chesapeake Bay Study. We do not have any comments to offer at this time. The Service has participated in the study from its inception. This office NO RESPONSE NECESSARY has been actively involved in and contributed to the Future Conditions Report and the Freshwater Inflow Study. We believe the Study will aid the Corps and others in future decisions about the Chesapeake Bay Region. IQ We appreciate being a part of this large effort and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely yours, Glenn Kinser Supervisor Annapolis Field office ATTACHMENT B-6 NEWS CIRCULARS B-223 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS _6 IV VOL 1 DECEMBER, 1978 !? ___,N(EW5 CIRCULAR fffD%kUL1C ature, dispersion of pol- both natural events and The list of studies for lutants, and salinity, cur- man-made changes. Be- which model data will be MODEL TESTING rent and shoaling cause model time is com- invaluable is long- patterns. pressed and operating municipal, industrial, BEGINS ... conditions can be and agricultural water The model provides the changed at will, it is supply; power plant sit- means for both better possible to study the ing; floods; droughts; the July 1978 is a most signif- understanding natural effects of changes under location and size of icant milestone in man's processes and for analyz- circumstances rarely, if waste-water plants; and efforts to understand, ing the consequences of ever, observed in nature. geometric changes such preserve, and enhance View of Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model Shelter as the deepening of chan- Chesapeake Bay and its at Matapeake, Maryland nels or the construction of water resources. This shoreline structures. date marked the end of verification and adjust- Consisting of molded ment of the Hydraulic concrete formed to the Model of Chesapeake Bay shape of the Bay. the and the beginning of the model holds approxi- first test-the Baltimore mately 450,000 gallons of Channel Enlargement water at mean low tide. Study. At long last, a While the model has a scientific instrument is total paved area of 8 available which reduces acres, its average depth is to a manageable scale only 3 inches, pointing out the fact that the that complex estuary known as Chesapeake estuary which it dupli- ............ i.,II" W., Bay. Now water resource cates is a very large but shallow body of water. planners, engineers, and scientists will be able to The model encompasses the Bay proper, its tribut- analyze and provide solu- tions to many of the i 11 aries to the head of tide, hydraulic problems and the adjacent over- which previously could bank area to an elevation not be effectively ad- of 20 feet above mean sea dressed. level. To get a further idea The Chesapeake Bay of just how large the by draulic model facility is, Model is a versatile tool the 14-acre shelter hous ing the model is approxi- which accurately repro- duces the hydrodynamic mately 1,080 feet long and processes of Chesapeake 680 feet wide. Bay. Through the use of computer activated con- Since its dedication in trols, man can now simu- May 1976, the hydraulic late the rise and fall of model has been open to fly." the public for visitation. tides, changes in temper- B-224 Tours of the facility are ry Group and Steering JrV conducted Monday thru Committee and the pub- 9 Friday at 10:00 a.m. and lic. at 1 and 3 p.m. For infor- mation on large tour The Low Freshwater In- groups, it is suggested flow Study came about through the realization that the Baltimore Dis- trict's Public Affairs Of- that continued growth in f ice be called at (301) 962- water consumptive activ@ 4616. iti6s in the drain age ba- sins of Chesapeake Bay ;e will result in reduced freshwater inflows that could seriously affect the Bay's ecosystem. The' objectives of the low flow study are to first provide a better understanding of 4. the relationship between I." I 11. Chesapeake Bay salini- ties and the freshwater inflow from its tributar- ies. The second objective is to STUDY NOW define the environmental 7, IN ITS FINAL and socio-economic im- PHASE . . . pacts of both short and During the Final Study Phase the long term reductions Of Hydraulic Model will be used to freshwater inflows. The provide solutions to selected The overall objective of final objective is to rec- high priority problems. the final study phase is to ommend those minimum formulate and recom- flows that should be mend solutions to priori- provided by the major mended flows will be primary objectives. ty problems using the tributaries in order to selected based on further hydraulic model. Three maintain the integrity of model testing results and First, to provide a better studies, a Low Freshwa- the Bay. To achieve these on more detailed biologi- understanding of the ti- ter Inflow Study, a Tidal objectives, a series of cal, socio-economic, and dal flood stage-frequency Flooding Study, and a tests will be run on the institutional assess- relationship in the Bay High Freshwater Inflow model to define salinity- ments. region as a whole and also Study, have been selected inflow relationships oc- in those communities for further study and curring under a variety of From the time man first which are subject to tidal model testing based on a low freshwater inflow settled in the Bay region, flooding. Second, to de- number of criteria. First, conditions and to deter- he has been subject to fine the environmental the studies had to be mine the influence of each periodic tidal flooding and socio-economic im- responsive to the original of the major tributaries which has resulted in loss pacts of tidal flooding in intent of Congress as on Bay salinities. of life and immeasurable those communities sub- specified in the study human suffering and ject to flooding. Finally, authority. Based on the results of the property damage. Since to recommend structural model testing, biological, the last major Bay-wide or nonstructural tidal Second, the problems economic, and social im- storm in 1933, consider- flood protection in those selected had to have Bay- pact assessments will be able development has communities where it is wide significance and be conducted to determine occurred along the shore- found to be economically of critical concern. They the effects of changes in line of the Bay region. and environmentally also had to avoid any salinity. These assess- Thus, damages sustained feasible and socially ac- duplication of work being ments will serve to define during a tidal flood today ceptable. A numerical conducted under other both existing and poten- would be much greater tidal surge model will be existing or proposed pro- tial problems as they than that of just a few used to develop stage- grams. Finally, they had relate to both short and years ago. During the frequency information to maximize the use of the long term reductions in future conditions phase for these critical flood hydraulic model. Selec- freshwater inflows. The of the Chesapeake Bay prone areas. The hydrau- tion was also based on the next stage of the study Study, a number of com- lic model will be used to findings of the Existing will be oriented toward munities in the Bay re- calibrate and verify the and Future Conditions formulating and evaluat- gion were identified as flooding portion of the Reports as well as specif- ing alternative flows that having critical flood numerical model by sim- ic input from the Chesa- would alleviate the prob- problems. The Tidal ulating several storm peake Bay Study Adviso- lems. Lastly, final recom- Flooding Study has three surges of different fre- B-225 L 7 iOk w4lus reduce the adverse im- used for investigations pacts of high freshwater conducted by agencies N inflows. outside the Corps as well quencies. The hydraulic @AM as for other on-going model will also be used to During the High Fresh- Corps studies. The Balti- investigate salinity prob- M13NN6.@ water inflow Study, the more Channel Enlarge- 77, lems associated with ti- ,@ - @V, draulic model will be ment Study is designed to Y: @ 7., hy dal surges and to deter- '4 - used to reproduce three of provide some of the data mine the time required for the most severe historical required to define the the salinity regimen to Bay-wide high freshwa- effects on the Chesapeake return to "normal". Based ter inflow events. For Bay system of deepening on all of these data plus '4 "V@',;, each of these events, the Baltimore Harbor and engineering, environmen- salinity, current, and ti- approach channels from a tal, and socio-economic dal elevation data will be depth of 42 feet to 50 feet. studies, those communi- recorded and an atlas will The Potomac River Estu- ties where some form of be prepared to document ary Water Supply and flood protection is feasi- physical changes associ- Wastewater Dispersion ble will be identified and ated with high freshwa- Study, which is being authorization studies ter inflows. Environmen- conducted as part of the will be recommended. High Freshwater Inflow tal, social, and economic Corps' Metropolitan Area Study was proposed. The impact assessments will Water Supply Study, is The $42 million in Bay study has three major also be conducted based designed to explore the damages brought about objectives. First, to pro- on these identified physi- ramifications of using the by the large influx of vide a better understand- cal changes to the estuar- Potomac River Estuary as freshwater from Tropical ing of the relationship ine system. Finally, as- a supplemental source of Storm Agnes is proof that between Chesapeake Bay sessments will be made to water supply for Wash- high volumes of fresh- salinities and high fresh- define those structural ington, D.C. Studies will water can be detrimental water inflows from its and/or nonstructural also be conducted for the to both man and to the tributaries. Second, to measures that could be State of Maryland in con- Bay's ecosystem. Based define the environmental used to prevent or reduce junction with its Power on the magnitude of the and socio-economic im- any adverse impacts. Plant Siting Program and impacts of Agnes and in pacts of high freshwater for the Environmental response to the need to inflows into the Bay. In addition to the three Protection Agency in more precisely describe Finally, to identify those studies described above support of that agency's the physical changes that structural or manage- and as directed by the Chesapeake Bay Pro- occur in the Bay during ment measures that could enabling legislation, the gram. high flow events, the be used to prevent or hydraulic model will be r8-226 A NEED EXISTED ... Chesapeake Bay is an invaluable natural, eco- nomic, and social re- source which, unfor- tunately, is faced by ever-increasing pres- sures brought about by a @73 rapidly growing popula- tion. Problems often arise when man's intended use 7:' of one resource conflicts with either the natural ---------- system or man's use of another resource. it was the need for a plan to RN provide for the most ef- fective use of the Bay's -41 PA - resources that provided the impetus for initiation of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Congress responded to this need by directing the Corps of Engineers to conduct a complete study of water utilization and The Chesapeake Bay Study Come control of the Chesapeake About Through the Needfor a Bay Basin. Section 312 of Plan to Provide for Effective Use the River and Harbor Act of the Bay's Resources. of 1965, which contained the authority for the Chesapeake Bay Study, exercising leadership in Chesapeake Bay Hydrau- also provided that a hy- those disciplines in lic Model. draulic model of the which it has special Chesapeake Bay Basin be competence. in response to the first constructed, operated, objective, the inventory and maintained within The study of Chesapeake phase of the program was the State of Maryland. Bay is being accom- completed in 1973. The Congress specified that plished in three distinct findings of this phase the model be used by any developmental phases. were published in a docu- agency of the Federal Each phase is responsive ment titled Chesapeake government or the states to one of the following Bay Existing Conditions of Maryland, Virginia, or stated objectives of the Report. This represented Pennsylvania, in connec- program. the first time a report had tion with investigations been published treating of the Chesapeake Bay 1. To assess the existing the Bay as a single entity Basin. physical, chemical, bio- and presenting a compre- logical, economic, and hensive survey of the The overall management environmental condi- entire Bay region. In re- of the study is the respon- tions of Chesapeake Bay sponse to the second sibility of the District and its related land re- objective, the future pro- Engineer of the Baltimore s.ources. jections phase of the District, Corps of program was conducted Engineers. The study was 2. To project the future and the findings of this lems in the Bay region to conceived, however, as a water resources needs of phase were recently pub- the year 2020. coordinated partnership Chesapeake Bay to the lished in the Chesapeake between Federal and year 2020. Bay Future Conditions Each report contained state agencies and inter- Report. The chief empha- basic information neces- ested scientific institu- 3. To formulate and rec- sis of this report is the sary to proceed into the tions. Each involved a- ommend solutions to pri- projection of water re- next phase of the pro- gency is charged with ority problems using the sources needs and prob- gram. Thus, with the B-227 @ 4 44, 43 A ;T& fi N WOW. A Future Increase in Urbanized Land Use Will Mean a Decrease in Agricultural Land. STUDY M-MINGS By 2020, the region'S 2020-res i dent ial land population is projected to will double while indus- REVEAL increase to 16.3 million- trial land use will in- a number almost double crease by about 50 per- RESOURCE the present population. cent. This increase will CONMM . . . As a result of projected result in less available population increases land for both agricul- come expected increases tural purposes and as in per capita income, habitat for the Bay's manufacturing output as abundant wildlife re- When man first came to well as parallel increases sources. the shores of Chesapeake in demand on the region's Bay, he found one of the water and land resources. Water Quality largest estuaries in the Valuable insight into Serious water quality world-a pristine envir- these resource conflicts is problems exist primarily onment in harmony with provided by two major in portions of tributaries nature. Barring certain reports which have been adjacent to large urban natural destructive published as part of the areas. forces such as shoreline Chesapeake Bay Study: erosion and flooding, it the Existing Conditions Increased population will was not until man's num- Report and the Future mean increased munici- bers reached sizeable Conditions Report. Some pal wastewater volumes. recent publication of this proportions that the first of the more significant Likewise, increases in second report, the Dis- serious and perhaps irre- findings of these two electric power demands trict is ready to enter into versible conflicts to the reports are summarized will create problems with the third and final phase natural environment oc- below: disposal of heated cooling of the study which will curred. Today, man's waters. satisfy the study's third misuse of the Bay's re- Land Use objective. sources is highly visible Urbanized land use will Recreation in some areas. increase significantly by Present recreational de- B-228 rk 1`11@@_ 1W V-7 MIT Much of the Shoreline of Chesa- Approximately 410 Miles of peake Bay is in Private Owner- Developed Shoreline Has Been ship Making it Inaccessible to identified as Having Critical the Public. Erosion Problems. mand for swimming, percent of the region's Tidal Flooding of presently developed boating, camping, and population. Based on the damage that shoreline in the region picnicking exceeds exist- could be expected from a have been identified as ing supply in certain 100-year tidal flood, the having "critical" erosion urban areas of the Bay By 2020, 31 of these 49 tidal flooding problem is problems. region. Future demand systems are expected to considered critical in 32 for outdoor recreation is have average water de- communities in the Bay An additional 44 miles of projected to increase sig- mands exceeding pres- region. Approximately critically eroding shore- nificantly resulting in ently developed sources 27,000 acres of land in line have been proposed major deficits in number of supply. Meeting future these 32 communities for future intensive de- of boat ramps, picnic needs will require expan- were found to be in the velopment. tables, and camping sites sion of existing systems, 100-year tidal flood plain. by 2020. which may cause neg- Waterborne Commerce ative impacts by reducing Shoreline Erosion A total of approximately Water Supply freshwater inflows into Duri fig the last 100 years, 160 million short tons of The 49 existing central the Bay's subestuaries. approximately 45,000 cargo was shipped on water supply systems in Reduced inflows will acres of shoreline have Chesapeake Bay during the Bay region provide a likely increase salinities been lost to erosion in 1974. total of 872 million gal- which may prove detri- Maryland and Virginia. lons to many industries mental to the Bay's eco- Future waterborne com- plus water to about 76 system. Approximately 410 miles merce is projected to B-229 YI .......... 77 Future Demand fdr Outdoor reation Will Result in Major icits in Number of Bout Picnic Tables, and Camping Sites. increase at a very high rate between now and 2020. These increases will intensify the need for deeper channels in the major harbors of the region and the resultant need for finding environ- mentally and economical ly acceptable methods of dredged material dispo- sal. In addition, increases in waterborne commerce will mean greater conges- tion problems in port, channel, and anchorage areas. The Bay Provides an Abundant Power Hundreds of Demand for electricity is Habitat for Species of Wildlife. projected to increase by B-23n '41, ,A -Oe e1A 01 -N& A Total of 160 Million Short Expected Increases in Popula- Tons of Cargo Was Shipped on tion in the Bay Region Will Mean Chesapeake Bay in 1974. Increased Pressures on the Re- maining Pristine Areas of the Bay. STUDYMDINGS By202O, the recreational U.S. Department of Com- and commercial catches merce (Continued) ... of such valuable species National Technical as blue crabs, striped Information Service bass, and oysters will Springfield, Virginia five times by the year exceed the amount which 22161 2000 and by 13.5 times by can be safely harvested 2020. without affecting subse- the NTIS order number While water withdrawal quent harvests. (AD number) and cost for the summary of each by power plants is ex- Aquatic Plants report is: pected to decrease due to Aquatic plants form the projected increases in basis in the food chain for water recycling, overall the Bay's productive fish Existing Conditions water consumption is and wildlife resources. AD-A 005500 $7.25 projected to increase. In recent years, and for as Future Conditions This will decrease fresh- yet unexplained reasons, AD-A 052471 $7.25 water inflows to the Bay, there has been an alarm- thereby increasing sa- ing decrease in the num- For information on how linities-a development ber of some of the most to order the appendices to which may prove detri- beneficial aquatic plants. either of these reports, mental to the Bay's eco- write for quote to the system. Both the Existing Condi- above address. Fish and Wildlife tions Report and the Fu- In 1973, the total harvest ture Conditions Report of finfish and shellfish are available from the from the Chesapeake to- National Technical Infor- taled 565 million pounds mation Service of the valued at $47.9 million. Department of Com- Projections of future merce. To purchase the summary of either of these two reports write: B-231 involve the general public was prepared. The plan provided for develop- ment of channels of com- munication in order to furnish study informa- JF! tion to the public and, in turn, obtain information concerning the setting of M goals and the Identifica- tion of both needs and problem areas. In order to establish this two-way communication, a num- ber of measures were proposed and implement- ed. For example, two series of public meetings have been held to date-the first in 1967 to announce initiation of the study and the second in 1976 to present information on study findings and to 1 solicit the public's views and perceptions of prob- lems and needs. Three major study reports have been released: The Chesa- peake Bay Existing Con- ditions Report, the Future each and everyone in coordination among these Conditions Report, and water resources studies groups. To achieve this the Impact of Tropical in order to insure that coordination, a number of Storm Agnes on Chesa- these studies respond to study groups comprised peake Bay. Each report public needs and prefer- of both Federal and state has been made available ences. Since the begin- agency representatives to representative librar- ning of the Chesapeake were established early in ies throughout Chesa- Bay Study, the general the study. peake Bay as well as public has been kept through the National informed of Study prog- These groups included an Technical Information ress. Your comments con- Advisory Group, to pro- Service of the Depart- cerning the study have vide guidance to the Dis- ment of Commerce. A been requested and posi- trict Engineer regarding brochure describing the tive action has been taken study policy and to pro- hydraulic model and the whenever appropriate. vide the general direction model testing program under which the study has also been published The Corps defines the participants have operat- and distributed. A docu- public" as any affected ed; a Steering Committee mentary film entitled or interested non-Corps to review the work of the "Planning for a Better of Engineers entity. Thus, other study groups in Bay" was produced in an important part of the order to bring attention to 1973 and has been shown public involvement pro- technological advances in throughout the Bay re- AND WHERE gram for the Chesapeake water resources develop- gion to a variety of organ- Bay Study has been coor- ment; and five task izations and groups. Hun- DOES dination with those Fed- groups to serve as basic dreds of public eral and state agencies work groups concerned presentations-many of THE PUBLIC and institutions con- with specific resource them slide talks-have FIT IN cerned with water re- categories such as flood been given to civic, envir- sources planning in the control, navigation, and onmental, fraternal, pro- Bay region. The magni- erosion. fessional, and political The Baltimore District tude and nature of the groups as well as busi- recognizes the impor- study, in fact, has re- A comprehensive plan ness and trade associa- ance of actively involving quired quite intensive specifically designed to tions by Baltimore Dis- B-232 Agency Officials and Staff Selection of Needs Planners Proposals Recommended and (Baltimore and Plans Priority Problems Goals District) Alternative Plans I Community Groups and 44 Chesapeahe Buy Study-A Citizens Strategy for Public Participa- tion. trict staff on some aspect Bay and its resources. tions in connection with In addition to the above, of the Chesapeake Bay. The CPCB has reviewed the High Flow, Low Flow, the Baltimore District and commented on study and Tidal Flooding Stud- will continue employing In terms of informing the program reports of both ies. But you will have means which it has used public about the model, the Existing and Future other opportunities to in the past-such as pub- tours have been conduct- Conditions Reports. become involved in this lic present ations-in or- ed since the model dedi- study: A series of work- der to keep the public cation in May 1976. As a And where will the gener- shops are scheduled to informed of the study. result, over 45,000 visi- al public fit-in in the provide an opportunity tors from all over the future? As the Chesa- for citizens to actually Particular emphasis will world have toured the peake Bay Study enters become involved in the also be placed on coordi- Kent island facility. The its final phase, an even planning process at nating public involve- public was also invited to more intensive public several key points of the ment activities with attend both the ground- involvement program is final study phase. Citi- those of other related breaking and dedication planned since the remain- zens attending these Federal and state pro- ceremonies for the model. ing work involves the workshops will be asked grams in an attempt to In addition, the model has formulation and recom- to provide input during avoid duplication. Steps been opened on weekends mendation of specific the formulation of altern- have already been taken during Queen Anne's Day solutions to problems. ative solutions to previ- to place articles in other and Chesapeake Appre- News Circulars similar to ously identified problems organizations' newslet- ciation Weekend Celebra- this first issue will be as well as in the selection ters to further dissemi- tions. The public re- distributed from time to of final recommenda- nate important informa- sponse during these time in order to keep you tions. tion on this study. Also weekend celebrations has abreast of what's happen- under consideration is been overwhelming. ing in the study. Several As a result of the public the use of established series of public meetings response to model tours, advisory committees to All of the above tech- will be held throughout new and improved visi- provide public input into niques have proven use- the Bay region to present tors facilities are this study program. ful in development of the information which planned. Such facilities, study program. In addi- should prove both inter- which are likely to in- The means of informing tion, an informal liaison esting and useful to you. clude a meeting room, you of the Chesapeake has been maintained with At these meetings, which exhibits, and profession- Bay Study and of assess- the Citizens Program for are scheduled over the ally prepared tours, will ing your needs with re- rNeed ection of and ty Prob@lems Goal mmunity and a *U + Co ?it pizoe n Chesapeake Bay, Inc., next four years, we will constitute an important gard to the Bay have been (CPCB), a Bay-wide um- be asking for your re- part of the Chesapeake established. Now it is up brella organization for sponse concerning such Bay Study public in- to you, the public, to help citizens groups with an things as impacts, altern- volvement program in the us better serve your interest in Chesapeake atives, and recommenda- future. needs. B-233 FIRST IN This is the first in a series of News Circulars to be published by the Baltimore District to inform interested citizens of the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. Should A SERIES .... you have any comments tegarding the Study or this News Circular, we would appreciate hearing them. Send your comments to: Chesapeake Bay Study Branch Planning Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 or call (301) 962-3410 ANYONE ELSE Do you know of anyone else who would like to receive information on the Study? If so, please give us their name. Also, do we have your correct name and address? If not, EVITRESTED? please fill out the form below and return the old mailing label. Name Address City State Zip Fold Here DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, BALTIMORE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEFARrMENT OF THE ARMY P. 0. BOX 1715 DoD-314 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore ATTN: NABPL-C P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 U. !=SM A I 1@ B-234 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, BALTIMORE POSTAGE AND FEE& PAID CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. . "MA P. 0. BOX 1715 000-314 BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21203 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATK USE. 6300 Chesapeake Bay, as a Vast Natural, Social, and Economic Resource Faced by Many Com- plex Problems, Requires a Corn- bined and Coordinated Effort in order to Maintain Its Integrity. . . . . . . . . . . ;am 7:E .-Emir: 7@m2T_ @__ 4 @N 40, 4, gi#M -4, B-235 STUDY CHESAPEAKE BAY BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS At % (EW5 -CIRCULAR VOL. 2 OCTOBER 1979 CORPS CONDUCTING operation of its support system for VARIETY effective accurate results. OF TESTS ON Designed for comprehensive estuarine HYDRAULIC MODEL study capability, the Chesapeake Bay Model can be used in the analysis of many types of complicated tidal hy- draulics problems not amenable at this time to solution by mathematical methods only. There are, however, hydraulic model studies planned that will combine both mathematical methods and the Chesapeake Bay Model. The Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay is the world's largest estuarine model. The eight acre model, hand Following the completion of the adjust- molded in concrete, was constructed ment of the Chesapeake Bay Model, in a warehouse type shelter covering and verifying that, in fact, model 14 acres under roof. Contained also in hydraulic and salinity phenomena are the shelter is a water treatment plant in acceptable agreement with the for the model, the immense model tide prototype, the Corps of Engineers generating system, and office trailers started on the Baltimore Harbor housing the model operating Study. personnel. Built into the shelter is a complex utility system comprised of an extensive network of water supply The overall objective of this study was piping and many miles of electrical to determine the hydrodynamic wiring. A small electronic computer changes, if any, in the Chesapeake Bay both monitors and controls a sophisti- system that would result from the pro- cated instrumentation system that not posed enlargement of Baltimore only activates many model operations Harbor and its approach channels. As but acquires a significant amount of well as being a politically, economi- data from the model during hydraulic cally, and environmentally sensitive N studies. In short, the Hydraulic Model undertaking, the proposed channel en. of Chesapeake Bay is a finely tuned largement is also a significant con- system, depending on the proper struction project. Continued on page 3 B-236 + -Al 4- 4. tL. L4 ?y .11 During damage surveys of flood-prone communities, information is collected on proximity of structures to the waterways. TIDAL if it is feasible to provide some form of FLOODING STUDY flood protection for communities identified as "critically flood-prone" in UNDERWAY the Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report. Historically the Bay Region has been subject to damages from periodic tidal flooding. Unfortunately, accounts of these storms are poor and innundation elevations as well as damages were seldom recorded in sufficient detail to be useful for planning purposes. Also, The tidal flooding portion of the Chesa- since the 1933 storm, considerable peake Bay Study is currently development has occurred along the underway and will focus upon shoreline. Thus, damages sustained expected flood damages in the Bay during a tidal flood today would be Region as a result of storms such as much greater than that of 1933. occurred in August 1933 or during "Hazel" in October 1954. The final The tidal flooding study, in seeking to output of the study will be to determine both better identify and resolve the 2 B-237 Maryland Virginia Cambridge Cape Charles Crisfield Chesapeake Pocomoke City Colonial Beach Rock Hall Fredericksburg Smith Island Hampton Snow Hill Norfolk St. Michaels Poquoson Tilghman Island Portsmouth Tangier Island 4Z West Point During this past summer, the Corps initiated flood damage surveys in many of these communities. The type of in- formation being collected in the surveys includes type of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), proximity of the structures to the waterway (both horizontally and vertically), and any information regard- ing historical damages and flood h ights. A product of this data collec- e tion will be the development of a curve which relates damages to depths of V flooding in each community. It should be noted that coordination with certain Federal and State agencies, to include the Federal Flood Emergency Z., Management Agency, is being maintained at this point to avoid any duplication of effort and to share available data with the communities. Future tidal flooding work efforts will center around the Hydraulic Model. A flooding problem, has three primary numerical tidal surge model will be objectives. First, to provide a better used to develop stage-frequency understanding of the tidal flood stage- information for the critical flood prone frequency relationship in the Bay areas. The Hydraulic Model will be Region as a whole and also in those used to calibrate and verify the communities which are subject to tidal flooding portion of the numerical flooding. Second, to define the model by simulating several storm environmental and socio-economic surges of different frequencies. The impacts of tidal flooding in those com- Hydraulic Model will also be used to in- munities subject to flooding. Finally, to vestigate salinity problems associated recommend structural or non- with tidal surges and determine the structural tidal flood protection in time required for the salinity regimen those communities where it is found to to return to "normal". be economically and environmentally feasible and socially acceptable. The modeling work plus engineering, environmental and sociaeconomic studies will determine those An important first step in meeting communities where some form of flood these objectives is to conduct flood protection is feasible. The final study damage surveys in those communities report will then recommend which have been identified as flood- authorization studies for those prone. These include: communities. 3 T@_239 LOW FLOW STUDY EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF REDUCED FRESHWATER INFLOWS TO THE BAY The Corps of Engineers' Low Freshwater Inflow Study is a major component of the third and final phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study. The study has as its principal objectives to: provide a better understanding 0 f the relationship between Chesapeake Bay salinities and thr. freshwater inflow from its tributaries. LEGEND: FAE3WA -0W = @Ts define the environmental anc socio-economic impacts of both shorl lio and long-term reductions Jn fresh- water inflow. The Bay's rivers provide the freshwater that controls the Bay's solinity regime. The Susquehanna is by recommend the minimum flows far the most important source of freshwater. or flow schedules that should be main- tained in the major tributaries in order to assure the integrity of Chesapeake Bay. The study originated with the realiza- gram. The Baltimore District, working tion that Chesapeake Bay is with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dependent on the inflows of freshwater and the Bay Study's Fish and Wildlife from its drainage basins to maintain its Coordination Group (an advisory unique and highly productive aquatic group of concerned agencies and Bay environment. The health of the ecosys- scientists), reached agreement on the tem is not only important to the com- basic study assessment approach to mercial and recreational fishermen be used. Because of the realized who harvest the Bay's products, but it complexities inherent in an evaluation carries further to the very social and of a natural system as large and economic fabric of the entire Bay Area. complex as the Chesapeake Bay, it was also agreed that a contractor should be used to conduct the The importance of the Bay's biological biological assessment. Western health is reflected in the principal focus EcoSystems Technology (WES- being given the biological investiga- TECH) was subsequently awarded tions phase of the Low Flow Study. that contract. Substantial effort during the Low Flow The output of this effort, due to be Study, to date, has been directed completed toward the middle of 1981, toward the biological assessments pro- will provide two major products: 4 B-239 a definition of Bay health and productivity in terms of those aspects N of the estuarine system which Philadelphia contribute to the social, economic, and environmental well being in the Bay PA area. IVID an assessment of the biota Baltimo e related change accompanying reduced freshwater inflows. Washington D.C. A major portion of the biological work to be done will be based on the results of testing on the Hydraulic Model of Chesapeake Bay. Hundreds of thous- __DE ands of pieces of information will be IVID collected in the hydraulic model tests for low flow. A sizeable effort on the MD part of WESTECH will be required to VA assimilate, organize, and evaluate this large mass of data into a meaningful \3 and useful base for the decision making process. The model testing program will provide data on the 21 salinity and current velocity changes that occur due to both historical and projected future low freshwater inflow conditions. Norfolk More intensive discussion of study I methodology as well as study progress updates will be provided in future editions of the Chesapeake Bay Study The Baltimore Harbor Channel project involves the News Circular. enlargement of channels in four distinct areas ofthe Bay. Continuedfrom page I The testing work on the hydraulic Briefly, the overall Baltimore Harbor model was done in two phases, as Channel project involves the deepen- follows: ing of the existing channel system from 42'to 50'in depth. This will be done, as - First, a Base Test to establish shown on the adjoining map, in four benchmark salinity and current velo- distinct areas of the Bay, including: city conditions in the model. At the conclusion of the Base Test the exist- ing 42' channels were removed from 1. The Cape Henry Channel the model and the proposed 50'chan- nel was constructed in its place. 2. The York Spit Channel 3. The - Rappahannock Shoals - Following the installation of the Channel proposed new channel in the model, 4. The Baltimore Harbor operating personnel completed the Plan Test. The Plan Test established Approach Channels. salinity and current velocity condi- tions that resulted from the new con- struction. 5 B-24n iii a WOW The purpose of the Baltimore Harbor Test was to determine hydrodynamic changes in the Bay resulting from enlargement of Baltimore Harbor and its approach channels. During both the Base and Plan Tests, Noted hydrodynamic and salinity and current velocity data were salinity changes then undergo further collected at 69 stations throughout the analysis to determine the total physical model. At the same time, continuous impact on the system. records of water surface elevations were collected at 10 stations As of this time, the analysis of the throughout the project area for results of the Baltimore Harbor Test is automated model control as well as still underway. Preliminary evaluation study purposes. Data collection and of the Baltimore Harbor Hydraulic reduction on a model the size of the Model Test reveals little or no change Chesapeake Bay Model is an in velocities throughout the Bay or enormous task in itself. For instance, salinity patterns in the Bay below the during the 110 days of model test oper- confluence of the Potomac River, as a ation time, 40,000 salinity and 3200 result of channel deepening. Above the velocity samples were collected. These Potomac River, however, salinity data were reduced, tabulated, and changes have been recorded and painstakingly plotted in graphical form appear to be localized in the channel for later analysis by environmental sections entering and in the Patapsco planners, engineers, and scientists. River. In general, surface salinities become fresher and bottom salinities Primarily, the analysis of the results of become saltier with channel deepen- this study is divided into two units of ing. An in-depth analysis and evalua- work: tion of test results is currently on- going. - Data from both the Base and Plan Tests are compared for change Following the sinking of the U.S. Coast resulting from the channel enlarge- Guard Cutter Cuyahoga on 20 ment. October 1978, the Director of the 6 B-241 Dispersion Study. The objectives of the test are to define the wastewater dispersion patterns and salinity regimes in the Potomac Estuary under several freshwater inflow conditions and to explore the ramifications of using the Potomac River Estuary as a supplemental source of water supply for Washington, D.C. One of the con- cerns generated by using the estuary of water supply is the pos- as a source sibility of recycling wastewater into the public water supply during periods of low freshwater inflow into the estuary, and the possibility of change in the salinity levels and the circulation patterns in the upper estuary of the Potomac. V During this test the wastewater dis- charges from the sewerage treatment plants in the Upper Potomac Estuary were simulated by scaled down dis- charges of a fluorescent dye solution .90-__* into the model. Samples of water drawn from the model 'at predeter- mined times and locations were analyzed for dye concentration. These data indicate how the simulated wastewater discharges in the model disperse over time. To accomplish the objectives of the The Potomac River Estuary Test is designed to Potomac River Estuary Test, model explore the ramifications of using the estuary as a supplemental source of water supply. work is being done in two phases. Phase I explored the existing condi- tions in the Potomac River Estuary, Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model re- defining both salinity and wastewater ceived a request from Coast Guard dispersion patterns, during different officials to conduct a test on the model freshwater rates of flow into the es- to determine the approximate location tuary. Phase 11 of this study will define where the bodies of those victims on salinity and wastewater dispersion board the Cutter would likely surface. patterns to be expected by the year A dye was injected into the model 2020 during periods of low freshwater along with a group of floats in the area inflow, and the effects of pumping from where the Cuyahoga sank and several the estuary for the Washington, D.C. tidal cycles were run. Based on the water supply. The data collected dispersion of the dye and floats, it was during each phase of this study will be possible to indicate the likely analyzed to determine if, in fact, there boundaries or "envelope" within which are any significant changes in salinity the bodies could expect to be found. or the dispersion of wastewater that Within several days of the model test, would be due to pumping water from the remaining bodies were, in fact, the upper portion of the estuary for found where the model test had indi- water supply purposes. cated they would be. . A significant part of this study will be In the middle of March, work was the application of mathematical started on the Potomac River Estuary methods to describe certain water Water Supply and Wastewater quality aspects of the Potomac River 7 B-242 Estuary. Data taken from the hydraulic model will be used to calibrate an existing water quality mathematical model of the Potomac River Estuary. This mathematical model will be used to determine the change in concen- tration over time of various measures of estuarine water quality at specific points of interest under various flow schemes and pumping rates. Early in February 1979, the Office of the Chief of Engineers requested that tests simulating oil spills resulting from ship collisions or refinery leaks be con- ducted on the Chesapeake Bay Model. These tests were done to provide in- formation about the probable dispersion by tidal currents of oil spills -A in the entrance to Chesapeake Bay and in the Hampton Roads Area of @A Virginia. Five spills, ranging in magnitude from an instantaneous spill of 7000 barrels of crude oil to 500,000 barrels of oil dis- charged over a twelve hour period Since May 1976, approximately 65,000 people have were simulated b y injecting toured the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model appropriate volumes of crude oil into at Matapeake. the model. The dispersion of the oil in the model was recorded over time by CHESAPEAKE both visual inspection and by a bank of ten cameras simultaneously photo- BAY graphing the area of interest from HYDRAULIC MODEL above the model at specified times CONTINUES TO DRAW during successive tidal cycles. This in- formation was then forwarded to the LARGE NUMBERS Office of the Chief of Engineers where it was used in the evaluation of a permit for an oil refinery proposed for the Hampton Roads area. Testing, to date, has shown the model Since it was opened to the public in to be a useful tool to the water re- May, 1976, the Chesapeake Bay source planner, engineer, and scientist Hydraulic Model, located at Mata- in better understanding both natural peake, Maryland on Kent Island, has occurrences as well as the effects of attracted approximately 65,000 visi- proposed structural and management tors from across the United States as programs. The model should also well as many foreign countries. The prove valuable during the testing model is one of the most useful scien- program planned for the next two tific tools available to the engineer, years. scientist, and water resources planner in providing a better understanding of the problems and conflicts which beset Chesapeake Bay. The model reproduces to a manageable scale phenomena that occur throughout this large and complex estuarine system 8 B-243 X11 iVyl - R 37 W zvv@_ including tides, currents, changes in See Our New Visitors water temperature, salinities, and the Center dispersion of sediment and dyes. The model, which covers an area of eight acres, is made of molded concrete and We have good news for visitors to the holds approximately 450,000 gallons at Chesapeake Bay Model. It is no mean low water. Limits of the model longer necessary to brave the winter include the entire Chesapeake Bay cold and summer heat of the and tributaries to the head of tide and Chesapeake Bay Model Shelter during the surrounding land area to an your stay, as the brand new climate elevation of 20 feet above mean sea controlled visitors center has been level. The model is housed in a shelter completed by our contractor, the J. F. 1,080 feet long and 680 feet wide. Snyder Company. Model tours, which include both a slide Don't expect to see the visitors center presentation and a walking tour as you park your car, for the facility is around the model, are provided five built inside the model shelter. A short days a week, Monday thru Friday stroll along the beautiful trees and except Federal holidays. The public is shrubs donated and planted last year welcome! To reach the model, take by the Kent Island Garden Club will U.S. Route 50 to Kent Island. Proceed lead to the new double door entry es- south on State Route 8 off of Route 50 pecially designed to accommodate the approximately 21/2 miles to the model handicapped. While waiting for the facility on the right. For more tour to begin, spend a few minutes in information on the tours or to make the display area learning about the arrangements for groups of 10 or more Chesapeake and the Corps of Engi- people, please call our Public Affairs neers' efforts to preserve and enhance Office at (301) 962-4616. it. 9 B-244 17 THR CHZS"RAXZ ]LAY 7. 7. 4 W@ The Chesapeake Bay Exhibit demonstrates how certain Federal and State programs are in partnership in their efforts to use the Bay while providing for its protection. CHESAPEAKE Programs, and the Maryland and Vir- BAY EXHIBIT ginia 208 Water Quality Management DEMONSTRATES THE Programs. COOPERATIVE The exhibit is an informative, free- standing structure. The center panel EFFORTS illustrates the conflicts which arise OF BAY between the Bay as a natural resource and man's use of it. Each of the side PROGRAMS panels is devoted to a description of the program or study which the respective Federal or State agency is conducting. The exhibit demonstrates how these programs are in partnership in their efforts to use the Bay while providing for its protection. The Chesapeake Bay Exhibit is avail- The Baltimore District, together with able for use by agencies, local govern- several other Federal and State ments, libraries, and private organiza- agencies conducting Chesapeake Bay tions at no charge. To arrange for related programs and studies, have display of the exhibit, you may call been involved in a joint effort to either Fran Flanigan, Citizens produce an exhibit dealing with the Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Bay. The exhibit, entitled "The Chesa- (301) 377-6270; Harry Stone, peake Bay - Partnership in Use and Delmarva Advisory Council, (301) 742- Protection", describes the Corps' 9271; or Kitty Cox, Conservation Mimi Chesapeake Bay Study, the Environ- Council of Virginia Foundation, (804) mental Protection Agency's Chesa- 769-2722. peake Bay Program, the Maryland and Virginia Coastal Zone Management 10 B-245 Your Response Has Been Good... This is the second in a series of News Circulars to be published by the Balti- more District to keep the public informed of the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. We received favorable re- sponse from the public on our first News Circular. We continue to encourage your response and com- ments regarding both the Study and this publication. Send your comments to: Chesapeake Bay Study Branch Planning Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 or call (301) 962-3410 Detach this sheet from News Circular, fold here and return to above addressee. ANYONE ELSE Do you know of anyone else who would like to receive INTERESTED? information on the Study? If so, please give us their name. Also, do we have your correct name and address? If not, please fill out the form below and return the old mailing label. Name Address City State Zip In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and 10 USC 3012, routine uses of the information extracted from this form will enable the Corps of Engineers to send public information about the Study to persons on the mailing list. All information is voluntary. B-246 CHESAPEAKE SAY STUDY BALTIMORE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENOINEERS NEW5 CIRCULAR JUNE 1963 Study to be Completed present use of the resource, studied are those associated with Next Year presents the demands to be placed flooding caused by hurricane type on the resource to the year 2020, storms (tidal flooding) and those assesses the ability of the resource resulting from the projected de- The report on the Chesapeake to meet future demands, and iden- crease in the amount of freshwater Bay Study and Hydraulic Model is tifies general means to satisfy the flowing into the Chesapeake Bay scheduled to be published in projected resource needs. from its tributaries (low freshwater October 1984. By that time, we will In June 1972, the Chesapeake inflow). Each of these problems is have completed the hydraulic Bay Basin was subjected to one of discussed in further detail in subse- model tests, analytical studies and the most devastating- storms the quent articles in this circular. socio-economic assessments region has ever witnessed-Trop- The final product of the necessary to meet the objectives of ical Storm Agnes. The massive Chesapeake Bay Study will consist the study. These objectives were amounts of freshwater, sediment of a summary report as well as a to: and other pollutants that entered main report and set of appendices 1. Assess the existing physical, the bay as a result of this storm on both the Low Freshwater Inflow chemical, biological, economic caused considerable environmen- Study and the Tidal Flooding Study. and environmental conditions of tal and economic damage to the The summary report will be a the Chesapeake Say and its water bay. Because of the size of the review of the Existing Conditions resources. storm and the resulting damage, a Report, Future Conditions Re- 2. Project the future water -study was performed by the Corps port,Tropical Storm Agnes Report resource needs of Chesapeake Bay and in October 1975, a report en- and highlights of the Low Fresh- to the year 2020. titled Impact of Tropical Storm water Inflow and Tidal Flooding 3. Formulate and recommend Agnes on Chesapeake Bay was studies. It will also describe the solutions to priority problems using published. The purpose of this public involvement program and the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic study was to determine and docu- Model. ment the effects of the storm on the The first objective of the study Chesapeake Bay estuarine system was met in 1973 when the Chesa- and to locate any changes in the Notice peake Say Existing Conditions bottom geometry and determine if Report was published. This report these changes were of sufficient Model Closing Delayed presented a detailed inventory of magnitude to warrant a change in the Chesapeake Bay and its water the design of the hydraulic model, related resources. Divided into a Each of the above reports has summary and four appendices, the been made available to represent- At the time of printing, the closing report presented an overview of the ative libraries throughout the area of the model had been suspended bay area and the economy; a survey as well as through the National for 2 months to allow time for a of the bay's land resources and its Technical Information Service of task force appointed by Congress- use: and a description of the bay's the Department of Commerce. man Roy Dyson to find alternative life forms and hydrodynamics. The completion of the Future sources for funding the facility. The purpose of the Future Con- Conditions Report marked the During this delay, tours of the ditions Report, published in 1978, end of the second phase and the model will continue. If no sources was to provide a format for present- beginning of the third and final are found by July 1 5th, the closing ing the findings of the second phase phase of the Chesapeake Bay it of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Study, namely, the formulation of operations will be continued and Satisfying the second objective of solutions to high priority problems. the tours terminated. the study, the report describes the The two problems which are being OWNEWAMM B-247 the history of the Chesapeake Bay tion Test was performed on the Technical Information Service. Model and associated testing pro- Chesapeake Bay Model. The four Following the completion of the gram. conditions simulated during the test biological assessment, the Fish The final report is scheduled to were 1) Base Average which repre- and Wildlife Service convened an be published in October 1984. sented long term average fresh- ad hoc committee composed of water inflows, 2) Base Drought eminent bay scientists. The pur- which was a simulation of the pose of this committee was to pro- 1960's drought, 3) Future Average vide scientific judgment and ex- which simulated the long term perience in a group concensus average flows reduced by the pro- evaluation of the effects of reduced jected consumptive losses for the freshwater inflows on the bay's The Chesapeake Bay year 2020, and 4) Future Drought aquatic life and the overall Low Freshwater which was a representation of the ecosystem. Using the findings from 1960's drought reduced by the the WESTECH study, members of Inflow Study same consumptive losses. the committee interpreted what the The test was completed in March changes in habitat meant in terms One of the major problem areas 1980 and the results were docu- of impacts on the species and how being investigated under the mented in Technical Report HL-82-3, this might possibly affect the Chesapeake Bay Study is low entitled Low Freshwater Inflow population of each. Their recom- freshwater inflow. This study has Study. This report was prepared by mendations will be used in the for - stemmed from the concern over the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways mutation of the alternative plans. the increasing use of water from Experiment Station and published The social and economic im- the bay's riverine tributaries. A por- in January 1982. pacts of reduced inflows on those tion of the water that is withdrawn One of the major factors con- who use the bay and its tributaries for municipal, industrial, and tributing to the importance of the will also be assessed. This includes agricultural purposes is used con- bay is its biological health. The the effects of increased salinities sumptively and, therefore, never health of the ecosystem is not only on municipalities and industries returns to the river. The amount that important to the commercial and who withdraw water from the is consumed varies depending recreational fishermen who' har- system as well as those who use upon the use. For instance, 10 to 25 vest the bay's products, but it car- the estuary to earn their livelihood, percent of the water withdrawn by a ries further to the very social and such as commercial fishermen or municipal system is never returned economic fabric of the entire bay those who use it for recreational to the tributary. Irrigation losses area. purposes such as swimming and can be as high as 75 percent. Based In this regard, a contract was fishing. on projections made to the year awarded in 1979 to Western In conjunction with the biological 2020, these losses could reduce, Eco-Systems Technology, Inc. and socio-economic assessments, by as much as 35 percent, the (WESTECH) to develop a an institutional analysis is being amount of freshwater that flows into methodology and establish a done to survey the existing political, the bay from its major tributaries. baseline for the determination of legal and financial climate as it This will increase the salt levels in biological changes caused by relates to possible implementation Chesapeake Bay and, consequently, reduced freshwater inflows. This of inflow recommendations for the could have an adverse effect on its methodology focused on the poten- major bay tributaries. This analysis aquatic life and other environmen- tial change in habitats rather than will focus primarily on the riverine tal and socio-e 'conomic values. populations of aquatic life. During portions of the bay's tributaries. The major objectives of this the development of the methodology, Presently, the extent of the prob- study are to: 55 representative Chesapeake Bay 1. provide a better understand- species were selected for study. lem caused by reduced fresh- ing of the relationship between Four major parameters were used water inflows is being analyzed. Chesapeake Bay salinities and the to define the potential habitat for The next step will be to array the freshwater inflow from its tribu- each organism. These were salinity alternative solutions to mitigate taries. depth, substrate and depenclenc@ these problems. Finally, the im- 2. define the biological, en- on other species. Based on these pacts of these alternatives will be vironmental, social and economic parameters, the potential habitat analyzed and then all alternatives impacts of both short and long term for each of the 55 species was screened in order to select the reductions in freshwater inflow. mapped for each of the four most promising solutions. 3. recommend the minimum scenarios from the hydraulic model The final report on the Low freshwater inflows from the major test, By then measuring the area for Freshwater Inflow Study will con- tributaries that should be maintained each organism for each scenario, tain an assessment of the socio- in order to assure the integrity of the change in habitat could be economic and environmental con- Chesapeake Bay. determined. sequences of reduced freshwater In order to assess how salinities The final report prepared by inflows to Chesapeake Bay and an would increase during periods of WESTECH on the biological assess- identification of the most promising low freshwater inflow and secondly, ment of low freshwater inflows was alternative solutions to the prob- how consumptive losses would af- published in May 1982 and is now lems caused by these flow reduc- fect salinities, a Problem Identifica- available through the National tions. 2 B-248 Tidal Flooding Study For each of the 18 communities, from the real bay. This was the most flood damage surveys were first comprehensive prototype data col- in Final Stage conducted. This informatoin was lection program in the history of the needed to establish the amount of Chesapeake Bay region. These Since man first settled on the damages that would occur in each data, together with the testing con- shoreline of Chesapeake Bay, he of the communities for various ducted in order to verify the model, has been subject to periodic tidal types and degrees of tidal floods. uncovered several phenomena and flooding. This has resulted in im- The next step was to look at an ar- problems of which the serious measurable human suffering and ray of alternative structural and students of the bay were unaware. millions of dollars of property nonstructural measures that would For example, the data provided damage. Serious tidal flooding in mitigate the damages for each new insights into the role of wind the Chesapeake Bay Region is community. After determining what and estuarine circulation. Further, caused by either hurricanes or measures would be appropriate in the model provided a new perspec- I' northeasters. " The Tidal Flooding each community, the environmen- tive relative to the transfer of water Study, in seeking to both better tal and socio-economic impacts of through the C&D Canal. This new identify and resolve these flooding each were assessed. perspective brought into question problems, has three primary objec- A more detailed screening of many of the previous assumptions tives. First, to provide a better these floodprone communities is on the net flow through the canal. understanding of the tidal flood fre- now being performed and the Lastly, data from the verification quency relationship in the bay reconnaissance studies based on test demonstrated the importance region with particular emphasis on more refined environmental, econ- of the variations in both tidal cycles those communities which are sub- omic, social and hydrologic data and freshwater inflow in estab- ject to tidal flooding. Second, to are being completed. The last step lishing the salinity structure of the define the environmental and socio- will be to formulate and evaluate system. economic impacts of tidal flooding the flood damage reduction alter- The tests done on the model in these floodprone communities. natives for each community. have proven equally valuable. Finally, to recommend structural or The final report of the Tidal Because of the availability of data nonstructural tidal flood protection Flooding Study v@ill provide a from these tests, it has been pos- in those communities where it is preliminary analysis of the feasibility sible to proceed with planning for found to be economically and en- of providing structural and non- projects with a full knowledge of the vironmentally feasible and socially structural protection for floodprone hydrodynamic changes which may acceptable. communities. It will also contain be involved. Some of the more im- The first step in the study was to recommendations for studies re- portant of these tests were: identify all communities with a quired before Congress can auth- population of 1000 or more that orize a project, in those commun- were located within the tidal flood ities where some form of flood pro- 0 Baltimore Harbor Channel plain. The next step was to identify tection is found to be economically Enlargement Test those communities that were flood- and environmentally feasible and Congress has authorized deep- prone. In order to be classified as socially acceptable. ening of the channels leading to the "floodprone", at least 50 acres of Port of Baltimore from 42 to 50 feet. land that were developed for inten- The purpose of this test was to sive use had to be inundated. In the ascertain if this deepening would next step, all communities in which cause any changes in the salinity 25 acres of intensively developed regime and current patterns in land would be inundated by the Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay that would result 1 00-year tidal flood were classified Model Closing in significant adverse environmen- as "critically" floodprone. The final tal impact. Data from this test were screening eliminated those com- used in the preparation of the en- munities where it was evident that . Early in April work began on clos- vironmental impact statement for ing the Chesapeake Bay Model. By the channel deepening project. flood protection would not be fea- mid-summer, most of the equip- sible. Based on the above analyses, ment will have been removed from 18 communities were identified as it and the building will be secured to 0 Nanticoke RiverToxic Material being critically floodprone and in protect it from vandalism. Dispersion Test need of more detailed study. These were: The Chesapeake Bay Model has This test was done at the request Maryland Virginia been a very powerful and valuable of the State of Maryland. Apparently, Cambridge Cape Charles tool. The insights to Chesapeake state officials were concerned over Crisfield Chesapeake Bay that have been gained the possible environmental conse- Pocomoke City Colonial Beach through its use could not have quences should the toxic material Rock Hall Fredericksburg been gotten any other way. This stored at Sharptown, Maryland, Hampton was demonstrated even before the somehow enter the Nanticoke Smith Island Norfolk Snow Hill Poquoson formal testing program on the River. The purpose of this test was St. Michaels Portsmouth model began. In order to calibrate to determine the dispersion of the Tilghman Island Tangier Island and verify the model, data on tides, toxic materials if a portion of them West Point velocity and salinity were collected were spilled into the river. B-249 3 0 Hampton Roads Oil and Environmental Studies, the people to become acquainted with Dispersion Test Lafayette River Waste Water the project in comfort. The center The data from this test were in- Dispersion Test for Old Dominion was constructed within the shelter put to the environmental assess- Univeristy and the Air Florida that houses the model and con- ment for the Hampton Roads Oil Debris Recovery Test, which was sisted of an exhibit area and a large Refinery Permit Application. The done in conjunction with the rescue meeting room that could seat up to purpose of this,test was to define efforts for the Air Florida airplane 150 people. While visitors waited the dispersion of oil should there be accident. for the tour to begin, they could a tanker collision or should the oil Many of the more urgent prob- spend time in the display area view- be spilled while being unloaded. lems of Chesapeake Bay were ad- ing the exhibits and becoming more dressed in this program. The tests familiar with Chesapeake Bay and N Low Freshwater Inflow needed to complete the Low Fresh- the Corps of Engineers' efforts to Problem Identification Test water Inflow and Tidal Flooding preserve and enhance it. This test was performed in con- studies have been completed and During the slide presentation, nection with the Low Freshwater In- we are able to finish the Chesa- visitors were informed of the work flow Study. Its purpose was to peake Bay Study without the need being done in the district to solve determine the changes in salinity for any further testing on the model. the problems of the bay and the im- caused by decreased freshwater In addition, in the time since the portant role that the model was inflows during a reoccurrence of Norfolk Harbor Test was completed playing in helping to solve these the 1960's drought as well as under in the summer 1981, the model has problems. After the presentation, a conditions of average freshwater been maintained so as to be avail- tour guide would escort them on a inflow. The data from the tests are able to other agencies and the simulated 600 mile walk down to being used to ascertain if the scientific community to accom- the Capes, around the Atlantic decreased inflows will have an modate their testing needs. This Ocean, up the eastern shore, across adverse effect on the bay's aquatic maintenance has been expensive, the C&D Canal and the Susquehanna life and to develop plans to mitigate costing over $55,000 per month. At River, down past Baltimore Harbor these adverse effects. this time there are no prospects for and the Washington Monument on a large testing program. the Potomac, and back to their start- 2 Potomac Estuary Water ing place near Richmond. While on Supply and Wastewater the tour, people learned to ap- Dispersion Test preciate the vast size and impor- This test was performed for the tance of this valuable resource, Not Washington Metropolitan Water only could they become acquainted Supply Study. Its purpose was to ex- with some of the various points of plore the ramifications of using the interest around the bay and their Potomac River Estuary as a supple- location, but more importantly, they mental source of water supply for could be educated on its physical the Washington Metropolitan Area processes, what lives in it, its during periods of drought. Major values and how we use it. The concerns were whether or not salt model has given people the oppor- water or the pollution plume from tunity to learn about some of the the 16 sewage treatment plants on physical processes such as the rise the Potomac would reach the water Tours of Chesapeake and fall of the tide and to place in supply intakes. Bay Model to End in May perspective the entire form of the bay. 0 Norfolk Harbor Channel The visitors programs at the Deepening Test Sevenyearsand 120,00OViSilOTS Chesapeake Bay Model has been This test was performed for the later, the visitors program at the an important tool in the Public In- Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers. Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model volvement Program of the study. It Its purpose was to determine the at Matapeake is drawing to a close. has given us the opportunity to changes in the salinity regimes and In May of this year, the last mile reach and inform a much larger current patterns caused by deepen- long tour will be taken around the portion of the public than would ing the channels into Norfolk Har- 8-acre replica of the bay. otherwise have been possible. This bor to 55 feet. The data from the From May 1976, when the model has been one of the many benefits test are being used to prepare the was first dedicated, until of having a place available where environmental impact statement September 1979, visitors had to those who are interested in the bay for this project. brave either the cold of winter or could come and learn more about it the nearly 100 degree temperature and what the Corps is doing to during the summer as they sat in preserve and enhance it. In addition to these major tests, the unheated model shelter waiting several other smaller tests were for and watching the 20 minute To those who visited the conducted. Included were the slide presentation that preceded Chesapeake Bay Model during the Cuyahoga Victim Recovery Test for the tour. In 1979, however, the past 7 years, we hope that you en- the Coast Guard, the Patuxent and Corps completed a climate con- joyed it and that your visit was both GtNestev rivers prototype survey trolled visitors center which allowed fruitful and enlightening. 4 B-25n CHESAPEAKE SAY STUDY BALTIMORE DISTRICT * CORPS OF ENGINEERS N 'VA CIRCULAR E VOLUME3 JUNE 1984 Study Summary The first objective of the The publication of the The other major problem study was met in 1973 when Future Conditions Report investigated during this third the Chesapeake Bay Exist- marked both the achieve- and final portion of the Chesa- ing Conditions Report was ment of the second study ob- peake Bay Study was tidal published. Divided into a jective, and the beginning of flooding. Tidal flooding, in- The report on the Chesa- summary and four appen- work on the third and final duced by both hurricanes and peake Bay Study will be pub- dices, this report presented, study objective: the formula- northeasters, periodically lished in October 1984. The in considerable detail, an tion of solutions of priority inundates the low lying mar- draft report is currently un- overview of the Bay area and problems. One of the major gins of the Bay. This flooding dergoing a review by higher economy, as well as a survey problem areas in Chesapeake has, over the years, caused authority and other involved of its water and land re- Bay investigated during this millions of dollars in damage, public agencies and the pub- sources, and a description of third study phase was the as well as privation and in- lic. The final report will be for- its biota and hydrodynamics. physical and biological im- convenience to those living in warded to the U.S. Congress. The publication of the pact on the estuarine system flood prone areas. Copies of the report will be Future Conditions Report of depressed freshwater in- By screening flood prone placed in designated public in 1978 satisfied the second flow. Of concern was not only areas, those communities libraries as well as the objective of the study. This re- low flows due to long-term susceptible to serious flbod- libraries of educational in- port not only described the periods of drought, but also ing were identified, and stitutions in the Chesapeake present use of the resource the additive effects of con- studied further to determine Bay region. A copy of the re- but presented the demands sumptive losses due to the extent of damage, and the port can be obtained f rom the then anticipated to be placed steadily increasing munici- feasibility of both structural Baltimore District next fall for on the resource to the year pal, industrial and agricultural and nori-structural flood the cost of reproduction. 2020, assessed the "sys- use of water from the many damage mitigation meas- The culmination of many tem's" ability to meet the rivers tributary to the estuary. ures. Structural flood protec- years of work, this document future demands, identified For instance, our studies tion measures include, for ex- reports on the comprehen- existing and potential future show that estimated con- ample, the construction of sive study effort required to problems and conflicts, and sumptive losses for the year flood walls or levees, while meet the following stated ob- outlined general means to 2020 could further reduce non-structural measures in- jectives of the Chesapeake satisfy the resource needs. drought flows, thereby in- clude regulatory actions pro- Bay Study: Tropical Storm Agnes, creasing the salinity an hibiting the occupation of 1. Assess the existing phys- occurring during June 1972, amount sufficient to ad- flood prone areas, flood ical, chemical, biological, subjected Chesapeake Bay versely affect aquatic life in proofing of structures, and economic and environ- to massive amounts of fresh- the Bay. the development of early mental conditions of Ches- water, sediment and other The Low Freshwater In- warning or evacuation apeake Bay and its water pollutants. A report published flow Test on the hydraulic systems to protect life and resources. in October 1975 documented model provided the data to property. the effects of this storm on determine how salinity in the Of the 60 communities an- 2. Project the future water re- the estuarine system. system varied between long- alyzed during this study, six source needs of Chesa- With the exception of the term average inflow and were recommended for fu- peake Bay to the year Tropical Storm Agnes Re- drought flows. In turn, these ture detailed survey scope 2020. port, each of the above re- salinity data were used in study. The work done in de- 3. Formulate and recom- ports have been deposited in estimating the potential veloping the conclusions and mend solutions to priority representative libraries in the ecological impact on aquatic recommendations of the tidal problems using the Chesa- Chesapeake Bay area. They life in Chesapeake Bay. The flooding study is examined in peake Bay Hydraulic have alsq been stc#ed in the results of the analysis of both further detail elsewhere in the Model. archives of the National salinity and biological data brochure. Technical Information Serv- are examined in more detail ice. in the article on the Low Freshwater Study. B-251 Low Freshwater Tests for four different FIGURE 1.: Plan View Summer Surface Salinities, "Base Average" freshwater inflow conditions Condition Inflow Study were conducted on the hy- draulic model to determine the effect on salinity of re- The Low Freshwater In- ductions in freshwater inflow: flow Study investigated in de- * Base Average-long-term tail the effects of projected average inflow conditions future depressed freshwater * Future Average-Base inf(ow on physical and bi- I Average inflow reduced by ological aspects of Chesa- projected consumntive peake Bay. The many aquatic losses in 2020 species that live in the Bay, Base Drought-historical either permanently (e.g. ' drought inflow conditions oysters) or temporarily during for 1963 to 1966 a portion of their life cycle Future Drought-historical (e.g., striped bass), are known droughtof 1963tol966, re- to depend on established duced by projected con- complex physical, chemical ............ . and biological patterns in the sumptive losses in 2020. system for many aspects of Future inflows were simu- Salinity Zones their reproduction and sur- lated based on projections of vival. Due to the concerns of water use and consumptive ED . . ..... estuarine resource man- losses for the year 2020. 0510,. agers and biologists about Most of the increase in con- 9B.". Oiszoppt the effects of severely de- sumptive losses will result 20 25 ppt pressed freshwater inflow from growth in domestic, in- and rapidly increasing rates clustrial, agricultural and of consumptive losses of electric power generation water, the Low Freshwater water useage. The projec- Inflow Study was initated, tions show an average re- Because of its importance in duction to summer Bay in- influencing the distribution of flows of approximately 11 FIGURE 2. Plan View Summer Surface Salinities, "Future Drought" estuarine organisms, salinity percent by the year 2020. Condition was the major variable used However, consumptive to predict habitat changes for losses would be nearly 60 a group of selected Bay or- percent of the natural stream- ganisms. The study was con- flow if the driest September of ducted in a series of steps: record (September 1966) �Tests on the Chesapeake were to recur in 2020. Bay Hydraulic Model to de- The assessment of salinity change was done using sea- termine the salinity change sonal average salinities. In associated with four fresh- water inflow conditions; general, salinity levels in the �Assessment of the effects Bay range from freshwater at of increased salinity on the the head of the estuary to near seawater concentra- habitat of selected study tions at the Virginia capes. species-, The Future Average fresh- �Convening of a panel of Bay water inflow condition re- scientists tojudge the signi- sulted in salinity increases .......... ficance of the changes in that were between 1 and 3 habitat. parts per thousand higher Salinity zones �Evaluation of effects of in- than the Base Average condi- 0. 1 creased salinity on Bay re- tion. This was considered to sources such as recrea- be the long-term average (or 5 10p, tion, commercial fishing ''permanent") increase in 1. Is - and water supply-, Bay salinity expected by the 15 ZO - 20 25 dentification of the most year 2020. 2530 promising solutions to the Futurp DrougIRt condi- problems caused by reduc- tions, which, as noted, reflect ed freshwater inflow to the combined influences of Chesapeake Bay. future consumptive losses 2 B-252 and drought, cause predicted under Future Average condi- that use the Bay as a source While very significant in- increases in salinity of be- tions, and about 80 percent of water supply. crease in the number of slips tween 3 and 8 ppt. The great- by the Future Drought. The principal components susceptible to shipworm est change in salinity oc- Oysters, already affected by of the Bay commercial fish- could occur, especially dur- curred in the mid-point of the the disease in more than 50 ery are the oyster, blue crab, ing a Future Drought event, Bay mainstem and its major percent of their range, were menhaden, soft clam and uncertainties concerning the tributaries. Changes of lesser given priority status in this striped bass. Together, these degree of impact made ship- magnitude were noted near study. species comprise about 96 worms a low priority species. the freshwater and ocean Ecologically, one of the percent of the $70 million e Waterfowl hunters boundaries. most significant impacts was average yearly harvest. would be indirectly affected In addition, the model tests the reduction in size of the Estimates show that these by reductions in the foods of indicate that the Bay would lower salinity zones extend- clockside revenues could de- favored Bay waterfowl. Can- recover from these highpr ing between about 0 and 5 cline $17 million per year vasback ducks, for example, salinities within three to six ppt. Many varieties of finfish, under Future Average condi- would decline because of months following a return to including the important Bay tions. A Future Drought event losses of the clam, Macoma. average freshwater inflows. species striped bass (rock- potentially could result in Other ducks, such as red- Areas near rivers with higher fish) and shad, use this highly economic losses over a head, pintail and widgeon, discharges recover most productive area for spawning period of years totaling $325 would be affected significant- quickly. The Base Average and as a nursery area for their million. The duration of the ef- ly by reductions in SAV. and Future Drought Summer young, Reductions in this fect would include the time Macoma and SAV were pri- surface salinity distributions zone are estimated at 20 per- needed for recovery of the are portrayed in Figures 1 cent due to Future Average various important species. ority study species. and 2. conditions, and nearly 80 per- Oysters and soft clams ac- @ Sportfishing is a major The potential biological im- cent due to the Future counted for more than 95 per- recreational acitivily in Ches- pacts resulting from the Drought. The very substantial cent of these losses. Eco- apeake Bay. Through its many support facilities and predicted salinity changes importance of these low nomic losses due to reduc- services, sport fishing con- were identified in a joint salinity areas made their pro- tions in striped bass and shad tributed an estimated $507 effort among the Corps of tection a major study priority. were small. Traditions of Engineers, scientific advisors Significant reductions also oystering and those asso- million to the economy in to the study and Western Eco- were predicted for the low ciated with the Chesapeake 1979. Reduced freshwater in- Systems Technology. inc., salinity varieties of sub- Bay waterman were addi- flow could upset the spawn- Bothell, Washington. merged aquatic vegetation tional study concerns. ing and nursery areas of Changes in salinity were used (SAV) and the many bottom Recreational actitivites, many species, including the to deline the habitat and dwelling animals which lead such as swimming, boating, traditional favorites: striped habitat change for 55 repre- a more-or-less stationary ex- waterfowl hunting and sport bass and shad. To some ex- sentative Bay species. The istence. The abundance of fishing, also would be af- tent these losses would pf ob- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service many varieties of rooted SAV fected by decreases in fresh- ably be replaceable by formed a panel of expert Bay is presently very low in the water inflow to the Bay. species of marine orig I n, scientists, called the Biota Bay, and the significance of Changes in the distribution such as bluefish and weak- Evaluation Panel (B.E.P.), to this in the ecosystem is well and abundance of species fish. If this is the case, economic losses to the .nterpret how these habitat known. The principal habitat would affect the quality of region probably would be changes might affect species area would be reduced by 10 recreational opportunities small. Despite this, it was ,iealth and productivity. percent in the Future Aver- and possibly could do eco- considered a priority that The most notable habitat age condition and 40 percent nomic harm to the Bay's striped bass and shad be pro- reductions were for the in the Future Drought. Im- large recreation industry, A tected for the enjoyment and species that live in the middle pacts of similar significance summary of the effects on use of present and future gen- to upper reaches of the Bay were identified for the in- recreation: and its tributaries. Compared habitants of Bay bottoms in e Sea nettles currently erations of Bay fishermen. Nith the Base Average condi- the lower and middle salinity detract from swimming and Increases in salinity will Jon, the most severe habitat areas. Species such as soft other water-contact pursuits also affect the many in- osses occurred during clam, and another clam, along 85 percent of all Bay dustries and two munic- :-uture Drought conditions. Macoma, would be reduced beaches. An increase in the ipalities that use the Bay as a Fhis was followed by the significantly under both density of these organisms source of water supply. Gen- 3ase Drought and Future Future Average and Future during droughts would be the erally, the increased operat- Average scenarios, in that Drought conditions. primary effect of reduced ing costs to the industries )rder. Most of the economic and freshwater inflow. A low would be small. To offset the Oysters were one of the social impacts identified in priority was placed on the sea possibility of health risks, the 'nost severely affected Bay the study were direct func- nettle in the planning effort. public systems at Havre cle )rganisms. Because of the in- tions of changes in the Bay's Grace, Md., and Hopewell, -reases in salinity, and sub- biology. Assessments were Pleasure boating slips Va., have developed con- tingency plans to protect their ;equent extentions up-Bay of conducteid for thetcom- in the Bay could be affected water sources from salt intru- he disease organism MSX. merical fishing and recrea- by increased distributions of sion. he B.E.P. predicted oysters tion industries and for the woodboring clams, common- @oulcl be reduced 30 percent municipalities and industries ly known as shipworms. 3 B-253 Following definition of the Management measures, in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Patapsco River. Surface problems relating to low flow, such as oyster bed restora- 2) Assure all future ac- salinities became slightly a planning effort was under- tion, catch restrictions and tions related to Chesapeake fresher and bottom salinities taken to identify alternative fintish restocking, also were Bay and its resources fully slightly more saline with solutions. Measures found to investigated. While detailed consider the effects of those channel enlargement. Over- be most promising include plans were not developed, proposed actions on fresh- all, the installation of larger those that actually supple- these types of plans were water inflow to the Bay. navigation channels would ment freshwater inflows and nevertheless judged to be Where possible, all actions have a very slight impact on those that are oriented to potentially feasible and bene- should incorporate features Chesapeake Bay. directly managing the de- ficial for important target that minimize the adverse im- Work then proceeded on pleted Bay resources. species such as oysters, pacts associated with the Potomac River estuary The supplemental flow al- striped bass and shad. It was droughts and the increasing water supply and wastewater ternatives include reservoir further determined that man. consumptive losses of water. dispersion test. This test was storage, conservation, re- agement measures could be 3) Consider conservation designed to explore the strictions on growth and used in conjunction with flow in the development of new ramifications of using the drought emergency meas- supplementation plans to water supply plans and em- Potomac River estuary as a ures. All of these would in- maximize benefits to the phasize new methods to de- supplementary source of crease streamflows above Bay's most valued species crease consumptive losses water supply for Washington, those projected for the year and other resources. of water. D.C., during periods of 2020. These measureswould in summary, the most 4) Undertake research drought. The primary con- be either permanently in ef- promising types of alter- and data collection needed to cern arising out of using fect (conservation and native, including both flow better understand Bay proc- Potomac estuary water is the growth restrictions) or effec- supplementation and man- esses and develop appropri- possibility of recycling waste- tive only temporarily during agement measures, include: ate ecosystem models. water discharged from treat- periods of drought (reservoir * Conservation 5) Undertake studies to ment plants in the area and storage and drought emer- * Reservoir Storage determine the effects of the the intrusion of saltwater into gency measures). Plans were e Growth Restrictions Chesapeake and Delaware the public water supply. Be- developed at various levels of e oyster Bed Restoration Canal on the salinities of cause of a lack of funding, detail for all Bay tributaries in e Catch Restrictions Chesapeake Bay. this test was shortened and which meaningful and iden- * Finfish Restocking 6) Develop a predictive not all of the planned fresh- tifiable benefits were attain- Based on the above find- system to relate the volume water inflow conditions were able. A rigorous two phase ings, the recommendations and timing of freshwater in- run on the model. Data col- screening process was con- of the Low Freshwater Inflow flows to Bay salinities. This lected during the tests in- ducted for conservation and Study are that appropriate system would require Bay dicate that under severe reservoir storage. A principal agencies or institutions: salinity monitoring and three- drought conditions the salt- screening criteria was the in- 1) Further refine the most dimensional estuarine water could penetrate to the crease in the amount of habi- promising plans for coping models. upper estuary and the public tat provided within the de- with the effects of consump- water supply intake beyond fined capability of each tive water losses and drought Chain Bridge. Analysis of measure. available model and proto- type data suggest, however, that the suitability and treat ability of estuary water foi The Chesapeake Bay Model Tests public consumption may bc more a function of salinity levels during drought thar The Chesapeake Bay bor Test. The overall objec- posed 50-foot channel built degradation due the dis, Hydraulic Model, the world's tive of this study was to deter- into the model, was conduct- charge of wastewater in uiii largest estuarine model, was mine the hydrodynamic ed to establish the salinity estuary. a finely tuned tool designed changes, if any, in Chesa- and velocity conditions that The Office of the Chief o for comprehensive estuarine peake Bay that would result would occur with the project. Engineers requested tha study capability. It was used from the proposed enlarge- Data from the base and tests simulating oil spills ir in several important studies ment of the navigation chan- plan tests were compared to the Norfolk-Hampton Road, of complicated tidal hydrau- nels servicing the port of establish changes resulting area be done on the Chesa lics problems not yet amen- Baltimore. from the enlarged channels. peake Bay Model to deter able to solution by math- The model testing work The tests revealed little or no mine the probable dispersior ematical methods. was done in two phases: change in velocities through- of this material in the lowe Following the completion 1) A base test to deter- out the Bay or salinity pat- Chesapeake Bay and th, of construction and verifying mine benchmark salinity and terns in the Bay below the James River. Spills varying ii that model hyradulics and current velocity conditions in Potomac River. North of the volume between 7,000 an, salinity were in acceptablE the model with the existing 42 Potomac River, however, 500,000 barrels were SiML agreement with the proto- -foot deep navigation chan- slight salinity changes were lated by injecting appropriat type, the Corps of Engineers nel. recorded in the deep channel quantities of crude oil into th started on the Baltimore Har- 2) A plan test, with the pro- areas entering and in the model. in turn, the dispersio 4 B-254 of the oil with time was tests were conducted. In- for Old Dominion University draulic model also provided a recorded by special cameras cluded were the Cuyahoga and the Air Florida Debris means to reach large num- as well as by observers. The Victim Recovery Test for the Recovery Test, which was bersof peoplewith general in- data collected during this Coast Guard, the Patuxent done in conjunction with the formation about the program. work were forwarded to the and Chester Rivers Prototype rescue efforts for the Air The film was shown on local Office of the Chief Of Survey, the Lafayette River Florida airplane accident. television and was used over Engineers to be used in Waste Water Dispersion Test the next several years for evaluating a permit for a pro- literally hundreds of presen- posed oil refinery in the tations around the study area. Elizabeth River. During the preparation of The Low Freshwater In- the Existing Condition Re- flow Problem Identification Public Participation -its Role In The port, the Citizens Program for Test was performed in con- Chesapeake Bay, Inc., (CPCB) nection with the Low Fresh- Chesapeake Bay Study was formed and adopted by water Inflow Study. Its pur- the Corps as the study's in- pose was to determine the formal Citizen's Advisory changes in salinity caused by The problems of Chesa- the early stages of the study Committee. Members of decreased freshwater in- peake Bay are of such com- were the formation of the CPCB reviewed and provided flows during a reoccurrence plexity and magnitude and in- study organization; the comments on both the Exist- of the 1960's drought, as well volve so many varied dis- holding of a series of public ing and Future Conditions re- as under conditions of ciplines that no single entity meetings; and the prepara- ports. Prior to publication of average freshwater inflow. could be expected to have tion, review and coordination the Future Conditions Report, The data from the tests per- the requisite personnel, of the Plan of Study. The a series of three public meet- formed in this series formed equipment and technical public involvement activities, ings was held around the Bay the basis from which deter- know how to accomplish the particularly the coordination area to present the prelimi- minations of the biological many special studies needed with the participants, were inary findings of the report and physical effects of low to complete this comprehen- very important in shaping the and to solicit public com- freshwater inflows were iden- sive investigation. Such ex- overall scope and direction of ments. In 1978, The first tified. The results of the Low pertise does exist, however, the study. News Circular for the study Freshwater Inflow Study are among the many agencies During the preparation of was also published and discussed elsewhere in this which historically have been the existing and future condi- distributed to a mailing list of brochure. responsible for certain tions reports, there were a nearly 10,000 interested par- The Nanticoke River toxic features of water resources significant number of impor- ties. material dispersion test was development. The study was tant public involvement ac- As noted above, the public done at the request of the therefore conceived as a tivities. The study partici- involvement program was a State of Maryland. Large coordinated partnership pants met on numerous very active one. A wide range quantities of toxic material, among federal, state and occasions to shape the of public involvement meas- stored in containers in an ad- local agencies and interested scope and content of these ures were employed to both vanced state of deterioration, scientific institutions. Each reports. The study partici- disseminate information and were found at Sharptown, involved agency was asked pants provided valuable ad- solicit advice. Further, the Md., on the Nanticoke River. to provide leadership in those vice and support relative to measures used were tar- State officials were con- disciplines in which it had the recommendation for an geted for a wide spectrum of cerned about the occurrence special competence. To fur- expanded study in 1978. This Bay interests from the gen- of a spill of this material into nish the necessary avenues phase of the study was also eral public to Bay scientists the river, and how it would be for public participation, an marked with a'number of and statellocal officials. dispersed over time. The Advisory Group, a Steering special public involvement Public involvement ac- material was later removed Committee, and five task events related to the model, tivities during the last stages to areas of safe storage with- groups were established. including the groundbreaking of the study were similar to out incident. Management of the ceremony in 1973 and the those conducted during the The Norfolk Harbor Chan- Chesapeake Bay Study was dedication ceremony in first two phases of the pro- nel Deepening Test was per- the responsibility of the 1976. The dedication cere- gram. Advisory Group and formed for the Norfolk Dis- Baltimore District Engineer. mony marked the start of Steering Committee meet- trict, Corps of Engineers. its His staff included profes- public tours of the model. The ings were held to seek advice purpose was to determine the sionals from the fields of model tours were extremely on the conduct and findings changes in the salinity engineering, economics, and beneficial in providing the of the Tidal Flooding and Low regimes and current patterns the social, physical, and biol- public with an understanding Freshwater Inflow Studies. caused by deepening the ogical sciences. Hydraulic of both the study and the Two additional news circulars channels into Norfolk Harbor modeling expertise was pro- complexities of Chesapeake were published to keep the to 55 feet. The data from the vided by personnel from the Bay. The release in April 1973 general public advised of test were used to prepare the Corps of Engineers' Water- of a specially prepared film study progress and findings. environmental impact state- ways Experiment 9tation in tilled "Planning for a Better In cooperation with the U.S. ment for this project. Vicksburg, Miss. Bay" which presented a dis- Environmental Protection In addition to these major The most important public cussion of the Chesapeake Agency, Maryland and Vir- tests, several other smaller involvement activities during Bay and the study and hy- ginia, two large portable B-255 5 displays were prepared in the auditorium for a 20-minute had three primary objectives: structural measures for tidal January 1979. These displays narrated slide show which fur- (1) to provide a better flood protection in those com- consisted of a description with ther described the Bay and its understanding of the tidal munities where it was found appropriate photos and problems and the Corps' flood stage-frequency re- to be economically and graphics of the Bay related study and hydraulic model. lationship; (2) to define the en- environmentally feasible and programs of the Corps, EPA Lastly, the visitor received a vironmental and socio- socially acceptable. and the two states. The 30-minute guided tour of the economic impacts of tidal Serious tidal flooding in the displays were circulated model with an even more de- flooding; and (3) to recom- Chesapeake Bay region is throughout the Bay area for tailed discussion of how the mend structural or non- caused by either hurricanes exhibit in public buildings, model operated and a de- schools, festivals and other scription of the testing being appropriate Bay related conducted at that time. Gen- FIGURE 3. Floodprone Communities Selected For Detailed Study events. In November 1979, erally, the tours were provided the Corps and the Chesa- three times a day and five - peake Research Consortium, days a week for the entire Inc., jointly sponsored an period between May'976 and educational seminar to dis- May 1983. The model also cuss the Bay and the capabil- was open on selected week- ities and potential uses of the ends for such events as Ches- model. The seminar was held apeake Appreciation Days. at the newly opened visitor During the seven year period center at the hydraulic model the model was open, approx- and was attended by engi- imately 120,000 people from neers, scientists and acade- every state and numerous micians from the Bay area. foreign countries visited the Perhaps the most signifi- model and received some ap- cant public involvement ac- preciation and understanding tivity of the study was the of both the Bay and the Corps' model tour program. Although program. Rock Hall this program began in May The public involvement ALI Am I ", ., @ic 1976 following the dedication program was judged to be of the model, it was greatly en- quite extensive during the final hanced in August 1979 with study phase. The model tours the completion of the visitor and related events were prob- **St. Michaels center. The visitor center ably the most visible activities; Tilgihman is. facility and tour provided a however, the coordination 41- complete Chesapeake Bay and review work with the 'Cambridge study participants and other and Hydraulic Model ex. interested parties was most perience. The lobby of the important in developin( visitor center had numerous 3 the Snow Hill final reco 'of the displays which explained the mmenclations N- Bay and the hydraulic model. study. The visitor then could enter @z'@@',@ocomoke City Crisfield Tangier Is. West Point flooding has caused sig nifi- Tidal Flooding cant human suffering and Cape Charles Study millions of dollars damage. 0, Because of the magnitude Poquoson...,' and Bay-wide nature of the N Tidal flooding of low lying problem it was chosen as one areas adjacent to the Chesa- of the1wo prioriry studies in N o rf o@kla- .mpton Rds. peake Bay shoreline is an oc- the final phase of the Chesa- ? - casional natural phenom- peake Bay Study. 'Al. enon. Over the years, tidal The Tidal Flooding Study 6 B-256 or "northeasters." The hur- given to the various structural greater. None of the com- Other Findings ricanes of August 1933, Oc- and non-structural measures munities in Maryland met this tober 1954 (Hazel) and that could be used to prevent criterion. In Virginia, how- August 1955 (Connie) and the tidal flood damages. ever, the benef it to cost ratios "northeasters'' of March Generally speaking the of some of the possible solu- The Existing and Future 1962 are all examples of types of structural mea@ures tions for Poquoson, Tangier Conditions reports include storms which caused considered were levees or Island and the Hampton descriptions of the physical, millions of dollars of tidal flood walls. Both are con- Roads area were sufficiently economic, social and biolog- flood damage. structed near the shoreline to high to warrant future, more ical conditions of the Bay, and The initial step in the study protect landside develop- detailed studies. projections of resource re- was to identify those com- ment from inundation by tidal While in most cases fed- quirements for the year 2020. munities or urban areas that flood waters. Non-structural eral action could not be Together, the reports docu- were subject to tidal flooding. solutions included regulatory justified, certain steps can be ment the importance of the During this initial screening, actions by communities to taken by the locals to reduce Bay and its many resources approximately 60 com- avoid land use patterns which the effects of tidal floods. One within an area extending ap- munities or urban areas hav- conflicted with tidal flooding of the most promising is the proximately to the head of ing a population of 1000 or or individual measures by development of an accurate tide around the Bay (i.e., the greater were found they had property owners to prevent tidal flood forecasting and "Bay Region"). In addition to potential tidal f iood problems. tidal flood damage. Some warning system. Included in the waterborne transporta- Subsequent analyses of non-structural measures the system would be such tion network on which much those 60 communities reveal- considered were flood proof- items as advanced tidal of the economic develop- ed that only 12 areas had ing, relocation of structures, surge forecasts, communi- ment of the region has been serious enough tidal flood flood forecasting, evacua- cations networks to inform based, the reports show that problems to warrant detailed tion, acquistion, demolition residents of potential flood- the Bay and its tributaries analyses. Those communi- and a public awareness pro- ing, permanent markers in offer a wide variety of recre- ties selected for detailed gram. critical areas to indicate flood ation opportunities, a pro- study are listed on Table 1 Both structural and non- heights, planned evacuation ductive environment for pro- and their locations are shown structural measures were routes and designation of duction of fish and wildlife, a on Figure 3. found to reduce or prevent shelters. Another step is to source of water supply for the adverse effects of tidal encourage land use patterns both city and industry and a flooding. Structural meas- in floodprone areas which are site for disposal of a wide ures, while effective, were ex- compatible with periodic tidal variety of waste products. pensive and usually produc- flooding. These land use pat- A projected doubling of the Table 1 ed adverse environmental terns should be established area population is an in- Communities With impacts, In addition, resi- at the local level through dicator of the added pressure Potentially Serious dents often were opposed to comprehensive planning that will be exerted on the Bay Tidal Flooding structural solutions on aes- documents, zoning ordi- and its limited resources by thetic grounds and because nances or land use regula- the year 2020, Notable in- Maryland Virginia direct access to the Bay's tions. Key to all'of the above creases are expected in the Cambridge Cape Charles shoreline was hindered. Non- actions is the need for more development of land, water Crisfield Hampton Roads* Pocomoke City Poquoson structural solutions usually accurate forecasts of tidal supply, waterborne com- Rock Hall West Point were less expensive and less flood stages. Further in- merce, electrical power and Snow Hill Tangier Island environmentally damaging vestigations of tidal flooding recreation. St. Michaels than structural projects. should include development Recent computations by Tilghman Island Voluntary participation by of the storm surge model the U.S. Department of Com- *includes the cities of Chesapeake, nearly all residents and needed to make these fore- merce indicate the emer- Hampton, Norfolk and Portsmouth businesses is required, how- nasts. gence of a somewhat slower ever, to make a community- In light of the findings dis- growth rate than predicted in wide non-structural program cussed above, the recom- the Future Conditions Re- effective. In most com- mendation of the Tidal port. Despite this, future The next step in the study munities, combination,; of Flooding Study is that the demands for use of the Bay was to conduct flood damage structural and non-structural Corps of Engineers conduct and its resources will in- surveys in each of the 12 measures were found to be detailed tidal flooding studies evitably occur. A continued selected communities. the best plans for tidal flood in the Poquoson, Tangier awareness and concern for These surveys identified protection. Island and Hampton Roads emerging conflicts is war- those sections of each com- The federal government areas of Virginia. Further, any ranted. munity that were most sus- can participate in a flood con- additional tidal flooding The report on Tropical ceptible to tidal f looding. They trol project only if the average studies should include the Storm Agnes documented also established the relation- annual value of the damage development and verification the effects of the storm ship between tidal flood prevented by it exceeds the of a mathematical storm which, in June 1972, un- stages and expected dam- annual cost of consVuction, surge model capable of leashed the full force of her ages. Given the character operation and maintenance. forecasting tidal flood stages destructive power on the and extent of the flood prob- In other words, the benefit to and developing stage- Bay's drainage basin. Due to lem, consideration then was cost ratio must be one or frequencies. the effects of Agnes, many 7 B-257 communities in the river reports, and the Agnes re- provements at Baltimore and b) Establish a central basins tributary to Chesa- port. These are: Norfolk harbors and the ap- data repository and retrieval peake Bay were completely 1) Authorize the Corps of proaches to the C & D Canal system for all Chesapeake isolated and thousands of Engineers to initiate studies and other locations in Chesa- Bay related information. people were left homeless. peake Bay. c) Initiate studies of the Ecological effects of the of the more immediate Bay resource problems identified effects of high freshwater in- storm also were large. The in the Future Conditions Re- 2) The appropriate agen- flow on Chesapeake Bay. Bay life most affected by the port. These include: cies and institutions endeav- massive freshwater inflows orto: were species such as soft a) Develop water sup- a) Update the Future clam and oyster. These im- ply and drought management Conditions Report to serve as mobile species were intoler- strategies that will optimize a water r6source data base ant to the extended period of use of existing water supplies and to renew perspective on reduced salinity that occurred in the Bay drainage basin and existing and potential future in the Bay following the minimize reductions in fresh- problems and conflicts in storm. Other effects in the water inflow to the Bay. the Bay Area. Bay because of Agnes result- b) Develop plans from ed from the large influxes of a Bay-wide perspective for nutrients, sediment, toxic dredged material disposal materials and debris. that will allow for future chan- Thus, in addition to the re- nel maintenance and im- commendations presented earlier for low freshwater in- flow and tidal flooding, other recommendations result from the findings of. the Ex- isting and Future Conditions US Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, BALTIMORE CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1715 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 8 B-258 OTHER MAJOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES STUDY j J@ILESTON - I " MAJOR EVENTS ES m STUDY INITIATE MODEL DESIGN FORMATION OF INITIATION ADVISORY GROUP lol ADV. GROUP MTG. a) 4 CORPS ACCEPTS LAND FOR INITIAL PUBLIC MODEL FROM STATE OF MO. z MEETINGS START SHELTER DESIGN -4 ADV. GROUP MTG. > ESTABLISH STEERING COMMITTEE -TASK GPS. PREL. PLAN OF STUDY to (Al 0) GOVERNORS CONFERENCE I PUBLISHED GO ON CHESAPEAKE DAY c X > cl) CI) m to ADY. GROUP MTG. PROTOTYPE DATA _E_ APPROVED COLLECTION INITIATED PLAN OF STUD .MONETARY AUTOMATION AOV, GROUP MTO. ACT OF 1969 STEERING COM. MTG. ADV. GROUP MTG. to CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP -4 ESTABLISHED STEERING COMMITTEE MTG. TROPICAL STORM ADV. GROUP MTG. AGNES to 4 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROP. m x ACT OF 1973 START SHELTER CONST. U) RELEASE CORPS FILM ON BAY PROGRAM GROUND BREAKING CEREMONY 4 cn > AOV. GROUP MTG. ca IT! z PUBLISH EXISTING 10 ADV. GROUP MTG. CONDITIONS REPORT c m 0 C: AGNES SYMPOSIUM z (D c 4 0 m START MODEL CONST. m m cn PROTOTYPE DATA COLL. COMPLETED m > COMPLETE SHELTER CONST. 0 0 "a 0 'n M z ADV. GROUP A STEERING cl) > EPA CHESAPEAKE COMMITTEE MTG. (D X BAY STUDY AUTHORIZED 7, 14 m 0 PUBLISH AGNES En z z ADV. GROUP MTG. REPORT - a) n > ADV. GROUP MTG. 0 COMPLETE MODEL CONST. > MODEL DEDICATION-START OF TOURS u) U) PUBLIC MEETINGS z --i START MODEL VERIFICATION m -4 -1 c: M m 81-STATE CONFERENCE z ON CHESAPEAKE BAY A w 4 cn -4 PU13LISH FUTURE ADV. GROUP MEETING CONDITIONS REPORT COMPLETE MODEL VERIFICATION STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING .A START I&I MODEL TEST co DEDICATE T.W. DENNY MEMORIAL 4 NEWS CIRCULAR PUBLISH REVISED 03 PLAN OF STUDY SENATOR MATHIAS JOINT BAY DISPLAY COMPLETED - OVERSIGHT HEARINGS MODEL VISITOR CENTER COMPLETED A BI-STATE WORKING to NEWS CIRCULAR 4 C MMITTEE ESTABLISHED (D EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR AT MODEL CHESAPEAKE DAY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED ADV. GROUP MEETING STEERING COMMITTEE MEETIISLGS ON MODEL OPERATION to Do CHES. BAY RESEARCH COORDINATION ACT JOINT ADV. G.P. & STEERING TIDAL FLOODING 10 COMMITTEE MTG. STAGE 11 REPORT m v -A STEERING COMMITTEE MTO. (D m co COMPLETE MODEL TESTING BIOTA EVALUTION PANEL MTG. SIOTA EVALUTION PANEL MTG. cl) BIOTA EVALUTION PANEL MTG. SIOTA EVALUTION PANEL MTG. < -A CAI m NEWS CIRCULAR EPA CHES. BAY STUDY COMPLETED STEERING COMMITTEE MGT. 00 ca 01-STATE CONFERENCE ON CHESAPEAXE BAY PUBLISH DRAFT FINAL REPORT PUBLISH FINAL REPORT 00 PUIII IC NOIICF CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT C THE CHESAPEAKE 13AY HYDRAULIC LVIODEL Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Baltimore, Maryland September 1984 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLEMENT C - THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL Table of Contents Item Page Introduction C-1 Authority C-1 Study Purpose and Objectives C-2 Relationship between Study and Model C-2 Purpose of Supplement C-3 The Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model C-3 Location C-3 Description C-3 Model Limits and Scale C-3 Model Appurtenances C-6 Computer Facilities C-6 Freshwater Inflow Control System C-7 Water Supply System C-7 Tide Generators C-7 Saltwater Supply System C-8 Skimming Wiers C-8 Mixing Wiers C-8 Induced Mixing Bubbler System C-8 Tide Gages C-11 Water Level Detectors C-11 Current Velocity Meters C-11 Vacuum Sampling System C-11 Salinity Meters C-15 Model Capabilities C- 15 Shelter and Model Construction C- 15 Prototype Data C-16 Model Verification C-16 Disposition of Model C- 17 Formulation of the Testing Program C-18 Initial Model Testing Program C-20 Expanded Study Program C-23 Hydraulic Model Testing C-26 Corps of Engineers' Testing C-26 Baltimore Harbor and Channels Deepening Test C-26 Low Freshwater Inflow Problem Identification Test C-34 Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Test C-45 Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening Test C-53 James River Oil Dispersion Test C-61. Testing for Others C-61 Nanticoke River, Maryland, Dye Dispersion Test C-61 Disaster Recovery Testing C-65 i Table of Contents (Cont'd) Item Page Patuxent and Chester River Prototype Survey Design Test C-65 Lafayette River Wastewater Dispersion Test C-66 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page C-1 Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model and Shelter C-4 C-2 Model Limits and Field Data Stations C-5 C-3 Primary Tide Generator C-9 C-4 Skimming Wier Operation C-10 C-5 Permanently Mounted Point Gage C-12 C-6 Water-level Detecting Instrument C-13 C-7 Current Meter and Salinity Meter C- 14 Baltimore Harbor and Channels Deepening Test C-8 28 Day Lunar Tidal Cycle C-29 C-9 Salinity and Tide Gage Stations C-31 C-10 Velocity Sampling Station Location Map C-32 C-11 Salinity Sampling Locations C-33 Low Freshwater Inflow Test C- 12 Freshwater Inflow Points C-36 C-13 Steady State Wastewater Discharge Points C-37 C- 14 Location of Tidal Elevation Stations C-40 C-15 Salinity Stations C-41 Potomac Estuary Test C- 16 Location of Data Collection Stations C-50 C- 17 Salinity Profiles C-54 C_i& Salinity Time History, Phase 1 - Test 2 C-55 C-19 Dye Concentrations C-56 Norfolk Harbor Test C-20 Tidal Elevation Stations C-59 C-21 Velocity Stations C-60 C-22 Nanticoke River Test - Sampling Stations C-64 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page C-1 Potential Model Studies C_ 18 C-2 Problem Impact Indices C-21 C-3 Testing Conducted on Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model C-27 Low Freshwater Inflow Test C-4 Data Collected C-39 C-5 Velocity Station C-42 C-6 Freshwater Inflows C-44 i i LIST OF TABLES (Cont,d) Number Title Page Potomac Estuary Test C-7 Summary of Inflow and Withdrawal Conditions C-46 C-8 Wastewater Treatment Facilities C-48 C-9 Salinity Time of Arrival at Emergency Pumping Station (PO-16) C-52 C-10 Nanticoke River Test - Boundary Condition C-63 SUPPLEMENT C THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL INTRODUCTION The hydraulic model is one of the most versatile instruments available to the hydraulic engineer, water resources planner and scientist. In the Chesapeake Bay Study, the hydraulic model provided a means of reproducing to a manageable scale many natural events and man-made changes and thereby allowing the collection of the data necessary to assess the ronsequences of various happenings. As an instrument and physical display, the hydraulic model was unexcelled in its potential for the education of an interested public in the scope and magnitude of the problems and conflicts of use that ran beset this water resource. As an operational focal point, the model promoted more effective liaison among the agencies working in the Bay waters, helping to redure duplication of effort and leading to the accelerated spreading of knowledge among the interested parties. AUTHORITY The authority for the Chesapeake Bay Study and the construction of the hydraulic model is contained in Section 312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 adopted 27 October 1965, which reads as follows: (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to make a complete investigation and study of water utilization ancl control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the waters of the Baltimore Harbor and including, but not limited to, the following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of noxious weeds, water pollution, water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation. In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall construct, operate, and maintain in the State of Maryland a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay Basin and associated technical renter. Such model and center may be utilized, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary, by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in connection with any research, investigation, or study being carried on by them of any aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. The study authorized by this section shall be given priority. (b) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $6,000,000 to carry out this section. An additional appropriation for the study was provided in 'Section 3 of the River Basin Monetary Authorization Art of 1970 adopted 19 June 1970, which reads as follows: In addition to the previous authorization, the completion of the Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive Study, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, authorized by the River and Harbor Art of 1965 is hereby authorized at an estimated cost of $9YO00,000. C_ I As result of Tropical Storm Agnes, which caused extensive damage in Chesapeake bay, Public Law 92-607, the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1973, signed by the President on 31 October 1972, included 5275,000 for additional studies of the impact of the storm on Chesapeake Bay. STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Historically, measures taken to utilize and control the water and land resources of the Chesapeake Bay Basin have generally been oriented toward solving individual problems. The Chesapeake Bay Study provided a comprehensive study of the entire Ba y area in order that the most beneficial use be made of the water-related resources. The major objectives of the study were to: a. Assess the existing physical, chemical, biological, economic, and environmental conditions of Chesapeake Bay and its water resources. b. Project the future water resources needs of Chesapeake Bay to the year 2020. c. Formulate and recommend solutions to priority problems using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. The Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report published in 1973, met the first objective of the study by presenting a detailed inventory of the Chesapeake bay and its water resources. Divided into a summary and four appendices, the report presented an overview of the Bay area and the economy; a survey of the Bay's land resources and its use; and a description of the Bay's life forms and hydrodynamics. The Future Conditions _@L@eort published in 1976 provided a format for presenting the findings of the second phase of the Chesapeake Bay Study. Satisfying the second objective of the study, the report described the present use of the resource, presented the demands to be placed on the resource to the year 2020, assessed the ability of the resource to meet future demands, and identified general means to satisfy the projected resource needs. A summary of the findings of both the Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report may be found in Supplement A of this final report. It remains for this final report of the Chesapeake Bay Study to provide an overview of the entire study and to present the findings of the studies of the priority problems. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL Simply stated, the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model was a scientific tool used by the water resources planners to analyze the hydrodynamics of the Chesapeake i3ay and tributaries. The model was used to analyze problems that could not be resolved from text books, experience or mathematical treatment alone. The model provided an accurate reproduction of the Bay's physical processes and permitted the simulation of both natural and man-made events. The data f rom these simulations were necessary to understand the physical and, in turn, environmental consequences of the reoccurence of natural events and man-induced changes. Only through a melding of analytical studies and hydraulic model testing could the water resources planner develop a comprehensive plan that addresses some of the Bay's more serious problems. C- 2 PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENT The purpose of this supplement is to provide a description of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model and the testing that was conducted on the model. The description of the model includes the model's capabilities, the prototype data rollection program, model construction and verification and, lastly, the ultimate disposition of the model. The dis- russion of the model testing program is limited to an overview of each test to include the purpose of the test, the type(s) of data collected and a reference to the appropriate testing report. THE CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL LOCATION The hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay was located at Matapeake, Maryland, on a 60 acre tract of land donated by the State of Maryland. The site was on the Delmarva Peninsula, along Maryland Route 8 and approximately 3 miles south of the eastern terminus of the William Preston Lane Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake bay Bridge). It was within commuting distance of over 3,000,000 people being less than 50 miles from both Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland. DESCRIPTION MODEL LIMITS AND SCALE The physical model of Chesapeake Bay, constructed at Matapeake, Maryland, during the period October 1974-April 1976, was a fixed-bed model molded in concrete to conform to the bathymetry of the most recent National Ocean Survey (NOS) charts at the time of construction (Coast and Geodetic Survey prior to 1970). The model covered approxi- mately 8.6 acres and was completed housed in a 14-arre building for protection from the elements (Figure C-0. The building was approximately 1000 ft long and 600 ft wide. The molded area of the model as shown in Figure C-2 extended from offshore in the Atlantic Ocean to the head of tide for all tributaries emptying into Chesapeake Bay. The entire length of the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal extending to Delaware Bay was also modeled. Model reproduction extended to the +20 foot contour as shown on US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps. The hydraulic model was based on the equality of model and prototype Froude numbers reflecting similitude of gravitational effects as opposed to viscous effects (Reynolds number model). Geometric scales of the model were 1:1000 horizontally and 1:100 vertically, reflecting a scale distortion of 10:1. For distorted-scale models, the characteristic length is that of the vertical dimension. Therefore, the Froude number is defined as: Fn = V gD C_ 3 ...... . . .............. .. . ........ FIGURE C-1 CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL AND SHELTER C-4 zt* -V 5_ \C 8 MODEL SITE A4 .......... 6 0 L 7. L 7 144-, C B L -.J Y N, @'o 01 - - - - - - - - ------- Ir, 0 vp v I'm S 10 Rk A T L A N T C Legend -KATT 0 Tidal observation stations 0 C E A N 0 Range with one salinity and r- velocity station POR -T. 10 Range with number of salinity and velocity stations FIGURE C-2 MODEL LIMITS AND FIELD DATA STATIONS C-5 The following scales are determined by use of geometric relations and Froudian model laws: Characteristic Ratio Vertical length Or = 1:100 Horizontal length Lr = 1: - - Time Tr = L. /WD = 1: 100 _@b _r Velocity V 1.10 R_ @D3 = 1:1,000,000 Discharge Qr = Vrk = L Volume 0 rDr = I-. 100,bOO,060 Slope Dr/Lr = 10:1 As in most estuary models, the salinity density ratio was unity. Additional bottom roughness is required in distorted-srale models to ensure that the flow regime remains turbulent so that the proper reproduction of tidal heights, tidal velocities, and salinity distributions can be achieved. In relatively deep areas (greater than about 10 ft), additional roughness was simulated in the model by embedding stainless steel strips in the model floor. The preliminary distribution of these strips was calculated as a function of depth using conservation of linear momentum considerations. Based on these calculations, over 700,000-1/2 inrh-wide roughness strips were placed in the model. Final distribution was then obtained by trial and error by systematically bending up or bending down these strips until proper amplitude and phasing of tidal heights and velocities were obtained. In shallow-water areas, the additional roughness was achieved by scratching the concrete surface during model construction. MODEL APPURTENANCES The model was designed to include all necessary appurtenances for the reproduction of prototype boundary conditions and the measurement of the model response to those boundary conditions. An additional capability of the model complex was the ability to operate as a completely self-contained unit. The appurtenances necessary to achieve these goals include both manual and computerized model control and data-gathering capabilities in addition to a complete water supply treatment, storage and distribution system. Backup emergency power generation and uninterruptible power system capabilities were provided so that continuous operation of the model could be ensured. Laboratory facilities were provided for in-house analysis of salinity and dye dispersion studies. The primary appurtenances of the model are described below. COMPUTER FACILITIES The computer facilities were comprised of several minicomputers and re,l@@&d software that were used for both model control and data analysis. One minicom,,,ater was devoted to model control (freshwater inflow and primary and secondary tide j,,Zlheration) and data acquisition to include water-level detectors, tide generators and infe6w monitoring. An uninterruptible power supply system was included to ensure continuous computer control during power fluctuations and outages. Model control and data acquisition. by the minicomputer were made possible by a multiple-loop, multiple-rank, two-way data transmission system. The system used a C- 6 current-loop technique in which serial ASCII (Amercian Standard Code for Information Interchange) data were transmitted between the minicomputer and the various model devices over a twisted pair cable. The method of transmission was designed to minimize signal distortion and time skewing of data due to the long cable lengths associated with the model. This serial data exchange system (SERDEX) was managed by a hierarchical software package developed specifically for the Chesapeake Bay Model configuration. The above-desc-ribed system enabled complete programmable computer control of the tide generators and freshwater inflow devices and provided monitoring capabilities for all automated devices on the model. Monitored data could be transmitted to a data terminal for immediate review (visual) to ensure proper model control and response and/or stored on flexible disks for later data reduction and management. FRESHWATER INFLOW CONTROL SYSTEM Programmable freshwater inflow control devices capable of reproducing variable hydro- graphs were located at 21 strategically selected inflow points on the model. Each inflow control unit consisted of a pressure regulator, a digital flow control valve, and a flow- meter. A mechanical spring-type pressure regulator ensured constant pressure to the digital flow control valve. Each digital valve contained eight solenoid valve actuators associated with a binary addressable progression of orifice openings. A total of 256 discrete flow rates could be obtained for each valve by energizing different combinations of solenoid valves. In general, two size ranges of digital valves were used to produce a flow range of 0.01 to 155 gpm. Two types of flowmeters were used to measure this range of discharge - a small bearingless type meter and a venturi-type fluidic metering device. WATER 5UPPLY SYSTEM All water utilized in the model was supplied by two deep wells with discharge capabilities of 250 and 500 gpm. Water storage was provided by a 500,000-gal elevated storage tank. The water treatment plant could supply an average flow of 400 gpm indefinitely, or a flow of 1250 gpm for an 8-hr period of operation. The primary trunk lines could carry a total discharge equivalent to double the maximum flow of record for the Susquehanna River, plus the maximum flows of record for all other tributaries. This flow totaled approximately 1661 gpm. Minimum pressure was 50 psig. TIDE GENERATORS Tides in the model were reproduced by a primary tide generator in the model ocean and a secondary tide generator at the eastern end of the C&D Canal. Both generators were capable of either computer control or manual control. Under computer control, serial ASCII tide elevation data were transmitted from the computer to the tide control receivers. These data were then converted to parallel BCD and further converted through a D-A converter to a voltage. This voltage changed the position of the shaft of a pneumatic pressure -sensing bubble-tube positioner (which indicated the actual model water level) by use of a servomotor. The change in shaft position changed the back pressure on the bubble-tube positioner, thus indicating an error between the actual and desired model water levels. These pressure changes were used by the pilot regulator to adjust the rolling gates on the inflow-outflow system (which controlled the water-level elevation of the headbay area), thereby generating the tide. This system provided the capability of simulating any desired tide sequence including, but not limited to, a. lunar month of variable tides producing both neap and spring variations. The lengtri of the C-7 desired control tide signal was limited only by the storage capacity of the computer. Under manual control, a repetitive 24.84-hr tidal cycle was produced by the rotation of a cam constructed to represent the elevation changes for a predetermined tidal cycle. Movement of the rarn activated a potentiometer that produced the voltages used to change the position of the shaft of the bubble-tube positioner. A repetitive tide was therefore produced in a fashion similar to the computer-controlled tide. In more physical detail, the primary tide generator consisted of a gravity inflow-gravity outflow system containing a return sump (160 by 60 by 11 ft) at a minus elevation (relative to the model ocean), a supply sump (72 by 60 by 15 ft) at a positive elevation fed by a 20-rfs pump from the return sump, and a headbay area (211 by 20 by 8 ft) varying about a mean level. Two rolling gates, connecting the headbay area with both the supply and return sumps, operated simultaneously to achieve the desired headbay elevation, thereby generating the desired ocean tide. A continuous circulation between the three areas helped maintain a desired source salinity. The operation of the primary tide generator and a schematic drawing of its operation are shown in Figure C-3. The secondary tide generator was much smaller but operated on the same general principle. SALTWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Constant ocean salinity was assured by maintaining a prescribed concentration of the source salinity in the supply sump. Saturated brine (315-320 ppt) was obtained by mixing granular salt (NaCO and water in a 35- by 30- by 15-ft storage sump. The brine was mixed with the model solution in the return sump to obtain a desired salinity. This well- mixed solution was then pumped to the supply sump for input to the model. SKIMMING WIERS A low salinity (brackish) accumulation in the surface layer of the model ocean will develop due to the constant addition of fresh water at the inflow locations. In order to maintain the model ocean at a constant salinity and at the proper water-level elevation, this brackish water lens must be removed. This operation was performed by the use of skimming weirs which were adjusted to draw off a discharge equal to the total f resh- water inflow to the model. The operation of the skimming weirs and a schematic drawing are shown in Figure C-4. MIXING WEIRS The mixing weir system consisted of five vertical 6-in.-diameter risers submerged just below the ocean surface. These weirs, located bayward of the headbay, ensured proper mixing of the ocean water. Water drawn off by the mixing weir was gravity-fed bark to the return sump, remixed with the salt water, and returned to the model ocean via the supply sump. Without the mixing weir, brackish water that was not drawn off by the skimming weirs would have diluted the ocean and hindered the maintenance of the correct ocean salinity. INDUCED MIXING BUBBLER SYSTEM A bubbler system was installed in the model to provide additional vertical mixing. fhe system consisted of a compressor supplying air through perforated tygon tubing placed along the axis of the bay and major tributaries. Single lines extended up the tributaries with perforations at approximately 12-ft. intervals. The main Bay configuration approximated a 12-ft. perforation grid. C-8 OPERATION OF TIDE GENERATOR THE WATER SURFACE OF THE MODEL (A) IS APPROXIMATELY 6 FT HIGHER THAN RETURN SUMP (B) AND 10 FT LOWER THAN SUPPLY SUMP (C). BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES IN WATER-SURFACE ELEVATIONS, THE FLOW OF WATER FROM THE MODEL INTO THE RETURN SUMP AND OUT OF THE SUPPLY SUMP INTO THE MODEL IS GRAVITY FLOW. THE TWO ROLLING GATES (D&E) OPERATE IN TANDEM SUCH THAT WHEN ONE GATE IS OPENING, THE OTHER GATE IS CLOSING. WHEN THE SUPPLY SUMP ROLLING GATE (D) IS OPENING AND THE, RETURN SUMP ROLLING GATE (E) IS CLOSING.A NET POSITIVE FLOW RESULTS, AND THE MODEL FLOODS. WHEN THE SUPPLY SUMP ROLLING GATE IS CLOSING, AND THE PUMP (F) RETURN SUMP ROLLING GATE IS OPENING, A NET NEGATIVE FLOW RESULTS AND THE MODEL EBBS. A PUMP (F) BETWEEN THE SUMPS MAINTAINS A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF WATER IN THE SUPPLY SUMP, SIGNALS FROM THE TIDE SENSOR (H) AND TIDE PROGRAMMER (1) OR COMPUTER (NOT SHOWN) ARE COMPARED BY THE TIDE CONTROL (G) WHICH THEN DETERMINES THE PROPER OPENING OF THE ROLLING GATES TO REPRODUCE THE DESIRED TIDE. n SUPPLY SUMP (C) RECORDER ROLLING GATES (D E) (G) TIDE CONTROL TID FL _OW E .7-7 (H) TIDE SENSOR PROGRAMMER MODEL WATER SURFACE (A) (B) RETURN SUMP,/ HEAD SAY FIGURE C-3 PRIMARY TIDE GENERATOR i n. WATER TOWER SKIMMING WEIR OPERATION THE FRESHWATER FROM THE TRIBUTARIES THAT ACCUMULATES IN THE MODEL OCEAN HAS TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT OCEAN SALINITY AND PROPER TIDAL ELEVATIONS. BECAUSE BRACKISH WATER IS LESS DENSE THAN THE OCEAN SALT WATER, A BRACKISH WATER LENS FORMS ON THE SURFACE OF THE MODEL OCEAN. REMOVAL OF THIS BRACKISH WATER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE USE OF SKIMMING WEIRS PLACED IN THE MODEL OCEAN. THESE WEIRS FLOAT SLIGHTLY BELOW THE WATER SURFACE AND ALTHOUGH THEY RISE AND FALL WITH THE TIDE, THEY MAINTAIN A CONSTANT DEPTH BELOW THE SURFACE. THE SKIMMING WEIRS ARE SUBMERGED TO A DEPTH SUCH THAT THEY "SKIM" OR DRAW OFF A DISCHARGE EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE FRESH WATER DISCHARGED INTO THE MODEL FROM THE TRIBUTARIES. VALVE CONTROLLING DISCHARGE OF TRIBLITARY 0 SKIMMING WEIR BRACKISH WATER TRIBUTARY DAY SALT wArER S TIL L ING BA SIN OCEAN DRAIN FIGURE C-4 SKIMMING WIER OPERATION TIDE GAGES Permanently mounted point gages were installed in the model to correspond to the 75 prototype tide stations shown in Figure C-2. These gages, graduated to 0.001 ft (0.1 ft prototype), are used for the manual measurement of tidal elevations. A typical point gage is shown in Figure C-5. WATER LEVEL DETECTORS Ten high precision water-level measuring instruments were designed and built at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) for the Chesapeake Bay Model. Specifications for these units were displacement range 0.5 ft, accuracy 0.003 in., resolution 0.005 in., and temperature range 32-1100F. Commercial units were not available that met these specifications. The sensors were basically an air capacitance system consisting of a stainless-steel probe, a closed loop servosystem, and a capacitance transducer to convert a specified distance (the air gap between the probe and the water surface) into a d-c voltage. This voltage, in conjunction with the servosystem, maintained a constant air gap. The servomechanism used a precision slide table with a stepping motor. The movement of the slide table and probe were measured by a potentiometer to produce an analog voltage. This voltage was converted to BCD and further converted to serial ASCII for transmission to the computer. This noncontarting sensor technique provided high quality data with minimum maintenance and calibration. A schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure C-6. CURRENT VELOCITY METERS Current velocity measurements were made on the model using miniature Price-type current meters (Figure C-7). The center line of the five cups was about 0.045 ft above the bottom of the meter frame; therefore, bottom velocities in the model were measured about 4.5 ft (prototype) above the bottom. The width of the meter, about 0.1 ft in the model, represented a horizontal width of about 100 ft in the prototype. The height of the meter cups, about 0.04 ft, represented about 4.0 ft in the prototype. The distortion of area (model to prototype) resulted in comparing model velocities averaged over a much larger area than the prototype point observations. Velocities were obtained by counting the number of revolutions the meter wheel made in a 10-sec interval (about 17 min in the prototype). The meters were calibrated frequently to ensure an accuracy of +0.05 fps (0.5 fps prototype). VACUUM SAMPLING SYSTEM The vacuum sampling system consisted of three independent vacuum systems, each designed to sample approximately one-third of the model's 199 collection stations. Each system had a separate pipe network constructed of 1/2-in.-ID polybutylene tubing attached to the shelter trusses. From tees on the 1/2-in. tubing, located over each of the model's collection stations, 1/4-in.-ID polybutylene tubing extended to the model surf ace. The vacuum line branched into collection jars located on stands at each station. From each jar, a I/ 16-in. vacuum line branched into a sample test tube. A 1/ 16- in. vacuum line then extended to a brass tube which had a port placed at the desired sample depth. Samples were drawn by activating the vacuum system at the selected times required for each specific model test. Following the completion of sampling, test tubes were brought to the laboratory for salinity analysis and dye concentration (if required.) C_ I I AW 7 T -77 g, im FIGURE C-5 PERMANENTLY MOUNTED POINT GAGE @ M-1 C-12 STEPPING MOTOR 200 S TEPSIRE VOL U TION STRIP PLOTTER TRANSLATOR AMPLIFIER & DIRECTION SELECTOR DISTANCE LIMITSWITCHES MEASU ING LEAD SCREW 0. 1PER RE VOL UTION Ie SLIDE TABLE MOVES 0.00 @jo 5" FOR EACH STEP OF MOTOR COAXIAL LEAD ANTIBACKLASH GEAR PRECISION RACK "WI I Z-VE NTIOMETER POTENTIOMETER ANALOG OUTPUT 1.6 MV PER 0.001 " A - PROBE MO VEMEN T WATER -RETURN LEAD @CP 300 (LARGE PROBE) OR CP 100 (SMALL PROBE) IR GAP FIGURE C-6 WATER-LEVEL DETECTING INSTRUMENT L 1@ S L0.10C C-13 -ADS- . . . ........ FIGURE C-7 MIkl@Tliki-PRICE-TYPE CURRENT METER C-14 SALINITY METERS Electronic conductivity meters (Balsbaugh 1210 and Beckman R155) monitored in situ salinity concentrations at sperifir points on the model and in the supply and return sumps. Beckman RA5 solumeters (Figure C-7) were used for laboratory analysis of samples withdrawn from the model. The Balsbaugh meters employed an oscillator- detector circuit while the Berkman meters employ a Wheatstone Bridge Circuit for conductivity measurements. MODEL CAPABILITIES There are six basic measurements that are made on estuarine hydraulic models. These include water surf are elevation, salinity, current velocity, dye concentration from dye dispersion tests, temperature, and sediment distribution. These measurements can effectively describe the physical impact on an estuarine resource of many of the works of man. Often biological stress can be predicted from the knowledge of changing physical parameters. Based on the testing conducted, the capability of the Chesapeake Bay Model to reproduce physical prototype data is generally as follows: a. Water surface elevation rould be measured to 0.001 foot in the model, representing 0.1 foot in the prototype. b. Current velocity could be measured within +0.02 foot per second. This represented 0.2 foot per second in the prototype. Ve-rification procedures indicated that model velocities may vary up to 20 percent from that in the prototype. r. Salinity was measured in the model to the same accuracy as in the prototype. Model and prototype salinity are in a 1:1 relationship. d. Dye concentration, from dye dispersion tests, was measured by f luorometric methods to 1.0 ppb. The model can be used to predict the distribution and concentration of conservation water quality constituents to an accuracy of about 20 percent. e. Temperature could be measured to an accuracy of about plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius. f. For sediment distribution studies, the volume distribution of Gilsonite, or other material simulating sediment, over a specified unit area is a standard measure. This is considered to be qualitative procedure. It should be noted that no sediment distribution studies were conducted on the model. SHELTER AND MODEL CONSTRUCTION Because of the hydraulic model's small scale and the resultant precision required in col- lecting data, the model had to be protected from wind, rain, and windborne debris. The detailed design and the preparation of the plans and specifications for a shelter that houses the model were rompleted by Whitman, Requardt and Associates in 1972. Subsequently, a contract for the construction of the shelter was awarded to Charles E. Brohawn Brothers, Incorporated, in February 1973 and a formal groundbreaking ceremony was held in June 1973. This ceremony was sponsored by Commissioners of Queen Annes' County. The construrtion of the 14-arre prefabricated steel truss building was rompleted in December 1974. C- 15 Concurrent with the design and construction of the model shelter, the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was designing the model and the required hydraulic appurtenances. The model design, which included the design and in some cases fabrication of the various elements of the model's hydraulic system and the plotting of approximately 26 miles of templates, was completed in the summer of 1974. WES conducted the design under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Director, Waterways Experiment Station, and the District Engineer, Baltimore District. The Memorandum also stipulated that WES would construct, adjust and verify, and operate and maintain the model through the testing period. Construction of the model was started in October 1974 and the approximately 9-acre model was completed in April 1976. A formal dedication ceremony sponsored by the Commissioners of Queen Anne's County was held on 7 May 1976. This dedication ceremony marked the beginning of the adjustment and verification period. PROTOTYPE DATA When construction of a model is completed, its operating similarity to an estuary's hydraulic and salinity phenomena must be verified. In order to accomplish this for the Chesapeake Bay Model, an extensive prototype data collection program was conducted. This involved the collection of data concerning tidal elevations, current velocities, and salinities at various points throughout the Bay system. Tidal elevation data were collected at 72 locations for at least one year's duration by the National Ocean Survey (NOS). NOS also conducted a 1,000 mile first order survey to establish a common ref erenre datum for the tidal stations. Current velocity and salinity data were acquired at over 700 different stations for periods ranging from 3 to 5 days. This work was accomplished under contract with the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Figure C-2 shows the locations where prototype data were collected. MODEL VERIFICATION Between May 1976 and May 1978 the Chesapeake Bay Model was verified to acceptably reproduce tidal heights, tidal velocities , and salinity distributions. This was accomplished in two phases: Tidal height and tidal velocity verification was achieved by reproduction of the primary lunar astronomical constituent and steady-state inflows. Boundary conditions for this phase of verification included an M2 source tide at the model ocean and at the C&D Canal, an ocean salinity of 31 ppt (Test 20) and 30 ppt (Test 22), a C&D Canal salinity of 3 to 5 ppt, and a long-term average freshwater inflow at each of the 21 inflow locations on the model. b. Salinity verification was achieved by the reproduction of a typical 28-day tide sequence, filtered to remove long-period (wind-generated) energy, and long- duration inflow hydrographs. Boundary conditions for this phase included a 28- day ocean tide, a 28-day C&D Canal tide, an ocean salinity of 30 ppt, a C&D Canal salinity of 3 to 5 ppt, freshwater inflow hydrographs at the 21 major tributaries of the Bay, and a bubbler system to statistically reproduce tne additional mixing caused by wind stress on the Bay. C- 16 A vast amount of time and manpower was expended to ensure the best possible verifica- tion of the Chesapeake Bay Model. The fact that the model was the largest physical estuarine model ever built presented many problems which had to be overcome. The difficulties posed by the physical size of the model were solved by an innovative computer control and monitoring system employing instrumentation developed specifi- cally for this model. Problems were encountered, because of the lack of synoptic prototype data, that made conventional model verification procedures impossible. These problems were further complicated by the existence of a substantial amount of wind con- tamination in the prototype data. The use of digital filtering techniques and the subsequent verification of the model to tidal constituents solved these problems. Numerous model tests were conducted to ensure that the procedures used for verification were valid and would result in a model that was verified to prototype conditions. based on the results of the verification process, the model was verified and could be used to reliably predict the effects of future changes in the Bay system on tidal heights and velocity and salinity distributions. The model could not, and was not intended to, reproduce the effects of wind-induced surges on the tides, velocities, or salinities; however, the impact of future changes should be based on the deviation from normal conditions instead of extreme conditions. For a detailed discussion and presentation of the results of the verification testing and methodology, the reader is referred to Technical Report HL-81-14, Verification of the Chesapeake Bay Model prepared by the Hydraulics Laboratory of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) and dated December 1981. It should also be noted that following rather extensive repairs to the model in 1981 the model underwent an extensive reverification. The results of this reverification are presented in a Technical Report prepared by WES in 1983. DISPOSITION OF MODEL As will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this supplement, a model testing program was formulated and a substantial portion of that testing program was accom- plished. The last hydraulic model test was conducted in January 1982. Following completion of the testing in January 1982, sufficient funding was not available in either the remainder of Fiscal Year 1982 or Fiscal Year 1983 to conduct any additional test- ing. During this period, the model was maintained in a state of operational readiness in the event Congressional funding materialized or a non-Corps sponsor wished to pay for a test. During the preparation of the Fiscal Year 1984 budget request, consideration was given by the Corps to closing the model and completing the program without any further model testing. After a thorough consideration of the merits of maintaining the model, the Corps recommended to the Congress in February 1983 that the model be closed and that the Bay program be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 1984. After the af oremen- tioned recommendation, Congressman Roy Dyson of Maryland organized an interagency committee to review the closing of the model. After a thorough review of the future need for the model, the committee found that the model was not required for any further testing. The State of Maryland, however, has requested that the property be transferred to the State for use as an edurational/tourist center. The State has assumed responsibility for maintenance of the facility pending formal transfer of the property. C- 17 FORMULATION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM Based on the findings of both the Existing Conditions Report and the Future Conditions Report', there are a myriad of either existing or emerging water resource related problems in the Chesapeake Bay Region that require resolution. Dependent on the nature and the Bay-wide significance of these problems, the responsibility for addressing a specific problem and then implementing a solution rests with either the local, state, or Federal government or a combination of various levels of government. In this regard, there are numerous studies and research programs underway at all,levels of government that are addressing various Bay-related problems. In order to select the detailed study and testing program, an analysis was conducted to establish what role the Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study played within this spectrum of ongoing studies and research. In defining this role, emphasis was placed on (1) selecting problems for study that were considered to be high priority and that have Bay-wide significance, (2) maximizing the use of the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model, (3) avoiding any duplication of work being conducted under other existing or proposed programs, and (4) being responsive to the original intent of the Congress as specified in the study authorization. Based on the previously mentioned Existing and Future Conditions reports and specific inquiries of potential users, a list of high priority problems that had potential for study and hydraulic model testing was developed and is included as Table C-1. As there was not suf firient time to adequately address all the problems arrayed on this table, the list was screened and the study program was selected based on the criteria discussed in the preceding paragraph. The following paragraphs discuss this selection process in detail. TABLE C- I POTENTIAL MODEL STUDlj@S ESTUARINE PROCESSES STUDIES Low Freshwater Inflow Study High Freshwater Inflow Study Water Exchange Among Tributaries Determination of Circulation Patterns Tidal Flooding Study Movement of Hydrogen Sulfide in Lower Bay MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY STUDIES Potomac River Estuary Water Supply Baltimore-Susquehanna River Diversion Rappahannock River Estuary Water Supply Susquehanna- Potomac Water Diversion Upper James River (Hopewell and Richmond) Water Supply James-Appomattox Diversions James-York Diversions C_ 18 TABLE C-1 (Cont'd) POWER PLANT EFFECTS STUDIES Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study Proposed Lower Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study Upper Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study Lower Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study Potomac River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study James River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study York River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study Rappahannork River Power Plants Thermal Effects Study. NAVIGATION STUDIES Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study North Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study Norfolk Harbor Channel Enlargement Study South Bay Dredged Material Containment Area Study Bay-Wide Dredged Material Disposal Study York River Channel Enlargement Study Crisfield Harbor Construction Study Cape Charles Harbor Channel Enlargement Study WASTEWATER STUDIES Upper and Lower Bay Wastewater Dispersion Study (EPA) Potomac River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study Patuxent River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study James and Elizabeth Rivers Wastewater Dispersion Study Patapsco River Estuary Wastewater Dispersion Study Back River Wastewater Dispersion Study Chester River Wastewater Dispersion Study Choptank River Wastewater Dispersion Study York River Wastewater Dispersion Study Rappahannock River Wastewater Dispersion Study Upper and Lower Bay Nutrient Equilibrium Study DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERICAL MODELS Determination of Dispersion Coefficients Verification of Numerical Tidal Model Determination of Water Masses in Three Dimensions Determination of Mass Exchanges at Open Boundaries Calibration of Numerical Hydrodynamic Model SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES Sediment Transport in Upper Bay Sediment Transport in Potomac River Estuary Sediment Transport in Rappahannock River Estuary Sediment Transport in York River Estuary Sediment Transport in James River Estuary Sediment Transport in Chester River Estuary C_ 19 INITIAL MODEL TESTING PROGRAM The initial srreening of the potential model studies listed on Table C-1 was conducted in roncert with the Advisory Group and the Steering Committee and assumed there would only be a one-year testing program. It was furthur assumed that the Chesapeake Bay Study would terminate after the initial year of testing and that no in-depth analysis would be made of the data collected. Given the large number of potential studies, it became necessary to conduct a formulation exercise to select a testing program. One element of the formulation process was to assign a priority to each individual study to insure that the one year of available testing was used in the most productive and economic manner. The priority rating was established based on the probable environ- mental, social and economic imparts of the various problems that would be addressed through each potential test. Each problem impact category (i.e., environmental, social, and economic) was rated by estimating both its magnitude and severity. The magnitude of an environmental impact was based on the area of the Chesapeake Bay system affected. Social and economic impart magnitude was expressed in terms of the number of people affected. Problem severity for each problem impact category was expressed as an estimate of the intensity of the insult. The numerical index value of problem magnitude and severity for each im- pact category (environmental, social, and economic) was based on an ascending scale of I to 5. The number I indicated a mild impact-the number 5 indicated a severe impact. Given the aforementioned priority rating system which is explained in detail in Supplement A, the potential model studies were evaluated and an overall rating wasas- signed to each study. Table C-2 lists the ratings that were assigned to each study. It should be emphasized that the ratings were subjective and all but meaningless standing by themselves; however, the ratings did serve as one means of comparing the various studies. In addition to the above impart ratings, the following criteria were also used in the derision proress. a. The importance of the particular study to the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study. b. The formulation of a hydraulic study program that could be completed within the funding and time constraints of the presently authorized Chesapeake Bay Study, and that most economically uses the available resourre, e.g., labor, instrumentation, etr. c. Hydraulic studies that were not only necessary at that time, but may be of use in the future. d. Hydraulic studies that demonstrate the utility and versatility of the hydraulic model. e. The demand for a particular study by other public agencies or interested groups. The list of studies was then examined in light of the foregoing criteria for the purpose of selecting those study problems that should be accomplished during the first year of model testing operations. The selected first year program consisted of the following studies. C-20 TABLE C-2 PROBLEM IMPACT INDICES* Environmental Social Economic Impart Indices Impart Indices Impact Indices Indices Terhniral Problem Areas Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude Total (1) _(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) a. Bay Wide General Tests 1. Low Freshwater Inhow Study 3 5 3 .4 2 4 21 2. High Freshwater inflow Study 2 5 3 4 2 4 20 3. Tidal Flooding -Study 2 5 3 4 3 4 21 B. Muniripal Water Supply n 1. Potomar River Estuary Water Supply Study 2 2 4 4 2 2 16 2. Baltimore-Susquehanna River Water Supply Division 1 3 1 4 1 4 14 C. Power Plant Thermal Discharge Studies 1. Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study 3 1 2 5 2 5 18 2. Cumulative Lower Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Study 3 1 2 5 2 5 18 3. Cumulative Upper Bay Thermal Efferts Study 3 3 2 5 2 5 20 *I- minor impart to 5- severe impart TA13LE C-2 (cont'd) PR06LEM IMPACT INDICES Environmental Social i@conomic Impact Indices Impact Indices Impact Indices indices Technical Problem Areas Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude Severity Magnitude T o Lai (1) - (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) D. Navigation Studies 1. Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Study 3 3 3 4 4 4 2i 2. North Bay Dredged Material Disposal Study 5 1 3 4 4 4 21 3. Norfolk Harbor Channel Enlargement Study 3 2 3 3 4 3 4. South Bay Dredged Material Disposal Study 4 1 3 3 4 3 5. York River Channel Enlargement Study 3 1 3 1 3 1 E. Waste Water 1. Potomac River Estuary Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 2 3 4 1 4 17 2. Patuxent River Estuary Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 1 3 2 1 1 3. Jarnes and Elizabeth Rivers Estuaries Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 2 3 4 1 4 U 4. Patapsco River Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 2 3 4 4 5. Back River Waste Water Dispersion Study 3 1 2 4 2 13 1. Low Freshwater Inflow Study, The purpose of this investigation was to study the effects on the salinity regime of the Chesapeake Bay system of decreased freshwater inflows due to drought and man-related modifications. 2. Baltimore Harbor Study This work defined the effects on the estuarine system of deepening the Baltimore Harbor channels to a depth of 50 feet. Included were studies concerned with rates of harbor flushing, dispersion of wastes, salinity intrusion, and changes in shoaling rates and patterns. 3. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Study This study was designed to explore the ram if ications of using the Potomac River Estuary as a supplemental source of water supply for Washington, D.C. One of the primary concerns regarding using the estuary as a source of water supply was the possibility of recyciing wastewater into the water supply intake system during periods of low freshwater inflow and the possibility of changing salinity levels and current patterns in the Potomac Estuary. EXPANDED STUDY PROGRAM During the selection of the above first year program, it became apparent that there were many problems in the Chesapeake Bay which could be solved only in the context of a hydraulic model studies program far beyond that which could be accomplished in a one year period. It was also apparent that if such a model studies program were undertaken, it should be formulated in the context of a resources study which would provide for the development of a meaningful and properly prioritized hydraulic model studies program. Further, the model studies data should be used in the resources study as an aid in formulating problem solutions. In 1975 the Corps prepared a revised scope of wurk recommending an expanded study program and a total of four years of model testing. Following approval of the concept of an expanded study and model testing program, a study program was selected and documented in the Revised Plan of Study published in October 1978. In selecting the study program recommended in the October 1978 Revised Plan of Study, the potential study candidates listed in Table C-1 were again reviewed. Based on this review, it appeared that at least a portion of the future study and model effort to be funded by the Chesapeake Bay Study should be directed toward studies of extraordinary natural events that have Bay-wide impact or significance. More specifically, these rare natural events included: 1. Periods of prolonged low freshwater inflow from the Bay's tributaries. 2. Periods of high freshwater inflow from the Bay's tributaries. 3. Tidal flooding caused by unusual climatol6gical/meteorological conditions. In considering the advisability of conducting additional studies of these rare events, the following points were considered to be pertinent. 1. These events all have significant Bay-wide impacts on the natural resource. 2. The impacts of these rare events are intensified because of man's use of the Bay and its resources. C-23 3. There is a lack of data/ understanding of the physical changes that occur in tile estuarine system as a result of these rare events. Further, the impact on bot1h the resource itself and man's use of the resource is not well defined. 4. There is no existing Federal or state program that is addressing the nature and impact of these rare events on a Bay-wide basis. 5. The problems and resource conflicts associated with these events have all been ranked as high priority by the Advisory Group and the Steering Committee. 6. All of these rare events may be duplicated and evaluated using the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model. Based on the above considerations, there appeared to be strong justification for conducting comprehensive studies of these rare events as part of the expanded study program. A further review of the potential tests listed in Table C-1 yielded some additional candidates for study under the expanded program. Chief among these candidates were the Bay-wide Nutrient Equilibrium Study and the Bay-wide Dredged Material Containment Study. While these two studies would definitely be addressing problems that have Bay-wide significance, they were not considered to have as high a priority as those previously mentioned. In addition, both of these studies had some potential for overlap with existing programs. An additional factor that had to be considered in the analysis was the testing to be conducted for and funded by others. While the model time required to conduct tests for others could have had a significant bearing on the amount of testing that could be conducted in support of the expanded program, it was considered essential that the model be made available to others as directed in the study authorization. The use by others was expected to greatly enhance the credibility of the model as a planning tool. Based on prior requests from others, it was assumed for the analysis that the following tests had the highest potential for conduct in the extended program period. 1. Upper Bay Proposed Power Plant Thermal Effects Study 2. Upper Bay Power Plants Cumulative Thermal Effects Study 3. Wastewater Dispersion Testing Related to the EPA Bay Study It was assumed that all of the tests perf ormed for other organizations would be oriented to solving high priority problems of widespread impact and that the data obtained from these tests would be of value to the Chesapeake Bay Study. In these cases, the costs would be shared by the Chesapeake Bay Study and the requesting organization with the terms of cost sharing varying with the nature of the study. In most foreseeable instances, the Chesapeake Bay Study would fund the fixed maintenance costs of the model, shelter, and grounds, while the requesting organization was to pay the costs of preparing and operating the model, collecting data, analyzing the data, preparing the reports and the materials needed for the test. Any tests conducted for organizations other than the Corps of Engineers required approval of higher authority. If approved and if it required complete devotion of the C-24 model, the cost of the test had to be assumed by the requesting organization. If one of these type tests was performed simultaneously with a Corps test, the requesting agency had to pay its fair share for the use of the model. Regarding the funding to be provided by others for model testing, the requesting agency was required to provide written assurances that they would provide their share of the model testing funds. Cost sharing agreements/assurances were consummated prior to the submission of the Corps' budget request for the fiscal year in which the testing was to be conducted. The primary criteria used in setting testing priorities for others was related to the scope and severity of the problem that the test was expected to address and the various scheduling constraints of both the Corps and the requesting agency. Those tests which addressed Bay-wide problems and were considered to be of a serious or severe nature were given a higher priority than those which were related to localized problems. The tirne required to conduct both the initial testing program and the tests specifically requested by others was such that the time remaining in the testing period was not sufficient to warrant consideration of any tests in addition to those discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Given the initial program, the work for others, and the five potential studies, the next step in the selection process was to formulate an optimum extended program that was responsive to the criteria established for that analysis and that also provided ample opportunity for testing by others. The testing program identified in the first screening appeared to be valid; however, a modification to the Low Freshwater Inflow Test enhanced the compatibility of this test with the work contemplated in the expanded program. This test was expanded to provide the initial data needed for a comprehensive Low Flow Study which was considered to oe the highest priority study in the extended program. While extending the length of the Low Freshwater Inflow Test, the Potomac Estuary Test could still be conducted in time to provide the required input to the Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study. Proceeding in this manner appeared to be very attractive in that it did not disrupt the work accomplished to date on the initial program, yet it provided data that would be of immediate use in the expanded program. The initial program as reformulated above required nearly two years of model testing. Following the above tests, the next two tests from a priority standpoint were the series of Thermal Effects Tests requested by the State of Maryland and the Tidal Flooding Test which would be required in support of a comprehensive Bay-wide Tidal Flooding Study. As the Thermal Effects Study was considered to be of slightly greater importance and all tests to this point in the program were Corps funded, it was considered desirable to conduct the Thermal Effects Test before the Tidal Flooding Test. The addition of these tests raised the total model testing time to approximately 2 years and 9 months. With the addition of the two preceding tests, approximately 8 months of testing time remained within the testing program. The tests remaining for consideration in the program included the High Freshwater Inflow Test, the Dredged Material Containment Area Test, the Nutrient Equilibrium Test and the EPA Wastewater Dispersion Testing. Of these four remaining tests, the High Freshwater Inflow Test and the L@PA Wastewater Dispersion Testing were considered to have the highest priority. Since the scope of the EPA testing and a commitment from EPA were not available at the time, the High C-25 Freshwater Inflow Test was to be conducted following the Tidal Flooding Test. The remaining 3 months of the four year testing program was tentatively scheduled for the EPA tests. In the event a testing program could not be developed in concert with EPA, the remaining testing period was to be used for either of the two remaining tests. It was considered to be premature at that time to assume that any particular test would be substituted for the EPA testing. Based on the formulation process explained in the preceding paragraphs of this analysis, it was recommended that the expanded Chesapeake Bay Study and Testing Program be composed of the following studies: 1. Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement Test 2. Comprehensive Low Freshwater Inflow Study and Testing 3. Potomac River Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test 4. Proposed Upper Bay Power Plant Thermal Effects Test 5. Upper Bay Cumulative Thermal Effects Test 6. Tidal Flooding Study and Testing 7. High Freshwater Inflow Study and Testing 8. Bay-wide Wastewater Dispersion Test (EPA) HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING For a variety of reasons the testing program was not conducted as originally proposed in the 1978 Revised Plan of Study '. Several tests which were generally of limited tirne and scope were added to the program. Also, as a result of funding limitations, several of the proposed major tests were not conducted. Included as Table C-3 is a listing of ail the testing conducted on the model and for whom the test was conducted. The following paragraphs provide a general description of each of the tests conducted. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' TESTING BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DEEPENING TEST Description and Objective of Testing Public Law 91-611, through Section 101 of the 1970 Rivers and Harbors Act authorized a plan of improvement to deepen the existing navigation channels tn the Port of Baltimore f rom 42 f t to 50 f t and to extend the channels to the natural 50-f t-depth curves. Tests on the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model were conducted to specifically investigate possible changes in the hydrodynamic characteristics of velocity, salinity, and tidal elevations associated with the proposed channel enlargements. Changes in these parameters can result in changes to estuarine circulation and dynamics, sedimentation rates and patterns; can affect biological communities and distributions; and can affect dispersion of pollutants and nutrients. C-26 TABLE C-3 T ESTS CONDUCTED ON CHESAPEAKE BAY HYDRAULIC MODEL Test Agency/Supporting Program 1. Baltimore Harbor Channel Enlargement 'rest Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers - Baltimore Harbor Study 2. Nanticoke River Toxic Material Dispersion Test State of Maryland - Sharptown Toxic Waste Study 3. James River Oil Dispersion Test Corps of r-ngineers - Hampton Roads Refinery Permit Appiication 4. Cuyahoga Victim Recovery Test U.S. Coast Guard - Victim Recovery Operations 5. Patuxent and Chester River Prototype Survey Design Univ. of Maryland - Patuxent and Chester River Studies 6. Lafayette River Wastewater Dispersion Test Old Dominon University - Lafayette i<iver marina Study 14 7. Low Freshwater Inflow Problem Identification Test Baltimore District, Corps of i@ngineers - Chesapeake i5ay Study 8. Potomac Estuary Water Supply and Wastewater Dispersion Test Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers - Metro 'Wash. Water Supply Study 9. Storm Surge Test Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers - Chesapeake Bay Study 10. Norfolk Harbor Channel Deepening Test Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers - Norfolk rtarbor Study 0 11. Air Florida Debris Recovery -rest Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers - Debris Recovery Operations The investigation included a series of base tests using the verified model with the exist- ing Baltimore Harbor and approach navigation channels at 42 f t plus a 2-f t dredging tolerance. After these tests were completed, the channels were remolded to the new authorized 50-f t depth plus a 2-f t dredging tolerance, and a series of compatible plan tests were similarly performed for comparison purposes. Two separate modes of model operation and testing were followed. In the first mode, velocity measurements were undertaken at 13 selected stations during four separate steady-state tests utilizing fixed boundary conditions. In the second mode, salinity and tide-height measurements were collected at 68 and 10 locations, respectively, during the dynamic conditions associated with a repetitive 28-lunar-day variable tide sequence and a 2-1/2-year freshwater discharge hydrograph. Model Test Conditions Model Geometry For the base condition testing, the model geometry was maintained as constructed and verified. For the plan testing, the authorized channel depths (50 feet) to include 2 feet of overdepth dredging were added to the model. Tide Conditions For the steady state testing, the ocean boundary for each test was a cosine tide with either a neap (2.55 feet) or spring (3.75 feet) range. A cosine tide was also generated at the Delaware end of the C&D Canal to achieve the mean tide range of 2.75 feet at Chesapeake City. The tide plane was adjusted to maintain a zero net flow of water through the C&D Canal. For the dynamic testing, a reconstructed, 12-constituent, 28-lunar-day source tide was repeatedly generated f rom the ocean tide generator. This tidal sequence included two spring tides (a high and a low spring) and two nearly equal neap tides. An illustration of this tide is on Figure C-8. A compatible 5-constituent, 28-lunar-day source tide was generated concurrently from the C&D Canal tide generator. Freshwater Inflow Conditions The steady state testing used a constant total Bay inflow of either 30,000 or 120,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The distribution of the above flows to the 21 inflow points was based on the long-term average inflows as determined by the Baltimore District. For the dynamic testing, a hydrograph simulating prototype weekly average flows for the period April 1964 through September 1965 was used. This drought or low-flow period was followed by an average year hydrograph. Ocean Source Salinity The model ocean salinity was maintained within acceptable limits of the desired 32.5 ppt throughout both the base and plan testing. C-28 CONDUCTIVITY INDICATOR DIGITEC READOUT CELL SWITCH CEU:7 CELL #2 CE K 2 K = 20 K FIGURE C-8 SALINITY METER C-29 Data Collection Steady State Velocity Testing Once appropriate boundary conditions were established, salinity monitoring was begun at 11 salinity monitoring stations (Figure C-9) to assess when a stable salinity distribution (the same salinity profile from one tidal cycle to another) was reached. Once a relative stability was achieved, velocity measurements were taken at the 13 designated velocity stations (Figure C- 10) f or bottom, middle, and surf ace depths. Seven of the thirteen stations were within the dredged channels (CPH-1, CB-1-5, YSC-4, RSC-2, CC-2, BC-4, and FM-1), four stations were positioned in potential dredged material disposal areas (OD-1, OD-2, OD-3, and OD-4), and two stations were located adjacent to channels to be deepened (YSC-1, and BC-2). Sampling depths at the seven deepened channel stations were adjusted for the plan test to maintain the same relative sampling depths within the water column. Dynamic Salinity and Tidal Height Testing Ten automatic water-level detectors were located at key stations throughout the model (Figure C-9). Water-level elevations were recorded at hourly prototype intervals (every 36 seconds, real time). Salinity sampling at the 68 designated test stations (Figure C-10 began on lunar day 168, f ollowing 6 months of dynamic lead-in conditions. Slack-af ter-flood samples were collected at tides 1, 15, 28, and 44 of each 56-cycle sequence. These tides corresponded to the neap and spring events. To obtain ranges of salinity, slack-af ter-ebb samples were collected four times during both water year 1965 and the average water year. Stations were sampled at two to five depths, depending on local water depths. Bo ttom sampling depths were adjusted accordingly to maintain the same relative sampling depth f or the plan test at those stations located in areas of bathymetric change. All other sampling points remained in place. Summary of Test Results No major plan-to-base velocity differences were apparent in the steady-state comparisons; however, slight trends in velocity characteristics may indicate subtle variations in the hydrodynamics of the system. A small shif t in flow distribution (slightly higher flood and lower ebb velocities in the plan tests than the base tests) at lower bay stations (below the Potomac River) indicates the possibility of additional salt intrusion into the main estuary along the deepened channel. No shift in flow distribution was identified for upper Bay or Patapsco River stations that could be used to substantiate or refute changes to, or the presence of, a two- or three-layer flow circulation pattern. C-30 15 SLISQUEHANNA R. CADCANAL 14 16 OALTIMORE E:7:- 17 13 MAIN S' IP CHANNEL CHESTER J9 VICINITY MAP 12 10 WASM T ?9 rj CN0,PrANX A A. 20 AIANMOKE R. 7 121 6 ROCOMOKE R. (0% 5 'N, RAPPAHANNOCK "2 SHOAL CHANNEL 4 2 3 YORK SPIT CHANNEL V N. 0 ArLA*vrlc 8 INFLOW LOCATIONS 601 OCEAv I OCEAN TIDE GENERATOR CAPE HENRY REEDY POINT TIDE CHANNEL GENERATOR SPARROW POINT TSMIXITH BACK RIVER SALINITY MONITORING STATION TIDE GAGE STATIONS MODEL LIMITS IMPROVED CHANNELS FIGURE C-9 SALINITY AND TIDE GAGE STATIONS C-31 C 9 D CANAL SUSQUEHANNA R. BALTIMORE../ Ace -t CHf.S r4E'9 R. WASHINGTON Li CH0j0rANK R. 4L NANrICOKE A P OA40KE oc AW-3 -2A 00 2A vw-4A AC& A % A N r/ C vw_sA 0 Cf A N No FOL POR 0 TH FIGURE C-10 VELOCITY SAMPLING STATION LOCATION MAP C-32 _-IAL T IMORE SUSQUEHANNA R. C&D CANAL 1>1 low I Ic I.. BALTIMO R E co 1 .1-7.4 14- occ' SEE INSERT CHCSTER R. INSERT WASHINGION 7 r XEN V /SLAND -.v co 6 co-S-2040 0-" Co-" Li CHOPrANK R. AiAmrlCOKE R. moce .4:@ A cs-4.3. k 71, t6, cs-3!.ocs POCOMOKE R. Oasc@3 emse-2 A-1.2o saw Ic s 0 me-1-3 so TSC-36 ect-1-y ca-1-so 0'.2 OTIC-2 t' A % A N 7/ C %r OvIc-1 I co.o.1 0 CEA N NORFOL PORTSMOUTH FIGURE C-11 SALINITY SAMPLING STATION LOCATION MAP C-33 Salinity differences associated with channel deepening are noted when comparing the dynamic base and plan tests. For the purposes of this study, stations demonstrating "appreciable" plan- to-base salini ty dif f erences are def ined as those s tations wi th 10 percent or more of their surface, middle, or bottom depth comparison values greater than +2 ppt. Main Bay stations below Kent Island indicate a slight trend of saltier deep water during the plan test although plan minus base differences are not generally greater than the defined appreciable level. Stations in the Bay entrance and York Spit Channel area are the only lower main Bay stations to indicate appreciable differences, generally with saltier surface values during the plan test. The James and York Rivers indicate appreciable salinity intrusion decreases during the plan test. Salinity differences were found at upper Bay stations above Kent Island. The water column during the plan test is more stratified with fresher surface values and saltier mid-depth and bottom values compared with the base test. Plan minus base differences increase progressing up the deepened channel in the main upper Bay and the Patapsco River. The largest salinity variations occur in the deepened Patapsco River channel where more than 55 percent of the bottom values increased by more than 5 ppt with the largest increases greater than 10 ppt. Salinity differences were found to decrease with distance from the deepened channels and at shallower water stations. For a more detailed discussion of the model test and the results the reader is referred to Technical Report HL-82-5, Baltimore Harbor and Channels Deepening Study prepared by the Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION TEST Description and Objective of Testing The Problem Identification Test was designed as one of three Low Freshwater Inflow Tests that were to provide information on the changes in circulation patterns, water surface elevations and salinity patterns that may occur in the Bay as a result of reductions in freshwater inflow. The following objectives were established for the Problem Identification Test: 1. To define salinity patterns throughout the Bay and its tidal tributaries resulting from both historical and projected drought conditions. 2. To define the time it takes for Bay salinities to return to "normal" following a drought condition. 3. To determine the effect of consumptive losses on average year salinities. 4. To provide the hydrodynamic data necessary to develop salinity-inflow relationships. The primary purpose of the test was to determine how future consumptive uses of water would affect both drought and long term average salinities throughout the Bay system. In order to accomplish this, the test was divided into two parts; a base test and a f utures test. In the base test, the freshwater inflows that occurred during the 1964 - 1966 drought were simulated. The drought was followed by several repetitions of an average inflow year. C-34 In the futures test, both the drought and average year inflows were reduced by an amount equivalent to the projected year 2020 future consumptive water use. By comparison of the data between the two tests, the eff erts of consumptive uses on salinities could be determined. Model Test Conditions Model Geometry The model geometry was maintained as constructed and verified with the addition of the proposed 50-foot Baltimore Harbor and approach channels. Tidal Conditions Ocean tides for this testing consisted of a repetitive, 28-lunar-day, 56-cycle tide sequence based on historical records at Old Point Comfort, Virginia. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal The Canal and the Delaware source tide was not used for two reasons. First, available prototype data are inadequate to define the amplitudes and periods of the source tide and salinity under variable tidal conditions in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Second, pre- vious testing in the model had shown that the hydrodynamics of the C&L) Canal are very sensitive such that even minor discrepancies in boundary control can have a significant impart on canal hydrodynamics and thus on salinities in the Upper Bay. Since the boundary control for the source tide in Delaware Bay was not capable of preventing small disrrepaw..ies in water-surf are elevation, it was decided not to reproduce the source tide for these tests so that any changes in Upper Bay salinities from the base test to the futures test would not be erroneously aff ected by possible discrepancies in boundary control. Freshwater Inflows Freshwater inflows were simulated on the model at the 21 inflow points shown on Figure C-12. The flow from all 21 points represented the total runoff that would have occurred in nature for the entire Bay area. The 1964-1966 drought was simulated on the model using average weekly flows. Consequently, the flow at each inflow point was varied every 1.68 model hours or 7 days prototype. The hydrograph of long term average flows which followed the drought hydrograph was also varied on a weekly basis. The drought hydrographs for both the base and futures tests were adjusted to reflect the influence of all major dams rompleted since 1966 or that were under construction at the time of the testing. Those under construction included Raystown on the Susquehanna River, Bloomington on the Potomac, and Gathright on the James River. Sewage Treatment Plant Inflows Flows from sewage treatment plants (STP) were modeled at eight locations during the base test and 13 lorations during the futures test as shown on Figure C-13. These flows were steady state and represented the average yearly discharges of each plant. In areas where there were several small STP's located in close proximity, the flows were accumulated and simulated in the model at one discharge point. The discharge at each point, which is also shown on Figure C- 13, was 'held constant throughout each test except C-35 PA. 15 CM) CCIIJOI 14 16 1AMMOWal vxwm Mo 13 17 12 WASMOTCH 10 9 18 11 7 .4 09, 21 10. rn VA. 5 A. 4 2 3 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY SCAU or Mo." "offm 10 0 10 20 FIGURE C-12 FRESHWATER INFLOW POINTS C-36 ON ,:-p PA. C&D CO"O SALTIMORE A VX3NITV MAP C B WASHINGTON 43 0 100 D > F E H G oft m O*'STEADY STATE WASTE 0100 DISCHARGE POINTS (CFS) 1960's 2020 A 58 62 B 55 144 C 186 186 D 26 47 E 324 698* F 16 62 G - 93 H - 93 I - 101 - 24 IUCHMOND K 14 55 L 65 124 m - 28 *Flow is varied when flow of Poto- K Mac River is zero. (See Table 3) L SCALE OF MILES NORf OLK M 10 0 10--20 FIGURE C-13 STEADY STATE WASTE DISCHARGE POINTS C-37 for the Blue Plains Plant on the Potomac River during the futures test. In this case, since the demand for Washington, D.C. exceeded all existing supplies including the total flow of the Potomac River, the flow of the treatment plant had to be varied. Ocean Source Salinity The model ocean salinity was maintained within acceptable limits of the desired 32.5 ppt throughout both the base and futures testing. Data Collection During the above testing, tidal elevations, salinities, and velocities were collected at various locations under various collection schedules. Table C-4 provides a general description of the data collected. A more detailed description of data collection procedures is provided below. Tidal Elevations Tidal elevations were recorded at 20 locations as shown on Figure C-14. The data were collected every 36 seconds U hour prototype). Salinities Salinity samples were collected at the stations shown on Figure C-15 at slack before ebb on tides 1, 109 28, and 48 during each 28-lunar day cycle and on slack before flood once each season for each year. Current Velocities * Current velocities were recorded during both the base and future tests at the 16 stations listed on Table C-5. Measurements were taken at from one to three depths on one spring and one neap tide. During the drought, readings were taken twice; once during a high flow period (April 1965) and once during a low flow period (June 1965). Readings were taken only once during the long term average portion of the test (April). Data were obtained at hourly intervals over a tidal cycle. Conduct of Test Prior to conducting any test, model salinities had to be stabilized. This was accomplished in the base and futures tests by first simulating a steady-state total Bay freshwater inflow of 70,000 cfs. A repetitive tide and a source salinity of 32.5 ppt were maintained at the model ocean. C-38 TABLE C-4 LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW TEST DATA COLLECTED Test Tidal Elevations Salinity Data Velocity Data Phase I - Base Test Stabilization Steady State 10 Base/Control Stations (Key stations determined by WES) Hydrograph 10 Base/Control Stations (Key stations determined by WES) Drought Hydrograph 20 stations as shown on All stations Figure C-15 All stations Table C-5 Figure C-14 weekly @ stack before hourly over a spring ebb, also, selected sta- and neap tide 1965 n tions seasonly @ slack and one average year before flood ID Phase I - Futures Test (2020) Stabilization Steady State 10 Base/Control Stations (Key stations determined by WES) Hydrograph 10 Base/Control Stations (Key stations determined by WES) Drought Hydrograph 20 stations as shown on All stations Figure C-15 All stations Table C-5 Figure C-14 weekly @ slack before hourly over a spring ebb and neap tide - 1965 and one average year Average Hydrograph 20 stations as shown on All stations Figure C-15 All stations Table C-5 Figure C-14 weekly @ slack before hourly over a spring ebb and neap tide - 1965 and one average year &D canal 4ALTI!mt19)Rf VIONITY MAP WASHINGTON 0 > 0 oft .4 010 cz? 1004, VA. IT 0 S RICHMOND 0- le 0 $e I 1w :7yi SCALE OF MILES NORF to 0 10 20 ---I-- --m.ZaGaami.0 FIGURE C-14 LOCATION OF TIDAL ELEVATION @TATIONS C-40 T@ 7. 07 \c B I N ............ ... MODEL SITE -NA- k- 7x 4?" V14R P-x- -2 'C B L 40 -X -------- ------- "o, vi M s 10 LEGEND 3 RANGE WIT. NUMBER OF A T L A N T c SALINITY a VELOCITY STATIONS RANGE WITH ONE SALINITY 8, VELOCITY STATION 0 C E A N TIDAL OBSERVATION STATIONS f a CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY MODEL LIMITS Lq AND I FIELD DATA STATIONS FIGURE C-15 LOCATION MAP SALINITY AND VELOCITY STATIONS C-41 TABLE C-5 LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW TEST VELOCITY STATIONS Number of Transect Station Chesapeake Bay CB- 1 3 CB-3 3 CB-5 I CB-7 3 CB-8 3 Chesapeake and Delaware Canal CD- I I Potomac River PO-9 I Rappahannock River R-9 I C-42 After the model salinity had reached equilibrium under steady-state conditions, the lead- in hydrograph, which simulated flows during water year 1963, was begun. At the same time, the 28-lunar day varying tide was initiated. Ocean salinity was maintained at 32.5 ppt. During the first six months of water year 1963, the influence of the major dams was not included in the inflows. This was done so that model salinities could be checked against prototype data for the corresponding time period to ensure proper simulation of the 1963 flows and corresponding salinities. Salinity distribution during tile lead-in period was monitored at 19 strategically located stations to ensure minimal deviation between the base and futures lead-in hydrograph salinities. Beginning with the second half of water year 1963, the historical flows were adjusted to include the influence of the three major dams previously described. In addition, salinity sampling was initiated at all of the test stations. Actual testing began with the first week of water year 1964 and continued through the week ending 28 September 1966. The drought hydrograph was followed immediately by a hydrograph of long term average flows which was also varied on a weekly basis. The average hydrograph was repeated four times to ensure that the model had returned to a state of "normalcy". The lead-in conditions for the futures test were identical to the base test. Beginning in the second half of water year 1963, the flows for the futures test were not only adjusted for the influence of the dams, but also were reduced by an amount equal to the incremental increase in consumptive losses between 2020 and those that were already occurring during the 1960's drought. Also at this time, the steady-state waste discharge flows were increased from their 1960's flow levels to projected year 2020 levels. The average yearly hydrograph following the drought was repeated only three times due to a loss of tide control on the model. The general sequence of inflows for both tests is indicated on Table C-6. Summary of Test Results The test results indicate that consumptive losses in general cause a saltier Bay. The magnitude and structural variations in salinity response as a result of consumptive losses are dependent on the specific hydrodynamic characteristics of a sampling area and its proximity to freshwater or saltwater boundary conditions. On the average, however, the stations analyzed responded to consumptive losses with a I to 3 ppt saltier future condition. Model sensitivity and repeatability in terms of salinity are thought to be approximately I ppt; however, the results are consistent enough to suggest that the I to 3 ppt difference is valid with little need to establish confidence limits. Return to dynamic normalcy is apparently related to the discharge characteristics of tile tributary in question. High-discharge rivers such as the Potomac seem to return to the normal range within 100 lunar days. The main Bay also seems to respond quickly to an increase in inflow. Stations near the mouth reach their normal level well within the 100 lunar days required by the higher discharge rivers. Lag times associated with distances from inflow points are overshadowed by the influence of the relative magnitude of tile river's discharge. C-43 TABLE C-6 LOW FRESHWATER INFLOW TEST FRESHWATER INFLOWS Test Freshwater Inflows 21 Inflow Points Steady State Wastewater Inflow Points Base Test (1960's Drought) Stabilization Steady State 7n9f)01) rfs 1960's flow levels Hydrograph All of Water-Year (WY) 1963: 1960's flow levels First 6 months, no major dams. Last 6 months, with major dams. Drought Hydrograph WY 1964 - 1966, with major dams 1960's flow levels Average Hydrograph As computed for period of record 1960's flow levels n with several modifirations for 4-- WTP's and diversions. No major _01 dams. (Repeated 4 times) Futures Test (202n) Stabilization Steady State 7n 9noo rfs 1960's flow levels Hydrograph All of WY 1963: First 6 months, same as base test First 6 months: 60's flow levels Last 6 months, 2020 consumptive losses, with major dams Last 6 months: 2020 flow levels Drought Hydrograph WY 1964-1966 Depressed by 2n2n 2020 flow levels consumptive losses and with major dams Average Hydrograph As computed for period of record 2n2O flow levels depressed by 2()2n consumptive losses - No major dams (Repeated 3 times) It is difficult to draw conclusions about dynamic normalcy because the low-f low period immediately preceding the first average year is somewhat mitigated by a small but significant "spike" in inflow. This may have accelerated the model's return to average flow conditions. Of major importance, however, is the indication that inflow perturbations to the system have only transient effects on Chesapeake bay and that within several months, depending upon location, the Bay can rebound from high saline conditions. In addition, these comparisons give an indication of the high degree of repeatability that can be achieved in the model which is an important consideration when comparing tests with small changes in boundary conditions. For a more detailed discussion of the entire low freshwater inflow problem and study the reader is referred to the accompaning document titled Chesapeake Bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study. A detailed discussion of the model testing may be found in Technical Report HL-82-3, _Low Freshwater Inflow Study prepared by the Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TEST Description and Objective of Testin& The objective of the Potomac River Estuary testing was to define the salinity regime and wastewater dispersion patterns in the Potomac Estuary under several freshwater inflow conditions and to determine the impact of pumping water out of the Upper Potomac River Estuary at Washington, D.C., upon both salinities and wastewater dispersion patterns. The testing was to be conducted in two phases. The objective of the base or Phase I testing was to define salinity and wastewater dispersion patterns for four freshwater inflows under present (1980) conditions assuming no estuary withdrawal. The objective of the futures or Phase 2 testing was to define salinity and wastewater dispersion patterns for four freshwater inflows under future (2020) conditions assuming estuary withdrawals ranging between 0 and 200 million gallons per day (mgd). Table C-7 lists the inflow and withdrawal conditions that were to be reproduced during both the Phase I and Phase 2 testing. Unfortunately, because of interruptions for model repairs and reductions in funding for model testing, only eight of the original sixteen tests were conducted. T hose conditions tested are noted on Table C-7. Model Test Conditions Model Geometry The model geometry was as constructed and verified with the addition of the proposed 50-foot Baltimore Harbor and approach channels and several minor modifications in the Potomar Estuary. Tidal Conditions For each test, the model was filled by introducing freshwater in the upstream reaches of the rivers and saltwater from the return sump. As the model was filled, a repetitive cosine tide was generated. After a short period of time, tide control was switched to a rom puter -contro lied cosine tide. The tide had a range of 4.25 feet and a mean water C-45 TA13LE C-7 POTOMAC ESTUARY *rEST SUMMARY OF INFLOW AND WITHDRAWAL CONDIHONS Inflow 2 Potomac River Inflow Estuary Wastewater (Flow-13y) All Other Withdrawal Rake T reatment Piant T est (m gd) Tributaries (m gd) Conditions PHASE I - BASEI I * 0 1960's Drought Flows 0 Present (19SU) 2* 100 1960's Drought Flows 0 Present (1980) 3* 500 196U's Drought Flows 0 Present 098U) 4* 900 1960's Drought Flows 0 Present 08U) PHASE 2 - FUTURE n 5* 0 1960's Drought Flows 0 Projected Future (2U20) I 1- 6* 100 1960's Drought Flows U Projected Future (/-U2U') cr@ 7 500 1960's Drought Flows 0 Projected Future (IU20) 8* 900 1960's Drought Flows 0 Projected Future (/-0/-0) 9* 0 1960's Drought Flows 100 Projected Future (2UZU) 10 100 1960's Drought Hows 100 Projected Future (I-U20) 11 500 1960's Drought Flows IOU Projected future (20.ZO) 12 900 1960's Drought Flows 100 Projected Future (/-UeO) 13 0 196U's Drought Flows 20U Projected Future (ZU2U) 14 100 1960's Drought Flows 2OU Projected Future (.ZU2U') 15 500 1960's Drought Flows 20U Projected Future (202-U') 16 900 196U's Drought Flows 2UU Projected Future (ZU2U) ITest to be conducted using a second dye which would be representative of the water quality of the Potomac River over Little Falls. 2Present Conditions - 418 mgd; Future Conditions - 705 mgd. *Test run on hydraulic model level of +0.18 feet. This tide was representative of the maximum spring tide of the 28- day lunar tide. The tide was repeated until the model reached stability. At a specified time, after both tide and salinity stability had been achieved, the tide was changed to a 28-day lunar tide which was maintained during the hydrograph and steady-state low flow conditions. Chesapeake and Delaware Canal The Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal was not operated during the Potomac Estuary Testing. The associated boundary control conditions of C&D tides, source salinity, and net flows were not applicable. Freshwater Inflows The model was stabilized at a discharge of M,000 cfs using a repeatable cosine tide. After stabilization, the model was stepped through 4-3/4 months of weekly hydrograplis simulating the period April - August 1964, to dynamically bring the model to drou8ht conditions. Drought conditions were maintained for a 6-month test period with all inflows, except the Potomac River one, set at the average August - October 1')64, steady-state flows. The Potomac River discharge into the upper Potomac Estuary was set at a different rate in each place of the test. This varied from 0 to 900 LAUL). Wastewater Inflows Wastewater discharge for the Washington area STP's in the upper Potomac Estuary was simulated by constant discharges of a conservative dye (Rhodamine WT). rable C-8 lists the MWA STP's and their respective wastewater flows for the present and future rests (the future tests represent projected 2020 wastewater discharges.). The wastewater discharges during lead-in steady-state flows were included in tile Potomac River inflows. At the start of the hydrograph, the wastewater flow was transferred to the respective outfall locations. Freshwater was used to simulate the wastewater until the dye release started. During a brief period prior to dye releases, the outfalls were disconnected and dye was run through the lines. The wastewater flow rate was measured volumetfirally; and at slack after flood at station PO 0 1-03 (the mouth of the Potomac River), the outfalls were connected and dye was released into the model. Outfalls were set at prototype location and depth. Wastewater specific gravity was set at 1.0. Ocean Source Salinity The model ocean source salinity was maintained at 31 ppt for all of the Potomac r-stuary tests. Sumps were monitored hourly and salinity adjusted as necessary. C-47 TABLE C-8 POTOMAC ESTUARY TEST WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Designated 1 2 Inflow Point Present Future (Figure C-16) Location of Facility (mgd) (mgd) A blue Plains 305 450 B Piscataway 22 00 C Arlington 20 30 0 Alexandria 33 40 3 E Lower Potomac 38 00 F Mattawoman - 0.54 lBased on projected 1980 discharges. 2Based on projected capacity requirements for 2020 from current 208 planning documents. 3Combined Lower Potomac and Mooney during Base Test. 4Combined Mattawoman and Mooney during Futures Test. C-48 Data Collection Since the major objectives of the study were salinity changes and overall wastewater dispersion characteristics, salinity and dye sampling were emphasized. In order to provide additional data for numerical modeling, tidal heights and velocities were also collected at several stations. A more detailed description of data collection procedures is provided in the following paragraphs. Salinity Data Salinity-dye samples were collected at the stations shown in figure C-16. Samples were taken at slack after flood (SAF) and slack after ebb (5AE). When the water depth exceeded 60 feet, samples were taken at the surface, one-quarter depth, mid-deptn, three-quarters depth, and bottom. When depths ranged from 20 to 60 feet, samples were collected at the surface, mid-depth, and bottom. At depths between 10 and 20 feet, samples were collected at surface and bottom. At depths less than 10 feet, samples were collected at mid-depth only. Sampling commenced at lunar month I and tide 42. The upper estuary (PO-06 to PO-16) was sampled at SAF and SAE for the first 15 consecutive tides. The lower estuary (PO- 01 to PO-05) was sampled on lunar month 1, tides 42 and 48. Starting with lunar month 2, all stations were sampled on tides 1, 10, 28, and 48 of the 56 cycle - 28-lunar day tide except at the end of the test when tide 42 of lunar month 7 was sampled in lieu of tide 48. During each test, a synoptic salinity sample was taken of the entire Potomac Estuary on lunar month 3, tide 38, at high water slack at the mouth of the Potomac River. A series of synoptic samples were also taken during Test 9, from the beginning of the dye release until the test start, at 8 tidal cycle increments to establish the initial dye dispersion pattern. Salinities were monitored at the Chesapeake Bay salinity monitoring stations on the same tides (1, 10, 28, and 48) to establish a representative salinity for all tests. Salinities were continuously monitored and recorded at mid or near bottom depth. Monitoring notes were made approximately every three hours. Dye Concentrations Fluorescent dyes were used to trace wastewater effluent and the Potomac River inflow. The wastewater of the Washington area STP's was labeled using a conservative fluorescent dye (Rhodamine WT). The concentration of Rhoaamine w r was 1000 parts per billion (ppb) for all tests. The Potomac River freshwater inflow was labeled using a conservative fluorescent dye, Fluoresrene, for all base tests and the future tests. fne Fluorescene was injected at a concentration of 1000 ppb. C-49 PO-16 PO-144 Po-Is PO-14 A PO-13 c PO- I 2a saw 0 fts 20.000 PCI-12 -==Eimm 1040 10.000 ow Po-1 I PO-1 I PO-10 PO-09 PO-00 P008 PO-07 Po-os P004 PO-01 PO-02 Siointty Samoo SMms w"s watw (Dye) owdww SUN" A'iim'- 8 macmwwf C AWman*ia D Ar&x;wn E m F Loww Pat== FIGURE C-16 LOCATION'OF DATA COLLECTION STATIONS C-50 Dye was released and allowed to achieve a background equilibrium prior to the start of the test. Dye was released at both the Washington area STPIs and the Potomac River at a constant flow for the duration of the test. Dye-salinity samples were collected at stations in the upper estuary (PO-9 to PO-16). Oye concentration was also analyzed during the synoptic sampling lunar month 3, tide 38, and during the pre-test for Test 9. Sampling procedures have been described in the preceding discussion of the salinity data. Tidal Elevations Tides were monitored throughout the model using nine automatic water level detectors (TOA). Four of the TDAs were positioned in the Potomac Estuary at Cornfield Harbor, Dalgren, Quantico, and Washington D.C. Manual tide measurements were also taken at these locations to give comparative tide values, and to check for rOA error or drift. Manual tide measurements were taken three times per test at the four rL)A locations. Tides were measured during lunar months 2, 4, and 6, starting at low water (LW) on tide 53 and continuing on a lunar hour basis to LW of tide 55. Tide 55 was representative of a maximum spring tide. Current Velocities Current velocities were collected in two base tests (I and 4) and two futures tests (5 and 9). Velocities were taken at stations PO-I, PO-6, PO-11, and PO-14 at the same depths as the salinity samples. Velocities were measured on lunar month 5, between low water of tides 21-22 for the bottom depth, between low water 23-24 for the mid-depth, and between low water 25-26 for the surface. Readings were taken every lunar hour. Tides 22, 24, and 26 were representative of an average tide for the 28-day lunar tide. Summary of Test Results As noted in the preceding sections, salinity, dye concentrations, tidal eleva tion, and current velocity data were collected during the eight tests which were conducted as part of the first phase of testing. Unfortunately, without the data from the eight remaining tests it was not possible to satisfy the objectives of the testing program as originally stated; however, some representative data from the initial tests are presented in the following paragraphs, as well as some generalized statements regarding the significance of these data. Based on a cursory examination of the salinity data, the test results confirmed expected hydrodynamic conditions in the Potomac Estuary. Salinity declined with the distance from the mouth of the Potomac and varied with the level of Potomac inflows, wastewater discharges, and withdrawal at the Emergency Estuary Water Pumping Station. Further, the longitudinal salinity distribution generally followed observed data with salinity increasing with water depth throughout the Potomac Estuary. As it related to salinity, the area of greatest interest was the degree of salinity intrusion that occurred under various inflow ronditions. Table C-9 provides an overview of the salinity intrusion by showing the estimated time of arrival of various salinities at station PO-16-01 (Emergency Pumping Station Upstream from Chain Bridge). For example, this table indicates that it would take approximately 13 weeks for the salinity to reach I ppt C- 51 TABLE C-9 POTOMAC ESTUARY TEST SALINITY TIME OF ARRIVAL AT EMERGENCY PUMPING STATION (PO-16) Potoma(-. Inflow Salinity Time of Arrival (in Weels) (Flow-by) Inflow Wastewater Treatment Estuary Withdrawal at Emergency Pumping tation Test MGD Other Tributaries Plant Conditions (MGD) Salinity Level in ppt@ Phase I - Base 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 I n 196n's Drought Flows Present (198n-418 mgd) 0 9 13 18 22 2 Inn 196n's Drought Flows Present (198rl-418 mgd) 0 13 20 22 24 3 5nn 190's Drought Flows Present (1986-418 mgd) a - - - - 4 gnn 196n's Drought Flows Present (iggn-419 mgd) 0 - - - - Phase. 2 - Future. 5 n 196n's Drought Flows Future (2n2n-7n5 mgd) n 10 20 22 - 6 Inn 190's Drought Flows Future (2n2n-7n5 mgd) 0 14 17 21 - 8 9nn 196n's Drought Flows Future (2n2n-7n5 mgd) 0 - - - - 9 n 196n's Drought Flows Future (2n2O-705 mgd) 101) 9 13 20 25 1. Given that the model was brought to drought conditions by simulating the period April-August 1964, this'represents the number of weeks it wbuld take the salinity to rearh the designated value with a steady-state Potomac inflow as noted. 2. Salinity samples taken at the bottom of the section. at PO-16 assuming a Potomar inflow of 100 mgd. Given the nature and duration of both the 1960's and 1930's droughts, it is not unreasonable to assume that salinity intrusion could occur and may present a potential treatment problem for an estuary treatment facility. It should be recognized, however, that the severe salinity intrusion occurred at only the lowest flowby values and during the latter part of the drought period. As a f urther example of some of the salinity results, included as Figures C- i 7 and C- i 8 are a longitudinal salinity distribution profile for the entire Potomac i6ver L@stuary and a salinity time history for several stations. Both of these figures are based on salinity data from Test 2 of the Phase I testing which reflects the base conditions and a Potomac inflow of 100 mgd. These two figures also supported the conclusion that during a severe, prolonged drought, nearly the entire Potomac Estuary to Little Falls is subject to saline water intrusion f or Potomar f lowbys of 100 mgd or less. This conclusion was f urther supported by the results of the Low Freshwater Inflow Study model testing which also demonstrated rather extensive salinity intrusion under prolonged drought conditions. It should be noted that a more refined estimate of the extent and duration of the salinity intrusion plus the impacts of varying levels of estuary pumping could not be developed without the remainder of the hydraulic model testing. It was also difficult to draw any conclusions relative to wastewater dispersion patterns using the results of only the initial dye dispersion testing. As noted in Figure C-19, conrentrations of dye on the order of 200 ppb do reach a point midway between station PO-15A (Georgetown Reservoir) and Station PO-16 (Chain Bridge) under base conditions (Test 2) and a 100 mgd Potomac River inflow. The source dye for this test was Rhodamine WT which was released at the Washington area sewage treatment plants noted on Figure C- 16. It should be noted that the hydraulic model testing provided only the dispersion characteristics of a conservative dye and not the level of pollutants that rould be expected at any given point in the model. It was originally intended that fol- lowing completion of the second phase of the physical model testing, the physical model data would be used as input to the Environmental Protection Agency's Dynamic 6stuary Model (numerical) which would then be run to provide estimates of the levels of pollutants under the various conditions tested. Unfortunately, the second phase of the hydraulic model testing was not conducted and there are insufficient data to conduct the numerical modeling. No conclusions relative to the level of pollutants at any proposed estuary water treatment plant location can be provided at this time. Generally, it would appear that the suitability and treatability of the estuary water would be more of a function of the levels of salinity that could occur under drought con- ditions rather than degraded water quality from the sewage treatment plants in the Metropolitan Washington Area. Further hydraulic and numerical modeling should be conducted prior to any recommendation for use of the estuary as a future source of supply. NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS DEEPENING TEST Desrri2tion and Objective of Testing Norfolk, Virginia, located near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay has played a major role in waterborne commerce along the east roast of the United States. In 1980 the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, completed a study of the feasibility of deepening the harbor and approach channels from 45 to 55 feet. C-53 0, 20,y--- 124 21 404) 0 w 1: 60 Al 4) V z so 0 0 100 9 10. 1 0 0. 0 20 40 60 so 100 120 140 160 lao 200 2 cn 3 DISTANCE IN FT .10 FROM MOUTH OF POTOMAC RIVER 0 15 20 - 46 0 U 40 0 v so 100 rn 1 0 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 4 DISTANCE IN F T . 103FROM MOUTH OF POTOMAC RIVER SALINITY ISOHALINES MODEL TEST DATA IN PPT, mg/l TEST NO ....... ........ 03PO5A 0 TIDE M. .......... 28-LUNAR-DAY Pli LUNAR ON H/T DE CYCLE . . , . .7/42 F-1 OCEAN SOURCE SALINITY ........ 31.0 PPT t-l WASTEWATER DISCHARGE ...... 418 MGD m POTOMAC DISCHARGE .......... 100MGD (n POTOMAC WITHDRAWAL ........ 0 MGD 7.0 Base Conditions 100 mad Potomac Inflow 6.0 5.0 Station PO-13-2 (Blue Plains) E 2 0 M 4.0 0 CL CL 3.0 Station PO-15-1 U) (Key Bridge) 2.0 1.0 Station PO-16 (Chain Bridge) 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time in Weeks From Start of Test Z-2 s) FIGURE C-18 POTOMAC ESTUARY TEST SALINITY TIME HISTORY C-55 SNOIIVUIN30NOD aLU qVNIGMIDNO'l LUMS qSGON LUVaISR DVN0l0d 61-D sunDia DEPT" a PT. SELOW M&L alp?" IN FT. ULOW W&L c po-G. t A FA OX to !.L- 2 v INn I PO-09 Do 0 cc vl@ r, f. C7 t r. n o v PO-09 z 'A PO-,O so VO-04 PAArTAmomm syp pol. ow z 1.0"w III POTOMAC $To 4A z -0 A PO-toA 9 PO-1" 0 0 P.s 0 TP -t2 1@' A6Eaa%D"R Fl 31- 0 FT I. C, PO-14 Q 0-0,, PO-15 0 00 The objective of the model testing was to investigate the impact of the proposed channel deepening on the hydrodynamic characteristics of Chesapeake Bay. The study was designed specifically to determine what changes in tidal elevations, current velocities and salinities could be attributed to the proposed channel deepening. The hydraulic model testing consisted of two parts. The first was a series of four steady- state tests (constant discharge and cosine tides) designed to study base versus plan differences in tides and current velocities. Both base and plan geometries were tested under medium and high tide ranges and freshwater discharge conditions. The boundary conditions and sampling procedures for the steady-state tests were dictated by the needs of num@rical models for subsequent studies of sediment transport and shoaling in the dredged channels and neighboring bottom areas. The second part of the study was a dynamic test (variable discharge and variable tides) designed to predict base versus plan differences in salinity response. A 2-1/2 year variable hydrograph was used with a repetitive 28-lunar-day variable tide for both base and plan tests. The ocean source salinity was the same for both steady-state and dynamic tests. Model Test Conditions Model Geometry For base condition testing, the model geometry was as constructed and verified with the addition of the proposed 50-foot Baltimore Harbor and channels. For the plan testing, the proposed Norfolk Harbor and Channels to include three feet of overdepth dredging were added to the model. Tidal Conditions For the steady state testing, the ocean boundary was operated under a repetitive cosine tide having ranges of either +1.50 or +2.40 feet. For the dynamic testing, a repetitive, 28-lunar-day 56-cycle tide sequence was used. During both the steady state and dynamic testing, tides were generated at only the Atlantic Ocean Boundary. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal source tide was not operated. Freshwater Inflows During the steady state testing, total Bay inflow was held constant at either 70,000 or 200,000 cf s. For the dynamic testing, a 15-week lead-in steady state inflow of 70,000 cf s followed by the natural hydrograph for the period May 1963 to August 1965 was used. Sewage Treatment Plant and Other Inflows In addition to the river inflows, five sewage treatment plants on the James River and the Surry Nuclear Power Plant cooling water diversion were operated throughout the testing. Ocean Source Salinity The source salinity for the entire model study was 32.5 ppt. Control of the source salinity during the steady-state tests was considered good with any minor variations being incapable of causing any observable base versus plan differences in tides or velocities. C-57 Data Collection Tidal Elevations During the steady-state testing, model tide observations were made at the 17 stations shown in Figure C-20. Tide elevations were recorded hourly (prototype) over two tide cycles. These tide measurements were made both manually using point gages and automatically using the electronic water level detectors. In a similiar fashion, tidal elevations were also recorded during the dynamic testing. Current Velocities Model velocities were measured during the steady state tests at the 32 stations shown on Figure C-21. The velocity measurements were made concurrent with the tidal elevations discussed in the prereeding paragraph. In addition, current direction data were collected at 26 of the velocity stations. Salinities Salinity sampling stations were located at 193 points throughout the Bay so that effects on the entire system could be determined. The majority of the stations were located near the area of the proposed deepening with rare taken to select biologically sensitive areas. Samples were taken at from one to five depths per station. The samples were collected at slack after flood at tide 1, 10, 28, and 48 of the 28-day tidal cycle. These corresponded to the neap and spring tide occurrences. Summary of Test Results Changes in tidal elevations, amplitudes and phasing which may be due to the effects of channel deepening were sufficiently small that they were undetectable with tne rneasure- ment techniques used at the hydraulic model. Model measurement techniques are of sufficient accuracy that significant changes would have been noted, therefore, none are expected. Several subtle velocity variations in the model tests were apparently due to channel deepening. An overall decrease in velocity amplitude of about 0.13 fps was noticea during the plan test. This is consistent with the principles of continuity, out the magni- tude of change is close to the accuracy limitations of model instrumentation. Slight increases in flood dominance were noticed under average inflow conditions indicating perhaps that salinity intrusion may move upstream in the study area. This observation is consistent with the observed increased salinities. Overall changes in model velocities could be attributed to the effects of channel deepening, but the magnitude of the changes is barely detectable. Variations in the model salinity distribution were noticed which could be attributed to rhannel deepening. The greatest differences were noticed in the deepened channel areas where increases in the bottom salinities varied between 0.0 and 4.0 ppt.- Average increases in the channels varied between () and 2 ppt. Overbank areas in the project areas experienced a lesser salinity increase. At times there was actually a slight freshening of the overbanks. Stations elsewhere in the model showed modest increases in salinity, but were normally less than 2 ppt most of the time. C-58 F-I CB 010 M CE 0105 RANGE JG 03 N) CB 010 CD JG 0 02 RANGE CS 01 Ys 0001 0 CB STA 3 0. TS 0005 RANGE CHESAPEAKE BAY JG 01 8RIDGE - rUNMEL A JN 0202 TS 0003 Ca 0004 1-3 RANGE 1-3 CB 0001 EH .5@31 1 0 s 201 EE 0301 F-I 0 z EH 0901 0 SCALE z 10,000 0 10_000 20,DOO F T cs 0110 ca 01 ce 0109 CB 0106 CB 0103 t13 ca 010 RANGECBOI RANGE z JG 03 pv 0 09 Ys 0001 o" 08 TS 0005 03 Coll RANGE CHESAPEAKE BAY 06 01 JG 01 BRIDGE-rUMVEL Z 0 03 TS OM 04 002 RAN a, CD 02 H 02 01 0311 wa o EH 0501 EE 0301 EH 0701 EH 0901 SCALE lo,@00 0 10.000 2.06000 F T The salinity tests documented the locations of stations in the study area which exhibit large (commonly as great as 5 to 8 ppt) salinity changes during the neap-spring tide cycle. The entire study area experienced these variations which are naturally occurring and not caused by channel deepening. Salinity changes caused by channel deepening are much smaller than those naturally occurring changes. Furthermore, the small changes due to channel deepening are concentrated in deep channel areas and not in the overbank areas where sensitive biological communities exist. More detailed information on the model test results is in Technical Report HL-83-13, Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening Study, June 1983, prepared by the Hydraulic Laboratory of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. JAMES RIVER OIL DISPERSION TEST In February 1979, a series of oil spill experiments were conducted on the model to simulate the effects of tidal currents on the dispersion of an oil spill near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. The testing was conducted for the Office, Chief of Engineers as part of a technical and environmental evaluation of a proposed permit for the construction of an oil refinery in the Hampton Roads area. Five oil spills were simulated during the testing. The volume of the spills ranged from 500,000 to 7,000,000 barrels with the period of the release varying between I hour for the smaller spills and 96 hours for the larger spills. Ten Hasselbad 70 min cameras were used to document the oil spill trajectories. Photos were taken hourly (prototype) during the early parts of each spill and only at slack water during the later stages of the tests. One 16 mm time lapse camera was used in the region of the oil spill to provide more continuity. The sense of motion provided by the time lapse camera and the continuity in space provided by the mosaics of the Hasselbad photos provided a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the oil motion. Technicans were also used to make visual observations of the oil motion during the simulations. Given the aforementioned photo mosiacs judgements were made as to the extent of the spread of the spills and the potential of the spills to penetrate the James River and reach its extensive oyster seed beds. TESTING FOR OTHERS NANTICOKE RIVER, MARYLAND, DYE DISPERSION TEST Description and Objective of Testing Sharptown, Maryland, is located on the Nanticoke River about 31 miles upstream from its mouth. The Nanticoke River drains a 700 square mile watershed and has an annual average discharge of approximately 840 cfs. About 40 miles of it is effected by the tide. On the west bank of the river at Sharptown, there were approximately 30 chemical storage tanks containing approximately 170,000 gallons of various toxic chemicals and industrial solvents. The objective of the test, which was done at the request of the State of Maryland, was to define the geographical extent of the "worst case', effects from a hypothetical release of a toxic substance at Sharptown. This was accomplished by defining the temporal and spatial distribution of a neutrally buoyant conservative contaminant in the Nanticoke River representative of an accidential chernical release at Sharptown. A fluorescent dye was used as the tracer material. C-61 Model Condition The condition of the Chesapeake Bay and the Nanticoke River at the time of the chemi- ral spill determines, to a large extent, the dispersion of contaminants in the system. Since this condition can vary considerably and is unpredictable, a moderate approach to prototype simulation was taken. To achieve this result, annual average freshwater inflows and a slightly less than mean-ranged repeatable ocean cosine tide were used. Boundary conditions f or the test are shown in Table C- 10. The ocean boundary was cam operated under a repetitive cosine tide with a high water of 1.3 ft and a low water of -1.3 ft. This resulted in a 1.9-ft tidal range at Vienna which is slightly less than the average range of 2.3 ft reported in the tide tables. I Freshwater inflows into the Nanticoke were confined to the upstream limits of the model at three locations, i.e. Seaford, Delaware, Federalsburg, Maryland, and Quantico Creek. The designed flows were 391, 253, and 197 cfs, respectively. The source salinity was maintained at 32.5 ppt total salt throughout the test, and the model was operated until salinity stability had been achieved prior to initiating the dye release. The dye release point was at sta N-4 (Sharptown, Figure C-22), and 5.9 ml of Rhodamine WT dye solution (approximately 2 ppt) was injected at the time of slack before flood of the first tidal cycle of the dye test. The dye was injected at middepth over a 3 second period. Data Collection Sampling stations were located throughout the Nanticoke River area (see Figure C-22). Real time analyses were performed on several stations to determine the movement of the dye. In this way, additional mobile sampling stations could be added if they were needed. For stations where the prototype depth was between 20 and 60 ft, three samples were taken in the vertical (surface, middepth, and bottom). Where the depth was between 10 and 20 ft, surface and bottom samples were taken; and for depths less than 10 ft, a single middepth sample was taken. Sampling started at the second slack before ebb after the dye injection and was continued at prescribed stacks for 58 tidal cycles. Slack water was considered synoptic about sta N-3A (Vienna). Hourly samples were taken at sta N-3A and N-3B during tide 13 so that the concentration distribution through one tidal cycle could be determined. Approximately 700 samples were taken during the test. The samples were collected by vacuum aspiration and taken to a temperature- controlled room where fluorometer readings were taken for each. Tidal elevations and tidal current measurements were made at sta N-3A and N-3, respectively, oefore and after the test. Summary of Test Results Based on an analysis of the test results, it was noted that peak concentrations of rontaminents in the river tend to decrease with successive tidal cycles with a net transport of dye mass proceeding slowly downstream. The farthest upstream .intrusion orrurred at Seaford (station N-6) after 43 tidal cycles. The arrival of the dye at the most downstream sampling location (station N-1, near the mouth of the river) occurred between slack bef ore flood of cycle 40 and slack bef ore ebb of cycle 43. C-62 TABLE C-10 NANTICOKE RIVER TEST BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Tides Ocean C&D Canal Range, f t 2.6 Not operating Amplitude, f t 1.3 Not operating Plane, ft 0.0 Not operating Source salinity, ppt 32.5 Not operating Freshwater inflow: Inflow No. Tributary Discharge, cf s I Nansemond R. 676 2 Chickahominy R. 289 3 Appomattox R. 967 4 James R. 7,249 5 York R. 2,659 6 Rappahannock R. 2,842 7 Wicomico R. 412 8 Occoquan Cr. 2,370 9 Anacostia R. 562 10 Potomac R. 7,699 11 Patuxent R. 881 12 Severn R. 231 13 Patapsco R. 613 14 Gunpowder R. 802 15 Susquehanna R. 37,217 16 Bohemia R. 386 17 Chester R. 402 18 Wye R. 190 19 Choptank R. 1,216 20 Nanticoke R. 403 20M Marshyhope Cr. 249 20Q Quantico Cr. 196 (sums adjacent basins) 21 Pocomoke R. 1,369 Total discharge in Bay-70,000 cfs C-63 INF LOW 20M F.. EDERALSS. URG OHIO 6A A I L W2? NF 0 C9' 6 1 A AREA SE FORD ENLARGED MH- N-5 a N-iA 7 (SHARPTOWN) N DYE fAIJfcrtoN N-3B A N-3A'IVIENNA) N-3 'N- -N- QUANTICO CR Mf ON 2 @momlco R '-'N- I AW 0 @N E ON-1 BLOODSWORTH SMITH ISLAND SCALE wo- 4. FIGURE C-22 SAMPLING STATIONS ON 14ANTICOKE RIVER C-64 The boundary conditions in the Nanticoke River and Chesapeake Bay can have an ef f ect on the dispersion of dye. Should a higher freshwater discharge occur on the Nanticoke River and/or Marshyhope Creek, one could expect faster flushing toward the Bay with smaller concentrations observed upstream as compared with the results for the conditions tested. Conversely, if lower freshwater discharges occur, one could expect a slower flushing rate with higher concentrations upstream. The tidal condition at the time of injection can af f ect the dispersion of dye. Spring tides would tend to increase dispersion in upstream and downstream directions; neap tides would decrease this amount of dispersion. The time of injection within a single tidal cycle can also affect the dispersion. If injection occurs on a slack before flood, the concentrations upstream will be larger than if injection occurred on a slack before ebb. The density and solubilty of a particular contaminant can have an effect on its dispersion in the system. A contaminant that settles on the bottom will disperse at a rate different than the one that floats on the surface or one that mixes in the water column. The physical properties of the particular contaminant should be considered prior to applying these results to any given chemical spill. For a more detailed discussion of the testing and the results, the reader is referred to miscellaneous paper HL-81-2, titled Nanticoke River, Maryland, Dye Dispersion Study prepared by the Hydraulic Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. DISASTER RECOVERY TESTING Over the years the model was in operation, there were several occasions when it was used to aid disaster recovery operations. The most notable of these tests were conducted in October 1978 following the sinking of the Coast Guard Cutter Cuyahoga and in January 1982 af ter the crash of an Air-Florida jetliner in the Potomac River at Washington, D.C. In both cases, the model was run for a short period of time under "average" conditions to determine the most likely location of the victims of these tragedies. It should be noted that in both cases the model served as a reasonably accurate guide for the body recovery operations. PATUXENT AND CHESTER RIVER PROTOTYPE SURVEY DESIGN,rEsy Concurrent with an on-going Corps of Engineers test, confetti was distributed on the Patuxent and Chester River segments of the model to determine surface current patterns over several tidal cycles. This brief, undocumented test was done for the University of Maryland Center for Estuarine and Environmental Studies to assist in the design of a sampling network for studies of the Patuxent and Chester River subestuaries. C-65 LAFAYETTE RIVER WASTEWATER DISPERSION TEST As part of the Sea Grant Program, Old Dominion University conducted a study of the pollutant fields caused by discharges from pleasure boats. The area of focus of the study was a group of marinas on the Lafayette River which is a tributary of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Virginia. The hydraulic model was used for a set of continuous and distributed Rhodamine dye releases at a location on the Lafayette River near the marinas. The model dispersion data were then compared with similar prototype dye releases to determine the applicability of physical modeling as a water quality management tool. More detailed information on the study and the testing may be obtained from the Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences and Institute of Oceanography of Old Dominion University. C-66 I I 110111111111101 3 6668 14102 0976