t T-^ '&? t
trC5s
/ 1 ^'z
m ITEM #1005304 03/72 SHELF #5
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study ryland Chesapeake Bay Study y.a i-fo
A Report to the Maryland Department of State Planning and The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study
The preparation of this Report, maps and documents were financed in part through a comprehensive plan- ning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as administered by the Mary- land Department of State Planning.
Comprehensive Planning Assistance Project No. Md. P-87
Prepared by Wallace McHarg Roberts and Toddjnc. Urban Design, Community and Ecological Planners Philadelphia, Pennsylvania James J.O'Donnell, Consultant
&< &u2£$-~ MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING
301 WEST PRESTON STREET VLADIMIR A. WAHBE BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 SECHETARY OF STATE PLANNING MARVIN MANDEL TELEPHONE: 301-383-2451 NORMAN HEBDEN GOVERNOR DEPUTY SECRETARY March 20, 1972 Hon. Marvin Mandel Governor of Maryland State House Annapolis, Maryland 21U0U
Dear Governor Mandel: The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee (CBIPC) was established at your request in 1969 with the expressed purpose of responding to the Statewide con- cern for the future of Maryland's greatest natural resource - the Chesapeake Bay. The Coramittee was created to reflect the public concern for the immense economic, environmental, and social values inherent in the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay's natural resources must be studied comprehensively to enable the optimization of land and water-related impacts for the promulgation of policies for balanced use. Only through comprehensive management planning at the State level will Marylanders have continued enjoyment and utilization of the Chesapeake Bay's natural resources. In 1970 CBIPC enlisted the services of the planning consultant firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd to study the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay and prepare a comprehensive inventory of the present and anticipated problems plagueing the Bay. Included in the document are recommended goals, policies, and management institutions which would most effectively respond to the Bay problems. This effort was initiated with the aid of a Comprehensive Planning Assistance Pro- gram grant by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. I am pleased to transmit the technical report entitled "Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study" to you, the General Assembly, and citizens of Maryland for reaction. The consultant's findings as reported to the Committee stress the necessary elements in defining a comprehensive Baywide plan and the mechanism for achieving this end. This report does not necessarily reflect a consensus of the Committee, but will be the primary input for further deliberations. Following, under separate cover, will be a "Popularized Summary" which abbreviates the contents of the technical document to afford extensive public distribution. Based upon CBIPC deliberations and statewide reaction, the Committee will shortly be preparing a special report to you recommending the procedures for implementation of the Chesapeake Bay program. The numerous docaments and references utilized are summarized in the "Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study." The document includes the following areas: (l) description of present Bay management systems; (2) problem area definition; (3) identification of goals and objectives; (U) rationalization of information systems; ($) relation- ship between conservation and utilization objectives; (6) establishment and analysis of alternative institutions for Bay management; (7) establishment of necessary ele- ments of comprehensive Bay plan; and comprises nearly 1,000 pages of text. This en- deavor reflects a two-year effort and represents the first comprehensive Maryland Chesapeake Bay inventory of natural resources and economic development problems with suggested mechanisms for management planning.
Sincerely,
^ Vladimir A. Wahbe, Chairman Secretary, Department of State Planning CHESAPEAKE BAY INTERAGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE
Vladimir A. Wahbe, Chairman Secretary, Department of State Planning James. B. Coulter, Vice Chairman Secretary, Department of Natural Resources Harry R. Hughes Secretary, Department of Transportation Howard E. Chaney Director, Environmental Health Administration Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Edmond F. Rovner Secretary, Department of Economic and Community Development Project Coordination
Robert F. Tribukait, P.E. ... Roy G. Metzgar Department of State Planning
Ex-Officio Representatives
Dr. L. Eugene Cronin Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland Dr. Donald W. Pritchard Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University
Staff Assistance
Albert R. Miller Department of State Planning John R. Capper Department of Natural Resources J.J. O'Donnell, Gary Smith Department of Transportation W. McLean Bingley, Frederick Pyne Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Dr. Robert M. Sparks Department of Economic and Community Development
Special Assistance
Specialized support was provided by the following agencies:
Department of State Planning Department of Natural Resources State Highway Administration Maryland Port Administration Department of Economic and Community Development Regional Planning Council Maryland Soil Conservation Service Johns Hopkins University Table of Contents
PREFACE
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND PLAN OF REPORT l:L1
I. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE BAY? Introduction: What is the Bay? Who Owns the Bay? ' ^ Viewpoints about the Bay
II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS: BY PROBLEM CATEGORY ^ Introduction 25 A. Living Resources of the Bay ." B. Conservation of Wetlands 50 C. Water Movement 62 D. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation ; 64 Da. Shore Erosion * 73 Db. Sedimentation Problems • 84 E. Water Pollution 106 F. Water Supply 12g G. Thermal Waste Discharges r 1404*-^- • H . Marine Transportation Problems f 15 2 I. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation j. Waterfront Industry • Q K. Waterfront Residential Development y iel L. Solid Waste Disposal ' " M. Public Access to and Appearance and Design of Shoreline ^ N. Non-Living Resources - Sand and Gravel ^ 0. Information and Information Retrieval P. Synthesis and Planning Problems 22o Q. Public Awareness and Involvement 225 R. Tools for Implementation 22g S. Management Capability 233 T. Fiscal Support 2 35 III. PROBLEMS AND GOALS: BY PLANNING AREAS A Relative Importance of Present Problems by Planning Area B. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Problems in the Context of the Bay's Watershed ^ and the North Atlantic Region C Emerging Issues by Geographic Location and Planning Area D. Population Change, Economic Trends, and Urban Land Absorption Impacts, ^
by Planning Area 2gg E. Plans as Goal Statements IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT GOALS 277 Introduction 280 A. Federal Bay Management 281 B. Federal-State Bay Management 286 C. State Bay Management 287 D. Intrastate Bay Management 296 E. "Local" Bay Management 297 F. Non-Governmental Bay Management 298 G. Maryland State Mandates as Chesapeake Bay Goal Statements 299
V. CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 304 A. Is Government Adequately Organized for Bay Resource Management? 306 B. Organizational Alternatives for Bay Resource Management 309
VI. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 317 A. Why Maryland State Government Should Take the Lead in Planning for the Bay 319 B. General Nature of the Comprehensive Plan 320 C. Summary Outline of Major Elements 321 D. Component Plan Description 322 E. Steps for Plan Preparation 328 F. Summary of Elements of a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay 329
VII. WHO SHOULD PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY? 332 A. Criteria for Bay Planning 334 B. Organizational Alternatives for Comprehensive Plan Preparation 335 C. Formation, Organization and Powers of a Temporary Chesapeake Bay Commission 337 D. Summary of Recommendations 341
APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING APPROACHES TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION 344 Introduction 347 A. Day-to-Day Bay Management: Reactive FrameworkSi 348 B. An Information and Information Retrieval Strategy: Preactive Frameworks.. 352 C. System Modeling and Planning: Adaptive Frameworks 374 D. Implementation Tools 385
APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND GRAPHIC REFERENCE 391 PLATE 1: Urban Context, Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study Preface Task 3. Identification of Goals and Ob- j ectives. Task 4. Rationalization of Information Syspem. In February 1969, Governor Mandel Task 5. Development of Relation Between directed the formation of the Chesapeake Conservation of the Bay's Resources and Re- Bay Interagency Planning Committee source Utilization Objectives. (CBIPC) and asked the Secretary of State Task 6. Establishment and Analysis of Impli- Planning to prepare a program by which cations of Alternate Policies and Programs. the State could fulfill its "major re- Task 7. Establishment of Necessary Elements sponsibility for insuring that the threat of a Comprehensive Plan for the Bay. to one of Maryland's major assets is met on a timely basis and its related re- Credits for This Report sources are planned, developed, and man- Many people have contributed to the aged in such a way as to meet the needs preparation of this Report, most notably of present and future generations." Mr. Robert Tribukait, Mr. Roy Metzgar and Dr. Albert R. Miller of the Maryland Depart- The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning ment of State Planning; Mr. John R. Capper Committee and Work accomplished to Date of the Maryland Department of Natural The following steps were initiated Resources; Dr. Robert'M. Sparks and Mr. to fulfill the Governor's directive: James A. McComas, Jr. of the Maryland De- 1. Two working committees were as- partment of Economic and Community Develop- sembled : ment; and Mr. Henry T. Douglas of the Mary- a. Secretary level committee com- land Port Administration. posed of 10 (now consolidated to 5) State Special thanks are due to Mr. Paul agencies with resource management and R. Farragut of the Maryland Department of general development interests concerning Natural Resources for supplying valuable the Bay to serve as the policy and govern- reports and references. Others who con- ing board. tributed by supplying information are b. Staff committee composed of Mr. Art Benjamin, Mr. Richard Tucker, Mrs. designees of the Secretaries to serve as David Nutter, Mr. W. L. Etzler, and Mr. a technical work group. Edwin L. Thomas of the Maryland Department 2. A Work Program was developed and of State Planning; Mr. T. Wallace Beaulieu adopted. of the Maryland State Roads Administration; 3. Inventory and issue analysis work Miss Martha Kaufman of the Maryland De- elements were initiated by the various partment of Natural Resources; Mr. Jack Departments. Anderson and Mr. Al Katz of the Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland. The Role of This Study Persons outside of State government In June 1970, Wallace, McHarg, who have provided valuable contributions Roberts and Todd were retained to supple- include Dr. L. Eugene Cronin of the ment and summarize the work of relevant University of Maryland, Natural Resources Department staffs, and to serve as an Institute; Dr. Roland F. Beers, Jr. of the extension and staff of the CBIPC through Johns Hopkins University Chesapeake Bay a contract with the Department of State Institute; and Mr. Charles Hancock of the Planning. WMRT's work was organized in Maryland Soil Conservation Service. seven tasks in accord with the general Dr. David A. Wallace and James Work Program: Williams have been in principal charge. Task 1. Description of the Bay System Additional staff include Richard and of Present State Bay Management Nalbandian, Michael Clarke, Hans-Harald Program. Grote, Carolyn Jones, Felicity Hannay,' Task 2. Problem and Planning Area Defini- and Anthwaun Burke. This document was tion . typed by Margaret Dewey and Nancy Chavis. PLATE 2: Physiographic Context, Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study
L ^^j Chesapeake Bay [j^jj Watershed Boundary Summary Conclusions the time is ripe for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the Bay - both and Objectives of the Report because the comprehensive plan is needed to provide a coordinating framework for current and future resource planning, and because of increasing public concern for the future of the Bay. The "Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study" is a background document for major State 2. Nature of a Comprehensive Plan for decisions with regard to planning for the the Bay Chesapeake Bay. The Bay and special The plan should be "comprehensive- feelings and emotions regarding the Bay in several ways• have always been a part of the mental - the planning area should include make-up of Marylanders. Like other the entire Maryland portion of the Chesa- Americans, Marylanders note with dismay peake Bay. the increasing capacity, o.f modern in- - the plan should be for both Bay dustrial society to degrade~-the vastest waters and related shoreline land, natural resource. In particular, Mary- _ the plan should consider the im_ landers are aware of the increasing, pact of and interrelationship among the often conflicting, demands being made broad range of Bay uses and functions, on the waters and shoreline of the Bay. - the plan should express both con- There is thus a widely felt need for a servation and development objectives, conscious, comprehensive plan for Bay _ the plan should include and set management --a plan which would spell in motion processes for its implementation, out State Policy regarding current and _ the plan should establish processes future use of the Bay, considering both for its continual refinement and upgrading, the complete range of demands that will be made on the Bay, and the capacity 3. Maryland Should Take The Lead of the resource to meet the demands. Maryland State Government should Such a plan would show how continued, take the lead in developing the compre- and if possible increasing, use of Bay hensive plan. It should do this with resources can be made; how the uses can the cooperation of Federal and local provide economic livelihood, personal agencies. The way should be left open enjoyment and necessary urban functions; for subsequent integration with planning and how the uses of Bay resources can for the virginia po?tion of the ^esapeake be made while ensuring the preservation Bay and for the Susquehanna and potomac of... the Bay's essential and unique^ Hqual- Kiverviwr BasinsRaeino (byIU,, the*-v,~ Susquehannao u and ^ Po-„ tomac River Basin Compacts).
Summary Conclusions 4. A Temporary Maryland Chesapeake Bay Commission Should Be Responsible -, A „ , . The responsibility for preparing 1- A Comprehensive Bay Plan is Needed the comprehensive plan should be given Though m recent years there have to a special Temporary Commission which been many excellent initiatives in Bay would be approved by the General Assembly, resource management, there is no compre- accountable to the Governor and visible hensive plan expressing coordinated pub- to the public. The planning period lie policy for the use of the Bay. would be three years. Though a major effort is involved, it is possible to develop such a plan. Further,
111 Objectives of the Maryland The discussion synthesizes Chesapeake Bay Study material produced by many governmental In order to provide a basis for and non-governmental agencies. State decision regarding the preparation The discussion of each prob- of a comprehensive plan for the Bay, the lem category attempts to achieve a Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study sought to Bay-wide perspective. The discussion of provide three products: each problem category begins with an 1. Product one is an outline of attempt to define the problem in terms of current and anticipated problems and its unique characteristics, its under- goals for the Bay. The goals define lying causes, its manifestation at the problems, and the problems are pro- particular locations and times, and its jected into the future to understand relationship to various groups in the basic conflicts between resource society. The second part of the conservation, resource utilization and discussion is a "structural speculation" resource despoliation. on the future dimensions of the problem, 2. The second product is a review in which forces which would tend to in- of existing and developing methods for crease or reduce the problem are iden- dealing with issues which arise in re- tified, quantified where possible, and source management. synthesized into a statement of future 3. Product three is a "plan for a outlook. The third part of the plan" -- a general design for and out- discussion is a consideration of pre- line of steps necessary to the prepara- liminary goals, objectives, standards and tion of a Comprehensive Plan for the policies as guides for Bay resource Chesapeake Bay. management. (The last six of the twenty This report includes all three problem categories discussed in Chapter products. II focus directly on management; they are only introduced and are considered Abstract of the Report further in later chapters.) Chapter II attempts to achieve a The Report begins with a considera- Bay-wide perspective on twenty resource tion, in Chapter I, of the seemingly management problem categories. Chapter simple question, "What is the Bay?" The III attempts to retain this perspective Bay is variously defined in terms of its -- yet at the same time to recognize functions and characteristics, its the locational variation in the type, physical boundaries, its uses, vested mix and intensity of resource management interests in it, viewpoints towards it, problems, and to do this for a consistent and the conventional legal rights to its set of Bay planning sub-areas. On the real estate and resources. basis of the Chapter II review, Chapter Chapter II is an extensive review III presents a matrix of the relative of Bay problems and goals. The review significance of existing and emerging relies to a large extent on recent and resource management problems in counties current work by various agencies adjacent to the Bay. A third matrix (especially State agencies) and little is developed to place Bay management of the material will be new to persons problems in the perspective of larger familiar with the Bay. Several aspects geographic contexts. Since the major of the review should help to set the underlying causes of resource management stage for comprehensive planning for problems can often be traced to demo- the Bay: graphic and economic trends and patterns Twenty Bay management problem in the several counties,these are pre- categories are identified and each is sented in Chapter III along with a considered in terms of a consistent discussion of their linkages with re- discussion format.
IV source management. The demographic and The final two chapters present the economic data are used at various points planning and management conclusions of in Chapter II as a starting point in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study. describing the future dimensions of re- Chapter VI presents a "plan for a plan". source management problems stemming The nature of a Comprehensive Plan for from liquid and solid waste generation, the Chesapeake Bay is described in electricity demands, outdoor recreation terms of major planning elements and demands, etc. One implication of demo- their sub-components. Steps toward graphic and economic trends which is not the preparation of the Plan are pre- considered in Chapter II is land con- sented, along with a three year schedule sumption by urban development; preliminary for its preparation. estimates on a county by county basis are Based on the Plan description presented here. Goals as well as problems in Chapter VI , Chapter VII addresses have a locational dimension; the concluding the question of how the resources of section of Chapter III presents several State Government should be applied to plans as locational expressions of this job. Organizational criteria and planning goals. alternatives for preparing the plan In Chapters IV and V, the focus are presented. Based on these, a of the Report shifts from resource man- Temporary Commission for the preparation agement problems to management itself and of the plan is proposed and its powers, its dimensions at both policy and staff responsibilities and operational pro- levels. Chapter IV describes the array cedures are discussed. of current agency responsibilities and In the appendix, the focus shifts missions relating to Bay resource manage- from the policy to the staff level of ment. The review considers public public agencies concerned with resource agencies from the Federal to the local management. The appendix describes re- level as well as certain non-govern- source planning and management techniques mental agencies. Special note, however, which are either available but not widely is made of the mandates of State agencies, applied, under development, or proposed. which are viewed as preliminary goals The techniques have various purposes in for Bay management. application to resource management: to Organizational alternatives for improve agency ability to respond to re- resource management are reviewed in source management problems on a day-to-day Chapter V. The conclusion, however, is basis, to anticipate problems so as to that the recent reorganization of Mary- be better prepared to resolve them, to land State Government has satisfactorily communicate the results of professional established the operational authority planning efforts to interested lay per- and responsibility of various agencies sons, to achieve more comprehensive in Bay management. Criteria for in- understanding of the dynamics of the Bay tegrating long-range planning with day- system and the interaction of Bay ele- to-day management and for coordinating ments and processes. management at various governmental levels are discussed and placed in the context of the evolution of thinking on resource management in Maryland in the past decade. PLATE 3: Study Area, Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study
O \ .PENNSYLVANIA ^CT S^ MARYLAND ;i.";\?:--7;il"
Introduction: What is the Bay? INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE BAY?
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE BAY? 3
,_ n 3 Geomorphology A Areas and Shoreline 5 Water Movement Shore Erosion and Sedimentation Wildlife Wetlands Water „ Waterfront Industry Waterfront Residences Recreation 9
WHO OWNS THE BAY? .... 9
The Public Domain . ... 9 The Private Domain Public Regulation
VIEWPOINTS ABOUT THE BAY Introduction: How can the Bay and its resources be defined? Four kinds of answers are What Is the Bay? possible. The Bay can be defined by its functions and characteristics, its boun- daries, and in terms of the legal rights In this chapter, the discussion to its real estate and resources. Final- of Chesapeake Bay management is intro- ly, the Bay can be defined by its uses, duced by a consideration of the ques- the viewpoints various kinds of people tion "What is the Bay?" How can the Bay have of it and the vested interests of and its resources be defined? Four various groups in it. kinds of answers are outlined in this chapter. First, the Bay is defined in Geomorphology terms of its functions and characteristics. Land forms are created geologically Second, an attempt is made to define through erosion and deposition. In this the Bay in terms of its boundaries. area these processes are generally asso- Third, the Bay can be defined in terms of ciated with flowing water, such as rain the conventional legal rights of compet- run-off or ocean waves. All of Maryland's ing parties to its real estate and re- Eastern Shore Counties lie within the sources. Finally, the Bay is defined Coastal Plain Province which is composed by its uses, the viewpoints various of erodible gravel, sand, silt and clay. kinds of people have of it and the vested The Coastal Plain formations trend north- interests of various groups in it. Fol- east - southwest and dip southeastward lowing chapters in the report discuss the at less than 1°. The oldest Coastal problems and goals which must be address- Plain formations crop out along the west- ed by Bay management, and approaches to im- ern edge of the Coastal Plain along a proved Bay management. boundary called the Fall Line. The Pied- Plates 1 and 2 place the Mary- mont Province, whose rolling hills are land Chesapeake Bay Area in its region- underlaid by crystalline rocks, occurs al urban and physiographic context. west of the Fall Line. At the Atlantic The Maryland Bay area is adjacent to the Ocean, the crystalline rocks are buried megalopolitan corridor which extends beneath over 8,000 feet of unconsolidated from Boston to Norfolk (Plate 1). sediments; in other words, the Coastal Physiographically, the Chesapeake Bay Plain formations form a wedge progressive- lies in the coastal plain along the At- ly thickening southeastward. Eastward, lantic Seaboard and is part of a drain- the outcropping formations become pro- age basin which includes much of Mary- gressively younger. Cretaceous and Ter- land, Delaware and Pennsylvania as well tiary formations are often covered by a as portions of New York, Virginia and veneer of much younger sediments deposi- West Virginia (Plate 2). Plate 3 shows ted during the Pleistocene epoch. the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Area in Eighteen thousand years ago, or greater detail. about the same time man came to this continent, a great glacier slowly sliding southward extended over much of the north- east coast above the 40th parallel. It was beginning to thaw and grow thinner; the climate was warming in these regions. But the edge, sparkling in the sun, hung over the head waters of the Susquehanna River and as it thawed, huge amounts of grouped according to their geomorphological debris flowed into the river and down character, and the Chesapeake Bay falls to the sea. into a group called coastal plain, or The sea was lower then; probably drowned river valley estuaries. According about 400 feet lower than today, and to one system of sub-classification of the continent larger, but as the snow this group, the Bay, as well as the major and ice that had come originally from tributaries to the Bay, are called parti- the oceans in the form of water vapor ally mixed estuaries. This is because returned to it in icy lumps and flowing the salinity distribution, while showing streams, the sea began to fill and the an increase with depth, indicating the tides swept up the rivers and splashed estuary is not completely mixed vertical- over the land, crumbling it away a few ly, does show a sharp boundary separating feet a century. The shoreline today is an upper, low salinity layer from an in- some 80 miles west of where it was then truding wedge-shaped bottom layer of high and a far different land; there were salinity, which is characteristic of a mammoths on it in prehistoric times; the class of estuaries having small tidal cur- bones of mammoths, sloths, moose and rents, and which are called salt wedge musk oxen have been dredged far out on estuaries. The Chesapeake Bay thus re- what we now call the submarine conti- presents an intermediate stage in the pos- nental shelf. sible sequence of estuarine types, a stage During these times, the Susque- which is in fact characteristic of the hanna flowed through what is now Mary- large majority of coastal plain estuaries." land as a non-tidal river in a deep, (Ref. 3) wide gorge about 100 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide, to the sea. The present wet- Areas and Shoreline lands of Dorchester and Somerset were As the sea rose, the Valley and its upland areas then, scores of feet above tributaries filled with sandy river allu- the river level. Streams such as the vium. Later -- much later, as estuarine Wicomico and Choptank which now drain conditions developed, sedimentation wetlands, were non-tidal rivers and what changed to finer grained silts and clays is now the main shipping channel of the which were supplemented along the margins Bay was the ancestral Susquehanna River of the Bay by redistributed sand eroding bed before the sea rose and drowned it. from the shoreline; these deposits con- The Chesapeake Bay is the sea- tain fossil oyster shells and, in some drowned river system of the Susquehanna cases, peat derived from near shore tidal River and its tributaries. It was born marshes. Continued deposition has re- of flood and is still prone to it -- duced its depth to a maximum of 95 feet created from a mix of fresh and salt below sea level at Kent Island and 60 water and still dependent on it and feet below sea level at Havre de Grace. shaped and re-shaped by erosion that Shore erosion has modified the estuary, still eats away at the shoreline of the causing its present shape to differ in rivers, the coast and the islands. detail from the configuration of the "The Chesapeake Bay is the largest submerged river system. estuary on the Atlantic Coast of the Uni- Current data from the U.S. Coast ted States. An estuary has been defined and Geodatic Survey suggest that since as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water 1933, sea level has risen 0.5 feet. How- which has a free connection with the open ever, since 1962, a downward trend has sea and within which sea water is measur- been observed, although it may be only ably diluted with fresh water derived "momentary" in a geologic sense. from land drainage. Estuaries may be If the sea level rise should resume at the 1933-62 rate, which is about 0.017 3,950 miles, is one of the State's great- feet per year, many acres of Dorchester est assets. Because tidewater Maryland and Somerset Counties will be under water is experiencing erosion of these shores, by year 2000. Residents of Dorchester there is increased concern over loss of and Somerset Counties are uncomfortably property and the high cost of protective aware of this process. structures. Maryland's portion of the tidal The center line length of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay system has an area of Chesapeake Bay is 125 miles, but if one were 2,475 square miles. The Bay proper, ex- to traverse the outline of the Bay proper, cluding all tributaries, has a center line one would travel 154 miles on the Western length of 125 miles and covers 1,310 Shore and 125 miles along the Eastern square miles. The tributaries, sounds, shore, a total of 280 miles. The rivers bays and creek systems account for 1,165 constitute 54 percent of the Bay tidal square miles. River areas tabulated shoreline. Shoreline of the Bay proper, below account for 825 square miles. islands, and other small rivers of the Bay represent 46 percent of the total Western Shore Square Miles shoreline length. Susquehanna River 6 Bush River 12 Water Movement Gunpowder-Bird River 22 Back River 10 Motion and mixing of the water is Patapsco River s Creeks 28 essential to the Bay's health and vital Magothy River & Creeks 9 to the flora, fish and bacteria that live Severn River 17 within it, upon it. It provides natural South River & Creeks 8 stress, natural bounty. The mixture of Patuxent River & Creeks 48 salt and fresh water that certain species plus St. Mary's & Wicomico 304 depend upon in the Bay is in turn depen- Rivers dent upon the movement of the tides, the Wicomico River 17 flow of fresh water and the winds and St. Mary's River 10 breezes rippling along the water's sur- face. Storms aggravate the normal mo- TOTAL 491 tion and mixing, so do obstructions placed casually or purposefully by man. Both, Eastern Shore separately and together, bring about Elk River & Bohemia River 20 changes in the oxygen content, the sa- Sassafras River s Creeks 11 linity mix, and the capability of the Chester River s Creeks 63 water as a waste treatment facility in Miles River & Creeks 14 the immediate area and affect the water Choptank River s Creeks & quality, the salinity and the usefulness Trippe Bay 130 of the whole Bay to a degree related to Nanticoke River 24 the size, placement and importance of Wicomico River 13 their occurrence. Manokin River 25 Storms we know to be costly. But Big Annemessex River 10 major obstructions of the free circula- Pocomoke Sound 24 tion of water or denial of the necessary fresh water inflow to the Bay can also be TOTAL 334 extremely costly in terms of money, the degradation of the environment, and human The length of Maryland's Chesa- health and enjoyment. The needs of fish peake Bay shoreline, approximately and wildlife and the demands of the pollu- fishermen -- especially the oystermen -- tion assimilation function of the Bay may often be justly accused of practices are fulfilled by: the oxygen dissolved deleterious to the game supply; the chief in the water; the flushing action of reason for the long-term decline was lack tidal and non-tidal water movement; and of understanding of the needs of the Bay's the variable salinity of the water. creatures in combination with diffused, complex patterns of depredation by all Shore Erosion and Sedimentation users of Chesapeake Bay, its tributary rivers, and its drainage area. Enormous loads of sediment are Simply protecting the wildlife carried into the Bay, clogging up ship- supply is not enough. The wildlife is ping channels, mucking up harbors, and only a by-product of the ecosystem of destroying marinas. Meanwhile, valuable the Bay. Man -- sometimes actively, of- shoreline, precious topsoil, chunks of ten passively --adds to the natural wetland, and acres of real estate are stresses and strains of this ecosystem lost. in two major ways. One, in not recog- Half of the action is called ero- nizing that the food he most enjoys is sion, the other half sedimentation. But dependent itself on food which he does they present one problem; how to control not respect, he abuses the food web with the continuing transformation of earth pollutants and pesticides. Two, not into silt. The battle is on-going and recognizing that as well as being an costly and Maryland must fight on a eater off the food chain, he also con- Bay-wide basis as well as in each es- tributes to it with his wastes, often tuary and river. overfertilizing it. Wildlife Wetlands
Game and fish were so plentiful Along the borders of the tidal ri- in Maryland in early years that oysters vers, and along the shallow sea coast were sold by the gallon and terrapins by where the drowned rivers are invisible, the dozen. About fifty years ago, the are the wetlands. They are of enormous supply began noticeably to dwindle; and importance as spawning grounds for fish, it is not simply that the human popula- as habitats for wildlife, and all but tion is increasing. There are fewer irreplacable as "sponges" in flood con- ducks, turtle and oysters to go around; trol and erosion protection. it was an actual decline. Twice daily the tide flushes slow- Sportsmen generally have been ly through these extraordinarily fertile blamed for these declines in nature's areas; twice a year in spring and fall, bounty: duck shooters, fishermen and the fresh water from the river floods in crabbers, as well as oystermen, were to mix with the salty sea water and re- for many years held solely responsible, fresh them. Marsh grasses transform car- charged with reckless plundering of bon dioxide into oxygen, housecleaning the Bay's waters and its surrounding the air, water and soil alike for fish, meadows and woods. State control, fowl, man and beast. At the same time through boards of natural resources, they provide food and shelter to a great began early in Maryland, but the decline variety of aquatic and aerolife. continued until recently. Today, Mary- Baltimore Harbor's wetlands were land spends millions of dollars annually destroyed more than a century ago; ear- protecting the area's wildlife, its fish, lier visitors described this spot where fowl, and game. New research suggests the Patapsco River and Bay meet as teem- that while sportsmen and commercial ing with wildlife, echoing with the sound of geese and the song of innumer- tion, only can be described as variable. able birds. The Bay adjusted to this All wildlife needs dissolved oxygen in loss of its wetlands, but its capacity their water, just as man does, but some to adjust to continued aggregated losses like salt water and some fresh, some half is not unlimited. and half. Some can take turbulent water Less obvious, less dramatic losses and some can't as an environment, and some occur daily. Fresh water diversions can drink water with larger amounts of deprive some wetlands of needed nutrients pathogenic bacteria in it than man can carried by the water as well as denying and some can't. the water itself; heavy loads of sediment Movement is essential to the supply from city streets, agriculture, defores- of water; nature ceaselessly recycles it, tation and suburban land development smo- flushing through the enormous planetary ther others; still others are overfer- ecosystem of which such ecosystems as the tilized by inadequately treated human Chesapeake Bay are only microscopic parts. sewage; careless industrial, residential When water moves during the process of or government developers unnecessarily recycling by either nature or man or wild- fill, dike or dredge a wetland area. life, its quality changes. As it moves All parts of the Bay's ecosystem naturally across the surface of the earth are important to its functioning but as rain or river it collects bacteria and because of their oxygen and food pro- soil particles and interacts with other ducing capabilities, the wetlands play elements. When it is pumped into plumb- a key role. Because of their vulner- ing or industrial works, it collects ability, their protection is of the ut- wastes, dirt, and cleansing agents. As most importance. the sea tides push it first forward and then back, foreign matter is pushed and Water pulled into it, such as driftwood, oil, rocks, and soil. Nature pollutes the Water quality is different things water even as man does, but nature has from different points of view. For her own way of cleansing it too. As drinking, man wants water that is free water is recycled or tided over, the for- of color, taste and odor, preferably cool, eign matter which cannot be liquified is relatively soft, and free of pathogenic deposited out of the area of movement in bacteria. the bottom soil or sand, or floated on Industry needs water of a different the surface in the area of greatest move- quality. Generally, for manufacturing ment until it is tossed out. Liquified power plant cooling and steam production, foreign matter is handled differently; good water quality means an absence of it is recycled with the water and as it chlorides, iron and manganese, and of mingles with the greater body of water, dissolved gases. Industry can still of which it has become a part, it is find a lot of water that is useful to it, diluted. While Maryland is fortunate in but access to it is often difficult. having a great body of salt sea and fresh The agriculturalist requires still water running through its very heart, the a different quality of water. An ab- vastness and assimilative capacity of Bay sence of chlorides and selenium is im- waters can no longer be taken for granted. portant and the presence of minimum con- Even though there is plenty of centrations of boron and iron is useful. rain, many watersheds, many aquifers, and Wildlife, finfish, shellfish, plant many aquifer recharge areas, there is in- and mammals require still another kind creasing concern over the provision of of water quality, which, with one excep- water to meet growing urban demands. Steadily, day by day, more water is being used for more purposes. Technology is Industry's increasing dependence upon for- a great consumer of water; it uses it eign raw materials, and improved shipping to generate power, to make heat and to technology emphasize the need for deep- cool, as well as to wash with and to water industrial sites in port regions. The Baltimore region, where most of dilute things with. And the technolo- gical way of life is expanding in Mary- the land appropriate for industry is sit- land as agricultural life declines. The uated, is faced with the prospect of a doubled population by the year 2000. It relationships between industrial use and residential use, between water from must enhance the Port and its related industries to support this population; wells, from water supply systems and it must also keep the Bay thriving to run-of-the-river intakes have generally only been estimated, not calculated. feed it. Maryland watersheds aren't managed as entities; the minute water flows across Waterfront Residences a boundary line it belongs to the water Maryland has a great resource for system that lies in that county or state recreation and vacation communities along -- and whether it gets there via pipe or creek, no one has cared. But there the shores of the Bay itself and on the banks of its tidal estuaries. Maryland- simply is not enough water to go around indefinitely. Maryland has the water ers, like other Americans, yearn for management "apparatus", but as demand vacation homes they can get away to easily grows rapidly, major new steps are ne- and maintain simply. Now easier trans- cessary to protect her water resources. portation, shorter work weeks and in- creasing longevity combined with ad- vanced bulding technologies have spurred Waterfront Industry the growth of planned vacation communi- Many industries have to be near ties centered on waterfront land some ports and others have to be near the distance from work centers. Currently, Maryland's Bay residen- Bay. The first are port related, the second water related. Some in each tial shorefront is occupied chiefly by holders of large acreage, about a third group are completely dependent upon of which was bought and built upon thirty their proximity to port or Bay, others years ago or more when conditions were only partially. Because industry and quite different and the demand for shore ecological health are rarely compatible land quite limited. Pressed now by ris- and because Maryland needs both to ing property taxes, lack of help, and a thrive, priorities must be set to decline in agricultural values, these determine what industries may build estates can be expected to sell off at where and under what conditions. The problem is further complicated least parts of their properties in the near future and may relinquish large by the fact that land suitable or avail- tracts. There is also acreage owned by able for industrial use is getting the federal government as military areas scarcer by the day. that could be developed as residential The significance of the dwindling shoreline is just beginning to be recog- communities. The Bay is a great (although vul- nized as a public problem. All metro- nerable) resource for waterfront resi- politan regions in the United States, as dential development, especially along well as abroad, face population growth and mounting demands for recreational, the Eastern Shore, where large estates may be subdivided up in the near future. industrial, and residential use of their shrinking supply of waterfront land. Recreation Who Owns the Bay? When people speak of the recrea- tional value of Chesapeake Bay, they usually are thinking of it as a great A major portion of Garrett Power's sporting ground, a place to shoot duck, study of "The Chesapeake Bay in Legal fish for bass, sail a small boat, go Perspective" is devoted to a review of crabbing. Recreational value today is what the law says and does not say re- also economic value at base; supplying garding the following questions: "Who the sport, the relaxation and the enter- owns the shoreline and bed of the Bay? tainment to meet the demand of an in- What special rights does the law give creasing number of people has become a to private owners of land abutting the growth industry. The areas booming in Bay? What rights does the law give all the second half of the twentieth cen- private individuals in Bay resources? tury are not the manufacturing towns What are the constitutional and terri- and cities, but the resort areas. torial limitations on the regulatory Advancing technology created this powers of...Maryland and the United new industry: the shorter work week due States?" (Ref. 2) to increasing mechanization, the clump- In response to changes in view- ing of holidays due to the greater speed point and uses of the Bay, the law of long distance transportation, the attempts to define the Bay in terms visions (via television) of countless that will be acceptable to contending people at ease, the affluence which persons and interests. Thus, the legal supports social security for the re- approach to definition of the Bay is tired, and the medical research that an evolving rather than a static one documents man's needs for play as well and Mr. Power's discussion considers as work all have helped make the recrea- the evolution of the legal definition tion industry what it is today. And al- of the Bay from colonial times. The though the felt need is to get away from following paragraphs excerptportions of industry, to escape from technological Power's concluding sections on the pub- pressures, usually technology carries lic domain, the private domain and the vacationer into nature in the shape public regulatory power in the Bay of a camper with a trailer and speed which have particular relevance to the boat and shelters him in an air cooled, State of Maryland. prefabbed lodging fortified by synthetic material. Maryland's policy to date has been The Public Domain to encourage outdoor recreational demand but it has done little to facilitate There is "a neat allocation of the access to the Bay. With regional manage- tidewater public domain of the Chesa- ment and initiative, the Bay is capable peake Bay...between...Maryland and the of providing greater recreational oppor- United States." Within its borders, tunity for many more Marylanders than Maryland owns "all inland navigable it currently does. Recreation on and waters, organic materials which they around the Bay is in general compatible support, and submerged lands under them.' and even supportive of environmental In Maryland, the public domain extends values, provided constraints are put to mean high tide. "The United States upon overcrowding, litter and waste dis- ...owns the marginal sea and the land charges. This in combination with its under it to mean low tide, but has growing economic significance, make out- granted all land and natural resources door recreation a major Bay resource potential. back to the states. Paramount to all of these proprietary interests, however, played by legislatures and courts is often is the power of the federal government limited. Legislatures pass statutes which to regulate commerce." However, the have the substantive effect of delegating United States Supreme Court has recog- almost unfettered rule-making power to nized "the importance to its people administrative bodies. Courts are pre- that a State have power to preserve and sented with cases in a precedural con- regulate the exploitation of an important text which presumes the correctness of resource." (Ref. 2) prior administrative rulings. "As is to be expected in a feder- al system, the allocation of regulatory The Private Domain power has been diffusive. Federal agencies have powers which relate, more or less, "Although the Maryland portion of to the regulation of interstate com- the Chesapeake Bay is nominally said to merce. Maryland... [has] plenary powers be owned by the [State] of Maryland..., (except to the extent pre-empted by private uses of Bay resources have been the federal government) but [has] explained as exercises of private rights. delegated some regulatory activities, Some private rights are said to have including the zoning function, to local devolved upon private individuals as in- governments. The Potomac River Fisher- cidents of ownership of submerged land. ies Compact creates an interstate re- These are justified by reference to some pository for regulatory power, and the formal conveyance through which the state ...federal-interstate (compact for the transferred its rights into private Susquehanna River Basin and that pro- hands. Most private rights are said to posed for the Poto ac River Basin) be incident to ownership of land abutting create the possibility of others. the Bay waters. These are justified "Federal and state courts have either as judicially evolved, or legis- imposed some limitations on regulatory latively enacted, riparian rights, and activity. Most of these limitations may be effectively delimited by the have been premised upon provisions of lack of an effective nuisance remedy to the United States and state consti+'.utions . enforce them. Finally, the private right Although the United States Supreme Court to common fishery may be said to be a has abdicated the role of a super-leg- natural right. This is justified by islature passing upon the wisdom of reference to the verbal abstractions of regulation, state courts have continued archaic rhetoric." (Ref- 2) to review regulation from a due process and equal protection perspective. Most significantly state courts have indicated Public Regulation a solicitude for private land owners and have on occasion required the state to "Demands of the twentieth century pay compensation if it places onerous have created pressures for more compre- restrictions on the use of land." (Ref.2) hensive regulation of all human conduct. Legal institutions have responded to these pressures on the Chesapeake Bay. Some new regulation has devolved from legislatures and courts, but the bulk of rule-making activity has shifted to the executive branch. A
10 skiing, swimming Viewpoints about the Bay sanitary engineers a waste sink, an en- vironment for disease vectors Each person or groups view power engineers a heat sink the Bay differently, and from a navigators a water course perspective of personal interest and manufacturers a water supply and background. Dr. R. Lamar Green, in his waste disposal area address to the opening session of the cartographers 22% of the total area Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, of Maryland posed the seemingly simple question, the underseas re- a laboratory R "What is the Bay?"( ef.3) His answer was search industry that there are many answers -- as many as developers about 3,000 miles of there are different uses, vested interests shoreline and viewpoints regarding this vast and erosion control 1,000 miles of problem complex resource. "Our personalities, engineers shoreline our backgrounds and our vested interests Tidewater Maryland A STATE OF MIND influence our definition of terms, our Citizens interpretation of information and our relation of proposed developments to This list can easily (and indefinitely) the public interest. It is appropriate be extended: then to seek, not necessarily a common the conservation- a preserve for marine demoninator, but more specifically a ist and wildlife; an en- mutual understanding of the interrela- vironment for certain tionships of our vested in,terests, re- aquatic species during sponsibilities and the viewpoints which critical life stages reflect our personalities."(Ref•3) the contractor a source of construction Furthermore, according to this approach, materials (sand and new answers will become appropriate as gravel) new uses and viewpoints of the Bay re- the industrial Maryland's key feature source evolve . Built into this defini- developer for the attraction of tion of the Bay is the recognition that heavy "basic" industry the definition will change. Dr. Green to the State illustrates his approach to the defini- the hydrologist a complex hydrological tion of the Bay by arranging users, system, very different vested interests and viewpoints regard- from fresh water systems ing the Bay against corresponding an- the urbanologist a possible site for swers to the question "What is the Bay?" the construction of (Ref.3) major offshore pro- jects such as air- For the following ports or residential users, vested in- or industrial develop- terests and view- ments . points the Chesapeake Bay is... the waterman a source of shellfish Definition for CBIPC Study and fin fish For this Study purpose, the Bay fisheries biolo- the world's largest was defined as the estuarine water area gists underwater farm and direclty (water) related land within the recreationist a place for sports, in- the State of Maryland while arbitrarily cluding boating, hunting, restricted, the definition served as a fishing, sailing, water practical solution for the Study.
11 Footnotes References
1. For instance, see the Official 1. "The Labor Force of Maryland: Highway Map of Maryland, 1970, pre- Projections of Socio-Economic Char- pared by the Maryland State Roads acteristics to 1980", October, 1968, Commission. Maryland Department of State Planning.
2. The "upper reaches of high tide" 2. "Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective' is a boundary definition employed by March, 1970, Garrett Power, U.S. Depart- the University Consortium to indicate ment of the Interior, Federal Water the area of focus for research efforts Pollution Control Administration, pp. 3, (See Ref.4) 4; pp. 88,89; pp. 127,128; p. 178. 3. "What is the Bay?", Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesa- peake Bay, 1968, p. II 3-6.
4. The Chesapeake Bay: Report of a Research Planning Study, 1971, The Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
12 Problems and Goals: by Problem Categories
13 II, PROBLEMS AND GOALS
INTRODUCTION 15
1. Problem Category Definition and Classification 1.1 An Approach to Problem Definition 1.2 Alternative Approaches to Problem Description 16 1.3 Classification of Problems
2. Relating Conservation of the Bay Resource to Resource Utilization Objectives
3. Defining Goals and Objectives for Bay Management 18 3.1 The Importance and Usefulness of Bay Management Goals 18 3.2 Approaches to Goal Formulation 3.3 A Goal Classification System for the Chesapeake Bay 19 Figure 1: A Five-Level Goal Framework Example 2^ 3.4 Chesapeake Bay Goal Conflicts and Compatibilities Figure 2: Chesapeake Bay Goal Conflict and Compatibility Matrix 22
14 Introduction to be) agree on gaps between what is and ought to be. However, while there may be widespread agreement on the statement of a problem, there may be little agree- In this Chapter, twenty general ment on what to do about it. This is categories (Sections A-T below) are often because the values that define the used to describe and dimension problems problem are only a small portion of each and goals related to the Chesapeake Bay. individual's value system and every indi- The categories include problems and vidual's internal decision process, as goals primarily associated with ecologic- well as society's, involves trade-offs al, socio-economic or planning and man- between competing values. • People tend agement aspects of the Bay. However, Bay to apply different weights to specific problems and goals are so interrelated values in each separate situation -- thus and multi-faceted that no category is the industrialist may be for conservation exclusively ecological or socio-economic; of wildlife in his role as a sportsman, each has important ecological, social, but in favor of filling marshes for indus- economic, as well as planning and man- trial development. Because of the diverse agement dimensions. The problems have individual and group value systems invol- been identified by State and local agen- ved, and the resulting disagreements on cy staff, and by university scientists how trade-offs between goals should be who have extensive acquaintance with made, problems are difficult to define the Bay. This chapter attempts a re- and quantify in ways that lend themselves view of Bay management problems that is to wide agreement among parties to their comprehensive in both subject matter solution. and geographical scope, and consistent The dilemma is not just a semantic in approach. In each Section A-T be- jungle, but is central to planning and low, a problem area is identified and management of the Bay's resources. The described in a Bay-wide context, its way out of the dilemma offered by the possible future dimensions are examined, concept of planning as a way of problem and goals and objectives useful in solving by posing alternative choices amelioration are posed. (Ref. 1) is to commence with a search for commonly held goals, to place values on these goals, and then to propose those courses of action that most nearly sat- isfy the goals. Although intellectually 1. Problem Category Definition and Classification rigorous, this method tends to be of limited usefulness when such abstract con- 1.1 An Approach to Problem Definition ceptualizing is put into the "market Any operational (measurable) def- place" of actual choices. A more effec- inition of a problem involves a state- tive way out of the dilemma is to offer ment of a present situation measured real choices and find out the net ag- against some desired state. The measure gregate effect of individual and social of the problem is then the gap between goals by the resulting decisions. the existing and the desired state. In To be socially responsible, such a this definition, problems cannot exist "market place" process must be assured of without goals, and standards, however a political mechanism that is equitable unarticulated these may be. to all parties at interest. Sufficient Social problems result when large information on who is affected must also groups of people sharing similar values be available. Finally equity is not the (measures of what is important or ought only issue. Full knowledge widely under-
15 stood of the implications of man's on the Bay resource. acts on the ecosystem becomes an impera- Another approach would start with tive for environmental survival. identifiable current Bay management prob- The crux of the environmental prob- lems for which evidence can be found now, lem is that we are dealing to a large at particular locations, and in relation extent in "externalities". That is to to particular political and public policy say, the negative effects of actions contexts. Having identified the Bay that satisfy goals held by one group are management problem, and classified it largely external to that group's value for purposes of discussion, the next step system and are experienced by others, would be to describe the environmental ef- usually removed in time. Part of the fects associated with the problem and to evaluation problem is how to get the trace the problem area back to its complex causes and real effects of environmental of causes, identifying key variables which change into the same benefit-cost will determine future dimensions of the accounting system. problem. The effort to identify environ- In sum, problems do not exist in mental effects and causal variables should abstraction from goals and values of assist in suggesting policy approaches people. On the other hand, people can- which have potential to affect the problem not formulate goals and make value trade- as well as goals, objectives and standards offs in abstraction from full information that may guide the application of these on "what the problem is" and on the con- policies. sequences of different choices or solu- The second approach is used to describe tions. Bay management problems (in sub-section #1 of Sections A-T below). The guiding 1. 2 Alternative Approaches to criterion for selecting problem categories Problem Description is their direct relation to current con- There are at least two possible servation-development issues in Bay re- approaches to the description of Bay source management. The focus is on the problems and goals. One approach would effects on the Bay resource. Underlying start with basic causes of socio-economic causes of these effects -- relating to change and trace their effects to im- population and economic development pat- pacts on the Bay resource. This approach terns and trends, and to societal atti- would start with population and economic tudes with regard to resource utilization development patterns and trends. There and preservation trade-offs -- are not would then be an attempt to predict the considered to be Bay management problems future spectrum of development which in and of themselves. Population patterns, would relate to the Bay resource directly economic development trends and societal or indirectly -- and to do this in terms attitudes are the underlying causes of of volume, distribution and density. It the total array of issues facing State would then be necessary, based on an government. Their repercussions do not understanding of the Bay resource itself, necessarily impinge on the Bay resource. to predict the impacts of this develop- Therefore, in describing current Bay ment on the Bay resource. Finally, it management problems, underlying causes would be necessary to study the array are treated as a context (see Section of public policy responses (including III D), so that the discussion can focus land use controls, Bay use regulations, more closely on current Bay management waste disposal and water supply services) problems. and to predict their impacts on the development expected to relate to the 1 . 3 Classification of Problems Bay or on the impacts of this development Sections A-T in this Chapter include
16 problems and goals primarily associated J. Waterfront Industry with ecological, socio-economic, or K. Waterfront Residential Development planning and management aspects of the L. Public Access to and Appearance Bay. Obviously the classification system and Design of the Shoreline is in many cases somewhat arbitrary, be- M. Solid Waste Disposal cause of the interrelatedness of the N. Non-living Natural Resources problems. For example, commercial fish- Problems of Inadequate Information, ing has problems related solely to its Information Retrieval, Synthesis, organization, anachronistic practices and Planning and economics, yet is summarized under 0. Information and Information "primarily ecological factors" as a Retrieval "living-resource problem" because that P. Synthesis and Planning Factors problem seems most central. Without the Q. Public Awareness and Involvement importance of the aquatic resource, there Problems of Management and Implemen- would be no related problems. tation The major classification of prob- R. Tools for Implementation lem headings is as follows: S. Management Capability Problems Related Principally to T. Fiscal Support Ecological Factors A. Living Resource Problems B. Conservation of Wetlands C. Water Movement 2 Relating Conservation of the Bay Resource D. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation to Resource Utilization Objectives It is evident that each of the above is an element of the others, but Sub-section 1.2 above outlined because of their importance in the eco- two alternative approaches to the des- system, they are dealt with separately. cription of Bay problems. In order to "Conservation of Wetlands" is a basic describe current Bay management problems part of the living resource problem but (Sub-sections "1" in Sections A-T below) is separated out for consideration because it was found convenient to use an ap- of its special importance. Poor water proach which focused initially on current quality, however, is primarily a function conservation-development issues, and which of man's activity within the constraints viewed underlying causes as a context of nature, and is, therefore, dealt for the discussion. In order to examine with below. the dimensions of emerging problems in Problems of Mixed Ecological and Bay conservation and development, it is Socio-Economic Factors useful to employ the alternative approach E. Water Pollution outlined in sub-section 1.2 above which F. Water Supply focuses initially on the underlying causes The class of problems is dominated of various Bay management problems. by a mixture of factors with ecological Sub-sections "2" of Sections A-T and socio-economic "side effects". As below are a series of structural spec- will be seen throughout the discussion, ulations on the magnitude, nature, and achievement of "solutions" involves com- location of future problems of Bay re- plicated "trade-offs" between goals. source exploitation, utilization, con- Problems Related Primarily to servation, and preservation. Socio-Economic Factors The factors affecting the future G. Thermal Waste Discharge dimension of Bay problems are of three H. Marine Transportation main types: I. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation Changing demands on Bay resources.
17 These may result from demographic aspects terns and the potential array of public or socio-economic aspects within the Bay policy initiatives, to describe in de- region, from events outside the Bay tail the future dimensions of Bay man- region (e.g. in Delaware Bay or the Vir- agement problems. Available information ginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay), or on projections and trends often does from trends which result in greater or not allow the linkage of underlying socio- lesser demands on the Bay resource (e.g. economic causes and environmental mining sand and gravel from the Bay effects, especially if one aspires to re- bottom because of resistance to such op- late these effects to particular aspects erations in metropolitan areas). of the Bay resource, at particular loca- Changing constraints on Bay tions and at particular points in time. resource supply. Resource supply has Furthermore, the effects of public pol- different appropriate measures for dif- icy interventions between underlying ferent uses: e.g. "assimilative capac- socio-economic causes and effects on the ity" for the ability of the Bay to ac- Bay resource are very difficult to iden- cept certain types of liquid wastes; tify and define -- even if it were pos- "acreage" when referring to potential sible to predict which public policy residential land development or wet- interventions would be chosen for im- lands preservation; channel "depth" when plementation. As a result, the usefulness the reference is to marine transportation; of the structured speculations is that competitive position when referring to they provide a framework for establish- the attractiveness of various economic ing goals, objectives and standards for activities. Resource supply can be evolving Bay management. This is the depleted not only by resource demands, subject of sub-section "3" of Sections but also by competing or conflicting A-T, which is introduced below, uses . Alternative policy approaches and costs. These may be a function of changing objectives and standards, chang- 3 Defining Goals and Objectives for ing technology, changes in management Bay Management approaches, better knowledge about functional interrelationships among Bay 3.1 The Importance and Usefulness of entities and processes, better funding Bay Management Goals sources, etc. Increasing interdependence of In dimensioning future Bay prob- people, and of the communities and gov- lems, the various factors identified ernmental units that comprise the Bay are categorized according to whether region has made it clear that coordinated they will tend to increase or reduce planning and management of resources is the problem(as described in sub-section vital if natural resources are not to be 1 of Sections A-T). Increases or re- despoliated beyond redemption. What is ductions come in many different terms: needed are clearly articulated goals, usage, monetary costs for meeting ob- objectives, standards and policies, from jectives; conflicts with other uses -- the general to the specific, for resource exacerbated or resolved; undesirable conservation and utilization to match or desirable spillover effects, etc. those usually adopted in traditional In the summary section, a judgmental socio-economic planning. Such goals aggregation of all the factors is made then can serve as the framework for plans, in order to yield a dimensioning of for action programs, and for the screening future Bay problems. of alternative Bay proposals. A first It is not possible, starting with attempt at a Bay-wide articulation of a population and economic development pat- goals hierarchy for the 20 Bay management
18 problem areas is presented in sub-section a. In sub-section 3 of Sections A-T "3" of Sections A-T in this Chapter. below, a goal hierarchy for each Bay man- As research, planning and management of agement problem area is attempted. The the Bay progress and knowledge and under- 20 Bay management problem areas are con- standing of problems and issues increase, sidered as areas of goal conflict. The it should become possible to define more description and future dimensions of each detailed goals and policies as guides problem area are traced back to their rel- for action. evant goal statements and rephrased as Part of the problem of goal form- goals, objectives, standards and policies. ulation is that so many people are in- b. In Section III E below plans, as volved: people who live near the Bay; publicly or privately expressed, are con- its present users, many of whom do not sidered as means towards goals. The com- live near it, or even in Maryland; plus binations of goals which the plans embody people who will use it in the future. (or fail to) can be presumed from the Not only the State's but the National plans. Sample and relevant plans as "goal interest is involved. In fact, since statements" are examined briefly to illus- so many people are involved, the method trate a next and geographic level of goals for goal formulation that seems most — at the operational level and as expres- appropriate is a "pragmatic" one of sions of how goals are currently integrat- suggesting a goal hierarchy oriented ed, aggregated, and in conflict or conso- to the 20 Bay management problem areas. nance . As these goals are articulated into c. Maryland State legislative man- detailed objectives, standards and pol- dates for relevant agencies and programs icies, they can be examined by the are expressions of public goals and fi- "clients" through involvement in the nancial commitments to resource conser- planning process, then weighted and/or vation and utilization. These express modified as appropriate and translated both needs for resource development and into action programs with necessary utilization and needs for resource con- "trade-offs". This "pragmatic" method servation. Such legislation.and ultimate of go'al formulation relies on an effec- appropriation, policy, and action is that tive and equitable political and plan- first level at which values in relation ning mechanism for goal aggregation. to goals are expressed; that is it dem- Emphasis here is put on the Bay's onstrates, albeit crudely, where society natural resources and, therefore, the puts its money and emphasis. This process discussion that follows does not in- puts goals and values into the "market clude consideration of human resources place", and the "net aggregation" that is or economic resources. In later envi- evolved is the "resultant" of social and ronmentalplanning efforts, these vital economic forces. Legislative mandates elements of total process of goal form- of State agencies which have key roles ulation must be given adequate expres- in Bay resource management are summarized sion. in the Appendix of Chapter IV below. Presently stated goals are prelim- inary, and it is expected that the goals 3.3 A Goal Classification System for presented below will be studied, added the Chesapeake Bay to, modified, and continuously revised Goals can be classified in hierarchy during ensuing planning and management ascending (or descending) levels of gen- of the Bay's resources. erality. The highest order — so called "motherhood" goals are at a level on which 3.2 Approaches to Goal Formulation there is often widespread agreement. Such In this Report, three approaches to high level goals are the result of very goal formulation are used: broad values in society which are in turn
19 expressions of basic needs. the Bay and the natural processes of its While "motherhood" goals are so gen- ecosystem for the greatest long-term eral as not to be immediately useful in benefit of all forms of life including terms of guiding planning and management man . decisions, they serve as an organizing Super Goal 2: context for lower level goals. Such Resource Utilization -- Utilize lower level goals are often called "means1,1 the Bay's resources to the highest poten- to differentiate them from "ends", a tial for man with minimum of resource distinction that serves the purpose of exploitation. tracing their sequential relation. • Thus, Super Goal 3: while one goal is a means to the achieve- Resource Management -- Create a ment of a higher goal, it may in turn unified research planning, coordinating and be an "end" for a lower "means". managing capability that can act as a wise The following are operational def- steward of the Bay's resources and be initions of the five levels of the goal truly responsive to the long-term public hierarchy. welfare. a. Super Goals These super goals are abbreviated At the highest goal level, man in this report as (1) Conservation, aspires to achieve a dynamically balanced (2) Utilization, and (3) Management. At and compatible relationship with himself, this high level most people would agree his environment, and natural processes with all three, although cautious men of which he is a part. Much of what he might say "how much" of each. does affects nature around him, often to Even though the first two are quite his cost and long-term peril. The ex- obviously interrelated and compatible panding field of ecology focuses on un- in many ways, they nevertheless contain derstanding natural processes and the in- inherent incompatibilities and conflicts. teraction of human activity with them. Sub-section 3.4 below deals with goal- Ecological planning takes the next step conflicts as a way of defining problems of planning the interaction to minimize in operational terms. negative and maximize positive benefits • ~The three super goals can be thought to man. A new psychology is evolving in of as a conceptual framework for the next which the concept of man as a conquerer four levels: general goals, objectives, of nature is rejected, and instead, he standards, and policies. (See Figure 1.) is seen as a fundamental part of nature's These levels are proposed as a way of "seamless web". His goal is to achieve putting general statements into progres- a best "fit" in a dynamic, self-govern- sively specific operational terms. The ing and basically steady state ecosystem purpose of doing this.is to enable com- that is characterized by complexity, high parison between program and goal achieve- amenity and productivity. (Ref• 1) ment and, at the standard and policy The essential idea is not of levels, the "trade-offs" or levels of "conflict" or "control", but of accom- goals and objectives that must be given modation and adaptation. A most import- up where goals are in conflict. ant realization is that when man "pays b. General Goals attention" and adapts to his environment, General goals are statements of he can achieve a more beautiful, creative purpose, or of what ought to be, classi- and rewarding life. fied by general problem or aspiration At the highest level of general- areas. Full employment, decent, safe ity, three goals are posited.! and sanitary housing in good neighborhoods, Super Goal 1: and a quality environment are examples. Resource Conservation -- Protect In the present case, the twenty Bay man-
20 FIGURE 1: A FIVE-LEVEL GOAL FRAMEWORK EXAMPLE
Level of Goal Definition Example
Super Goal: A Super Goal is a high- Protect the Bay and the natural proces- ly generalized view of ses of its ecosystem for the greatest human values about what long-term benefit of all forms of life ought to be. including mankind, General Goal: A General Goal is a Maximize desirable and minimize undesir- statement of purpose able effects of circulation of the or of what ought to be Bay's waters, in relation to a gen- eral problem area, Objective: An Objective is all or 1.Eliminate negative impact and cost of part of a general goal tidal flooding and movement. stated in specific 2.Protect necessary development within quantitative terms -- flood plain areas. i.e., amounts and time 3.Avoid unnecessary development in -- and related to a flood plain areas. course of action. Standard: A Standard is an acknow- 1.Establish 50-year flood level as basic ledged measure of com- minimum limit of public responsibility, parison for qualitative 2.Adopt a minimum benefit-cost ratio or quantitative value of 1:1 for determining value of flood by which goal achieve- control public works, benefits to in- ment can be measures . elude aesthetic and ecological elements. Policy: A Policy is a guiding 1.Enact legislation which will progres- principle for a course sively phase out uses not conforming of action which will to above, lead toward goal 2.Adopt land use and shoreline controls achievement. that minimize future conflicts.
agement problem areas (Sections A-T) on another (e.g., water quality). Section form the basis for organizing general V A considers a formal "environmental goals for the Chesapeake Bay. matrix" mechanism for the consideration Each goal is worded in such a of these interactions and potential goal way as to suggest its maximization re- conflicts. gardless of consequences to or desirable One of the most important prod- and necessary trade-offs with other goals. ucts of this study and of the subsequent It is important to recognize work of the CBIPC is to bring goals for that at this general level, the "clients" the Chesapeake forcefully into the over- of the Chesapeake Bay hold many goals all goal "market place" by making the that are unrelated to the Bay (elimina- values that the Bay represents publicly tion of poverty, national security, etc.), recognized in a concrete way. but are very definitely relevant in c. Objectives terms of competition for attention. An objective is defined as a funds and goal aggregation. For we must part (or all) of a general goal stated be able to see in as specific terms as in specific quantitative terms. Thus possible the effect of the achievement a general goal is to protect all wetlands, of one goal (e.g., waterfront industry) and an "objective" might be to bring into
21 state ownership or development control vironmental impact, it is no longer as- (easements, etc.) all wetlands. (This curate or useful to speak of interagency has now been accomplished.) conflict in the historic sense. Those d. Standards espousing industrial development do so Standards are defined as acknow- with the expectation of necessary trade- ledged qualitative and/or quantitative offs. Conservationists are no longer measures of comparison for determining "preservationists" -- against change levels and rates of goal achievement, and per se. the degree to which "what is" differs This new climate gives urgency to from "what ought to be". Water quality the development of a more systematic and standards are set in very specific rigorous approach to goals and objectives qualitative terms (oxygen content, etc.) than has existed before. More and more in relation to the "objective" of agencies at all levels of government are reaching that level by a particular time. Even though standards are more static in concept than objectives, FIGURE 2: CHESAPEAKE BAY GOAL CONFLICT AND COMPATIBILITY MATRIX obviously standards, as expressions of values, also are subject to constant technical and social change, both up and down. A> C J-. n 3 •H 0 Ul (> 4-1 0) O •H Tl in en fl) e. Policies u C f- >1 m fd Oi \K ^ o C c Ul n c -H •< •u c 3 for courses of action whose details be- n IX m n 0 D H oi n (1 rD < •H •P CT < c
22 becoming multi-purpose in their approaches Footnotes in response to the interdisciplinary and complex nature of problems faced. Figure 2 shows the result of a first cut at evaluating the interactions 1. These, or variations on the same between goals. At this stage, it is ideas, are found in most environmental simply organized common sense. However, plans and reports. See, for example, it suggests the direction that next steps References 2 and 3. The North Atlantic should take in the tracing of the rela- Regional Water Resources Study (Ref.3) tionships between goals. At the level posits the three overall goals (objec- of objectives and policies,the interactions tives) as follows: "National Efficiency will become much more complex and the ...increasing the national income through results of detailed research and anal- investment in water resources. Regional ysis will be necessary to evaluate the Development places emphasis on the ful- degrees of conflict or mutual support. fillment of regional aspirtation...[and] These interactions can be trans- Environmental Quality emphasizes those lated into common units of input and benefits that normally are not associ- output. Section V C of this Report ated with the market place, such as outlines possible methodologies. visual enjoyment, cultural amenities, and wilderness preservation...[and] positive measures to create an improved living environment."
2. A Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems approach translates inputs of money and personnel into outputs of programs so that different programs may be compared in the same accounting (or budgeting) system by decision makers.
References
1. Ehrlich, Dr. Paul R. and Harriman, Richard L., How to Be a Survivor, A Plan to Save Spaceship Earth, Ballantine Books, New York, 1971, Chapter II.
2. San Francisco Bay Plan, January, 1969, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, p. 7.
3. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study, Brochure, No. 2, January, 1971, NARWRS Coordinating Committee, p. 3.
23 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY 25
1. Living Resource Problems 25 1.1 Nature of the Problem 25 Table 1: Principal Kinds of Commercial Fish and Shellfish in Maryland 25 Table 2: Estimated Sportfishing Catches in Maryland 26 1. 2 Causes of the Problem 27 1.3 Location of the Problem 30 1.4 Time Characteristics 30 Plate 4 Aquatic Habitats 31 Plate 5 Clam and Oyster Habitats 32 Plate 6 Striped Bass Habitats .. , 33 1.5 Parties Affected 34
2. Future Dimensions of Living Resources Problems 35 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 35 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem ^S 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook 3S
3. Living Resources Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 36 3.1 Goal 36 3.2 Objectives 36 3.3 Standards 36 3.4 Policies 37
24 Living Resources of the Bay ly and is constantly threatened. The landed value of Maryland's com- mercial fisheries products was just under $17 million in 1967, and the value of i Living Resource Problems Maryland's manufactured fisheries products in the same year was estimated at more The problem is how to increase than $40 million. About 9,000 fishermen living resources commensurate with an (6,000 of them without other employment) ecosystem that is to be maintained in harvested Maryland's seafoods in 1967, and a state of dynamic equilibrium. about 6,500 boats were used to harvest and 1 1 transport the catch. An average of about - Nature of the Probli 4,350 people were employed by 285 whole- The fish and wildlife of the sale and processing establishments.(Ref.2) Chesapeake Bay, its living resources, Table 1 lists the ten principal provide many benefits for the human kinds of fish and shellfish landed by population of the Bay region. The prob- Maryland's commercial fisheries, their lem is the maintenance and enhancement weights, estimated values, and rankings by of these benefits. The benefits include both weight and value. a large source of high quality food with an enormous future potential produc- TABLE 1. PRINCIPAL KINDS OF COMMERCIAL FISH tivity; recreational opportunities for AND SHELLFISH IN MARYLAND LANDINGS thousands in the form of fishing, hunt- IN 1967, BY WEIGHT AND ESTIMATED ing, collecting and bird-watching; the VALUE, AND THEIR RANKINGS concomitant economic gain to the com- mercial harvesters, processors, and Rank Kind of Fish Wt. in Estimated Rank sellers of the fish and shellfish, and by or Shellfish Millions Landed by to the facilities that service both com- Wt. of lbs. mercial and recreational users such as Value in Value boatyards, tackle makers and sellers, Millions of Dollars marinas, etc.; scientific knowledge 1 Blue Crabs 26.791 2 .448 2 about the complex ecology of Bay life 2 Oysters 16.568 11.191 1 and about the biology of individual spe- 3 Clams 5 .394 1.770 3 cies, which knowledge will have a direct 4 Menhaden 4.134 0.077 8 beneficial feedback in helping to manage 5 Striped Bass 4.072 0.665 4 the resource; a unique educational re- 6 Alewives 2. 327 0.039 9 source for the citizens of the region, 7 Swellfish 1.727 particularly the young; and the main- 0.034 10 8 White Perch 1.199 tenance of a healthy, pleasing, and 0.168 5 9 Shad 0.884 aesthetic environment. 0.091 7 10 Flounders 0.619 0.142 a. The Amount of the Resource 6 Subtotals 63 .715 16.625 Of these benefits among the most GRAND TOTAL 79 .946 16.913 important, and certainly the easiest to Source: Ref.3 quantify,are those provided by the large commercial fisheries of the Bay. There- It seems justifiable to cite the above fore, we may wish to redefine the prob- mentioned manufactured fisheries products lem as being "how to increase the yield value of $40 million as the "real" value of of the living resources...to advance the the total catch rather than the landed value, goals of increased food supply and local because it more closely approximates a economic development."(Ref.1) Unfortu- "market value" that would not exist at all nately, for a wide variety of reasons without the fisheries resources (i.e., in- this yield has not increased significant- cludes "Value Added by Manufacture").
25 b. The Value of the Resource for valueva-Lue A-WJ.for J.W-»-J-W«.-—recreation is also threatened Recreation not just by the availability of fish but It is much more difficult to es also by-^ the conditions of fishing, that si: timate the value of Maryland's s-port- pounds of fish or shellfish represents a fishery, but we may attempt some sample reasonable expected day s c^ch for a calculations. Manning(Ref.2) says "but recreational fxshermanJRef. ) and that such certainly its contribution to the econ- a catch is thus equivalent to a user-day, omy of the State is many times that of we have 42 million pounds divided by six the commercial finfisheries. An exten- pounds or over 7 million user-days If sive creel census conducted in 1962 as a we further assume that a user-day is worth ioint effort of the Chesapeake Biologi- $20 in expenditures on gas, oil, launching cal Laboratory and the Department of fees, boat rentals, bait, tackle, foodand Chesapeake Bay Affairs provides the ba- beverages, we arrive at a figure of $14U sis for an estimate that sportfishermen million income from sportfishing aside probably catch more than twice as many from the $5 million estimated landed striped bass as are taken by commercial value of the catch itself. Although our fishermen " If we assume the sportfish- sample calculations are rough, they seem to ing catch of blue crabs, white perch, be of the right order of magnitude and we shad, flouders to equal the commercial have then a total figure of about $18b catch; that of clams, alewives and swell- million per year from the fisheries re- fish to be half the commercial catch; and sources of the Bay. (The sum of all the that of striped bass to be double, then major identifiable and quantifiable economic we arrive at the estimated sport catches benefits associated with the living re- by weight and value given in Table 2.. (Sportfishing of oysters and menhaden is considered negligible). by - TABLE 2. ESTIMATED SPORTFISHING CATCHES ' c. The Value of the Capital Resource IN MARYLAND BY WEIGHT & VALUE However, it is of paramount im- portance to realize that the above figure Kind of wt. in Estimated Landed is not really a "value", but rather Fish or Millions Value in Millions represents only the estimated income made Shellfish of Lbs. of Dollars (at Com- from" the fisheries resource, which would She n mercial Market Value) be completely lost if the fisheries were Rlue Crabs ^"S 2745 destroyed. The capital neaded to produce Blue crabs ^.e ^ ^ ^^ ^ income (at 6% simpie interest per 1 3 ov " A T»aee R'I4 1 330 year allowing for no capital growth what- Al^fJes \'Xl J".02 soever) would be about $3 billion. Even if we Swellfish 0.86 0.017 assume that this represents an income White Perch 1.2 0.17 stream of $185 million per year to the year White Perch l ^^ ^^ .^^ ^ ^ ^^B ^ and find the dis_ Flouders o'62 0.14 counted present value assuming an average TO^L 42^6 5.117 interest rate of 6%, this fisheries value " will be only a slightly more modest $2.5 in other words, the Bay now pro- billion. And this doesn't even begin to duces something on the order of 120 mil- account for the value of the other liyxng lion pounds of fish and shellfish per resources, such as birds and other animals, year, with a total estimated landed value or for the other benefits mentioned above. oJabout $22 million (Tables 1 and 2), In the still more protein-hungry and a "processed value" of about $45 world of the not-too-distant future, per- million ($40 million being the commercial haps a dollar value for the productivity of processed value and $5 million the sport fishing landed value). If we assume that the resource 26 the Bay's fisheries will not be as ap- opened, half of the. total acreage in pro- propriate a measure of worth as the duction, and a yield of only 500 pounds of simple statement of the number of pounds clams per acre per year, we arrive at a of fish produced. To this end we might potential commercial harvest of 62.5 mil- now make some speculative sample cal- lion pounds, an almost twelve-fold increase culations as to future productivity of in total production over the 1967 yield. a couple of selected Bay fisheries. 1. The Special Case of Oysters 1•2 Causes of the Problem There are 326,000 acres of Why do the living resources of the oyster bars in the Maryland portion of Bay present a problem? Will it be dif- the Bay{Ref.2) However, 28,000 acres ficult to "increase the yield...to increase are closed because of pollution and only the food supply and advance local economic a "small percentage of the (remaining) development" because the resource is scarce? bars are presently in production." (Ref.6) endangered by over-exploitation or by poor Therefore, if we assume that only 10% management? Three broad categories of of the remaining 298,000 acres, i.e., causes may be recognized : (Ref.1) 29,800 acres, produced the entire catch a- Institutional constraints such as of 16,568,000 pounds, we get a produc- "a mass of restrictive legislation, much of tivity of about 550 pounds per acre per it enacted in the belief that it would year. Now, experiments in South Carolina solve fishery problems and promote conser- have produced over "1,800 pounds of vation, but which has the general effect oyster meats in a one-acre pond in one of protecting special interest, spreading year."(Ref.7) Thus/ it seems quite the catch over more people than are neces- reasonable to assume that, with improved sary to take it, and generally increasing the methods of both cultivation and harvest, cost of catching fish without protecting the oyster crop could be boosted to the capacity of the resource to reproduce 1,000 pounds per acre per year. Then, itself." (Ref.3)(For an excellent review if the 28,000 closed acres were re- of institutional constraints see Ref.8, opened by the elimination of pollution, pp.214-222). and if only half of the total 326,000 t> • Insufficient knowledge about the acres were brought into production, extent and recruitment rate of the various this would mean an annual harvest of 163 species harvested in the Bay makes it im- million pounds of oyster meat, a ten- possible to determine their sustained yield fold increase in production over the levels; not enough is known about the life 1967 harvest. That this is a reasonable cycles of many species, their interdepen- projection is attested by the fact that dence, and their sensitivity to both na- in 1880 Maryland produced nearly 72 tural environmental changes and man-made million pounds of oysters, and production influences such as pesticides, thus making did not fall below 20 million pounds until 1929 . (Ref.3) their effective management and protection 2 impossible; and little of what is known is • The Special Case of Clams picked up and used practically by harvesters The estimated acreage of im- or regulators. portant hard clam habitat in the Maryland c Environmental conditionsr both portion of the Bay is 100,000 acres, and natural and man-made, destroy fish and that of the soft clam is about 150,000 r s for a total shellfish habitats or disrupt their life ?R $ t« of 250,000 acres. cycles. Natural hazards include storms, IKer.ij) of this about 39/000 acreS/ or floods, too much or too little salinity, almost one-sixth, is closed because of limited nutrient supply, sedimentation, pollution. If, using a similar line of predators and parasites. Man-made impacts reasoning to that used above for oysters, include the destruction of habitat by diking we assume the 39,000 closed acres re- and filling of wetlands, dredging and dump-
27 ing of spoils, diversion of fresh water the fishery can best be sustained inflows ?o the Bay, accelerated sedimenta- "The basic discriminatxon found xn tion because of agriculture and urban de- the laws of both Maryland and Virginia velopment, and domestic and industrial are limitations which restrict the commer- pollution of the Bay, particularly of ci.al taking of fish and shellfish to prime shellfish habitats. their respective residents. This restnc- These causes may be illustrated tion is modified by the Potomac River better by discussing two of the more im- Fisheries Compact, which opens the es- portant catches of the Bay. Most of the tuarine portions of the Potomac to resi- causes discussed below are common to all dents of both Maryland and Virginia. The the fisheries. discrimination is complemented by provisions d. Problems of Oyster Fisheries; of the Maryland Code which directly or in- institutional Constraints directly prohibit corporations from engaging "The reasons for failure to in commercial fishing, utilize the natural attributes of the "Under the Virginia Constitution Bay for oyster growing are social-polit- and the Maryland statutes, natural oyster ical. Traditionally* the man who har- bars cannot be granted into private owner- vests a crop from the public grounds, ship...The absence of private rights in usually by backbreaking hand labor, is natural oyster bars tends to discourage opposed to private ownership. It is the investment of capital and innovation traditional in the Chesapeake, as in in the oyster fishery."(Re£•B' almost every fishing area in the United ;Insufficient Knowledge States, to want to divide the harvest Fluctuations in the population among all who would wish to share it. are inadequately understood mainly in the Almost to a man, watermen in the Chesa- sense that significant corrective and peake see private ownership as a threat management steps are as yet unavailable, to their livelihood and way of life. For instance, research is being conducted They reason that Private leasing of that is directed toward the development oyster bottom will eventually place con- of MSX-resistant strains of seed oysters, trol of the industry in the hands of a The waste-assimilation capacities of the few large operators."(Ref.3) Bay and its tributaries are not known, nor Thus, "public policy and fishery are the incremental effects of departure laws of the two States (Maryland and from whatever the threshold may be. Virginia) effectively prevent maximum ;Environmental Conditions, use of the Bay for growing oysters." (Ref.3) "Maryland's tidal waters offer ...The inefficiencies which the Maryland an environment favorable to the growth and Virginia laws mandate for the Bay of oysters perhaps unmatched by any other fishery are intentional and pervasive. estuary in the world. No justification They include limitations on the length of can be found, however, for the extravagent season, size limits, and type of gear. claim that our capacity to produce oysters The seasonal limitations require that is 'unlimited'. The salinity range of gear remain unused for part of the year. Maryland's portion of Chesapeake Bay is The size limitations require that sub- such that we are without the starfish, one stantial time be spent returning the under- of the oyster's most effective predators, sized catch to the waters. The gear lim- and are troubled by boring snails only in itations require watermen to use archaic waters of the lower Eastern Shore. On the harvesting methods. While all of these other hand, the oyster parasite Mmchima limitations can be rationalized as conser- nelsoni (MSX) , and Dermocystidium mannum, vation measures, because they are codified a marine fungus that probably kills more into law they limit the fishery managers' oysters in the United States than any options in determining how the yield of other organism, are present in about one-
28 third of our waters and have caused ex- parasite as well. Furthermore, the fresh- tensive mortalities. The Upper Bay and water flow provides an ever-renewed source the upper reaches of many of the tribu- of nutrients, which helps to maintain the taries are waters where salinities oc- food supply of the oyster itself, as well casionally fall below the level necessary for survival of oysters, with resultant as maintaining the foundations of the food- web of which the oyster is a part. mass mortalities. The Bay is occasional- ly visited by hurricanes, and storms Usually, one of the most important such as Hazel of 1954 cause extensive man-made environmental impacts is the out- damage. Throughout all our shellfish- right destruction of shellfish habitat by producing waters oysters must compete diking and filling. However, Maryland is for space and food with vast numbers of relatively fortunate in this respect, having other organisms, and are attacked by lost only 1,000 of a total of 376,300 several species of predators."(Ref- 2) acres of important shoal water habitat in the whole State, including the Atlantic Heavy sedimentation, caused by coast.(Ref.1) floods or by human activities such as e farming, logging, or urban development, - Problems of Striped Bass Fisheries may smother or abrade bottom-dwelling Institutional Constraints: organisms such as oysters. The limitations on length of Pollution has contaminated and season, size limits, and type of gear dis- caused the closing of 28,000 acres of cussed by Power(Ref.8) are particularly oyster bars in the Maryland portion of pertinent with respect to striped bass. Ac- cording to McHugh (Ref.3), "occasionally the Bay. Domestic sewage, chemical and metals processing plant wastes are the large catches of striped bass are taken most important sources of such contamina- in winter with haul seines when the fish tion. Not only do pathogenic organisms are relatively dormant in the deeper parts infest the oysters, but heavy metals of the estuary. The sight of large numbers such as lead, mercury, copper, and zinc of these valuable fish being landed by com- may also be concentrated by the oyster. mercial fishermen enrages sport fishermen, Furthermore, many of the pollutants who see in such catches a threat to their consume oxygen as they decompose, and recreation. The overall impact of such oxygen vitally needed by aquatic animals catches apparently has not been serious, is depleted. judging by the present condition of the striped bass resource." Dredging may be beneficial if it improves tidal flushing of an estuary, Environmental Conditions but on the other hand, it removes bottom- "The striped bass is anadromous, dwellers such as oysters, increases i.e., it lives most of its life in the sea turbidity, and causes sedimentation. but runs up river to spawn. it inhabits the Atlantic coast from the. St. Lawrence Diversion and/or consumptive use of fresh water, such as that proposed River in Canada to the St. John's River, Florida, major streams of the Gulf of for water from the Susquehanna or that caused by the deepening of the Chesapeake Mexico coast, and has been introduced on and Delaware Canal (see section on Water the Pacific coast, where it now ranges from Supply), will cause changes in the ratio the Columbia River to Northern Baja of salt to fresh water in large areas California. The center of distribution on the Atlantic coast is Chesapeake Bay and of the Bay. A reduction in the freshwater input of the Susquehanna will result in the North Carolina sounds. It is believed moving the limits of oyster growth farther that most of the fish that migrate north up the Bay. However, the increased to New England each summer were born in the salinity in the lower Bay will also per- tributaries of the Chesapeake. in their mit the up-Bay movement of the MSX first year or two of life most fish apparently do not move out of the estuary.
29 Selected Major Proposals in Regional Infra- Thus the quality of this environment is structure; PI.29, State Development Pat- most important for survival. Striped tern; PI.32, Areas Identified for Indus- bass, like most estuarine animals, are sensitive to environmental changes, trial Development; or Pi-33, Wastewater Col- and success of spawning varies widely lection and Disposal Facilities - Existing from year to year."(Ref•3) Therefore, to year 2000) . pollution or other forms of degradation b. A Current Example of a Problem of these estuarine environments may have Area Location a particularly harmful impact on the Proposed Crisfield Industrial Park striped bass resource, not only of the An industrial park has been pro- Bay, but of the entire North Atlantic posed at Crisfield, Somerset County, to be developed on 1,300 acres of lowland and wet- coastal zone. lands that lie between the Big Annemessex 1.3 Location of the Problem and Little Annemessex Rivers. The Depart- ^ Principal Habitats and Zones of ment of State Planning has "estimated that Activity approximately 10,000 acres of wetlands would Principal habitats of hardshell be endangered" (see fuller discussion under and softshell clams, oysters, blue crabs, Section B. Conservation of Wetlands.) and spawning areas of striped bass are Comparison of maps showing both living shown on Plate 4. Also, an excellent resources/aquatic habitats and proposed series of maps was recently produced by locations of industrial activity presumably the staff of the Chesapeake Biological would reveal this as the location of a Laboratory under the direction of Dr. L. problem area in accordance with our opera- Eugene Cronin. These display recent and tional definition as given abovte. reliable information on important habi- tats of various life-stages of all but 1.4 Time Characteristics two (menhaden and swellfish) of the ten •^ Long Term Characteristics of the principal kinds of fish and shellfish Problem listed above, as well as many others "The rapidly expanding world popu- not in the top ten (e.g.see Plates 5-10). lation has a great need for new sources of The location of some of the animal protein, and many are looking to the above-mentioned man-made environmental sea as an important source. This drive impacts on these important areas of is reflected in the increasing effort de- concentration of living resources may be voted to the harvesting of fish in recent determined by comparing the above years. Between 1948 and 1968 the world habitat maps to those maps and diagrams harvest more than tripled from 18 million to 64 million short tons. (In roughly the listed below: PI. 4 Aquatic Habitats(shows areas closed same period, 1945-1965, the total weight of to shellfishing) Chesapeake bay landings increased from PI. 17 surface Drainage Pattern and Pub- 152,250 to 295,750 short tons, or only lic Surface Water Intakes slightly less than double). The domestic PI. 13 wastewater Discharge U.S. market for these products has also Fig.l (Sec.II-E) Wastewater Discharge Diag • experienced a fairly steady increase with PI.14 Major Sewage Treatment Plants a record consumption at 8.7 million tons in PI.15 water Quality Problems 1968. A projection in that year showed Pi. 16 Public and Private Sources of Pol- a continually growing domestic market lution reaching some 15 million tons by the year Pi.24 Shoreline Ownership and Major Use 2000. (To determine the location of In contrast to this rising demand, possible future problem areas, compare the fishing industry in the United States the habitat maps with maps such as Pi.30, has remained fairly static. The United
30 PLATE 4: Aquatic Habitats
f?/^ i This"-= •»»*map x.is xnaccurareinaccurate havingnavmg been supercedsuperceded by further research in many details and is dxsplayed for generalized information only. The two maps following are acetate? PLATE 5: Clam and Oyster Habitats
SOFTSHELL CLAM, Myg arenariq ] General Distribution HARDSHELL CLAM, Mercenario mercenqriq HH General Distribution | Commercial Harvesting BRACKISH WATER CLAM, Rangio cuneqtg ^^ General Distribution
OYSTER, Crassostrea virginjc Oyster Bars (&) Seed Areas
ource: University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Dir, PLATE 6: Striped Bass Habitats
STRIPED BASS, Morone soxotili; ti-iia Summer Concentration CD Winter Concentration Spawning Area t^l Nursery Area
£?. WETLANDS
Source University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Dir, States has dropped from second to sixth in the deeper waters of the Bay. Th^s' place among the major fishing countries this determines the location in which they of the world since 1956. In 1968, it are hunted in winter. Also, decisions may harvested only 3.8% of the world catch. be influenced that may have an environmental In the 1959-69 period, the domestic impact on their winter habitat, such as^ catch varied between 2.0 and 2.7 million when to dredge or dump spoils, or location tons. The difference in domestic market of a deepwater, offshore waste or sewage and supply has been filled with an in- outfall. creasing number of imports which in 1968, Another example of a short term a record year, totaled 6.6 million tons. consideration would be that of how long a Yet, it has been estimated that the temporary environmental trauma might be known resources adjacent to the United allowed to exist before serious and irre- States coast are capable of yielding 22 parable damage to the resource resulted, million tons per year on a sustained For example, "it is critical to the upper basis. These resources are currently Bay striped bass ecological needs that a being exploited to a great extent by wedge of fresh water remain between the other countries. Delaware Bay and the upper Chesapeake Bay This inability of the fishing (Elk River and the Chesapeake and Delaware industry to expand to meet a growing de- Canal) during April and May. Salinity mand in face of, at least in certain levels should stay below the upper range areas, extensive resources constitutes of 4-6 pp thousand for best survival con- the nature of the problem. This ditions of eggs and fry during the low phenomenon is even more pronounced in flow period (of the S" squehanna River)." the North Atlantic Region than it is on (Ref.10) Thusf durir a low flow period the national level."(Ref•^ that lasted too long Lt might be necessary From the foregoing, it may be to augment the stream flow by releases seen that the Chesapeake Bay now provides from upstream reservoirs. Th^ Conowingo more than one-tenth of the total U.S. Dam is already required to release "er catch. Yet there seems no reason to whenever large numbers of fish are 'n- doubt that it could supply many times stream and dissolved oxygen levels: in he its present catch, perhaps even as much water below the dam fall below 5ppm. as the roughly seven-fold increase that would represent 10% of the estimated 22 1.5 Parties Affected million ton sustained yield of the U.S. In addition to the consumer the coastal living resources. parties most affected by the living resources Other long term considerations problem are those who harvest and process include the continuation of the current the shellfish and finfish crop, including growth rate of the commercial fisheries sportfishers. Others affected are suppliers (about $1.5 million per year), trends and servicers of the harvestors, such as in capital investment in the industry, boatyards, marinas, tackle manufacturers and the probable effects on Bay pro- and retailers. Also concerned are Bay ductivity of its gradual environmental fisheries scientists and managers. (With- degradation. out the fisheries resource, there would be b. short-Term Characteristics of nothing to study or to manage, and without the Problem the scientists or managers, there might These comprise mainly of the ultimately be no resource) . seasonal aspects of the life cycles of Hunters, bird-watchers, collectors, the fisheries species and their influence and just plain Bay-watchers are among those on the abundance of the resource. For concerned with the other, non-fisheries, example, at various times of the year living resources of the Bay. adult striped bass or perch are found
34 2 Future Dimensions of Living Resources Problems aquatic habitats in rural shoreline areas. Th r,•*-!^ ,-.. v, d" Recognition of the potential eco- Pe roblem 1S how to viPlH ^ i? ^crease the nomic value of Bay living resource produc- yield of living resources in order to tion and of partially latent demands "or advance otoectives of increasing food consumptive and recreational use of th?. supply developing local economies, and production would Tell to higher oMectives expanding recreational opportunities - for conservation of aquatic habitaJs anl while at the same time maintaining the increased demands on Bay management Bay ecosystem in a desirable state of mdnagement. dynamic equilibrium. o o - „ 2•2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem a o i T* • , . ' Institutional constraintq nn i-ha 2-1 TrTiL ^ ^ ^^^^ ^^ commercial Bay fisheries could be r^ional- I-rT^Feasing demands on living su" 11 l^TTl^gth"j^ea^n^iilr" resources could result from population limits and type of gear coull be relelled
increases in recreational demands on tions. Restrictions oHoimercial fisTnt Inl^sLTflTt^ W;ile \Urrent "^ ^ "—residents and corporations c^ld" and shellfish takes from the Bay are be repealed and the right to take fish small m proportion to total production, and shellfish regulated by license £he increased harvesting would increase the leasing of natural oyster bars could be Tl^l.:^ "t 0f the B-,S allowed under the reUtioHf^.".Jo'v. ing to^n0^ ^ ^^^ '»«.. tend- ^r.'ilolUZ??l^^llloTd£ «- mg to increase problems of Bay living search could be continued and expanded resources is the impact of man's in order to give fisheries scientists bet activities which have the effect of re- ter understanding of the life cycles food
and dumping of spoils, diversion of • , fv-^^v, *. • .= -, uiversion or Research directed toward under- fresh water inflows into the Bay, standinn of i-^ ^n ^owara unaer _„__•!„ 4. j j • . •* t>tanaing or the tolerance of various lifp-
2SSS~aSition Thp i= = +- ^ = 4-^„ • •, o ±J"iJ-1-' siF;:H-i?:;S=?»'"-«"";win neip Bay management m resolving •con-~ tion. The last category includes oxygen- flicts between living resources and n+h»r consuming wastes, chemical and other Bav uses Know!«J„o \l t lu toxir w^Qi-Pc ^•hov ^^ *. , Y uses- Knowledge about the extent and toxic wastes, thermalm waste discharges recruitment rate of the species harvested
ply of aquatic habitats and their produc- ticallv Vw N^t-v, ^ u f P ii^r^u":1 "•likely to i"""" "«"»->» •« ^^v^rana the
35 ways may include new methods and new gradually decreasing yields of fish and types of gear used to harvest the crop, shellfish for commercial and recreational and also new means of intensive culti- purposes. Contributing to these long-term vation, particularly of shellfish, which trends are the depletion of aquatic re- lend themselves well to intensive aqua- sources through environmental degradation, culture . possible declines in demand for fish and c. The main efforts to maintain shellfish associated with public awareness environmental conditions necessary of environmental degradation, and institu- for the health of the Bay's living re- tional constraints which limit the capacity sources could be aimed at: conserving of commercial and recreational fishing in- important habitats within the Bay, the terests from effectively pursuing enlighten- highest priorities being assigned to ed objectives with regard to the Bay's spawning and nursery areas, and to the living resources. migration routes of anadromous fish at controlling pollution of the Bay; and, at insuring adequate fresh-water inputs to the Bay (particularly from the Sus- quehanna River). 3 Living Resources: Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies "Aspects of pollution control particularly beneficial to commercial 3. 1 Goal - Maximize the Living Resources fishing are (1) the control of human This overall goal can be given some- fecal wastes in shellfish areas, (2) what more specifically as follows: the control of toxic materials such as mercury, and (3) the controlled applica- 3 . 2 Objectives tion of "pollutants" for nutrients and a. Sustained production and use of habitat improvement. Examples of the abundant populations of shellfish, fish, latter aspect are the creation of and wildlife through biologically sound artificial reefs through selective dis- management of the environment. posal of solid wastes and the induce- At the level of objectives, "abun- ment of artificial upwellings at points dant" can be translated into a more specif- of thermal discharge."(Ref.1) ic meaning. The effects of dredging and b. Provide commercial and recreational spoils dumping in the Bay could be care- opportunities for consumptive users through fully monitored and such engineering controlled harvest of commercial and game programs could be modified in accordance species. with the findings of such studies as that c. Provide recreational opportunities of Cronin et al. (Ref. 11) for non-consumptive users of fish and wild- d. Paradoxically, the demise of life. commercial fishing in the Bay -- either The problem and goal statements through the deterioration of the produc- deal with four major classes of living tive potential of Bay aquatic habitats, resources of the Bay: finfish, shellfish, or through mismanagement of the commer- waterfowl, and other aquatic life. cial fishing industry, or through a drastic reduction of demand for con- 3 . 3 Standards sumption of fish and shellfish -- could (Finfish and Shellfish): reduce problems of living resource manage- Reference can be made to increasing ment by eliminating conflicts with con- rates, amounts and locations of production flicting uses. in pounds as well as dollar value. These standards should be related to population 2 . 3 Summary - Future Outlook growth, and protein requirements as an Current trends continued indicate output from input measured in money and
36 man/years. The protein productivity of be possible, and the way of life of the aquatic life is very high; efficiency oysterman still protected. per unit of energy input and standards The most important policy changes in for output can be specified. achieving the goal of maximizing living (Waterfowl): resources flow from eliminating the present While the Chesapeake is the most set of statutory controls and adopting ad- important breeding, nesting, and feeding ministrative controls over the fisheries. ground for wildfowl on the Eastern Sea- board, it is only a part of the great flyway, and the standards established must take into account its role. Standards can be related to quantity and type of birds, but obviously such standards must also be related to water- fowl habitat, water quality, general en- vironment, and food production, and these in turn related to standards for other aquatic life in the food chain.
3. 4 Policies Many State and local policies and programs already in operation are aimed at increasing living resources in the Bay, For example, the State program of oyster seeding works in this direction. Nevertheless, a "systems" or "opera- tions research" approach to the problem would set specific objectives and standards for management of the entire oyster industry, and the benefits of various levels of "living resource" goal achievement could be weighed against program costs, and against achievement of other objectives and goals where in conflict. While it would be presumptious of this summary study to attempt policy outlines in detail, it is important to point out that existing policies in the area of living resource management should be viewed in context of a goal hierarchy. Using a "systems" approach, their implications can be weighed in monetary terms, against alternate goals and objectives. An example would be the rational- ization of the oyster industry, as though it were under control of a single oyster corporation. Management could be centralized, the market could be controlled, economies of scale would
37 Bay Basins, Susquehanna River Basin References Coordinating Committee, 1969, (p.79)
11. Cronin et al, 1970, Gross, Physical 1 North Atlantic Regional Water Re- and Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil sources Study - Appendix U, p.39; pp.40- Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay; Final Re- 41; pp.39-40; p.44. port to the Bureau of Sprot Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of Interior. 2. J.H. Manning, in Governer's Con- ference on the Chesapeake Bay, 1968, (pp. II-91-II-101; p.11-101; 11-95; 11-94).
3. J.L. McHugh, in Governor's Con- ference on the Chesapeake Bay, 1968, (pp.II-135-1I-160; p.11-149;11-158; 11-153; 11-156).
4. Isard. W., Some Notes on the Linkage of the Ecological and Economic Systems, Reg. Sci. Assoc. Papers, XXII, Budapest Conference, 1968.
5. Wetlands in Maryland, Vol. II - Technical Report, prepared by Maryland Department of State Planning in coopera- tion with the Department of Game and Inland Fish and the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee, 1969,(p.VIII-27).
6. Spinner, G., 1970, Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folia 18 - Wild- life Wetlands and Shellfish Habitats of of the North Atlantic Coastal Zone.
7. Lunz, G.R., 1968, in Governor's Conference on the Chesapeake Bay, (pp. II-167-II-170) .
8. Power, G., Project Director, 1970, Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective, U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pol- lution Control Administration, Estuarine and Oceanographic Programs Branch, (pp.214- 222; pp.217-221).
9. The Potomac Newsletter, Vol. II, No.12,5, December 30, 1968, (as cited in 8, p.220).
10. Maryland's Water Resources Management Requirements in the Susquehanna-Chesapeake
38 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
B. CONSERVATION OF WETLANDS .Q
1. Wetlands Conservation Problems 1.1 Nature of the Problem ._ Figure 1: Simplified Bay Ecosystem 41 1.2 Causes of the Problem 1.3 Location of the Problem 42 1.4 Time Characteristics ' 43 •Eible 1: Extent of Coastal Wetlands in Maryland 43 1.5 Parties Affected 43
2. Future Dimensions of Wetlands Conservation Problems 44 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 44 2 .2 Forces Tending to Decrease the Problem 44 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook '" 47
3. Wetlands Conservation Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 47 3.1 Goal ._ 3.2 Objectives 47 3. 3 Standards 47 3.4 Policies ' 47
39 B Conservation of Wetlands by man, or otherwise used for his benefit. If they are not overloaded with sanitary sewage, or poisoned by toxic industrial i. Wetlands Conservation Problems wastes or pesticides, the bacteria and zoo- plankton in the wetlands will cleanse the The problem is how to avoid further polluted water by decomposing the organic unnecessary and undesirable destruc- wastes in a sort of natural tertiary tion or degradation of valuable wetlands, treatment process. Indeed they may even how to evaluate and rank such wetlands, benefit, up to a certain point, from the and how to protect and enhance those increased fertilization of the water. deemed most valuable or unique, i.e., (The main worry in such an instance would those considered most worth saving. be the transmission of human pathogens, such as viruses, by shellfish.) Further- 1. 1 Nature of the Problem more, marshes have a very high gas-exchange Marshes and other wetlands are capacity, absorbing oxygen and C02 from the extraordinarily fertile, among the most air when exposed by the ebb tide, and productive natural areas in our en- transferring them to the water when the vironment. The food value of their tide returns. The oxygen is necessary not plants is utilized directly by aquatic only for the metabolism of aquatic animals, animals and birds, and is disseminated but also for the decomposition of wastes. through the waters as detritus, or the b. Provision of Nursery Areas for decomposition products of the plants, Aquatic Animals thus supporting a vast marine-life nur- The nutrient-rich waters of wet- sery. It has been estimated that one lands support a rapid rate of photosyn- kind of marsh plant alone, saltmarsh thesis. Furthermore, the shallow waters cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), has of these areas, and the periodic exposure seven times the food value of an equiva- of much of their surface by the withdrawal lent acreage of wheat, to say nothing of of the tide, allow for rapid warming by the food web that it supports . K*al- ' ^' the sun. This combination of a plentiful Large numbers of birds come to the wet- food supply and moderate temperatures lands to feed directly on the vegetation provides an environment favorable to the or on the brackish-water animals that survival and rapid growth of the larvae have themselves fed on the plant detritus. and fry of species that are important Indeed, the Bay is one of the most im- living resources of the Bay. portant wintering areas on the Atlantic c. Wildlife Habitat Flyway, with about a million ducks and The rich waters of the wetlands geese wintering here each year. attract many species of waterfowl and The natural functions that wetland mammals that are a source of economic areas perform are summarized below. benefit and recreational satisfaction to (Much of the following is drawn from man . Ref.2, pp.45-46.) d. Protection of Upland Areas and a. Nutrient Recycling Shorelines Organic matter contained in Wetland areas act as buffers in stream runoff from upland areas, or dissipating the force of storm tides and brought in by the tides, is broken down waves. The boggy substrate and dense by the microbial population of the wet- vegetation serve to absorb much of the lands and used as food by plants and energy Of the moving water. Also, these other higher life forms. Thus, the areas can store large additional volumes foundations of a complex food web, shown of water, thereby reducing the potential greatly simplified in Figure 1, are form- damage caused by floods. The destruction ed. Many parts of this web are harvested of wetlands, and of their shore-protection
40 function, necessitates large public and e. Erosion and Sedimentation Control private expenditures to achieve the same Related to the above function, results as are provided free by nature. absorption of storm, tidal, and current energy by the wetlands helps, to prevent shore FIGURE 1: SIMPLIFIED BAY ECOSYSTEM erosion, which is a serious problem in many (Adapted from Ref.l, p.62). parts of the Bay. The physical character- istics mentioned above, namely bog-like SUNLIGHT ENERGY bottom and dense vegetation, also serve to trap much of the sediment carried by run- off from these upland areas. Removal of these natural sediment traps would neces- MARSH sitate more dredging of adjacent waterways to maintain channels.
1.2 Causes of the Problem The main cause of the problem of wet- land destruction has been their potential for other uses and a lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the natural functions they perform. This in turn has led to their gross underevaluation when compared to the possible economic benefits of projects that would damage or destroy them. Even now, when their enormous value is starting to be recognized, the dif- ficulty of putting a price tag on the services they perform presents an obstacle in fighting the economic pressures that threaten them. ^•^—•— '—'^-^^«—^.—*^-^^^—-—^^^'•W^^N^^ •*^*^- With ownerhsip of the Bay shoreline mostly in private hands (about 88% of the Maryland Bay shoreline), and with the present zoning structure, the management of most wetland areas has been left in the hands of local government. Such governments are always faced with the need to increase 1. Marsh Plan ts, e.g., cord grass, their tax base so that they can continue are the most produc tive type of organisms to supply the public services demanded by in North America, p reducing 5-10 times their citizens. In the past, and even now, as much food and ox ygen per acre as high- the destruction of wetlands by diking and ly cultivated crops such as wheat, filling has often seemed the easiest way 2. Phytoplank ton, microscopic plants, to make room for new industry or housing. with adequate sunli ght produce food for Finally, local governments have neither the minute animals and for filter feeding resources nor the overall perspective to larger animals, sue h as mussels, clams stimulate them toward recognizing the and oysters. value of wetlands, particularly since this 3. Detritus, minute organic parti- value accrues for non-residents. cles from decomposi ng organisms. Also in response to local demand, 4. Zooplankto n, small animals, e.g., municipalities have often ditched and protozoans and mari ne larvae, which drift drained marshes, and have applied pesticides with current. in order to control mosquitoes. However, these measures have often destroyed the important and desirable biota along with
41 the mosquitoes, e.g., crab larvae and account for slightly over 20% of the copepods (tiny crustaceans that form 23,777 acres of wetland lost between 1942- a vital part of the Bay food-web) 44 and 1967-68.(Ref.4) are extremely susceptible to pesticides. Dredging of major shipping channels Furthermore, wetlands have been fair- by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and ly widely used or recommended as dumps of small boat channels by the State, and for solid waste. A statewise study local governments, and the dumping of in 1966(Ref.3)showed that 14 wetland spoils generated by this dredging, have areas were being used as public or all contributed to the destruction of municipal solid waste disposal sites. wetlands. Dredging and spoil disposal Not only does this destroy the wet- caused the loss of 1,263 acres (5.3%) of (Ref 4 lands outright, but the water pollu- wetlands between 1942-44 and 1967-68 . • ) tion ensuing from the leaching of the Further, pollution resulting from shipping, refuse further degrades water quality such as oil spills (intentional or unin- in aquifers and frequently in the tentional), constitutes an ever-present Bay itself. danger to the health of wetlands. The proliferation of small boats While the direct and outright destruc- presents yet another pressure to fill tion by filling, diking, dredging, spoils marshes in order to construct launch- dumping, and refuse disposal is an obvious ing ramps and marinas. Yet every threat, as are the effects of pollution, bit of marsh filled for such a purpose less apparent are the indirect effects of only decreases the supply of fish a- wetland destruction on Bay water qualtiy. vailable to the launched boat. "Nearly Filling of wetlands obviously decreases one-half of marina business is tangi- both the surface area and volume of the bly linked to fishing. The fisheries Bay, particularly of its sub-estuaries, resources supporting this business which -- especially on the western shore are in turn dependent on wetlands for — contain much of its wetland areas. part of their life cycles."(Ref.4) The surface area and volume of a water Also, each boat further contributes to body help determine its assimilative capa- localized sewage pollution and gas and city for wastes. (This is because oxygen oil pollution of the water. in the water is supplied largely by Nor is outright destruction the solution from the atmosphere directly only danger posed for wetlands by across the water-air surface. Therefore, local governments. Too often they reduction of surface area results in low- are regarded as convenient locations for ered dissolved oxygen levels in the water. the discharge of untreated municipal Reduction of volume decreases the flush- and domestic sewage or industrial wastes. ing and dilution efficiencies of the es- Concentration of individual shoreline tuaries ) . residences with individual sewage 1. 3 Location of the Problem systems (septic tanks) will further The Maryland Department of Natural overfertilize the waters. Thus, in Resources is presently mapping State wet- the past short-sighted (often by lands, as defined by the Maryland Wetlands political necessity) planning of local Act of 1970. In the meantime, the follow- or State government has all too often ing maps show wetland areas at a very resulted in the destruction or serious general scale. degradation of valuable wetlands and Pi.4 Aquatic Habitats of sub-estuaries of the Bay. Residential -Shows habitats of important living and industrial development taken together resource species. Derived largely from Ref . 5. Plates 5 and 6 in the Wildlife Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the Atlantic Coastal
42 Zone.(Ref.5) foreseeable future. A parallel problem -These plates show National Wild- is determining which waterfront develop- life Refuges and Seashores, State wild- ment is essential. In the meantime, deter- life wetland areas and parks, local ioration and therefore ineffectiveness and private wetland conservation of wetlands caused by urban expansion, areas, proposed acquisition areas, and e.g., water pollution from sewage and indus- privately owned wetland areas. In ad- trial waste, may accelerate as population dition they show important habitat concentrations increase. areas for clams, oysters, and blue The following tabulation of wetlands crabs. shows the extent of wetlands in Maryland Comparison of the above maps with by dominant species of wetland plant maps such as those listed below helps type. As mentioned above, it is estimated to show wetland areas in the Chesa- that 23,777 acres were lost to all causes peake Bay that are threatened by between 1942-44 and 1967-68.(Ref•4) Of destruction or deterioration. this, 20,200 acres are estimated to have Plate No. been destroyed between 1954 and 1968. 22 Manufacturing Employment Centers (Ref.5) and Port Dependence by Planning Regions TABLE 1: EXTENT OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN 17 Surface Drainage Pattern and MARYLAND (Data from 1954 wet- Public Surface Water Intakes land surveys published by U.S. 13 Wastewater Discharge Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 14 Major Sewage Treatment Plants Wildlife, as cited in Table 1 15 Water Quality Problems of "Wildlife Wetlands and Shell- 16 Public and Private Sources of fish Areas of the Atlantic Pollution Coastal Zone". (Ref.5)1 23 Housing Subdivisions and De- velopments 1950-1967 Freshwater Species Affected 70,330 acres 24 Shoreline Ownership and Major Use by Tides Salt Grass (Distichlis 64,790 acres spicata) and Cordgrass 1. 4 Time Characteristics of the Prob- (Spartina patens) lem Needle Rush (Juncus 53,050 acres The current public recognition roemerianus) of the problem has helped to slow the Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Spartina 15,890 acres destruction of these areas. Maryland alterniflora) House Bill 285, commonly known as the 1954 TOTAL 204,060 acres "Maryland Wetlands Act", was passed, signed into law by the Governor on 1.5 Parties Affected April 22, 1970, and took effect on The destruction of wetlands ultimate- July 1, 1970. Its purpose is to pre- ly affects many people in the Chesapeake vent dredging or filling of State wet- Bay region, because of the loss of the lands without a license from the Board beneficial natural functions, which the of Public Works, and to regulate wetland areas perform. The net economic "dredging, filling, removing or other- benefits accruing to the destruction wise altering or polluting private wet- usually go to the municipalities immediate- lands." However, it is hardly likely ly bordering the wetland, or to whoever that outright destruction will be (industry, commercial establishment, or completely halted by such legislative individual homeowner) occupies the site. measures, since essential waterfront Some benefits will tend to filter back development will continue through the through the local municipality, e.g.,
43 more public services supported by the will increase pressures for the destruc- increased tax base, or new local jobs. tion of wetlands. Such benefits will be offset by both b. The demands of industry for well- local and Bay-wide losses, such as: located land, in combination with the damage to fisheries resources, thus increasing scarcity of land in metropolitan decreasing the food supply for all areas and the need of local governments and reducing economic gain from com- to increase tax bases, will add to pres- mercial and sport fishing; fewer jobs in sures to make new industrial land availa- the fishing industry; closed boatyards ble by filling wetlands. and unsuccessful marinas; and deteri- c. Increasing constraints on orating water quality and the con- highway routes in urban areas will in some comitant lessened health and enjoyment cases encourage the construction of high- of the environment. Thus while the ways through wetlands. benefits accrue specifically and im- d. Metropolitan land supply problems mediately, the costs are borne widely (especially for "unwanted" uses: airports, and over time. heavy industry, highways, etc.) and land price trends will increasingly encourage and make economic the development of new 2 Future Dimensions of Wetlands land -- often involving the destruction Conservation Problems of wetlands. e. The magnitude of solid waste dis- The problem is how to avoid posal problems (See Section L) and the further destruction or degradation of lack of economic alternatives to present wetlands and how to protect and en- methods of solid waste disposal will hance those remaining. Wetlands have result in the continuation of present major, often unappreciated, functions methods, which include the destruction of in nutrient recycling, provision of wetlands. nursery areas for aquatic animals, wild- f. Increase in recreational boating life habitats, protection of shore- activity will increase pressures for lines and upland areas, and control of filling of wetlands for marinas and will sedimentation and erosion. Because of increase degradation of wetlands by small these functions, many of the forces boat pollution. acting to increase the problem of g. The increasing amounts and var- living resources of the Bay (See Sec- iety of domestic, industrial and agricul- tion A) also apply to wetlands areas. tural waste water (See Section E) into In this section additional forces the Bay constitutes perhaps the major long- pertaining to wetlands will be men- run threat of gradual degradation of wet- tioned. lands .
2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the 2 . 2 Forces Tending to Decrease the Problem Problem An estimated 20,200 acres, or al- There appear to be many avenues of most 10%, of Maryland's coastal wet- public action that could be effective lands were destroyed between 1954 and in achieving the conservation of wetlands. 1968.(Ref.5) The main forces responsi- Some of the more important ones are out- ble for this destruction are still lined below. active and are summarized below. a. Acquisition a. The demand for shoreline resi- Outright public acquisition of dential development, in combination with wetlands is the most effective way of pre- modern earth-moving techniques which make venting their destruction. However, lack the filling of wetlands an easy matter. of sufficient public funds for their
44 purchase, coupled with high prices in the on State wetlands, except that he has areas most threatened by urbanization or been issued a license to do so by the industrial activity, has made it diffi- Board of Public Works." cult to obtain much wetland area in this Section 722 - "The Secretary way. Furthermore, adjacent activity of Natural Resources...may for the can often degrade their quality and purpose of promoting the public safety, effectiveness, even if they are public- health and welfare, and protecting pub- ly owned. lic and private property, wildlife and There are several possible ways marine fisheries, promulgate rules and in which to defray the costs of out- regulations governing dredging, filling, right acquisition. One possibility removing or otherwise altering or pol- might be a cost-sharing program with luting private wetlands." the federal government. This type of Although examination of the dual level program has already met with Act and of similar statutes in other some success in New York, where the states indicates that certain changes may state and counties have shared costs 75%/ be needed to further strengthen the law, 25% in purchasing wetlands. Another pos- Maryland has taken a significant stride sibility would be other-than-full-fee toward conservation of its wetlands purchase, e.g. buying conservation or by the passage of this legislation. development easements to the wetlands Re In view of the expense involved from private owners.' *^^ in the acquisition of wetlands, and con- b. Tax Relief or Subsidies sidering the pattern of ownership in the Another possibility is the en- Bay (1,725 miles of shoreline privately couragement of the dedication of private- owned, 205 Federally owned, and only 30 ly owned areas to public agencies by miles owned by the public), legislative giving the owners liberal tax incentives. restrictions on wetlands use are Similar incentives could be extended to the most likely method of attempting people giving land to private conserva- their preservation. tion foundations. Tax relief or out- It should be noted that various right subsidies similar to the U.S. Maryland State agencies are already en- Department of Agriculture soil-bank pro- gaged in vigorous attempts to Implement grams could offer an interesting and the provisions of the Wetlands Act. viable variation on this theme. The d. Creation of New Wetlands cost to the State of such a program 1. Natural would probably be less than acquisition, "The low elevation of land on and the land would stay on the tax rolls. the Eastern Shore of Maryland, in combina- c. Legislation tion with rising tides and man-induced Often legislative controls land-use changes, is resulting in a gradual aimed at the conservation of wetlands are encroachment of the tide onto land pre- primarily concerned with the destruc- viously above the mean tide and subse- tion of them by dredging and filling. quent conversion of wood, shrub, idle and However, the Maryland Wetlands Act of crop lands to tidal marsh. Conversion to 1970 is also concerned with the restric- tidal marsh is considerably more preva- tion of activities that would degrade lent in Somerset and Dorchester Counties, wetlands without actually destroying but is believed to be occurring throughout them. The major provisions of the Act the Eastern Shore where expanses of land that support the state's policy of less than five feet above tide exist preserving wetlands and preventing their and where sufficient buffering is not despoliation are: present. Section 721 - "It shall be un- "Lower Eastern Shore areas have lawful for any person to dredge or fill historically been subjected to tidal
45 flooding. Old dike and drainage systems public interest in the preservation of exist in what are now tidal marshes. the Bay both for now and for future gen- "No data on actual total erations of Bay citizens should outweigh losses or conversion rates of 'high' any purely private profit gained by fill- land to tidal marsh exist. However, it ing wetlands. is believed that the rate of conversion f. Despite the foregoing, some is higher for acreage in high phases of filling or construction in wetlands for tidal marsh, wood, shrub and idle land purposes that provide demonstrable and than it is for land actually cropped or substantial public benefits will probably settled. One 14,000 acre watershed in continue to be allowed and indeed can be Somerset County has a documented crop validated. However, all such proposed land loss to conversion between 1938 fills or construction projects that are (Ref 7 and 1958 of 684 acres." • > considered, whether by public agencies or 2. Artificial private developers, should be thoroughly New marshland can probably be evaluated to determine their possible created by very careful and selective ecological effects on both the wetland placement of uncontaminated dredged area and the Bay as a whole. If the spoils materials in shoal water areas project is then approved, it could be in order to raise the bottom to levels modified as necessary to minimize the at which marsh vegetation can become environmental impact. A single agency established. This is the opposite but could be responsible for the approval or related process to that outlined above. denial of all fill, dredging, or construc- There higher land is being submerged tion projects (rather than two or more or worn down to marsh level; here lower agencies as now obtains). levels are built up to it. It should be noted that the e. The greater public understand- Maryland Department of Natural Resources ing and appreciation of the natural is now developing criteria for such a functions of wetlands will result in process of evaluation of proposed projects increased pressures for wetlands preser- for filling or dredging. Procedures will vation. The public will come to rea- be established for determining impact so lize that the wetlands of the Bay must that benefit-cost analysis may be applied. be maintained and enhanced if they are The costs of the review and to continue to perform the invaluable evaluation of applications for filling, natural functions discussed above. dredging, or construction permits should Therefore, filling, diking, waste be borne by the applicants, not by the disposal and construction will be public. In some cases, costs would be allowed only when "essential" and only low, but in other, more complex cases, for clearly demonstrable and over- the costs of studying the project's effects riding public benefits. Kherever could be quite high. withdrawal of wetlands from potential An example of such a complex development creates widespread hard- study is that done by the Chesapeake Bay ship on local levels of government, Institute and the Chesapeake Biological programs could be designed to ameliorate Laboratory in response to the authorized such effects and to counteract the pub- deepening of the Chesapeake and Delaware lic loss. In this way, the costs and Canal and its approaches (Ref. 8 )• The benefits of conservation can be put into study was funded by the U.S. Army Corps the same "region-wide" accounting sys- of Engineers, the University of Maryland, tem . the Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay However, the public does not Affairs, and the U.S. Bureau of Commercial have any obligation to reward private Fisheries. This being a Corps of Engineers land speculation. The overwhelming project, it is obvious that the U.S. public
46 will ultimately pay the Corps ' share of Wetlands Conservation: Goals, Objectives, the costs of both the project and the Standards, Policies ecological investigation of it. However, this will still be more equitable than making the citizens of Maryland bear the costs alone, since presumably the Corps 3. 1 Goa 1 Preserve Biologically and project will be in the national, as well Aes thetica lly I •nportant Wetlands as in the regional, interest. in a High State of Functional In the case of private devel- Integrity opers, the equitability of requiring This goal is a necessary means to them to bear the costs of evaluation is the maximization of the Bay's living re- much clearer. This would be analogous sources. It is dealt with separately be- to the practice of maintaining sliding cause of the wetlands'crucial role in the fee scales for building permit process- food chain. ing by municipal building inspection departments. 3.2 Obj ectives The review of all project pro- a. Establish State ownership posals should include, in addition to control over tidal wetlands. This objec- ecological impact, the consideration tive has now been accomplished. (by appropriate professionals) of: b. Identify wetlands of greatest 1) safety of the project design (by value to valuable and/or endangered species. engineering geologists, structural and c. Identify wetlands most threatened soil engineers, and public health by pollution as a high priority for special officials); 2) appearance of the design study. (by design professionals); and 3) the d. Identify wetlands most threatened improvement of public access to the Bay. by erosion as a high priority for special g. New methods of solid waste and study. spoil disposal could reduce pressures e. Identify wetlands most under for the use of wetlands for these pressure for development, dumping, dredging, purposes. etc. as a high priority for special study. h. More comprehensive controls on liquid waste generation and discharge 3.3 Standards would decrease the degradation of wet- Standards for wetlands should specify lands' resources through pollution. what is meant by "high degree of functional i. New methods of mosquito control integrity". The functions of wetlands are could reduce the impact of this activity generally well-known but research such as on the aquatic life of wetlands. that being conducted at the Rhode River by the Center for Environmental Studies 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook (Ref. 9 ) is necessary to set standards The new wetlands bills greatly in- for performance of wetlands in relation crease State control over the destruc- to their jurisdictions. These functions tion of wetlands by dredging and filling. are (1) nutrient recycling, (2) provision They may be less effective in preventing of nursery areas for aquatic animals, (3) the degradation of wetlands through wildlife habitat, (4) protection of shore- pollution, even though Section 722 states line and upland areas, and (5) erosion control, that the "Secretary of Natural Resources., may...promulgate rules and regulations 3.4 Policies governing dredging, filling, removing, Policies regarding wetlands are or otherwise altering or polluting pri- suggested below as illustrations: (a) de- vate wetlands." velop criteria for determining impact of
47 all potential change on wetlands; (b) 3.' Maryland State Department of Health, review all proposals for filling or August 1, 1966, Collection and Disposal dredging of wetlands or any adjacent of Solid Wastes - A Maryland Program, land development that may affect the as cited in Ref. 4. wetlands in relation to criteria: (c) approve only those proposals where the 4. Maryland State Planning Department, benefit-cost ratio, taking all factors Department of Game and Inland Fish, Wet- into account, substantially exceeds 1:1, lands Technical Advisory Committee, 1969, or exceeds it by an agreed-upon amount; Wetlands in Maryland, Vol. II - Technical and (d) in such cases, new wetlands Report, (p. X-34). should be created to make up for losses to development. 5. Spinner, G.P., 1969, The Wildlife The above policies are to a degree Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the At- currently in operation as part of the lantic Coastal Zone, Folio 18 of the responsibility of the Department of Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Natural Resources in implementing the American Geographical Society, N. Y. Maryland Wetlands Bill. 6. Strong, A.L., 1970, "Incentives and Controls for Open Space", in Metro- politan Open Space and Natural Process, Footnotes Wallace, D.A., ed., U. of Penn. Press, pp. 81-123.
7. August, R.M. , 1969, "Tidal Flooding 1. More detailed assessments of and Conversion of Lands Adjacent to Tidal existing wetlands may be found in Marsh on the Eastern Shore of Maryland," Ref. 4. Md. Dept. of State Planning.
2. Possible only for large 8. Cronin, L.E., 1970, Project Leader, scale cases. "Gross Physical and Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesa- peake Bay,"NRI Special Report No. 3, Chesa- peake Biological Laboratory. References 9. The Consortium (Johns Hopkins Univ., Univ. of Maryland, Virginia Inst. of Marine Science), 1971, The Chesapeake Bay - A Re- 1. San Francisco Bay Conservation and search Program to Assist in Better Management Development Commission, 1969, San Fran- of Complex Environmental Systems. cisco Bay Plan Supplement.
2. Center for the Environment and Man Inc., Jan. 1971, prepared for the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Committee, North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study - Appen- dix U, Coastal and Es tuarine Areas.
48 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
C. WATER MOVEMENT • 5 0 1. Water Movement Problems 1.1 Nature of the Problem li 50 50 Figure 1: Schematic Flow Pattern and Salinity Distribution in Partially Mixed Estuary I 51 1.2 Causes of the Problem 52 Figure 2: Typical Longitudinal Section of the Salinity'Distribution " in Baltimore Harbor 52 1.3 Location of the Problem Figure 3: Some Combined Climatological Effects 55 1.4 Time Characteristics 56 1.5 Parties Affected 56
2. Future Dimensions of Water Movement Problems 57 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem , 57 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 58 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook 60 3. Water Movement Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies . 60 3.1 Goal "" ,, _, . ^ . 60 3.20 Objectives 3.3 Standards 3.4 Policies . '* ouc
49 an essential element in the decomposition Water Movement of the millions of gallons of wastes (includ- ing raw and treated sewage) that are dumped into the Chesapeake Bay and i Water Movement Problems its sub-estuaries every day. The problems are how to maintain Decomposing wastes in the Bay, and enhance the natural functions per- and particularly in its tributary estuar- formed by the circulation of the Bay's ies, already consume considerable amounts waters, and how to minimize the costs of the available oxygen. When the dissolved of shoreline flooding. oxygen is depleted by the decomposition of excessive waste loads, massive kills 1.l Nature of the Problem of fish and other marine life may result. a. Interference with the Natural Flushing; Functions Performed by the Movement The Bay and its tributary of Water. estuaries dispose of man's wastes by The large-scale movements of diluting them, decomposing them, and water in the Bay and its sub-estuaries finally by flushing them away. The are essential to the maintenance of its flushing action is accomplished when the ecosystem and the desirable physical tide, wind, and density-driven currents characteristics and quality of its succeed in exchanging unpolluted, oxygen- waters. The movement of the tides and carrying water for the polluted, oxygen- winds and the flow of fresh water into depleted water. and through the Bay on its way to the The problem in many of the Bay's sea are of critical importance for the sub-estuaries is that there is little survival of the Bay's valuable living effective flushing action so that in areas resources, and for the breakdown, such as the Severn, Magothy, Back and dilution, and flushing of pollutants Middle Rivers, the water is not flushed in the Bay and sub-estuaries. Therefore, sufficiently to prevent a buildup of obstruction of the free circulation of pollution. water or denial of the necessary fresh- Salinity: water inflow to the Bay would be ex- The waters of the Chesapeake tremely costly, in terms of money, the Bay provide a gradual and more or less degradation of the environment, and regular change in salt content from human health and enjoyment.(See Fig.1,Sec completely sea water at the mouth of the F a diagram of the Bay's water budget). Bay to totally fresh water flowing into The needs of the fish and the head of the Bay from the Susquehanna wildlife and the demands of the River. All forms of life in the environ- pollution assimilation function of the ment have adapted to this and the range Bay are fulfilled by: 1. the oxygen of salinities is necessary for the dissolved in the water; 2. the flushing survival of the various life-stages of action of tidal and non-tidal water many important fish and shellfish. Just movement; and 3. the variable salinity to mention one, the striped bass spawns of the water. in fresh water, goes through the finger- Oxygen: ling stage in brackish water, and spends Most water carries dissolved its adult life in salt water. oxygen. Fresh water carries as much b. Effects of the Bay's Physical as 20 to 30 percent more oxygen than Processes on Its Natural Functions. salt water. Most marine life including Pritchard states that "there fish need the oxygen in the water to are three basic processes which produce breathe. Oxygen in the water is also motion and mixing in an estuary: the
50 wind, the tide, and the inflow of river "The circulation in estuaries water. ...In a tide-dominated estuary has important implications in the field [such as the Chesapeake Bay], turbulence of pollution study and control. For associated with the tidal currents results
However, "the essential char- acteristics of an estuary result from the passage of river water through the system to the open ocean. It is in the table." (Ref The type of circulation prevalent in an estuary has an important bearing on the prediction of pollution patterns. In a moderately stratified estuary such as the Chesapeake Bay, some portion of a pollutant that is lighter than the saltier, denser bottom water will find An important aspect of estuaries its way into the bottom layer. This is is that the system tends to be buffered because of the above-mentioned vertical against fluctuations in the fresh water mixing that carries fresh water downward inflow, i.e., the changes in total into that layer. The pollutant will then salinity are not directly proportional be broadly distributed by the uprivei to the changes in the rate of fresh- water inflow. An increase in river flow will push the surface isohalines (lines of equal salinity) downstream, but there will be a compensating increased inflow VWu.^.j,r J.A4 v-/J.^-^c:4. u of salt water from the sea in the bottom predict pollution in that estuary layers. This will simply accentuate the All of the above means that any two-layered net non-tidal circulation sub-estuary, or indeed any body of wat er , pattern schematically represented in has a "capacity" for sewage treatment Figure 1. This two-layered estuarine which, if not exceeded, allows nature flow pattern, which is characteristic of to conduct the process at no cost to man, the Bay and its major tributary c. Shoreline Flooding estuaries (such as the Potomac and the In addition to the beneficial James Rivers), is discussed in Ref. 3. natural effects of large-scale water RIVER SEA Figure 1:
Schematic flow pattern and salinity distribution (parts per thousand) in a partially mixed estuary. Volume rate of flow is expressed in terms of the volume rate of river flow R. (Reproduced from Figure 17 in Ref. 3) movements in the Bay, there are signif- Circulation Patterns in the Tributary Estuaries: icant detrimental effects. Chief among these is the problem of shoreline flood- As Pritchard (Ref.3) points ing. As urbanization and recreational out, the mechanism in Baltimore Harbor use of the Bay shoreline increase, the ,that provides for a renewal rate of about impact of storms and flooding becomes '10% of the Harbor's volume per day is even more substantial. The U.S. Army n a three-layered circulation pattern driven by differences in vertical Corps of Engineers has estimated & damages from recurrence of the "tidal salinity distributions between the Harbor T flood of record" for the whole Bay to and the adjacent Bay (see Figure 2). -be 45 million 1970 dollars. (The "tidal This circulation pattern is due in large > flood of record" is simply defined as measure to the fact that the Harbor has the worst flood known to have actually a large navigation channel, which is hit the impact area under consideration maintained at essentially the same depth (Ref. 4, p.U-150). as in the adjacent Bay. On the other hand, other small 1.2 Causes of:Water Movement Problems tributary estuaries, such as the Magothy a. Inadequate Flushing of Tribu- and Severn Rivers, are quite shallow and tary Estuaries the major factor that controls flushing Several factors can either cause rates is the variation of the Bay's or aggravate the problem of inadequate salinity with time. (Ref.3) flushing of a tributary estuary. Chief "In [early] spring, when the among these are: the natural or altered Bay waters are the lower of the two in circulation patterns which exist in the salinity, the time required to replace estuary; the way in which wastes intro- 50% of the volume of the Magothy is only duced into an estuary move and are dis- about six days. During late summer and persed; and the effects of filling, fall...the renewal rate is probably not diking, and sedimentation in a shallow much greater. estuary. Diversion of fresh water inflow At times (as in early summer) may aggravate flushing problems, but it when the salinities within the Magothy is considered separately (see section approximate those in the upper layers 1.2.b. below) because of its great of the Bay, the process of renewal must relative importance with respect to the be that of tidal exchange. The time Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. required to replace 50% of the volume of
Figure 2:
Typical longitudinal section of the salinity distribution in Baltimore Harbor. The Chesapeake Bay at the mouth of the harbor is at the right end of the figure. The arrows show the net flow pattern. (Repro- duced from Figure 19, Ref. 3.)
Distonce - Miles From Head of Horbor
52 the Magothy under these circumstances enhance the rate of dispersion. In either would slightly exceed 30 days." (Ref. 5, case, the wastes are ultimately flushed p.21.) ^ from the estuary into the sea by the net Moveinent and (oispersion\ of an seaward flow of the estuary. Introduced Waste in arTEstuary: When waste is introduced as a The degree of concentration of continuous flow, as from a sewage outfall, wastes near the point of introduction de- it is spread downcurrent in the form of a pends on the initial mixing of the waste; plume by the prevailing tidal currents. the objective being to attain as high a During ebb tide, the plume extends down dilution of the waste as possible during the estuary, and during flood tide, the the initial mixing process. After initial plume extends up the estuary. Each re- dilution, the pollutant patch is trans- versal of the tidal current results in a ported by the currents in the estuary and folding back of the spreading plume. spreads both vertically and horizontally However, the plume seldom folds exactly by turbulent diffusion. The tide supplies back on itself. A widespread field of most of the turbulent energy that leads relatively low concentration develops, to turbulent diffusion. Irregularities upon which is superimposed, on each tide, in the shoreline help to deform the pol- a relatively narrow new plume of higher lutant patch. These effects, when com- concentration. (Ref. 6.) bined with the transverse diffusion due to Filling, Diking, and Sedimenta- turbulent eddies, lead to an effective tion of Shallow Estuaries: longitudinal dispersion of the wastes in Filling, diking, and sedimenta- the estuary. tion aggravate the problem of estuary- Vertical diffusion also helps flushing in several ways. First, the de- in the effective longitudinal dispersion creased surface area will mean a roughly of wastes. This is particularly true in proportionate decrease in the amount of a partially mixed estuary (such as the oxygen absorbed by the water in the estuary. Chesapeake Bay) when a two-layer flow Second, the decrease in the volume of water pattern prevails (see Figure 1). Waste in the estuary will lessen its capacity introduced into the surface layer, in to dilute and, with the decreased dissolved addition to participating in the oscil- oxygen content of the water, to decompose latory movement and mixing due to tides and assimilate wastes. Third, filling is carried initially with the net flow near the mouth of an estuary will constrict toward the sea. Turbulent diffusion leads its connection with the main estuary or not only to horizontal but also to vertical the sea and slow down the exchange or re- spread of the wastes, and they are, there- newal rate of the water in the estuary. fore, also added to the deeper layers, Finally, as we have seen above, small where net flow is toward the head of the shallow tributary estuaries such as the estuary. The shear in the net circulation Magothy and Severn Rivers often have very pattern produces a deformation of the slow flushing rates. This is because only waste patch and eventually gives rise to the upper layer of the Bay is able to ex- an effective longitudinal mixing, when change water with the tributary and also combined with vertical diffusion. because salinity (and thus density) dif- A similar argument holds for the ferences between the Bay and its tributaries dispersion of wastes initially introduced are generally slight due to the low fresh into the bottom layers of a partially water flow into the tributaries. Therefore, mixed estuary. A small net vertical if such estuaries are made still shallower movement of water increases vertical by filling or by sedimentation, flushing diffusion, and brings the waste up into rates will slow accordingly. Thus, at the the surface layer. Then the shear effect very same time that an estuary's waste load operates on the deformed waste patch to is increased by the urbanization and
53 development of its shoreline, its capacity this water can move is upward. to assimilate and flush this waste load When the funnel effect is com- may be seriously impaired by the filling/ bined with the quadrant wind effect (i.e., diking, and sedimentation engendered by wind direction offshore in one quadrant the development. of cyclonic storm crossing a shoreline, b. Diversion of Fresh Water Flow and on-shore in opposite quadrant), with The diversion to other watersheds high tide and with (increased) inland run- of fresh water that would normally flow off in urban areas, conditions become into a particular estuary will most prob- especially severe as depicted in Figure ably have several deleterious effects on 3. (Ref.4, p.U-145.) water quality in the estuary. First, the dissolved oxygen content of the estuary's 1. 3 Location of Problem Areas water will be decreased because of the a. Tributary Estuaries with Flush- denial or reduction of fresh supplies nor- ing Problems mally carried by the river flow. Second, As we have seen above, estuaries flushing of the estuary will be slowed may be subject to flushing problems be- directly because of the reduced non-tidal cause of several reasons, important among net flow induced by river flow. Also, which are inadequate depth, constriction flushing of tributary estuaries will be of the mouth of the tributary, and insuf- indirectly slowed, because the reduced ficient fresh water inflow. fresh water input will lessen salinity Examples of Bay tributaries with differences between the tributary estu- these problems are: the above-mentioned aries and the Bay, thus slowing the dens- Magothy and Severn Rivers (highly developed ity-driven currents. Finally, aquatic shorelines, shallow, low fresh water in- life that depends on the traditional sa- flows); Back River (shallow, constricted linity of the estuary will probably be mouth that further slows exchange, and harmed by the abrupt change to saltier "fresh" water inflow that consists almost water. Several examples of important entirely of Baltimore's sewage effluent); diversions within or out of the Bay and the Bush and Gunpowder Rivers (shallow watershed are discussed below under flushing dominated by salinity fluctua- "Location of Problem Areas". tions in Bay proper resulting from varying c. Causes of Storm-Induced Tidal Susquehanna River flow). As discussed Flooding above, flushing of the Patapsco (Baltimore Storms, of hurricane velocity Harbor) is faster than would otherwise be or of extended duration, are the prin- expected, despite its low fresh water in- cipal causes of flooding in the Bay and flow, because maintenance of its channel its tributary estuaries. According to at essentially the same depth as the ad- Pritchard (Ref. 3), "Under certain wind jacent Bay permits a three-layered-flow and atmospheric pressure conditions, ab- exchange pattern. normally high mean water levels can occur b. Diversion of Fresh Water in the Bay, with tidal levels as much Large-scale diversions of Patux- as 6 feet above normal in the upper Bay, ent River water to the drainage basins of although more typically such meteorolog- the Potomac, Patapsco, and Back Rivers ical tides are of the order of 3 feet have been made and have already affected above normal." dissolved oxygen levels and other water However, " (f)unnel shaped es- quality parameters. Further urbanization tuaries with wide openings and narrow and development within the Patuxent water- necks are at a particular disadvantage. shed will undoubtedly lower water quality A large mass of water can easily enter in its lower reaches still further at the the estuary with great momentum. As same time that river flows (and their the estuary narrows, the only direction flushing effects) are being reduced.
54 Figure 3: Inland runoff Some Combined seeKing escape Climatological Effects. W- Lowlying urban (Reproduced from Figure U-15, area of high value Ref. 4)
Water is forced into funnel-
Win{3 I ^ shaped estuary unimpeded by direction ^ its wide mouth' Where estuary narrows to a point, the water elevation must rise.
....i^^^ll + ll Incoming tide •raises ••• 1 • ' • l * ' t 1 . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 general water levels.
Finally, and most importantly River Basin Compact Commission. of all, large diversions from the Sus- c. Tributary Estuaries with quehanna River (which provides rough- Particular Flooding Problems ly one-half of the total fresh water The tributary estuaries most inflow to the Bay) to the watersheds vulnerable to storm flooding are the of the Potomac and Delaware Rivers have south-opening, funnel-shaped ones on been proposed (the so-called Mason- the western shore. (See Figure 3 Dixon Project). Coupled with a great- above, and also Figure 2 in Ref. 7, map ly increased net outflow of fresh water of "Hurricane Tracks" on east coast of (the new net outflow will be approx- U.S. ) imately 30% of the low flow in the The Severn, South, and Gun- Susquehanna) through the Chesapeake powder Rivers are quite vulnerable to and Delaware Canal because of its deep- such flooding, but the Patapsco is prob- ening, these diversions will probably ably the most susceptible of all. have critical effects on the salinity Baltimore's Harbor was flooded in the characteristics, dissolved oxygen con- 1954 hurricane in the manner described tents, flushing rates, and water qual- above. However, the Chesapeake is not ity throughout the Bay, but particu- as severely affected as the Atlantic larly in the Susquehanna Flats at the coastal areas, because it is somewhat Bay's head. Much the same effects would protected against the northward-travelling be produced by impoundments in the hurricanes by Cape Charles and the Delmarva headwaters of the Susquehanna that Peninsula and its wetlands absorb much of have been proposed by the Susquehanna the energy of the storms.
55 1.4 Time Characteristics vary from a low of about 7,000 cfs (in The time characteristics of the late summer-early fall) to a maximum problem of water movement in the Bay of 100,000 (in early spring). These and its tributaries have many aspects. seasonal high and low flows are very There are the short-term aspects of important to the health and well-being the residence time and dispersion of the Bay ecosystem, which of course rates of pollutants, which depend in large includes man. For instance, the spring part on the flushing rates of the water high flows flush the Bay and its trib- body (the dispersion of wastes depends utaries, and retard the up-Bay advance on diffusion processes as well as on of salinity-dependent organisms such as advection, in other words, even without oyster parasites and predators. For flushing, pollutants will tend to diff- another example, Back River presently has use, or spread out through the water). an extremely low exchange rate with the There are the seasonal variations in Bay, and it virtually acts as a sort of salinity, water quality, and renewal large tertiary treatment pond for the rates caused mainly by the seasonal sewage effluent dumped into it. But fluctuations in river flow into the Baltimore will probably divert still Bay, but also by the seasonal differ- more water from the Susquehanna in the ences in climatological factors such as future, and a considerable part of this solar heating, precipitation, and water, after being used, will be dis- evapotranspiration. Storms and storm charged into Back River. This could in- flooding are worst in winter, but crease Back River's flushing rate, and hurricanes usually occur in August and cause wastes and excessive nutrients to September. Finally, there are the enter the Bay. gradual, long-term, accumulative, and more or less permanent changes in water 1. 5 Parties Affected characteristics and flushing rates in It is quite obvious that all users the Bay and its tributaries caused by of the Bay are ultimately affected by the patterns of water movement within the Bay, filling and diking, erosion and sedi- mentation, water pollution, and diver- and' by the effects of these motions on salinity and other water characteristics. sion of river flow. As was pointed out above (see Aquatic life is dependent on a wide range section 1.2.a.) the volume rate of of salinities, temperatures, velocities, exchange in Baltimore Harbor (Patapsco dissolved oxygen contents, etc., which, River) is "remarkably steady through- as we have seen above, are directly dep- endent on the water circulation patterns out the year" at "approximately 10% and rates. Thus, the "living resources" of the Harbor volume per day." Howeyer, the rate of exchange in, for example, of the Bay, and those who exploit or enjoy them, are dependent on "water move- the Magothy is seen to vary from 50% of its volume exchanged in six days in ment". Similarly, all those who benefit early spring to 50% renewed in more than from the natural functions performed from the—na-t-u-r-a-l'-fu-ncTions performed by wet- 30 days in early summer. Probably the most important single lands, do so because water movement patterns time-varying influence on water char- determine what are in fact wetland areas acteristics and quality in the Bay is and further determine the state of well- that of the flow of the Susquehanna being of these areas. The assimilation River. The Susquehanna, with a mean capacities of the Bay and its trib- annual flow of about 40,000 cubic feet utaries for wastes (including heat) are per second (cfs) , contributes over half directly related to both large- and small- of the total fresh water inflow to the scale water movements. Thus, all people living in the Bay watershed whose wastes Bay. Yet the monthly average flow may
56 are discharged, whether treated or un- accelerated fashion to keep the prob- treated, into the Bay are concerned lem in check. For example, without man's with this function. Again, and in short, activities there would be a fairly const- shipping, recreational users, all those ant long-term average rate of sedimen- who use the Bay, are dependent on water tation of the Bay's channels. Thus, to movements in the Bay. Indeed, such a keep the channels at a fairly constant statement is almost tautological. depth, roughly the same volume of mater- With respect to shoreline flooding ial would be dredged each year. But with of the Bay, the answer to the question increased activity in the Bay watershed, "who are the parties affected?" be- the rate of sedimentation will increase comes clearer and more specific. Owners year by year, and the amount of dredging and users of shore property suffer the will have to increase to keep pace. most immediate and greatest damage. Then there may be the water quality 2. 1 Forces Tending to Increase the damage caused by combined sewer system Problem at an Accelerating Rate discharge, the damage to pleasure and a. Inadequate Flushing of Sub- commercial boats and marina facilities, Estuaries and damage to shipping channels by the Most of the increase in the rapid erosion and sedimentation that problem of inadequate flushing of sub- accompany floods. estuaries, with the attendant disbene- fits of pollution buildups, ecological and aesthetic degradation, and loss of shore- line property value is caused by the Future Dimensions of Water Movement Problems increased activity and intervention in natural processes of man in the watersheds As stated above, the present prob- of the estuaries. lem is to maintain and enhance the natu- Man's activities will probably ral functions performed by the circu- increase: 1) the alteration of the circu- lation of the Bay's waters (maintenance lation patterns in the sub-estuaries, lead- of dissolved oxygen levels, flushing ing to speeding up or retardation of flush- of sub-estuaries and varying salinity ing rates, by dredging or filling channels, patterns) and to minimize the impact by constricting or widening the mouths of of shoreline flooding. Many of the the estuaries, or by building piers, docks, physical processes involved in the or jetties in harbors; 2) the discharge and circulation of the Bay's waters are rel- buildup of wastes into the estuaries, with atively constant over long periods of consequent depletion of dissolved oxygen time, at least when averaged. These and harm to living resources; and 3) fill- processes are among the important causes ing, diking, and sedimentation because of of the water movement problem and their increased demands for creation of new shore- cumulative effects will of course in- line for residential, commercial, industrial crease over time unless the effects and recreational uses, and because of the are dynamically balanced by appropri- construction activities which accompany ate solutions. However, other causes the development and which produce vastly of the problem, particularly those increased sediment loads. related to the activities of man, will b. BJJi^exsion_qf_JFresh Water themselves probably increase in magni- Man's increasing demands on the tude even while their effects are fresh water resources of the Bay watershed increasing and accumulating. In other will further accelerate the growth of the words, the problem will be growing, water movement problem. Two outstanding but at an accelerating rate, and sol- examples are: 1) the Susquehanna, where utions will have to be applied in an projected consumptive demands will exceed
57 minimum monthly low flows by the year tamed, dredging not permitted or at 2020, thus endangering the existence least strictly controlled, and perhaps of the present Upper Bay ecosystem; even the possibility of further constnc- of the present upp / rh^a- tion of the channel might be in order and 2) the deepening of the Chesa peake and Delaware Canal, which will in extreme cases. undoubtedly sharply increase the net b. Movement^^per^or^and outflow of fresh water from the Upper Ass^nilation_of^ntroducej Wastes aY' c. Shoreline Flooding ^ The distribution over time of Man himself increases the 'a conservative waste introduced in solu- impacts and costs of shoreline flooding tion or concTTdal form into estuanne on his works by continuing to build waters will depend on the manner in which in areas subject to frequent flooding. the waste is introduced and on the diff- erence in density between the undiluted 2 2 Forces Tending to Reduce the waste and the receiving water. - Problem r ;— " Deep-water* outfalls with long j^Incement of Natural or diffusers having many ports (in the order Altered Circulation Patterns of 500 or more) can produce dilutions The exchange or flushing rate in the range of 1:300; while single Det of an estuary is a function of its shore discharges in shallow water will provide and bottom topography, fresh water in- an initial dilution of only 1:5 to 1:10. flow, tidal and non-tidal currents, The increase in dilution by one or more wind-driven currents, and salinity orders of magnitude through use of a gradients. If acceleration of the diffuser is highly desirable and is less flushing rate is desirable, as for ex- expensive than building outfalls that are ample in the case of the Magothy or long enough to accomplish the same increase Severn estuaries, potential solutions in dilution by natural oceanic dispersion, mus t be addressed to these factors. In the actual design of an out- in some cases dredging may be called fall, which will be unique for each site, for to deepen channels. As mentioned the engineer can choose the location, depth, above, this could allow the deeper, and length of the diffuser, and the number higher salinity layers of the Bay to and size of its discharge ports. Receiving- take part in the exchange process, water quality objectives have the ma:or setting up flow patterns similar to effect on the design. Design decisions those in Baltimore Harbor, and in- can be made only in a systems context, creasing and stabilizing flushing taking into account the degree of treat- rates The dredging would have to be ment, outfall and diffuser hydraulics, the carefully controlled so as to mini- various stages of dilution, the decay rate mizfdamage to aquatic communities, of bacteria and other substances, and the and environmental conditions care- density stratification and current regimes fully monitored to ascertain the in the receiving-water body. Water quality effects of the introduction of the objectives also have a maDor effect on the higher salinity Bay-bottom waters design. In some instances a submerged on the resident aquatic life. waste field may be desirable while xn areas On the other hand, retard- such as estuaries it may not be. ation of the flushing rate may be Still, the most obvious and most deemed more desirable, as in the case desirable way of maintaining adequate levels of the Back River "tertiary treatment of water quality in the Bay's tributary pond". in such a case, constriction estuaries with respect to dissolved oxygen of the tributary's mouth could be main- will be to reduce the oxygen demand for the
58 the decomposition of wastes by more able. Indeed, augmentation of fresh effective waste treatment before dis- water inflow is often highly desirable, charge. Another approach that will particularly at times of low flow. This probably gain favor would be a treat- may be accomplished by carefully planned ment of the effect (i.e., treating releases from upstream reservoirs. the "symptom" rather than curing the Diversions of fresh water "disease"). This would entail aeration which would otherwise flow through the of the water by artificial means. One Bay, or which thus deny inflow to one commonly employed method is the in- or another particular sub-estuary should stallation of a perforated pipe or be carefully considered and regulated. hose at the bottom of a water body, The flow regimen of the Susquehanna River through which air is then pumped. is of particular importance in this respect, Some of the air in the rising stream and the rational management of its water of bubbles is dissolved, and oxygen is resources is imperative. Diversions or thus replenished. consumptive uses of Susquehanna water should c. Reduction of Aggravating be permitted only on evidence of a clear Factors such as FilTingT and overriding public interest and should Diking, and Sedimentation be strictly limited and monitored in any Filling and diking should be case . kept to an absolutely necessary mini- The effective diversion of mum, especially at the mouths of freshwater from the Bay because of the estuaries, so as to: maintain the vol- deepening of the Chesapeake and Delaware ume of water available for dilution and Canal could be minimized by the installation assimilation of wastes; to maintain of tidal gates or locks. the absorption of oxygen at adequate e• Reduction of Storm-Induced levels (absorption being roughly pro- Flooding portional to water surface area); to Because really severe storms are conserve aquatic vegetation, which pro- infrequent in the Chesapeake Bay, the kinds duces oxygen by photosynthesis and of flood-control measures necessary to transpires it directly to the water; reduce all but the most severe impact do and to prevent constriction of the not seem warranted. However, where new cross-section through which exchange construction is extensive, such as in with the Bay occurs (except in such Baltimore's Inner Harbor, all elements of cases as the Back River, discussed buildings easily damaged by flooding will above). Sedimentation fills channels, be raised far enough above mean high tide and produces still shallower depths in to ensure their protection from all but already shoal waters. Therefore, sedi- the most extreme flooding. Thus, filling mentation should be controlled as and raising of the shore should be permitted strictly as possible. (The problem on the most valuable land judged to be of sedimentation is considered in least in conflict with other goals (such as section D.) conservation, living resources, etc.). In d. Regulation of Diversion of the case of certain waterfront industrial, Fresh Water commercial, or residential uses it may be The denial of fresh water in- not only possible but desirable to encourage flow is an extremely serious matter, the raising of buildings on "stilts" so as and diversions of this essential con- to preserve wetlands and living resources tribution to estuaries should be permit- while satisfying development demands and ted only when no other reasonable avoiding the danger of flooding, a case of alternative sources of water are avail- "having the cake and eating it too". T
59 Such development is planned for the be identified to define objectives under Hackensack Meadows area in northeast- the above general goal: oxygen content, ern New Jersey. (Ref. 8) flushing, salinity, flooding, and erosion. A rational approach to solving Erosion will be considered under Goal D. the problem will be the institution of "flood-plain" type zoning in shoreline 3.2 Objectives: areas, i. e., the restriction or preven- a. Maintain high levels of dissolved tion of development where it would be oxygen in the Bay's waters. threatened by periodic flooding. It b. Provide adequate flushing action/ is considered to be unreasonable and dissolved oxygen relationship unjustifiable to expend public monies to ensure satisfactory water for the encouragement and perpetuation quality for living resources. of private folly. c. Ensure fresh water inflows f. Research into estuarine prob- adequate to maintain satisfactory lems, particularly by use of both math- fresh vs. salt water quality ematical and physical models such as for living resources. the proposed and authorized U. S. Corps d. Eliminate negative impact and of Engineers Bay model, will be expanded. cost of tidal flooding and movement. 2.3 Summary -- Future Outlook The overall outlook seems good 3.3 Standards: with respect to the reduction of many of Standards exist for each of the four the "problem-increasing" forces, part- aspects of water movement. Water quality icularly those which have to do with standards regarding oxygen content are the flushing of estuaries and shoreline discussed under Goal E (Water Pollution). flooding. However, the outlook with Oxygen content is to a degree a function respect to the increasing diversion of of flushing action. While natural flush- fresh water inflow to the Bay is judged ing action is not easily affected, stand- to be critical and far short of solution ards can be adopted for minimum (and in the near future. Solutions to the maximum) desirable flushing action for increased outflow through the Chesapeake specific situations. and Delaware Canal such as locks or Flooding has a well established gates have been proposed but have appar- literature and set of standards applic- ently found little support by the Corps able to the Bay. These standards relate of Engineers. And the Susquehanna will to specific floods-of-record to identify continue to be eyed thirstily by inhab- boundaries of public responsibility (50- itants and water resource agencies of year flood, etc.). other major basins in the eastern United States. 3.4 Policies: Policies for water movement and cir- culation establish principles for respond- ing to specific situations regarding oxy- 3 Water Movement: Goals, Objectives, gen content, flushing, salinity and flood- Standards, Policies ing. For example, where oxygen content is below acceptable amounts, policy would 3 . i Goal: Maximize Desirable and be to take action to modify the situation. Minimize Undesirable Effects Specific policies regarding flooding of Circulation of the Bay's include the progressive phasing out of Waters uses within 50-year flood plains, and the Five aspects of water movement can adoption of land use and shoreline controls that minimize unnecessary future conflicts.
60 References
1. Pritchard, D. w.. Contribution No. 86 of the Chesapeake Bay Institute and the Department of Oceanography, The Johns Hopkins University. Reprinted from Estuaries, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1967.
2. Cameron, W, M,, and Pritchard, D. W. Contribution No. 64 of Chesapeake Bay Institute and the Department of Ocean- ography, The Johns Hopkins University, from The Sea, Vol. 2, Interscience Publishers, 1963.
3. Pritchard, D. W., in Governor's Conference on the Chesapeake Bay, pp. 11-49 through 11-74, 1968.
4. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Committee, Appendix U, Coastal and Estuarine Waters, January, 1971.
5. Pritchard, D. W. and Bunce, R. E., Physical and Chemical Hydrography of the Magothy River, Technical Report XVII, Chesapeake Bay Institute, 1959.
6. Adapted from National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Wastes Management Concepts for the Coastal Zone, 1970.
7. Maryland Geological Survey, Assigned Contribution to Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee Work Plan Outline, January 20, 1970.
8. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, 1970, The Plan for the Meadows.
61 PLATE 7.: Shore Erosion and Bay Sedimentation
o\ PENNSYLVANIA \ ) J.y MARYLAND II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
D. SHORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 6 2
Plate 7: Shore Erosion and Bay Sedimentation 62
Da. SHORE EROSION 64
1. Shore Erosion Problem 64 1.1 Nature of the Problem 64 Table 1: Chesapeake Bay Shore Erosion in Maryland 64 1.2 Causes of the Problem 65 1.3 Location of the Problem Areas 67 1.4 Time Characteristics 67 1.5 Parties Affected 68
2. Future Dimensions of Shore Erosion Problems 68 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 68 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 69 2 . 3 Summary - Future Outlook 72
Db. SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS 73
1. Sedimentation Problems 73 1.1 Nature of the Problem ' 73 1.2 Causes of the Problem 73 Table 2: Sediment Discharge of Selected Tributaries 74 Table 3: Sedimentation at Selected Historic Towns Upper Chesapeake Bay Region 76 1.3 Location of the Problem Area 76 Plate 8: Shore Erosion and Sources of Sedimentation and Turbidity 77 1 .4 Time Characteristics of the Problem 78 1.5 Paries Affected 73
2. Future Dimensions of Sedimentation Problems 78 2.1 Forces • Tending to Increase the Problem 78 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 79 2 . 3 Summary - Future Outlook [ 80
3. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 81 3.1 Goal 3! 3.2 Objectives 3^ 3.3 Standards 81 3.4 Policies 8^
63 Da Shore Erosion Between 1845 and 1942 about 6,000 acres of land were lost to shore erosion along the 230 miles of shoreline of the Bay i Shore Erosion Problem proper in Maryland. (Ref. 1). This is an average loss of 26 acres per linear The problem is how to control mile of shoreline. The specific rate shore erosion in an economically, soci- of erosion is highly variable and depends ally, and environmentally acceptable on a combination of many factors. These way so as to reduce damage to and include: the shoreline configuration; limitations on present and potential the direction and speed of prevailing shoreland uses. and storm winds; the reach of open water over which the winds blow (called the 1.1 Nature of the Problem "fetch"); the movement of sediments by Shore erosion can damage or de- long-shore currents; and the composition stroy recreational beaches, and seri- and structure of the materials that make ously limit waterfront use and devel- up the shore. Thus, during the period opment. It can also cause damage to mentioned above, the shoreline has re- valuable wetlands. The 3,950 mile ceded several thousand feet in some areas, shoreline of the Maryland portion of but has remained virtually static in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributar- others (See Table 1 and Plate 1.) ies is constantly subjected to attack However, "because the height of the by moving water driven by winds, tides, coast varies markedly from place to place, stream flow, and non-tidal currents. the amount of land, or acreage, lost is TABLE 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORE EROSION IN MARYLAND (Tributaries Not Included) Miles Net Loss Main Shore- Annual Annual of 1845-1942 line Annual Volume Rate of Shore- (Acres) Erosion Rate Lost Volume Lost line (Acres/Miles) (Cu-.Ft.) (Cu.Ft./Mi.) Northern Bay Area
Cecil 15. 6 195 0.13 Kent 36.9 578 0.16 Harford 24. 0 383 0. 16 Baltimore 9. 3 164 0 . 19 TOTAL 85.8 1,320 0.17 Above Tolchester 4.4 X 10' 62,300
Mid-Bay Area Queen Annes 17.6 592 0 34 Talbot 11. 3 286 0 28 Dorchester 29. 5 1,809 0 64 Anne Arundel 40.3 1,041 0 30 Calvert 31. 3 530 0 17 St. Marys 22.5 600 0 28 TOTAL 152. 5 4,858 0. 34 (Table Reproduced from Table 4 in Ref. 1) (Data for Col. 1-3 from Ref. 2 and 3, Col, 4 and 5, Ref. 4.)
64 not a direct measure of the volume of cesses and forces involved, the character- erosion. In Calvert County the Calvert istics of the shoreline acted on by these Cliffs are on the order of 100 feet forces, and both the natural and socio- high while in Dorchester County much of economic limitations on possible solutions the shoreline is only 6 to 10 feet high. to the problem. Thus the volume of land lost may be a. Natural Processes and Forces considerably higher along Calvert Storms: County despite the slower (linear) Most shore erosion occurs during rate of erosion there compared to storms. The most intense storms that shoreline of Dorchester County. Accu- affect the Chesapeake Bay are hurricanes, rate estimates of the volume of sedi- violent cyclonic storms which are born ment lost are not available for most in the tropics and travel generally from of the Bay. However, for the region south to north through the region. The from the mouth of the Susquehanna River important aspects of storms with respect to Tolchester in the northern Bay area to their role in shore erosion are Schubel (Ref. 4)has estimated that 4.4 6 "their intensity, duration and frequency, X 10 cubic feet is lost annually repre- and the high waves, runoff and winds senting a rate per mile of shoreline of associated with them." (Ref. 6) 62,300 cubic feet." (Ref. 1). Duration of a storm is an import- One example of the public impact ant factor. Waves can build up to great of severe shore erosion is discussed heights during a long storm and can thus by S. P. Ellis (Ref. 5). ff His sta be superimposed upon one or more high had "recently completed a feasibil- tides. ity study, for the Legislative Council, Intense but infrequent storms concerning the possible acquisition of such as hurricanes produce the highest Hart and Miller Islands (for recreat- average annual erosion damage. The hurri- ional purposes). These islands are cane of August 1933 caused the greatest located east of Baltimore at the mouth damage of record in the Chesapeake Bay. of Back River. The two islands encom- Less severe but still somewhat infrequent pass an area of approximately 140 storms tend to have more or less perma- acres, with Hart Island being the nent influences on the strength and direc- larger of the two. The islands are tion of the longshore transport of sedi- relatively flat, ranging in eleva- ments. This sediment movement is import- tion from one to three feet above MHW. ant because it may balance the erosive The predominant natural feature is the forces at work along the beach. existence of approximately four and Friction between high winds (i.e., one-half miles of beach. Because of fast moving air masses) and large areas constant exposure to the Bay, erosion of water surface ("fetch") can produce is a major problem. In 1930, Hart very high waves. Fetch, combined with Island contained approximately 150 a long-lasting wind, is probably the most acres, Miller Island, 51. Today, important factor in the creation of large this acreage has been reduced to 111 waves, and the larger the wave, the more and 33 acres respectively If energy is available for the processes of these valuable pieces of real estate erosion and transport of particles. are not stabilized soon, they will Hurricanes and other storms usu- suffer the same fate as Sharps Island ally also produce intense rainfalls. This and will be no more." precipitation often falls on already satu- rated ground and thus produces extreme 1. 2 Causes of the Problem runoffs. The major causes of the problem The high winds that accompany of shore erosion are the natural pro- storms not only produce high waves as
65 explained above, but also strike di- Water Movement (See section C.2.C. Causes rectly on natural and man-made struc- of Storm Induced Tidal Flooding). This tures, at a time when saturation may effect can cause extraordinary littoral already have weakened them. Wind movement, especially (in the Chesapeake speeds are generally higher for storms Bay) on east-west or northeast-southwest coming from the ocean than for those trending, southward-facing shorelines, coming from overland, probably be- i.e. perpendicular or oblique to the cause of the lower friction at the usual path of hurricanes through the Bay water's surface. area. Not only will funnel-shaped estu- Littoral Drift: aries in such shorelines experience There is usually a prevail- flooding but the erosive power of such ing longshore current that moves surges is enormous. Hurricanes come up sediment along a coast. This "lit - the Bay from the south and the "fetch" toral drift" is mainly the resultant is thus the full length of the Bay by of two forces, the Coriolus force the time the Baltimore Harbor is reached. produced by the earth's rotation and The Patapsco is an open funnel-type the force exerted on the sand grains sub-estuary and is thus very vulnerable by the prevailing, wind-induced waves. to these forces. The drift usually produces a net loss Shore Configuration: or gain of sediment and its intensity "Beaches are energy dissipaters. varies from place to place and from Their efficiency in this role is greatly season to season. influenced by their profile. The nearer Tidal and Stream Currents: deep water is to the shore, the closer High tides occurring simul - large waves can approach before their taneously with storms, or tidal currents energy begins to dissipate because of superimposed on the prevailing lit- bottom drag. The flatter the gradient toral drift, can reinforce the total both offshore and on the beach "run up" erosional force, as can currents caused area, the longer and more gradual is this by nearby stream inflow. dissipation. A narrow, steep beach will b. Influence of Shoreline Char- be subject to much greater wave forces acteristics than a flatter beach. An offshore bar, Orientation of Shoreline: breakwater or island will dissipate The orientation of a shoreline waves affording protection within the areas with respect to the direction of the they shelter. However, offshore shoals prevailing littoral drift can greatly and islands also tend to focus energy, reinforce the effect of the drift. resulting in sporadic concentrated The more nearly the shore parallels the damage areas along the shorefront." direction of drift, the greater the (Ref. 6, p.U-147.) movement of sediment along the shore Shore Materials: wil1 be. The resistance of a shore to If the shore faces a large erosion depends very heavily on the mater- body of open water, the fetch will be ials of which it is made. All other greater and the winds will generate forces and characteristics being equal higher waves than if the shore fronted (storms, waves, littoral drift, orien- on a narrow water body. tation, etc.) a shore composed of a tough, An even more important result crystalline rock such as granite will of shore orientation is the quadrant resist erosion much better than a shore effect in cyclonic storms, which was made of a soft, friable sandstone. The discussed above in the section on sandstone in turn would probably withstand
66 erosion better than would the silty- costs among individual owners of the clays that predominate on the west- shoreline, and with respect to the ern shore of the Bay. question of public benefit accruing A thick growth of rooted from the protection of private land. vegetation on the shore and in the However, the scale of the measures foreshore (i.e., wetlands) will help necessary to control erosion usually to retard erosion and indeed may help necessitates spreading the costs to trap sediment particles and thus over a larger sector of the public. to cause deposition instead of erosion. Value of Shore to Man: 1•3 Location of Problem Areas Shoreline land that man regards As mentioned above, the shore as having high value tends to be more erosion rates vary considerably from concentrated in some areas than in one part of the Bay shoreline to others. Obviously a storm that strikes another. Dorchester, Queen Annes, Baltimore Harbor will have a greater, and Talbot Counties experienced the more immediate and apparent human highest rates of erosion on the East- impact than one that hits the southern ern Shore from 1845 to 1942, while part of the Eastern Shore, even though Anne Arundel and St. Marys Counties environmental impact and damage to the had the highest rates of the Western living resources of the Bay may be Shore Counties. (See again Table 1 greater in the latter case. and Plate 11. Although Somerset Residential land that fronts County had one of the lowest average on the Western Shore of the Bay has erosion rates during the above period, very high market value and this value it was second in the total net acreage alone, rather than the value of all lost. Thia is because the county has other potential resources, may serious- a very large shoreline and many off- ly influence decisions as to what part shore islands, including South Marsh of the Bay shoreline merits protection and Smith Islands. against erosion. Information gathered during c• Special Limitations on the State's wetlands inventory (Ref.7) Possible Solutions indicates that about 100 wetland areas The natural processes and are currently being actively eroded. forces that cause shore erosion are so Almost all of the areas are on the East- great and ubiquitous, and the shore- ern Shore and are in reaches of the shore- line of the Chesapeake Bay and its line already noted above for high tributaries is so long, that it would erosion rates. be impossible to protect more than a small, selected portion of the shore 1.4 Ti me Characteristics against erosion. Mu ch severe shoreline erosion The costs of protecting the occurs during storms and the worst shoreline are very high. Furthermore, storms in the Chesapeake Bay region methods used to protect the shore must are hur ricanes. They usually occur be applied uniformly to the entire in Augu st and September, with a fre- stretch of beach in question, lest the quency of about one every ten years, entire protective structure be out- There a re, of course, other storms flanked or penetrated. With most of through out the year, but the worst the Bay's shoreline in private owner- ones us ually occur from late autumn ship, this presents problems of equity through early spring. There is no with respect to the apportionment of evidenc e to suggest that the severity,
67 location, or frequency of storms has 2 Future Dimensions of Shore Erosion Problems changed significantly over the years or that they will change much in the As we have seen above, the major years to come. Therefore, the erosion causes of shore erosion are the natural rates calculated for the period 1845- processes and forces involved and the 1942 provide a good predictive tool characteristics of the shoreline acted for determining which areas of the Bay on by these forces. Man has increasing shoreline will be most severely affected capability to alter these basic aspects by erosion in the future. either directly through conscious action However, what has changed and or indirectly through pursuit of other will continue to change is the value purposes (e.g., marine transportation, of the shoreline property to man. This water supply, urban development, etc.). will continue to increase, particularly To attempt to predict the effects on on the Western Shore in Anne Arundel shore erosion of possible alterations County and the Eastern Shore's retire- of basic natural processes and charac- ment and recreation areas, as pop- teristics of the Bay would be very con- ulation, industry, commerce, and their jectural. It is enough, perhaps, to demands on the Bay's resources continue say that shore erosion effects of projects to expand and multiply. which would change tidal characteristics, shoreline configuration, shoreline 1. 5 Parties Affected materials, etc. should be considered in Owners and actual users of shore- project planning. line land and users of the waters and shipping channels of the Bay are those 2 . 1 Forces Tending to Increase the most directly affected by shore erosion. Problem Not only do residential, industrial and a. Shoreline residential and indus- commercial landowners lose their prop- trial development, by cutting into the erty (under the common law doctrine shoreline and altering its configuration still followed in Maryland the owners can increase shore erosion problems. It of private land abutting the Bay lose is likely that shoreline residential their property rights in all lands which, and industrial development will increase through erosion, become submerged at in the future and that much of the new mean high tide [Ref.8]),but also users development will be on portions of the of both public and private recreational shoreline which are more exposed to areas such as beaches, parks and picnic natural erosion processes. For instance, grounds lose the use of these areas, an most of the recent development in the already scarce and valuable resource. Baltimore Harbor has been along the shore- Less obvious and direct is the line of the Lower Patapsco River rather loss of valuable shore and wetland than along the less exposed shorelines habitat, which indirectly affects of the Middle and Northwest Patapsco those who exploit and enjoy the living Branches, and the annual erosion rate resources of the Bay. along that part of the Bay Shore is 0.20 The public is also required to acres/mile or more. bear at least part of the costs of b. The costs of protecting shore- erecting shore-protection structures, line are increasing, and these interact since there are both state and federal with institutional problems and land cost-sharing programs for such construc- ownership patterns to make protection tion . of shoreline areas increasingly difficult. Methods used to protect the shore must be
68 applied uniformly to the entire stretch or absorbed by the construction of of of beach in questi on, lest the entire shore bars and breakwaters. Natural protective structu re be outflanked or bars and shoals perform this function penetrated. With most of the Bay's very well and should be maintained wh ere shoreline in priva te ownership, this possible. Excessive stream runoff fr om presents problems of equity with inland areas could be managed by a wh ole respect to the app ortionment of costs battery of familiar flood-control and among individual o wners of the shore- water-land management techniques. Bo th line and with resp ect to the question natural and man-made structures could of public benefit accruing from the be reinforced against the direct impa ct protection of priv ate land. As costs of the high winds associated with sto rms . increase the gener al public is in- Littoral Drift: creasingly called on to assist in shore To be effective, the design a nd protection program s. (Some examples placement of shore-protection structu res of costs of shore protection are: must be responsive to the dynamics of groin construction or beach nourish- the natural processes involved. Alth ough ment - over $100 p er linear foot; groins or jetties can be very effect! ve revetments - over $500 per linear foot in minimizing the erosional effects o f in exposed areas; bulkheading - about littoral drift, they can do so only i f $100 per linear fo ot. Therefore, sand is being moved along the shore i n with an average co st of $100 per the first place. However, by causing linear foot, it wo uld cost $500 sand to accrete on their up-drift sid es , million to protect only half of the they may cause corresponding "starva- 2,000 miles of Mar yland's Bay shore- tion" and erosion of the beach on the ir line estimated to need such protec- down-drift sides. Nevertheless, groi ns tion.) will often be an excellent, direct an d generally permanent solution, especia lly 2 . 2 Forces Tending to Red uce the if the down-drift areas are deemed le ss Problem important or valuable than the protec ted Possible solutions to the problem reaches. A common solution to the pr oblem of shore erosion are essent ially local of asymmetrical erosion/deposition at in nature and must be addre ssed to the base of a groin is simply to pump the causes of the problem, i.e. they will or dredge the sand from the accreting have to respond to the spec ial problem side to the starving side. causes such as: storms, li ttoral Beach nourishment will often be drift, tidal and stream cur rents; locally the best solution to the prob lem orientation, configuration, materials of shore erosion if an adequate, econ and human value of the shor eline; and omical source is available and ecolog special limitations on poss ible ical side-effects can be minimized. solutions. This consists simply of transporting a. Possible Solutions Addressed sand to the reach threatened by erosi on to Natural Processes and depositing enough to compensate f or Storms: the loss to natural processes. If Nothing can now be done di- the renourished beach is to be stabil i zed , rectly about the intensity, duration, the grain-size distribution of the sa nd or frequency of storms. We can deal must approximate that of the natural only with their concomitant effects, beach material. Inland deposits usua lly such as high waves, runoff, and winds. result from different geological pro" Wave energy can be dissipated cesses and thus have different char-
69 protect the hard crystalline rocks of much acteristics. Probably the most practical of the Maine coast, but if the natural method for large-scale renourishment of materials of the shore are very easily beaches will be to dredge the ma- eroded, as are the sediments of which most terial from offshore. Underwater of the Bay shore is composed, then such crawlercutters or suction dredges may measures may greatly improve the stabil- be used. The sand will then be pumped ity and erosion-resistance of the shore. through pipes to the shore. The Corps However, these measures are very ex- of Engineers has demonstrated the tech- pensive and therefore, could only be nological feasibility of this method justified when used to protect very high- in a pilot project at Sea Girt, New valued land uses, such as coastal roads, Jersey (Ref. 6). Ecological effects airports, and other urban facilities. of this type of solution are discussed Value to Man: under Special Limitations below. The more men value a particular Tidal and Stream Currents: stretch of shoreline or piece of shore Little can be done about the property, the more they try to justify tides themselves (though it is pos- the expense necessary to protect it. sible to build tidal barriers or dams), However, these efforts may be unjusti- but tidal and stream currents may be fied in a wider, more complete, public controlled or deflected by structures cost-benefit analysis. Few facilities such as jetties, groins, bulkheads, or or land uses must be located directly on breakwaters, etc. the waterfront. Thus, to minimize the b. Possible Solution Addressed to public costs of protection the princi- Shoreline Characteristics. ples of flood and erosion-prone area Orientation of Shoreline: zoning and management should be applied. The orientation of a shoreline Then, only essential waterfront uses cannot be significantly modified, but would be allowable on the shore. In the concomitant effects of waves and other words, if it would cost too much littoral drift could be handled as to protect a stretch of valuable shoreline, outlined in both the preceding and then reduce or limit its value by pub- following discussions. licly regulating its use. The cost to Shore Configuration: the public may be thereby reduced, part- Beach profiles could be improved icularly if it is non-recurring. so as to make them more efficient and In special cases, however, such gradual dissipators of wave and tidal as Baltimore's or Annapolis' waterfronts, energy. The above-mentioned methods special protection measures will be just- of beach nourishment (if carried far ified, even to the "floodproofing" of enough offshore) and groin-emplacement new buildings and the construction of (if long enough to trap sand in a extensive sea walls and bulkheads. gently sloping gradient off the shore) c. Reduction of Special Limitations could be very effective in changing on Possible Solutions configuration. Sharing the Costs of Solutions: Wetland areas, by their very The costs of solutions discussed nature, have excellent energy-dissipa- above depend on the size of the projects ting characteristics, and should there- and on the local availability of the mater- fore be maintained and enhanced. ials. Groin construction may cost over Shore Materials: $100 per linear foot of coastline pro- Rip-rap, bulkheads, or sea- tected depending on the dimensions of the walls would seldom be required to waves and the beach, and beach renour-
70 ishment may cost roughly the same per usually allowable when project solutions linear foot of beach. Revetment costs are beyond the reasonable capability of are even higher than beach nourishment local authorities and when the benefits and can be over $500 per linear foot are public and exceed the cost. The in exposed areas. (Ref. 6). Sound cost of the study of eligible projects bulkheading cost roughly $100 per linear is born completely by the Federal foot in 1968 (Ref. 1). Thus, taking government. Up to half the cost of feas- the average cost of shoreline protec- ible protective works for beach erosion tion to be $100 per linear foot, it control along publicly-owned shores is would cost $500 million to protect Federal, except in the case of parks and only half of the 2000 miles of conservation areas which meet certain Maryland's Chesapeake Bay shoreline requirements. In these instances up estimated to need protection by to 70% Federal costs are authorized. Singewald and Slaughter. Obviously a Privately-owned shores are generally high degree of selectivity will be ineligible for [Federal] participation needed in choosing shores that merit except when their protection is bene- protection, and each proposed project ficial to a nearby public use or when the must be carefully analyzed to ensure benefits to the private shore are inci- that costs are commensurate with dental to the project.... anticipated benefits.2 Even when Federal surveys indi- Maryland passed legislation cate that remedial measures are not econ- in 1964 that makes the State a omically feasible and thus ineligible partner in private ventures to control for Federal aid, they can be undertaken erosion. The State established a shore by state or local interests in a region- erosion control division within the al development context. These projects Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs. can often benefit from the technical The new agency was empowered to make evaluation produced in the Federal long-term loans for up to 25% of the survey." (Ref. 6) total cost of protective structures Reduction of Undesirable to individual shorefront owners who Ecological Side-Effects: formed themselves into erosion control During the planning of solutions, districts. The State raised the careful attention will increasingly be limit for its share to 50% in 1968. paid to the possible loss of ecological In fiscal year 1969 the State's values. Some of the larger projects appropriations for this purpose totaled will have a potential for ecological an estimated $352,000. At the above- damage that could be controlled or even assumed average of $100 per linear reversed by careful design. For example, foot, and using the 50% sharing formula, several kinds of ecological effects may this would be adequate to protect only result from a beach renourishment oper- about 1.4 miles of shore. However, ation. These effects will occur either the Maryland Geological Survey is at the borrow area or at the site of helping greatly in the State's efforts deposition. The following summary dis- to control shore erosion by studying cussion of effects is taken from Cronin erosional and depositional processes et al: (Ref.10) in the Bay, and by conducting re- "Off-shore sands are put into search aimed at finding the most place by the dynamics of the coastal effective and efficient methods of circulation system and wave action. They erosion control. usually contain a lower biomass than "Federal participation is estuarine sediments. There is some
71 reason to expect that removed sand will If so, these must be given proper consider- be replaced and that the biological ation. " population will recover in a relatively Research should be conducted by short period of time, although we have the Maryland Geological Survey into feas- seen no record of an adequate study of ible ways of protecting valuable wetland the sequence following such removal. areas and other areas of high ecological "Removal of benthic material value that are subject to erosion, without from the lagoon or bay behind a barrier serious physical damage or destruction by beach will have quite different effects conventional engineering methods. in various circumstances. Some of these areas are of enormous importance 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook as nursery and production grounds for Increasing values of shoreline land many species of fish, for crabs, will generate increasing forces to protect shrimp, oysters, clams and other marine the shoreline from being eliminated or forms. Damage to the existing eco- reduced through erosion. However, land logical system can affect both local values show wide variation in different production and the catch of the species shoreline areas and these may not over a wide area. At other locations, correspond to erosion protection prior- the sediments behind the barrier beach ities considered on a comprehensive are composed of hard sand, carried from basis. the beach by aeolean drift, and they A continuation of present trends may contain and support very little would result in an average loss to erosion biological activity. In these cases, of about eight acres per linear mile of pumping back onto the beach essential- shoreline between now and the year 2000. ly reverses the wind-blown movement The application of some of the approaches of sand. mentioned above, allocated on the basis "The creation of borrow holes of land values or local initiative, in shallow lagoons frequently provides would not appreciably reduce the average a new kind of habitat -- deeper water loss over the entire Bay shoreline. which is not swept vigorously by tidal currents. Such deeps might provide concentration sites for many fish and invertebrates, create an opportun- ity for some species to increase in abundance, and aid sports and commer- cial fisheries, swimming or naviga- tion. The effects of such holes should be investigated. "The receiving area must also be taken into ecological account in decisions on beach nourishment. Storm-lost beaches and stretches denuded by littoral drift are not as likely to contain problems as are natural low beaches which are proposed for elevation. Each such area contains a natural community, and it may contain rare and valuable species or some biological quality of unusual importance
72 Db
Sedimentation 15 feet of sediment accumulated in the Patapsco River near Baltimore between 1845 and 1924, other areas with strong i Sedimentation Problems bottom currents have been kept relatively well scoured. The problem, as with Shore Erosion, is how to control sedimentation in an 1.2 Causes of the Problem economically, socially and environment- The major causes of the problem ally acceptable way. of sedimentation are the natural processes involved, the influence of man's activi- 1. 1 Nature of the Problem ties on these processes, and the environ- All the rivers flowing into the mental and economic limitations on solu- Bay, but particularly those on the tions to the problem. Western Shore, carry enormous loads of a. Natural Processes Involved sediments to the Bay. In addition, as Each river that enters the we have seen above, erosion of the Bay Chesapeake Bay carries with it a load of shoreline and bottom contributes great sediment and other detritus. Although quantities of sediment. Once in the accurate data on the contribution of the Bay these sediments are redistributed various tributaries are not available, over the bottom by wave action and tidal the Potomac and the Susquehanna are currents . clearly the main contributors. (See This sedimentation creates many Table 2). Schubel (Ref- 4) estimates that problems. Channels are filled and the Susquehanna River delivers about blocked, necessitating extensive and 600,000 tons of sediment per year to the continuous dredging operations at great upper Bay. However, the long term average public cost. ("Something less than one annual sediment contribution of the foot per year of sediment must be dredged Susquehanna may be somewhat higher, to maintain the ship channel from the because his observations were made in a Chesapeake Bay Bridge to the Baltimore [Ref 1] year of relatively low flow. Harbor." - ) Harbors, large and The estimated contribution of small, and marinas may be filled and the whole Potomac basin is about 170 rendered useless. Estuarine portions of tons per sq.mi. or 2.5 million tons per the Bay's tributaries, indispensable to year. Approximately 1.0 million tons the Bay's living resources, have been per year (or 114 tons/sq.mi./yr.) are filled and are continuing to be filled. derived from the basin above Point of Sudden large accumulations of sediment Rocks, Maryland. may smother bottom-dwelling marine life There are few measurements of or increase turbidity, which in turn the amount of sediment carried by streams creates an unfavorable environment for rising in the coastal plain. Data for many desirable species of fish. Mattawoman Cre^k (see Table 2) and for The actual volume and rates of some streams in the New Jersey coastal sedimentation are variable and are due plain indicate that sediment loads in to a combination of factors: grain size such streams are small, something on the distribution (i.e. gravel, sand, silt, order of 20 to 30 tons per square mile. clay), density of the sediment partic- This is in marked contrast to the streams les, human activity in the source that rise in the Piedmont and Appalachian watershed, bottom characteristics, stream Ridge and Valley provinces. For example, discharge and gradient, speed and dir- the Potomac's load above fort Washington of ection of currents in the Bay, location 2.3 million tons per year calculates out in the Bay.etc. Thus, while as much as to 180 tons/sq.mi./yr.
73 TABLE 2. SEDIMENT DISCHARGE OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES, CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
River Location Physiographic Drainage Sediment Sediment Province Area Discharge Discharge (sq.mi.) Tons/yeay Tons/sq.mi./y] -^-=—^ „ , ^ T^ TTTD ^TT Susquehanna Havre de Piedmont 27,503 0.67- x 10 22 Grace. 6 Potomac Point of Piedmont 9,651 1.1.x 10 114 Rocks,Md. Potomac Fort Piedmont & 11,939 2.3 x lO" 180 Washington Coastal Plain below D.C. Patuxent Hardesty. Coastal Plain 371 8.7 x 10 235 S Piedmont. Patuxent Unity. Piedmont 34.8 4.5 x lO^ 130 6 Patuxent Mouth. Piedmont & .19 x 10 Coastal Plain. 3 Mattawoman Pomonkey Coastal Plain. 57.7 1.7 x 10 30
Average, New Jersey Coastal Plain. 10-40 several
(Reproduced from Table 2 in Ref. 1)
Wolman (Re£- D "guesstimates" that When the tributary streams enter the total amount of sediment being con- their estuaries, their current velocities tributed to the Bay system by streams are reduced and their sediment loads are rising in the coastal plain, in the deposited. The larger particles settle Appalachian plateau, valleys and ridges, closest to the mouths of the rivers and the finer particles at successively great- and in the Piedmont would be about 8 Ref 4 million tons per year, and only 5% of er distances. Schubel ( - ) shows this, or 40,000 tons, would be derived that virtually all of the sediment carried from the coastal plain. This assumes by the Susquehanna is deposited in the a yield of about 150 tons/sq.mi./yr. upper Bay above Tolchester (see Ref. 1, for the Piedmont and Appalachian streams, Figure 8). On the other hand, the Potomac and about 30 tons/sq.mi./yr. for those transports its sediment load about 106 in the coastal plain. This jibes very miles from the Fall Line to the Bay proper well with Ryan's estimates (Ref- 3) that before depositing it. "the average rate of sedimentation in Materials eroded from the shoreline Chesapeake Bay during this period [the are displaced only a relatively short 10,000 years since the close of the way into the deeper waters of the Bay. Ref Pleistocene] has been about 6,115,000 Ryan ( • 3) shows that sands are con- cubic yards per year," if we assume a fined to the margins of the Bay, with the density factor of 1.3 tons per cubic deeper parts and narrow main channel con- yard of (dry) sediment. taining silts and clays. For the Bay as
74 a whole, the modern bottom sediments the end of the eighteenth century." consist of about 51% clayey silt, 12% (See Table 3 ) . fine and very fine sand, and 37% medium c. Limitations on Possible sand. (Ref. 1) Pi. n (iargely derived Solutions from Ryan's map) clearly shows the over- High costs of remedial measures: all pattern of near-shore sands and finer An excellent example of the sort silts and clays toward the center of the of costs engendered by sedimentation is Bay. provided by the Potomac and Anacostia b. Influence on Man's Activities Rivers near Washington. Channel improve- The 600,000 ton annual sediment ment and dredging operations have been load of the Susquehanna represents a con- almost continuous there since 1804. It tribution of only 23 tons per year per has been estimated (Ref. 1, p.11-26) that square mile of drainage area. This the annual cost of dredging on the Potomac apparently very low contribution is near Washington is about $150,000. attributed at least partly by Wolman to An even more striking example the series of hydroelectric dams on the is that provided by the project to en- Susquehanna, which act as sediment traps. large and deepen the Chesapeake and Dela- He estimates that the total contribution ware Canal, as authorized by the Congress of the Susquehanna to the upper Bay in 1954. About 10 million cubic yards of "would be perhaps 1.7 times as great sediment were dredged in 1965-67 from were it not for deposition which takes the channels in the Bay approaches to the place in these reservoirs along the Canal. An estimated 15 million cubic lower course of the river." On the yards must also be removed in the next other hand, roughly 25 to 30%' of the one 50 years to retain the project dimensions million tons reaching the Potomac estuary of the channel. (Ref. 10) Assuming an at Washington, D. C. is derived from the average dredging cost of $0.50/cu.yd., urbanizing metropolitan area alone. this would mean a maintenance cost of Furthermore, evidence from early roughly $7.5 million over the next 50 charts and maps, historical documents, years or about $150,000 per year. The and field studies and boreholes shows that cost of disposing of spoils from the the rates of sedimentation in different project may be as much as three times parts of the Bay have indeed varied this amount. over historic time. "Prior to settle- Environmental effects: ment by colonists and the initiation of Dredging requires not only landclearing and agriculture, rates of removal of the sediments but disposal sediment contribution from land under of the dredged material as well. In the forest cover were perhaps on the order past it has been customary to simply pump of 100 tons/sq.mi./yr. However, with spoil material to nearby shallow water the advent of extensive clearing for or wetlands, thus often "reclaiming agriculture, these rates rose rapidly waste land" while maintaining necessary to values of 400 to 800 tons/sq.mi./yr." channels. However, now it is recognized "By 1800 such prominent harbors that such disposal in valuable, limited, as Joppatowne at the mouth of the Little and often fast-disappearing wetlands poses Gunpowder, Port Tobacco, Upper Marlboro many possible environmental problems. on the Patuxent and others had begun to Disposal of fine sediments on flat be severely affected by sediment, some bottom areas will affect a wide area as early as 1700. While the estimates because of the spread of the semi-liquid are not precise, it can be seen that the spoil and the reworking of the sediments landward edge of tidewater or head of by currents after original deposition. navigation receded as much as two to ten Disposal into basins will affect smaller miles in some of these harbors before areas and help to reduce future mainten-
75 TABLE 3. • SEDIMENTATION AT SELECTED HISTORIC TOWNS UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION
Town or Founded River Approx. Amount of Approx. Years Location or Time Downstream Reduction Creek Sedimen- Migration in Depth tation of Head (Feet) Recorded Navigation (Miles) Bladensburg, 1742 Anacosta 1875 2 3 1875-1937 Md. Piscataway, 1634 Piscataway 1807 1 3 1863-1945 Md. Georgetown, 1751 Potomac 1804 20a 9.25 1783-1837 Wash.,D.C. Mt. Vernon 1752 Potomac 1793 — 1 to 4 1863-1904
Dumfries, Va. 1748 Quantico 1787 1.7 4 1796-1905
Iron Factory 1734 Neabsco -- 0.75 -- 1734-1872
Port Tobacco 1658 Port Tobacco 1700 1 6 1800-1882
Upper Marlboro 1706 Patuxent 1773 8 7 1859-1944
Elk Ridge near 1650 Patapsco Before 7 15 at 1845-1924 Baltimore 1898 Hanover St. Joppa Town 1707 Gunpowder 1750 2.5 10 1750-1897 aAccumulation that would have taken place had there been no dredging ot the narcor and creation of landfill such as Haynes Point or National Airport. (Source: Table 3 in Ref. 1) ance, but such areas often have special behind bulkheads. (Ref. 1) ecological values, e.g. as winter habit- . Thus, dredging and spoil dispos- at for many valuable species of fish. al pose major problems of management and Thus, dredging and overboard spoil dis- economics because of the conflicting posal almost always destroy large numbers values and uses in the Bay. More detailed of bottom-dwelling organisms. The organ- information is needed to delineate areas isms are removed by the dredging or of wetland that would be least harmed smothered by the spoils. Turbidity is by disposal, which areas must be strictly increased markedly, and resuspended fine protected, and what the costs would be of sediment may clog filter feeders such alternate methods of disposal, e.g. barg- as clams and oysters, or the gills of ing of the spoils to sea. fish. But these watery silts and muds 1.3 Location of Problem Areas are hard to dispose of on land because Plate 7 (Shore Erosion and Bay of the difficulty encountered in dewat- Sedimentation) shows the distribution of ering them. As much as 40 to 50 years the Bay's modern bottom sediments with, may be required to create "dry" land as mentioned above, coarser sediments near if spoil is disposed of by filling be- the mouths of tributaries and near shore.
76 PLATE 8 : Shore Erosion and Sources of Sedimentation and Turbidity
TOON W . K 1 <• v .,••7 A ;:> r " «. L. •N \ ^ j / /
'-• s "i'^-^V^ ^=3: 1 ^ ' -A- 7> ,1 a? 1 -yJ^g' ,./ ': V ®~"' Critical Erosion \ Problem / ^ H \ i•:,•, ~| Source of Sed. Pol I. in \ '1 J Compliance with Law V' K Source of Sed.Poll. not V I in Compliance with I -N = Law \ » ®® \ ^. --^ S Watershed Boun. by sv .,.r-'\ Fed. Water Qual. Adm x /' E3 ® l y © A ( .- --^-^—fhWvs hi- • 1 V' A v (a / \
V r 1 ) 1 , • v .- „ • • • I
• SOURCE:1:18,1:6 r \/>^ ' v,^/',• c ro' ; I.- s •),-.- v I 11 V ® % s V c \ 200 N y \ V '•< \ / c \ •: * ^ - •, J X > Ir. ^ y: \ I ,J - .- i >•. ••. f y ^ :» -f- «•••' V) 8 -1 »••• . IM ;.•/, .r and finer sediments towards the middle 2 Future Dimensions of Sedimentation Problems of the Bay and in deeper channels. Plate 12 (shore Erosion and Sources The problem is how to most econom- of Sedimentation and Turbidity) shows ically control the adverse effects of schematically the contributions of the sedimentation on other uses of the Bay. Bay's major tributary streams. Again, Table 3 emphasizes that the 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the tributary estuaries themselves are the Problem sites of the most dramatic and evident a. Expanding urbanization will in- sedimentation, since almost all of their volve construction activities of all sediment loads come to rest within a rel- kinds and this will produce increased atively short distance from the mouths sedimentation which will fill shipping of the rivers, where they enter their channels at increasing rates, smother estuaries. bottom-dwelling marine life, or increase turbidity, thereby affecting certain 1.4 Time Characteristics of the desirable fish species as well as water Problem contact recreation. Highway construction, While the river flow into the Bay in particular, is a producer of sedimen- is seasonal, sediment inflow from the tation, because of the extensive grading Potomac and Susquehanna is even more so. involved. To the extent that highway As much as 70 to 80% of the yearly construction results in increases in the sediment load may be carried by either costs of maintaining shipping channels, river in just a few days of spring it is being subsidized by marine trans- floods. Precipitation and runoff of portation . meltwater are high, soils are beginning b. A factor which will compound the to thaw, rock and soil particles have effects of urbanization is the long-range been loosened by frost action, and there trend toward lower densities and more is less vegetation to hold soil in place. extensive construction activity in urban- Thus, 80 to 90% of the annual load is ization. Not only does the average carried to the Bay in February and March surburban development consume more land (see Ref. 1, Fig.7). area per resident than would have been The deposition of sediments eroded the case 20 years ago, but also, more from the shoreline continues throughout extensive infrastructure and ancillary the year, but is probably more concen- facilities are involved in suburban trated in the periods immediately development. The conclusion is that the following the storms during which much sedimentation impacts per capita of pop- of the material is eroded. ulation growth will increase in the future. 1.5 Parties Affected c. The dredging of deeper shipping Users of the waters, shipping channels will tend to increase the rate channels and harbors of the Bay are of sedimentation into them and increase those most directly affected by sedimen- costs of maintaining the channels at tation. Most of the materials eroded their intended depths. Already about from the shoreline are displaced as a foot per year must be dredged to main- sediment only a relatively short distance tain the ship channel from the Bay Bridge into the deeper waters of the Bay. They, to the Baltimore Harbor. together with sediments brought from in- d. The .costs of dredging - including land streams, fill shipping channels, the monetary costs of the dredging thus necessitating dredging at high activity itself, the costs of transport- public cost. ing spoil material to a suitable disposal site, and the difficulty of finding suit-
78 able disposal sites - will tend to in- perhaps 500 square miles or about 4% of crease in the future. Thus, even if the the area. Therefore, it seems imperative rates of sedimentation of shipping chan- that stringent ordinances be passed and nels remained constant, the costs of firmly enforced to require good soil con- dealing with this sedimentation would servation techniques to be used on all increase. construction sites. Nor should the large e. The rates of sedimentation as- contribution of areas under cultivation sociated with rural land areas could be forgotten. it is usually much easier also increase. Noteworthy in this regard to reduce the sediment outflow than it is is the current intention of the State to to remove the material after it has settled cut down 277,000 acres of loblolly pine in harbors, estuaries, and channels. forest in order to combat infestation by the Southern pine beetle. (Ref. 11) The incorporation of soil con- The servation objectives into local land use deforestation is likely to result in planning and land use control procedures increasing rates of sedimentation from the acreage involved. is perhaps the most promising approach to alleviating sedimentation problems in f. The use of the Bay for water- urbanizing areas. The effort to make contact recreation and sport fishing is urban development consistent with good likely to be translated into higher soil conservation practices is already public standards with regard to water being made in some high quality urban turbidity, which will increase the ur- developments (e.g., Columbia). This gency of sedimentation control activities. approach could be extended so that it is 2 2 the general rather than the exceptional • Forces Tending to Reduce the case . Problem As in the case of solutions to the Reforestation and the application of soil conservation techniques in agri-^ shore erosion, possible solutions to the culture could reduce sediment loads from problem of sedimentation must be address- rural areas. Perhaps the Soil Conservation ed to the causes of the problem -- the Service could provide funds for such mea- natural processes involved and the influ- sures and practices in a program expanded ence of man's activities on these proces- from their present activities. ses, and natural and economic limitations on solutions. b. Reduction of Limitations on Possible Solutions a- Possible Solutions Addressed However, once sediments do reach to Natural Processes and Man's the harbors and channels of the Bay and Activities 3 its tributaries, dredging is probably the The construction activities that only answer to the problem. So the problem accompany increasing urbanization within now becomes one of minimizing the impact the Chesapeake drainage basin contribute of the dredging and the spoils disposal. (VO'1 enormous quantities of sediment to local streams. Highway construction has been The best way (environmentally speaking, that is) to dispose of spoils virtually a chronic offender in this is probably to barge them to sea, but the respect. As noted above, 25 to 30% of the million tons per year entering the costs would be prohibitive in most instan- ces. However, some excellent guidelines Potomac at Washington is estimated to for dredging and spoil disposal have been derive from construction sites in the developed by Cronin et al. (Ref- 10) metropolitan area alone. in other words, Since the spoil pile in their as much as 300,000 tons, or 12% of the study spread to reach a slope of about total 2.5 million tons contributed annually by an entire drainage basin 1:500, they recommend that a safety zone appropriate to the thickness of the de- of over 12,000 square miles, comes from posited spoil be estimated and maintained
79 near oyster or clam beds, or other import- have been roughly estimated at about ant bottom-related resources. The special 30 tons per square mile from Coastal ecological values of confined, deeper Plain areas and 150 tons per square mile basins should be considered when they are from Piedmont areas. (Ref. 1) Annual examined as possible sites for spoil dis- rates of sedimentation from land under posal. Damage to bottom species is forest cover are estimated at about 100 probably least in winter and early spring. tons per square mile. Areas under agri- In contrast, damage to fish eggs and cultural cultivation may contribute sed- larvae is most likely in November through iment at annual rates of 400 to 800 tons January in deep water, and in April per square mile. (Ref. 3) The impact through August for shallow water. The of suburbanization and highway construc- periods of least probable damage to eggs tion increases these rates considerably, and larvae are in February, September , and the rate of sedimentation from areas and October. They conclude that (for of completed development remains high. the Upper Chesapeake Bay) the periods Thus, the current trends indicate that of least probable total damage from sedimentation will increase and that dredging and spoil disposal are in streams in urbanizing areas will be most February-March or September-October. severely affected. The application of Therefore, efforts to develop soil conservation practices in urban techniques of dredging and spoil dis- development has potential for reducing posal which have less adverse impacts this problem considerably. on aquatic life will reduce problems Dredging operations to remove associated with sedimentation. These sedimentation from shipping channels is include: 1) the development of alter- a major monetary cost of sedimentation. native methods of spoil disposal -- The annual cost of dredging on the Pot- e.g., barging of the spoils to sea, omac near Washington is about $150,000. 2) research to delineate areas of the (Ref. 1) The annual cost of maintaining Bay that would be least harmed by the shipping channel approaches to the spoil disposal, and 3) time-phasing of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is also dredging and spoil disposal activities estimated at about $150,000. Data are so that they cause the least probable not available on the total cost of damage to aquatic life. channel dredging operations in the Mary- Any change in the shoreline or land Chesapeake Bay Region. The future bottom of the Bay, whether natural or outlook is for the monetary costs of man-made, alters the speed and direction dredging and spoil disposal operations to of currents, thereby changing the car- increase steadily. This will be due both rying capacity of the currents of sedi- to increases in the total volume of mater- ments. Therefore, any proposed struc- ial removed from shipping channels and to tures or alterations in the shoreline or increases in the unit prices of removal bottom should be designed so as to and disposal. However, the application achieve the most desirable possible of better spoil disposal techniques can changes in the local pattern of sedimen- reduce the environmental impact of this tation. If currents are obstructed or activity. slowed, sedimentation will occur; if they It should be noted that the are speeded up, say by straightening of biological impact of sediments both a stream channel, sedimentation will in suspension and upon deposition decrease and scouring may even take can be a serious problem. place.
2.3 Summary -- Future Outlook Current annual rates of sedimentation
80 Shore Erosion and Sedimentation: Goals, the fact that most programs to control Objectives, Standards, Policies erosion and sedimentation within the Bay itself have substantial consequences for wetlands, water movement and living 3•1 Goal: Stabilize Bay Shores Against resources. Erosion and Minimize Negative A systems approach would trace the Effects of Sedimentation implications of such policies as the Part of Goal C. above, this goal following: has the related aspects of erosion, sed- a. Identify all areas for which imentation-deposition and is related to erosion and/or deposition is water movement. severe on biologically most 3.2 Objectives important wetlands (as indicated by Goal B) or economically most a. Minimize erosion of wetlands important shoreline (as indicated that are most biologically important. by Goals J and K). Many of the most important wetlands are b. Conduct studies to determine "prominent erosion casualties" (Ref. 6) erosion dynamics and consequences; but protective measures may change c. Examine possible methods of their nature. shore stabilization or other b. Stabilize shorelines that are control in terms of consequences; economically most important. d. Develop benefit-cost accounts to c. Reduce to a minimum deposition include social and non-economic of sedimentation by water movement in elements. ship channels, on wetlands and on other The key to being able to define the aquatic habitats. By the same token trade-offs in comparable units necessary encourage deposition on potential beaches between goals is to translate each into and where wetlands are forming. the policy and program level and into d. Eliminate erosion and sediment comparable units of input. These units runoff from land to water. can then be compared along with antici- pated outputs (also translated into 3.3 Standards comparable units) in goal achievement Standards for acceptable amounts between programs. This is the essence of of erosion sedimentation and deposition a planning-programming-budgeting type can be established that are related to approach to systems analysis. economic solutions by benefit-cost-ratios. It is evident that, as in other goals, we are dealing with a process of nature which is not easily amenable to economic solutions. Field research is needed to identify elements of the pro- cess for specific problem areas, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers' hydraulic model of the Bay will be extremely useful for this.
3 . 4 Policies Many policies, or guiding principles related to erosion, sedimentation and deposition run into conflict with those for other goals. This is by virtue of
81 Footnotes •7. Wetlands in Maryland, Vol. II Technical Report, Maryland Department of State Planning, Dept. of Game and Inland Fish, Wetlands Tech. Advisory 1. Based on the data covering the Committee, January, 1969. years 1845 to 1942. 8. Power, G., Project Director, 2. The present system (since 1970) Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective, provides for interest-free loans. U.S. Dept. Int. F.W.P.C.A., Estuarine and Oce.anographic Branch, March, 1970, 3. Reference should be to the Mary- p.201. land Sediment Control Act for basic legislative mandate. 9. Cronin, L.E., Gunter, G., Hopkins, S.H., Effects of Engineering Activities on Coastal Ecology,Interim Report to Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. References Corps of Engineering, September, 1969.
10. Cronin, L.E., et al. Gross Physical and Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil 1. Wolman, M.G., The Chesapeake Bay- Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, Final Geology and Geography, in Proceedings Report to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and of the Governor's Conference on the Wildlife, U.S. Depi-. Interior, Natural Chesapeake Bay, 1968. Resources Inst. (U. of Md.), Special Report No. 3, July, 1970. 2. Singewald, J. T., Jr., and Slaughter, T.H., "Shore Erosion in Tide- 11. Philadelphia Bulletin, August 4, 1971, water Maryland", Maryland Geological Article by Philip Wagner. • Survey Bulletin 6, 1949.
3. Ryan, J.D., "The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay", Maryland Geological Survey Bulletin 12, 1953.
4. Schubel, J.R., "Suspended Sediment of the Northern Chesapeake Bay", Chesa- peake Bay Institute Technological Report 35, 1968.
5. Ellis, S.P., Development of the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline and Islands for Recreation, in Proceedings of Governor's Conference on the Chesa- peake Bay, 1968.
6. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study, Appendix U -- Coastal and Estuarine Areas,NARWRS Coordinating Committee, January, 1971.
82 II PROBLEMS AND GOALS
WATER POLLUTION . . . gi
Water Pollution Problems 84 Nature of the Problem .. 84 Causes of the Problem .. 84 Location of the Problem . 88 Plate 9 Wastewater Discharge gg Plate 10 Wastewater Discharge Diagram gg Plate 11 Major Sewage Treatment Plants gi Plate 12 Water Quality Problems g2 Plate 13 Public and Private Sources of Pollution 93 1. 4 Time Characteristics 94 1. 5 Parties Affected . . . 9 5 2 . Future Dimensions of Water Pollution Problems g5 2. 1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem ' g5 Table 1: Future Dimensions of Liquid Waste Generation and Discharge in the Bay Region, by County g4 Table Future Dimensions of Liquid Waste Discharges, by Major Drainage Area g6 Table Pounds BOD in One Million Gallons Wastewater Flow in Larger Sewage Treatment Plants in Bay Region 97 Table Summary of Effects of Agricultural Return Waters on Receiving Waters gg Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 99 Summary - Future Outlook 102
Water Pollution Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 102 Goal 102 Objectives •, Q2 Standards 103 Policies 103
83 W3tGr Pollution Domestic sewage may be collected and discharged through a municipal sewer system or through private systems such as 1 Water Pollution Problems septic tanks or cesspools. In either case, it consists of human excrement, paper, The problem is how to dispose of soap, detergents, food wastes, and many waterborne wastes in an environmentally other substances. It also contains patho- and economically acceptable way. genie organisms that can cause typhoid, dysentary, cholera, and other diseases. 1.1 Nature of the Problem Domestic sewage is a major poten- Water pollution is considered to tial contributor to water pollution in occur when any addition to the water en- the Bay because: 1) if visible it is vironment alters the water characterist- obviously aesthetically obnoxious; 2) the ics and quality to the point where a biochemical decomposition process consumes desirable property or use is impaired or much dissolved oxygen, thereby depleting lost. However, the problem is not, the supply necessary for the maintenance strictly speaking, how to eliminate of valuable aquatic life; 3) as mentioned pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, but above, it carries disease-causing agents rather to reconcile the need for waste of various kinds; and 4) it is rich in disposal with the requirements of other plant nutrients such as nitrates and Bay uses. In other words, optimum waste phosphates, which may overfertilize the treatment and disposal might be consid- water and thus produce eutrophication. ered achieved if water quality is at a A total of about 270 mgd (million high enough level so that the Bay's gallons per day) of treated municipal sew- living resources are healthy and abundant, age is discharged from Maryland counties recreational uses of the Bay such as into the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake boating and swimming are possible, and Bay or its tributary estuaries. (Ref. 1) the aesthetic enjoyment of the Bay is An additional 300 mgd is discharged into unimpaired. the Potomac estuary by Washington, D.C.'s Blue Plains treatment plant. Of the 1.2 Causes of the Problem above total of 570 mgd about 5.4 mgd is The causes of water pollution may discharged directly to the Bay. be classified by: a) physical type, Where municipal sewers are not source, amount; b) institutional or available, state regulations require that organizational constraints on solutions; sources of human wastes have septic sys- and c) knowledge gaps. terns. The discharge of such systems is a. Types and Sources of Pollution not included in the above totals, and is The most important sustained " not large by comparison, but nevertheless and continuous types of water pollution may cause local water quality problems, in the Chesapeake Bay are those from Industrial Wastes: domestic, industrial, and agricultural Industrial wastes may vary from sources. Also continuous, but less im- relatively clean ri'nse water or cooling portant, is seepage or leaching from water (heat content as a "pollutant" is solid waste disposal areas. Somewhat considered in Section G. Thermal Waste more discontinuous or intermittent Discharge) to extremely harmful materials, is the pollution that results from such as toxic chemicals, heavy metals such storm runoff and discharge from combined as the by now infamous mercury, lead, sanitary-storm sewers, and pollution zinc or oil and grease. In some instances caused by marine transportation (such such wastes are discharged into municipal as oil spills) and boating. sewer systems, but in many cases they are Domestic Sewage: discharged directly, with or without
84 treatment, to the receiving waters of the Bay and its tributaries. Four major industry groups are usually the greatest contributors of industrial wastes on a nation-wide basis - paper, organic chemicals, petroleum and steel. However, much additional invest- igation is needed in order to develop quantitative waste coefficients by Indus try-type. Agricultural Wastes: The wastes from agricultural operations include enormous amounts of animal excrement, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Both surface runoff and percolating ground waters carry an undetermined amount of these pollutants to the Bay's waters. The animal wastes and fertil- izers pose the same problems as do human wastes, i.e. they are obnoxious to the senses, they represent extremely high BOD's (Biochemical Oxygen Demands), they contain large numbers of possible patho- VCIJ.XCI_Y UJ. puixuudiits are wasnea gens, and they contribute largely to the rooftops and pavements. There are problem of overfertilization and subse- also an undetermined number of untreated quent eutrophication. The pesticides and waste discharges from combined sanitary/ herbicides, particularly the persistent storm sewers that become overloaded varieties such as DDT, pose a critical during periods of heavy rainfall. threat to the health or even the contin- Pollution Due to Marine Tr;ans.- ued existence of the Bay ecosystem, espec- ially its valuable fish and shellfish species. For example, very low concen- trations of dieldrin can kill crab larvae since their metabolic processes are very similar to the pests that are the origin- ally intended targets of the poison. Because of the widespread or non-point nature of the sources of ag- ricultural pollution, no accurate figures are available as to the quantities of pollution from them. However, it has been estimated that livestock in the reason. Vessels are most often relative North Atlantic Region "currently produce ly concentrated at places such as marin; a BOD load equivalent to that of about or ship anchorages. If these areas are 82 million people." (Ref.2) This would closecl to bathing beaches or shellfish indicate that the magnitude of the prob- '—.rvestinghar areas, serious health problems lem is at least as great again as that ma y result from the overboard disposal of of municipal sewage production, while se treatment is an immensely greater prob- po lem because of its non-point source nature. por
85 spillage or careless but deliberate dis- immediately toxic than some distilled charge of large amounts of oil or other products, but even crude oil that has hazardous substances into the Bay. If a been weathered (altered by exposure to large oil tanker were to rupture or in the weather) at sea for some time still some other way spill its cargo into the contains many of the acutely toxic hydro- Bay, the damage to property and the Bay's carbons. The more persistent, slowly living resources would be enormous. acting poisons (for example, the carcmo- "Perhaps the larger tankers gens) are more abundant in crude oil than will not be able to ply the waters of the in some of the lower boiling distillates. Chesapeake, but to remain competitive, These poisons are quite resistant to the tankers on the Bay will probably get environmental weathering of oil. larger. More than likely, barges will In spite of low density, oil may be used to move oil and petroleum prod- mix with water, especially in a turbulent ucts on the Bay. Just as with tankers, sea during storm conditions. Hydrocarbons the trend is toward the use of larger may be dispersed through the water column and larger barges. in solution in the form of droplets, and • The danger is not limited to the compounds may reach the sea bottom, the actual sinking or rupturing of the particularly if weighted down by mineral vessel itself. Oil spills also come particles. On the sea floor oil persists frem operating procedures. These in- for long periods and can continue to damage elude loading and unloading of oil, bottom plants and animals. Thus, a single transfers of fuel within ships, bilge accident may result in long-term, continual pumping, ballasting and tank cleaning. pollution of the sea. This is a very im- Neither is the source of oil pollution portant finding since biologists have limited to ships and barges. Mistakes long agreed that chronic pollution gener- and accidents can occur on shore at ally has more far-reaching effects than docks, tank farms,pipelines, and any an accident of short duration. Hydro- other place where oil is transported \ carbons can be taken up by fish and or stored." (Ref. 4) ] shellfish. When the oil enters the fat Below are some excerpts from and flesh of the animals, it is isolated an account by Woods Hole Oceanographic from natural degradation processes. It Institution scientists of a small oil remains essentially constant in amount spill that occurred when an oil barge and chemically intact even after the an- grounded in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. imals are transplanted into clean water "The interim results of our for decontamination. Thus, chemicals survey, coupled with research findings from oil that may be poisonous to marine of other studies in this laboratory, organisms and other animals, including indicate that crude oil and other petro- man, may persist in the sea and in bio- leum products are a far more dangerous logical systems for many months after and persistent threat to the marine en- the spill. vironment and to human food resources v By killing the bottom organisms, than we would have anticipated. Our most oil reduces cohesion of the bottom sed- important findings are these: iments and thereby accelerates transport Crude oil and petroleum products of the sediments. Sediment movements contain many substances that are poison- along the sea bottom thus are a common ous to marine life. Some of these occurrence after an oil spill. In this caus e immediate death; others have a way contaminated sediments may be spread slower effect. Crude oils and oil prod- over great distances under the influence ucts differ in their relative composition; of tide and wave action, and the oil may therefore the specific toxic effect may be carried to areas not immediately vary. Crude oil, in general, is less polluted by the spill.
86 None of the presently available evaporate rapidly from the oil spilled at counter-measures can completely elimin- sea. This has not been the case at West ate the biological damage of oil spills. Falmouth, where the low-boiling hydro- The rapid removal of oil by mechanical carbons found their way into the sediments recovery or by burning appears most prom- and organisms. We believe that the import- ising. The use of sinking agents or ance of evaporation has been over-estimated. detergents, on the other hand, causes Oil laden sediments can move with the toxic and undegraded oil to spread bottom currents and can comtaminate unpol- in the ocean; the biological damage luted areas long after the initial accident. is then greater than if the spill had For this reason a single and relatively been left untreated. Reclamation of small spill may lead to chronic, destruc- contaminated organisms, marshes, and tive pollution of a large area." (Ref. 5) offshore sediments is virtually im- "Although worldwide attention is possible, and natural ecological re- focused on oil because of the recent events covery is slow. off England and in San Juan Harbor, similar Conclusions: Our analysis of the risks attend the shipping of other hazardous aftermath of the West Falmouth oil substances. In the last 10 years a barge spill suggests that oil is much more with 600 tons of chlorine sank in the persistent and destructive to marine Mississippi River; 2,500,000 gallons of organisms and to man's marine food soybean oil and 500,000 gallons of salad resources than scientists had thought. oil spilled from ruptured tanks into the With the advent of objective chemical Minnesota River; while unloading anhydrous techniques, oil pollution research has ammonia from a barge, a hose ruptured entered a new stage. Earlier interpret- causing 42 people to be hospitalized and ations of the environmental effect of millions of fish to die in the Illinois oil spills that were based on subjective River near Peoria; and, in addition, there observation, often over a short time have been numerous reportings of truck span, have questionable validity. Crude and railway accidents where large amounts oil and oil products are persistent of hazardous substances have been spilled poisons, resembling in their longevity into waterways." (Ref. 4) DDT, PCB, and other synthetic materials. Finally, the maintenance of Like other long-lasting poisons that, channels and harbors necessitates dredging, in some properties, resemble the natural and dredging in heavily polluted areas fats of the organisms, hydrocarbons from may reactivate and release harmful mater- oil spills enter the marine food chain ials that had precipitated out and had been and are concentrated in the fatty parts covered by subsequent sedimentation. of the organisms. They can then be pass- b. Institutional or Organizational ed from prey to predator where they may Constraints become a hazard to marine life and even "Both human sewage and industrial to man himself. wastes contribute to the BOD load of the Natural mechanisms for the de- waters, but they are regulated and con- gradation of oil at sea exist -- the most trolled separately -- the first by the important of which is bacterial decompos- Health Department, the second by the ition. Unfortunately, this is least Department of Water Resources." (Ref. 6) effective for the most poisonous com- Thus, although there are state pounds in oil. Also, oil degrades only water quality standards administered by slowly in marine sediments, and it may the Department of Water Resources, the be completely stable once it is taken up State Health Department still has control by organisms. It has been thought that over sewage disposal and drinking water many of the immediately toxic low-boiling supply. In addition, the County Health aromatic hydrocarbons are volatile and Departments also promulgate regulations
87 on sewage and water supply. An excellent report on knowledge Recently, the State established gaps in wastes management in the coastal the Maryland Environmental Service as zone was recently released by the \"an implementing and operating agency National Academy of Sciences and the with functions and responsibilities National Academy of Engineering. (Ref. 8) wholly distinct from those of the regu- latory agencies, the Department of Water 1.3 Location Resources, Environmental Health Services, The most significant pollution prob- and the Department of Natural Resources lems in the Chesapeake Bay occur in its (acting for the Board of Public Works constricted sub-estuaries located down- with regard to spoil disposal in wetlands). stream from urban and industrial con- The Environmental Service must comply centrations. Some examples of such with regulations issued by the regulatory tributary estuaries are: the Patapsco and agencies in a deliberately designed Back Rivers ("downstream" from and system of checks and balances. The virtually surrounded by metropolitan Service, with its power to raise funds Baltimore); the lower Potomac (receiving by revenue bond sales which would be re- the waste load of almost the entire paid by charges for treatment and disposal Washington metropolitan region); the services, and its responsibility to Magothy, Severn and South Rivers (the accept and operate facilities upon the watersheds of which contain the relatively proper request or by directive origin- heavy urban and residential concentrations ating in the regulatory agencies, repre- of northern Anne Arundel County, including sents a principal instrument of the Annapolis and Broad Neck); and the Patuxent State for insuring that needed projects estuary (the watershed of which is not are foreseen, funded and built. (Ref. 7) only rapidly urbanizing while still The Environmental Service seems carrying a heavy agricultural waste load, well-conceived and isiapparently proving but which also is denied large amounts of itself effective. oxygen-carrying, waste-diluting fresh c. Knowledge Gaps water flow by diversion to other water- _ "Some oT the major knowledge sheds ) . gaps are: 1) the effects of different Plate 9 (Wastewater Discharge) degrees of water quality improvement on and Figure 1 (Wastewater Discharge the environment and the incremental costs Diagram) each show: 1) the total dis- and benefits associated with these improve- charge of treated waste water by each ments; 2) the significance of non-point county; 2) the discharge by the county source pollutants and the means of con- of both treated and raw wastewater into trolling them; 3) methods for system- each of its major watersheds; and 3) atically integrating pollution control the total discharge received and carried efforts regionally; 4) mechanisms of by each major watershed. various transport and transformation Plate 10 (Major Sewage Treatment processes influencing pollutant concen- Plants) shows the location of sewage tration in coastal waters; and 5) econ- treatment plants with flows greater than omical methods of overcoming problems or equal to 0.5 mgd, and indicates whether introduced by combined sewer systems the sewage is given primary or secondary and by chemicals like nitrogen, phosphor- treatment. us, organic carbon and heavy metals." (Ref 2)
88 PLATE 9 : Wastewater Discharge
uh •PENNSYLVANIA DELAWARE A" ^' MARYLAND PLATE 10: Wastewater Discharge Diagrar
0.05
HARFORD 7.52
BALTIMORE CO. 1.74
BALTIMORE 194.81
HOWARD 1.3
ANNEARUNDEL 23.23
CALVERT 0.63
PRINCE GEORGE 13.52
ST. MARY'S 3.69
CHARLES WORCESTER 0.93 0.38
NOTE: All quantities are shown in million gallons per day PLATE 11: Major Sewage Treatment Plants (Flows greater than 0,5 mgd)
S\ .PENNSYLVANIA VJ dj^' MARYLAND / \ ^C^C.
600N ( ' ,.Jr PLATE 12: Water Quality Problems PLATE 13: Public and Private Sources of Pollution Section 4.D. of the CBIPC Work Plan charge, and shipping and boating -- are Outline (Ref.l) contains tables which more or less active in all seasons, as list "Sewage Treatment Plants with Flows are major contributing factors such as less than 0.5 mgd" (Table S2); "Towns water, movement problems (i.e. constriction with Sewage Systems, but No Treatment of sub-estuaries, tidal effects). The Facilities" (Table S4); "Towns under water pollution problem is therefore mainly Specific Order" (Table S5); and "Towns a constant one, with some worsening in the with No Sewerage Systems and No Treatment summer. Facilities, but Are in Need of Such" This summer aggravation of the prob- (Table S6). lem is due to several reasons. As water Plate 12 (Water Quality Problems) temperatures increase, the solubility of shows approximate causes and effects of oxygen in the water decreases, just at water quality problems which are listed the time when the rate of decomposition in the map legend. It also shows the (i.e. the biochemical oxygen demand) in- boundaries, 6-digit code numbers and creases in response to the higher temp- names of the major watersheds. eratures. At the same time freshwater Plate 13 (Public and Private inflows are generally at their lowest Sources of Pollution) shows approximate levels, so that there is a much-reduced locations of significant industrial influx of dissolved oxygen and of di- sources of pollution and sewage treat- luting water. People also experience ment plants by major watersheds, both their closest and most extended contact those in compliance and those not in com- with the water in summer. Aquatic life pliance with the law. is probably operating near its maximum temperature threshold and is thus much 1.4 Time Characteristics more susceptible to water quality deter- Virtually all the major sources of ioration caused by pollution than in any pollution -- domestic, industrial, agri- other s eason. cultural, leaching from dumps, air pol- By contrast to most water pollution, lution washout and combined sewer dis- massive spills are not so much of a con-
FUTURE DIMENSIONS OF LIQUID WASTE GENERATION AND DISCHARGE INTO BAY AND TRIBUTARIES, BY rnllNTY ,„,,,„ ^» ;t„ II,,,,^ W^HLti Discharge Assuming: 1)increased rate 1)increased Es timated of waste genera rate of waste Liquid Waste Liquid Waste Genera- Liquid Was te tion (.20 lbs./ generation Estimated % (lbs .BOD) tion Range { lbs-BOD) Generation capita/day) and (.17 lbs./ Di scharqe Population 0.17 lbs. 20 lbs (lbs. B0D)@ BOD Removal 2)present * capita/day) & into Bay or Proj action per capita per capita Population .17 lbs. per by Sewage BOD removal 2)present % 1 2000 per day per day 1970 capita per day Treatmenttl> Tributaries BOD removal
43,200 10 200 1 3 400 600 , 000 102 , 000 120,000 Anne Arundel 291 , 300 37, 300 64 32,700 16 300 ?S 900 960, 700 163, 300 192,100 Baltimore City 895 200 152 200 83 71,400 17 900 35 600 1,050, 000 178 , 500 210,000 Baltimore County 615 700 104 700 66 6 ,800 1 900 ? 700 113, 000 19, 200 22,600 Carroll 52 700 9 000 (70) 12,700 4 000 5 200 235 000 40, 000 47,000 Harford 113 500 19 300 73 4 , 300 3 700 1 000 215 000 36, 600 43,000 Howard 61 200 10 400 90 171 100 5 4 000 800 3,173 700 539 600 634,700 Baltimore Metro 2,029 500 332 900 83 52 200 14 800 ?6 600 870 000 147 900 174,000 Montgomery 520 700 88 500 (70) 34 100 17 000 19 000 1,002 600 170 400 200,500 Prince George's 657 600 111 83 86,300 31 800 45 600 1,872 600 318 300 374,500 D. C. Metro 1. 178 300 200 300 790 46 200 7 900 9,200 2 , 770 19 900 3 400 (70) 1 000 ,280 Calvert 12 800 15,100 4 ,520 1 900 (70) ? 400 75 300 Charles 46 400 7 14 ,400 4 ,320 1 ,220 (70) 2 300 72 000 12 200 St. Mary's 46 000 7 800 11 610 3 , 290 5 700 193 500 32 900 38 ,700 South Maryland 112 300 19 100 18,700 1 500 1 , 590 92 710 93 600 15 900 Cecil 52 700 9 000 5 ,120 200 440 96 130 25 600 4 ,400 Caroline 19 500 3 300 1 870 760 1 ,020 44 500 7 ,600 8 ,900 Dorchester 28 700 4 ,900 79 340 480 160 28 ,000 4 ,800 5 ,600 Kent 15 ,700 2 700 94 1 440 410 890 24 ,000 4 , 100 4 ,800 Queen Anne's 17 , 500 3 ,000 (70) 1 380 390 930 23 ,000 3 ,900 4 ,600 Somers et 18 ,300 3 ,100 (70) 2 510 650 1 ,240 38 ,000 6 ,500 7 ,600 22 ,100 3 ,800 67 ,150 1 , 280 Talbot 75 ,000 12 ,800 15,000 3 51 ,900 9 ,000 79 1 ,890 600 Wicomico ,000 7,060 2 ,120 (70) 1 ,210 35 ,000 6 Worcester 23 ,800 4 ,000 77,380 14,510 8 , 180 387 ,000 66 ,000 Eastern shore 251 , 100 42 , 800 283,520 95,680 143 ,280 5,626 ,800 956 ,800 1,125,280 Md. Bay Region 3,510 , 100 595 ,100 tinuing year-long problem as they are 2 Future Dimensions of Water Pollution Problems a series of disconnected catastrophies. In any given locality they may be relative- 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase ly rare or small, but their overall fre- the Problem quency and sizes are increasing year-by- a. Projected increases in population year. alone will increase the amount of liquid wastes generated in the Maryland Bay 1. 5 Parties Affected Region by a factor of 1.5. In addition, Water pollution in the Chesapeake increasing affluence and the installation Bay and its tributary estuaries affects of such devices as garbage grinders may almost all those who commercially harvest increase rates of liquid waste generation its living resources, particularly its from 0.17 lbs. of BOD per capita per day shellfish. Recreational users such as to perhaps 0.20 lbs. in the future. sport fisherman, boaters, swimmers, Table 1 indicates the future hunters, and picnickers are also directly dimensions of the water pollution problem affected. Shoreline property in the Bay -- in terms of population and population has high market value because the Bay is growth, per capita rates of generation such an attractive body of water. Thus, of oxygen-consuming material, and rates owners of shore property have a direct of BOD removal by sewage treatment facil- interest in the maintenance of high water ities. Estimates of the percent of BOD quality. removal are based on statistics collected The projected capital costs of by the Maryland Department of Health on water quality control in the Maryland "sewage treatment plants with flows portion of the Chesapeake Bay are (estim- greater than or equal to .5 mgd."'Ref•D ated cost of secondary treatment): for These rates are applied to the total year 1980 -- $240 million; for 2000 -- estimated liquid waste generation in the $390 million; and for 2020 -- $675 million. county to yield an estimate of the amount The estimated additional cost of advanced of BOD discharged into the Bay and trib- waste treatment in 2020 will be $72 million. utaries of the Bay. It is likely, however, (Ref. 9) These costs will have to be at that smaller treatment plants (for which least partly borne by the citizens of rates of BOD removal are not available on Mary land. a comprehensive basis) are in general less Water quality improvement has lit- efficient than larger plants. Also, a small tle affect on the conduct of industry or portion of the total liquid waste gener- marine transportation except that those ation does not flow through sewer treatment engaged in industrial activities and shipping contribute significantly to the water pollution problem and they must bear their share of the costs of con- trolling the problem. On the other hand, the control of agricultural pollution may necessitate profound changes in farming methods and practices, especially with regard to the use of persistent pesticides and the common practice of over-fertilization to ensure maximum crop-yields.
95 facilities at all and much of these wastes Table 2 presents an allocation of are inadequately treated. The rate of present and future liquid waste discharges BOD removal for Prince George's County is to major watersheds feeding the Chesapeake high, because liquid wastes flowing Bay. Allocations of liquid waste dis- through the Blue Plains treatment plant charge by county (see Table 1) to major (which reportedly achieves only 75% re- drainage areas are made on the basis of moval) are not included in the statistics. statistics developed by the Maryland In the less urbanized counties, the rates Department of Health on the proportion of removal derived from statistics on of total wastewater flows of each county large treatment plants are suspect be- into major drainage areas. The procedure cause small proportions of all wastes assumes that the proportionate discharge flow through such plants. Where data of BOD is equivalent to the discharge was not available, a 70% rate of BOD wastewater flows. This may contain removal was used. It should be noted inaccuracies because of the varying that the calculations are rough, that amounts of BOD in various wastewater estimates are employed where precise flows. Data for large sewage treatment information is unavailable, and that the plants indicate wide variability in the effects of many of the factors mention- ratio of BOD to wastewater flow. (See ed below are not considered. Table 3).
TABLE 2: FUTURE DIMENSIONS OF LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGES, BY MAJOR DRAINAGE AREA
A. Liquid Wastes Dis- B. Liquid Wastes Dis- charged 2000 (lbs.BOD) charged 2000 (lbs.BOD) Liquid Wastes Dis- 1)Increased Rate of 1)Present Rate of Major Drainage charged 1970 (lbs. Waste Generation Waste Generation Area BOD per day) 2)Present % of BOD 2)90% BOD Removal Removal
Chesapeake Bay 34 190 59 310 22 890
Potomac R. 16 780 32 580 9 530 Patuxent R. 76 190 85 760 33 200 Patapsco R. 35 320 73 400 18 920 Gunpowder R. 6 680 13 ,880 3 ,570 Bush R. 2 440 5 970 1 ,880 Susquehanna R. 230 520 450 Northeast R. 130 270 290 Elk R. 210 450 480 Sassafras R. 40 90 110 Chester R. 920 1 ,530 690 Eastern Bay 80 130 40 Choptank R. 2 ,060 3 ,960 1 ,630 Nanticoke R. 270 490 200 Wicomico R. 1 ,830 3 ,060 1 ,240 Pocomoke R. 1 , 210 2 ,120 600
Total: Md. Bay Region 143 ,280 283 ,520 95 ,680
96 TABLE 3: -,*-,. „ ^. Ions a day against a designed capacityY Ratio: BOD (lbs)/Waste- of 240 million. At this ratef ^ can water Flow (mgd) give the sewage only cursory treatment, in Sewage Plants holding it for about two hours. The W th Fl0WS Greater rn„ni.v ^ residue gushes into the Potomac dotted COUntY T^an or Et5ual to with four-inch-high clumps of undigested . -S m
97 development: Conservation leaders, con- measures are taken. Local compet.txon red h cerned that a continued building freeze for industry will tend to J«h* « j""* "ong 70-S would bring pressure for un- iveness of controls and spread the problem ^n^d construction eLewhere, sought into rural as well as urban »««; approval of temporary relief measures. e. The increased use of pesticides XSe minds of some? they got more and chemical fertilizers rn agriculture than th^asked - a^rovll'f or estab- will contribute to the water Pollution lishment of a 'temporary sewage holding problem in rural areas. Some of the
has been approved for Magruder Branch TNC WATERS Uef!!^ Regional Park near Damascus. Some Mary- ING WATERS landers are deeply concerned about nb^prved Effect setting a possible precedent of using Quality Factor observed Effect setting a y r . . c n- and ions Increased more than park lands for sewage facilities which Saltsa s and ions mav or may not turn out to be temporary. f:l-ve times. ?tef. 11) Hardness Greatly increased; most c. Domestic wastewater is increas- significant effect, ingly complicated by substances other Total dissolved Greatly increased, than oxvqen-consuming materials. The solids discharge of nitrates and phosphates due Temperature Significant increase m Jo Trllter use of detergent has increased Yakima River. Similar considerably faster than population itself. effects to be expected The eutrophic effects of these substances m otner areas, ^e^ly 'limit the capacity of Bay trib- Turbidity High x» .cm. -tur^wat-
^rai;: ^ithrufpr^n^rcrinLr" ^. s^ rr ^ lention, it is likely that the discharge Yakima River due to di- of nitrates and phosphates will continue lution. ^^^
to increase in the future Color Increase observed in Ya- d. industrial activities increas- increase o ingly produce liquid wastes of all kinds. kima River due to large
Food and biological processing industries IZllT•slT.Zt increased, add to the oxygen-consuming materials Nutrients. ^enej. axxy -^^^ Fw-irl- derated by domestic activities Even Nitrates Con -f^ ^f^i-^^ more significant, however, are the in- e relative creasing amounts of chemicals in mdus- ^portance of natural and trial waste waters. Industrial Hj^d Sigation return flows Ip^iffc^typr^f I^trjr^r^lume^6 -t investigated. Tlroluctron, and the t^e of industri- Phosphorus "f^^efin"*^ al process. Available information is not plant ^-JJ^"^^" o lijuifrast:: iii7*c:r^i::ir y\n ^ Sland Bay Region. The likelihood is. Tastes and odors Evident m return flows
98 Quality Factor Observed Effect waste disposal uses of the Bay. This trend as result of mineral could lead to higher water quality stand- salts and organic de- ards or pressures for comprehensive en- composition products, forcement of present standards -- which often from aquatic would increase water pollution problems. growth stimulated by nutrient content. 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem Insecticides and Problem exists in a- Pollution Control Methods Aimed Herbicides surface waters but at Principal Types and Sources~ the relative contribu- Discussed Above. tion of irrigation re- Domestic Sewage: turn water and surface Expansion and upgrading of runoff not clear. Po- existing sewage treatment plants and tential problem exists. construction of new ones where necessary Bacteria Not a significant fac- will be the most obvious and probably the tor in agricultural most widely used solution to the problem return waters as com- of sewage from primarily domestic sources. pared to domestic. Primary treatment plants remove solids and floatables which represent only about f. The greatly increased use of one-third of the BOD's while secondary Bay water for thermal waste discharge treatment at least partially decomposes (see Section G) and for water supply the wastes and reduces the number of (see Section F) projected for the Mary- pathogens. Secondary treatment removes' land Bay Region will tend to reduce the about 80 to 90% of BOD's. The average assimilative capacity of Bay waters for level of performance for all existing oxygen-consuming liquid wastes. plants discharging to the Bay or its g. The proliferation of wastes tributaries is about 80%. As population produced by the emerging urban industrial continues to grow, advanced treatment economy increases chances of synergistic (sometimes called "tertiary" treatment) relationships of pollutants in receiving should be added to the first two steps waters which would compound water pollution of treatment. Advanced treatment entails problems. the almost complete removal of BOD (up to h. Changes in techniques for dis- 98%) and the removal of nutrients such as posing of various types of solid wastes nitrates and phosphates. may have repercussions on liquid waste Industrial Wastes: disposal and water pollution problems. There are several steps in the More widespread use of garbage grinders, control of industrial pollution. First is for instance, would convert a "solid" detection and identification of the waste. into a "liquid" waste and would place Next is determination of the effects of the increasing burdens on public sewage waste, both as an isolated agent and when treatment facilities, many of which are now combined with other pollutants or even with overloaded. Public demands to phase out substances naturally present. Third is to inefficient incinerators would mean that trace the pollutant to its source. The alternative disposal solutions would fourth step is to determine how to stop have to be found -- with possible impacts the discharge of the material or alterna- on water pollution problems. tively how to treat it. This may entail i. Increasing use or use demands the redesigning of the industrial process, on the Bay and its shoreline for re- or recycling of the wastes within the creational, aesthetic and residential pur- factory. A toxic waste might be chemically poses will create greater conflicts with altered and discharged in a more acceptable
99 form, or at many outfalls so as to achieve hibitive, especially in highly urbanized greater initial dilution. The waste might areas with old and widespread sewer be burned or stored underground, but this systems. latter solution may simply trade water Overland runoff other than that pollution for air or ground water contam- from the agricultural practices mentioned ination . above is almost impossible to treat or Agricultural Wastes: control at the source. It must be treat- The control of agricultural pol- ed en route to the receiving water body lutants and practices with the greatest or else treated in the receiving water impact -- pesticides, herbicides, and itself. over-fertilization -- must obviously be Pollution Due to Shipping and achieved at the source, since no effec- Boating: tive control or treatment could be Because many of the boats and applied at the land-water interface. The most of the ships that use the Bay are use of DDT and the other related persist- registered out-of-State if not outside ent pesticides should be banned outright. the country, the abatement of human However, it would be difficult for the sewage pollution from vessels would be State to strictly control the practice better achieved by a two-pronged State- of overfertilization by legislation. A Federal program. Legislation should be program of education for farmers on the passed and strictly enforced to require effects of the practice could do some the development and installation of ef- good, but that is doubtful. Perhaps fective shipboard treatment facilities regulation of the fertilizer industry or for larger ships and, at the very least, heavy Federal taxes on fertilizers so as effective chemical toilets for boats to increase the cost could be an effec- whose size and function would not permit tive measure. At any rate, this problem more sophisticated treatment. For the and that of the control of pollution smallest boats with no room for such from animal wastes obviously need more facilities, little can be.done, but their study. contribution to the total pollution load Leaching from Solid Wastes: from vessels of all kinds is probably The siting of sanitary landfills very minor. is more properly considered in Section L., Despite more primary control but it should be mentioned that their efforts, some oil spills, accidental or traditional location in low-lying areas deliberate, will continue to occur, and such as wetlands or stream flood-plains improved methods of containing and re- almost guarantees the maximum possible moving the oil are badly needed. As we deleterious impact on water quality. have seen above the use of sinking agents Therefore, the practice of placing them or detergents does not eliminate the in low areas should be stopped and their harmful effects of oil spills, it only siting should be rigidly controlled and gives the illusion of a solution by re- inspected by State water quality author- moving the oil from sight. It actually ities. Proper construction of landfills, helps spread the oil and the ecological using periodic sealing beds of impervious damage is greater than if the spill had clay can help eliminate harmful leachates been left alone. The rapid removal of at the source. the oil by mechanical means or by burning Storm Runoff and Combined will probably be the best solution. Large Sewer Discharge: mechanical skimmers have been developed The problem of combined sewer and are apparently proving quite effective. discharges can usually be corrected most The problem of disposal of con- readily by constructing separate sewer taminated spoil from dredging in heavily systems, but the costs are usually pro- polluted areas is probably best resolved
100 by depositing all such spoil on land or patterns of'urban development (See Sec- behind dikes or bulkheads. The 1969 Mary- tion K.). Probably most important of land General Assembly appropriated $13 these are the so-called independent phys- million for the construction of a contain- ical-chemical (IPC) systems, which can ment area which will receive all the future achieve 99% BOD removal, 98% suspended spoil from Baltimore Harbor. This will solids removal, and 96% phosphorus re- help to eliminate a major source of water moval from typical domestic wastes. pollution in that area of the Bay. (Refs. 13,14,15) b. Possible Institutional and It will be increasingly feasible Organizational Solutions to recycle certain wastewater, either in Maryland Environmental Service: surface waters or by recharging ground- The above-mentioned Maryland water reservoirs. Environmental Service was created by the More comprehensive application State as its instrument for assuring that of methods to increase the assimilative needed environmental protection works will capacity of receiving waters (e.g. in- be planned and executed. The law requires stream aeration) could help alleviate the Service to designate liquid and solid water pollution problems during periods waste service regions and to prepare plans ~.f low stream flow. for them. Extension and refinement of Federal Agencies: existing methods for setting stream stand- "The key Federal agency is the ards, regulating sources of water pollution new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and funding and developing waste treatment which combines the pollution abatement re- facilities can reduce water pollution sponsibilities of a number of agencies. problems. One often suggested extension The most prominent of them are: (1) The of present regulatory approaches is ef- Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA) fluent charges. for water pollution [now the Office of "An important question in water Water Quality (OWQ)], (2) The National Air quality management is whether institutional Pollution Control Administration (NAPC) for mechanisms can be found to reduce wastes air pollution, and (3) The Bureau of Solid discharged to streams, estuaries, lakes, Waste Management (BSWM) for solid wastes groundwater basins, and oceans. Effluent pollution. FWQA provides substantial funds charges may be such a mechanism. An ef- to states and municipalities for implementing fl.uent charge is imposed on anyone dis- approved programs. So far, however, these charging wastes to a water body; the amount funds have been relatively small considering of the charge depends upon the amount of the great magnitude of the program being wastes discharged. As an illustration, developed for treatment plants. The Army manufacturers might be charged $1.00 for Corps of Engineers also has an important each 5,000 pounds of BOD discharged to role in its administration of the River water bodies. Such charges would encourage and Harbor Act of 1899 (commonly, the those discharging wastes to seek ways of Refuse Act). However, the Corps' most im- discharging fewer in order to lower the portant coastal pollution role is in the monthly charge imposed upon them. field of solid waste disposal at sea." "This might be done in several (Ref. 2) ways. The production process and/or raw c. New Methods materials might be altered in order to A variety of new sewage treat- generate fewer wastes and thus lower the ment systems are becoming widely available effluent charge. There might be materials at competitive prices. These types of sewage recovery and/or production of by-products; treatment could virtually replace septic that is, there might be attempts to recover tanks, reduce burdens on large public sew- wastes for recycling within the production age treatment facilities and encourage new process or for production of by-products. Finally, there could be
101 additional waste treatment. (Ref- 16) Bay water resources and shoreline areas. Given energetic and comprehensive 2.3 Summary -- Future Outlook application of present water quality con- A review of existing trends in the trol approaches, it would seem that some generation, treatment and discharge of aspects of the water pollution problem wastes, especially when placed in juxta- could be substantially improved while in position with expanding uses of water other areas the situation would continue resources for other purposes (e.g. re- to decline. One area in which improvement creation, thermal waste discharges), pre- could be expected would be in terms of the sents a foreboding future picture. A traditional measure of water pollution -- metropolitan surburban view of the future BOD (see Table 1). Areas in which con- outlook is voiced by William H. Willcox, tinued declines might be expected are in Commissioner, Maryland National Capital increasing concentrations of exotic chem- Park and Planning Commission: ical wastes in receiving waters and in "The seriousness and significance synergistic relationships between different of the metropolitan area sewer problem types of liquid waste discharges, cannot be papered over. Inadequate A comprehensive application of trad- treatment facilities, sewer overflows, itional and emerging approaches in water septic tank failures, an increasingly quality control could make possible the filthy river, losses to builders and achievement of presently recommended the public treasury, encroachments on our stream quality standards in the Bay and parks to cope with emergencies which its tributaries. This approach would should have been foreseen, and the uned- call for substantial increases in funding, ifying sight of each official body com- monitoring, legislation, and organization peting with the others to assign blame for water quality control. It would make elsewhere than itself, are the fruits of possible the maximum use of Bay waters years of lax planning. The present crisis for purposes other than the discharge carries a grim warning to developers, of wastes, conservationists, every level of govern- ment, and every one of our citizens. We must redouble our efforts to rationalize development in the face of rapid region- 3 Water Pollution: Goals, Objectives, al population growth. If we fail, we Standards, Policies will be beset and eventually overwhelmed by rising costs, pollution, depletion of 3.1 Goal: Establish and Maintain Bay vital natural resources, a severely dam- Water Quality at Levels Adequate aged economy, and a declining quality of for Living Resources and Human life " (Ref. 11) Enjoyment Significant here are the tradeoffs This goal is paraphrased from the between solutions to problems of water Legislative intent in establishing the pollution and metropolitan area housing Maryland Environmental Service as, the ^vo-Hiemc preservation, improvement and management On the level of the Maryland Bay of the quality of air, land, and water Region, a "continuation of present trends" resources [of the State]." (Ref. 17) would result in real trouble for bay water More specific ob:ectives are: resource quality. The trouble would not be confined to the urbanizing western 3.2 Objectives: shore of the Bay but would affect Eastern a. Provide on a Bay-wide basis for Shore areas as well. The situation would dependable, effective and efficient pur- severely limit other desirable uses of ification of liquid and solid wastes.
102 b. Encourage reduction in the amount use demands. of waste generated and discharged to the environment. "4. Prepare plans for wastewater transmission and treatment works, material c. Provide pollution abatement reuse facitities and other protective planning and operating service to waste generators. facilities, based on receiving water re- quirements and the evaluation and inte- d. Concentrate immediate efforts gration of existing plans or alternatives. and priority on the Baltimore Harbor "5. Recommend to regulatory and Project to achieve the above objectives. public works agencies such policy and 3 . 3 Standards operational measures as study reveals will contribute to the improvement and protec- Water quality standards for the Bay tion of water quality or the more effic- have been set by the Maryland Board of ient use of resources." (Ref. 7) Health "insofar as their sanitary and Policies now are in operation at physical condition affects the public Ref various levels of government, some of health." ( - 18) The Departlnent of Wat_ which have been enacted into law. These er Resources can set specific standards policies can be organized by the six major for its primary responsibility for the sources of pollution: domestic sewage, general enforcement of water quality industrial wastes, agricultural wastes, standards. The Environmental Health leaching from solid wastes (including Service exercises primary responsibility spoil deposits), storm runoff, and ship- with respect to water pollution resulting ping and boating. from untreated or inadequately treated sewage. As in Goal D., the costs of not polluting are often high, the offenders A new entrant in the field of stan- ubiquitous, and the benefits not immed- dards, the above-mentioned Environmental iately translatable into dollar equiv- Protection Agency (EPA) has taken over alents. However, it is at the level of responsibilities at the Federal level policy that this translation must be made. and most recently set standards for In a recent example, the spoil from dredg- allowable spoil deposits in the Bay.1 ing from Baltimore's Inner Harbor was to 3.4 Policies : have been placed at Poole's Island in the Bay. The policy of the EPA is not to Five task objectives for the Mary- allow this if certain chemical and BOD land Environmental Services Baltimore levels are above their standards. The Harbor Project are good examples of policies : cost of placing the spoil in an alternate location was between $200,000 and $300,000, "1. Inventory pollution sources directly attributable to the adoption of by type; assess their relative importance; the policy. While the cost of environmental and predict future demands for disposal. degradation and consequent benefit of not "2. Acquire necessary data on the using Poole's Island was not quantified, aquatic environment and water quality; it could have been estimated with adequate analyze cause-effect relationships within scientific research. While in this part- the aquatic system; and predict the re- icular instance the widespread concern sults of proposed pollution abatement measures. for mercury made such quantification un- necessary, research must address itself "3. Acquire an expression of pub- to such specific spelling out of policy lic needs and desires for water use from tradeoffs. In the Baltimore example, the a review of related land-use plans and policy with which tradeoff was made was from local representatives; recommend related to waterfront residence and re- desirable criteria for the development creation in the Inner Harbor. . of water uses; and predict future water A more significant, but harder to
103 quantify, policy conflict results from 6. Power, G., Chesapeake Bay in Legal the need to retain water in the Susque- Perspective, Report to U. S. Dept. Int., hanna River for water supply and power Fed. Water Pol. Contr. Admin., March 1970. during periods of drought. The result- ing flows dramatically affect both wat- 7. Maryland Environmental Service - er quantity and water quality (salinity) Baltimore Harbor Project, 1970 Annual in the Bay. Resulting fish kills are Report, February 22, 1970 to February only the most visible evidence of the 21, 1971. environmental impact. In this last example of tradeoffs, 8. National Academy of Sciences, Nat- a systems approach should be used to ional Academy of Engineering, Waste trace the effect of setting the stand- Management Concepts for the Coastal Zone, ard for minimum flow on both water sup- Requirements for Research and Investiga- ply and power. These can be translated tion, Washington, D. C. 1970. into dollar equivalents of input to an output to the Bay that quantifies the 9. North Atlantic Regional Water Re- environmental benefits of adequate sources Study - Appendix L, Water Quality fresh water flow. and Pollution, NARWRS Committee, May 1971. 10. New York Times, July 12, 1970, "The Polluted Potomac: Sewage and Politics Create Acute Capital Problem." References 11. The Potomac Newsletter, Potomac Basin Center, July 29, 1970.
1. CBIPC Work Plan Outline, Section 8: 12. McGauhey, P. H., Engineering Manage- IV D - Bay Use Inventory, Municipal Use. ment of Water Quality.'McGraw-Hill, 1968. (Unpublished report of the Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee) 13. Met-Pro Water Treatment Corp., Lansdale, Pa., Technical Release, 1971. 2. North Atlantic Regional Water Re- sources Study - Appendix U, Coastal and 14. Environmental Protection Agency, Estuarine Areas, NARWRS Committee, 1971. Advance Waste Treatment and Water Reuse Symposium - Dallas, Texas, January 12-14, 3. Black S Veatch Consulting Engin- 1971. eers, Solid Waste Disposal Study for Washington Metropolitan Region, 1967, 15. Environmental Science and Technology, as cited in Wetlands in Maryland - Vol. "Spinoff Processes Aid Sewage Treatment", II Technical Report, Md. Dept. of State Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1971, p.756-757. Planning, Dept. of Natural Resources. 16. Waste Management, Regional Plan 4. Coulter, J. B., Marine Shipping Association, 1968. Industry - Effects and Impacts on the Chesapeake Bay, in Governor's Confer- 17. Section 1-1, Article 33B of the ence on Chesapeake Bay, 1968, P.11-128. Annotated Code of Maryland.
5. Blumer, M. et al, "A Small Oil 18. Section 388, Article 43 of the Spill", in Environment, Vol. 13, No. 12, Annotated Code of Maryland. (Concerns March 1971, pp. 2-12. Water Quality Standards set by Department of Water Resources of Maryland).
104 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
F. WATER SUPPLY 106 1. Water Supply Problems 106 1. 1 Nature of the Problem 1.2 Causes of the Problem 106 106 Table 1: Manor Public Surface Water Supply Intakes 107 Table 2: Non-Residential and Residential Water Usage, Anne Arundel County 108 . Table 3: Crosstabulation of State and County Jurisdictions with Twelve Major Watersheds Feeding the Maryland Portion of th e Bay log 1.3 Location of the Problem 109 Plate 14: Surface Drainage Pattern and Public Surface Water Intakes ... 110 Plate 15: Chesapeake Bay Water Budget i 111 Plate 16 Generalized Geologic Map - Anne Arundel County 112 Plate 17 Structure Contours of Aquifers - Anne Arundel County 113 Plate 18 Aquifer Block Diagrams - Anne Arundel County 114 1.4 Time Characteristics , . 115 1. 5 Parties Affected 115
2 Future Dimensions of Water Supply Problems us 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem '.'.'.'. 115 Figure 3: Water Source Areas - Anne Arundel County 115 Figure 4: Residential and Industrial Average Daily Water Demands - Anne Arundel County, 1960, 2000 116 Table 4: Proportions of Total Industrial Water Use by Selected Types of Industry: Comparisons of National vs. Local (Anne Arundel County) Usage lig Table Water Consumption and Withdrawal, Domestic and Industrial, 1970 and 2000, by Region 119 Table Proposed Water Supply Improvements, 1970-2000, by Water Service Area - Anne Arundel County 121 Figure 5: Water Sources and Water Demands - Anne Arundel County, 1960 and 2000 122 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 123 Summary - Future Outlook \[ 124
Water Supply Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 1 25 Goal , 125 Obj ectives 125 Standards 125 Policies . 125
105 Water Supply Havre de Grace 278 gal/day/capita Elkton 197 Northeast 8 9 i Water Supply Problems To some extent the variations The problem is how to manage the may reflect variations in rates of water resource so as to reconcile residential water usage. Such rates human demands with the natural supply are generally higher in luxury sub- without adverse environmental effects. divisions than in "average" subdiv- isions and they are often higher in 1.1 Nature of the Problem older sections of cities where the water With increases in her population, supply system is inefficient. But most the concentration of these people in of the variation reflects non-residen- urban areas, and expansion of water- tial use of public surface water supply. using industries, Maryland's water The Rockville rate of water needs are increasing rapidly. Short- usage per capita (75 gallons per day) sighted, poorly conceived and hastily is close to the average for general executed solutions may have irrevers- residential activity. Water usage in ible ecological, economic and social excess of 100 gallons per capita per effects. day may be attributed to industrial and other non-residential use of the public 1.2 Causes of the Problem water supply and is not properly repre- a. Demand sented by a per capita rate. Major Public Surface Intakes: Finally, thj data does not Table 1 gives the locations indicate who receives the water withdrawn of major public surface water intakes, at the surface water intakes. The data aggregates this data for major streams indicates that Baltimore City, which now and indicates the amount of water with- has less than 900,000 residents, & ••-plies drawal (in million gallons per day) water to 1,125,000 persons - presumably and the population served. This 600,000 persons, in the surrounding count- information does not, of course, indi- ies. Similarly, the data indicates that cate the total water usage in any the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis- watershed, jurisdiction or group of sion and the Rockville plants supply jurisdictions. Ground water supplies, water to more people than currently live run-of-the-river surface water intakes in Prince George's and Montgomery Count- and water transported across watershed ies. It is not clear in which juris- and jurisdictional boundaries may dictions the extra people served live; supplement total public surface water nor is it clear how many persons in intakes. Nor does the data indicate Prince George's and Montgomery Counties what the water is used for. Compar- are served by ground water supplies, and ison of the surface water intake with are thus not reflected in the data con- the population served reveals the cerning population served by surface following rates of water usage per water supply. capita: Types of Water Usage: In order to develop a compre- Rockville 75 gal/day/capita hensive picture of the types of water Washington Sub. usage, the sources and modes of water Sanitary Comm. 206 supply and their interrelationships in Baltimore City 150 a single county, a review and graphic W a s h i n g t o n D . C . 183 synthesis was made of the master water Bel Air 143
106 TABLE 1 ,
MAJOR PUBLIC SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES (DOES NOT INCLUDE GROUND WATER OR INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES) (Source: Ref. 1, Plate W, Table W-l) POTOMAC PATUXENT LITTLE PATUXENT CURTIS CREEK SEVERN RIVER a Rockvillc (186A) a b Wash. Suburban Maryland House of Curtis Creek bSevern River 3.4 mgd San. Comm. (249B) Correction (34A) Coast Guard 4 5,000 pop. Naval Command 6 7 mgd 1. 0 mgd 0.6 mgd 0 . 4 mgd 325,000 pop. 4,500 pop. ? pop. aWash. Suburban ? pop. San. Comm. (249A) aWash. Suburban bpt. George Meade 150 mgd San. Comm. (249C) (27) 725,000 pop. 6 7 mgd 3. 0 mgd 325,000 pop. ? pop. Washington, D.C. (250) Bowie Race Track 200 mgd (190) 1,093,000 pop. (Used during racing season only) 35 3 mgd 134+ mgd 4.0 mgd 0.6 mgd 1,863,000 pop. 0.4 mgd 650,000+ pop. 4,500+ pop. ? pop. ? pop.
PATAPSCO | niiNPOWDER WINTERS RUN BROAD CREEK SUSQUEHANNA cBalt. City (48A) CBalt. City (48B) Bel Air (159A) Broad Creek (162) cBalt. City (48D) Ashburton Plant P? Jtty Boy-GNPDR 1.0 mgd (Summer Use only) Liberty-Patapsco Susq. Diversion 56 mgd (approx) 7,00 0 pop. 0.4 mgd 56 mgd (approx) 56 mgd (approx) 375,000 pop. (app) ? pop. 375,000 pop.(app) 375,000 pop.(app) tiEdgewood Arsenal cBalt. City (48C) (158A) Conowingo (16 3A) Montebello Plant 4.0 mgd 0.02 mgd Lock Raven-GNPDR ? pop. ? pop. 56 mgd (approx) 375,000 pop. (app) Havre de Grace (167) 2.50 mgd 9,000 pop.
Bainbridge (86A) 1.50 mgd ? pop.
Perry Point (100) 0.05 mgd 700 pop. 56 mgd 112 mgd 5. 0 .ngd 0.4 mgd 6 0.1 mgd 375,000 pop. 750,000 pop. 7,000+ pop. ? pop. 385,000+ pop.
MAJOR PUBLIC SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES (continued)
MILL CREEK NORTHEAST RIVER BIG ELK CREEK Perryville (99) Northeast (98) Elkton (91) 0.45 mgd 0.15 mgd 1.10 mgd ? pop. 1,700 pop. 5,600 pop. 0.45 mgd 0.15 mgd 1.10 mgd ? pop. 1,700 pop. 5,600 pop.
Washington Suburban = 287 mgd; 1,420,000 pop. 1,178,000 (1970) pop. (a 80 gal/person/day "Military = 8.0 mgd cBaltimore City = 225 mgd; 1,500,000 pop. 10/ Ref 2 TABLE 2: Non-residential and Residential Water Usage, Anne Arundel County plan for Anne Arundel County( - '. (Source: Ref. 2) Water Usage based on empirical Water Usage based on general Available detailed information on the trends & indexes 1970 types of non-residential and residential data, 1969 water usage is shown in Table 2, which Industry Industry juxtaposes empirical data collected on Ground water (6 industries Heavy industry (375 ac) including Parkway Indus- current average rates of water usage by trial Area) 3.220 mgd Light industry (1445 ac) specific users and estimates of total Surface water (15 indus- 2.683 mgd water usage in broad residential and tries) Total: 24 industries 5.9030 mgd. Total industrial water industrial categories. The data is representing approx. B0% usage x^70 5.4400 mgd of total county mfg. reasonably but not precisely comparable. employment (Table 3-4) For instance, a portion of the Annapolis 3 motels water supply, listed here as "residen- 3 marinas .1006 mgd tial", is used by industrial and other 1 restaurant non-residential firms. The data indi- 38 public & private schools (Table B-6) (including cates that estimates of non-residential 30 AA Co. schools) .1050 mgd water use are probably low and could be more precisely detailed. Twenty- Commercial (Table B-4 & B-7) 4 shop. ctrs. & four industries representing 80% of 2 large stores Anne Arundel County's manufacturing (mostly using ground water) .1575 mgd employment use more water than is Md.Dept. of Motor Vehicles estimated for all light and heavy .0289 mgd industry. Other non-residential uses (Table B-7) are not broken out in the water use Military - that not included under residential estimates. There is no estimate, for (Table B-9) 1.1000 mgd instance, for the amount of -water used in Anne Arundel County's large and Institutional 2 hospitals Table B-9, .624 3 mgd growing office function. The empirical 1 state park B-4 data gleened from the county water plan Total non-residential water use accounted for in empiric Total Estimated non- and presented in Table 2 represents 70% data residential water use 5.4400 mgd of total estimated current water usage 8.2193 mgd in Anne Arundel County. More complete 1970 population: 291,300 Projection 1970: 304,200 and detailed empirical data would 5 municipalities & commu- 6.64 00 mgd Population in water service nities: (Annapolis, Md. areas served (227,800) 19.49 mgd assist in evaluating county land use City, Sylvan Shores, Rose Haven, Southdown Shores) Population in water service plans for their water demand impli- (Table B-3) areas not served (64,100) 5.13 mgd cations and in regulating water usage 4 trailer parks (Table B- .2151 mgd Rural population not in .98 mgd 571 water service areas of various activities, (12,300) b. Supply 11 apt. complexes (Table .4862 mgd Interjurisdictional Nature ,B-7.) : Military bases of Supply: Ft. Meade (23,000 resi- The surface drainage pattern dents, 20,000 transients) 3.5000 mgd is of great significance in environ- Naval Acad.s Experi- ment Station (4,370 resi- mental management. It forms the con- dents; 3,530 transients) 1.8000 mgd
text for many inter-dependencies among Institutions Md. House of Correction alternative stream uses at various (3,000 residents) 1.0000 mgd locations. Upstream wastewater dis- charges may preempt downstream recre- Total Residential Water Use Accounted for in Total Estimated Residential ational uses or make water supply uses Empirical Data 13.6413 mgd Water Use, 1970 25.60 mgd more expensive because of treatment
costs. Upstream controls on stream Total Water Use Accounted Total Estimated Water flows in the form of dams and reser- for in Empirical Data 21.8606 mgd Use, 1970 31.04 mgd voirs limit run-of-the river uses
108 The English Speaking Union
PHILADELPHIA BRANCH:
2414 PSFS BUILDING APRIL 1974 PHILADELPHIA. PA. 19107 TELEPHONE: WA 2-1955
ENTENTE CONCORDIALE - Tuesday evening, April 30th - Rlttenhouse Club, 1811 Walnut St. 5:30 p.m.
The English-Speaking Union and the Alliance Francaise are joining forces to offer you a Cocktail Party and a sensational new film which has just been released on the aircraft CONCORDE - THE EARTHSHRINKER.
As the audiences watch the Concorde's route-proving trip they will never forget the sight of the "great bird" flying over countries the world round.
Filmed in London, Bristol, New York, Athens, Bombay, Singapore, Tokyo and Sydney, and in the air over the United Kingdom, the British-French airliner cuts time In half, cruising at about 1400 mph, and the simulation of a transatlantic flight shows how a Concorde passenger coming to the U.S. from Europe seems to arrive before he leaves !
Don't miss this exciting half-hour film and the chance of mingling with friends both old and new who are members of the Alliance Francaise.
The admission charge is $3.00 (which includes a cocktail). Please use re- servation slip on last page.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM OUR PRESIDENT, RICHARD K. STEVENS, ESQ.
My appeal in January for voluntary contributions to E-SU has produced very agreeable results. The total contributions amounted to $3,300. The gifts are very much appreciated. They are also very encouraging in the sense that they indicate a strong commitment and belief in E-SU.
I hope that additional members will be moved to add to the total so far re- ceived. Just send a check to the office. And many thanks.
CHIMING BELLS HERALD SPRING
On Monday, May 6th, 3:00 p.m., at the House of the Colonial Dames, 1630 Latimer Street, the Very Reverend Gilbert Thurlow, Dean of Gloucester Cathedral, will address us on the subject of "Church Towers, Bells and Ringers - A Thousand Year Story."
Dean Thurlow attained his M.A. at Selwyn College, Cambridge, then attended Cuddesdon College, Oxford.
Among his many accomplishments since: He was successively incumbent of two medieval churches in the Norwich area. The Church of St. George, Colgate, along with the Church of St. Clement and St. Edmund; later, the Church of St. Andrews along with the Church of St. Michael at Plea. - 2 -
From 1955 to 1964 he was Vicar of the Parish of Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. Here his major task was guiding the rebuilding and restoration of "England's largest Parish Church." This was St. Nicholas Church at Yarmouth which had been completely gutted and burned in an air raid in 1942.
In 1964 he became a Residentiary Canon of Norwich Cathedral where he was Vice-Dean for 3 years. In October, 1972, he was appointed Dean of Gloucester Cathedral.
He is visiting America for a short period in May and while he must fill many important Church engagements he has agreed to take time to speak to us for one afternoon.
His illustrated talk will be accompanied by excellent recordings of some of the more famous rings of Bells in England.
Please use reservation slip on page 3. A bountiful tea will follow the lecture. Members $3.00; non-members $3.50.
SPRING TOUR
Spring generally means getting out of doors, going places and seeing things. This year E-SU members and their friends have that opportunity.
On Thursday, April 25, leaving the Sheraton, 18th and J.F. Kennedy Boulevard at 9:15 a.m., a trip is planned which will delight all who love art, gardens and history. The program includes the Brandywine River Museum, noted for its outstanding architecture and as the hub of creative tradition begun with Howard Pyle and continued by the Wyeths and others.
Then luncheon in an eighteenth century inn followed by a visit to Winterthur. The beauty of the gardens is difficult to describe, except to promise there will be an abundance of color.
There will be a very short walk (five minutes) through a garden, then a tour of the Museum and South Wings where outstanding examples of American decorative arts of the seventeenth through the early nineteenth centuries are on display. At 4:30 p.m. we will start homeward.
The day is planned to include highlights of the area, however, and will not prove overly tiring, we believe. For instance, we will spend 25 minutes in the morning observing a slide presentation in the Brandywine River Museum. The pace will be leisurely throughout the day.
The price of the complete package is $16.00 which includes admission fees to Brandywine, both wings of Winterthur and a delicious luncheon at Chadds Ford Inn.
Come with us and enjoy a delightful day. Bus limited to 40 passengers so sign up early to avoid disappointment. Reservation form on page 3. - 3 -
MUSEUM SERIES - Thursday, April 18th at 12:20 p.m.
Come and see a bit of England with us when the E-SU visits the English Period Rooms at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (26th Street and Benjamin Franklin Parkway).
A delicious luncheon of Quiche Lorraine will be held in the dining-room of the Museum at 12:30 and a cash bar will be available. This will be followed by a guided tour at 1:30 p.m.
As an added bonus, members of the E-SU group need pay only 75c admission to the Museum instead of the full price, so be sure to identify yourself as an E-SU member at the admission desk. For senior citizens with identification, admission is only 50c. Museum Tour and luncheon $5.50. Please see tear sheet for reservations.
LORD TREVELYAN (GCMG, KCMG, CMG, CIE, CBE) will be in Philadelphia on Wednesday, May 22nd, and our Branch plans to honor him on this occasion so mark your calendar and watch for further details in the May Newsletter.
********
A warm welcome to members joining or reloining during the period February 25 to March 26, 1974:
Thomas A. Allaway Miss Mary A. McQuiston Mr. & Mrs. George R. Clark Mrs. I. Wistar Morris, III Mrs. R. Charles Davies Mr. & Mrs. James W. Oram Stephen S. Dittmann Mrs. Gordon Phillips Mrs. William H. Dutcher, Jr. Mr. & Mrs. Vincent D. Ruff Mrs. Franklin A. Fleece Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman Miss Geraldine Gorzoch Mr. & Mrs. Earl A. Skinner Mrs. John P. Green Mr. & Mrs. John W. Thacher John B. Hannum, III Frederick M. Swope Mrs. Barton H. Hunter Mr. & Mrs. Edward F. Wagner Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Bennett Lipkin Miss Frances C. Walsh Louis Loewenstein Mrs. James I. Wendell Mr. & Mrs. David W. Maxey Mrs. James Reid Wilson Miss L. Lee Winston
(*) indicates younger members' group
The English-Speaking Union 2414 PSFS Building Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Amount enclosed Please make reservations for me as follows: Thursday, April 18 - Art Museum Tour & Luncheon places at $5.50 $ Thursday, April 25 - Bus Spring Tour places at $16.00 $ Tuesday, April 30 - Rittenhouse Club - Film & Cocktail places at $3.00 $ Monday, May 6 - Colonial Dames - Lecture & Tea places - members $3.00 - Non-members $3.50 $
Name: downstream. Morever, the surface peake Bay can be found in Table 3. drainage pattern is decidedly inter- Such a crosstabulation could be jurisdictional. Of the 12 major developed by developing areal, watershed areas feeding the Mary- population and major water usage land portion of the Chesapeake Bay, breakdowns. Thus, water supply not one lies within a single juris- becomes an interjurisdictional diction. Ten of the twelve are problem. A major portion of the interstate - 6 including portions of water demands in Northern Anne Delaware, 3 including portions of Arundel County may be met with Pennsylvania, and 2 including water collected at Lock Raven portions of Virginia. The two reservoir on the Gunpowder River watersheds which are not interstate, in Baltimore County. The Wash- overlap 6 and 7 Maryland counties ington Suburban Sanitary Commission respectively. Most of the inter- may be called on to help meet needs state watersheds also overlap 3 or in western portions of the county. more counties. A cross tabulation Municipal supplies may need to of state and county jurisdictions help meet needs in surrounding with 12 major watersheds feeding areas under county jurisdiction. the Maryland portion of the Chesa- 1. 3 Location Platel4(Surface Drainage Pattern CROSSTABULATION OF STATE AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS WITIi 12 MAJOR and Public Surface Water Intakes) WATERSHEDS FEEDING THE MARYLAND PORTION OF THE DAY \. Major shows all major watershed boundaries a ) ^v Watershed in the area, and several of the more important secondary watershed bounda- Juris- N. dictions b) \ ries of streams flowing directly to f Ws the Bay. Locations on these streams Cecil > of public surface water intakes are Kent H 1 < 1 also shown, as are the region's major Queen Anne"s - < reservoirs. Talbot , ( Caroline _ Table 1 above shows major surface Dorchester < withdrawals by supplying streams, and the wicomico i population served by the withdrawals. Somerset Worcester „ Plate 15 (Chesapeake Bay Water Budget) Harford -j _ ' ' schematically illustrates the internal Baltimore Co.- "plumbing" of the hydrologic cycle in Carroll the Bay region. In other words, where Baltimore Cit _ Howard _ water in the Bay system comes from, * Montgomery \ where it goes when it leaves the system, Prince George s- > ( •—I and what happens to it while it is resi- Anne Arundel - _ y— Calvert dent in the system, or passing through Charles _ it. Plate 16 (Generalized Geologic Map - _ 1 > St. Mary's \ < Anne Arundel County) shows outcrop areas of the principal formations within which occur the major aquifers underlying Delaware -H > i Pennsylvania - \ the county. Plate 17 (Structure Contours Virginia of Aquifers - Anne Arundel County) shows 1—< contours of depths to the tops of prin- cipal aquifers in the County. Plate 18 a) RocommGnded by the Federal Water Quality Administration (Aquifer Block Diagrams - Anne Arundel b) Maryland Counties and Adjacent States County) shows how the principal aquifers
109 PLATE 14: Surface Drainage Pattern and Public Water Supply Intakes
•o\ ^PENNSYLVANIA ^ A I ' %48D( / PLATE 15: Chesapeake Bay Water Budget
76,500 CFS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
CHESAPEAKE v WATERSHED £ •
62,800 CFS NET FRESH WATER FLOW ACROSS STATE BOUNDARY TO VIRGINIA PORTION OF BAY in PLATE 16: Generalized Geologic Map, Anne Arundel County
EXPLANATION
BESS River terrace and lowland estuarine deposits
Aquia, Nanjemoy, Calvert, and Choptank Formations mm Matawan and Monmouth Formations
Raritan and Magothy Formations
Arundel and Patapsco Formations
Patuxent Formation
Crystalline rocks HOLLAND POINT SOURCE: 3:38 PLATE 17: Structure Contours of Aquifers, Anne Arundel County (Section II-F, Ref. 4)
AQUIA GREENSAND
\ £ £ V
MAGOTHY FORMATION
EXPLANATION
Structure contour on top of Aquio Oreensond Contour interval 50 feet Datum is mean seo level
• Control point
Outcrop area of Aquio Greenland
-f <%> / -v.. "^•-\ <3 s Q^
EXPLANATION —--100—'- Structure contour on top of uppermost sand in Mogothy Formation Contour interval 100 feet Datum is mean sea level
• Control point, well
Outcrop area of Roritan and I 0 12 3 4 Mogothy Formations
Trfry PATAPSCO FORMATION PLATE 18: Aquifer Block Diagrams, Anne Arundel County
SOURCE: 3:38 114 act as conduits to transmit water south- an average rate of 27% per decade. eastward and steadily deeper beneath the On the local level, a rece nt report surface from their outcrop/recharge areas (Ref. 4)estimates that wat er demands in the northwestern part of the County. for residential and indust rial uses in Anne Arundel County wil 1 increase 1.4 Time Characteristics five times between 1960 an d 2000; the Water demands are fairly constant report does not give expli cit consid- through the year except for summer when eration to two major natio nal water large additional amounts are used for uses -- irrigation and ele ctric power irrigation (an almost totally consumptive generation. This means th at water use) and cooling. The fact that lowest demands, instead of being a rather surface flows in the supplying streams, and the greatest natural demands of evapotranspiration, occur in summer, further aggravates the seasonal problem.
1.5 Parties Affected All inhabitants of the Bay region, both human and non-human, are directly affected by the problem posed by the need to reconcile increasing water demands with a fixed natural supply.
2 Future Dimensions of Water Supply Problems
In describing the future dimensions of water supply problems, the following sections make particular reference to recent water supply and demand studies for Anne Arundel County. It is felt that the local perspective adds speci- ficity to regional-level analyses and that the water supply problems of Anne Arundel County are similar in many respects to those in other urbanizing areas of the Maryland Bay Region.
2. 1 Force s Tending to Increase the Probl em The p revision of water supply for urban devel opment is an increasing public concern. N ationally in 1960 about 43% of total es timated water use was for irrigation, about 7% was public water LCOCKJD PLATE N'2 supplies, 2 % for domestic (non-public) ».UNE AMINDtLCOUNTT water use , 23% for self-supplied indus- FIGURE 3: From "Water and \ CA.\.vt fOPULfcTION »T trial uses, and 25% was used in the Wastewater Master Plan -; couHTf I generation of electric power(Ref• 3). Anne Arundel Co.", Nov.19*69, L Revised, May 1970, ~ -, n byi. .. whitefieldI.TI. ; .- - c : _ i J &r Mar^..SrV' All of thes e uses are increasing — at r-on.,,,1 t-i nn Fnoi npers
115 small percentage of the total natural will also be increasing their water de- water supply, will be a very large mands, the allocation of water among proportion. competing human demands and the impact This demand will use almost the of total water demands on the environment full capacity (65-89 mgd) of Anne are likely to become major issues of Arundel County's extensive ground regional public policy. The factors water supplies. When "natural" used in deriving residential water surface waters are preempted by demands are: population growth, rates other uses such as wastewater dis- of use, and increases in proportion of posal (the Little Patuxent is an population served by public water supply, example in Anne Arundel County), a. Population Growth increasing reliance on ground water The year 2000 population used and/or major infrastructure facil- in the calculations was 723,200 -- some ities to transport water from other 123,000 more than the figure indicated areas will be required. in 1967 projections developed by the Figure 3 shows water service areas State Planning Department. Since both in Anne Arundel County and Figure 4 projections indicate a larger 1970 presents general trends of water demands population than was revealed in the for six of these areas and for broad recent census, it may be concluded that industrial and residential categories. the water plan's year 2000 projection These trends indicate that water demands and perhaps both projections may be will increase dramatically in most of too high. the water service areas. The increase Since water supply facilities in water demand in the Glen Burnie water are now being planned on the basis of service area alone will approach the the larger population, since 16 mgd of total water intake at one of the four water demand may be involved, and since large reservoirs making up Baltimore water supply facilities are expensive City's water, supply. Since other counties and have considerable environmental
FIGURE 4: Residential and Industrial Average Water Demands: Anne Arundel County, 1960, 2000
56.49 By Water Service Area 24.85 1 -J lr dustria1 ESi
In Million Gallons/Day
(Source: Ref.2, Table B10-16)
•31,64
£ 15.11 i 2.80 11 Q1 ft 10.50 — 1.00 3.60 8.42 7f>7 9SQ 12.32 1.63 l-iiO •1:1 :;6JS4 2.92 .'722' 2.93 1.14 2.72 I .47 37 .2.75; .014 I960 2000 1960 2000 1960 2000 1960 2000 1960 2000 1960 2000 Glen Burnie; Broadneck Fort Meade Fort Meade Annapolis South- Gibson Is. west East eastei
116 ramifications, the discrepancy in long- projections of water demand is presented range projections may make a real as an example of the methodology used difference. in developing projections of water b. Rates of Usage demands which underlies long-range The water plan posits that capital programs for water supply "high value"residential areas "demand" facilities. The review indicates that more water per capita than urban resi- in an effort to be "on the safe side" dential areas in general -- presumably in planning for water supply, the method- because of a greater number of water- ology tends to exaggerate total need and using appliances and fewer inhibitions ignore other reasonable public choices. on their use. And it posits that On the other hand, significant portions residents of urban areas use more of residential and non-residential water water than those of unurbanized areas. needs are not included in projections of Further it posits that rates of water water demand. The effects of water use use will increase steadily through the demands on the natural water supply are year 2000. In each decade, this increase considered, but not in systematic and is assumed to be 10 gallons per day per comprehensive fashion. Needed are alter- person in "high value" and "general" native projections of total water demand residential areas, and 5 gallons in for various water uses given specified "urban" areas. There does not seem to public policies with regard to water use. be general professional agreement on For each of the water demand the base rates of water usage in various alternatives, a water supply system -- sorts of residential areas. The magazine combining various public and private, Professional Builder, for instance, ground and surface sources of water indicates that the average rate of supply -- can be delineated. The alter- water usage in luxury homes is 100 native water supply systems would provide gallons per day per person -- about 30 a basis for a systematic evaluation of gallons less than the water plan index the cost and environmental impacts of for "high value" residential areas alternative levels of water demand, which (Ref. 5). similarly, the rates for in turn would provide a basis for public average suburban areas and apartment choice regarding overall levels of water houses are lower (80 and 75 gallons demand, and the allocation of a given per day per person) than the water water supply among competing users. plan's index for urban residential d. Industrial and non-residentia1 areas (115 gallons) . Water Demands c. Proportion of Population The factors used in projecting Served water use by industry deserve special The water plan posits that a mention. In order to develop a rough steadily increasing proportion of the projection of water need by industry, County's population will be served by the county water plan makes a distinc- the public water system. This is a tion between "heavy" and "light" industry, reflection of economies of scale in and applies indexes of water use to pro- water supply and possible public health jections of industrial acreage. But, impacts as urban development becomes industrial water use is a much more more dense. However, in order to assess complicated analytic problem than domestic the environmental impact of a jurisdic- water use. Various industries have widely tion's water needs, the total demand varying needs for water in their manufac- for water -- public and private -- must turing processes. Not only do these needs be delineated. vary between broad industrial categories Summary -- e.g. primary metals (SIC 33) vs. food The review of factors used in and beverage industries (SIC 20), but
117 TABLE 4: PROPORTIONS OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL WATER USE BY SELECTED TYPES OF INDUSTRY COMPARISONS OF NATIONAL VS. LOCAL (ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY) USAGE
Approximate Percentage Percentage of Industrial SIC of Total National Water Use in Code Type of Industry Industrial Use (Ref.3) Anne Arundel County3
33 Primary Metals 32 11 28 Chemicals & Allied Products 23 13.5 26 Paper Products 14 29 Petroleum & Coal Products 9 20 Food Industry 5 32 Stone & Vitreous Products 2 37 Transportation Equipment 2 30 Rubber & Plastics 1 35 Non-Electrical Machinery 15 34 Fabricated Metals 2 38 Instruments & Related Products 12 31 Leather 39 Miscellaneous Industries 21 Tobacco Products 2 5 Furniture 36 Electrical Machinery & Equipment 32 2 3 Apparel 27 Printing & Publishing • 5 100% 100% a Sample of 17 industries representing 70% of total county manufacturing employment (See Refs. 6,7)
they also vary considerably within It is interesting to place each category; the processing of most indu str i al (and other non-residential) vegetables requires more water per wate r us e in the context of total ton of product than making bread, for wate r us e for various portions of instance (See Table 4). Furthermore, the Ches apeake Bay region and to as the availability of water supply iden tify how industrial water use is and the quality of receiving waters appo rtio ned among various industrial increasingly become constraints on sect ors . Again, the specific data industrial location and operation, pres ente d is for Anne Arundel County, individual industries have contrived Wate r us e by 24 industries represent- to use less water in their manufactur- ing appr oximately 80% of manufacturing ing processes. An example is the empl oyme nt in Anne Arundel County Kaiser Steel Plant at Fontana, Cali- amou nts to 19% of total current water fornia which uses 1400 gallons of use in t he county (see Table 2). If water per ton of product; the steel info rmat ion for other industries were industry as a whole uses water at aval labl e, industrial water use might approximately 40 times this rate amou nt t o 25% of the total. In addition, (Ref. 3). on the other hand, con- ther e ar e schools, offices, stores, stantly changing manufacturing pro- mote Is a nd restaurants for which cesses often involve increasing water avai labl e empirical data is incomplete, needs per unit of product. It c an b e seen that non-residential
118 Table 5. WATER CONSUMPTION AND WITHDRAWAL, DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL, 1970 & 2000, BY REGION
URBAN WITHDRAWAL RURAL WITHDRAWAL PROCESSING INDUS WTHDL FABRIC INDUS WTHDL TOTAL POP"' RATE "J TOTAL p0pa) RATE"' TOTAL EMPLOY c ' RATE "I TOTAL EMPLOY a RATE b) TOTAL (000) gal/cap/da / gal/day (000) gal/cap/day gal/day (000) ga 1/cap/day gal/da;, (000) ga 1/cap/day gal/day gal/day (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) BALT. REG. 1970 wthdl 1725 160 276 000 305 140 42 600 96.5 5700 550 000 112.2 250 28 000 896 600 cnsp 9% 24 900 20% 8 500 8% 44 400 4% 1 120 78 920 2000 wthdl 2857 160 457 000 317 140 44 200 100 5700 570 000 122 250 30 500 1 101 700 cnsp 9% 41 200 20% 8 800 8% 45 600 4% 1 220 96 820 DC. METRO 1970 wthdl 1060 160 170 000 118 140 16 500 5.2 5700 29 700 8.9 250 2 220 218 420 cnsp 9% 15 400 20% 3 300 8% 2 380 4% 89 21 169 2000 wthdl 1780 160 284 000 93 140 13 000 6.8 5700 38 800 11.7 250 2 920 338 720 cnsp 9% 25 600 20% 2 600 8% 3 120 4% 120 31 440 SO. MD. 1970 wthdl 22 160 3 520 112 140 15 700 .9 5700 5 130 .3 250 75 24 425 cnsp 9% 320 20% 3 140 8% 410 4% 3 3 873 2000 wthdl 87 160 13 900 107 140 15 000 .9 5700 5 130 .9 250 225 34 255 cnsp 9% 1 260 20% 3 000 8% 410 4% 9 4 679 E. SHORE 1970 wthdl 49 160 7 810 149 140 20 800 11.5 5700 65 500 7.6 250 1 900 96 010 cnsp 9% 700 20% 4 160 8% 5 250 4% 76 10 186 2000 wthdl 117 160 18 700 176 140 24 600 10.6 5700 60 400 5.7 250 1 430 105 130 cnsp 9% 1 690 20% 4 910 8% 4 830 4% 57 11 487 CECIL CO. 1970 wthdl 6 160 956 47 140- 6 550 .3 5700 1 710 3.4 250 850 10 066 cnsp 9% 86 20% 1 310 8% 140 4% 34 1 570 2000 wthdl 15 160 2 400 45 140 6 260 .3 5700 1 710 3.9 250 970 11 360 cnsp 9% 215 20% 1 260 8% 140 4% 39 1 654 TOTAL 1970 wthdl 458 286 102 150 652 040 33 045 1 245 521 cnsp 41 406 20 410 52 580 1 322 115 718 2000 wthdl 776 000 10 3 0 80 676 040 36 045 1 591 165 cnsp 69 965 20 570 54 100 1 445 146 080
a) 1970 population, by county, from Ref.8; 2 000 population projection, by county, from Ref. 9; Urban Renewal breakdown based on 1950,1960 Census data (Ref. 10) b) Pates of Withdrawal, consumption (Ref. 11). c) 1970 Employment, by region, from SPD (Ref. 12); 2000 Employment extrapolations (WMRT); 2000 Employment, different regions (Ref. 13); Processing-Fabricating Breakdown (Ref. 10).
119 water use represents a large share of of residential and industrial devel- total water use in Anne Arundel County. opment in the northern areas of Anne Table 5 synthesizes at a Arundel County without depleting ground regional level the water withdrawal water supplies. (These are connected and consumption implications of a under the surface to other areas of the number of the factors discussed in more County which will rely on them almost detail in reference to Anne Arundel exclusively.) Since the smaller streams County (population increases, propor- (Severn, Magothy, South) are unable to tion of population using public water supply any adequate amounts of water, supplies, employment projections by the County must tap surface water collected broad industrial types, rates of water elsewhere in the region to support further use). Available information was not urban development in its northern areas. sufficient to allow a comparison of Anne Arundel County now receives water supply and water damands at the about 2.5 mgd of Baltimore City water. regional level, however. This comes from two sources: the Liberty e. Another factor tending to Reservoir on the Patapsco River and the increase the problem is the effect of Lock Raven Reservoir on the Gunpowder urbanization on rates of ground water River. The plan is to increase the supply recharge. Urban development of all from the Liberty Reservoir to 10 mgd by kinds makes impervious surfaces which the year 2000, and the supply from the increase rates of precipitation run- Lock Raven Reservoir to 46 mgd. The water off into surface drainage systems and main crossing the Patapsco is prerequisite lower rates of ground-water recharge. for delivering the 46 mgd from the Gun- Many areas (e.g., Anne Arundel County) powder River to Anne Arundel County and depend heavily on ground-water recharge. for most of the water facilities planned f. Megalopolitan water needs may for the Glen Burnie water service area adversely affect water supply in the (i.e. the northern part of the county). Maryland Bay Region. The proposed Yet it accounts for only 20% of the cost Susquehanna Diversion Project would of water facilities proposed for Glen remove large quantities of surface Burnie between 1970 and 2000; and only water from the Chesapeake Bay water- 9% of the cost of water facilities pro- shed entirely -- thus limiting the posed for the County as a whole (see total water supplies on which the Table 6). Maryland Bay Region can depend. Water Demand - Water Supply g. The cost of water supply Relationships: facilities is another factor tending The above sections discuss resi- to increase water supply problems. dential and industrial water use. Empir- These are exacerbated by the increas- ical data collected in the Anne Arundel ing future need to transport large County water plan was synthesized to volumes of water long distances to provide examples and concrete reference serve concentrations of urban devel- points for a more detailed breakdown opment . of water users than is usually possible. This is illustrated by plans The remaining question is how this water by Anne Arundel County. The County use -- now and in the future -- related has plans to build an 84" water main to sources of water supply. Again, Anne underneath the Patapsco River. The Arundel County is used as a specific "Under Harbor Crossing" would cost example. Figure 5 relates water demands $8 million and would be a joint for various water service areas to sources venture with Baltimore City. The of ground and surface water supply. Various purpose is to support vigorous growth "modes" of water supply -- interjurisdic-
120 Table 6 PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS, 19 70-2000, BY WATER SERVICE AREA ($000)
1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-2000 COMMERCIAL & MASTER INDUSTRIAL TOTAL MASTER SUB-TOTAL MASTER WATER SERVICE AREA FACILITIES TOTAL EXTENSIONS 1970-1975 FACILITIES 1970-1980 FACILITIES 1970-2000 1. Glen Burnie 16,853 6,547 23,400 8,480 Metro 31,880 7,400 39,280 2. Gibson Island 73 0 73 305 378 0 378 3. Broadneck 1,458 1,368 2,826 3,754 6,580 5,389 11,969 4. Fort Meade West 1,824 0 1,824 766 2,590 1,157 3,747 5. Fort Meade East 1,284 1,470 2,754 2,316 5,070 6,313 11,383 6. Annapolis 396 261 657 5,137 5,794 3,220 9,014 7. Southeastern 0 0 0 5,590 5,590 9,425 15,015 8. Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Incremental 0 0 0 401 401 Costs if Ft. 432 833 Meade and Mary- land House of Correction Connected to U-H Crossing
GRAND TOTAL 21,888 9,646 31,534 26,749 ... • „ _ 58,283 33,336 91,619 ,1,
tional water transfers, surface water the effective preemption of some water intakes from various rivers, public and supplies by their use for other purposes private ground water supplies -- are (e.g. waste disposal) will result in also indicated. Major sources of human use of water being a much larger water for various water service areas proportion of total natural surface are expanded upon in the notes accompa- and ground water supply. The potential nying Figure 5. effects of human use of water on the Man's Demands in the Context overall water system become critical of Total Water Supply: to the existence of the water supply In the past, the proportion system. Management of water use in the of total surface water and ground water emerging situation becomes correspon- which was used for human activities dingly critical and raises issues was relatively small in most communities. which must be dealt with more and more The effects of human use of water on precisely and more and more on a region- overall water supply in the area were al basis. likely to be correspondingly small. In the future, greatly increased use of water in heavily urbanized areas, and
121 FIGURE 5: Water Sources and Water Demand: Anne Arundel Co.(1960)
0) 0 n lUnserved Res. Pop.(Approx. .00) (fl 0) WSSC (0) M-l 4J Water Supply Water Demands /^Unserved Indus.AC (Approx. 20) U (t5 Dorsey Run (.6) 3 3 w L.Patuxent (3.0) 19.8 mgd 19. 8 mgd Southeastern (.014) 1 >i 2nd Zone (1.0) 3.6 ,Annapolis •rH M ^H 7 20 ,Fort Meade East (.37) 4-1 0) o) a 1st Zone (1.5)"~~~- 2.5 i-H M 4J a i Fort Meade West (.47) us 0 « 3 2 .93 \ ffl e . Broadneck 8. 6 " 1 Public and 1 .14 Glen Burnie (7.60) Institutional 7 67 C U 5. 1 • Gibson Island (.07) 3 0) 0 -P Private and Individual
Water Sources and Water Demand: Anne Arundel Co. (2000) Water Demands (By Water Service Area) a) Water Sources: o 120 mgd 120 mgd 1H
8 . 48 Fort Meade East Supply 2 . 92 Fort Meade West Baltimore 10. 50 Broadneck M Public and Institutional
i 43.0 56. 23 Glen Burnie nd Wate 0 Private and 26 Gibson Island Individual 12.5
Possible Artificial Recharge c: Aquifers (Re Air Conditioning, Storm Waters, Tertiary Treated Sewage
122 Competing Uses of Surface 2000 and that almost all of this will be Water Supplies: provided by interjurisdictional transfer. The two major rivers - - the Heavy Reliance on Ground Water Patapsco and the Patuxent -- which Supplies: form borders of Anne Arundel County Ground water, where it is avail- are already developed with dams and able is usually the more convenient and reservoirs to provide water supply to inexpensive source of water supply. Anne the Baltimore City Water System and Arundel County is fortunate in having the Washington Suburban Sanitary extensive ground water supplies. The water Commission. Because of the water supply plan estimates that 65-82 mgd are available development in Baltimore and Prince from "artesian" aquifers and 50 mgd from George Counties, the use of the portions "water table" aquifers -- a total of 132 of these rivers which actually flow past mgd. Because of the distribution of these Anne Arundel County is restricted. Even supplies in the County and the distribu- if these portions of the rivers were not tion of water demand, it appears that restricted as sources of water supply, four water service areas, including three the quality of the water would make it bordering the Chesapeake Bay, have suffi- very difficult to convert for public cient ground water supplies to meet water supply. (Industrial development prospective demand to the year 2000 along the Patapsco has long since (The Annapolis area is questionable reduced its water quality level; and in this regard.) One environmental the Patapsco will increasingly be used danger in the close-to-capacity use for wastewater discharge.) of ground water sources in areas Other streams such as the adjacent to the Bay is that brackish Little Patuxent and Dorsey Run are water could intrude into the ground used for water supply to their practi- water supplies if they are not ade- cable limits -- also because of reduced quately recharged. However, urban devel- quality due to competing use for waste- opment in these areas will increase water discharge. In the opinion of the rates of surface water runoff, thus authors of the water plan, the Severn, increasing chances of inadequate South, Magothy, the Rhode and other recharge of these resources. small streams in Anne Arundel County should not be used as sources of water 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the supply. Problem The result is that the effective a. Efforts to reduce rates of surface water supply in Anne Arundel water demand can help reduce water County is quite limited. Where surface supply problems. The .Anne Arundel water is necessary to meet demands or County Water Plan, like most similar to make it possible to develop a partic- local plans, is "service-oriented." ular area, it must be arranged for by It focuses on developing projections interjurisdictional agreement and trans- of water demands and proposes water ported from relatively distant sources facilities adequate to meet the to the area in question. Both the inter- demands. It does not speculate on jurisdictional agreement and the infra- the possibility of regulating water structure facilities thus become con- demands. However, it is possible straints on development. These constraints that alternative land use allocation necessarily involve the locality in region- patterns might generate different al water allocation decisions and increase water facilities program costs which the costs of development. The water plan could be evaluated. It is also indicates that Anne Arundel County will reasonable to assume that much of use 65 mgd of surface water in the year the water use posited for the year
123 2000 is discretionary in nature and albeit relatively small first step in that citizens may not wish to pay for this respect would be a law requiring the water facilities necessary to the recharge of all air-conditioning water supply such volumes nor suffer the drawn from wells in the state, as is environmental problems that may be the case on Long Island, New York. entailed. Rates of water usage are e. A single agency (probably the subject to public policy control. As Department of Water Resources) should Anne Arundel County and other counties be charged with the responsibility for in the Maryland Bay Region approach implementation of a water resources the limits of their natural water plan and should be empowered to grant 1 supplies and as marginal increases or deny permits for all withdrawals or in supply become more costly (in terms diversions from state waters. The of capital facilities and environ- agency should be directed to only grant mental impacts), the public may wish the permit if the proposed withdrawal or to have their real choices clearly diversion is consistent with the water delineated for them. These will resources plan. In addition, the include possibilities of accepting agency should be given discretion regulations on discretionary water to charge users of the waters if use in exchange for tax and environ- it feels such a charge is justifi- 2 mental benefits. able. b. Under certain circumstances estuarine waters can be used as a 2.3 Summary Future Outlook supplementary water supply source. Before the year 2000, many urban- This is the conclusion -- with regard ized counties will reach the limits of to the Potomac Estuary -- of a recent natural water supply systems. That study by the Chesapeake Technical this conclusion applies to areas other Support Laboratory of the Environmental than Anne Arundel County is indicated Protection Agency.(Ref. 14) yhe condi- by the Chesapeake Technical Support tions are that waste water discharges Laboratory's study of future water into the estuary as well as water supply supply needs in the Washington Region. withdrawals be adequately treated. The study indicated that even by 1980 However, even the supplementary use of water needs will be 570 million gallons estuarine waters would require a wholly per day (a "yearly average" figure new system for transporting water to users which is exceeded by the "maximum c. Another possible source of monthly average" calculation, which additional water supply is direct reuse is, in turn, exceeded by the "maximum of treated effluent. "The major problem daily average" calculation). "If this (besides psychological objections) in holds true, the Potomac's water supply using treated effluent as a source of often will be less than demand. There water supply are the viruses which may have been many instances when the survive even advanced wastewater treat- River flow has been considerably less ment and which could cause severe health than 570 mgd. With this projection problems if entered into the water supply.' slated for a time less than 10 years (Ref. 14) away, one must bear in mind that it d. Managing ground water supplies usually takes at least 7 years to build by recharging ground water supplies with a reservoir."(Ref- 14) in these water used in air-conditioning systems, circumstances, it appears that urban- storm water, or treated waste water can izing areas of the Maryland Bay Region help counties which depend on ground- will soon begin to be faced with diffi- water supplies (such as Anne Arundel cult choices among alternative policy County) to meet water needs from their directions: own water resources. An excellent. a. Regulate domestic per capita
124 water demands and strongly encourage land would appear to have an adequate industry to economize on water use in future supply, the supply is neverthe- production processes. less limited. Ultimately, the differ- b. Undergo the major expense of ential availability of water may be the meeting projected water demands by deciding factor in forcing a meaningful means of conventional water supply national urban growth policy. Standards systems. for water quality and quantity should be c. Develop more comprehensive set for each of the five objectives, and approaches to the management of natural by geographic subdivisions. ground and surface water systems and Regarding domestic consumption, exploit new sources of water supply. standards for quality are well established for drinking water, but the use of the same good water for car-washing, lawn- watering, air-conditioning, etc. is 3 Water Supply: Goals, Objectives, incredibly wasteful. Lower standards Standards, Policies can be set, with alternate systems of distribution available. 3•1 Goal. Provide an Adequate Mater For industrial and agricultural Supply for All Needs needs, only those users requiring top It will be noted that "needs" quality water need that which is rather than "demand" or "requirements" expensively treated. Lower standards has been used to indicate that standards can be set for the major number of for quantity(and quality) must be set. industrial and agricultural require- Water supply is increasingly limited ments . in the face of growing population and The entire Bay is tidal, so water expanding demand. quantity is not a problem with regard to recreation and amenity. Water Objectives can be set for the quality as far as standards of supply general goal in at least five major is considered under Goal A. areas: Standards for water quantity for various uses are not generally 3.2 Obj ectives set except in time of drought. The a. Ensure adequate quantity and only really feasible method for long- and quality of water at reasonable costs term storage of water is underground, for domestic supply. and, although the price mechanism to b. Provide necessary quantity and a degree influences usage, quantita- quality of water at economic prices for tive standards for water supply are industrial water users. now set by effective demand, not need. c. Make available an adequate water supply for agricultural needs. 3. 4 Poli cies d. Utilize water resources to the The field of water supply is maximum for multiple purposes including replete with policies, all of which amenity and recreation needs. have tradeoffs with other goals. e. Satisfy the requirements of A most obvious example of goal the natural landscape and wildlife for conflict is illustrated by the neces- water. sary tradeoffs between water supply and waste water discharge. Here the 3.3 Standards costs and benefits of specific alter- In the long run there is only so nate policies can be clearly quanti- much water in the world. Although Mary- fied, that is the cost of bringing
125 water from another watershed, and the Footnotes cost to that watershed can be arrayed against the price of waste water treatment, recycling etc. that would enable greater use of local streams 1. This refers to quality of over- for human water supply. board spoil disposal. Policies for other uses are not , so well articulated. A policy of 2. Many of these recommendations are multi-purpose recreation use of now already in effect, reservoir sites is recommended for Baltimore but not implemented. A Bay region policy of recycling water and artificial recharge of aquifers would help implement Objective 3.2.e. Research needs to be carried out to provide information regarding causal relations between such policies and costs and tradeoffs that would result. The-most important policy questions lie in the area of pricing, and distri- bution, as water supply and waste disposal are the crucial factors in where and how urbanization occurs.
126 References Simulation for Regional Analysis: An Application to River-Basin Planning, 1. CBIPC Work Plan Outline, Section MIT Press, 1969. 4 D 5, Map W and Table W-l. (Unpublished report of the Chesapeake Bay Interagency 12. Maryland State Planning Department, Planning Committee). The Economy of Maryland - Projections of Employment to 1980, Publication No. 143, 2 . Anne Arundel County - Water and Oct. 1968. Waste Water Master Plan, Whiteford, Falk S Mask, Inc., November 1969 13. National Planning Association for (revised May, 1970). Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and 3. McGauhey, P.H., Engineering Corp. of Engineers, Economic Base Study - Management of Water Quality,McGraw- Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basins, May, 1968. Hill, Inc., 1968. 14. as reported in the Interstate 4. Mack, F.K., Ground-Water Supplies Commission on the Potomac River Basin for Industrial and Urban Development "Newsletter," May 1971. in Anne Arundel County, Md. Geol. Survey, Bulletin 26, 1962.
5. Professional Builder, September 1970, "The Builder vs. Pollution", p. 102.
6. Maryland Department of Economic Development, Community Economics Inventories.
7. Md. Dept. of Economic Devel., Maryland Manufacturers Directory, 1969-70,
8- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population. Preliminary Reports, PC (Pl)-22, Maryland, Tables 1 and 2.
9. Maryland State Department of Planning, Preliminary Population Projections, 1970, 1980, 2000, by County, April, 1967.
10. U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Tables 6, 7, 8, 9.
11. Hamilton, H.R. et-al-. Systems
127 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
G. THERMAL WASTE DISCHARGES 129
1. Thermal Waste Discharge Problems 12 9 1.1 Nature of the Problem
1.2 Major Causes 30 1.3 Location of the Problem • 1.4 Time Characteristics 1.5 Parties Affected
2. Future Dimensions of Thermal Waste Discharge Problems 130 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem • Table 1: Rates of Increase in Commercial Electric Sales xn Maryland: 1965-1969 131 Table 2: Projected Electricity Consumption in Maryland: 1960-2000 .... 132 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook
3 Thermal Waste Discharge Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 136 136 31 Goal 136 3.2 Objectives 36 3.3 Standards 7 3.4 Policies
128 Thermal Waste Discharges species may have varying capacities to move away from a point of waste heat dis- charge. The discharge of waste heat may i Thermal Waste Discharge Problems indirectly affect aquatic life by making them more susceptible to the effects of The problem is how to meet needs pesticides, industrial wastes and disease for electrical energy with minimal en- than they ordinarily would be. Effects vironmental damage. of waste heat on aquatic life may have synergetic relationships with other water 1.1 Nature of the Problem quality characteristics, such as the a- To a significant degree, our mount of dissolved oxygen in the water.^ standard of living is based on the c. The type and intensity of shore availability of an abundant supply land uses (existing and prospective) con- of inexpensive electrical energy. dition the possible effects which the A major concern in the economic generation of electrical power may have growth of the Chesapeake Bay region, on them. The effects may relate to the therefore, is how to efficiently meet preemption of land which has alternative increasing electrical energy require- residential uses, the reduced use of the ments for a growing population.^- Bay as a recreational resource, air pol- This concern relates to the lution, construction side effects, etc.4 Chesapeake Bay as a resource for con- servation and development in three 1.2 Major Causes major ways: Industrial production processes a. The Bay is a major potential generate waste heat, of course, but the source of cooling water for the dis- amounts discharged into water bodies are charge of waste heat; but minor in comparison to those discharged b. Thermal additions to a water from electric power plants. body may have negative effects on fish The two major means of producing and other aquatic life; and electric power in the Chesapeake Bay Re- c. Other by-products of the pro- gion are fossil fuel and nuclear plants. cess of generating electricity have Fossil fuel plants are somewhat more ef- potential negative effects on shore ficient than nuclear plants in terms of land uses. the proportion of waste heat generated to Each of these relationships is electricity produced. Also, a significant conditioned by a number of factors: proportion of the waste heat from fossil a. The large size of the Bay and fuel plants is discharged into the air its proximity to major population (creating air pollution) rather than into centers make it a very attractive source the water. Nuclear plants presently plan- of cooling water for electric power ned for the Bay will discharge all waste generation. However, the hydrology of heat into water bodies. Thus, given the Bay and the moderate temperature present technology, there is a tradeoff of generally shallow Bay water some- between more air pollution from the burn- what limit the efficiency of the Bay ing of fossil fuels and more water pol- for the discharge of heat.2 lution from the discharge of waste heat b. The effects of the discharge from nuclear reactors and possible addition- of waste heat on aquatic life are al hazard of radioactive air or water pol- conditioned by many complex and various lution, e.g., tritium in water. characteristics of aquatic life. Dif- As significant as the technology of ferent species have different toler- electric power generation is, emerging ances, or tolerance ranges for tempera- economies of scale in the production pro- ture variations. Also, different cess are equally important. Smaller plants
129 in previous years spread the effects per capita rates of electric power consump- of thermal discharges. Future economies tion must also be taken into account, of scale for the production of inex- pensive electrical power require large 1.5 Parties Affected plants, usually using nuclear fission Thermal additions to the Bay will af- which concentrates thermal effects. feet both sport and commercial fishermen if Nuclear power plants can be de- the additions result in the replacement signed to minimize their thermal pol- of valuable finfish and shellfish species by lution of the Bay by a variety of de- less desirable species that can adapt to vices. However, all those presently warm waters. envisioned raise the cost of production As mentioned above, industries which beyond present economic limits and bring use Bay water for cooling purposes may be fossil fuels back in as the cheaper affected by the decreased efficiency of source. heated water for cooling purposes. Residential areas proximate to the 1.3 Location power plant will be affected by the construc- Given present electricity trans- tion and operation of the quasi-industrial^ mission technology, the western shore of power plant land use. Also, thermal additions the Chesapeake Bay will be the scene may affect the use of Bay waters for water- of most future electric power plant related recreation, which effects, depending siting issues. The sub-estuaries lead- on circumstances, may be either beneficial ing into the Bay have limited capacity or detrimental. to supply cooling waters to large modern Perhaps most significant are the pos- nuclear power plants. (The Susquehanna sible long-range ecolcjical consequences of River, which has larger potential capa- thermal additions and the possible synergetic city than the others, has been planned relationships of thermal additions with for extensive electric power plant other uses of the Bay (e.g., the discharge development by the Philadelphia Electric of certain chemical wastes). The precise Company.) The western shore is very nature of these possibilities has not as yet close to the metropolitan areas of been fully defined. Baltimore and Washington. The Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant of the Balti- more Gis and Electric Company is now un- 2 Future Dimensions of Thermal Waste der construction in Calvert County. Other Discharge Problems nuclear plants proposed for Baltimore and HariEord Counties are under discussion. Introduction : From the demand point of view, the 1.4 Time Characteristics problem is how to efficiently meet increas- in the summer. Bay water is at high- ing electrical energy requirements for a er temperatures than in the winter. The growing population and economy with minimal additional thermal discharges €rom alec- environmental damage. From the supply side trical power generation are thus more the problem is to make the best possible likely to raise water temperature changes decisions with regard to the location, de- beyond tolerance levels of aquatic life. sign, size and operation of power plants. Technological trends will bring The future dimension of the problem of about increases in efficiency in processes thermal waste discharges is a function of a about increases in etric * esoec- number of factors affecting the demand for of electrical power generation, espec , , , . , ially in nuclear power processes. However, and supply of electrical power, offsetting trends in the increasing pop- ulation in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, and in increasing
130 2 • 1 Forces Tending to Increase kilowatt-hours of electricity; today Problems Relating to Thermal the average home consumption of Waste Discharges electricity is in excess of 5,400 a. Increasing population will Ref 4 kilowatt-hours. ( - ) In Maryland, per result in ^increasing demand for elec- capita commercial electricity consump- tric power. Between 1960 and 1970, tion in 1960 was 488 kilowatt-hours; Maryland's population grew by 25%, in 1970 the rate was 1,470 kilowatt- and it is expected to continue to in- hours per capita -- three times the crease -- though at declining per- 1960 rate. Commercial electric sales centage rates -- in each remaining in Maryland (not adjusted for popula- decade of the 20th century. The pop- tion increases) increased at an ulation of Maryland in the year 2000 average annual rate of 11.4% between is expected to be over 1.5 times as 1965 and 1969. Even if the future large as in 1970.(Ref-3) rate of increase in electricity b. More significant than popu- consumption is one-half the average lation growth alone, the per capita annual rate in these four years, and per family rates of electricity electricity consumption in the year consumption are increasing. This 2000 will be over 3,600 kilowatt- is a long-standing trend. In 1940, hours per capita -- 2.5 times the 1970 the average home consumed about 1,000 rate and 7.5 times the 1960 rate.
TABLE 1: RATES OF INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC SALES IN MARYLAND: 1965-1969a
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL TOTAL(COMM. & INDUS.) a 3 Annual Annual - Annual3 % a a Sales Increase Increase Sales Increase Increase Sales3 Increase Increase
1969 5,107 7 ,954 13 ,061 478 10 . 3% 727 10 .1% 1,205 10 . 2% 1968 4,629 7 ,227 11 ,856 507 12. 3% 525 7 .8% 1 ,032 9.5% 1967 4,122 6,702 10 ,824 408 11.0% 564 9 .2% 972 9 .9% 1966 3,714 6,138 9,852 423 12.9% 705 13.0% 1 ,128 12.9% 1965 3,291 5 ,433 8 ,724
Average Annual Percentage Increase 1965-1969 11.4% 10.0% 10.4%
Data from Ref. 8, pp. 176,177 aMillions of kilowatt-hours
131 TABLE 2 PROJECTED ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN MARYLAND 1960-2000'
1960 1970 1980 2000 No Per No Per Capita 1/2 1965- 1965-69 Capita 1/2 1965- 1965-69 Consump. 69 Rate Rate of Consump 69 Rate Rate of Inc . of Inc. Inc . Inc . of Inc. Inc . Commercial Electricity Consumption Population in Millions (Proj ected) 3.101 3.875 (4.679) (4.679) (4.679) (6.070) (6.070) (6.070) Per Capita Electricity b 1: b b Consumption in KWHR 488 1,470 1 ,470 2,140 3 ,640 1 ,470 3,640 25,200 Electricity Consumption (Millions of KWHR) 1 ,517 5 ,699* 6,890 10,046 17 ,079 8 ,940 31 ,024 153 ,375 Industrial Electricity Consumption Mgf. Employment (Pro- j ected) 264,250 (278,290) (288,450) (288,450) (288,450) Elec. Consumption per b b Mgf. Emp.(KWHR) 15,600 28,600 28 ,600 47,000 78 ,500 Elec. Consumption (Millions of KWHR) 4 ,114 7 ,954a 8 ,260 13,600 22 ,693 36,095 152,671 Total Electricity Consumption Total Electricity Consumption in Md. 13,653 15 ,150 23 ,646 39 ,772 67 ,119 306 ,046 (Millions of KWHR) 5,631 c 22 ,811( 38 ,686c 62 ,872c 307 ,495 aprojected on basis of 1965-69 average annual rate of increase. bDerived from electricity consumption and population projections. cProjected on basis of total commercial and industrial electric sales.
c. The development of new elec- of new dwelling units and commercial estab- tricity-using appliances and the lishments which are heated by electricity. steadily broadening use of air con- Also many older dwelling units have been ditioners are major factors in recent converted to electric heat. This trend will increases in per capita consumption help reduce peak winter gas space heating of electricity. These forces have by loads, but will increase electricity demands no means "played themselves out" and e. An expanding economy also results they will contribute to future in- in increasing electricity demands. Indus- creases in electricity demand. trial electricity consumption in Maryland d. Trade-offs between gas and almost doubled in the 1960-70 decade. The electricity use have been promoted average annual rate of increase in the years by utility companies. Notable among 1965-69 (years of slow economic growth) was these are increases in the proportion 10%. Even if the future annual rate of
132 increase in industrial electricity con- no heat is lost through a stack as is sumption is one-half the 1965-69 aver- the case with a fossil fueled plant."(Ref•6) age, industrial electricity consumption m Maryland is likely to double by 1980, Thus, the technological shift to nuclear and double again by the year 2000. electrical power generation can be ex- pected to increase problems of thermal f. Changes in industrial produc- waste discharges -- at least in the short tion methods, rather than increases in run . industrial employment will be the most salient factor in future industrial i. Trends toward larger electric power plants (fossil fuel and nuclear) electricity sales. Between 1960 and will increase problems of thermal waste 1970, the annual industrial electricity consumption attributable to each manu- discharges by concentrating heat dis- charges in a few limited areas. Maximum facturing employee almost doubled -- plant capacities have doubled since 1960 from 15,600 kilowatt-hours in 1960 to and will double again by 1980. 28,600 kilowatt-hours in 1970. Thus, even though total manufacturing employ- j. The spread of urbanization in ment is expected to remain nearly static, the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan re- industrial electricity demand will in- gion will make it increasingly difficult crease rapidly. to find non-urban power plant sites ac- cessible to the major areas of demand. g. The marketing practices of k. Increasing use of the Bay for utility companies have the objective of waste disposal, commercial fishing, increasing electricity consumption. recreation and sport fishing, etc. may The 1969 Annual Report of the Phila- conflict with increased use of Bay waters delphia Electric Company says, "Sales for thermal heat discharges. and revenue continued healthy growth patterns during 1969, with each ser- vice -- electric, gas and steam -- 2 . 2 Forces Tending to Reduce Problems of Thermal Waste Discharges posting gains...Each service benefited from stepped-up marketing efforts, which a. Policies designed to reverse the resulted in the addition of new cus- sharp increase in per capita electricity demands and, especially, policies to re- tomers and greater usage per customer... duce peak electricity demands in summer Expanded and refined market research months will be necessary to slow the rates supports the Company's full range of of increase in electricity consumption sales effort -- market planning, ad- and keep problems of thermal waste dis- vertising, selling and promotion. To charges to manageable proportions. His- insure greatest profit return, efforts torically, electric companies have en- are concentrated on increasing off-peak use of both electricity and gas."(Ref-5) couraged increased use of electrical power. However, faced with extreme dif- h. Changes in electricity genera- ficulties in supplying the demands gener- tion technology will result in sharply ated and with increasing possibilities increasing proportions of total elec- of "brown-outs" during summer months, some tric output being produced by nuclear electric companies in the largest metro- plants. Nuclear power has signifi- politan areas are showing signs of taking cant advantages over fossil fuel the opposite tack. Public education pro- plants. However, "a nuclear plant grams or, more effectively, pricing today discharges about 50% more heat policies, could be used to achieve "de- to a water body than a comparable sized mand-side" objectives. fossil fueled plant because the reac- b. Expected improvements in nuclear tors must be operated at lower tempera- power plant technology will reduce the tures (lower efficiency) and because difference in the amount of heat discharged
133 to estuarine waters by comparable sized the point of discharge. This affords the fossil fuel and nuclelr plants (see 1.2. opportunity for creative thxnking to offer fossil tue± ana F ^ methods for dispersion. These methods " a OV Relatively little can probably could include spray irrigation of the be done directly at the state or Bay level heated water to lengthen the useable ag- to accelerate the technological develop- ricultural growing season or lagoomng ments necessary to increase the efficien- of waters to increase areawxde recreation "of nuc"« fueled electric power gen- opportunities, enhance artifical ground- eration and transmission. However, the water recharge, or provide emergency water development and utilization of such im- supply for domestic/industrial use or proved technology can be greatly encour- firefigh^ ;«ort contribute aaPd and stimulated by strongly drafted g. Researcn wnxt-u wx ^nd stringently enforced legislative and to improved ability to predict the physic- admini^ra'verequirements for minimiza- al, chemical and biological effects and tion of the environmental impact of the social and economic consequences of t i r the use of tidewaters of Virginia and thermal wastes application Maryland for cooling thermal-electric
of non-steam cycle electrical power power plants...will provide a more adequate generation technology is a long-run. pos- basis for de cisionj'^^J6^^^^^^ sibility for reducing the thermal dis- location, ^esign^size) and operation charqe problem. Magnetohydrodynamic power plants. generation, fuel cells, electrogas dynam- The Governors of Maryland and Ic Engines and direct electrical gener- Virginia have established two groups to ation from fusion reaction are types of consider the use of the Chesapeake Bay non-steam cycle generation that are being and its tidal tributaries for cooling ° .. d (Ref 6) thermal-electric power plants. One of S " a". Better transmission technology these is a sponsoring group called the mav make it economically possible to lo- "Committee on Power Plants and the Envir P 8 Tatenuclfar power PlanL farther away onment " It i-^f".^^?^^^; ^n- from major areas of demand (perhaps on Federal agencies. States , ^^ries, con the ocean) thus easing the problem of servation groups ^tion leagues and other site selection and diverting a portion of Bay resource user interests. The secona thermal waste discharge to other waters. group includes scientists and engineers thermal waste disc g ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ..Chesapeake Bay Cooling advantages over estuarine areas such as Water Studies Group." This group will thrchesapeake Bay in quantity of water plan and coordinate research on the envir- a^ailari^ffr coding ^urposel and in the onmental effects and the socia and econ- raoid mixing of the thermal wastes dis- omic consequences of the use of the tiae barges However, many of the adverse waters for cooling thermal-electric power efJec" of thermal additions mentioned plants. The information developed will above leg , effects on residential areas) provide a more adequate basis for decisions ^ui: ^^ appreciably reduced on the --respect to the location,de sign, size Maryland-De aware coa operaThe ^^P^^ committee t charge^-inTquacilture, agriculture, and Chesapeake Bay Cooling Wate r ^tudies Group r^d i^pilid"'^^1" " rthfnature^f t^rproblem of power plant develop d and app ied. approaches siting and design as well as *.summary of to the reduction of problems of thermal environmental influences associated with additions to Bay waters relate to cooling cooling "^er^. ^search needed techniques and techniques of mixing at m outlining
134 to arrive at solutions, the Committee double total electricity consumption every says, "In essence, a decision maker inter- six to seven years. Part of the increase ested in assessing the values affected is attributable to a growing population by the use of varying amounts of water and economy, but most is attributable to for cooling of power plants requires four increasing rates of consumption per cap- inter-related pieces of information. ita and per employee. First, for a given plant capacity at a Extension of recent rates of in- given site one must be able to predict crease in electricity consumption in the physical distribution of the temper- Maryland creates a foreboding future ature field in the adjacent water body. outlook. Given current^ relationships Second, from the known temperature dis- between installed capacity for generat- tribution one must then predict or estim- ing electricity, electric power produc- ate the effects of the new temperature tion, and electricity consumption, distribution on the biota subject to it. seven power plants of the size of the These biota include organisms which new Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant (which actually pass through the cooling system itself will not be completed until 1974) as well as those which reside or pass would be necessary to meet the additional through the region affected by the new demands in 1980. And seventy-three temperature field at some time during 1,600,000 kilowatt plants would be their life cycle. Third, in weighing needed to meet the additional demands in the virtues and drawbacks of specific the year 2000. Since population projec- sites as well as the alternatives, tions indicate that over 80% of the values, either in monetary or other terms, State's population will continue to be must be assigned to the elements affected. concentrated in the Baltimore and Wash- Fourth, given an understanding of the ington Metropolitan Areas, it is likely physical system and the biological impact, that most of the thermal waste discharge and with estimates of the values affected, from additional power plants would im- it becomes possible to compare the alter- pinge directly or indirectly upon the native technologies and to make trade- Bay. The environmental damage and offs between such factors as the magnitude the extent of conflict with other Bay of the temperature rise, the volume of uses from such an increase in thermal water diverted, and the area utilized for waste discharges is incalculable. dispersion of the heat. Then with a know- On the basis of the analysis ledge of effects on the air and land en- described above, it seems clear that vironment, it becomes possible to consid- present rates of increase in electricity er other alternatives, such as those in- consumption in Maryland must be reduced. volving the use of direct dispersion to Even if recent rates of increase are the air through cooling towers. halved (a change which would require "Any comprehensive research en- significant shifts in policy emphasis) deavor must eventually deal with each of three power plants of the size of the above four elements. It is clear, Calvert Cliffs would be needed to meet however, that the present level of know- additional demands by the year 1980 and ledge of each is markedly different and fourteen plants would be needed to meet hence an initial set of investigations additional demands for consumption in must take cognizance not only of the the year 2000. Given present approaches necessity of understanding each facet, in the supply of electric power -- i.e., but of the current state of the art."(Ref.l ) in the location, design, size and operation of power plants — even 2.3 Summary -- Future Outlook drastically reduced rates of increase in The consumption of electric power electricity consumption could cause ma- in Maryland is growing at a rate that will jor environmental damage and extensive
135 conflicts with other Bay uses. tude and time pattern of energy generated by various units. d. "Estimate the gross cooling loads on the basis of heat rates, ef- ficiencies, and sizes of different units. Thermal Waste Discharge: Goals, Objectives, These will be the thermal loads dis- Standards, Policies charged to the water courses assuming a
3.1 Accommodate Thermal Waste Pis- once-through cooling system. _prmal charge by Use of the Bay e. "Determine the impact of thermal The location and size of the Bay discharges on water quality in the effects makes it a logical source of cool of the resulting spacial and temporal water and outlet for discharge of patterns of water quality on the uses of waste heat for industrial, and partic- water (some of the effects may be nega- ularly electric energy generation. tive and some positive). At its present stage of technology, f- "When sizeable external costs nuclear fission reactors for energy are imposed by thermal discharges (or generation are most economic with such when specific stream standards are not heat sinks. The environmental impact met) calculate the cost of alternative of plants on the Bay (one in construe- methods for reducing or offsetting thermal tion and two more planned) is of course discharges — as by recycling or pro- significant. The goal of providing vision of additional cooling water in the region's energy requirements thus stream or some combination of the two trie Leyj-uii = yjr i _ "QpTect the combination which collides with Bay goals for living 9- Select tne comcin resources, wetlands, water quality and minimizes the present value of total recreation. It is generally in accord costs. Recompute the power system costs with or neutral to goals for waterfront under the new costs of cooling water to see if a shift in the mix or location industry and others, of generating units might result. 3 2 Obiectives h- "Explore the marginal cost as- Objectives for thermal waste dis- pects of alternatives in reducing en- charge by use of the Bay can be sum- vironmental impacts and examine the pos- 9 , y sible influence that different charges ^^a/pr^idrilectric energy in for service might have on the manner in response to population and industrial which the Bay is used for cooling, needs as economically as possible, taking into account the full possibil- "Ideally, if *•a «d ^^ "" ities of technological change and in- lations (can) be established as well as novation, and using the Bay. 'values' in the environment one (can) At the level of objectives, "needs" presumably develop a model which would and "economic possibilities" can be take into account both size and number translated into more specific mean- of plants needed, and m turn their loca tion in relation to these environmental ings . ,R f -I \ b. "Estimate the load demand as values. VKer.i; determined by the economic base of 3 3 the "g^ costs of alterna_ " lajor'research is underway to de- tive combinations of generating units velop standards in at least three areas to meet this demand. The result of related to use of Bay waters for thermal . , . f <_, wa^t-p discharge. They can be summarized this step is a. determination of the c^n^rds for technology, for environ- location, type, efficiency, and magm- as standards for teenno yy
136 mental matrices and interactions with the biosphere, and for social and economic implications.
3.4 Policies Policies involving the way in which each of the above factors or standards are weighted in an interaction model are now being developed. These should produce a method for translating all objective functions into a unified social value system by :which implica- tions of choice and tradeoffs can be prepared for use in the decision pro- cess. Methods considered include a linear programming of the objective functions with extremes of maximizing one or another: weighting objective functions differentially and attempting optimization; setting minimum standards (or levels of achievement) for objective functions and "minimaxing" or 'featisfic- ing" to use the language of the eco- nometricians. Until such a model is available, policies for electric energy production tend to be counterproductive by pitting the private against the public sector.
137 Footnotes References
1. This statement of the problem 1. "Report on Research Activities and emphasizes the demand for electrical Proposals", The Steering Committee of the energy by a growing population and Chesapeake Bay Cooling Water Studies economy. A statement which focuses on Group, September 3, 1970, (p.2; p.6,7; the "supply-side" would focus on the p. 20) . location, design, size and operation of power plants. 2. "A Treatise on the Proposed Cal- vert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant", The 2. Several research projects suggest- Chesapeake Bay Foundation, June, 1969. ed by the Steering Committee of the Cool- ing Water Studies Group (CWSG) focus on 3. "Open Space and Outdoor Recreation these aspects of the problem. (Ref.l, in Maryland", Maryland State Planning Appendix Sections B-l and B-3). Department and Maryland Department of Forests and Parks, 1969, (p.55). 3. Several research projects suggest- ed by the CWSG focus on the ecological 4. "The Atom, Electricity and You", effects of power plants. (Ref. 1). Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.
4. See evaluation framework suggest- 5. "1969 Annual Report", Philadelphia ed by CWSG (Ref.l, Appendix Section Electric Company, (p.6,8). B-2-a). 6. "Coastal and Estuarine Areas", 5. See research projects suggest- Appendix U, NAR Water Resources Study, ed by CWSG (Ref. 1). (p.95; p.100).
6. The latest year for which data are 7. Diamond, H.L., "Beneficial Uses of available is 1967 (Ref.8, p.177). Thermal Discharges", Catalyst, Vol. 1, No. 4.
8. Maryland Statistical Abstract, State of Maryland, Department of Economic Development, 1970.
9. Power Plant Siting Bill, Maryland Senate Bill 540, 1971, (new Sections 763-768 of Article 66C of the Annotated Code of Maryland).
138 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS
H. MARINE TRANSPORTATION 140
1. Marine Transportation Problems 140 1. 1 Nature of the Problem JL40 1. 2 Major Causes 140 1.3 Location of the Problem ^^-i Plate 19: Major Rail and Waterways 142 1.4 Time Characteristics 243 1.5 Parties Affected -^43
2. Future Dimensions of Marine Transportation Problems 143 2. 1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem ^44 Figure 1: Vessel Traffic Tonnage and Annual Rates of Change: Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 1960-1969 144 Figure 2: Make-up of Vessel Traffic Volume: Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 1969 ^45 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 245 2. 3 Summary - Future Outlook 24-7
3. Marine Transportation Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 143 3 • 1 Goal 148 3.2 Objectives 2.48 3.3 Standards -.^g 3.4 Policies 14g
139 H Marine Transportation ing the Baltimore Harbor -- can be indirectly attributed to characteris- tics of height and depth necessary to i Marine Transportation Problems accommodate the needs of marine trans- portation . The problem is how to best enhance Continual improvement and main- and increase marine transportation in tenance of marine transportation the Bay as a vital element in the re- facilities are needed in order to gion's economic vitality. maintain the position of Chesapeake Bay ports (particularly the Port of 1. 1 Nature of the Problem Baltimore) vis a vis national and Commercial marine transportation international competition. But these is of vital importance to Maryland's efforts produce a variety of ecological economy. A recent study by the Mary- effects. Noxious dredge spoils can land Port Authority measured the rela- smother or poison marine life. The tionship with regard to the Port of Chesapeake and Delaware Canal widening Baltimore. (Ref.l) 12% of Maryland's 1966 will affect salinity levels in the gross state product is attributable to upper Bay.(Ref*3) The development of the Port. The survey showed that the deep-water ports -- such as that pro- industrial, commercial, and transporta- posed at Crisfield -- may have un- tion complex making up the Port of desirable ecological ef f ects . ' Re:^ • 4 ' Baltimore annually pours some $626.9 Simply stated, the Bay problem with million into Maryland's economy while regard to marine transportation is to directly providing jobs for 62,138 maintain and increase the Bay's Marylanders. "This primary impact competitive position with regard to generates, in turn, a secondary impact marine transportation with a minimum of almost equal magnitude." The of undesirable ecological side-effects. survey further says, "The total of the primary and secondary impact of the 1.2 Major Causes Port of Baltimore is estimated at $1.56 a. One cause of Bay prob billion, which represents 11.7% of the with regard to mar ine transpor Maryland gross State product." ^Re^- 2) the sheer volume o f commercial Though marine transportation uses in terms of visits and tonnage consume only a very small portion of the trends of commerci al shipping total Bay shoreline, the facilities gional economic ob jectives ind directly related to marine transportation that volumes will increase in make a major imprint on the Bay. future. Increasin g volumes of These include shipping channels and cial shipping gene rate needs f special facilities (e.g., the Chesa- ment and moderniza tion of port peake and Delaware Canal) extending supporting land-ba sed faciliti the channels, harbors, special loading CD cjpaased traffic in confined po and unloading facilities and port- areas and in "shTpp ing channels related storage areas. In addition, problems of traffi c control, p significant portions of the cost of -^ bilities of coll is ions and res other major infrastructure facilities ~~ \2^) "ecological disast ers" from sp e.g., the Bay Bridge, the Norfolk and the amount of Bay pollutioi Bridge-Tunnel, the Baltimore Harbor (&} normal ship operat ions . Tunnel, the proposed water main cross- v--^ b. Another c ause of Bay problems related to marine transportation is the mercial shipping? What effects would changing technology of commercial ship- possible losses in Chesapeake Bay's ping. The advent of the containership competitive advantage with regard to in recent years and the considerable certain categories of commercial ship- economies in general cargo handling ping have on Maryland's economy? ([(through the use of containerization c A third cause of Bay problems *have contributed to the need to with regard to marine transportation is modernize port facilities. The de- that the commercial shipping volume velopment of shallow draft r'oast:PrQ trends and technological changes dis- Have potential for dispersing more com- cussed above will impinge upon the mercial shipping activity to smaller special estuarine ecology of the Chesa- ports on tne Eastern and Western peake Bay. The ecological consequences Shores; there are both rprr-irm^i develop- of dredging, spoil disposal, ship ment benefits and ecological dangers sewage, and commercial shipping accidents in the possibility. are greatly magnified when they occur in Perhaps the most significant the shallow estuarine waters with its technological change in marine trans- slow flushing action and many ecological- portation with regard to Bay problems, ly significant wetlands and marshes.1 however, is the development of large- sized deep-draft bulk carriers. These 1.3 Location vessels have considerable shipping The location of marine transports cost advantages for bulk products such tion facilities -- major shipping W&*~) as petroleum, ore, coal, etc. But channels, ports, dredging and spoil the channel depths required to accom- tWiP deposit areas -- are mapp^sg"! This' has tAA7>*l modate them are greater than Chesapeake been doftS St & regional scale (j3ee /-- U Bay harbors and shipping channels Plate 19 Major Rail and Waterways)..^ presently provide. Depths required for Maps describing the marine transporta- future dry bulk carriers serving the tion facilities in Baltimore Harbor Atlantic Seaboard may range from 42-57 in greater detail have been developed t"eet; cnannel depths required for future Re 6 by the Maryland Port Authority.^ f• ) tanKers may rarige trom h,'l-l2 feet. (Ref .5) There are a number of issues with ^Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake regard to the location of future marine and Delaware Canal are presently being transportation activity in the Chesa- deepened to 45 feet. However, any peake Bay. One of these relates to future deepemngs will encounter the amount and significance of future actual physical obstacles (e.g., the commercial shipping which will be Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and the pro- oriented to Chesapeake Bay ports other posed Harbor-crossing and water main, than the Port of Baltimore. A number of if they are not bridged) as well as technological development possibilities obstacles in the form of detrimental support the idea that there may be a ecological effects. An ultimate pos- significant increase in commercial ship- sible depth for Chesapeake Bay shipping ping activity at smaller Bay ports. How- channels and harbors is set by the 57 ever, countervailing trends towards foot depth of the Bridge-Tunnel at fewer and larger ports indicate that the mouth of the Bay. In this context, commercial shipping activity at the policy questions facing Bay manage- Port of Baltimore will continue to in- ment can be posed in the following crease whatever happens at smaller form: How effective would possible ports and that Baltimore will remain Chesapeake Bay channel deepenings be the overwhelmingly dominant commercial in attracting future deep-draft com- port on the Chesapeake Bay.
141 PLATE 19: Major Rail and Waterways 'DELAWARE x, .PENNSYLVANIA : I g ^ MARYLAND Another issue with regard to shipping activity. A recent study of the location of future marine trans- the economic impact of the Port of portation activity relates to the port Baltimore (Ref•1'indicates that some area itself. Obsolescence of aging or 62,000 jobs are directly related and technologically out-moded port fa- approximately 155,000 jobs are indirect- cilities, competing recreation, hous- ly related to the Port of Baltimore. ing and amenity uses for waterfront Though similarly detailed studies for land in inlying urban locations, and other Chesapeake Bay ports are not changing industrial location and land available, it can be assumed that they requirements have resulted in the have analogous impacts on employment "migration" of the marine transporta- in their regions. tion facilities of the Port of Balti- Another major category of affect- more southeast towards the mouth of ed parties is the industries dependent the Patapsco River (see discussion of on goods delivered by marine transporta- problems relating to Waterfront In- tion. The transportation component of dustry ) . the cost of inputs to their manufacturing processes affect these industries compe- titive position in national and inter- national trade. The effectiveness of the Chesapeake Bay's response to marine transportation trends will affect indus- i-w ^ ^wco liu u puat; ill trial expansion and locational decisions. / of the time characteristics impacting A third category of parties af- t J 6.\S-'t marine transportation in other Atlantic fected is Maryland's commercial fishing Wl fj Seaboard areas do not affect commercial industry. Dredging and spoil dispo shipping in the Chesapeake Bay. activities related to commercial shijj The major time characteristics ping have eliminated some valuable shell' affecting marine transportation in the "fish beds and contaminated others. A/'Vl Chesapeake Bay relate to technological Marine life is also affected by changes in marine transportation, marine transportation -- most dramatical trends in the degree of economic ly by the practice of using wetlands asfli^^M^ dependence of the Maryland economy spoil disposal areas. ^L -iX^*"" on various categories of commercial-' - Recreational users of the Bay /^^ ./TA^JV^- shipping, patt^i-nc «* « = shipping, patterns of Bay management are also affected by marine transporta- decisions resp decisions responding"-onding to these changeschange tion activity. The most dramatic cir- and trends. Projections of marine cumstance is the damaging of beaches by transportation activity on the oil spills. Also to be considered are yChesapeake Bay thus require considera- the dangers commercial shipping poses tion of both "independent" and "policy" recreational boaters and the preemp- variables. The deepening of the Chesa- :ion_of^ certain waterfront areas from ~UUI} peake and Delaware Canal puts Baltimore as urban lenity areas significantly closer to many foreign ports than its competitor Norfolk to the south. 2 Future Dimensions of Marine 1•5 Parties Affected Transportation Problems Parties affected by problems re- The Bay management problem with lating to marine transportation include regard to marine transportation is to persons whose jobs are directly or maintain and increase the Bay's compe- indirectly dependent on commercial titive position with regard to marine
143 transportation with a minimum of un- Harbor in 1969, freight traffic i desirable ecological side-effects. Nanticoke and Wicomico Rivers has creased substantially in the past 2 . 1 Forces Tending to Increase the decade. (Ref.7) Increasing marine shipping Problem a. Increases in the volume of activity in existing shipping channel freight traffic in the Bay, in and of would increase the likelihood of acci itself, would not necessarily increase dents, which can result in major or the undesirable ecological side-effects minor ecological damage depending on associated with channel dredging. It the cargo of the vessels involved might simply mean more ships using and the location of the accident. existing shipping channels. Increasing Also, increasing marine traffic volumes of marine shipping to ports in the Bay would likely lead to in- other than the Port of Baltimore creasing pollution from normal ship (whether this resulted from the diver- operations. 7 sion of some of the traffic now oriented Vessel tra'ffic in the Baltimore to the Port of Baltimore, or from the Harbor'and Channels has followed a attraction to other Bay ports of somewhat erratic course over the past activity which would otherwise not decade.(See Figure I.) There were come to the Bay region) would result in significant total tonnage increases from the need for new shipping channels 1961 to 1964, and significant declines and the associated problems of spoil from 1964 to 1967. Perhaps most dredging. (Though the total freight significant for the future, however, traffic in "other" Maryland Bay ports are the increases in freight traffic was only 3.5% of that in Baltimore since 1969 -- since the modernization
FIGURE 1; Vessel Traffic Tonnag e and Annual Rates of Change: Baltimore Harder and Channels Passenger Mil lion tons ( ( LU^t 250 50 r 240 4 9 / 1 230 48 \ \ / 220 4 7 \ \8.1% \ ( + 11. / 210 4 6 \ _ — — 200 4 5 \ / i— •0.8% 190 4 4 \ \ / \ ^ - - ^^^ 180 4 ! 1 / : 4 2 \ > ^% + 3 .4% 170 160 41 \ T12 9* ' / L2.6^ / s
144 (4( '^^^^V \
of Baltimore s Port facilitiesVxW will onomy. "The predominant factor in be reflectei in furth^-r n'r-creases In vessel traffic. ' our industrial society's increased en vironmental degradation is neither b. As significant as the total population nor affluence, but the in- volume of commercial shipping is the creased environmental impact per unit make-up of freight traffic in the Bay. of production due to technological (See Figure 2) Major portions of the total tonnage are composed of iron changes...With very few exceptions... the rapidly growing productive activi ore and coal. However, smaller ton- ties nages of crude petroleum (567,000 have intense environmental impacts wh ich are markedly greater than the impacts tons) chemicals (1,236,000 tons) and disti a of the activities which they displace ll te fuel oil (4,534,000 ..0 tons)(Ref.7) have greater potential Events outside the Maryland Bay region (such as Delaware's new law for causing ecological damage if dis- prohibiting heavy industry along the charged directly (by accident) or in- directly into the Bay. Delaware Bay coastline as well as off shore facilities for transferring bulk carg Though data on the trends in the oes ) could have the effect of increasing make-up of freight traffic in the Bay is the volumes of petroleum, petroleum p not readily available, it is likely ro- ducts, chemicals, and other freight that types which have greater potential with potentially dangerous environmen ecological consequences (petroleum and tal effects in Maryland Bay freight traff petroleum refining products, chem- ic. This will increase the ecological icals, etc.) are increasing as a proportion of the total. m this, dangers in marine accidents, accident al spills and leakage. marine shipping in the Bay reflects c. The changing technology of the needs of the Maryland metropolitan economy and trends in the national marine transportation includes forces which will tend to increase the probl era FIGURE 2: Make-up of Vessel Traffic Volume i Baltimore Harbor and Channels 1960 01 Agricultural Products 742,000 ST 08 Forestry Products (Except Lumber) a 09 Fisheries Products 100,000 ST 10 Metals (Iron Ore) 6,000 ST JUeulJ- 11 Anthracite Mining Products 111,436,000 ST (Coal and L ignite) 13 Crude Petroleum 10,708,000 ST 567,000 ST 14 Non-Metallic Mining Products (Limestone, Salt) 19 Ordnance 1,429,000 ST 20 Food and Kindred Products 1,000 ST (Sugar, Grains) 21 Tobacco Products 1,641,000 ST 22 Textile Mill Products 3,000 ST 23 Apparel 29,000 ST 24 Lumber and Wood Products 5,000 ST 25 Furniture 430,000 ST 26 Paper and Allied Products 12,000 ST 27 Printed Matter 66 , 000 ST 7,000 ST 2 8 Chemicals (Sulphuric Acid, Fertilizer, Basic Chemicals, Crude Tar, Oil ZI 29 Petroleum Refining 1,236,000 ST /(Distillatee Fuel Oil) 4,534,000 ST jrvd*>dh\cH ^fu^L^U. f. increasing public awareness of of deleterious ecological side-effects potential environmental damages associated in marine transportation activity. Fore- with marine transportation and higher most among these is the increase in public objectives with regard to ecologic- tllbi bl^'g-and draft of ships. These al side-effects of marine transportation ships' require deeper channels ^hich are forces which will tend to increase involves more extensive dredging of the the problem as stated above. Increas Bay bottom and greater ecological prob- inq public awareness is in part due to lems associated'with dredging spoil research on the environmental consequences disposal. Also, the difficulties of of oil spills (See Section II.E.) and maneuvering large ships in confined in part due to media accounts of the harbor areas may lead to more marine consequences of marine transportation ac- accidents with serious ecological conse- cidents elsewhere. Higher public objec- quences . tives are in part attributable to the d. The scarcity of natural deep increasing use of the Bay for recreation, water port potential along the Bay and leisure and aesthetic purposes. the general shallowness of Bay waters makes channel dredging a prerequisite 2 2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem for marine transportation in the Bay. IT'Marine traffic control techniques Spoil disposal from channel dredging and regulations can reduce the likelihood can have environmental consequences of commercial shipping accidents and of which range from limited to extensive water pollution from ship operations such depending on the location and manner as bilge cleanout and sewerage disposal, of disposal and the amount of toxic b Growth of container shipment as substances in the spoil material. a proportT^T^f total freight volume would Maryland's economy, however, depends to achieve economic goals without threaten- a significant degree on marine trans- a.f^A^ />K MCK/ 1 ^ CL 148 ^x "Zu/vjWk jfcv-*v^J^ Mw\ so -tunnel- There are more flexible limits on vessel traffic set by the number and size of shipping channels and the capa- city of port facilities. within these constraints, how much spoil would have to be dredged and disposed of at what costs (given present approaches to these operations?) Are there market con- straints on commercial shipping activity? - Given specified marine trans- portation technologies, and given the present importance of deep-water ports m Maryland's economy, what environ- mental price will have to be paid to achieve current economic projections and aspirations? (The latter would have to be reformulated so as to lend themselves to such a policy analysis.). - Given specified marine trans- portation technologies but reduced de- pendence of the State economy on deep- water ports (due to changing make-up of the State economy or to dominance of other freight shipment modes) to what ex- tent could the State's economic projec- tions and aspirations be achieved? - Given radically different marine transportation technologies and/or spoil disposal methods and the current im- portance of port facilities in the Mary- land economy, what would the economic and environmental tradeoffs be' - Etc. 149 References Footnotes 1. s.J. Hille and J.E. Suelflow, "The 1 Recent research at the Woods Hole Economic Impact of the Port of Baltimore Oceanographic Institution indicates that the ecological consequences of small day- on Maryland", June, 1969. to-day oil spills are much greater and 2. "A Billion Dollar Plus Port" - A more persistent than previously thought. review of highlights of the study "The See "Water Pollution" (Section II-E Economic Impact of the Port of Baltimore above) for a more detailed discussion on Maryland", undated. and citation. 3. Statements by Drs. D.W. Prichard 2. Comments by Barry Commoner, in- and Eugene Cronin to the Committee on cluded in a discussion of the economics Public Works, Congress of the U.S. on of environmental improvement (Ref.8). "The Impacts of the Enlargement of the 3. The average annual rate of increase Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on the Ecology of the Chesapeake Bay". in freight traffic in Baltimore Harbor and channels between the years 1967 4. Maryland Department of State Plan- and 1969 was approximately 3.8% (Ref.7). ning, report on impact of the proposed industrial park at Crisfield. 5. North Atlantic Regional Water Re- sources Study, Appendix U, "Coastal and Estuarine Areas", p. 120. 6. Port of Baltimore Handbook, 1971- 72, pp.42-50). 7. Waterborne' Commerce of the U.S., Calendar year 1969, Part I, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, pp.120- 124; p. 120). 8. Conservation Foundation Letter, May, 1971. 9. Maryland Port Authority, CBIPC Materials 4:IV.G.l, "Transportation System -- Water", (pp. 5-11). 150 II. PROBLEMS AND GOAT.g WATER-RELATED OUTDOOR RECREATT ON 152 1. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation Problems 1.1 Nature of the Problem 152 1.2 Causes of the Problem ." .' 152 1.3 Location 153 153 1.4 0 Ti."^:.^;.^::!;:*:*.'**""""'"*'^"'^"' 155 1.5 Parties Affected ' 153 154 2. Future Dimensions of Water-Related Outdoor Recreation p M 2.1 Recreat Forces Tending to Increase the Problem ^n Problems 154 Table 1: J-no^io^pact of Recreati^ ' D^d " ink ' i^ekkit^e's ' '- ^ Table 2: Summary of Existing and 156 Table 3: Outdoor Recreation-Areas^^TO^^JS ^ ***" ^ Summary of the Surplus or Deficiency of'open"Sp^ce'and 157 2.2 Outdoor Recreation Areas - 1970, 2000 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 158 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook ... 159 159 3. water-Related outdoor Recreation Goals, Objectives, Standards, 3.1 Policies 160 3. 2 ObjectivesnK-;«„4.j . . . 160 3.3 Standards 160 3.4 Policies 161 161 151 I recreation may have had in the decision Water-Related Outdoor of industry to locate on or near the Chesapeake Bay. Lack of pertinent data Recreation must not be construed as an indicator of the importance of recreation to the 1 Water-Related Outdoor Recreation Problems economy of the Bay area. The amount of money spent in connection with The problem is how to preserve outdoor recreation and tourism is large areas for water-related outdoor and growing as demand for recreation recreation needs. continues to increase. As a result, the economic impact resulting from the 1. l Nature of the Problem development of outdoor recreation Increasing population, urban facilities in a given area is becoming ^ living densities, leisure time, a matter of more than passing interest. affluence, mobility and outdoor (Ref. 1) appreciation have resulted in greatly The relation between outdoor increased demands for outdoor recrea- recreation and environmental quality tion. The accoutrements and means of is a complex one. Intensive use of outdoor recreation, in fact, are a recreation areas can often result in major growth industry. damage of the very environmental quali- The Chesapeake Bay and its shore- ties that were the original attraction. line lend themselves to many forms of Also, different forms of outdoor recrea- outdoor recreation. The Bay proper and tion (e.g. active versus passive; its irregular shoreline provide oppor- boating versus fishing) can conflict tunities for boating of all kinds, with one another. particularly because of its many snug Outdoor recreation and open space harbors. The sandy beach areas and the planning is complicated by a diversity areas of good water quality provide a of types, needs and objectives. These resource for water-contact recreation - can be classified as follows IRet. t) -. swimming, water-skiing, etc. Certain - Needs in intensive urban areas species of aquatic life in the Bay and -- intensively developed outdoor recrea- their habitats provide opportunities tion facilities within urban areas; for sport fishing. Wetland areas used primarily by urban residents who harbor wild fowl and provide opportuni- seek quick and immediate access to ties for hunting. Natural scenic areas unique or infrequently savored recrea- in public ownership along the Bay shore tion facilities for a half or full day. provide opportunities for camping, - Needs in intensive transition- hiking, picnicking, etc. The aesthetic al areas -- less intensively developed qualities of the Bay and the Bay shore outdoor recreation areas that are provide a resource for various kinds of predominantly enjoyed by day users and passive recreation. weekend users from a two or three "Evaluation of recreation in County area and adjacent urban and terms of leisure and entertainment suburban developments. alone does not give a complete inter- - General outdoor recreation pretation of its total value to the areas -- extensive day, weekend, and State. Recreation must be judged, vacation use types, usually more also, on its role as an economic and remote than class-a types but rela- locational force. There are no figures tively accessible (15-35 miles) to available to indicate the importance centers of urban population. of bayside recreation to the economy - Natural environment areas -- of the Bay area or the State as a whole. areas which rely on the natural Also unknown is the influence which 152 environment to provide recreation activities for day, weekend, and water surface becomes a natural con- vacation use. straint at some point, but in the Bay the major constraint is the availability - Outstanding natural areas- of suitably located marina facilities unique and irreplaceable areas of high and the conflict between boating and scenic or scientific importance which other residential and recreational merit special protection and management to ensure preservation. uses. Swimming and other water contact sports are limited by the lack of - Primitive areas -- extensive, remote, wild and undeveloped areas. public access to the Bay shoreline and by conflicting waste disposal uses of - Historic and cultural areas -- the Bay. sites that signify the historic, tradi- tional or cultural heritage of the Nation, State or local area. 1 • 3 Location Bay problems with regard to !•2 Causes of the Problem outdoor recreation vary dramatically according to location. Some areas A major cause of problems (and opportunities) with regard to water- are the source of demands which must related recreation is increasing be satisfied elsewhere. The demands for weekend trips to the shore from demand. in the 30 years between 1940 and 1970, all the factors of recreation Baltimore and Washington are examples. demand have increased several-fold: 1) Other areas are points of conflict between outdoor recreation and other Maryland's population has increased 150%; automobile registration (and uses. Examples are the public beaches presumably mobility) has increased 300%; along the lower Patapsco River -- which total income in the State has increased' find themselves in conflict with ex- 500%; the number of leisure time days panding Baltimore Harbor activities -- has increased 400%. in combination, and the conflicts between boating and these factors have resulted in an residential uses along the Severn River. increase in public recreation usage of At still other locations, the problems 400%. Not all of this State-wide are developmental in nature -- which demand for outdoor recreation focuses actions to take in order to realize on the Bay or its tributaries, but much the outdoor recreational potential of of it does. the area. Janes Island State Park The other major cause of water- near Crisfield is an example. (See Plate 20 . ) related recreation problems relates 1 4 to the supply. While demand for recrea- - Time Characteristics tion as measured by public recreation The major time characteristic users increased 400% between 1940 and of outdoor recreation is seasonality. 1970, the capacity of State recreation The "seasons" for various types of facilities increased only about 150%.;L outdoor recreation vary, of course, The limitations on the resources avail- but the result is that facilities that able to meet the demands are to a are practically unused for much of the certain extent natural, but they also year are very heavily used during the arise from conflicting uses of the Bay in-season months. This dramatic peakin. and from constraints on development of of usage results in facilities either poorer in quality or fewer in number outdoor recreation facilities. The than would be the case if the same amount of wetland areas, for instance, demand were spread over a longer time constitutes a natural limitation of the period. Bay as a resource for hunting recrea- tion or boating, the sheer area of Also, jobs associated with outdoor recreation have built-in 153 transformed into high intensity unemployment for the off-season period. recreation areas and overused or Income from outdoor recreation employ- "spoiled". Prevention of this would ment does not provide a sufficient require degrees of control not now annual income and in declining rural envisioned. economies, supplementary off-season The portion of the economy which jobs are often not available. is directly related to outdoor recrea- A second major time characteris- tion is difficult to identify pre- tic of outdoor recreation relates to cisely — but it is considerable. It weekly patterns. Because a large includes firms engaged in pleasure boat proportion of the population's total building, repair and servicing, manufac- leisure time days comes on weekends, turers of other outdoor recreation much of the pressure on outdoor recrea- equipment, and many service operations: tion facilities and resources occurs motels, State regulatory officials, etc. in this time period. With the advent It also includes many jobs in construc- of the much-heralded four-day week, tion of vacation homes, highways and however, it is possible that the pattern facilities which are closely associated of day trips will not peak so sharply with outdoor recreation. These are on weekends. another category of party affected by decisions regarding the use of the Bay 1.5 Parties Affected for outdoor recreation. Among recreation users, there A final category of affected are several categories of affected party are the residents of areas along parties which deserve special mention. the Chesapeake Bay wl Lch have declining One of these are persons who have less economies (or major economic sectors mobility than the rest of the popula- which are declining) in combination tion -- including many residents of with significant long-range potential inner city areas. The great prepon- for outdoor recreation. These residents derance of outdoor recreation trips are potentially affected by Bay po_.cies are made by auto. Lack of access to which combine outdoor recreation, automobiles effectively limits access environmental and economic growth even to public outdoor recreation objectives. opportunities. Another category of affected party are citizens who must rely on 2 Future Dimensions of Water-Related public outdoor recreation opportunities. Outdoor Recreation Problems While an increasing portion of the population has access to private The Bay problem with regard to swimming pools, vacation homes, golf outdoor recreation is to increase the courses, etc., most outdoor recreation opportunity for a variety of outdoor demand focuses on publicly provided uses of the Bay while reducing potential facilities. conflicts with other Bay uses as well A third category of affected as the environmental damage caused by party is the portion of outdoor recre ation users themselves recreation users that does not lend itself to satisfaction in high inten- 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the sity recreation areas. Demand for Problem low intensity outdoor recreation a. Increases in population, experiences is sometimes so great ;ill result mo bility, and leisure time w that the few areas reserved for low in an increase in public recreation intensity outdoor recreation (e.g., usage in Maryland of 150% between Assateague Island) are sometimes 154 PLATE 20: Developed Recreation and Public Open Space .jg\ PENNSYLVANIA JfDEL AWARE •x > J B'/S MARYLAND f^ v • \ 1 \ 1 i V , ^ mtsu 'iSS Parks and Forests :J^'i-j Parks and Forests Municipal Parks and Forests Private Beach Public Beach Quasi-Public Camps N Natural Environment 1 Areas Public Hunting Areas Wildlife Reserves 1970 and the year 2000.1 Between Another view of the outdoor 1970 and the year 2000, the State's recreation demand picture relates population will increase by over 2.5 population, income and outdoor recre- million people, auto registration ation expenditures (see Table 1). (mobility) will increase by 160% and Per capita income in Maryland increased 1 leisure time days will double. All from $2343 to $3742 from 1960 to 1968. these factors will act to increase the (Ref. 3) Adjusting for inflation at demand for outdoor recreation oppor- 4%, this represents a real income gain tunities. The demands generated by per capita of over $500. Magnifying Maryland residents will be supplemented the effects of increases in income is by the rapidly increasing number of the high income elasticity of demand out-of-State residents seeking outdoor for recreation. For each dollar change recreation opportunities in Maryland. S OF RECREATION DEMAND AND EXPENDITURES: 1960-2000 TABLE 1: ECONOMIC IMP ACT Impact to Gross Recreational Economic Per Capita Rural Annual Expend. Recreation Expenditures Impact Maryland Income Away from Home Expend, in for Water- of Expend, Population From Md. Bay Based Recre- for Pur- Over 12 Yrs. on Vacations, Expend, or Outdoor Rec. Region (in ation (in poses of Old (Except Water- Water- a Trips , and Millions of Millions of W. Md.) c d Based Based Rec, Outings Dollars) Dollars) Rec. (in (in Millions millions £ of $)e of $) $ 83 $125 $ 63 1960 2,090,000 $103.7 $208. $147 $221 $110 1970 2,650,000 $139.0 $368 $618. $248 $372 $186 1980 3,220,000 $192.0 $384 $577 $288 1990 3,690,000 $260.0 $960 $700 $1050 $525 2000 4,090,000 $428.0 $1750 apopulation over 12 yrs. = 74% of Total Population (see Md. Statistical Abstract, b^603Expend. from ORRRC Report #19; assumes 1960-68 Rate of Increase in Per Capita income adjusted for inflation at 4%; assumes income elasticity of recreation at 1?5 (See NAR: Effects of Rec. Devel., Nov. 1969, p. 5) applied to real increases in income after 1960. j ^ ^ ^ Region residents cm actual dollars (See Note #2); assumes rec. expend. outside region rec expend, of outside residents in Md. Bay Region. >n basis of major purpose of trip (See NAR, Ibid., p. 10, d40% gross rec. expend.: eiiLiplier for rec-related expend.: $1.50 (NAR, Ibid., p. 14, 15) fAssuies 50% of Total Inc. increase spent in rural areas (NAR, Ibid., p. 17) 156 in income, expenditures on recreation participation wi 11 double, fishing will change $1.50 to $2.00. Assuming increase by 80%, hunting, camping and that population increases according water skiing wil 1 double.2 Much of to current projections and that real the outdoor recr eation demand repre- per capita income continues to increase sented by these state figures will at the 1960-68 rate, gross expenditures focus on the Bay itself or its for recreation in the Maryland Bay tributaries. Region may increase four times by the c. Rapid u rbanization on the year 2000 and half of the total will western shore of the Bay will consume be water-based recreation primarily much land that is suitable for outdoor associated with the Bay. recreation oppor tunities and will b. Participation in many outdoor drive up the cos t of land acquisition recreation activities for which the for outdoor recr eation. Thus, it will Bay provides a major resource will become increasin gly difficult to find increase rapidly between 1970 and 2000. and acquire the acreage needed. The Statewide, swimming will increase by Maryland Outdoor Recreation and Open 75%, picnicking by 65%, boating Space Plan indie ates (Table 2) that TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND NEEDED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS 1970-2000a (Ref. 2) Existing Acres Needed Acres b Planning Region 1970 1970 1975 1980 19 90 2000 West. Maryland 164,262 23,500 24,988 26,557 31,006 35,456 Baltimore 60,591 172,041 186,360 200,497 227,247 253 ,896 Surb. Washington 22,662 90,336 101,188 112,041 130,925 149,808 Southern Maryland 8,634 9,217 10,410 11,602 13 ,451 15,480 Eastern Shore 105,049 21,672 22,595 23,518 27,239 30,960 STATE TOTAL (in acres) 361,198 316,766 345,541 374,215 429,958 485,600 a1970 Source: Statewide inventory of existing open space and outdoor recreation areas, Urban Research & Development Corporation. Acres in private recreation are excluded. These tables quantify the surplus or deficiency of open space and outdoor recrea- tion areas in each of the five planning regions. They quickly indicate the disparity that now exists between the location of people and the location of outdoor recreation areas in Maryland. The numbers must be used carefully because neither out-of-state visitors nor users from other regions were considered in determining needed acres. These visitors will be included when the information is available. ^Derived by multiplying recommended Open Space S Outdoor Recreation State Standard (80 acres per 1000 persons) times projected population. 157 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF THE SURPLUS OR DEFICIENCY OF OPEN SPACE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS 1970-2000a (Ref. 2) Planning Acres of Open Space and Recreation Areasc Region Surplus Deficiency 1970 1975 1980 1990 2000_ Western Maryland 140,762 139,274 137,705 133,256 128,806 Baltimore 111,450 125,769 140,006 166,656 193,305 Suburban Washington 67,674 78,526 89,379 108,263 127,146 Southern Maryland 583 1,776 2,968 4,907 6,846 Eastern Shore 83,377 82,454 81,531 77,810 74,089 a1970 Source: Statewide inventory of existing open space and outdoor recreation areas. Urban Research & Development Corporation. Acres in private recreation are excluded. These tables quantify the surplus or deficiency of open space and outdoor recrea- tion areas in each of the five planning regions. They quickly indicate the disparity that now exists between the location of people and the location of outdoor recreation areas in Maryland. The numbers must be used carefully because neither out-of-state visitors nor users from other regions were considered in determining needed acres. These visitors will be included when the information is available. cDerived by comparing the existing acres of open space and outdoor recreation with the number of acres that are needed as shown in the above chart. by the year 2000, 254,000 additional region, which is too far away to be acres for public open space and outdoor of much help in reducing the current recreation will be needed in the deficiency in the urbanized areas. Baltimore Region, 150,000 acres in Because of the concentration of the Suburban Washington Region and urbanization and land price increases 15,000 acres in the Southern in shoreline areas, it may be Maryland Region. Table 3 points up especially difficult to acquire the the current Baltimore, Suburban water-related portion of total public Washington and Southern Maryland open space and outdoor recreation deficiency of 180,000 acres and the needs. current "excess" on the Eastern Shore d. The increasing use of the of 83,000 acres. The "excess" points Bay shoreline for private year-round up the low number of people and and vacation homes will impose a economic opportunity of the latter further constraint on water-related 158 recreation land supply. Other urban weekend peaks is a desirable strategy uses which benefit from a shoreline and a probable nation-wide trend, location -- industries, powerplants, but one over which State agencies etc. -- will increasingly constrain have limited direct control. the supply of available water-related Thus, the major approach to recreation land. reduction of Bay outdoor recreation 3 e. The increase of incompatible problems is from the supply-side: water uses, especially the use of through increasing the number and the Bay for solid and liquid waste variety of outdoor recreation disposal, will constrain the use of opportunities along the Bay and through the Bay for water-related recreation land, reducing conflicts with other Bay uses (e.g., waste disposal, waterfront 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the industry) which can reduce the value Problem of existing facilities. a. One possible approach to the b. An increasing awareness of reduction of Bay problems with regard the economic return potential of to outdoor recreation is from the outdoor recreation in general and demand side. Attempts can be made to water-related recreation in particular modify burgeoning outdoor recreation should generate more political and demand by reducing total demand per economic pressure to acquire the capita, diverting demand from major acreage needed for water-related present areas of focus (closely related recreation opportunities and to resolve to supply-side approaches) or spreading conflicts with incompatible Bay uses. demand over longer time periods. c. New methods of supplying It is doubtful whether policies recreation and -- such as the incor- to reduce per capita outdoor recrea- poration of recreation and open space tion demands would be desirable or opportunities in land development effective. In any case, Maryland State processes (e.g., PUD) or the joint use policies are implicitly oriented of industrial, institutional or power toward increasing outdoor recreation plant sites for outdoor recreation -- demand rather than reducing it. may ease problems of supplying water- Economic development policies to related recreation land. increase and broaden affluence and d. A variety of recreational mobility and to decrease congestion facility management approaches can (e.g., the second span crossing the be employed to enable existing water- Chesapeake Bay) will loosen constraints related recreation areas to meet more on latent outdoor recreation demand. total demand without sacrificing the Policies to divert demand from quality of the recreation experience. major areas of present focus could actually increase Chesapeake Bay prob- 2.3 Summary -- Future Outlook lems with regard to outdoor recreation. Expenditures associated with This is because a major focus of trips for which water-related present outdoor recreation demand is recreation is the major purpose may the Maryland and Delaware shore. The increase 5 times between 1970 and diversion strategy could involve 2000 in Maryland. (See Table 1). satisfying more outdoor recreation Much of this economic potential is demands of more kinds on the focused on Bay water and shoreline Chesapeake Bay. resources. Spreading outdoor recreation £.? The Maryland Outdoor Recreation demands to moderate seasonal and and Open Space Plan indicates that 159 year 2000 outdoor recreation and 3.1 Goal-. Maximize Opportunities for acreage needs in the Baltimore and Water-Related Recreation Suburban Washington regions will be 6 times existing (1970) acreage for these 3 . 2 Obj ectives purposes (see Table 2). Much of In accordance with the discussion this need will be water-related in section 2.2 above, the general goal recreation. Because of intense compe- is stated from a supply-side perspective. tition by competing water and shoreline Thus, with one exception (objective uses in these regions, it may be "a"), the objectives deal with the impossible or undesirable to attempt to supply side. These objectives can meet the water-related recreation needs be viewed as "external" or "internal." of Maryland's metropolitan population Internal objectives deal with the within metropolitan counties. This quality and amount of the resource; would indicate an increased emphasis external objectives deal with the on outdoor recreation uses in non-metro- compatibilities with other goals. politan regions of the State. If a. Analyze latent demand (and half of the public open space and out- need) by type of use (as above) and door recreation acreage needs of the provide for all user classes on an metropolitan counties are supplied equitably proportionate basis. in non-metropolitan regions of the b. Provide a full range of types State, the additional acreage should be of water-related recreation facilities. oriented towards water-related re- These include day sailing and power creation demands, the needed additional boating, cruising, anchoring, small water-related recreation acreage in boating, waterskiing, swimming, non-metropolitan regions of the State snorkeling, scuba diving, paddling, would be 142,000 acres between 1970 viewing, etc. Each has its intrin- and 2000. This prospect carries signi- sically suitable area, and in the ficant economic potential for non- not too distant future, forms of metropolitan areas of the State. water zoning for different uses will There is a greatly increased be required. prospect for conflicts between c. Ensure that shore-related water-related recreation uses of facilities necessary to water-related the Bay and Bayshore and competing recreation are appropriately provided. uses (e.g., waste-disposal). There This includes marinas, restaurants, are also greatly increased prospects retail, parking, etc. for conflicts among various water- d. Provide maximum public access related recreation uses, (e.g., to shoreline and water areas. motor-boating and swimming or e. Potential recreation areas shellfishing), and there are prospects in six classes should be identified, for conflicts among public and private an ecological inventory of each claims for use of Bay shoreline for conducted and criteria for preserva- water-related recreation opportunities. tion established based on intrinsic suitability; intensive recreation; intensive transitional recreation; natural environments; outstanding natural areas; primitive areas; and Water-Related Outdoor Recreation: and culturally unique areas. (Ref. 1,2) Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies f. Increase and improve all classes of natural areas to enlarge 160 aspects of the resource wherever (their) recreational potential... possible. This should include the c. "Control shoreline develop- supplementation and creation of ment to discourage beach erosion. wetlands, beaches, islands, etc. d. "Encourage the use of g. Establish a dynamic model of submerged lands for wildlife and supply/demand relationship over time fish rather than draining for to give quantities and rates of change development. necessary for goal achievement. e. "Create more wildlife sanctuaries or management areas in 3.3 Standards places that contain or are attractive to While need and latent demand are a variety of living things. difficult to quantify (in contrast f. "Allow unusual habitats to to "effective" demand) they are the exist in a natural state, permitting basis for the evaluation of standards. only such interference by man as Most of the vast literature on recrea- will help restore virgin conditionsi tion standards has to do with urban g. "Use scenic roads and trails situations, middle-class clients, to link together park lands, conserva- and "average" acreages per thousand tion areas, scenic landscapes and population. historic sites. In addition to these standards h. "Develop guidelines for the which are for need, detailed standards attractive location and design of must be set on the capacity of types facilities in or near areas of of areas as related to anticipated scenic and historic distinction to use. Such standards as fishermen per protect the character of the area and foot of bank and boats per acre of to avoid unsightly ... developments." water, etc., with allowances for (Ref. 2) . weekly and seasonal peaks are suggested by recent studies. After areas are classified, such standards can be applied, related to the nature of particular environments, and the "capacity" of such areas set, with licensing and limitations on access as controls. 3.4 Policies Statew ide policies for open space and wa ter-related recreation have been de rived by weighing many of the above standards and objectives. The policies rephrase those in the Open Space P Ian. (Ref. 2). Selected relevant pol icies include: a. "En courage multi-purpose use of conse rvation and recreation lands. b. "Im mediately initiate and enforce effe ctive water and air pollution co ntrol measures to preserve the...water resources and to expand 161 Footnotes References 1. Figures derived from data in 1. "Chesapeake Bay: Bayside Ref. 2, p. 10 Recreation Inventory in Maryland," Department of Forests and Parks, 2. Figures derived from data in November, 1969, p. 35. Ref. 2, p. 11 2. "Maryland Outdoor Recreation '3. Visual characteristics of the and Open Space Concept Plan," shoreline, sea nettles, fish kills, Maryland Department of State litter, etc. all tend to reduce the Planning, Maryland Department of recreation potential of the Bay. Forests and Parks, June, 1970, p. 18, 39, 40, and 61. 3. "Maryland Statistical Abstract," Maryland Department of Economic Development, 1970, p. 131. 162 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS J. WATERFRONT INDUSTRY 164 1. Waterfront Industry Problems 164 1. 1 Nature of the Problem 164 Table 1: Categories of Industrial Activity According to Degree of Port Linkage 165 Table 2: Port-Dependent Manufacturing Firms and Employment, by SIC Code, by County 167 Table 3: Port-Dependent, Partially Port-Dependent, and Port-Serviced Manufacturing Employment, by Major Employment Category, by Region 168 1.2 Major Causes 169 1.3 Location of the Problem 169 Plate 21: Manufacturing Employment Centers and Port-Dependence 170 1.4 Time Characteristics 171 1.5 Parties Affected 171 2. Future Dimensions of Waterfront Industry Problems 171 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 171 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 172 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook 173 3. Waterfront Industry Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 174 3.1 Goal 174 3.2 Objectives 174 3.3 Standards 174 3.4 Policies 175 163 Waterfront Industry economic assets; the greatest of these is its Port. Shorefront sites with deep- draft water accessibility are needed i Waterfront Industry Problems by an increasing number and variety of industries. Such sites, and especially The problem is how and where to large ones, are rare anywhere on the make adequate waterfront sites available Eastern Seaboard. Further, it is evident for firms that need them. that new waterfront industries will have greatly increased space needs over those 1.1 Nature of the Problem shorefront industries built here 10 to Though written in 1963, Dr. 20 or more years ago. Dorothy Muncy's summary statement of the "The Baltimore Region has only nature of waterfront industry problems about half again as much of its present is applicable today. industrial shore-frontage reserved for "The significance of the dwindling future growth. This reserve is owner- shoreline is just beginning to be rec- restricted for expansion of existing ogized as a public policy problem. plants or for either customer firms or Metropolitan regions in the United States those able to satisfy minimum freight (as well as abroad) face population transport quotas. Not all new industries growth and mounting demands for rec- can meet these conditions. reational, industrial, and residential "Only 3% or 8 miles of the 266 use of their shrinking supply of water- mile Baltimore Region shorefront is va- front land. Industry's increasing de- cant, unrestricted by prior ownership, pendence upon foreign raw materials, and suitable for deep-draft transport; and improved shipping technology empha- reservation of most of these 8 miles for size the need for deep-water industrial future waterfront industry is not only sites in portal regions... significant in the national interest but "Without public policy decisions to represents the Region's best, and perhaps guide shoreline development, opportunity last, chance to grow as a world port." to provide for employment and recreation (Ref.1). needs of present and future generations a. Types of Industrial Need of the Baltimore Region will be lost now Certain industries, because of by default. the nature of their operations, require "Neither residential nor commercial waterfront locations (See Table 1). Some land uses have the critical location and of these require access to deep-water ship- space requirements of public recreation ping channels for receiving raw materials and industrial uses. Regional public or sending processed materials. Examples beaches and shoreline wilderness areas are petroleum refineries, chemical plants, require large land sites with special primary metals industries and ship-build- topographic features, but deep-water ing and repair operations. shoreland is not prerequisite. Indus- Other industries require access to try's requirements, however, are the most waterfront locations because they use critical of all waterfront land uses. large volumes of water in their operations. Industries dependent upon water trans- Examples are electric power plants (dis- port need large sites with existing or cussed under "thermal waste discharge"), potential deep-draft navigation facili- certain primary metals processing opera- ties. . . tions, and certain chemical and food pro- "The Baltimore Region is faced with cessing operations. Where the water is the prospect of a doubled population by used for cooling purposes, it can usually the year 2000. To support this popula- be of indifferent quality. Where the wa- tion, the Region must look to its unique ter becomes an integral part of the product 164 TABLE 1: CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIV- Naval Air Station, Indian Head Naval ITY ACCORDING TO DEGREE OF PORT- Propellant Plant, Aberdeen Proving Grounds LINKAGE Edgewood Arsenal and the U.S. Naval Academy all have basically industrial Completely Port-Dependent - Indus- character, need the water for one or tries concerned with bulk commodities and another purpose, and are major employers, those involved in processing seafood or shipbuilding and repair. "— ~~ SIC itself (e.g., certain food processing 2031 Canned and cured fish and seafood. operations), water quality is more 2036 Fresh or frozen packaged fish and critical and must often be treated before seafoods. use. 2062 Sugar refining. Some industries are indirectly 281 Industrial and inorganic chemicals. tied to waterfront locations by virtue 291 Petroleum refining. of critical linkages with port-dependent 327 Concrete,gypsum and plaster products, industries such as those mentioned above. 287 Agricultural chemicals. Close physical proximity with their 33 Primary metals industries. sources of raw materials enable these in- 373 Ship and boat building and repair. dustries to minimize materials handling. Partially Port-Dependent - Indus- inventory, and transportation costs, tries which rely on the larger basic in- Another category of port-related dustries. (as opposed to port-dependent) industries SIC are those that use or can use shallow- (20) "Other" food and kindred products draft barges for material sending and re- employment, ceiving. Producers of clay and concrete (28) "Other" chemicals and allied pro- products and certain food processing in- ducts employment. dustries are examples. These industries (29) "Other" petroleum refining and do not require deep-water ports needed by related industries. ocean-going vessels. They provide an op- (32) Other stone, clay, glass and con- portunity area in which marine transporta- crete products. tion can more successfully compete with (34) Fabricated metal products. rail and highway goods shipment. (35) Machinery, except electrical. Still other industries require water- (36) Electrical machinery, equipment front locations for other reasons. Sea- and supplies. food processing operations, for obvious (37) "Other" transportation equipment. reasons, are usually found in port loca- Port-Serviced--Industries which tions. Some industries fall into none of use water transportation infrequently the categories mentioned above, but locate but find the flexibility of an alterna- in waterfront areas simply because the tive mode of transportation a decided railroads and highways that they do need advantage in industrial location. access to, happen to be there. Some in- All Other Manufacturing Employment dustries locate in waterfront areas for no Industrial-type uses not usually functional reason at all; it was in these classified as waterfront industries are locations that they found cheap land also important. Among these are sewage suitably zoned. treatment plants, research and other b. Estimates of Present Port-Depen- institutions oriented to the water (e.g. dence of Maryland Industry Natural Resources Institute, Westing- An attempt has been made to house Oceanographic, and Marine En- distinguish manufacturing firms (and em- gineers School), and of course military ployment totals) according to their degree and related institutions. Patuxent of port-dependence. This breakdown, when 165 translated into acreage terms from num- ing technology of industrial production bers of employees, would enable an es- generates changing demands for industrial timate of the amount of port-oriented land. The result is that there is a land needed to accommodate projected shortage of suitably located, suitably industrial activity, which in turn would serviced available land for waterfront enable an assessment of local zoning and industry -- a situation which is a poten- development plans with regard to the pro- tial limitation on the growth of the vision of industrial land. regional economy. There are reports that Table 2 presents an estimate of available land in Marley Neck Industrial various sorts of port-dependent manufac- Park in Anne Arundel County is not being turing employment in Chesapeake Bay developed because of an uncertain long- Counties. Tables 3a and 3b present a range water supply situation or because breakdown on port-dependent and port- of ownership policy regarding rail freight. serviced manufacturing employment, by Land allocated to waterfront major employment category, by region. industry limits public access to the c. Importance of Waterfront Indus- water just where the needs for such access tries are greatest. The Baltimore Harbor is Many of the industries that the most important example in the Mary- require waterfront locations are basic land Chesapeake Bay area. Here the de- industries in the regional economy. velopment of deep water channels, modern They provide semi-finished materials loading and unloading facilities, and (e.g., steel) which are inputs for many supporting highways and railroads make other firms. Thus, much of the regional land adjacent to the waterfront suitable economy is dependent -- directly or in- for industrial use. At the same time, directly -- upon basic industries which however, the urban population surround- require waterfront locations. This ing the Harbor is cut off from the water- relationship is reflected in the con- front by the spread of industrial uses. clusions of the recent study of the Development of waterfront in- economic impact of the Baltimore Harbor. dustry on the few available shorefront The production of port-dependent in- sites with potential deep-draft water dustries "provides some $442.2 million, transportation can have environmental or 67.3% of the total primary force of consequences so complex that it is inac- $626.9 million of the Port's impact on curate to portray the issue as a simple Maryland's economy. Nearly half of the confrontation of development and conserva- cargoes arriving in Baltimore are tion objectives. destined for further processing in the Two studies -- one completed in Baltimore area. 'Consequently, the 1963, the other now in progress — provide ability of the deep-water Harbor to at- an interesting perspective on planning tract industry to its shores is its for waterfront industry in the Baltimore greatest economic asset. Attraction of Harbor area. Both studies communicate large manufacturing establishments to a strong sense of urgency. The Muncy the Harbor will assure Baltimore's con- Study^1*6^1) stressed the scarcity of tinued economic growth and develop- shorefront sites with potential deep- ment. '"(Ref.6) draft transportation in the Baltimore d. Constraints on the Supply of Region. The current Baltimore Harbor Land Project(Kef.7) being carried out by the There are many constraints on Maryland Environmental Service stresses the supply of waterfront land: access the need to control environmental impacts to deep-water channels, competition from of waterfront industrial development and alternative land uses, resistance from operations through the adoption of pol- affected existing uses. Moreover, chang- lution abatement plans. 166 Table 2. PO^T-DEi'EMDbN'T MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT, BY SIC CODE, BY COUNTY o 2 CJ M 2 2 H M 2 Pn H M K W < s CJ D H W rs M § U3 2 •H E-< COUNTY o < en W 2036 TOTAL 2031 281 & ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC 287 FISH & SEAFOOD FRESH OR FROZEN 327 33 373 CANNED & CURED PKGD. FISH & SEAFOOD (N CJ INDUSTRIES & REPAIRING PLASTER PRODUCTS SHIP & BOAT BUILDING AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS CM CM CONCRETE GYPSUM & PRIMARY METAL Anne Arundel -Employ 113 328 120 277 818 496 2,152 -Firms 2 2 2 11 3 27 47 Bait. City -Employ 56 37 700 2,750 866 70 1,231 5,883 5,584 17,177 -Firms 4 4 1 23 12 1 19 33 9 106 Bait. County -Employ 97 15 889 33,393 5,672 37,066 -Firms 6 1 17 11 4 39 Carroll -Employ 19 118 12 149 -Firms 2 4 1 7 Harford -Employ 130 354 80 9 573 -Firms 2 9 1 1 13 Howard -Employ 141 141 -Firms 4 4 Calvert -Employ ' 108 10 8 -Firms 2 2 Charles -Employ 92 92 -Firms 3 3 St. Marys -Employ 77 31 28 136 -Firms 4 2 3 9 Caroline -Employ 110 6 17 133 -Firms 1 1 2 4 Dorchester -Employ 743 81 13 75 10 922 -Firms 17 1 1 1 3 23 Kent -Employ 550 56 48 8 25 687 -Firms 1 2 1 2 2 8 Queen Annes -Employ 548 54 10 612 -Firms 12 3 2 17 Somerset -Employ 7 945 150 12 1,114 -Firms 1 24 1 1 27 Talbot -Employ 1,435 21 68 1,524 -Firms 11 2 8 21 Wicomico -Employ 70 52 127 53 594 896 -Firms 2 .3 7 2 3 17 Worcester -Employ 11 21 67 64 6 158 -Firms 1 2 3 1 7 Montgomery -Employ 13 31 187 93 324" -Firms 1 2 8 3 14 Prince George-Employ 380 976 131 1,487 -Firms 3 23 4 30 Cecil -Employ j 19 53 375 623 1,070 -Firms | 2 4 12 -•••• •.•-S-J.—= 1 5 Source: "Maryland Manufacturers" Directory 1969-70, Maryland Department of Economic Development. NOTE: Data includes all employees of firms in the listed "Port-Dependent" nan- ufacturing classifications, even though some firms engage in "Non-Port- Dependent" operationr;. 167 Table 3a PORT-DEPENDENT, PARTIALLY PORT-DEPENDENT, AND PORT-SERVICED MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT, pY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY, DY REGION N. MAJOR EMPLOYMENT 01 MAJOR EMPLOYMENT \. CATEGORY \ CATEGOBY ot I >.& a: H w K U bl Z » 3 Q > u i"! a o Ui D 3 = < u >• u Q£ Hi uui z u U H < tfl UI X H (J a: PORT DEPENDENCE;\ a. "-Si m < REGION) to H u u •a- 3 => r~ a; i> O 3 J n a u * < u in rf u u> ^ < REGION ^x M Q, 2. M K a. PORT-DEPENDENCE w E U Port-Dependence 2031 281 33 Baltimore Region 2036 287 P-D 11,761 3,010 57,258 2062 PP-D 11,601 6,190 (-5,884: 89,186 62,258 Baltimore Region 906 4,325 37,186 P-S 8,939 8,453 Washington Metro Area 0 424 224 Total 11,949 8.525 I 208,702 Southern Maryland 77 0 0 Washington Metro Area Eastern Shore 4,465 262 284 P-D 1,163 1,811 Cecil County 0 19 375 PP-D 1,112 8,173 5,468 5,030 38,069 P-S 716 392 4,074 Partially Port- Other Other Adjust- Total 1.112 1.879 392 I Dependent Food Chemi- ment Southern Maryland cals P-D 136 336 Baltimore Region 19,931 9,028 (+8,214) PP-D 95 59 5 Washington Metro Area 1,919 1,102 (- 224) P-S 53) 310 Southern Maryland 472 0 ( 0) Total 70 Eastern Shore 5,357 (- 35) (- •240) Eastern Shore Cecil County 114 1,220 (- 363) P-D 719 6,046 27,793 11,321 (+7,387) PP-D 642 (- 222:. 7,077 5,930 Port-Serviced 22 23 124,25 27 30 P-S 297 36 Baltimore Region 1,390 15,000 4,960 13,119 10,397 Total 642 593 36j Washington Metro Area 0 5 442 2,476 43 Cecil County Southern Maryland 0 0 305 58 0 P-D 623 1,070 Eastern Shore 52 3,012 1,368 1,165 0 PP-D (- 577) 1,755 Cecil County 114 26S 46 67 0 P-S 188 844 1,556 18,280 7,121 16,885 10,440 Total 188 | TABLE 3b: PORT-DEPENDENT, PARTIALLY PORT-DEPENDENT, AND PORT-SERVICED MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY, BY REGION N. MAJOR EMPLOYMENT E- ^V CATEGORY u * oa z w a: ^ a O M u K X in hi M h IN m T: to in REGION; Nv E ... m ta < = 8 r^ K 3 00 X ^ o 3 J PORT-DEPENDENCE \ (N tl. 33 rv E- fM G. Q, <-> a: a. PRIMARY (N U < METALS Baltimore Region P-D 906 4,325 37,186 PP-D 19,931 9,028 (+8,214) P-S 1,390 15,000 4,960 13,119 10,397 Total 20,837 1,390 15,000 4,960 13,119 13,353 10,397 45,400 Washington Metro Area P-D 424 224 PP-D 1,919 1,102 (- 224) P-S 5 442 2,476 43 Total 1,919 0 5 442 2,476 1,526 43 0 Southern Maryland P-D 77 PP-D 472 P-S 305 58 Total 549 0 0 305 58 0 0 0 Eastern Shore P-D 4,485 262 284 PP-D 5,357 (- 35) (- 240) P-S 52 3,012 1,368 1,165 Total 9,842 52 3,012 1,368 1,165 227 0 44 Cecil County P-D 19 375 PP-D 114 1,220 (- 363) P-S 114 268 46 67 •Total 114 114 268 46 67 1,239 0 12 Note: Data developed from review of Maryland Director of Manufacturers 1969-70 (Ref.3) and from 1970 employment est ina s in "The Labor Force of Maryland" (Ref.4, pp.140-153). Where the tw sources were inconsist ths discrepancy is i ndicated in parentheses. 168 1.2 Major Causes existing recreation areas in the vicinity One ma:or current cause of problems The waterfront land abandoned in this relating to waterfront industrial land migration has been slow and difficult to is technological change in marine trans- convert to alternative uses. The work portation to which local industries must now in progress in Baltimore's Inner respond in order to remain competitive Harbor is only a beginning, with other ports on the Atlantic Sea- board and in Europe. Such changes include 1.3 Location the need to accommodate large tankers The problem is primarily, but by no to uttlllT ShlPP^g f r^15' the need meanS Solel* a Baltimore Regional problem, loadi^a^specialized loading and un- There are few unreserved sites with deep- "t^-around t?"" J" ^ I ^ ^^ Water ^^^^ "The Baltimore Regional tSn^rr ? !r b0r vlslts' and Port Area has only two large potential the need for large storage areas adjacent deepdraft sites not yet zoned for future to the waterfront A related set of industry. On Back R^ver, in Baltimore causes is changes in basic industry pro- County, a site of 1,500 to 1,700 vacant 1011 0ne mile 0f in^trial^it^Yd "'"J"extensive ^^SU ^ "^ "« -cant shore- tnt^ll ^ ^^ P- l^e in a few large ownerships, is one rTlTnatV^3 ^'l' Water SUPPly' 0f the feW «-i»ing large waterfront sites TheL9^ 1tnka«e8; etC-)- ^ metropolitan regions on the eastern sea- courc llf d"te^lna"ts do not' of board. Hog Neck, in Anne Arundel County, the sa^e til ^du^ "^ t* ^^ ^ W>"i-ately 1,100 acres vacant, held Ind StrieS Whlch n shallow dr^; ? K ^ use in a few large and many small ownerships, shallow draft coastwise shipping can use with an interrupted waterfront access and ofn^r^- ^ shallow ^annels, totalling 0.6 miles. An additional adja- 1 are 3117 Cent 800 Vacant acres also n 8»ail« thev ^ u ^r" ' i multiple •i x H V- ^ smaller storage ownerships, are interspersed with roads areas. Industries which need large and some residential development."(Ref.1) volumes of water (e.g electrical power Problems relating to the supply of generation) can sometimes dispense with land for waterfront industry and conflicts a harbor location altogether - provided between waterfront industry aS other is a^aiLble9 Y " rail tranS*ortation urban and environmental shoreline uses Th* of'for.*- t 4.1, • are most likelY to arise in metropolitan n ma:0r causes m*n«.- t K v, ^ areas. Metropolitan areas offer the fnlll ? abOVe,haS often been to ma^ ready access to consumer and manufacturing formerly adequate waterfront industrial markets, the broad range of supporting sites obsolete. The search for water- facilities and services and the harbor llTrelTltr1^^ '^ m0dern indust^ facilities which are attractive to water- has resulted m the migration of the oriented industry. (See Plate 21). Baltimore Harbor waterfront industry Changing technology - e g the de- southwards along the banks of the velopment of shallow draft shipping -! ^ay Patapsco River; and the abandonment enable more Chesapeake Bay por^s to compete a dete'rio^ted diff-31!:3/35 ^^\ effectively (with'both deep-watlr LrZTs cal environ^n; t ^cult-to-renew Physi- and highway-oriented industrial sites) cal environment which requires intensive for waterfront industry. This could result investment of public money and energy to in a relative dispersal of waterfront 0 h 8 hiS aS !"" ^J °* j: - !!- .! ^ .^^stry to smaller port facilitfIT on conuLt Problems of metropolitan both the eastern and western shores. The con^H TT ^Waterfront land' Proposed Annemessex Industrial Park nelr consumed land which had alternative rec- Crisfield represents a move in this direc- reation uses, and reduced the value of tion. it has been discussed Inter "lonler- 169 PLATE 21: Manufacturing Employment Centers: Port Dependence by Planning Regions rDELAWARE \ vi'*?: i**-^ vation of Wetlands" above. the industrial firms involved, their em- More concentration of waterfront ployees and the agency most directly res- industry in the Baltimore Harbor has ponsible for the development of Maryland's been advocated by some on the ground waterfront industry, the Maryland Port that the concentration of marine trans- Authority (now part of the Department of portation terminals in a limited area Transportation). would make it possible to limit the ef- Parties indirectly affected by fects of "ecological disasters" such as problems relating to waterfront industry oil spills which will occur whatever the include other industries closely linked precautions. Such a strategy, it is to basic waterfront industries and their argued, would help in conservation of employees, existing and potential users ecological values elsewhere in the Bay. of alternative uses of waterfront indus- Evaluation of such strategies must con- trial sites, suppliers of supportive fa- sider sub-regional growth objectives, cilities and services for waterfront in- potential supply of waterfront land pos- dustry . sessing various characteristics, future • waterfront land needs, likelihood and magnitude of ecological disasters related 2 Future Dimensions of Waterfront to waterfront industry. Industry Problems 1•4 Time Characteristics The Bay management problem with re- Technological trends affecting wa- gard to waterfront industry is how and terfront industry can be considered exo- where to make adequate waterfront sites genous variables: harbors and waterfront- available for firms that need them. oriented industries must respond to these in order to compete in national and inter- 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the national markets. However, there is Problem also a decreasing inclination to accom- a. Recent studies have indicated the modate such trends uncritically. The dependence of Maryland's economy on its Governor of Delaware has stated publicly port facilities -- particularly the'Port that the economics of deep-draft tankers of Baltimore. The intermediaries between and port facilities does not justify the port facilities and the general economy fouling of the waters of the Delaware are port-dependent and port-related in- Bay. dustries. The conclusion is that if Mary- Other trends affecting waterfront land's economy is to continue to grow -- industry relate to regional population as projections and agency objectives in- and economic growth. However, because of dicate -- it will be necessary to continue the importance of waterfront industry to R to find suitable sites for port-related in- the regional economy,( ef.5)these trends dustries . can be considered dependent variables b. Perhaps more significant than in the context of this discussion -- i.e. economic growth or port-dependence by regional economic trends, (which produce themselves are the changing locational demands for waterfront industrial sites, needs of port-related industry. New in- conflicts with competing uses and eco- dustrial processes tend to demand larger logical consequences) are themselves de- sites and large areas for storage and pendent upon the region's ability to at- handling. To provide such sites in tract waterfront industry. urbanized areas -- close to labor and con- sumer markets -- is increasingly difficult 1.5 Parties Affected and expensive. In the case of port- Parties directly affected by prob- related industries, the additional need lems relating to waterfront industry are for access to deep-draft navigation 171 facilities further limits the supply of e. Wastes discharged by industry, in- suitable sites. eluding port-related industry, will generate c. Conflicts between waterfront in- conflicts with water-related recreation, dustrial uses and other uses of shoreline commercial fishing, aesthetic and other areas are increasing. "Other" uses in- - uses. Even if wastes discharged by indus- clude various recreation, residential, try are held at present levels, it is aesthetic and transportation uses. likely that increases in activities which These conflicts are particularly intense depend on higher levels of water quality in metropolitan areas where the volume will generate increased conflicts and in- of activity which could potentially bene- creasing difficulties of waterfront indus- fit from waterfront locations is large trial location in the future. and where the supply of available shore- f. Increasing scarcity of suitable line land is small. Such conflicts will port-oriented land will contribute to increasingly occur in areas proposed for difficulties of waterfront industrial lo- industrial use and they will increase cation. In 1963, a study found that "On- the difficulty of making suitable water- ly 3% or 8 miles of the 266-mile Baltimore front sites available for industry. Region shorefront is vacant, unrestricted d. Even where sites of sufficient by prior ownership and suitable for deep- size and deep-draft navigation facilities draft transport."(Ref•1) Comparable in- are available, increasing industrial needs formation describing the present situation for water supply may increase difficul- in the Baltimore Region is not available, ties of port-related industrial location. However, the likelihood is that the direc- Port-related industries tend to tion of change in the Baltimore Region has be particularly heavy water-users. Na- been toward a smaller supply of land a- tionally, primary metals manufacturing vailable and suitable for port-related in- accounts for 32% of total industrial wa- dustry. ter use, chemicals manufacturing for 23%, g. Finally, the increasing cost of paper manufacturing for 14%, petroleum preparing land for waterfront industry and coal products for 9%, food products will increase difficulties of port-related for 5%. stone and vitreous products for industrial development -- even if a large 2%. (Re T 8)' These types of industry in- supply of vacant, unrestricted and suitable elude significant proportions that are land were available. These site prepara- port-dependent or port-related. To- tion costs are particularly heavy in gether, they account for 85% of total estuarine environments such as the Bay -- industrial water use. as is indicated by figures developed in Furthermore, industrial water conjunction with the proposed Annemessex use is a large proportion of total water industrial Park, use. In 1970, self-supply industrial water use was about 103 billion gallons 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem per day; public water supplied (a portion a. Site allocation and site planning of which goes to industrial users) and approaches can help reserve prime water- domestic water use was only 35 billion front industrial sites for industries gallons per day. And, even from this which most need them and enable industries larger base, industrial water use is in- to efficiently use limited port-oriented creasing faster than public water use. land. (Ref.8). Public supporting facilities can Thus, not only will waterfront be planned in such a way that they neither industry have increasing competition for encroach upon valuable waterfront indus- available sites, but its water needs will trial sites themselves nor encourage in- increasingly generate conflicts with other dustries which do not need waterfront sites water users in urbanized areas. to compete for such locations with those 172 that do. 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook Provisions can be made in indus- It is very difficult to derive from trial site planning to retain public ac- available information and projections on cess for recreation and amenity uses. manufacturing employment (by industry and There are significant opportunities for degree of port dependence), industrial this approach along the Lower Patapsco firms, or industrial production a precise River. picture of future port-oriented land needs. b. Industries that do not actually Projections indicate that manufacturing require waterfront locations themselves, employment is growing slowly. The number but that prefer to locate near basic of manufacturing firms has generally de- processors that do need waterfront sites, creased in recent years. (Between 1960 could be encouraged to locate on non-wa- and 1968 the number of firms in Baltimore terfront industrial sites. A number of City decreased from 1507 to 1195; in the these have been identified by the Mary- rest of the Baltimore Region, the number land Department of Economic Development. of firms remained stable at almost 500; (Ref.9) Then product-linked plants in Southern Maryland the number of could spread away from the waterfront firms decreased from 82 to 66; in Eastern while remaining functionally connected, Shore Counties and Cecil County the num- e.g. pipelines connecting refineries and ber decreased from 533 to 433).(Ref.10) petrochemical plants. Yet value added in manufacturing, manufac- c. In combination with new marine turing payrolls and presumably production transportation technology, it may be pos- has continued to increase. Continued sible to develop port facilities in increases in industrial production in areas of the Bay other than Baltimore combination with evolving production Harbor -- thus alleviating constraints technology and the continued importance on suitable waterfront sites in the Balt- of port-oriented industry in Maryland's imore Region. Such a dispersal strategy economy will continue to generate needs with regard to waterfront industrial de- for port-oriented land in the future. velopment is likely to generate conflicts Nor is it possible, given available with other water and land uses as it data, to match future port-oriented land eases constraints on port-oriented land needs with the currently available and supply, however. potential supply of port-oriented land. d. Changes in industrial production In 1963, in the Baltimore Region 75% of processes can slow the increase in water the port shoreline was occupied (including usage by port-related industries. Also, 12% by industrial uses), 10% was vacant more effective treatment of wastes genera- but committed (including 3% for industrial ted by waterfront industry can reduce in- uses) and 15% was vacant and uncommitted dustrial demands on Bay waters for waste (including only 3% with potential for disposal. These developments would re- deep-draft transportation) . * Re f • 1'> The duce conflicts between waterfront indus- current industrial land situation in try and other land and water uses, which the Baltimore Harbor is part of a current would indirectly tend to reduce port- study by the Maryland Environmental Service oriented industrial location problems. Port-oriented industrial land potential e. More rapid reuse of obsolete in- (under varying port-development and marine dustrial sites for other, potentially transportation technology conditions) competing urban uses (e.g., open space, has not been systematically surveyed. In water-related recreation, public access view of the Annemessex Industrial Park and to the Bay, etc.) can help to reduce con- other controversies, however, it may be flicts in port-oriented industrial loca- reasonable to conclude that the effective tions . supply of suitable port-oriented industrial 173 land in the Maryland Bay Region is de- growth or hypothesize Bay site attraction creasing potential if sites were available. Conflicts between port-oriented in- d. Translate growth potential for dustry and other uses will probably in- Bay sites of water-related industry above crease in the future -- even with the into site utilization and locational re- applications of techniques to reduce wa- quirements. ter supply and waste disposal impacts per e. Determine economic and social unit of production. This is both because implications of water-related industry production is expected to increase and by subregions and planning areas through because of the increase in the number of use of regional input-output models or and propinquity of potentially conflic- studies such as that done for the Gris- ting uses These effects will probably field proposal. be especially severe in newly develop- f. Reclassify Bay existing and po- ing waterfront industrial areas. tential waterfront sites by priority of importance taking all socio-economic and locational criteria into account. g. Develop an environmental matrix 3 Waterfront Industry: Goals, Objectives, by water-related industrial type that Standards, Policies expresses site utilization characteristics such as coverage, utility requirements, 3.1 Goal - Maximize Bay Opportunities nature of effluent, potential for new for Water-Related Industry technology, etc. All sites suitable for industry on h. Establish special Bay water-re the shores of the Bay are not necessarily lated industrial zoning that reserves suitable for water-related industry of most appropriate waterfront land for all kinds, nor do all water-related in- water-related industrial use. dustries need or want Bay-front locations. i. Adopt a Bay-wide water-related industrial development plan, to include 3.2 Objectives a process for making waterfront land The objectives necessary to maxi- available, and for rationally explicating mizing Bay opportunities for water-re- effects of potential tradeoffs with other lated industry are: goals. a. Identify and classify all Bay waterfront land as to present and po- 3.3 Standards tential value as sites for water-related Standards for water-related indus- industry. This includes use of all usual trial development are of three types. The site selection criteria, including any first type includes standards related public or private costs of filling and to industrial needs for sites, services, improving such sites or of acquiring and locational linkages. already developed land for use by water- The second type of standard that must related industry. (This objective has be elaborated is that of performance to varying degrees already been accom- characteristics for industries of the kind plished). evolved for industrial parks. These b. Determine those industries (by should be stipulated as part of a water- at least four-digit S.I.C. categories) related industrial development plan for that need waterfront land for tranship- the Bay. ment, or water in large quantities in The third type of standard has to their process, or need a large body of do with setting achievement levels of water for waste disposal, or combinations water-related industrial development m of these. terms of general socio-economic needs and c. For each industry forecast goals of the Bay region. If the role of 174 water-related industry in the economy is in the use of waterfront industrial land well understood through the input-output The Baltimore Harbor Project currently in R regional modelling procedure mentioned progress( ef•7) will provide a basis for above, then standards of "performance" a set of standards applicable elsewhere for water-related industry as a whole in the Bay Region, can be set. 3.4 Policies Recent organization of the Depart- ment of Economic and Community Develop- ment enables the State not only to plan but to carry out major programs of all kinds, including water-related industrial development. Needed are consistent policies and priorities that recognize the importance of water-related industry in the context of other needs and goals. a. Develop estimates of the amount of land needed for waterfront industry. This would require a breakdown of eco- nomic projections by degree of port-de- pendence, a translation of these projec- tions into acreage terms, a comparison with supplies of existing and available waterfront industrial land. b. Develop a plan for meeting future waterfront industry land needs. This plan would consider criteria for selecting sites appropriate to various waterfront industry types and alternative strategies for meeting future needs. It would consider costs of acquiring and preparing designated land for industrial use. It would relate waterfront industry to prospective port, highway, railroad, utility and other infrastructure develop- ments. It would relate waterfront indus- try needs to competing uses for shoreline land. c. Develop means for implementing the plan. These include zoning powers, renewal, advance acquisition, long-term options to purchase, taxation policies, and other approaches to be developed. d. Develop special site development and performance standards for waterfront industry. These would provide a means for implementing desirable relationships between waterfront industry, urban infra- structure facilities and competing land uses and for promoting maximum efficiency 175 Footnotes References 1 categories based on material de- 1. "Inventory of Port-Oriented Land - v^loped in Reference, 2, p. 13, and com- Baltimore Region", Dr. Dorothy A. Muncy, parisons with material in Reference 1, Maryland Department of Economic Develop- * , ment, 1963 (p.7,10; p.9). p. 19-21.Q 01 2. "Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline Utili- zation in the Baltimore Region", Paul R. Farragut, Regional Planning Council, April, 1969. 3. "Maryland Manufacturers, Directory 1969-70", Maryland Department of Economic Development. 4. "The Labor Force of Maryland: Pro- jections of Socio-economic Characteristics to 1980", Maryland State Planning Depart- ment, October, 1968. 5. "The Economic Impact of the Port of Baltimore on Maryland", S.J. Hille and J.E. Suelflow, prepared for Maryland Port Authority, June, 1969. 6. "A Billion Dollar Plus Port" (A Review of Highlights of the Study "The Economic Impact of the Port of Baltimore on Maryland"), Maryland Port Authority. 7. Maryland Environmental Service - Baltimore Harbor Project, 1970 Annual Report, Feb. 22, 1970 to Feb. 21, 1971. 8. McGauhey, P.H., Engineering Manage- ment of Water Quality, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1968 (p.43; pp.41,42). 9. Community Economic Inventories. Compiled and published by Department of Economic Development in cooperation with Local Bureaus of Industrial Affairs. For Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's Talbot, and Worcester Counties and Baltimore, Cambridge, Federalsburg, and Salisbury Cities. 10. Maryland Statistical Abstract, De- partment of Economic Development, June 30, 1971, (p.109) . 176 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS K. WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 178 1. Waterfront Residential Development Problems 178 1.1 Nature of the Problem 178 1.2 Major Causes 178 1.3 Time and Location Characteristics 179 Plate 22: Housing Subdivisions and Developments, 1950-67 180 1.4 The Parties Affected 179 2. Future Dimensions of Waterfront Residential Development Problems 181 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 181 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 182 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook 183 3. Waterfront Residential Development Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies . 183 3.1 Goal 183 3 . 2 Ob j ectives 18 3 3.3 Standards /. ... 183 3.4 Policies 184 177 K Waterfront Residential of the peninsula areas, have made off- site sewer systems uneconomic and have Development reduced the value of sites still availa- ble because of the resulting water pol- i Waterfront Residential Development Problems lution. The Severn, Magothy, South and Back Rivers are examples. The problem is how and where to The low-density, relatively uncon- make waterfront sites available for resi- trolled development along the shoreline dential development. has not only preempted the shore but the manner of development has frequently had 1.1 Nature of the Problem severe effects on the environment. In- Residential development of the creased runoff to the Bay and small shoreline and peninsular areas, partic- streams (due to deforestation and hard ularly along the western shore of the surfaces) has increased erosion, sedimenta- Bay, is a major potential. These areas tion and clogging of natural stream chan- offer the amenity of the Bay, easy ac- nels and wetlands. Much of the soil next cess to water-related recreational op- to sub-estuaries is highly permeable, and portunities, and proximity to sub- liquid waste effluent leaches quickly from urbanizing metropolitan jobs. The septic tanks directly into the water. eastern shore also has major potential Water is drawn from aquifers (that receive for vacation and retirement residential less supply because of increased runoff) development but less current demand be- near the Bay and saline pollution from cause it is further away from urbaniza- the Bay's water infiltrates the aquifers. tion. As more persons seek to combine recreational opportunities with basic 1. 2 Major Causes shelter needs in selecting a home and as The expansion of the Baltimore-Wash- vacation homes in alternative locations ington metropolitan area has brought the (e.g., the Maryland shore) become in- peninsula areas in Anne Arundel, B;. '-imore creasingly expensive, the residential and Harford Counties into the metropolitan development potential of the Bay shore- housing market. Areas which were effec- line will increase. tively outside these metropolitan areas However, present development pat- in the igSO's will be developed for year- terns in shoreline areas have severely round housing in the ISTO's and 1980's. limited the future potential of shore- Completion of US 1-50, 309 and the Bay line areas for residential development. Bridge helped bring this about. Low density development has preempted Increases in affluence as well as long stretches of waterfront with a mobility have made it possible for more few houses and has, in the process, families to buy second, vacation homes. denied waterfront access to areas im- It is estimated that more than one in 10 mediately inland. In this way, the res- of 1971's housing starts were for second idential development potential of the homes. There are several forcesIRef•2) shoreline as a whole has been greatly behind the second home surge: reduced. The expanding amount of leisure An aspect of the problem is the in- time and the yearning to escape from appropriate use of septic tanks in much congested cities and suburbs (longer va- low density shoreline residential de- cations, the Monday Holiday Law legis- velopment. The result is often the lating a minimum of five "mini-vacations" discharge of inadequately treated waste- a year, etc.); water into the Bay and its sub-estuaries. The long-run savings on family va- The development patterns described above, cations resulting from a second home (in by reducing total development potential comparison with hotel-motel-restaurant or 178 resort costs); patterns, land values and tax rates , and the long-term investment value of the nature of applicable zoning and sub- a well-located second home; division regul ations. Mo st of these the recent authorization (in 1968) factors are in fluenced by public policy : an FHA program to insure mortages on at the State a nd local le vels . secondscond homes; The majo r pressure for year-round the boom in boating and other out- shoreline resi dential dev elopment is on door recreation activities which spawn peninsula area s in the me tropolitan por- marinas, lakeshore developments, yacht- tions of Anne Arundel and Baltimore ing clubs, etc.; Counties. With in the peni nsula areas, the the long-term trend in the U.S. greatest press ure will be on the few re- to have at least two of everything (cars, maining vacant waterfront parcels. Shore- television sets, jobs, etc.). line areas in Calvert and Harford Counties The increased importance of recrea- are appropriat e for long- range residential tional opportunities and amenities in the development, (s ee Plate 22 ) . house-purchase decision (complemented by The loca tion of vac ation homes is, increased access to shoreline) will re- of course, ass ociated wit h urban concentra- sult in increased potential for residen- tions . Prese.n tly one-thi rd of all second tial use of shoreland for year-round as homes are with in 50 miles of the owner's well as vacation homes. primary home. (Ref.2) As much as 35% of all Western On the E astern Shor e the extension shore housing was built prior to 1939. of the second span of the Chesapeake Bay Its age increases the possibility of Bridge and ult imately the other bridges redevelopment of some of these areas to will increase the pressur e on shoreline take advantage of current development in Kent, Queen Anne's and Talbot Counties potentials. for first home s, vacation and retirement r, „_ v. -^ 4-i-e Bay shore residential de velopment. by low density 1.4 The Parties Affected Present as well as prospec tive resi- dents are the major p arties affe cted by Bay proble ms with regard to shorelin e residen- tial d evelopment. Th e character istics of prospe ctive residents will vary according to whe ther year-round , vacation, or retire- ment r esidents are in volved. Another affecte d party is existing reside nts of low dens ity develop ment along the sh oreline of peni nsula areas . While more i ntensive reside ntial devel opment offers many potential benefits t o present 1. 3 Time and Location Characteristics res ide nts, the magnit ude of the prospective Bay problems with regard to shore- change of familiar en vironments is likely line residential uses are associated with to cau se them conside rable psych ic costs. the location and intensity of pressures A third categor y of affect ed party for residential development. Such demand consis ts of people wh ose only ac cess to is associated with a range of factors: the Ba y shoreline is by public r ights-of- the availability of vacant developable way . Unless steps ar e taken to ensure that shoreline, accessibility, the prospective future residential de velopment i ncludes availability of public utilities in any public access to the shoreline, present peninsula area, adjacent population growth limits on public shor eline acces s are likely 179 PLATE 22: Housing Subdivisions and Developments 1950-1967 $0 Housing Subdivions and Developments 1950-1967 to become even more severe. 2. Generally increasing affluence, An indirectly affected party is the leisure and mobility have com- construction firm and its employees who bined to increase the importance might be employed to build the residences. of amenities and recreational op- In the metropolitan area of Baltimore, portunities in the house purchase the same firms and employees will be in- decision -- which has increased volved whether the residential develop- the attractiveness of peninsula ment is in the peninsula areas or else- areas for home sites. where in the metropolis; on the eastern It is likely that a similar propor- shore, residential construction may pro- tion of population increases in other vide new jobs and economic activity, and counties bordering the Bay will locate the opportunity costs of development may in peninsula areas. If so, the population be non-existent. of peninsula areas in the Maryland Bay Region will increase by 27,000 persons per year, or by 810,000 persons between 1970 2 Future Dimensions of Waterfront Residential and the year 2000. Development Problems b. Population increase, however, is not the only cause of residential develop- The Bay problem with regard to ment pressure in shoreline areas of the shoreline residential uses is how to Bay. Of major and increasing significance realize the residential development po- is the growth of the vacation housing tential of the shore but at the same market. Increasing affluence, water-re- time reduce adverse environmental effects lated recreation demand (especially boat- associated with residential uses, avoid ing), and mobility (e.g. from the metro- preemption of land which has major re- politan areas on the western shore to the gion-serving potential for industry or eastern shore) will result in greatly ex- outdoor recreation, and achieve more ac- panded use of shoreline areas for vacation cess for more people to the Bay shore. residences. If, as recent data indicates, one housing start in 10 will be for va- 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the cation homes, if hew housing starts in Problem Maryland continue at the 1960-69 average a. Maryland's population is pro- annual rate (36,400 DU/yr.) (Ref.3) and if jected to continue to increase -- by 2 one-half of vacation homes built in Mary- million persons between 1970 and the year land are located on shoreline areas of 2000 -- and much of the increase can be the Bay, then vacation home construction expected to locate on or near the Bay on the Bay shore will proceed at a rate shoreline. In the Baltimore Region, of 1800 dwelling units per year or 64,000 rough calculations indicate that the new dwelling units between 1970 and the population of peninsula areas 2 will in- year 2000. crease by 23,000 persons per year. If c. Due to recent land development so, peninsula areas would absorb 65% of patterns, the increase in year-round and the projected population increase of the vacation residential development in Bay metropolitan area. By the year 2020, shoreline areas are forces tending to 1,140,000 persons may live in peninsula increase the problem of waterfront res- areas in the Baltimore Region.3 idential development as stated in the in- These residential development troduction to this section. Low density, pressures in areas close to the Bay shore relatively uncontrolled development has are reflective of at least two factors: preempted long stretches of waterfront with 1- The expansion of the Balt- a few houses and has, in the process, imore metropolitan urbanized denied waterfront access to areas im- area has included many penin- mediately inland. Also, the manner of sula areas in the metropol- development has frequently had severe en- itan housing market area; vironmental effects. Increased runoff to 181 the Bay and small streams (due to de- (e.g. planned unit developments) can be forestation and hard surfaces) has in- applied to encourage residential develop- creased erosion, sedimentation and clog- ment at higher densities with substantial ging of natural stream channels and wet- areas reserved for open space and wildlife lands. With the increased runoff and habitats and with provision for compatible with tapping of ground-water for domestic uses (e.g. public access to the shoreline) water supplies, aquifers near the Bay and for high quality utilities service. shore are sometimes inadequately re- In this manner scarce shoreline areas can charged -- resulting in infiltration serve more residents, unique opportunities of saline Bay waters into aquifers. The of particular sites can be responded to, inappropriate use of septic tanks has and provision can be made for compatible resulted in the discharge of inadequate- uses . ly treated wastewater into the Bay and b. Systematic approaches for relating its tributaries. These development pat- development to characteristics of the terns, by reducing the total develop- natural environment on a regional basis ment potential of peninsula areas, have are being operationalized. In the Balti- made off-site sewerage systems uneconomic more Region, the Regional Planning Council and have reduced the value of sites still has analyzed land use capabilities on the available because of resulting water pol- basis of slopes, soil types and bedrock Re 4 lution. It is probable that if better res- material.( ^• 5 This type of analysis idential development patterns prevailed, can be used for multi-acreage assessment the pressure of year-round and vacation of land suitability. residential demand in shoreline areas c. Area-wide plans for shoreland use could be a force tending to reduce the which balance the needs for residential problem (so stated in the introduction) development of shoreland against other ob- rather than a force tending to increase jectives (development of waterfront in- it. dustry, visual access to the Bay, public d. The increase of conflicting Bay access to Bay-oriented open space and out- water and shoreline uses will tend to door recreation, preservation of animal increase problems of realizing the res- and aquatic habitats, etc.) could be idential development potential of penin- developed and implemented. sula areas. Chief among conflicting wa- d. New sewerage system techniques ter uses is the use of the Bay for liquid can be employed to serve residential de- and solid waste disposal. Certain rec- velopment -- techniques which avoid the reational activities such as motor boat- environmental dangers of septic tanks and ing can conflict with shoreline residen- the high costs of extending long sewerage tial uses. Shoreland uses which can con- lines down peninsula ridge lines. flict with residential development po- e. Large tracts of military land tential include some recreational uses (e.g., Edgewood Arsenal and Aberdeen (e.g., motor boating), the reservation or Proving Grounds) could be released for acquisition of areas for public access other uses in the relatively near future. to the Bay shore, and industrial uses re- These areas should be planned for on a leased from traditional locational de- contingency basis so as to provide for the terminants. Under unplanned, uncontrol- balanced needs of residential development, led development conditions, these factors public open space and recreation, and other can become increasing threats to shore- uses . line residential development potential. f. Renewal in waterfront areas can include high quality residential uses. 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Prob- Baltimore's Inner Harbor Project is an lem example. a. New land development approaches 182 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook the need for tradeoffs with other goals, Very rough calculations indicate in this instance objectives for goal that residential development in penin- achievement must include those related sula areas will proceed at a rate of to the environment. 9,000 year-round dwelling units and 2,000 vacation dwelling units per year. 3.2 Objectives Most of the year-round dwelling units a. Adapt and apply an ecological plan- will be built on the fringes of urbaniz- ning method for identifying intrinsic suit- ing areas of the western shore. The ability for all forms of development on vacation units will be built in areas the Bay's shores. Basic regional phen- of amenity on both shores of the Bay. omena are examined in terms of processes, It is not unreasonable to assume that and data are represented as a model of an 165,000 acres of Bay shoreland will be interacting system. Much of this will developed for residential use between come out of field research in exploring 1970 and the year 2000. the other goals and problems. The model But the issue cannot be adequately constitutes the descriptions of the en- characterized in terms of the volume and vironment for interpretation and predic- acreage of residential development. tion of likely consequences to specific Rather, the issue is residential develop- interventions. ment under what environmental conditions, The Baltimore Regional Planning at what densities, and in combination Council currently has under way elements with what other uses. Present trends of this kind of analysis for that region are discouraging in this regard. These but is not focusing on the shoreline nor indicate that future shoreline residen- involved in the whole Bay. (Ref- 4) tial development will be poorly planned b. Classify sites intrinsically both at area-wide and site planning suitable for residential use by socio- scales, that this development will pre- economic criteria for development, based empt large stretches of shoreline for on nature of site, availability of util- a fraction of potential demand, and that ities, goals of communities and housing environmental values will suffer in the demand and need. process. Action at the State level will c. When sites are already preempted probably be needed to reverse these by inappropriate development establish trends. procedures whereby these can become non- conforming uses to be amortized and the sites made available. 3.3 Standards 3 Waterfront Residential Development: Goals, Basic standards for residential de- Objectives, Standards, Policies velopments are well established. What are not established are standards for 3 •1 Goal - Maximize Opportunity for Bay environmental impact related to desirable Waterfront Residential Development residential environments. That is, de- The Bay is one of the most important velopment often sets in motion negative reasons that Maryland is a "land of environmental consequences that in turn pleasant living". Maximizing residential affect the quality of the development it- development on the Bay cannot be consider- self. This has been tragically true of ed in isolation of the potential impact many of the Bay's sub-estuaries. of such development on the environment. These new standards will be for Thus, even though the general goal pro- water quality, forestation, fish and wild- cedure used thus far is to suggest maxi- life, aquifer recharge, maximum runoff, mization as a step toward explicating etc., as well as visual amenity. The truly 183 great building sites along the Bay's edge can thus be protected and re- served for appropriate development. 3 . 4 Policies County plans and policies are currently the key elements regarding whether maximum opportunities for water- front housing are achieved. These plans generally reflect local goal aggregation and private owner aspirations, which to- gether reduce to varying degrees the possibilities. Further, in most cases local zoning is not based on ecological considerations. A major policy to be considered in achieving maximum residential op- portunity can be the preparation of plans and their implementation by the Department of Economic and Community Development. The current State Develop- ment Pattern does not reach to the level of detail (e.g. subdivision) necessary to guide residential development loca- tion and characteristics in critical shoreline areas. Further, formalized State environ- mental guidelines could be channeled to county governments for incorporation in local shoreline planning decisions. These guidelines could treat sediment control, visual modifications, provi- sions of public access, flood hazard, as well as the more traditional stan- dards relating to setback, coverage and septic tank design. 184 Footnotes References 1. The following discussion is based 1. "Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline Utili- in part on the very useful analysis of zation in the Baltimore Region", Paul shoreline residential land use in R. Farragut, Regional Planning Council, Ref. 1, pp. 67-83. April, 1969, p. 86. In addition, development of boating facilities in conjunction with water- 2. A review of a recent nationwide front residential development almost survey of the volume and characteristics invariably puts severe pressure on of second home construction by the marshlands, particularly on the West- Bureau of the Census: Sylvia Porter, ern Shore. Very often the most effi- Camden Courier Post, June 14, 1971. cient means of acquiring deep water and adequate low, flat land is to 3. Maryland Statistical Abstract, De- dredge shallow bottoms and deposit partment of Economic Development, June the spoil on adjacent marshes. 30, 1970, p. 209. 2. Derived from projections by 4. "Land Utilization Potentials of watersheds (Regional Planning Council): the Baltimore Region Based on Natural assumes 1/2 of Bush River and Back/Middle Criteria", Regional Planning Council, River watersheds in peninsula areas, Baltimore, Maryland, December, 1970. 1/4 of Gunpowder Falls and Gwynn's Falls watersheds, 1/3 of Jones Falls and 1/10 of Patapsco River watersheds. 3. Derived from 2020 Population Projections for Alternate Regional Development Patterns, RFC, 1969, alternative I: Extension of policies implicit in the Suggested General Development Plan. 185 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS L. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 187 1. Solid Waste Disposal Problems 187 1. 1 Nature of the Problem 187 1.2 Major Causes 187 1.3 Location 188 1.4 Time Characteristics 188 1.5 Parties Affected 188 2. Future Dimensions of Solid Waste Disposal Problems 189 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 189 Table 1: Annual Solid Waste Generation of Existing Population and Employment 190 Table 2: Annual Solid Waste Generation of Future Population and Employment: Assumes That Effective Policy Measures are Employed to Maintain the Rates of Solid Waste Generation Close to Present Levels 191 Table 3: Annual Solid Waste Generation of Future Population and Employment: Assumes That Rates of Solid Waste Generation Continue to Increase According to Current Trends 191 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 192 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook 193 3. Solid Waste Disposal Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 193 3.1 Goal 193 3.2 Objectives 193 3.3 Standards 194 3.4 Policies 194 186 Solid Waste Disposal areas. Measures to reduce the undesirable side effects of sanitary landfill and in- cineration methods of solid waste disposal i Solid Waste Disposal Problems generally increase their costs. In addition, an increasing volume The problem is what to do with the of solid waste material does not lend mounting quantities of solid waste pro- itself to traditional disposal methods. duced by people. Toxic industrial wastes are not adequately treated by municipal sewage treatment 1. 1 Nature of the Problem plants. The residue from sewage treatment In the Chesapeake Bay region, as plants is not suitable for disposal by elsewhere in the U.S., a growing urban sanitary landfill. population and economy is producing solid wastes of all kinds at increasing 1.2 Major Causes rates. "Solid wastes" are distinguished There are several major causes of from liquid, thermal, and other types the increasing Bay problem with regard of wastes by the manner and form in to solid waste disposal. One is the in- which they are collected and disposed of. creasing volume of solid wastes produced Most domestic garbage and refuse, office by a growing urban population and economy. refuse and much industrial waste mate- Estimates indicate that today each person rial are considered solid wastes. The will "generate" (throw away) about 6 lbs. categorization is not a rigid one, of of solid wastes. In 1920, a much smaller course. The installation of garbage urban population produced solid wastes grinders, for instance, converts solid at a rate of less than 3 lbs. per day waste into liquid waste and transfers (Ref. 1 ) . the burden of col-lection and disposal A second cause of solid waste problems from the solid waste disposal system to is the growing public awareness of the con- the public sewerage system. sequences of traditional methods of solid Each of the currently available waste disposal. The techniques of solid disposal meihods has a unique set of waste management are very similar to what cost characteristics and side effects. they were 25 years ago when the large Sanitary landfills involve the acquisi- municipal incinerator was introduced. tion of land, which is increasingly "'Cities now pay from $10 to $30 a ton to costly in urban areas. Efforts to collect and dispose of solid wastes, with find cheaper urban land have sometimes the cost usually met through taxes on led to the acquisition of wetlands for property.' Such assessments are not fair sanitary landfills -- and to subsequent because they are 'almost wholly unrelated ecological consequences. Sanitary land- to the sources and volumes' of refuse.'" fill areas have potential for eventual (Ref. 2) Solid waste disposal consumes recreation or amenity reuse, but these increasing proportions of municipal capital have generally failed to mollify nearby and operating budgets. Thus, solid waste residents who must live with the land- disposal is an increasingly hot political issue. fill operation in the meantime. In- Another cause is the growing volume of cineration of solid wastes requires wastes which cannot be adequately disposed major capital costs and, in addition, of by traditional methods. These are prime can contribute to air pollution in urban candidates for disposal by barging. A dram- atic example is the U.S. Army's recent dis- posal of nerve gas off the North Carolina coast. 187 Still another cause relates sim- almost all of which have a policy dimension: ply to geography. The major source a. The per capita rates and the per of solid waste generation is the Bal- employee rates at which solid wastes are timore-Washington metropolitan area generated. . . and the effects of educa- on the western shore of the Bay. This tional and recycling policies on the pro- area is some 200 miles from the Atlan- portion of generated solid wastes which tic Ocean. Thus, ocean disposal of the public must find ways of disposing, solid wastes involves a major trans- b. The proportion of total solid portation cost component, which reduces waste generation disposed of by alternative its competitiveness vis-a-vis alter- available methods. . . which implies cost- native disposal methods in the Chesa- benefit analyses for comparison of alter- peake Bay region. native methods. A final cause relates to the c. The impact of other uses of the nature of the Bay -- its shallowness, Bay (e.g., recreation, marine transporta- its wetlands, its importance as an tion, sewage disposal) on its capacity for aquatic habitat, its recreational solid waste disposal use . . . and Bay and amenity uses, etc. The Bay is management decisions affecting these aspects already used for most disposal of dredging spoils from Bay waters. 1. 5 Parties Affected The ecological consequences of major A major category of parties affected additions of municipal solid wastes by Bay management decisions regarding solid are not fully known but are poten- waste disposal are municipal taxpayers who tial ly severe. must pay the monetary costs of public solid waste disposal. These costs are consider- 1. 3 Location able now and they will increase in the fu- Various portions of the Bay ture in response to the increasing com- have different characteristics with plexity of the solid waste disposal prob- regard to potential for solid waste lem in urbanized areas, and in response to disposal. The characteristics would policies which would include a larger por- include disposal cost, disposal capa- tion of the environmental costs of waste city and ecological effects. An in- disposal in the monetary costs which the ventory of the Bay bottom vis a vis taxpayer or consumer must pay. solid waste disposal potential would A second major category of affected identify those areas which were least parties are persons impinged upon by the undesirable for this use. The possi- neighborhood effects of solid waste dispo- bility of the creation of islands such sal facilities. These differ for different as Poole's Island can have good conse- disposal methods and are differently evalu- quences . ated by the persons affected. Adequate compensation of persons who must share their 1.4 Time Characteristics neighborhood with a sanitary landfill opera- The generation of solid wastes tion, for instance, would have the effect has few major seasonal characteristics of transferring the additional burden to which must be considered. Nor does the the broader population of taxpayers. Where Bay itself have seasonal or other time the amount of the transfer can be accurately characteristics affecting its assimi- measured, it is desirable public policy that lative capacity for disposal of solid the transfer be made. was tes. Still another category of affected The major time characteristics party is persons whose jobs may be affected affecting Bay problems regarding solid by solid waste disposal operations. Commer- waste disposal, therefore, are trends -• cial fishermen, for example, may be affected 188 by ecological consequences of solid Maryland metropolitan areas. waste disposal in estuarine waters. Recreational users of the Bay 2 -1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem especially those engaging in water- a. Population growth and economic contact sports and sport fishing -- growth would almost double solid waste gen- are likely to be affected by solid eration in the Maryland Bay Region by the waste disposal in the Bay. year 2000 even if rates of solid waste gen- eration remained constant. Population is projected to increase by a factor of 1% be- 2 Future Dimensions of Solid Waste tween 1970 and the year 2000. The economy Disposal Problems will also expand, though data in terms that relate directly to solid waste generation The Chesapeake Bay problem with is not available. regard to solid waste disposal concerns b. The impact of population and eco- the degree to which and the circum- nomic growth on solid waste generation will stances under which the Bay should or be compounded by increases in rates of solid can be used for solid waste disposal. waste generation. Per capita rates of solid The above problem statement fo- waste generation have been increasing for a cuses on the potential impact of solid long time and the likelihood is that they waste disposal on the Chesapeake Bay will continue to increase in the future. It rather than on solid waste disposal is estimated that urban residents today pro- problems more generally. "Unlike gas- duce solid wastes at a rate of about 6 lbs. eous and liquid wastes, which are regu- per day. In the year 1980, the rate of solid larly degraded by natural forces and/ waste generation per capita will be over 8 or assimilated by the natural environ- lbs. per day and in 2000 it may be over 10 ment, solid wastes degrade and compact lbs. per day.(Ref. 1) Rates of solid waste only to a minor degree. Consequently, production by economic activities have also solid wastes accumulate. Since the increased dramatically. land available for disposing of solid In all, generation of paper and paper wastes within any given region is es- products, garbage, demolition materials, sentially fixed, there is an approxi- cans, bottles, discarded furniture, debris mate limit to the capacity of the land from street sweepings and storm runoff, and to receive solid wastes. However, the abandoned vehicles has increased dramatically amount of solid wastes which may be and is becoming a major public concern. The disposed of within the limited space impact of the factors mentioned above on available can be significantly altered total solid waste generation in the Maryland in two ways: (1) by the methods used Bay Region is indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 3, in the disposal system, i.e., incinera- The calculations indicate that solid waste tion, compaction, recycling; and (2) generation in the Maryland Bay Region may by modifying the depth or height of increase almost 4 times between 1960 and the the filling operation, i.e., contour- year 2000 unless policy measures directed at ing of final grade. Nevertheless, reducing rates of solid waste generation are because of continuous accumulation, taken. In suburbanizing areas of the Mary- the most important consideration in land Bay Region, such as Montgomery and the disposal of solid wastes is the Prince George's Counties, the total solid amount of space available on and/or R waste generation may increase by over five adjacent to the land in a region."( ef•3) times between 1960 and the year 2000. The potential impact of solid waste c. The potential impact of solid waste disposal problems on the Chesapeake generation on the Chesapeake Bay can begin Bay results from the fixed (or decreas- to be seen in the rough calculations of land- ing) supply of space available in the fill space needs required for disposal of 189 Table 1: ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF EXISTING POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Solid Waste Solid Waste Generation Generation Existing Dimensions 1960 Pop. Per Capita5 (Tons) Baltimore Region 1,804,000 0.60 tons 1,090,000 Washington Metro Area 698,000 0.60 tons 420,000 Southern Maryland 111,000 0.60 tons 67,000 Eastern Shore 244,000 0.60 tons 147,000 Cecil County ^ Solid Waste Solid Waste Generation Generation Existing Dimensions 1960 Employ.Per Capita5 (Tons) Baltimore Region 702,000 0.75 tons 528,000 Washington Metro Area 174,000 0.75 tons 131,000 Southern Maryland 23,000 0.75 tons 17,000 Eastern Shore 73,000 0.75 tons 55,000 Cecil County 14,000 0.75 tons 11,000 Total Landfill Space Needs^ Solid Waste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Ton Existing Dimensions Generation a ( cu. yds . ) Baltimore Region 1,618,000 5,650,000 Washington Metro Area 551,000 1,931,000 Southern Maryland 84,000 294,000 Eastern Shore 213,000 744,000 Cecil County TOTAL 2,466,000 8,619,000 ^Indexes from Ref . 3~! (On a per capita basis, the rate of solid waste generation is about 5 lbs. per day.) ^Assumes no incineration, recycling. 190 ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMFNT: ASSUMES THAT EFFECTIVE POLICY MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED TO MAINTAIN THE RATES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION CLOSE TO PRESENT LEVELS Solid Waste Solid Waste Proj ections Generation Generation Current Rates 2000 Pop. Per Capita3 (Tons) Baltimore Region 3,457,000 0.60 tons 2,080,000 Washington Metro Area 1,974,000 0.60 tons 1,190,000^ Southern Maryland 220,000 0.60 tons 132,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 408,000 0.60 tons 246,000 Solid Waste Solid Waste Projections 1980 Generation Generation Current Rates Employ. Per Capita3 (Tons) Baltimore Region 904,000 0.75 tons 678,000 Washington Metro Area 418,000 0.75 tons 314,000 Southern Maryland 38,000 0.75 tons 29,000 Eastern Shore 82,000 0.75 tons 62,000 Cecil County 18 ,000 0.75 tons 14 , 000 Total Landfill Space Needs'^ Projections Solid Waste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Ton Current Rates Generation a (cu. yds • ) Baltimore Region 2,758,000 9,630,000 Washington Metro Area " 1,504,000 5,260,000 Southern Maryland 161,000 562,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 322,000 1,130,000 TOTAL 4, 745,000 16,582,000 ( + 92%) Indexes from Ref. 3, pp. 90-94. "Assumes no incineration, recycling. ANNUAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT: ASSUMES THAT RATES OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION CONTINUE TO INCREASE ACCORDING TO CURRENT TRENDS Solid Waste Solid Waste Generation Generation Projections, Trends 2000 Pop. Per Capita3 (Tons) Baltimore Region 3,457,000 1.15 tons 3,960,000 Washington Metro Area 1,974,000 1.15 tons 2,270,000 Southern Maryland 220,000 1.15 tons 252,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 402.000 1.15 tons 468,000 Solid Waste Solid Waste 1980 Generation Generation Projections, Trends Employ . Per Capita (Tons ) Baltimore Region 904,000 1.50 tons 1,360,000 Washington Metro Area 418,000 1.50 tons 625,000 Southern Maryland 38,000 1.50 tons 57,000 Eastern Shore 82,000 1.50 tons 123,000 Cecil County 18,000 1.50 tons 27 ,000 Total Landfill Space Needsb Solid Wste @3.5 Cubic Yards/Ton Projections, Trends Generation 3 (cu • yds • ) Baltimore Region 5,320,000 10,650,000 Washington Metro Area 2,895,000 10,170,000 Southern Maryland 309,000 1,820,000 Eastern Shore Cecil County 618,000 2,160,000 TOTAL 9, 142,000 24,800,000 ( + 187%) 3Indexes from Ref. 3. On a per capita basis the rate of solid waste generation is about 8 1/2 lbs. per day Assumes no incineration, recycling. 191 solid waste (Tables 1, 2 and 3). These little practical effect so far. A special indicate that by the year 2000 the annual shoreline pollution subcommittee of the need for solid waste disposal sites in Maryland General Assembly Legislative Coun- the Maryland Bay Region could be over 500 cil recently "considered it inadvisable to acres -- assuming landfills average 30 take action on the basic issues of taxing feet in depth.1 Most of the solid waste containers and recycling processes without (Ref 4 generation creating this space need would further study and deliberation." • 'The ap- be in metropolitan areas where vacant plication of ideas for recycling has been land is increasingly scarce and expensive. limited, because the cost of separating As land costs become an increasingly sig- valuable products from waste has not been nificant factor in solid waste disposal, worth the effort. (Ref.l) Recycled steel and as local community opposition to pro- is awkward to process and thus has a value posed landfill sites becomes more intense, of only $20 per ton. Waste paper, which the Bay may become increasingly attractive comprises a large proportion of total solid as a site for solid waste disposal. In wastes generated, has an even lower recycled the Maryland Bay Region, the Bay has the value. Recycled aluminum cans are worth added attraction that it is closer to $200 a ton, but they comprise a relatively metropolitan areas than alternative dis- small proportion of solid wastes. Effec- posal sites in the ocean or in non-me- tive policies for recycling will probably tropolitan areas. Thus Bay sites for require national legislation and implemen- solid waste disposal might offer low tation . transportation costs in comparison to Another proposal is a "one cent per other available alternatives. pound tax. . .on manufactured goods and d. The increasing amount of toxic their packaging to provide funds for their or non-degradable material in solid disposal. . . (the tax) would be applied wastes will compound the environmental to any item requiring disposal within 10 effects of solid wastes disposed of in years -- such as packaging, glassware, cloth- Bay sites. ing, refrigerators, bedding, washing machines, e. The increasing use of the Bay television sets and automobiles."(Ref. 2) for other purposes -- e.g. marine trans- However, policies to reduce the vol- portation (with its own spoil disposal ume of solid wastes requiring disposal may requirements), water-related recreation, very well gain momentum in the future. etc. -- will result in increasing con- b. Policies to improve the efficiency flicts with proposals for solid waste of solid waste disposal methods which are disposal in the Bay. alternatives to disposal in estuarine wa- ters would also help reduce pressure for 2 . 2 Forces Tending to Rediice the use of Bay sites for solid waste disposal. Problem High temperature incineration, ocean barg- a. Policies which have the effect ing, and transportation to strip mines and of reducing the rates (or rates of in- quarries far away from metropolitan areas are examples of alternative disposal methods crease) of solid waste generation in Ref modern economies would help to reduce fu- now being considered or developed A • ' ture pressures for use of Bay sites for Giant high-temperature incinerators solid waste disposal. Such policies are already feasible from economic and engi- could be directed at reducing per capita neering standpoints. Such plants may also or per unit of production rates of solid be designed so as to provide the substan- waste generation or at recycling wastes tial additional benefit of generating large that are generated. Such policies are amounts of electric power, while producing being considered, but, for various rea- less air pollution than comparable coal or sons - political and economic - have had oil fueled generating plants. (Such an 192 incinerator is being planned for the posal costs, which effectively inhibits Hackensack Meadows of northern New major use of the Bay for most solid Jersey. It will handle 6,000 tons of wastes at the present time. (Ref. 8) refuse a day - the output of 2 million However, dredging spoil is a neces- people - and will be capable of pro- sary by-product of channel and anchorage ducing 150,000 kilowatts of electric maintenance and enlargement and of port power. (Ref.6) development, and the Bay is currently c. Research into the effects of the most important (indeed, almost the solid waste disposal in Bay sites can only feasible) resource for disposal. provide better assessments of the en- An example is the deepening of the Balti- vironmental effects of such actions. more Harbor channel where five contained The research program could be modeled disposal areas are to accomodate 88 on the current one with regard to the million cubic yards of spoil. Hence, discharge of thermal wastes into Bay this section concentrates somewhat on waters at various locations and under dredging spoil as the predominant demand particular conditions. (Ref.7) for solid waste disposal in the Bay itself. 2.3 .Summary - Future Outlook The amount of solid wastes gen- 3 - 2 Obj ectives erated in the Maryland Bay Region will a. Establish a monitoring system increase rapidly. The difficulty of for surveillance of Bay solid waste finding space for landfill disposal disposal. will continue to increase -- especially b. Identify solid waste disposal in metropolitan areas. These factors, (including spoils) requirements for a- in combination with the cost of trans- chievement of goals for marine trans- porting solid wastes over long distances, portation, waterfront development and will result in increasing pressure for recreation. This will give dimension the use of Bay sites for solid waste and location to future disposal activity, disposal. With regard to such propo- comparable to that for the Baltimore sals, the changing composition of solid Harbor Study. (Ref. 9) wastes and the increase in conflicting c. Explore most economically Bay uses will exacerbate disposal prob- feasible spoil and solid waste disposal lems . sites for future disposal requirements. Economically feasible sites may be en- vironmentally damaging, but the costs of the trade-offs must be ascertained. 3 Solid Waste Disposal: Goals, Objectives, d. Determine characteristics of Standards, Policies spoil to be displaced. The character 3 of spoil makes a major difference in •1 Goal: Provide for Necessary Solid its environmental acceptability. Spoil Waste Disposal in the Bay from the Baltimore Inner Harbor had too A first distinction is made for high a mercury, zinc and BOD content to purposes of viewing the Bay as a resource allow dumping at Poole's Island. for solid waste disposal. It is assumed e. Determine all locations for that for most solid waste disposal -- spoil deposit that would be consistent garbage, sewage sludge, trash, and with goals for recreation and water- mineral wastes -- the Bay does not now front development. Recreation goals represent a prime target. Collection can often be achieved by economic spoil and transportation to available landfill disposal to create beaches and islands. locations account for about 80% of dis- f. Determine all locations for 193 spoil and other solid waste disposal that would be consistent with or neutral to goals for living resources, wetlands and water movement. g. Prepare a long-range solid waste disposal management plan for the Bay. 3 . 3 Standards Standards for solid waste disposal generally must be set for maximum lim- its on volume, rates and percentages for recycling and reutilization, etc. These then will be guidelines for in- dustry and municpalities to make it uneconomic to be wasteful.2 For spoil disposal, the EPA has set maximum acceptable limits on chem- ical (and other) content of spoil to be deposited in the Bay. These are based at present on concern for human health rather than aquatic habitats. Research is now underway which will ultimately produce measures of impact traceable to changes in habitats due to spoil deposit. The U. S. Corps of Engineers, hydraulic model of the Bay will be of major importance in tracing effects of alternate spoil deposit on water move- ment . 3.4 Policies Except for dredging spoil from the Bay, solid wastes are generally unac- ceptable for deposit in the Bay at the present time. The Maryland Wetlands Bill and previous legislation gives the Department of Public Works and others such as Water Resources control over all dumping and filling in the Bay. Current surveillance methods should be increased to meet the above objectives. Costs of the policies involved in carrying out the objectives need to be determined as inputs to the planning, programming, budgeting system approach to Bay planning and managagement. 194 Footnotes References 1. This figure is twice the depth lm "Problem of Ridding City of of many existing landfills n u ^-, * r. t «-J-ty or y •L-L-Lt>- Garbage Eludes a Solution", New York Times, March 24, 1970. 2. For example, Maryland already imposes a $5 charge every six months 2. ..New Tax should p for Trash of aae 'h^d J ^ over seven years Disposal", (a discussion of testimony 1 m0nthS l0nger in a1 wrecker's ^Itl** * yard. ^ ^ presented to the Senate Air and Water Pollution Sub-committee by L. S. Wegman, N.Y.C. Consulting Engineer), Camden Courier-Post, February 25, 1970. 3. Waste Management, Regional Plan Association, 1968, p.32; pp.90-94. 4. "Potomac Newsletter", November 30, 1970, Potomac Basin Center. 5. "Scientists Study Trash Train Plan", New York Times, August 9, 1970. 6. New York Times, August 19, 1971. 7. "Report on Research Activities and Proposals", The Steering Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Cooling Waters Study Group, September 3, 1970. 8. "Solid Wastes", Environmental Science and Technology, May, 1970, p. 386; p. 388. 9. "1970 Annual Report", (February 1970-February 1971), Maryland Environ- mental Service - Baltimore Harbor Proj ect. 195 II, PROBLEMS AND GOALS M. PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND APPEARANCE AND DESIGN OF SHORELINE 197 1. Shoreline Access and Appearance Problems 197 1.1 Nature of the Problem I97 1.2 Causes of the Problems 197 1. 3 Location 197 Plate 23 : Shoreline Ownership and Major Use 198 Parties Affected 197 Time Characteristics 199 Future Dimensions of Shoreline Access and Appearance Problems 199 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 199 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 199 Summary - Future Outlook 200 3. Shoreline Access and Appearance Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 200 3.1 Goal 200 3.2 Objectives 200 3.3 Standards 200 3.4 Policies 201 196 M Public Access to and Appearance and Design in the Maryland economy, are unresponsive to the pleas for conservation of wetlands, of Shoreline or choose the ocean shore even though the recreation resources of the Bay are prac- i Shoreline Access and Appearance Problems tically in their backyards. The problem is how to make the 1•2 Causes of the Problems Bay's shoreline accessible and observ- Under pressure from market demands, able by the general public. local government has responded by zoning the shoreline for private and low-intensity 1 • 1 Nature of the Problem uses. There is little shoreline suitable The general public has remarkably (reportedly less than 1% in a natural state) little access to the Chesapeake Bay for beaches. The latter is a natural cause. shoreline. In part, this situation Furthermore, most trends indicate stems from the geography of the Bay. that the situation will get worse rather Major roads have been built inland where than better. Private residential develop- expensive crossings of sub-estuaries ment for vacation and year-round use will feeding the Bay were not necessary. in put pressure on remaining vacant shoreline part, the lack of public access is due areas. it is difficult and expensive to to the extensiveness of private uses of reclaim obsolete industrial areas (e.g., shoreline areas. Only some 3% is Baltimore's Inner Harbor) for public rec- publicly owned and accessible. Some of reational shoreline access. Local govern- the privately owned land is industrial ments are increasingly hard pressed to and in institutional use but by far the 2 provide basic services and have insuffic- major portion is low density residential. ient funds to acquire needed shoreline land. In part, the lack of public access is due to public actions or inactions. 1. 3 Location Large stretches of the Western shoreline The problem of public shoreline of the Bay are preempted by military access is most severe on the Western shore reservations, mostly for testing oper- of the Bay where most of the public which ations (e.g., Aberdeen Proving Grounds would benefit from such access lives. and Edgewater Arsenal). State and local It is also on the Western shore that the governments either have not tried or not most dramatic possibilities and proposals been able to reserve shoreline areas for for providing public access to the Bay park and recreational areas. exist: e.g., reuse of part of the Aberdeen As a result, there are very few Proving Ground/Edgewood Arsenal for public places where the general public can con- shoreline access; the major park proposals veniently appreciate the major amenity for the Susquehanna River and Patuxent and geographic features of the Bay area - River; development of public vista points i.e., the Bay itself. Views from Federal in the Baltimore Harbor; public parkland Hill and Fort McHenry, in Baltimore, the acquisition programs such as that now Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River underway by Baltimore County. (See Plate 23) Bridges, and the waterfronts of some of Access to the water itself is being the old towns along the Bay (Annapolis, increasingly provided by means of marina St. Michaels, etc.) are among the few opportunities . facilities; however, the availability of adequate parking, highway access, and Many Bay area residents go about other commercial back-up facilities for their normal activities for months with- marinas is an increasing problem. out any awareness that the Bay is there at all. They are often surprised to learn 1-4 Parties Affected of the importance of the Port of Baltimore The major party affected by Bay 197 PLATE 23: Shoreline Ownership and Land Use t-. PENNSYLVANIA DELAWARE - | ' MARYLAND problems with regard to public shoreline pressure on the remaining vacant shore- access are citizens who are either too line areas. Parcelization of these poor to purchase private shoreline access tracts will effectively preempt conversion (e.g., shoreline vacation homes, yacht for publicly-oriented uses in the future, club facilities and marinas) or are likely b. It is increasingly difficult to be preempted from private shoreline and expensive to reclaim obsolete water- access by those who got there first. As front development areas for public recre- remaining vacant shoreland is turned over ational shoreline access. Local governments to development and as the price of shore are increasingly hard-pressed to provide frontage increases, this means practic- basic services and have sufficient ally everybody - perhaps 90% of the urban funds to acquire needed shoreline land, population. c# The increasing amount of debris Further intensive use of the shore- generated by modern industrial economy, line affects citizens who are already in combination with the increasing expense using the shore. Many of the present and difficulty of collecting and disposing residents of low density shoreline areas of these materials, will result in increas- whose vacation environment will be ad- ing amounts of debris conveyed in storm versely affected have an interest in runoff and stream flows, which will collect preventing an influx of public Bay shore- along the Bay shoreline and further damage line users. its appearance. The growing tourist services in- d. The demand for some forms of public dustry is also affected. Better public access to the shoreline (e.g., marinas) access to the Bay can be expected to often creates problems in the appearance assist in the expansion of tourism of the shoreline and in water pollution, in Maryland. 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 1 5 - Time Characteristics a. More comprehensively planned and The problem has increased dramati- intensive use of shoreline areas (see Sec- cally in the last ten years with the tions j "Waterfront Industry", K "Waterfront rapid growth and approach of Baltimore- Residential Development") can conceivably Washington urbanization. These two absorb much of the demand for private shore- metropolitan areas together are among line access, thereby reducing development the fastest growing in the nation. pressures elsewhere along the shoreline and easing problems of providing Bay shoreline access for the general public. 2 Future Dimensions of Shoreline Access b. Policies to encourage institutional, and Appearance Problems industrial, and commercial uses which have shoreline frontage to make provision for The Bay problem is how to provide public access. Such policies can provide increased access to the shore for the access for the general public in areas general public while at the same time where there would otherwise be none. Steps making appropriately located shoreline in this direction have been made by several areas available to private and insti- major shoreline-using institutions, tutional uses which have a legitimate c. Increasing public initiatives need for them. to take direct responsibility for providing public shoreline access -- through acquisition 2-1 Forces Tending to Increase the of vacant shoreline land, reuse or renewal -- Problem would, of course, help reduce the problem, a. Demand for low intensity The Baltimore County park acquisition program private residential development for is capable of wider application in Bay-shore vacation and year-round use will put counties. Use of public powers to help 199 transform obsolete industrial areas to the shoreline are likely to increase, provide public shoreline access (as well as other renewal uses) is being start- ed in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Planned reuse of public land for public shore- 3 Shoreline Access and Appearance: Goals; line access (e.g., the Aberdeen/Edge- Objectives, Standards, Policies wood Proposals) is a variation of the same approach. 3.1 Goal - Maximize Public Access to the d. Maximum feasible public ac- Bay, and Enhance the Appearance and cess to the water's edge should be in- Design of the Shoreline cluded in the planning and design of Consideration of this goal divides all new developments -- whether indust- between objectives of making the Bay more rial, commercial, or residential. Pub- accessible, perceived and enjoyed, and lic policies (e.g., tax credits, cost- standards and principles for improving sharing) should be adopted which en- its appearance and the quality of the courage waterfront companies to include environment. such access wherever neither their operations nor the public welfare or 3.2 Objectives safety would be endangered. a. Develop a socio-economic and e. Visual access to the Bay and ecological classification system for the a total, ecological approach to route Bay's edge (water and land) that takes selection should be made an integral part into account: urban-rural; ownership; of highway and bridge alignment and design. type of area by slope, soils, vegetation, Other aspects of design of the wildlife and aquatic habitat, aspect, water's edge are equally as important as water quality, movement and depth, appear- highway access. Examples of principles ance, appropriateness of and latent demand to be followed are described in the San for access, etc. Francisco Bay Plan Supplement (Ref.l) b. Inventory all aspects of Bay and the Potomac Report (Ref. 2). shore and apply the classification system. This inventory should be carried out for 2.3 Summary - Future Outlook the entire Bay and its results incorpor- "Present trends continued" indi- ated into a Bay Information System. cate that the problems of public shore- c. Establish specific plans for line access and shoreline appearance will maximizing access to the Bay's edge from increase in the future. Private demands both water and land that are based on for shoreline land will receive priority ecologically sensitive criteria. Where over public access needs (which have a appropriate land is in private ownership, significant latent component). As remain- the use of public easements and acquisi- ing possibilities for developing public tion of hunting and fishing rights may access dwindle (especially in urbanized be considered. areas) the difficulties of meeting public needs will increase. As growing public 3.3 Standards shoreline access demands are increasingly Standards for amount of access and focused on a few limited areas, the appear- quality of appearance and design must at ance and quality of these areas will present be arbitrary and comparative. decline. In the face of the really limited Active pursuit of a variety of access today, it is not appropriate to approaches to the provision of public establish standards for access based on shoreline access could reverse present population and type of area until the trends in this area. However, difficul- inventory and classification outlines ties of maintaining the appearance of in Objectives ajb, and c are completed. 200 3.4 Policies Footnotes However, policies that can be adopted as design principles and that will, if fol- lowed, lead toward goal achievement, can be described. The currently appropriate 1• A useful review of shoreline level of government for their adoption utilization characteristics in the and implementation is the county. Baltimore Region can be found in a. "Build shoreline development in Ref. 4. clusters (leaving more open area around them) to increase the amount of shoreline 2- Section K, above, discusses how accessible to the public and to permit shoreline areas could be used more more frequent views of the Bay. intensively for residential use, and b. "Include in every new develop- how this objective could be compatible ment maximum opportunity for pedestrian rather than in conflict with environ- access to the waterfront. mental goals. c. "Provide public access into natural areas... (on a controlled basis). d. "Design any permitted fills to produce a net increase in amount of shore- References line...for additional public access. e. "Design roadways near the edge of the water as scenic parkways, discour- aging thru traffic and encouraging safe 1- San Francisco Bay Plan Supplement, pedestrian access. San Francisco Conservation and Development f. "Design...bridges to permit Commission, 1969, p. Ill; pp. 124-130. maximum viewing of the bay. g. "Design towers, bridges or other 2. AIA Task Force on the Potomac, structures near or over the Bay as land- U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. marks that suggest where the waterfront is--- 3. McHarg, Ian L., Design With Nature, h. "Design developments near the Doubleday Natural History Press, 1969. mouths of (subestuaries) to preserve the view of the juncture of the (subestuary) with 4. Farragut, Paul R., "Chesapeake Bay: the Bay as far upstream as the alignment of Shoreline Utilization in the Baltimore the waterway will permit..." (Ref.1) Region", April, 1969, Regional Planning i. Take advantage of opportunities Council, Baltimore, Md. for public water transportation on the Bay . j. Negotiate with institutional and public agency land owners to make the water's edge publicly available. k. Establish a design review system and review board to evaluate all devel- opment adjacent to the Bay and make rec- ommendations to the appropriate decision- body for improvement. 201 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS N. NON-LIVING RESOURCES - SAND AND GRAVEL 203 1. Non-Living Resources Problems 203 1.1 Nature of the Problem 203 1.2 Major Causes 203 1.3 Location 203 Plate 24: Surface Geology 204 1.4 Time Characteristics , 205 1.5 Parties Affected 205 2. Future Dimensions of Non-Living Resources Problems 205 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Problem 205 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem 205 2 . 3 Summary - Future Outlook . . . 206 3. Non-Living Resources Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 206 3, . 1-. rGoal„=1 206 3.2 Objectives 207 3.3 Standards 207 3.4 Policies 207 202 N Non-Living Resources — the water which can affect wetlands, aquatic life and wildfowl. A recent Sand and Gravel example is at Mattawoman Creek where the Potomac Sand and Gravel Company has a permit to conduct dredging operations which will damage fish and wildlife.(Ref•2) 1 Non-Living Resources Problems 1.2 Major Causes One major cause of the problem The problem is how to provide sand is the pace of urban development which and gravel economically to meet the maintains the demand for sand and gravel need. at a high level. New or expanded demands for these resources -- such as the devel- 1. 1 Nature of the Problem opment and maintenance of everything from As the resource base for oil, highways to sand beaches along the Bay gas and various metals is limited in the shore -- would increase total demand and Chesapeake Bay area, the major non- the pressure for extraction from the 1 living natural resource extracted is Bay itself as well as adjacent land Ref 1 sand and gravel.* • * Sand and gravel sources. are used in constructing highways and Another major cause of the problem the manufacture of construction mater- is the increasing concern of residents ials. The demand for sand and gravel for the environmental consequences of is thus closely associated with areas extractive activity. This concern has of urban development. As transportation placed greater constraints on extractive makes up a significant portion of the activities on land in many residential final cost of these materials, there areas around the Bay that may result in is a strong economic incentive to devel- increased pressure on the Bay as a sub- op sources of sand and gravel supply stitute source of these materials. close to the points of demand in urban A possible cause is the depletion areas. of the sand and gravel resource base in Extraction of sand and gravel from the Chesapeake Bay area and the improb- on-land sites can cause a number of det- ability of developing economical sub- rimental environmental effects. The stitutes for sand and gravel in highway open pit extractiontechniaue and urban construction. A final cause can create erosion problems. The wash- is the improving technology of dredging ing of gravel can increase siltation which will make extraction from the Bay -- of streams. The extraction and hauling even in relatively deep waters -- increas- activities can create dust and noise ingly competitive with on-land extraction. bothersome to nearby residents. Often no provisions are made for reuse 1.3 Location of the pit after extraction is com- The areas of urban development on pleted, and it remains an eyesore on the western shore of the Bay are the major increasingly valuable urban land. (although not the only) locations of de- Extraction of sand and gravel mand for sand and gravel. There appear from streams, subestuaries and shallow to be sufficient deposits of sand and Bay waters can cause even more environ- gravel in these areas. Much of the Bay mental damage. Changes in the Bay bottom is clayey silt. However, there bottom topography can cause changes in are relatively small deposits of sand off water currents which can affect erosion- the western and eastern shores -- espec- accretion patterns. Silt from dredging ially in the area of the Bay off Dorchester operations can affect the turbidity of and Somerset Counties (see Plates 7, 24). 203 PLATE 24: Surface Geology DELAWARE .PENNSYLVANIA \ ] S/^ MARYLAND J ^ 1-4 Time Characteristics 2.1 Forces Tending to Increase the Firms extracting sand and gravel Problem tend to acquire sources in advance of a. The pace of urban development their view of demand. However, they are will maintain the demand for sand and in a race with urbanization and are always gravel at a high level. This is true in constrained by transportation costs. spite of recent trends showing decreasing total production of sand and gravel in 1,5 Parties Affected Maryland. (Between 1966 and 1967 sand Managers and employees of the and gravel production dropped 9%.) (Ref.3) construction industry are one category Continued urbanization on the Western of party affected by problems with Shore will involve the development of regard to sand and gravel extraction. everything from highways to sand beaches Increased costs of extracting and trans- along the Bay shore. Since there is no porting sand and gravel will most directly ready substitute for sand and gravel affect this industry, and insofar as these in many construction activities, total costs rise, they will be passed on to demand for these resources may increase, the customer. Increasing total demand may create increas- Residents in the immediate vie- ing pressures for extraction of sand and imty of on-land extractive activities gravel from the Bay bottom as well as from are another category of affected party. on-land sources. Their concern over the environmental b. Increasing community reaction (and land value) effects of extraction to the negative environmental effects of m their neighborhoods is one force for sand and gravel extraction from on-land increased use of the Bay for extraction sources, in combination with an increas- of sand and gravel. ing SCarcity of on-land sources within Recreational users can be affected metropolitan areas which do not generate positively or negatively by extraction such reactions, will place greater con- activities. The use of sand for beach straints on extractive activities from development can obviously create re- land sites and result in increased pres- creational benefits. On the other hand, sure on the Bay as a substitute source sport-fishing and shellfish areas can be of these materials. adversely affected, directly or indirectly c. The improving technology of by the change in wetlands or Bay hydrology, dredging will make extraction from the Participants in water contact recreation Bay increasingly competitive with on- can be adversely affected by increases land extraction, in turbidity associated with off-shore extraction. 2.2 Forces Tending to Reduce the Problem a. Several measures can reduce 2 Future Dimensions of IMon-Living the adverse aesthetic and environmental Resources Problems effects of sand and gravel extraction on land. Such measures will generally The Bay problem with regard to sand increase costs, nevertheless their and gravel extraction is to provide adequate adoption should be encouraged, for the sources of sand and gravel close enough economic costs of developing more remote to areas of urban development while at alternative sites would probably be the same time minimizing conflicts with higher, while environmental costs would other land and water uses, minimizing probably be unchanged. damaging environmental effects and making b. Better planning can result in provisions for appropriate reuse. a range of reuses of extraction pits. 205 The preparation of the site for reuse difficulty and expense of conducting will involve increased development costs; such opera tions Spoil dr edging, as a however, the increased value of urban form of ex tract ion, is a m uch larger land and the scarcity of large develop- problem wi th mo re serious environmental ment sites in metropolitan areas will impacts Consi dering the small scale more often than not make such invest- of extract ion f rom the Bay bottom, the ments worthwhile.(Ref. 4) washing of sand and gravel extracted from c. It is possible that extraction on-land si tes p oses more s erious water of sand and gravel from the Bay bottom quality pr oblem s for the B ay than does can increasingly substitute for on-shore extraction from the Bay bo ttom itself, sources of these materials. Research The other concl usion is th at, even at into the hydrology of the Bay and the low curren t lev els, extrac tion of sand environmental effects of dredging and gravel from the Bay bo ttom has operations and care in the planning and significan t env ironmental consequences, design of such extraction programs may and that a mino r shift in the total minimize detrimental environmental State extr actio n activity could have effects and even achieve ecologically major effe cts . beneficial results. (Ref. 5) d. Development of marine trans- portation technology can make possible more economic transportation of sand and gravel from non-metropolitan extraction 3 Non-Living Resources: Goals, Objectives, sites to metropolitan sources of demand. Standards, Policies 2. 3 Summary Future Outlook 3.1 Goal -- Take Maximum Advantage Information which indicates the of the Bay's Non-Living Resources proportions of total Maryland sand and The dist inction between non-living gravel extraction which comes from met- and living res ources is becoming a fine ropolitan, non-metropolitan or Bay one, but water oyster shells and sand bottom sites is not available. However, and gravel are the Bay's major non-living the indications are that extraction from resources. the Bay bottom is currently a small Recent c ontroversy about applica- proportion of total extraction activity. tions for perm ission to remove sand and Total marine freight traffic in sand and gravel from Ma ttawoman Creek and the gravel in 1969 was about 50,000 short Potomac point up these non-living tons. (Ref. 6) Half of this was directed resources' val ue. The applicants intend to Wicomico River port facilities, 18% to remove 10 m illion tons thereby to Nanticoke River port facilities, 4% eliminating 20 0 acres of state-owned through Choptank River facilities and and undesignat ed amount of private 28% through Baltimore Harbor facilities. marsh. (Ref. 2 ' They claim to supply Even if all or a large proportion of the over 80% of th e sand and gravel used in marine freight traffic in sand and gravel Washington, D. C. and stated consisted of material dredged from the that the price in the District would Bay bottom, it would account for only rise significa ntly if their proposed 0.5% of total sand and gravel extraction operation were not permitted. In a in Maryland. similar applic ation, 5 million tons There are two possible conclusions were to be dre dged from the Potomac from the above discussion. One is that at Craney's Is land. Both areas were the extraction of non-living resources environmental! y very sensitive, from the Bay is a minor problem and is Therefor e, it can be concluded likely to remain so because 'of the that the resou rce is valuable but in 206 most cases its exploitation has serious ecological consequences. 3 . 2 Obj ectives a. Inventory all commercially valuable deposits of sand and gravel in the Bay. These deposits are becoming more valuable as land sources are used up or become unavailable because of urban- ization . b. Develop a State sand and gravel extraction plan. This plan should utilize the regional input-output accounts methodology to trace the effects of alternate locations and rates of extraction on prices -- with differences introduced into models for economic- ecological tradeoffs. 3. 3 S tandar ds As in s tanda rds for marine trans- port ation , an impo rtant consideration of goal s for non -livi ng resources of the Bay is th eir role in the regional econ omy a s me asure d by the regional acco unts mode 1 men tioned above. Consid- erab le re sear ch wi 11 be necessary to dete rmine the valu e of the Bay resource and the r elat ive s carcity of sand and grav el fr om o ther sources, before "per forma nee" stan dards can be set for extr actio n fr om th e Bay. 3. 4 Policies In the absence of such a plan and standards, State policy regarding non- living resources extraction from the Bay must continue to be ad hoc and pragmatic. 207 Footnotes References 1. Rock for construction is a major 1. Ground-Water Aquifiers and Mineral resource/ but except in isolated circum- Commodities of Maryland,,Md. State stances its extraction is not a Bay Planning Dept., Md. Geol. Surv., U.S. problem. Oyster shells are in a sense Geol. Surv., 1969 a non-living resource of fertilizer, chicken feed and lime industries. 2. Central Atlantic Environmental News, •However, this is a rather fine distinc- Vol. I, No. 4, April 24, 1971, pp. 5,6 tion and the relevant problem is oysters so it is considered under that 3. Maryland Statistical Abstract, heading. June 30, 1970, Department of Economic Other non-living resource Development, p. 86 extraction is possible but appears unlikely. 4. New York State Office of Planning Coordination, Metropolitan-New York 2. It can also provide sites for District Office, Long Island Sand and subsequent use for sanitary landfill Gravel Mining, July, 1970. (Summarizes operations. current mining practices and land requirements and outlines recommendations for the industry's proper use of resources and land.) 5. See Cronin, L. E., Gunter, G., Hopkins, S. H., Effects of Engineering Activities on Coastal Ecology, Interim Report to Office of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Corps of Engineers, September, 1969. 6. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1969, Part I, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, pp. 120-124. 208 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS 0. INFORMATION AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL 210 1. Information and Information Retrieval Problems 210 1.1 Nature of the Problem 210 Table 1: General Status of Information on Waste Discharges for Waste Emission Rates and Characteristics 211 Table 2: General Status of Information on Waste Discharges for Waste Reactions in the Environment 211 1.2 Current Efforts Toward an Information System 211 2. Future Dimensions of Information and Information Retrieval Problems 212 3. Information and Information Retrieval Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 212 3.1 Goal 212 3 . 2 Ob jectives 212 3.3 Standards 213 3.4 Policies 213 209 o Information and Service, their State counterparts and studies conducted by university departments Information Retrieval and faculty. Much data is available, but it is rarely being adequately employed. i Information and Information Retrieval Problems The ecological view promises that this data can be collected, integrated, and in- The information problem is how to terpreted for its relevance to the plan- make both existing information as well ning process. However, it is only recent- as that which is produced by research ly beginning to make good on these promises, and monitoring available in forms and On the other hand, in the realm at times that are relevant to policy of socio-economic planning, available in- and decision processes regarding Bay formation is likely to be employed but management. the competitive nature of planners as "advocates" and the disparity in planning 1.1 Nature of the Problem competence and emphasis in different units a. Information relevant to Chesa- of government often tends to vitiate its peake Bay management is produced by many value. More importantly, rarely has different agencies -- federal, state, ecological data been synthesized with local and private -- and in many dif- socio-economic information to produce ferent forms. Much information is a comprehensive planning process. Yet one produced as a by-product of on-going without the other represents a profoundly regulatory activities. Other informa- inadequate basis for planning. Open space tion is produced by special studies. If alternatives are one of the results of all the information were assembled, it socio-economic and ecological planning. would fill a library of its own. It is, c. "It is difficult to outline con- however, neither assembled nor syn- cisely the significant facets of a sub- __, thesized. Part of the problem is that ject as diffuse as monitoring which in- people who do research and produce in- cludes evaluation of the sources and formation have in the past pursued characteristics of wastes, measurement ; relatively narrow objectives. As a and recording of concentration levels of consequence, while much information waste constituents in the receiving waters, exists, it is not readily in a form and evaluation of environmental parameters. that lends itself to decisions. An It is possible, however, to divide the example is information relevant to the overall problem into two parts: conservation of wetlands. Much is known 1. Identifying the quantities and about the role wetlands play in nature. characteristics of the waste ma- But the questions decision-makers faced terials emitted by a particular with conflicting demands ask are: are all type of waste generating activity. wetlands necessary?; are some more im- 2. Assessing the information availa- portant than others to aquatic life?; ble on the reactions and inter- if aquaculture begins on a broad scale, actions of waste materials in the will wetlands be as crucial as they environment, and on the processes are reported to be now?,- and so on. that alter their concentration b. In the field of ecological plart- profiles with time... ning one of the most distressing, yet "Table 1 lists the status of availa- promising circumstances is that the ble information on waste sources and dis- bulk of necessary data is likely to be charges , and indicates the areas where available in reports and studies by the information is generally adequate or the Weather Service,the U.S. Geological inadequate. Similarly Table 2 lists the Survey, the Soil Conservation Service, status of available information on reaction the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife of wastes in the environment. These tables 210 TABLE 1 General Status of Information on Waste Discharges for Waste TABLE 2 General Status of Information on Waste Discharges for Waste Emission Rates and Characteristics Reactions in the Environment GENERALLY ADEQUATE INFORMATION GENERALLY ADEQUATE INFORMATION Flow rates of Organic, oxygen-consuming reactions (BOD, etc., carbon, nitrogen, sulfur cycles) Municipal wastes Rivers and streams Storm-surface runoff GENERALLY INADEQUATE INFORMATION Common organic constituents—municipal wastes Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Decay rates of bacteria (coliforms, etc.) Suspended and settleable solids Decay rates of exotic materials Coliform bacteria Pesticides, insecticides Organic nitrogen compounds Pathogens Viruses Hydrocarbon fractions GENERALLY INADEQUATE INFORMATION Toxic materials Biostimulation factors (i.e., growth rate data) New and/or exotic materials Conventional nutrients, N, P, K, etc. Toxicants—generally Trace metals Chlorinated hydrocarbons and biphenyls Organic stimulants, growth factors, etc. Lead, arsenic, and mercury compounds Toxicity Petroleum and its degradation products Organics Biostimulants including Heavy metals 1. Conventional nutrients, N, P, and K Pesticides 2. Trace metals 3. Organic growth factors, vitamins, etc. Taste- and odor-producing materials Waste emission rates of natural runoff on a Bay-wide basis will, in and of itself, River discharges assist in promoting comprehensive Bay de- Surface (storm) runoff cision-making. Information presented in Agricultural drainage non-technical form can be accessible to the Unit mass emission rates for significant wastes For cities (i.e., lb waste/person-day), etc. broad range of decision-makers who must be For industries (i.e., lb waste/10-' lb product type), etc. concerned with environmental policy. For surface (and agricultural) runoff (i.e., lb waste/acre tributary area-day), etc. 1.2 Cu rrent Efforts Toward an Information Toxic and/or exotic wastes difficult to quantitatc in environment Sy stem Quantities of usage (materials balance) by drainage area a. Chap . V, Sec. B-3 describes a 1. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and biphenyls 2. "Trace" toxic constituents (mercury, lead, etc.) graphic sys te m f o r assembl ing and di splay- 3. Other trace organic constituents of concern ing loca tiona 1 as pects of salient Ba Y Taste and odor materials system e lemen ts . It is in tended to be Technology for handling pulse releases and spills compleme ntary to current e fforts in State Near instantaneous discharge of batch process wastes agencies . to deve lop compr ehensive i nforma- Massive spills (pipelines, transport vehicles, etc.) tion sou rces . Th e graphic informati on 1. Toxic materials 2. Oils, petroleum products system w ould use a consist ent Bay-wi de scale fo r reg iona 1 level e nvironment al are not exhaustive, but they indicate gen- decis ion -maki ng. It would be compre hensive erally the areas of needed investigation in the r ange of s ubj ect-ma tter consi dered. and research."(Ref.1) And, the info rmat ion would be in non -tech- d. A major problem in Chesapeake nical fo rm so as to be rea dily acces s ible Bay management is the need for comprehen- to a wid e ran ge o f decisio n-makers. sive, accessible, continually up-dated b. Ther e ar e a numbe r of curre nt ef- and synthesized information on the state forts in Stat e ag encies to develop c ompre- of the Bay. The collection of information hensive inf or mati on source s . Some o f these 211 (e.g. Ref.2, "Report on Status of Water than analysts and planners would like, Quality and Significant Sources of Waste- the information problem is not one of a- water Discharge") have been developed in mount but of data storage, coordination, response to specific regulatory responsi- and retrieval. bilities, but have other environmental As information grows, this prob- management applications. Other compre- lem increases at an exponential rate. hensive information sources (e.g. Ref.3/ Various plans are underway at the Federal "Maryland Manufacturers' Directory 1969- level to establish environmental monitor- 70"; Ref.4, "Manual of Coordinates: ing and data banks (e.g., EPA). These Maryland") are intended for broad policy are discussed in a following section as use. Both types have common characteris- are similar programs for inventorying tics-- comprehensiveness, accessibility, land use and topographic "culture". Counter- regular up-dating -- that a Chesapeake part State programs should be underway. Bay managemnt information retrieval system The need is for a State-wide system for in- should extend and build upon. formation assembly, storage and retrieval c. Scientists at Johns Hopkins of information about the Bay in forms University, the University of Maryland, that are immediately useful in its analysis and Virginia Institute of Marine Science and planning for its resources. Outlines have developed an inventory methodology of such a system that is at once centralized consisting "first, of the entities which and decentralized are discussed in section are found within the region; second, the V.B. below. processes by which the entities create the products, by-products, and waste- products which by interaction with other entities affect the environment; and Information and Information Retrieval: third, the characteristics by which the Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies entities are described". (Ref. 5) The inventory method is designed to help re- 3.1 Goal - Mak e Adequate Information duce errors of omission by its prospec- Available for Plannin g, Decision- tive users: regulatory agencies, research Making and Management of the Bay' s administrators and researchers them- Resources selves . It is useful to consider this goal as d. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a relatively short-term, pragmatic one, Chesapeake Bay Hydrologic Model, along rather than in the abstract. The aim is with the accompanying data system, should a practical one and eminently realizable. considerably improve information on wa- ter movement in the Bay. 3.2 Ob j ectives a. Develop an information coordina- ting sys tern plan for the Bay that utilizes 2 Future Dimensions of Information and and is c ompatibl e wi th present and emerging Information Retrieval Problems informat ion s y s t ems , and can organize and help mak e availa ble information from any It would appear that the information member s ystem A ke y factor in Bay manage- problem is one that will improve dramat- ment is the retr leva 1 of information in ically in the next few years. Concern ways usa ble for deci sions and issues, for the environment and the resources Methods for avoi ding information overload of the Bay has resulted in fund- and cons equent r e j ec tion and insensitivity ing of a wide variety of programs must be develope d. described in this and other task memoran- b. Establi sh a n organizational struc- da. While on given problems and issues ture to conduct the information coordinatign, there will always be less information storage, retriev al a nd dissemination function. 212 No present data gathering or information References functions in government would be super- seded, but rather enhanced by broader utilization. 1- "Wastes Management Concepts for 3. 3 Standards the Coastal Zone -- Requirements for Re- Standards by which to measure goal search and Investigation". 1970, National and objective achievement should be ap- Academy of Sciences, National Academy of plied based on information used. Library Engineering, pp. 6-8. and information sciences have developed such standards of information relevance 2. "Report on Status of Water Quality and obsolescence as guides to adoption and Significant Sources of Wastewater of descriptors and retention of informa- Discharge", November, 1970, Maryland tion in the system. Department of Water Resources, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 3.4 Policies Environmental Health Services. Most important to developing a Bay information coordinating system is the 3. Maryland Manufacturers Directory, adoption by agencies at all governmental 1960-1970, Department of Economic Devel- levels of a policy favoring the sharing opment . of information relevant to resource management. It should also be the 4. Manual of Coordinates: Maryland, policy of the various agencies to 1969, Maryland Department of State participate actively in developing the Planning. necessary organizational structure for a coordinated Bay information system. 5. "The Chesapeake Bay: Report of a Research Planning Study", The Johns Hopkins University, University of Mary- land, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 213 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS P. SYNTHESIS AND PLANNIN G PROBLEMS 215 1. Synthesis and Planning Problems 215 1.1 Nature of the Problem 215 1.2 Causes of the Problem 21^ 1. 3 Location of the Problem 215 1.4 Time Characteristics '. . . • 1.5 Parties Affected 215 2. Future Dimension of Synthesis and Planning Problems 216 3. Synthesis and Planning: Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 216 3.1 Goal •• 216 3. 2 Objectives • ^ ' 3. 3 Standards ZZ^ 3.4 Policies 214 Synthesis and Planning round of only a few effects. This is the information gap. A second difficulty stems from lack i Synthesis and Planning Problems of coordination of those doing planning, lack of coordination if not outright The problem of synthesis and conflict between multiple clients with planning for the Bay is how to resolve different objectives, and frequently client conservation and resource development under-representation (e.g. future Bay users) conflicts in such a way as to achieve Thus, the model presumes a smoothly economic goals and also preserve the functioning and equitable political "market integrity of ecological systems. place" which never exists. 1.1 Nature of the Problem 1.3 Location of the Problem Planning is viewed as a rational, The synthesis and planning problem continuous, action-oriented, problem- has geographic, functional, and governmental solving process which examines current level dimensions. The geographic dimension and anticipated future conditions; as a problem results from county boundaries compares them with goals; synthesizes in most places not coinciding with water- plans; and recommends that course of shed, river or other environmental planning action that optimizes goal satisfaction. boundaries. The most serious example of Planning tends to be done in cycles this is the Maryland-Virginia State line and at the end of a cycle, after de- which is on the south shore of the Potomac. cisions are reached and acted on, a Functional lack of coordination for new set of conditions obtains. A new synthesis and planning occurs at all levels cycle of planning based on feedback to of government. The creation of the CBIPC the previous state and revisions in is a recognition of this and a first step goals and standards should ensue, toward a State level solution to this which is what is meant by the need for problem. planning continuity. The professional Intergovernmental level coordination planner's responsibility is to spell in synthesis and planning is perhaps the out for decision-makers implications of most serious "locational" problem, with various courses of action, the conflicts counties the basic operative and decision- between different sets of goals, and the making level regarding land use and water results of possible "trade-off" levels management policy. Except for veto power in goal-satisfaction. in cases endangering public health and safety or involving public use, the State 1.2 Causes of the Problem never preempts the zoning power.1 When applied to environmental planning, special difficulties ensue 1.4 Time Characteristics in using this model of planning, The pressure of problems has multi- whether it be applied on a long-range plied geometrically in the past ten years or on an "incremental" and short-range due to increasing population and urbaniza- basis. tion, and the resulting development pres- The first difficulty is that there sure on natural resources. are no "solutions" in nature, only A critical time characteristic is the adaptations, and a course of action to conflict between long-range research and correct a problem or seek a goal planning that does not answer short-term inevitably leads to a chain of impact questions, and immediate problem-solving. causation with unintended consequences (e.g. DDT). Knowledge of such conse- 1.5 Parties Affected quences is mostly limited to the first 215 All agencies, levels of government must be judged by its effect on decisions. and private groups engaged in planning Planning in a context of the many are affected by the problems outlined agencies concerned with the Bay above. The fragmented nature of current necessarily must adopt an approach that approaches reduces the efficiency and recognizes the lack of common authority, legitimacy of the various efforts now communication difficulties, and problems underway. in transferring costs and benefits Although valid in their own right, between agencies and levels of govern- many such current efforts are con- ment . tradictory, self-defeating and tend to A critical problem in Bay planning widen a planning credibility gap in as presently practiced is the lack of which self-serving "entrepreneurs" mediating concepts and methods at an are free to operate. intermediate level between overall goals, and specific projects. With the system of the Bay partitioned into separate 2 Future Dimensions of Synthesis levels and governments, functional con- and Planning Problems cerns, and sources of funds, there is an inevitable tendency to plan by aggre- The emerging issue of planning is gating many individual projects under a how to do it effectively and equitably framework of goals so broadly stated as in a democratic, pluralistic society to be useless in making choices between with widely disparate goals and within proj ects. a representative government. This issue One direction currently being will become more serious as the full en- pursued is to elevate conflicts between vironmental impact of man's activities development and the environment to a becomes better understood, and as the higher level of government. Currently real "trade-offs" are spelled out. this means the State Department of Natural Early warning signs are communities de- Resources, or the Federal Environmental manding water pollution abatement only Protection Agency which latter has been to find that their own municipal sewage granted a kind of veto power over environ- treatment plants are major offenders. mental degradation. This reflects the Faced with higher local taxes to pay for need for an overall planning system with abatement, they frequently back down emphasis on the organization of all unless Federal funds are available. components, and with a full capability There would appear to be no magic for using sophisticated methods and answer as the various protagonists have techniques in order to sufficiently different values. The need is for structure the decision field so that creative planning solutions that en- choices can be made with clear awareness courage optimization with community of implications. consensus on the aggregation of goals. Many planning organizations and indivi- duals must be involved in helping to invent solutions. Synthesis and Planning: Goals, Planning, to be effective, must be Objectives, Standards, Policies on-going process embodied as an integral part of decision-making. While it 3.1 Goal Establish a Continuous often is implicitly, the process must Comprehensive Bay Planning Process be an explicit and effective part of the for Optimum Bay Resource Management decision-maker's activity. To view Elements of a comprehensive planning planning and action as separable is process will be discussed in Chapters V, artificial, and the value of planning VI and VII. Here they appear as objectives, 216 including the preparation and adoption for citizen and client involvement and of a comprehensive plan. for mandatory reissue every five years. 3.2 Obj ectiyes 3 . 3 Standards a. Develop a consistent information Standards or benchmarks against base adequate for understanding the Bay which goal achievement may b e measured system and its resources. Most informa- are elusive. They usually i nclude tion exists on much of the Bay but is measures of effectiveness, e quity, op- simply not available. This objective timization, and implementabi lity. is to make it available. For the Bay, the real s tandard is b. Organize a planning clientele in terms of extent to which planning to include all levels of government enables a higher level of ea ch goal's involved and representation from major satisfaction, and a higher a ggregate segments of interested population. satisfaction than would be t rue without c. Prepare definitive goal and planning. objective statements to be adapted by While such standards ha ve usually planning client groups. been developed or applied to rather simple d. Develop a planning, budgeting, planning processes, evaluati on procedures programming, system type method of such as benefit-cost analysi s and social objective and performance evaluation to accounts can be constructed for use in the deal with problems of goal aggregation. Bay . e. Carry out an ecological in- ventory and intrinsic suitabilities 3.4 Poli cies analysis for the Bay's edge. Priority Policies are part of the essence of can be established for key areas of planning and are legion. It would be special interest or controversy. presumptuous to attempt a list. Special f. Establish planning sub-regions policies or principles that are funda- based on ecological and socio-economic mental to goal achievement here include criteria to be the basis for development a policy of full public information and of alternate plans. involvement in the planning process. A g. Prepare alternate plans for great difficulty in planning for the Bay, Bay resource utilization that are both as in all environmental planning, is in environmentally sensitive and respond determining long-range and potentially to socio-economic needs and demands. irreversible commitments of resources. h. Evaluate and test alternate Policy is now adopted (although not plans by comparison with goals, objec- entirely operational as yet) for "guidance tives, standards and policies, by both to Federal agencies for added cooperation technical implementation and political with State and local governments in the criteria. evaluation, review and coordination of... i. Select elements and alternate programs and projects."(Ref.2) courses of action that most nearly Part of this evaluation and review meet goals and objectives and synthesize deals with environmental considerations: these into a comprehensive plan for the 1. "The environmental impact of the Bay. proposed project; j. Have the elements of the plan 2. "Any adverse environmental effects adopted in various forms (ordinances, which cannot be avoided should the proposed resolution, policy, etc.) as appropriate project be implemented; at all levels of government. 3. "Alternatives to the proposed h. Establish a plan-monitoring and proj ect; feedback process for continuous revision, 4. "The relationship between local and include in the process requirements short-term uses of man's environment 217 and the maintenance and enhancement of Footnotes long term productivity; and 5. "Any irreversible and irretriev- able commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed project or 1. in a precedent-shattering case, R action, should it be implemented." ( ef.3) the state 0f Delaware passed legislation imposing statewide, zoning of coastal waters to exclude heavy industry. (Ref. 1) References 1. Delaware House of Representatives, 126th General Assembly, House Bill 300, Chapter 70, Title 7, "Coastal Zoning Act" . 2. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Cir- cular No. A-95, Revised, February 9, 1971, p. 1. 3. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section 102(2)(C). 218 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS Q. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT 220 1. Problems of Public Awareness and Involvement 220 1.1 Nature of the Problem 220 1.2 Causes of "the Problem 221 1.3 Location of the Problem 221 1.4 Time Characteristics 221 1.5 Parties Affected 221 2. Future Dimensions of Public Awareness and Involvement Problems 221 3. Public Awareness and Involvement: Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies ... 222 3.1 Goal 222 3.2 Objectives 222 3. 3 Standards 222 3.4 Policies 222 219 Q Public Awareness and Involvement products... The free market measures the value of the output to an individual consumer, but it takes ho account of the i Public Awareness and Involvement Problems damage done to all other inhabitants of the area." (Ref.l) The problem is how to get the gen- eral public to be aware of and understand These issues are now bursting upon the public arena. The State of Delaware the issues related to conservation and has passed a law^Ref-2) which will "...ban new development, and to be involved in the decision process. heavy industry along the entire 100-mile Delaware Bay coastline, thus blocking sev- 1. 1 Nature of the Problem eral thousand new jobs and at least a. The Fragmented Public $750 million in developments that had Today everybody is increasingly already been announced... the entire aware of environmental problems and con- coastline of the state - already indust- cerned about environmental quality. The rialized along 30 per cent of its length - public - in its demand for the benefits would be closed to heavy industry and of leisure, affluence and technology - available to light industry only under is also directly or indirectly responsible restrictive permits. Offshore facilities for many of the current threats to en- for transferring bulk cargoes would also vironmental quality. And the public, be banned." In commenting on the bill. directly or indirectly, will bear much Governor Russell Peterson said, "There of the cost of restoration and mainten- are many things we might forego that call ance of environmental quality. However, for more industry and more industrialization, the "public" is a very fragmented and and I think most people now are willing diverse entity. The person who is out- to make such a choice." (Ref.3) raged over the filling of a wetland may The stretch of the Delaware Bay have a faulty septic tank in his backyard. involved is reported to be the only place The same persons who demand better out- on the eastern seaboard that can accom- door recreation facilities may litter modate the super tankers and giant cargo the ones they use. The people, in gen- ships that are now economic. Governor eral, have little sense of their owner- Peterson's response to this fact was, ship of and responsibility for the Bay. "Forego the use of large vessels and con- tinue to use smaller vessels." (Ref.4) b. What is the "general public welfare"? The national interest is involved What are public preferences with in the Delaware case as the U.S. Depart- regard to difficult "tradeoff" decisions ment of Commerce is said to be concerned that elected or appointed officials with a possible undermining of America's must make between developmental and con- "trading position" vis a vis world trade. servation objectives? This is a subject Maryland's Annemessex Industrial Park in- of considerable debate. volves the same issues at a smaller scale. "In a free market economy a consumer Somerset County residents are more con- will purchase an automobile no matter cerned about employment than wetlands how foul the atmosphere and no matter which perform important but not easily how many others are adversely affected demonstrated ecological functions. by his addition to the number of cars Those properly concerned with a bal- on the road. And why should he not? anced approach to such conflicts in values According to his calculus his addition are caught up in the general public's to the foulness of the atmosphere is overreaction to both sides of the contro- minimal and his desire for the auto- versy. The world in which despoliation of mobile is great. This is true of all these nature can go unremarked is no more, but 220 most rational people agree that a "trade 1.3 Location off market" must be developed which can The huge extent of the Bay causes serve the general public interest better few people in one part to appreciate their than the present "trial by news media". community of interest with those in another In spite of a general public awareness of except through lobbying in the State Gen- the issues of the environment, there is eral Assembly, and in well-publicized crises, little specific public awareness of the As models of the sub-systems of the eco- true implications of choice on either system are more elaborately developed, side of the Delaware Bay example cited - the interconnections between elements will except for a "gut" reaction that tankers become better understood and location mean oil and oil spills mean pollution will decline as a problem of public and fouled beaches. Much of the same is awareness, true for the Annemessex Industrial Park. Although a number of studies have elab- 1.4 Time Characterisitcs orated at least the first round implica- Not relevant, tions for the economy and for the envir- onment, these are not generally available 1.5 Parties Affected to form the basis of public debate. Most of the parties affected are not involved in any meaningful way in either 1,2 Causes of the Problem the planning or the decision process. Causes of the problem of lack of While local and state procedures for ap- public awareness and involvement in issues propriate public hearings are provided, the about the Bay can be summarized as follows: factors causing lack of public awareness cited a. Lack of general public contact above inhibit attendance except by parties with, use of and enjoyment of the Bay. at interest in the narrowest sense. b. Lack of understanding of the functions the Bay performs, both natural 2 Future Dimensions of Public Awareness and more directly man-serving. and Involvement Problems c. Difficulty of translating qualities of the environment and natural Public awareness of environmental processes into values that c an be bal- problems has grown in the past ten years anced in a common accounting system with to become a force in all areas and all economic values. levels of life in the United States. As d. Complexity of the issues involved a result environmental concern is on the and the difficulty of explaining their national and State agenda, vast sums are relevance and interaction. going into research and planning, the media e. The diversity of interests and have discovered a new source, and "every- values of "the general public" to the body's doing it". Only now, however, are point where there is no "common denom- people becoming aware that the"solutions" inator". have side-effects and are expensive. f. Inadequacy and incompleteness The emerging issue in public aware- of professional and scientific under- ness is over the amount of public control standing of causal relations re implica- over private actions that is needed to tions of actions. avoid environmental despoliation and g. Advocacy posture of many plan- waste of natural resources. Two related ning and development groups concerned issues are: (1) the cost of such public with special interests or narrow legis- control, and how such costs are to be lative mandates. paid and by whom; (2) clear conflicts h. General public lethargy and between local, regional and national in- human nature. terests that develop from different sets 221 of values. As scientific evidence in- Maximize Public Involvement in creasingly supports the need for envir- Management of the Bay's Resources onmental management, these issues will Information, analysis, planning, become major points at controversy for implementation, and feedback are all con- the Bay. The need is for new political sidered as part of Bay management for pur- and decision-making instrumentalities poses of this goal. that can deal effectively with the con- troversy and involve the public broadly^ 3.2 Obj ectives In general, the public's under- a. Create an image of the Bay as standing of its position of ownership a unified entity whose users have a com- and responsibility for the Bay should munity of interest in its well-being be heightened through public education. and wise use of its resources. This effort should not be one-sidedly b. Establish a citizen's advisory conservationist but should focus on the organization concerned with the Bay to full range of Bay uses and functions. take part in its planning and management. The communications process should pro- vide information relevant to the discus- 3. 3 Standards sion of particular issues. In addition, Many people are now well aware of it should provide a broad perspective on the Bay and its importance, but as members the status of the Bay. of special interest groups or advocates Another, entirely consistent ap- of one or another position. It would proach is to arrange for individual con- be naive to suggest that these can easily sumer decisions to reflect the environ- be brought under one tent, but their in- mental as well as production costs. The volvement in the planning and management proposal to impose a one cent per pound process can work in this direction and tax on any item requiring disposal within ultimately, the measure will be the extent 10 years to provide funds for disposal of unanimity achieved regarding a compre- is an example.(Ref.5) The economist hensive plan for the Bay and its implemen- Milton Friedman said that pollution con- tation as expressed for legislation. trol will result in higher prices to the consumer for the products that pollute, 3 . 4 Policies but not higher costs to the consumer. People will not spend the time to be "The tendency to say that pollution involved in Bay affairs without a specific control will make the cost of living interest. "Maximum feasible participation" higher is wrong. It will make total has taken on somewhat unmanageable dimensions cost of living lower by making the cost in urban planning, (Ref.6 ) Where people are of the things we buy higher but by making often paid to participate. While policies the costs imposed on us involuntarily for participation in Bay affairs are unlikely lower'.' (Ref. 1) This would have the effect to go to these extremes, an official policy of creating one "accounting system" for of involvement in planning rather than citizen benefits and costs and translate non- acquiescence in plans already approved should monetary elements into the currency of be adopted. economics. 3 Public Awareness and Involvement: Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 3.1 Goal- Increase Public Awareness and 222 References 1. The Conservation Foundation "Letter", May,1971, "Indiscriminate Economic Growth, Measured with Little Regard for Environ- mental Costs and Social Well-being is Challenged". 2. Delaware House of Representatives, 126th General Assembly, House Bill 300, Chapter 70, Title 7, "Coastal Zoning Act" . 3. Newsweek, July '5, 1971 (Report on the Delaware Coastal Zoning Act). 4. Time, July 12, 1971 (Report on the Delaware Coastal Zoning Act). 5. "New Tax Should Pay for Trash Disposal", (a discussion of testimony presented to the Senate Air and Water Pollution Sub-committee by L. S. Wegman, NYC Consulting Engineer), Camden Courier Post, February 25, 1970. 6. Moynihan, Patrick J., Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, 1970. 223 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS R. TOOLS FOR IMPLEMENTATION !• 2 2 5 1. Problems Regarding Implementation Tools J 225 1.1 Nature of the Problem -1 225 1.2 Causes of the Problem 2 2 5 1.3 Location of the Problem •••: 225 1.4 Time Characteristics " 1.5 Parties Affected 226 2. Future Dimensions of Implementation Tools Problems 226 3. Implementation Tools:Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 226 3.1 Goal 226 3.2 Objectives 226 3.3 Standards 226 3.4 Policies 226 224 R Tools for Implementation principally one of how to unify responsibility with authority, coordinate planning and action, and enlist fiscal support. i Problems Regarding Implementation Tools 1 • 2 Causes of the Problem The primary cause of the problem The problem is how to is the historic, fragmented pragmatic effectively "orchestrate" existing way by which legislative tools have tools and develop such new tools as evolved with consequent fragmentation are necessary to deal with increasingly of authority and responsibility. urgent and complex Bay information, That is a situation not unique to planning and management issues. Maryland and no worse there than elsewhere. However, the laws have 1 • 1 Nature of the Problem scattered the legislative mandates by This section deals briefly with relatively narrowly construed functions legal powers and responsibilities of throughout levels of government and appropriate governmental agencies and among various agencies at each level so levels. It is generally agreed that as to pit bureaucracies against one with a few exceptions adequate tools another,each operating on a valid but for plan implementation and regulatory narrowly construed single mandated control now exist. concept of public interest. Recent legislation has placed at As a result, planning is divorced Maryland's disposal a wide variety of from operation and decision making, new and potentially effective tools. regulation from both, and fiscal To cite examples, there are the responsibility from authority. Potomac River and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts; the new Wetlands Bills 1•3 Location of the Problem administered by the Department of The most effective tools for Natural Resources; the newly implementation are at State and formed Department of Natural Resources; Federal levels. The local administra- the Maryland Environmental Service; tive units (counties and municipalities) and the Department of Transportation in many instances have not adopted which combines the Maryland Port effective legislation which gives them Authority with all other agencies the necessary powers to implement concerned with transportation. either appropriate development or At the Federal level the most conservation measures. This is partic- significant tool for implementation ularly true of those less urbanized. has been the adoption of the Environ- mental Quality Control Bill and 1•4 Time Characteristics creation of the Environmental Protec- Most of the new agencies have tion Agency (EPA). The Actions of finite time periods within which EPA have already created a significant guidelines for control of wetlands change in the nature of the problem of (MDNR), pollution abatement plans (MES) implementation as it is responsible and environmental quality standards both for the adoption of environmental (EPA) must be presented for legisla- standards but also for seeing that they tive approval. However, most existing are carried out. agencies have no specific time frame Still, at all levels of govern- for the adoption of plans. ment the nature of the problem is 225 1.5 Parties Affected The people most affected by implementation" in this context. problems of lack of unification of Public acceptance of a vigorous responsibility and authority coordina- application of existing tools combined tion and fiscal support are Bay users: with excessive caution in their use industries, maritime interests, are the major limiting factors. vacationers, shoreline owners. 3.2 Objectives a. Examine all existing tools for implementation of various alternate 2 Future Dimensions of Implementation plans to develop handbooks explaining Tools Problems their potential. An important approach to planning is to estimate what can be It was stated that with few done, not only what ought to be done exceptions tools exist adequate for as a basis for evolving plans. plan implementation and regulatory b. Ensure that local or State control. As the issues and implica- legislature mandates enable all tions of choice grow clearer, the appropriate levels of government to nature of the public interest will avail themselves of existing tools. sharpen into focus. In many instances, local governments But tools for implementation do not avail themselves of State or must be wielded vigorously and Federal funding, which severely limits effectively, and in many cases their potential for carrying out plans. courageously -- or they are of little c. Broaden wherever possible use. the applicability of tools for imple- What is needed is a plan for mentation to relevant Bay agencies orchestrating the use of the tools and governments. In many instances, that are available -- a plan that is problems cross legislative lines and so persuasive and broadly understood agencies are restricted because of that the public demands their use. single-purpose mandates put on At a much smaller scale and a lesser multi-problem situations. As a result, degree of complexity, the San administrators do not have the "range Francisco Bay Plan performs such a of choice" necessary for effective function. (Ref. 1) management. (Ref. 2). 3.3 Standards Standards for availability of 3 Implementation Tools: Goals, tools for implementation can be Objectives, Standards, Policies developed after Objective "a" is reached, based on rates and methods 3.1 Goal Maximize the Value of of utilization by agencies and Existing Tools for Implementa- governments. tion and Create New Tools only where Necessary 3.4 Policies Consistent with the analysis Policies for utilization of tools of the problem as being one of how to for implementation can only be devel- effectively "orchestrate" existing oped after problems are defined and tools, the need for new tools is plans prepared by governments and relatively minor. Management organi- agencies responsible and empowered to zation is not considered a "tool for carry them out. With many of the 226 powers new and relatively untried, References a policy of experimentation and calculated "risk taking" would appear more useful than too much 1. San Francisco Bay Plan, caution. January, 1969, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2. Power, Garrett, Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective, March, 1970, for U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 223. 227 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS S . MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY 2 2 9 1. Management Capability Problems 229 1.1 Nature of the Problem 229 2. Future Dimensions of Management Capability Problems 230 3. Management Capability Goals, Objectives, Standards, Policies 230 3.1 Goal 230 3.2 Objectives 230 3. 3 Standards 230 3.4 Policies 230 228 Management Capability of the Department of Natural Resources for setting criteria for review of wetlands filling, but. permit approval is vested in the Department of Public 1 Management Capability Problems Works (or U.S. Corps of Engineers in some cases). The disjunction of The problem is how to attract, responsibility and authority also organize and coordinate management operates within levels of government. skills needed to resolve the complex "Existing state legal institutions multi-faceted environmental issues. suffer from two major inadequacies. First, the state legislatures, 1-1 Nature of the Problem clinging vestigially to the nineteenth a. Need for Public Management century, have attempted to administer The case for public management the Bay themselves. Rather than is not really an issue today, but the delegating broad managerial power to extent of that management is. There the executive branch, they have re- is an increasing and reluctant sponded to narrow problems with narrow recognition for the need of police legislation. These responses rapidly power of the state to be exerted to become out-of-date but linger on as ensure the general health, welfare and safety regarding the Bay. law. m short, the legislatures have refused to give administrators the b. Management is Predominately Trange of choice1 necessary for Regulatory and "Permissive" effective management. As a consequence of its evolution from early "mercantilist" "Second, those powers which have been delegated by the legislatures philosophy, management of the Bay's have been scattered throughout the resources is still viewed as "that states' administrative apparatus. management is best which manages least". The need is for a "steward- Various state agencies have duplicating, overlapping and sometimes inconsistent ship" philosophy and a public develop- powers, but in neither Maryland nor mental and conservation (combined) capability that goes beyond mere Virginia is there a single agency with the requisite authority to plan and regulation and "laissez-faire" permissiveness. coordinate the administration of the Bay and its resources." (Ref. 1) c. Integration of Planning, d. Inadequate Information and Responsibility and Authority Synthesis for Plan and The general consensus among informed people is that there is a Decision-Making serious problem for management due This has been discussed under Information Gaps but is repeated here to the lack of integration of for emphasis as a management problem. planning ,responsibility, and authority. e. Personnel Problems An example is the authority of local Recruitment and training of government to control land use and dedicated personnel who have technical sewage disposal without responsibility competence but also are able to rise or accountability for effects en the above their disciplines, view problems Bay. State departments have such comprehensively, and absorb new responsibility but without authority knowledge is a very serious problem to effectively deal with the problem. of management. Another example is the responsibility 229 2 Future Dimensions of Management Capability For many such resources, e.g. water, fish and wildlife, this has Management problems are diffuse already been accomplished in the and complicated and don't appear organization of the Department of to be getting less so. The dimensions Natural Resources. Bay-related land of Bay management responsibility are planning that involves natural likely to grow enormously as informa- resources does not come under the tion and understanding of the implica- DNR. tions of resource conservation and b. Organize planning as a utilization increase. basic responsibility of management The management issues that in decision-making. result stem from the need to c. Integrate service, operating centralize planning, responsibility, programs and regulation of natural and authority on a multi-purpose resources under a unified responsi- organizational basis, a need which bility. conflicts with the present way of All of these objectives tend doing things,and with a basic anti- toward centralized planning, respon- pathy for centralization on such a sibility and authority on a multi- scale. purpose organizational basis that can respond to the nature of the problems. As in the maximization of other goals, the achievement of this goal 3 Management Capability: Goals, tends to conflict with the way Objectives, Standards, Policies socio-economic planning is now organized and with the present distribution of 3.1 Goal Organize Management to powers throughout State and local Maximize Effective, Responsive, aovernment. and Environmentally Sensitive Development and Conservation 3. 3 Standards of the Bay's Resources Standards for measurement of Information gathering, achievement of goals and objectives analysis, planning, operations, for management are part of the general implementation development, and literature on management, public regulation are all considered part administration and planning. of management for present purposes. The management goal is a realis- 3.4 Policies tic and not a Utopian one. Many Present management policies are steps toward combining authority/ being developed for the new Department responsibility, planning/regulation/ of Natural Resources. It is beyond operation are in the direction of the the scope of this Study and premature above goal. These can be defined as to consider specific policies in objectives but unless given more advance of their experience. specific definition tend to be meaningless generalities. 3.2 Objectives a. Unify responsibilty for planning for natural resources for the Bay and relevant adjacent land areas under one agency. 230 References 1. Power, Garrett, Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective, March, 1970 for U. S. Department of the Interior, p. 223, 224. 231 II. PROBLEMS AND GOALS T. FISCAL SUPPORT 233 1. The Problem of Fiscal Support 233 1. 1 Nature of the Problem 233 1.2 Causes of the Problem 233 2. Future Dimensions of Fiscal Support Problems 233 3. Fiscal Support Goals and Objectives 234 3. 1 Goal 234 232 Fiscal Support Understanding In the absence of a clearly demon- strable set of interrelations between cause i The Problem of Fiscal Support and effect, between development action and environmental impact, it is extremely dif- The problem is how to attract ade- ficult to convincingly demonstrate the quate fiscal support from appropriate need for public intervention, and the sources to deal effectively with Bay value of public expenditures. In many management. cases these expenditures, if made early, save vast sums later when crises occur. 1•1 Nature of the Problem As a result, in many instances Fiscal resources are in scarce benefits are intangible, and the value supply. To maintain and increase the of future benefits has a very high dis- quality of the Bay environment while count rate in the here and now. While steadily increasing the variety and the role of the planner is to spell out amount of usage of the Bay will require future implications of present actions, he increasing fiscal support for Bay manage- often has a low credibility because of the ment and the implementation of Bay plans. imprecision of his forecasts. A wide range of factors are involved: b. Competition and Conflict for Pub- information gathering and synthesis.and lic Funds land use activity and environmental mon- Within the public sector, funding itoring; research into aspects which requests for resource management must have important management implications; compete with requests relative to health, resolution of conflicts; day-to-day education, mass transit, housing, etc. -- management of the Bay resouroes; long- all areas in which there are many urgent range planning for the Bay; communica- unfilled needs. The conflicts are real tion with the public with regard to Bay and much of the public does not value a plans and actions; the construction of distant and elusive "environment" high in facilities for the implementation of relation to "bread and butter" issues. plans. The application of technological c. Public Antagonism to Public Spend- innovations may make some of these as- ing pects of environmental management more Within the context of the total efficient, but in most cases such applica- economy, public values (e.g. ecological tions will result in more comprehensive integrity) are up against the traditional and sophisticated responses to the job, American inclination to allocate most not smaller expenditures. resources by means of the private market economy. Public spending of any kind is 1. 2 Causes of the Problem unpopular and more programs related to the Curiously lack of money can hardly Bay need to be viewed as fiscally inter- be cited as the principal cause of the related toward a concept of self-support problem of lack of fiscal support. As for all Bay activity. Kenneth Galbraith points out, ours is an "affluent society" in which much higher levels of public spending than now are clearly warranted for poverty, public fa- 2 Future Dimensions of Fiscal Support Problems cilities and for environmental protection and enhancement. To avoid environmental degradation So what are the causes? Three are funds are needed at a whole order of mag- evident as generalizations of a very nitude greater than today. Full estimates complex pattern of causation. are not available at the Bay level but for a. Lack of Public Awareness and water pollution abatement alone, the bill 233 will be in the billions. mize fiscal support is through achieving The emerging issue is between using various of the other goals, specifically public money for preserving the environ- increasing public awareness of the im- ment or using it for other pressing portance of the Bay; producing a feasible needs, most notably elimination of pover- and compelling comprehensive plan; invol- ty, education, housing and war. These ving a broad spectrum of citizens in its other demands are "gut issues" more wide- preparation; developing a convincingly ly understood and shared than Bay (con- capable management organization; and demon- servation and development) issues. strating the results of sound planning,en- The need is for a fuller under- lightened regulation and creative project standing that in the not-too-long run planning. many elements of environmental despoli- ation of the Bay may be irreversible, and nature cannot be easily "negotiated" with. With such an understanding, fis- cal support for many programs may no References longer be a matter of choice. However, this will be likely to obtain only for major problem areas such as water and 1. Bain, Henry, The Development Dis- air pollution. For others, the need trict, Washington Center for Metropolitan for fiscal support will have to be Studies, November, 1968. dealt with in the context of more specific understanding of the implica- tions of the choice. An analogy that may be useful in looking for solutions may well be that of transportation where at long last, all forms of movement are seen as part of the same system and are related to the land uses (and land values) they generate. If this principle were ap- plied to the Bay, shore and user values would be seen as appropriate sources of funds for Bay management, and marine transportation and waterfront industry, along with recreation and all other Bay functions could be viewed as Mary- land's "newest county", or in more con- ventional terms a "conservation dis- trict". (Ref.1) 3 Fiscal Support: Goals and Objectives 3.1 Goal - Maximize Fiscal Support from All Sources for Bay Resource Utili- zation and Conservation This goal is in very direct conflict at Federal and State levels with funding for all other programs. The way to maxi- 234 Problems and Goals: by Planning Areas 235 III. PROBLEMS AND GOALS BY PLANNING AREAS A. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRESENT PROBLEMS BY PLANNING AREAS 238 1. Introduction 238 1. 1 Planning Area Definition 238 1.2 Weighting of Problem Significance 238 2. Importance of Bay Problems by Planning Areas 238 Figure 1: Relative Importance of Present Chesapeake Bay Problem 239 2.1 Cecil County 238 2.2 Harford County 240 2. 3 Baltimore County 240 2 .4 Baltimore City 241 2. 5 Anne Arundel County 242 2.6 Calvert County 243 2.7 St. Mary's County (Bay Shoreline Area) 244 2.8 Western Shore Summary 245 2.9 Kent County 245 2.10 Queen Anne's County 245 2.11 Talbot County 246 2.12 Dorchester County 247 2.13 Somerset County 247 2.14 Eastern Shore Summary 248 2.15 St. Mary's County (Potomac Shoreline Area) 248 2.16 Charles County 248 2.17 Prince George's County 248 2.18 Potomac Shoreline Summary 248 2.19 CBIPC Study Area 248 B. MARYLAND CHESAPEAKE BAY PROBLEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BAY'S WATERSHED AND THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION 250 1. The Bay in the Context of Its Watershed 250 Figure 2: Problem Profile in the Chesapeake Bay Region 250 2. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed in the Context of the North Atlantic Region .. 251 Figure 3: Awareness of Coastal Problems 250 C. EMERGING ISSUES BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND PLANNING AREA 252 1. Relative Importance of Future Chesapeake Bay Problems by Planning Areas (Counties) 252 Figure 4: Relative Importance of Future Chesapeake Bay Problems 252 1.1 Cecil County 252 1.2 Harford County 252 1.3 Baltimore County 253 1.4 Baltimore City - 253 1.5 Anne Arundel County 253 1.6 Calvert County 253 236 1.7 St. Mary's County (Bay Shoreline Area) , 253 1.8 Western Shore Summary 253 1.9 Kent County , 254 1.10 Queen Anne's County , 254 1.11 Talbot County , 254 1.12 Dorchester County 254 1.13 Somerset County , 254 1.14 Eastern Shore Summary , 254 1.15 St. Mary's County (Potomac Shoreline) , 254 1.16 Charles County 254 1.17 Prince George's County 254 1.18 Potomac Shoreline Summary 254 1.19 The CBIPC Study Area - The Maryland Portion of the Chesapeake Bay 254 POPULATION CHANGE, ECONOMIC TRENDS, AND URBAN LAND ABSORPTION IMPACTS, BY PLANNING AREA ' ~~ 255 1. Population Change 255 1.1 Linkages Between Population and Environmental Management , 255 Table 1: Population Change, 1960-1970, by County , 255 1.2 Population Projections and Environmental Management 256 Table 2: Comparison of Actual and Expected 1970 Population, by County 256 1.3 Population Growth Rates 256 Table 3: Net Population Growth Rates, Actual and Expected, 1960-2000, by Decade, by County , 257 2. Economic Trends 257 2.1 Linkages Between Economic Projections and Environmental Management .. 257 2.2 Economic Projections for Maryland Bay Subregions 259 Table 4: Employment Projections 1960-1980, by Subregion and Rates of Growth, by Decade , 258 3. Land Suitability and Urban Land Absorption Impacts 259 Table 5: Land Inventory with Implications for Future Population Growth by County 261 3.1 Inventory of Land Characteristics 259 3.2 Urban Land Absorption Impacts 263 3. 3 Towards Regional Land Policy 263 E. PLANS AS GOAL STATEMENTS 266 Plate 25 Proposed Open Space and Outdoor Recreation System , 267 Plate 26 Public Open Space Proposals 268 Plate 27 Water Quality Standards , 269 Plate 28 Selected Major Proposals in Regional Infrastructure 270 Plate 29 General Land Use Plan 271 Plate 30 Areas Identified for Industrial Development 272 Plate 31 Wastewater Collection and Disposal Facilities: Existing to Year 2000 273 Plate 32: Water Supply Facilities: Existing to Year 2000 274 237 A Relative Importance of Present Problems by 1.2 Weighting of Problem Significance The three categories of "major," Planning Area "significant" and "relatively insignific- ant" are self-explanatory. Putting i Introduction a problem in any one category was a matter of judgement. For an area as a 1.1 Planning Area Definition whole, e.g. Western Shore, there had to In the following summary of the be at least two county planning areas relative importance of present Chesa- in a classification for the Shore as a peake Bay problems, Maryland counties have whole to merit that category. The been used as the basic planning area. same rationale was used for the Bay as a Two other planning area definitions whole, except where all planning areas were considered: were in a "significant" category and a. Watersheds the aggregate was considered to add up to Much data relevant to Chesa- "major." peake Bay management — particularly Several of the problem categories data dealing with water supply, water used in the North Atlantic Regional movement, and water quality -- are organ- Water Resources Study (Ref- U have also ized on the basis of watersheds. As an been used in this study. These include example, water quality summaries have problem categories: Living Resources, been developed for eleven major Chesa- Conservation of Wetlands, Shore Erosion, peake Bay watersheds. (Ref. 6) However, Water Pollution, Thermal Waste Discharge, counties were judged best for general Marine Transportation, Water-Related purposes because: Outdoor Recreation, Solid Waste Disposal 1. Most data, particularly on and Non-Living Resources. However, socio-economic problems, are it is evident that there are some not organized by watershed, differences in problem awareness between but by county. the designations in the NARWR Study and 2. the county is the smallest in Chart 1. These are explained by the relevant management unit. finer grain of information available to b. Regional Planning Units. the CBIPC, and the difference in emphasis The regional planning units of of the two studies. the Maryland Department of State Planning and a number of other State agencies were rejected for two reasons: 1. the areas included counties 2 Importance of Bay Problems by Planning Areas not immediately contiguous to th.e Bay, and Figure 1 presents a summary of the 2. the county is the unit of relative importance of present Chesapeake government that can do some- Bay problems by planning area. Explanatory thing about problems. notes for judgemental decisions made Planning areas (counties) were in developing the summary chart are aggregated by the commonly accepted included in the following text. Western and Eastern Shore definitions as the next higher area. The Potomac River 2 .1 Cecil County was included, although not by definition a. Living Resources are a "signif- part of the Chesapeake Bay. This was icant" problem because during periods of done because it is in the State of Mary- drought, flow of fresh water from the land, and because its lower reaches are Susquehanna is shut down and aquatic part of the Bay's sub-estuarine system. life suffers. However, except in 238 FIGURE 1: water sources, is a local problem of RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PRESENT CHESAPEAKE BAY PROBLEMS relative insignificance. g. Thermal Waste Discharge* i. Water-related Outdoor a b c d e f g h i j k 1 i;i n o P J3L r s t Recreation, u w 4J 0) k. Residential Areas, •a c o OS c (U o* w m. Solid Waste Disposal, and 239 at the State of National level. r. Tools for Implementation is con- sidered a "significant" problem because 2 . 2 Harford County no mechanism exists for influencing the a. Living resources are a "major" major public shoreline owners. current problem because they are being s. Management Capability is con- endangered by pollution. sidered a "significant" problem because b. Conservation of Wetlands is public agencies are uncoordinated and considered a "significant" problem but often in conflict with local goals for not a "major" one because most wetlands both conservation and development, in the county are under public control. albeit major employers. c. Water Movement is considered t. Fiscal Support: see same section a "significant" problem primarily because under Cecil County. of the shifting salt-water intrusion. d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation 2.3 Baltimore County is considered a "significant" problem a. Living Resources is a "major" primarily because of sedimentation. problem because of pollution and elim- See Map. ination of wetlands. e. Water Pollution is a "major" b. Conservation of Wetlands is a problem because of sewer effluent. "significant" problem because of the f. Water Supply, limited value of remaining wetlands due g. Thermal Waste Discharge, and to pollution. h. Marine Transportation: c. Water Movement is a "major" are "relatively insignificant" problem because of flooding and lack problems at present. of circulation in sub-estuaries. Cur- i. Water-related Outdoor Recrea- iously, in Back River (now eutrophic) tion is a "significant" problem because better circulation would also be a much of the Bay near the Aberdeen "major" problem as the pollution would Proving Grounds and Edgewood Arsenal is then spread to the Bay. "off-limits" for the public. d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation j. Waterfront Industry and are considered "relatively insignificant" k. Residential Areas: in spite of heavy surface runoff and are currently "relatively in- resultant sedimentation. significant" as problems because of e. Water Pollution is a "major" little pressure for development. This problem. Back River acts as a tertiary is, however, growing. treatment plant. All sub-estuaries are 1. Access Appearance and Design off-limits to shellfishing and are un- are "major" problems for the same pleasant for water recreation. reasons as i above. f. Water Supply is a relatively m. Solid Waste Disposal is a "insignificant" problem although well- "significant" problem because of pres- water withdrawals have caused salt water sure on publicly owned land for fill intrusion in the ground water system. and spoil areas. g. Thermal Waste Discharge is not n. Non-Living Resources constitute currently a problem, nor is a "relatively insignificant" problem, h. Marine Transportation. as Harford County is still not under i. Water-related Outdoor Recreation pressure, except locally. is a "major" problem both because of high o. Information, demand and the deterioration of water p. Planning and quality. q. Public Awareness! j. Waterfront Industry: Baltimore See same section under Cecil County has 37,000 "port-dependent" County. employees (see Section II,J) concentrated 240 in primary metals industries and ship the few wetlands that remain mostly in building and repair. Waterfront industry the Lower Branch of the Patapsco, have problems are thus considered "major" in already been eliminated by pollution the bay-wide context. from any effective role for living re- 1. Access Appearance and Design sources. They still perform functions are considered "major" problems because re flood absorption and tertiary sewage of limited access to the shore from treatment. land, and poor appearance of many obsolete c. Water Movement is a "major" and deteriorated water's edge uses and problem because of the Harbor's funnel buildings. shape with its axis on a long "fetch" m. Solid Waste Disposal is a "major" for hurricanes, thus vulnerable, and problem because of proximity to urban- whose shore installations are extremely ization and lack of disposal sites. valuable. n. Non-Living Resources are d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation considered a "significant" problem because is considered "relatively insignificant", of the availability of sand and gravel even though constant dredging is needed close to and needed by urban construction to keep the ship channel open, and the problems its extraction develops. e. Water Pollution is considered a o. Information, "significant" problem rather than "major" p. Planning and primarily because most of the Harbor is q. Public Awareness: not appropriate for water recreation See same section under Cecil (except for the Inner Harbor because of County. conflict with navigation) and the current r. Tools for Implementation is Project will reestablish its use as an considered a "relatively insignificant" aquatic and wild fowl habitat., problem due to the sophistication and f. Water Supply is a "relatively legislative mandate of the county insignificant" current problem, government. g. Thermal Waste Discharge is con- s. Management Capability is con- sidered a "relatively insignificant" sidered a "significant" problem because problem because, although many of the. of lack of coordination and the widely long-standing adjacent industrial uses differing consensus of the citizens heat the water, what aquatic life exists of the county. is presumed to have adjusted, and the t. Fiscal Support is considered a Harbor industry is crucial to the Region, "major" problem because of the record Any particularly negative environmental of the county in failing to support effects can be dealt with by the MES. many public programs. h. Marine Transportation is a "major" problem as far as the water i-s 2-4 Baltimore City concerned because of the need for channel a.. Living Resources is considered deepening (to 45') and maintenance, and a "relatively insignificant" problem the modernization of water-related shore because the Patapsco which is badly facilities. polluted, flushes better than most other i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation major sub-estuaries, and is the subject is a "relatively insignificant" problem of intensive work by the Maryland because, except for specific urban shore Environmental Service (MES) to develop needs, any great amount of water-related pollution abatement plans. In this sense recreation within City-limits is in correction of pollution is already direct conflict with marine transportation underway. (except for the Inner Harbor). b. Conservation of Wetlands is also j. Waterfront Industry is a "major" considered "relatively insignificant" as problem because of the need for it here, 241 the appropriateness of the location for a "relatively insignificant" problem it, but the limiting factors such as because of the availability of funds and obsolescence of present plant, industries support for most problem areas. preempting sites that don't really need water access, and private ownership 2.5 Anne Arundel County policies not in accord with public a. Living Resources is a "major" policy. problem because of the pollution of sub- k. Waterfront Residential is con- estuaries, their importance to aquatic sidered a "relatively insignificant" and bird life. The demand for water- problem because of its inappropriateness related recreation and the general con- for most of the City waterfront (again flict of urbanization, septic tank pol- except for the Inner Harbor). lution of sub-estuaries, marina develop- 1. Access and Appearance and ment and so on, with natural resources. Design are considered "major" problems b. Conservation of Wetlands is a because of the poor standards of "significant" problem rather than "major" maintenance, difficulty of access to because Anne Arundel County does not have and inadequate design and layout of many wetlands. Those that are all the much of the current facilities, both more important to be conserved. those related to and those just visible c. Water Movement is a "major" from the water. problem because the sub-estuaries do not m. Solid Waste Disposal is a flush sufficiently to reduce pollution. "major" problem because the City of Flooding per se is a "relatively insig- Baltimore is the largest producer of nificant" problem. waste and the Patapsco channel deepening d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation alone will require five "contained is a "major" problem, because of signif- disposal areas" for 88 million cubic icant loss of valuable land, and height- yards, at a cost of $15 million to pre- ened runoff as urbanization takes place. pare the first portion. Sites for e. Water Pollution is a "major" dumping and land fill using solid waste problem in all of the County's sub- or Harbor spoil are limited here, and estuaries because of septic tank devel- standards for dumping are rising rapidly. opment on the highly permeable soil of n. Non-Living Resources is a the shoreline, inadequate treatment of "relatively insignificant" problem sewage effluent, marina and boat waste, because there is little conflict between and inadequate flushing of the estuaries. the Bay and extraction at this location. f. Water Supply is a "major" o. Information, problem because of saline intrusion of p. Planning and ground water at Bay shoreline as wells q. Public Awareness: draw down fresh water, and as paving are treated only at the Shore of aquifer recharge areas denies natural planning area scale. recharge. Industrial needs exceed current r. Tools for Implementation is supplies and to 1990 depend on connecting considered a "relatively insignificant" to Baltimore City's system. Beyond that, problem because of the sophistication the deep aquifers must be tapped and and depth of technical talent in the artificial recharge of all aquifers City of Baltimore. must be undertaken. s. Management Capability is a g. Thermal Waste Discharge is a "significant" problem because of pol- "relatively insignificant" overall itical and industrial opposition to problem although specific industries solutions to the problems. on the Patapsco discharge substantial t. Fiscal Support is considered amounts of heated water. 242 h. Marine Transportation is a r. Tools for Implementation are a "relatively insignificant" problem, except "relatively insignificant" problem because the County's section of the Patapsco of the magnitude and diversity of legis- (covered as part of Baltimore Harbor). lation on land use related to the Bay i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation available in the County and State, is a "major" problem because Anne Arundel s. Management Capability is a County has the three ingredients for "significant" problem because of the trouble -- high demand, a fantastic mixed record of success the County shoreline as a resource that has not has experienced in dealing with prob- yet been ruined, and almost totally lems in spite of competent technical private ownership of the shoreline. staffs in all departments. j. Waterfront Industry is a t. Fiscal Support is a "major" "major" problem, primarily in the north- problem because, while tools and manag- ern end of the County because of the ers are available, costs or programs same high-demand/supply situation as are very high because of land costs, etc. obtains for recreation. However south of the Harbor, most land is not suit- 2.6 Calvert County able for waterfront industry for lack a. Living Resources is a "major" of one or another of the prerequisites. problem area because of the value of the Anne Arundel County has over 2000 resources and the threats to its habitat employees and almost 50 firms in port- by virtue of erosion, sedimentation, dependent industries, including con- filling, solid waste disposal, diversion centrations in chemicals manufacturing, of fresh water, and thermal waste primary metals and ship building and discharge, repair. b. Conservation of Wetlands is a k. Waterfront Residential land is "significant" problem. Although there a "major" problem for the above are not that many in the county they high-demand/supply reasons. are all the more crucial for that fact, 1. Access and Appearance and De- and are threatened by pollution,, filling, sign is a "major" problem because of etc. limited public access to the shoreline, c. Water Movement is a "significant" its preemption by low-density develop- problem, primarily because of diversion ment and the inadequacy and obsoles- of fresh water from the Patuxent with cence of many of the structures along the attendent problems of low oxygen, the shore. inadequate flushing, and high salinity. m. Solid Waste Disposal is a d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation "major" problem because of the high is a "major" problem due to soil erosion rate of urbanization in the County. in the Patuxent watershed, sedimentation Demand has virtually outstripped in its estuary, and high rates of shore suitable disposal sites. erosion (by volume). n. Non-Living Resources is a e. Water Pollution is a "signif- "significant" problem because of the icant" problem because of low-density need for sand and gravel and inadequate septic tank development in the northern attention to the proper methods of shoreline of the County. Pollution of extraction. the Patuxent River is "major" but is not o. Information Retrieval, considered as a Bay problem. p. Synthesis and Planning and f. Water Supply is a "relatively q. Public Awareness: insignificant" problem, with local ground are all discussed at the water resources adequate for current Western Shore scale only. development. 243 g. Thermal Waste Discharge is a development pressures are not as severe "major" problem because of the siting here as further north. of the Baltimore Gas and Electric c. Water Movement problems are Company Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor "relatively insignificant". steam generating plant on the Bay shore. d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation Its anticipated impact is now under are "major" problems chiefly because of intensive study. (Ref- 2) the high volume rates of shore erosion. h. Marine Transportation is a e. Water Pollution is a "significant" "relatively insignificant" problem as but primarily local problem in sub- are : estuaries . i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation, f. Water Supply in relation to j. Waterfront Industry, and current demand is a "relatively insig- k. Waterfront Residential. nificant" problem because pressures for 1.Access, Apprearance and Design urbanization are low, and ground water is a "significant" problem primarily resources are abundant. because of poor access which limits g. Thermal Waste Discharge is a use of the Bay as a resource. "relatively insignificant" problem as m. Solid Waste Disposal and there is no relevant industry. n. Non-Living Resources are h. Marine Transportation is a "significant" problems because of de- "relatively insignificant" problem gradation of floodplains and estuaries because of little industry and no of tributaries by filling and by ports. leaching from sanitary landfills, and i. Water-Related Outdoor Recre- because of water quality problems ation is a "relatively insignificant" caused by sand and gravel operations, problem of a solely local nature, as are o. Information Retrieval, j. Waterfront Industry and p. Synthesis and Planning, and k. Waterfront Residential, due to q. Public Awareness: low demand. are discussed at the scale of 1. Access, Appearance and Design the Western Shore. is a "significant" problem area as lack r. Tools for Implementation, of access inhibits the development of the s. Management Capability, and great natural recreation potential of the t. Fiscal Support: waters and waterfront of the county. are all considered "significant" m. Solid Waste Disposal and problems because of the relative inad- n. Non-Living Resources are equacy of local zoning, building and "relatively insignificant" problems subdivision tools, few management because of distance from urbanization. personnel, and poor track record on o. Information, Information Retrieval, fiscal support. p. Synthesis and Planning, and q. Public Awareness: 2.7 St. Mary's County (Bay Shoreline are discussed at the Western Area) Shore scale. a. Living Resources is a "major" r. Tools for Implementation is a problem area because the County has "significant" problem because of inad- many wetlands, sub-estuaries such as the equacy of local ordinances and mechanisms Patuxent are polluted and the County is for dealing with local problems. very important in terms of aquatic and s. Management Capability is a bird habitat. "significant" problem due to limited staff b. Conservation of Wetlands is a and expertise. "significant" rather than a "major" f. Fiscal Support is a "relatively problem simply because pollution and insignificant" problem because most 244 current problems do not require large b. Conservation of Wetlands is a amounts of money for correction. "major" problem for the above reason and by virtue of spoil deposits and dredging 2 . 8 Western Shore Summary engendered by the deepening and mainten- The rating system that has been ance of the C S D Canal. used for the Western Shore is as follows: c. through n. Problem Categories: 1) if one county was rated "major" in a All these categories of problems category, the Shore was rated "signif- are seen as "relatively insignificant" icant" in that category; 2) if two except at a localized scale. or more counties were rated "major", o. Information and Information the Shore was rated "major"; 3) if all Retrieval, counties were rated "significant" in a p. Synthesis and Planning, and category, the Shore was rated "major", q. Public Awareness: otherwise "significant"; 4) if any are discussed at the Eastern counties were rated "significant" in Shore scale. a category, the Shore was rated the r. Implementation, same. s. Management Capability, and o. Information and Information t. Fiscal Support: Retrieval is considered a "major" are all classed as "significant" problem throughout the Western Shore problems because of inadequate ordinances, even though it is the subject of limited technical staff and leadership and intensive field research of all kinds. poor record of fiscal support for problem Retrieval and coordination of what is solution. known is as much a problem as new information, with three levels of 2.10 Queen Anne's County government and many institutions a. Living Resources is a "major" involved. current problem area because of the p. Synthesis and Planning is fluctuating position of isohaline lines classed as a "significant" problem and local pollution threats to aquatic at the Western Shore scale rather than habitats. "major" because all the institutional b. Conservation of Wetlands is a and organizational mechanisms for those "major" problem for the above reasons functions exist although not function- also. ing very effectively in terms of both c. Water Movement is a "significant" development and conservation. problem rather than a "major" one because q. Public Awareness is a "major" pollution and flushing are not as critical current problem at the Western Shore as in sub-estuaries on the Western Shore. scale. Relativley few citizens are d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation involved in Bay affairs except as users is a "major" problem area as the County or exploiters of one or another of the has the second-highest linear rate of Bay's resources. shoreline erosion in the Bay, and sedimentation of channels, marinas, and 2.9 Kent County small harbors is relatively severe. a. Living Resources is a "signif- e. Water Pollution is a "significant" icant" problem area primarily because problem although still relatively local- of the fluctuating salinity of the ized and a result of marina development. Upper Bay, fresh water diversion through f. Water Supply, the C S D Canal, and the quality and g. Thermal Waste Discharge, and nutrient load of the Susquehanna River h. Marine Transportation, and water, which flows into the Bay just i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation: above the County. are "relatively insignificant" 245 problems mainly by virtue of low demand. c. Water Movement is a "significant" j. Waterfront Industry: rather than a "major" problem because Queen Anne's County has over pollution of sub-estuaries is not as 600 employees and 17 firms in "port- serious as it will be with more urban- dependent" industry (see Section II,J) ization and thus flushing is currently largely concentrated in seafood packing. adequate as are dissolved oxygen levels. Because of the current importance of d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation this employment in the local economy, is a "major" problem in the County with waterfront industry problems have been significant losses of shore land to classed as "significant" in Queen Anne's erosion and sedimentation affecting County. drainage and navigational channels k. Waterfront Residential is a and wetlands. "significant" problem because of in- e. Water Pollution is a "significant" creasing demand and improved access. problem that still has not reached the 1. Access, Appearance and Design proportions it has on the Western Shore. is a "significant" problem due to in- f. Water Supply is a "relatively creased demand for access and the insignificant" problem of a local nature difficulty of accommodating it. only. This is because of the generally m. Solid Waste Disposal is a abundant ground water resources. "significant" and increasing problem g. Thermal Waste Discharge and because of proximity to urbanization h. Marine Transportation: a and lack of suitable sites. "significant" problems because of St. n. Non-Living Resources is still Michael's efforts to improve its port a "relatively insignificant" problem and its maritime museum. with only local demand. i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation o. Information and Information is a "significant" problem because of the Retrieval, extent of the natural resource, its p. Synthesis and Planning, and relative inaccessability, and marine q. Public Awareness: pollution. are discussed at the scale j. Waterfront Industry: of the Eastern Shore. Talbot County has over 1500 r. Tools for Implementation, employees and 20 firms in "port-dependent" s. Management Capability and industries, almost all concentrated in t. Fiscal Support: seafood packing. Because of the importance are all "significant" problems of port-dependent employment in the local because of generally inadequate local economy, waterfront industry problems codes and ordinances for conservation, are considered "significant" in Talbot lack of depth in management capability, County. and a weak record of fiscal support of k. Waterfront Residential is a the kind of programs necessary. "significant" problem because of limited access and low density development pre- 2.11 Talbot County empting waterfront sites. a. Living Resources is a "major" 1. Access, Appearance and Design problem because pressures for urban and change, pollution, and erosion and m. Solid Waste Disposal: sedimentation all threaten the aquatic are "significant" problems as and bird habitats. urbanization and need for access grows. b. Conservation of Wetlands is a n. Non-Living Resources is a "major" problem so above and because the "relatively insignificant" problem area County has a significant share of the because of lack of demand. Bay's Wetlands. 246 o. Infor mation and Information alter much of it. Retrieval, b. Conservation of Wetlands is a p. Synth esis and Planning, and "major" problem for the reasons above q. Publi c Awareness: (See IV, A-2 above). are d iscussed at the scale of c. Water Movement is currently the Eastern Sh ore . a "relatively insignificant" problem. r. Tools for Implementation, d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation s. Manag ement Capability and is a "significant" problem as sedimentation t. Fisca I Support: affects the wetlands, and the County has are a II "significant" problems experienced the largest net loss of acreage due to inadequ ate codes and ordinances, due to shore erosion of any Maryland absense of man agement in depth, and Bay County. (See Map B I 3). limited fiscal support for necessary e. Water Pollution is a "signif- programs. icant" but not yet "major" problem, mostly due to waterfront industries and marina 2.12 Dorchester County pollution. Dorchester County faces much the f. Water Supply and same intensity of problems as Talbot g. Thermal Waste Discharge: County to its north. Special mention are "relatively insignificant" is made of: problem areas. c. Water Movement and h. Marine Transportation is a j. Waterfront Industry. "major" problem area because of the c. Water Movement is a "relatively conflict between needs for waterfront insignificant" problem in the County industry (and related channel deepening) because pollution is localized and not and natural resources. serious and thus there is less need i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation for a strong sub-estuary flushing is a "significant" problem area due to action, and less demand on dissolved need for development of recreation as a oxygen for the function of waste- "growth industry". dec ompos ition. j. Waterfront Industry: j. Waterfront Industry: Somerset County has over 1100 Dorchester County has over 900 employees and almost 30 firms in "port- employees and 20 firms in port-dependent dependent" industries (see Section II,J). industries (see Section II,J). As in This includes, in addition to a primary Talbot and Queen Anne's Counties, the concentration of seafood packaging employ- major concentration isin seafood packing. ment, a significant number of primary But Dorchester County also has signif- metals manufacturing employees. Somerset icant employment in agricultural chemic- County has major needs for job develop- als and primary metals manufacturing. ment. It is the site of the proposed Because of the significance and make-up Annemesex Industrial Park and the focus of current port-dependent industry in of Bay-wide interest in the potential ec- Dorchester County and because of unem- onomic and ecological impacts of this ployment problems in the area, water- project. In consideration of these fact- front industry problems are considered ors, waterfront industry problems in "significant" in the Bay-wide context. Somerset County have been judged of "major significance". 2.13 Somerset County k. Waterfront Residential; a. Living Resources is a "major" 1. Access, Appearance and Design; problem area because of the importance m. Solid Waste Disposal and of the resource and conflicts with n. Non-Living Resources: other uses that would eliminate or are considered "relatively in- 247 significant" current problem areas. Potomac estuary and the heavy pollution o. Information and Information and sediment load carried from the Retrieval, up-stream portions of the Potomac basin p. Synthesis and Planning and (largely from construction in urban q. Public Awareness: areas). are discussed at the Eastern Problem Areas e. - n. are judged: Shore scale. "relatively insignificant" r. Tools for Implementation, although in some cases important at a s. Management Capability and local scale. t. Fiscal Support: Problem Areas o. - t. are discussed: are all "significant" problems as part of the Western Shore. that are being dealt with at the State scale, partly because local resources 2.16, 2.17, 2.18 Charles County, are inadequate. Prince George's County and the Potomac Shore 2 .14 Eastern Shore These counties are given a relative The same system for problem summary importance for comparative purposes but evaluation that was used for the Western are not discussed because they are Shore was applied. Information etc. was beyond the scope of this Report. not discussed by county and is dealt with here. 2.19 The CBIPC Study Area - The o. Information Gaps is a "major" Maryland Portion of the problem area as it was on the Western Chesapeake Bay Shore. Again, while much is known of the Most of the evaluations are ex- natural processes involved, little is plained by the rating system. However known of the interactions etc. of the several are not, and are discussed overall system within which these proces- briefly below. For nine problem areas, ses operate. it is possible to compare the summary p. Synthesis and Planning and evaluations of problem significance by q. Public Awareness: this Study and the North Atlantic Regional are "significant" problems Water Resources Study (Ref. 1) for the rather than "major" because they are Chesapeake Bay area. Differences in the better known and of greater concern at two evaluations are also explained. the State scale. b. Conservation of Wetlands is considered a "major" problem in this 2.15 St. Mary's County (Potomac study due to the closer view, expressed Shoreline Area) concern, and more detailed knowledge St. Mary's County has a somewhat of the problem by the CBIPC. (Ref. 3,4) different level of problems on its d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation Potomac shore than along its Bay is a "significant" problem area in general Shoreline. consensus rather than "relatively insig- a. Living Resources and nificant" because of the sharper focus of b. Conservation of Wetlands: the CBIPC, and the legislatively expressed are "major" problem areas concern as evidenced by State aid for because of the pollution of the Potomac private efforts at shore protection. sub-estuary and the effect on flow and Furthermore, sedimentation necessitates salinity of up-stream fresh water use. large expenditures for dredging, which c. Water Movement and in turn causes environmental problems. d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation: e. Water Pollution is a "signific- are "significant" problem areas ant" problem rather than a "major" because because of the slow flushing of the there is general consensus that the Bay 248 as a whole is still in reasonably good condition. g. Thermal Waste Discharge is a "significant" rather than a'"major" problem, as is currently confined to the one major nuclear power plant site and a number of industrial installations. h. Marine Transportation is a "major" overall problem even though it is classed as "major" only on the Western Shore, because of the need for deepening the channel and the ubiquitous- ness of the potential impact. i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation is a "significant" rather than a current "major" problem, mostly because of gen- eral public lack of awareness. m. Solid Waste Disposal is a "significant" rather than a "relatively insignificant" problem because of current massive dimensions of solid waste out- put of urban areas, lack of suitable sites for sanitary landfills, and the large amounts of spoil from continuing dredging programs. (Ref. 5) 249 B Maryland Chesapeake Bay Problems in the Context of the Bay's Watershed and the 1 The Bay in the Context of Its Watershed North Atlantic Region The M aryland portion of the Chesapeake Th is report a nd the work of the Bay is only a small part of the total water- Chesape ake Bay Int eragency Planning shed. The Bay's basin covers 74,000 Committ ee have nee essarily been square mile s. The largest tributary, the restric ted to cons idering Maryland Susquehanna River, drains 42% of the basin, portion s of the Ch esapeake Bay. This the Potomac , 22% and the Rappahannock, puts ar bitrary bli nders on, and is York and Ja mes Rivers drain 24%. 12% is fundame ntally anti thetical to the drained by smaller watersheds or directly ecologi cal viewpoi nt. into the Ba y- Br ief conside ration of the pre- Figur e 2 shows the NARWR Study's vious w ork in the context of the evaluation of problems for the Bay's major North A tlantic Reg ion Water Resources watersheds. It is evident that the Bay Study ( Ref. Dallo ws a Bay region itself has problems at a level of intensity perspec tive that i ncludes the entire and kind gr eater than the remainder of the watersh ed. Of cou rse even that water- watershed. shed is a limiting and arbitrary This is a "downstream externality", boundar y for some concerns, particu- that is the consequences of upstream larly w ith referen ce to the Delmarva pollution a nd sedimentation are on the Peninsu la where th e Chesapeake, the Bay. For e xample a recent study of the Delawar e and the A tlantic Ocean inter- Susquehanna watershed excluded the Chesa- mingle. peake from the model, because"... it was FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 •H £ c 3 c .-1 in 0 O -p in •H 13 AWARENESS OF COASTAL in u u o 4-t C . aj PROBLEMS i-i 4-> 3 u Q 4J C 4J -H (As Evaluated by North .c 0) m 3 > c o PROBLEM PROFILE IN CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION 01 iw 0 c in " u c -^ in tn O 0) (0 (As Evaluated by North Atlantic Regional u O Ul o •U Q 0 O tJ Atlantic Regional a 01 in > 0) -a 4-1 u •rH u Resources Study) B c Water Resources Study) 3 c in tn in o m o O 0) > ra c p 14-1 0 0 0) c O r-t a m in •^ u (Ref. 1) 14-1 (Ref. 1) •H 4J c (0 U iu in c c en 4J bi c 11 -P c U in 0 u 3 ' O c 3 c •rH •H o Chesapeake Bay Region (NARWRS: Areas 0 X 0 H H 0 s a x Non-Living Resources OOXOOXOOO 0 0 0 17,18[part],19,20,21) Susquehanna Basin (NARWRS: Area 17) X 0 0 H X 0 0 0 0 Water Pollution XXBXX8BBX X X B Upper Bay (NARWRS: Area 18 [part]) E X 0 E E 0 E B 0 Thermal Effects OOOOXXX00 B O 0 Maryland Bay Area (CBIPC:IIIA2.19) 8 B B X X X X B X 00X008X00 0 O 0 Potomac Basin (NARWRS: Area 19) X O 0 a 0 0 X 0 X Solid Wastes Disposal XXBBXBBOX X Rappahannock/York Basin (NARWRS: Area 20) X 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 X Recreation a o XO0X0BBBX B B O James River Basin (NARWRS: Area 21 [part)) X 0 0 B X 0 0 a o Marine Transportation Coastal Erosion and OOXXXBBOX X X O Delmarva Coastal Zone (NARWRS: Areas 18,21) 0 X 0 O 0 0 H o a [part] Tidal Flooding B Major Significant Relatively Insignificant Ma j or X Signi ficant Relatively Insignificant 250 doubtful that effects on the Bay caused tion of non-living resources are current- by activity in the Basin would feed ly being considered as less important than back on the basin." (Ref. 7) the other six problems. Depending upon results from intensive current research on the effects of thermal and solid waste disposal on marine life, either of these 2 The Chesapeake Bay Watershed in the Context two problems could move far up the percep- of the North Atlantic Region tion scale or drop out of sight. The ex- traction of non-living resources, current- Figure 3 from the NARWR Study ly the lowest on the perception scale, indicates how the authors and experts could rise significantly if oil and gas interviewed see current "awareness of are extracted off Maine and if the crisis coastal problems".(Ref. 1) They some predict in the supply of sand and summarize as follows: "For the (North gravel is satisfied offshore." (Ref. 1) Atlantic) region as a whole, the impor- tance being attached to problems could be ranked about in this order: Major concern: Water pollution and wetland conservation are being con- sidered as the most important problems. Following a little behind are recre- ation and marine transportation. If the rating reflected a "man on the street" reaction, as distinguished from the informed opinion evaluated here, marine transportation would drop sub- stantially. So far it is a problem which has not been conveyed to the public. Significant concern: At midrange on the scale are problems of living resources and of coastal erosion and tidal flooding.. If the ranking reflected a "man on the street" reaction, as distinguished from the informed opinion evaluated here, commercial fishing would probably rise and coastal erosion and tidal flooding would probably drop. Memories of losses in great tidal floods of the past are short lived and probability predictions for the future seem unreal. Except for shoreline property owners, the public seems to attach little relationship to their enjoyment of the shoreline and the effort to protect it and them. Lesser concern: Although there are important local exceptions, for the region as a whole coastal problems associated with thermal dissipation, solid waste disposal, and the extrac- 251 Emerging Issues by Geographic Location and Planning Area 1.1 Cecil County a. Living Resources will become a "major" problem because low flows in 1 Relative Importance of Future Chesapeake Bay the Susquehanna will be further reduced Problems by Planning Areas (Counties) by diversion and consumptive uses, and in- creased outflow of fresh-water through Figure 4 presents a judgemental sum- the deepened C and D Canal will also lead mary of the relative importance of emerg- to degradation of water characteristics ing Chesapeake Bay problems by planning and quality on which the living resources areas. The approach is similar to that depend. used in the review of the relative impor- d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation tance of present Bay problems in Section will become "significant" because the A above. The categories "major,"signifi- deepened C and D Canal will be a more ef- cant" and "relatively insignificant" are fective sediment trap, even though the self-explanatory and assignment to cate- sediment loads carried to the area by gories was judgemental. A fourth category streams and currents will remain relative- ("could become either more or less signif- ly constant or increase slightly due to icant") was added to allow for divergent development in the County's watersheds. possible developments as a result of fu- e. Water Pollution will become a ture decisions regarding Bay land or wat- "significant" problem because of the re- er uses (e.g. see items I-N for Harford duced fresh-water inputs mentioned above County). Explanatory notes for judge- in A-l and because pollution loads in mental decisions made in developing the the Susquehanna will be increasing due to summary chart are included in the fol- urban, industrial and agricultural devel- lowing text. opment in its basin. i. Water Related Outdoor Recreation will become a "significant" problem because RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FUTURE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROBLEMS of increased use of the rather limited water-related public open space in the t. q. b. c. d. e . f. q . h. i. i. k 1 P n . o ••_£.*. q- r. _s. County and the additional demands of u JJ c people seeking recreational facilities •a c 41 cc o c 01 tj E c u nj u- on private land in conjunction with rH fl 0 o in c i0 JJ •u •a .e o •P 01 i0 01 -U 0) 0) u 4J -d c u in u c c waterfront residences. | 3 w w c O ij c 0) •P 3 T3 nt a 3 in E ja 0) iw UJ c a O a O a Ot to k. Waterfront Residential will be- u 0 JJ o o -o at to a. 0) a w • c c o a* 3 c C c 3 C K iQ 0 u o 3 H 0) 0 o •u < 0 a t/> > £ w Q. in ee u 3 > to 01 iu E still be far enough from major urban areas tr U IT) a> 1 tn •-4 e 0) U 0) c 0) 0) U u 6 c u -a J u x: 01 10 tn a « 0) )-i 0) c 0 •U 4J u u 4J u u c c A 0 c 0 d) £1 <0 a JZ flj () No Information •*• Could Become Either More or Less Significant 252 and subsequently used as sites for new a "significant" problem if the second Bay towns. On the other hand if, as has also crossing is built between Baltimore and been proposed, these large areas are con- Kent Counties. verted to public open space then Water Supply and Non-Living Resources will re- 1•4 Baltimore City main "relatively insignificant" because d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation of reduced demands. Water-Related Rec- and reation will remain "significant" be- f. Water Supply: cause of the resulting respective require- will change to "significant" for ments for management and design. However, much the same reasons as in Baltimore Solid Waste Disposal will remain "signif- County. icant" or become "major" in this case as well, since sites will be preempted for 1•5 Anne Arundel County parks, which might otherwise be used as disposal areas. The relative future importance of the County's problems will remain very g. Thermal Discharge will become much as they are now. a "major" problem since the County has been proposed as the site of the next nuc- 1•6 Calvert County lear power plant to be built on the Bay f. Water Supply and after the Calvert Cliffs plant now under construction. k. Waterfront Residential: will probably become "significant" j. Waterfront Industry and problems in the long-run because of in- k. Waterfront Residential will prob- creased demand for both first and second ably become "significant" problems in ei- homes in the area (especially if the sec- ther of the cases described above -- in ond Bay crossing is built here) the con- the first case, because of the planning commitant demands placed on the ground- and management problems involved, and in water intrusion supply and the resultant the second because of the increased pres- possibility of salt-water intrusion into sures on the remaining land for industrial aquifers underlying the developed water- and residential development if the large front areas. parcels of Federally-owned land become public open space. j. Waterfront Industry will become a "significant" problem in addition to the 1.3 Baltimore County above if the second Bay crossing is built from Calvert County to Dorchester as has d. Shore Erosion and Sedimentation been proposed. will become "significant" because increas- ing sediment loads from construction and 1-7 St. Mary's County (Bay Shoreline Area) other urban activities will increase flush- Relative future importance of prob- ing problems of sub-estuaries and necessi- lems will stay much as they are now. tate more dredging to maintain shipping channels. 1-8 Western Shore Summary f. Water Supply will become a "sig- The rating system is the same as in nificant" problem because virtually all Section A 2 above, i.e. 1) if one county feasible reservoir sites within the County was rated "major" in a particular category, have been used and water to meet the needs the Shore was rated "significant"; 2) if of growing population and industry will two or more counties were rated "major", have to be increasingly imported from ot- the Shore was rated "major"; 3) if all' her basins, such as the Susquehanna or counties were rated "significant", the Potomac, which are already under pressure Shore was rated "major"; 4) if any county to supply water to other urban areas. was rated "significant" in a category, the j. Waterfront Industry will become Shore was rated the same. 253 In accordance with this scheme only will be upgraded to "major" and g. Thermal Discharge changes from "significant" problems respectively if the the present relative importance. This is proposed Annemessex Industrial Park is because Thermal Discharge will become a built, with its demands for waste assimil- "major" problem in Harford County with ation and industrial fresh water supplies, the siting there of the next nuclear po- i. Water-Related Outdoor Recreation wer plant, and this will make two "major" and ratings for the Western Shore of the Bay. 1. Access and.Appearance: will become "significant" problems 1. 9 Kent County as well if the above industrial complex a. Living Resources will probably is built because of the possible conflict become a "major" problem because of in- with the Janes Island State Park. creased consumptive use and diversion of Susquehanna water, and because of in- 1.14 Eastern Shore Summary creased fresh-water outflow through the The overall rating for deepened C and D Canal. f. Water Supply will be upgraded to e. Water Pollution, "significant". Otherwise overall relative f. Water Supply, ratings for the Eastern Shore will remain j. Waterfront Industry, and roughly the same. k. Waterfront Residential: will all become "significant" 1.15 , 1.16, 1.17 , 1.18 problems if the second Bay crossing is St. Mary's County (Potomac Shore), built from Baltimore County to Kent Charles County, Prince George's County. County, and the Potomac Shore The ratings as to the relative im- 1.10 Queen Anne's County portance of future problems in these areas f. Water Supply will become an are judged to be unchanged for the most increasingly "significant" problem part. because of the increased demand generated by proliferating waterfront residences 1.19 The CBIPC Study Area -- The Maryland and the concommitant problems of lowered Portion of the Chesapeake Bay water levels and danger of salt water The ratings of future importance of intrusion. problems remains much the same, with the exception of: 1.11 Talbot County g. Thermal Discharge. This is There will be little change in the judged to probably rate as a "major" fut- relative importance of the County's prob- ure Bay problem because several more lems in the foreseeable future. nuclear power plants are proposed for location on the Bay shore. 1.12 Dorchester County f. Water Supply will probably become a "significant" problem if the County is selected as the site of the second Bay crossing. This will be due to increased demand from stimulated waterfront industrial and waterfront residential demands. 1.13 Somerset County e. Water Pollution and f. Water Supply: 254 D Population Change, Economic Trends and Urban Land Absorption Impacts, by Planning Area shore - and thus forms part of the justi- i Population Change fication for major facilities such as proposed additional Bay crossings, which 1.1 Linkages Between Population would in themselves produce extensive and Environmental Management environmental effects. Population is the source of demands The importance of the relation- for open space, recreation facilities, ship of population to Chesapeake Bay and environmental quality. On a typical management is obvious, although many summer weekend in 1965 (Ref- 8), it is estimated that about 90,000 of Baltimore of the linkages are not clearly established. Region's population swam in the Bay. On the average, each person generates about About 170,000 picnicked, 130,000 boated 1,200 lbs. of solid wastes per year, which or sailed, 145,000 fished, and 20,000 may be translated into needs for landfill hiked. And this does not include sites, possible threats to wetlands and persons from other counties and states considerable social costs for handling who come to the Baltimore region to par- and transport. On the average, each person uses 80-100 gallons of water per day, ticipate in these activities. Partici- pation in other activities such as which creates needs for major water supply swimming (in the ocean) hunting and facilities and indirect effects on stream camping are the source of much of the flow and assimilative capacity. Moreover, travel between the western and eastern each person is responsible for .17-.20 pounds of BOD daily, which either pollutes streams or generates need for considerable TABLE 1 POPULATION CHANGE, 1960 - 1970, BY COUNTY public expenditure for sewage treatment Net plants. Demands for housing and mobility Pop ulation Increase (+) contribute to sedimentation problems in County and 1960 or Decrease (- 1970 Reqion Population31 1960 to 1970 the construction of subdivisions and high- ways, and also permanently transforms the Anne Arundel Co. 206,600 + 90,900 297,500 Baltimore City 939,000 . 33,300 905,800 land - thereby preempting other alternative Baltimore Co. 492,400 + 128,600 621,100 Carroll Co. 52,800 + 16,300 69,100 uses such as open space and aquifer re- Harford Co. 76,700 + 38,700 115,400 Howard Co. charge . 36,200 + 25,800 61,900 Baltimore Region 1,803,700 + 267,000 2 070,700 Thus, a picture of population has Montgomery Co. 340,900 •181,900 522,800 major environmental management implica- Prince George's Co. 357,400 + 303,200 660,600 Washington Metro tions. Table 1 presents 1960, 1970 and 698,300 + 485,100 1 ,183,400 Calvert Co. net 1960-70 population change for Maryland 15,800 + 4,900 20,700 Charles Co. 32,600 + 15,100 47,700 Bay counties. The figures indicate that St. Mary's Co. 38,900 + 8, 500 Southern Maryland population in the Maryland Bay Region 87,300 + 28,400 115,700 Caroline Co. increased by 28% during the past decade. 19,500 + 320 19,800 Dorchester Co. 29,700 _ 260 29,400 However, the distribution of the increase Kent Co. 15,500 + 670 16,100 Queen Anne's Co. 16,600 + 1,850 is notably uneven. 99% of the total net Somerset Co. 19,600 _ 700 18,900 Talbot Co. population increase occurred in the subur- 21,600 + 2,100 23,700 wicomico Co. 49,100 + 5,190 54,200 ban counties of the Baltimore and Washington Worchester Co. 23,700 + 710 Eastern Shore 195,200 » 9.880 205,000 metropolitan regions. While population in Cecil Co. the region increased 28%, the increase in 48,400 i. 4,880 53,300 Eastern Shore counties was only 5%. These Md. Chesapeake Bay Region 2,833,000 +795,200 3 62B,200 differences are the source of a range of a) Bureau of Census conservation and development problems. Maryland Population and Housing Characteristics Table 9 "Population and Land Area of Counties: 1960 £ 1970" (figures rounded to nearest 100) 255 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED 1970 POPULATION, BY COUNTY Excess (+) or Shortfall ( -) : Actual Expected Actual 1970 Percent Excess {+) or County and 1970 1970 Population vs a b, Shortfall (-) Region Population ' Population Expected - 6.5% Anne Arundel Co. 297,500 316,800 -19,300 -4.5* the basis for planning tacmries ana Baltimore City 905,800 946,200 -40,500 - 3.9% Baltimore Co. 621,100 645,200 -24,100 services (sewerage systems, recreation + 3.7% Carroll Co. 69,100 66,500 + 2,600 + 4.2% Harford Co. 115,400 110,500 + 4,900 open space, solid waste disposal faciliti - 5.4% Howard Co. 61,900 65,300 - 3,400 that are crucial to the maintenance of Baltimore Region 2,070,700 2,150,500 -79 800 environmental quality. Where actual popu 2.8% Montgomery Co. 522,800 508,100 + 14 700 6.0% lation growth exceeds expections, it is Prince George's Co. 660,600 621,100 + 39 500 likely that needed facilities and service: Washington Metro 129 200 - 5.8% Calvert Co. 20,700 21 900 1,200 have not been anticipated. Where actual +10.6% Charles Co. 47,700 42 600 5,000 population growth falls short of expected 47,400 50 700 3,300 - 7.0% St. Mary's Co. + 0.5% rrr-owi-h. it is likelv that hoped for Southern Maryland 115,700 115 200 500 - 4.0% Caroline Co. 19,800 20 600 800 - 4.1% Dorchester Co. 29,400 30 600 1,200 16,100 18 000 1,800 -11.2% Kent Co. + 0.7% Queen Anne1s Co. 18,400 18 300 130 80 Somerset Co. 18,900 19 000 240 Talbot Co. 23,700 23 400 1,700 wicomico Co. 54,200 56 000 Worchester Co. 24,400 25 300 900 6,700 Eastern Shore 205,000 5,600 Cecil Co. 53,300 Md. Chesapeake Bay Region 3,665,800 a) Bureau of Census: Maryland Population and Housing characteristics Table 9 "Population and Land Area of Counties: 1960 S 1970 p.22-15 (figures rounded to nearest 100) by 54,COO persons. These discrepancies between actual and expected events both tations as reflected by projections reflect and in some cases, are partial developed in the mid-1960's. For tl causes of current conservation and devel- Maryland Bay Region as a whole, the opment problems. They will prompt adjust- projections of 1970 population were ments in existing projections for 1980 very accurate. For smaller areas, and the year 2000, and investigations however, the differences between into the reasons for the discrepancies, resulting in refinements of projection methodology. They may also prompt innovations in the area of development controls and incentives which will enable more effective control of population shifts and the environmental consequences of population shifts. Ql Str IDUtlon Oi. L-iie pujjuxci uj-wii a 1.3 Population Growth Rates the three counties of the region Table 3 presents expected net popu- very different from expectations lation growth rates for the decades 1960- Though a net increase of 431,00.0 2000, and the actual growth rates experi- persons between 1960 and 1970 was enced in the 1960-1970 decade. Expected expected in Montgomery and Prince growth rates for most already urbanized George's Counties, the actual 1970 counties exhibit a gradually declining population levels exceeded expectations pattern in successive decades. However, 256 TABLE 3 NET POPULATION GROWTH RATES. ACTUAL S EXPECTED, 1960-2000; BY DECADE, BY COUNTY 1970 d 6 C 3 (3 & "rOCOUping their lOSSeS" county and 1960 - - - 1970 i97o-i9eo i9eo-i99o 1990-2000 before the turn of the century (and Region Actual3' Expectedb) Expected**1 Expectedb) vice versa)? Other than vacant land Anne Arundel Co. 44.0% 53.3* 31.2* 22.2* 18.1* Baltimore City - 3.5* 0.8* 0.5* 0.5* 0.5% supply, what are the effective gover- Baltimore co. 26.1* 31.0* 24.4* 15.4* 13.4* nors of population growth rates? These Carroll Co. 30.7* 26.0* 13.1* 25.1* 20.1* , . AH GOG Harford co. 50.4* 44.i* 36.i* 2B.I» 21.9* and other questions with regard to popu- Howard Co. 71.3* 80.5* 72.9* 45. 3* 31. 2* IJ.- .-. . , . .,. Baltimore Region i4.e*14.8* 19.2* i6.6*16.6* i3.3*13.3* 11.7* ±a11on growth rates have major implica- •.ontgomery co. 53.3* 49.o*49.0* 24.o»24.0* i9.o.19.0* i6.o*16.0* tions for future Bay management. Prince George's Co. 84. 8* 73.8* 24.0* 15.1* 13.1* Washington Metro 69.5* 61.7* 24.0* 16.9* 14.4* Calvert Co. 30.7* 38. 3* 19.7* 38.2* 27.6* Charles Co. 46.4* 30.9* 36.5* 14.7* 12.8* St. Mary's Co. 21..^. 8*„. 30.3*JV. J. 19.6*^.^.u. 9.4*J.,, 8.6*„. ^. Southern Maryland 32.6* 32.0* 25.9*25. 9% 16.7*16.7% 14.3*14.3% 2 ECOnOITliC TrefldS Caroline Co. 1.6* 5.7* 0. 1* 12. 1* 10.8* Dorchester Co. 0.9* 3.2* 4.9* 19. 3* 16.2* 2.1 Linkages Between Economic Projec- Kent Co. 4. 3* 15.9* 4.9* 24.3* 19. 6* Queen Anne's co. 11.2*11.2% 10.10.4% 4* 6.6*6.6% 11.5*11.5% 10.10.3% 3* tions and Environmental Manaqement Somerset Co. - 3.6*3.6% 3.1*3.1% 4.9*4.9% 7.7*7.7% 7.7.1% 1* —— ; ; * raibot co. 9.8*9.8% 8.6*8.6% 13.4*13.4% 21.5*21.5% 17.7*17.7% The relationship between economic Wicomico Co. 10.6%10. 6* 14.1%14.1* 4.5%4.5* 14.1%14.1* 12.4%12.4* «. „ ^ t _ _ A. I -. -. worchester Co. 3.0%3.0* 6.8%6.8* 0.5%0.5* 19.3%19.3* 16.2%16.2* goals, natural resource supply and envi- Eastern Shore 5.1* 8.5* 4.6* 16.2* 14.0* ronmental quality is extraordinarily Cecil Co 22 2x 22 14 6 - i°^±10.1* 22.- 2* 22.4*-" 14.6*- ' HAH12.7* complex. Often the focus has been on the Md. cheS.pe.ke 8.y Region 28.i, 29.4* 18.6* i4.7* i2.8* demands of economic growth for natural a f 'Mary!Ld Po;:i"ion .»d »=u.i„9 characteristics resources. Economic growth translates Table 9 "Population and Land Area of counties. 1960 s 1970" p.22-15 into demands for land, demands for water (figures rounded to nearest 100) , blbased on: "state of Maryland population Projections, 1960-2000" lR<>£- '3) Supplies, and demands for the USe Of water and air resources for waste dis- charge. In this sense, the supply of natural resources acts as constraints many counties which presently are on economic growth -- either by imposing lightly urbanized are expected to "absolute" limits on certain kinds of experience sharply increased rates economic growth or by imposing problems of population growth in coming decades. of resource allocation. Thus commercial Five of the twenty Maryland Bay Region fishing and certain mining operations counties are expected to have higher face certain "absolute" limits imposed growth rates in the 1970-1980 decade by natural resource supply. And, than were expected in the 1960-1970 problems of allocation of limited supplies decade. Ten counties are expected of suitably located land for port-depen- to have higher growth rates in the dent industries constrain economic growth. 1980-1990 decade than in the 1970- It is increasingly found in a 1980 decade. Notably, however, no mobile society that environmental qual- counties are expected to have higher ity is a factor (sometimes a prerequi- growth rates in the 1990-200C decade site) for certain kinds of economic than in the 1980-1990 decade. The growth. The tourist industry and recre- implications of actual 1960-1970 ation-related enterprises are obvious population growth rates on expected examples which increase in importance patterns are as yet undetermined. with increases in mobility, incomes. Will the patterns remain as expected leisure time, etc. But the repercussions while magnitudes are increased or are more broad-ranging. Many growth decreased? Or will expected patterns industries depend on professional per- of growth rates in succeeding decades sonnel who are able and willing to make also change with counties which fell environmental quality a factor in job short of expectations in the 1960- choice, and developments in communica- 257 TABLE 4: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 1960-1980, BY SUBREGION AND RATES OF GROWTH, BY DECADE EMPLOYMENT (000) PERCENT OF TOT AL El1PL( 1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 1980 BALTIMORE REGION INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC 01-09) 17.0 12 . 7 12 .4 2 .4% 1 6* 1 4* -2.3* Mining (SIC 10-14) 1. 2 1.2 1.6 0. 2» 0 2* 0 2* 33. 3* Construction (SIC 15-17) 40 .5 46.4 54.7 5. 8% 5 9* 6 1* 14.5* 17 .8* Manufacturing (SIC 19-39) 205.0 208. 7 213.5 29 . 2% 26 7* 23 6* 1 .84 2 .2* Transp.Communic.fiPub.Util. (SIC 40-49) 55. 2 53.5 56.4 7 .9% 6 8* 6 2* - 3.0* 5.4* Wholesale Trade (SIC 50 ) 35.8 45.8 60.0 5. 1% b 9* 6 6* 27 .9* 31 .0* 14 . 2* 15.0* Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 112.7 128.8 148.2 16.0* 16 b* 16 4* 18.9* Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC 60-67) 36.7 43.8 52.1 5.2* b 6* 5 8* 19 .0* Services (SIC 70-69) 131 .0 165.0 215.7 18.6* 21 1* 23 9* 25.9* 30 .7* Government^) (SIC 91-93) 67 . 3 76.7 89 .1 9.6* 9 8* 9 9* 13.9* 16. 1* Total 702.4 782.7 903.7 100.0* 100 0* 100 0* 15.4* Population (000) Actual 1804 2071 14.8* Expected 2151 2507 19 .2* = DC METRO REGION (MD.PART) INDUSTRY GROUPS Agriculture (SIC 01-09) 8.0 6. 1 6.0 4.6* . 2* 1.4* -23.7* - 1.6* Mining (SIC 10-14) 0.8 0.8 1 . 2 0.4* 0 .3* 0 . 3* 0 .0* 50.0* Construction (SIC 15-17) 16.6 9 . 5* 10.7* 11 . 5* 82 . 5% 59.4* Manufacturing (SIC 19-39) 10.1 14 . 1 5.8* 3.9* 39 .6* 14 .8* Transp.Communic.spub.util. (SIC 40-49) 4.9 11. 2 .8* 2 .7* 59.1* 43.5* Wholesale Trade (SIC 50 ) 2.9 9 .2 15. 1 .7* 3. 3* 3 .6* 217.2* 65. 2* Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 34.6 66. 5 93. 19 .9* 23 .4* 22 . 3» 92 .1* 40. 3* Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC 60-67) 8.6 20.8 33. 4 .9* 7 .3* 7 .9* 141.8* 59. 1* Services (SIC 70-89) 54.8 85.4 133. 31.5* 30 . 1* 31.9* 55.8* 55.8* b 40 .6* Government > (SIC 91-93) 32.9 42.8 60. 18.9* 15. 1* 14 .4* 30 .0* Total 174.1 418.3 100.0* 100.0* 100.0* 47 . 3* Population (000) Actual 1183 69. 5* Expected 1129 61. 7* SOUTHERN MARYLAND INDUSTRY GROUPS 1 .8* Agriculture (SIC 01-09) 7 2 5 5 5 6 30 5* 19 0* 14 9* -23.6* 58. 3* Mining (SIC 10-14) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0.0* Construction (SIC 15-17) 0 8 1 2 9 3 3* 4 3* 5 2* 50.0* 33. 3* Manufacturing (SIC 19-39) 1 4 1 2 6 5 9* 4 3* 4 2* -14.2* 60 .0* Transp.Communic.SPub.Util. (SIC 40-49) 1 1 1 0 2 4 5* 3 6* 3 3* - 9.0* 20 .0* 27. 2* wholesale Trade (SIC 50 ) 0 5 1 1 4 2 1* 4 0* 3 9* 120.0* 48.0* Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 3 4 5 2 7 14 5* 18 0* 20 b* 52 .9* 25.0* Finance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC 60-67) 0 7 0 8 0 3 0* 2 8* 2 7* 14 .2* 40. 2* services (SIC 70-89) 4 9 7 2 10 1 20 8* 24 9* 27 0* 46.9* 23.2% •Gove rnment b) (SIC 91-93) 3 6 5 6 6 9 15 5* 19 3* 18 b* 23 5 29 0 37 6 100 0* 100 0* 100 0* 29 .6* Population (000) Actual 116 32 .6* Expected 115 3 2.0* EASTERN SHORE INDUSTRY GROUPS - 0.7* Agriculture (SIC 01-09) 18.3 13.4 -26.2* 0.0* 0 . 0* Mini ng (SIC 10-14) 0 . 1 0. 1 0 . 1 48.1* 12 .5* Cons truetion (SIC 15-17) 4 .0 4 . 5 3. 7* 5.2* 5.6* 24.8* 22.2* 2 .6% - 5.2* Manufacturing (SIC 19-39) 18.6 19.1 18. 1 25 .6* Transp.Communic.SPub.Util. (SIC 40-49) 3.2 4.0 4.4 5* 5.2* 5.4* 25 .0% 10.0* 14 . 2* 6. 2* wholesale Trade (SIC 50 ) 3. 2 3.4 8* 4.2* 4 . 2* 32 .1* 20 .0* Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 11.5 13.8 11.9* 14 .9* 16.9* 7 .6* Finance, Ins. Real Estate. (SIC 60-67) 1 2. 2.8 2.6% 3.4* 3 . 4* 36.8* 20.9* 15 .6* 9 .6% Services (SIC 70-89) 13 15. 17.0 18.4* 20.2* Governmentb) (SIC 91-93) 3.9 4. 2* 4.5* 4 . 8* 13 • 3* 14 .7* 81.5 100.0% 100.0% 100.0* 5.6* 5.9* Population (000) Actual 205 5 1* 4 6* Expected 212 8 5* CECIL COUNTY INDUSTRY GROUPS - 6 6* Agriculture (SIC 01-09) 2 0 1 4 14 1* 9 5* 7 9* -25 0* 0 0* 0 0% Mining (SIC 10-14) 0 1 0 1 0 5* 0 5* 0 6* 100 0* 50 0* Construction (SIC 15-17) 0 3 0 9 2 0* 3 7* 5 1* 0 0* Manufacturing (SIC 19-39) 3 0 3 7 21 7% 23 9* 20 2* 23 3* -50 0* 0 0* Transp.Communic SPub.Util. (SIC 40-49) 0 8 0 4 5 5* 2 5* 1 9* wholesale Trade (SIC 50 ) 0 3 0 4 2 2* 2 0* 2 2* 0 0* 33 3% 0* 41 1* 20 8* Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 1 7 2 9 12 3* 15 6* 16 0 0* 33 3* Fi nance, Ins., Real Estate (SIC 60-67) 0 3 0 4 2 5% 2 3% 2 5* 27 14 7* 28 2% Services (SIC 70-89) 3 4 5 0 24 7% 25 5* 4* 10 0* 31 8* Gove rnmen t*3) (SIC 91-93) 2 0 2 9 14 5* 14 5* 16 0* 18.1 100.0* 100.0* 100.0* Population (ooo) 10. 1* Actual 53 Expected "59 22.2* b a* See Reference 9. ) Excludes public education employees included in the services group. tions enable employers to base site ic data by industry rather than by broad location on this basis. Thus, environ- industry group, as various industry mental quality is an increasingly impor- types within the broad groups pose very tant factor in a region's ability to different environmental management prob- attract new economic enterprises. lems. Finally, the 1970 employment Considerations of the relation- estimates have not been verified against ship between economic (and population) actual events - though comparison of growth, natural resource supply, and actual and expected population growth environmental quality lead to attempts rates suggests that the expected econom- to evaluate the relationships in the ic growth rates for the 1960-1970 light of notions of human well-being. decade may be somewhat high in the case And this leads to questioning of goals of the Baltimore and Eastern Shore Sub- of economic growth themselves. Such regions and somewhat low for the Washington questions are very difficult to re- Metropolitan Counties. solve (efforts to increase environ- mental quality rely to a large extent on the wealth of the region), but 3 Land Suitability and Urban Land limitations on population and economic Absorption Impacts growth are being considered for some metropolitan areas (e.g., Denver) and some The following analysis relates states (e.g. Oregon). future population growth and urban land absorption to an inventory of land characteristics in Maryland Bay counties. As the discussion makes clear, the analysis is based on available data and is very crude in its present form. However, 2•2 Economic Projections for Maryland refinements of the analysis outlined Bay Subregions below and applications at smaller scales Table 4 presents selected data could become very useful environmental from economic projections for Maryland management tools. By providing a frame- Bay Subregions (Ref. 9) aiong with work which relates land characteristics expected rates of economic growth and to urban land demands, the analysis selected population data. For environ- provides a needed perspective on mental management purposes, data in land management problems. terms of employment is less useful than data relating directly to productivity. 3.1 Inventory of Land Characteristics For example, though agricultural employ- a. Time Reference of gata ment was expected to decrease substan- Because it is developed by tially in every subregion in the 1960- various state and local agencies, 1970 decade 3)indications are that available information on urban devel- agricultural production did not decline opment and natural land character- nearly so rapidly 4),if at all. And it istics^ often refer to different may be that the use of pesticides and points in time. One of the purposes other potentially polluting substances of the land characteristics accounts per unit of agricultural production system would be to maintain current actually increased. Furthermore, information on both natural and urban environmental management demands econom- development land characteristics. 259 b. Urban Land Use Categories population plus population in places of There are no consistent 1,000-2,500 (8,320 in 1960) or includes categories or category definitions all or part of the county's rural popula- used in the inventories of urban land tion (30,595 in 1960) is unclear. In uses in the several counties. Natural- the analysis discussed below it is ly enough, each land use survey is assumed that residential and other urban organized according to the needs and development land represents "urban" interests of the particular county. population plus population in places of Thus, Calvert County distinguishes 1,000-2,500, unless more precisely spec- between "year-round" and "seasonal" ified. In Dorchester and Somerset residential uses; Anne Arundel County Counties, two counties which made a distinguishes between single and distinction between farm and non-farm multi-family residential uses; and residential land, this assumption yields Somerset County organizes its residen- net residential densities of 10.2 and tial land inventory around the "farm", 8.3 persons/acre respectively, on "non-farm" distinction. The same farms and 4.0 and 2.3 persons/acre pattern holds for commercial, indus- elsewhere. trial and other broad land use cate- d. Preemptivel-Relationship Between gories. A land inventory accounts Urban and Natural Land Uses system would require a set of land use It is assumed in the Table 5 categories and category definitions that land characteristics imposed by which both serve the particular inter- human activities preempt natural land ests of individual counties and are characteristics. This was done in order capable of aggregation at the regional that certain land would not be double- level. This would also assist in counted in the "developed" and "unde- relating regional projections of land veloped" portions of the inventory. The needs6 to local plans and implemen- assumption is not completely representa- tation policies. tive of reality in the case of residen- c. Relating Urban Land Use to tial land -- where a portion of the site Urban Population is often left in approximately the natural It is also difficult to state -- and it is not necessarily true identify how comprehensive the county in the case of "public and semi-public" land inventories actually are. This land -- which may include parks specif- makes it difficult to relate the land ically designed to conserve natural land inventory with population data and to characteristics in urban development. make conclusions as to what proportion Many developing land use controls are of the county's population and activity designed to reduce the preemptive impact the land inventory represents. For of urban development on natural land instance, St. Mary's County reportedly characteristics. An example is the has 6,724 acres of permanent (non- relatively new "planned unit development" seasonal) residential land. But whether as an alternative to traditional sub- this residential land represents urban division planning. Planned unit devel- opments often leave 25-30% of the site 260 TABLE 5: LAND INVENTORY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNT Y (Ref. 11,12) TABLE 5: LAND INVENTORY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY Military Installation 16,559 1,049 42 ,000 Military Installation Urban Development Area (1960) 31,478 79,676 4,530 9, 197 1 620 6 104 7,564 9,885 5,574 Urban Development 1960 3,411 12,764 9,197 52 629 41 671 (2)Unavailable for Urban Devel. 48,037 80,725 7,564 5, 574 (2) Unavailable for Urban Devel. 3,411 47,975 Total Land Resource Area 266,880 390,400 289,920 266,720 160,000 Total Land Resource Area (234,880) 310,400 Unsuitable and Unavailable (1*2) 193,571 272 ,896 169,816 206,755 96,811 Unsuitable and Unavailable (1+2) 243, 207 (3)Available & Suitable (3) Available & Suitable for Urban Devel• f-or Urban Devel. 67,193 Urban Development 1960 31,478 79,676 a) 7, 564 9,885 5, 574 Urban Development 1960 12,764 9,197 52,629 41,671 Urban Pop. 1960 104,153 a 420,840 10,931 24,159 7,083 Urban Pop. 1960 ' 2, 262 8, 320 293,387 301,010 4 < > Index: Urban Devel. (4) Index; Urban Devel. Area/Person (1960) Area/Person (1960) Expected Pop. 2000 600,000 1,050,000 113,000 235,000 215,000 Expected Pop. 2000 46, 200 Population 1960 75,300 72 ,000 870,000 1 , 002,600 206,634 492,428 52,785 76,722 36,152 Population 1960 15,826 32,572 38,915 340,928 357,395 (5J Pop. Change 1960-2000 (5) Pop. Change 1960-2000 (6)Urban Devel. Acreage Require- vel. Acreage Require- ment {4 x 5) 125.460 10S,110 41 , 710 B2,400 140,990 172,300 242,500 35,200 97,520 88,130 Available G Suitable for Available G Suitable for Urban Devel. (3) 73,309 117,504 120,104 79,965 61,189 Urban Devel. (3) 40,047 76,027 55,486 157,982 67,193 171urban Land surplus (*) *12,394 •78,394 (7) Urban Land Surplus (+) +20,288 +60,462 Or Deficit (-) (6-3) -52,151 Or Deficit (-) (6-3) Population in "Urbanized Areaa", "Other Urban Torri 'Population in "Urbanized Areas", "Other Urban Territory" and "Places between 1000 and 2500 Population". and "Places between 1000 and 2500 Population". LAND INVENTORY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY (Ref. 11,12) TABLE 5 LAND INVENTORY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY (Ref. 11,12) Caroline Dorchester Kent Q. Anne Somerset Talbot wicomico Worcester Cecil County County County County County County County County Forested Land Prime Potential Agri. Forested Land 16,709 15,511 9, 517 7 ,925 4, 086 Prime Potential Agri. 16,020 20 706 Steep Slope 2,05? 289 5, 342 4,198 42 34 , 232 11 300 Steep Slope 1 ,079 408 Poor for Septic Tank 45,661 60,840 20,385 (39,935) 60, 744 48 14 278 Poor for Septic Tank 80 955 104,685 7 291 Non-Forested/Upland Marsh Non-Forested/Upland Marsh Prime for Agriculture 66,682 93,267 129,804 Prime for Agriculture Steep Slope 144 50 911 56,668 81 696 2,213 287 Steep Slope 50 yr. Flood Plain 10,304 5,056 396 4 544 7 , 360 12,460 832 50 yr. Flood Plain Poor for Septic Tank 19, 415 46,861 4,992 4 416 3 934 15,758 18,001 38,974 Poor for Septic Tank 23,516 30 856 49, 239 11 841 Marsh Area 2,600 78, 226 3,995 4,904 52,305 Marsh Area 4,756 15 429 21,721 4 005 (1) Unsuitable for Urban Devel. 181,270 273,609 157,837 227,534 182,195 (1)Unsuitable for Urban Devel. 126,418 204 137 266,812 138 919 Military Installation 5,095 Urban Development 1960 Military Installation 10,370 6, 317 5,552 6,661 4,685 1 269 Urban Development Area (1960) 3, 829 6,000 5,669 6 300 (2) Unavailable for Urban Devel. 10,370 5,552 6,661 4,665 (2)unavailable for Urban Devel. 3,829 6, 000 5, 887 Total Land Resource Area 204,800 371 , 200 181,760 238,720 212,480 Unsuitable and Unavailable Total Land Resource Area 191,640 285,021 163,389 234,195 186,880 178,560 243,200 309, 120 225,280 Unsuitable and Unavailable (1+2) 130,247 210,137 272,701 146,488 (3) Available s Suitable for Urban Devel. (3)Available t Suitable for Urban Devel. Urban Development 1960• 10,370 a 6,317 5,552 6,661 4,665 Urban Pop. 1960 > 5, 156 13,274 Urban Development 1960 4,675 1 , 863 4 ,891 aJ 6, 000 5, 889 6, 300 Urban Pop. 1960 18,740 7,666 Index; Urban Devel. 8,721 Area/Person (1960) llndexi Urban Devel. Area/Person (1960) Expected Pop. 2000 25,600 44,500 28,000 24,000 Population 1960 23,000 19, 462 29,666 15,481 16,569 19,623 Expected Pop. 2000 38,000 75,000 35,300 93,600 Population 1960 21,578 49,050 23,733 (5) Pop. Change 1960-2000 46,408 ( 5)Pop. Change 1960-2000 16,422 25,950 11,567 45,192 (6) Urban Devel. Acreage Require- (6)Urban Devel. Acreage Require- ment (4 x 5) .12,257 ment (4 x 5) 7,040 14,790' 30,600 3 , 270 8, 040 8, 270 9,890 32,722 Available fi Suitable for Available fc Suitable for Urban Devel. (3) 13,160 Urban Devel. (3) 86,179 18,371 4,525 25,600 48,313 33,063 36,419 78,792 C) Urban Land Surplus (+) + 903 <7)Urban Land Surplus (+) +79,139 +3,581 +22,330 +40,273 +24,793 +27,529 +46,070 Or Deficit (-) (6-3) Or Deficit (-) (6-3) "'population in "Urbanised Areas", "Other Urban Territory" a'Population in "Urbanized Areas" "Other Urban Territory" and "Places between 1000 and 2500 Population". and "Places between 1000 and 2500 Population". undeveloped, including the portions f. Land "Unavailable" or "Unsuit- with the most salient natural charac- able" for Urban Development teristics. Refinements of the land In the land inventory presented inventory accounts system would incor- in Table 5., undeveloped land is differ- porate such considerations -- thus entiated according to its availability giving the accounts system a policy and suitability for urban development. orientation. In the land inventory All land already preempted by urban however, it is assumed that urban development -- despite the fact that urban development irreversibly transforms renewal and other development processes undeveloped land, preempting its enable some already-developed areas to natural characteristics -- an assump- be redeveloped with new uses at higher tion which is unfortunately usually densities. Other undeveloped land which more true than not. has special natural characteristics is e. Environmental Effects of Urban considered "unsuitable" (other things Development being equal) for urban development. Land The above discussion points identified as "prime for agriculture", to an information need: the need for "steeply sloped", "poor for septic better general indicators of the envi- tanks", "in 50 year flood plains", ronmental effects of urban develop- or "marshlands"(Ref. 12) are considered ment. Urban development increases "unsuitable" for urban development. the rate of surface water runoff, There are conceptual problems in the affects the natural recharge of aqui- descriptive designation "unsuitable": fers, and can cause sedimentation under certain conditions "unsuitable" problems. , The complete range of such land may in fact be suitable for urban environmental effects needs to be development, and vice versa. These identified, related to various types considerations could be included as of urban development and associated refinements to a land inventory accounts with natural land characteristics where system. In the meantime, the above the effects are likely to occur. State mentioned natural characteristics are and local regulations already exist considered of sufficient significance to guard against some of the most to provide a starting point for devel- salient environmental effects. Examples opment of a comprehensive land inventory are the State Department of Health's relating to a regional policy of land regulations regarding the use of conservation and allocation. septic tanks, and the Department of g. Land "Available and Suitable" Natural Resources' regulations on the use for Urban Development of land in wetlands areas. But, when In Table 5, land which is the scope of neither "unavailable" nor "unsuitable" 1) environmental effects, is considered "available and suitable". 2) natural characteristics The descriptive terms, of course, are of interest, used in the context of the present 3) types of urban devel- analysis. opment , h. Mapping Land Characteristics 4) state, federal and local Information agenc ies, and It is noteworthy that compre- - 5) types of regulations and hensive regional information on salient implementating devices natural land characteristics is presented is considered, it becomes apparent that in general acreage terms. Locational the existing land management system information relating to these charac- teristics is not available on a compre- is a patchwork. 262 hensive basis. Yet many regional and The conclusion of the analysis local planning agencies have developed compares, for each county, the year 2000 considerable locational information urban development acreage requirement with regard to the natural character- against the supply of "available and istics of land in their study areas. suitable" land. The result is an indi- For instance, the Regional Planning cation of a land surplus or deficit, Council has mapped "the location of assuming that new urban development will large open tracts adjacent to the occur: Bay", "wet land areas", "aquifer - outside presently developed outcrops" and other natural charac- areas; teristics of interest. The Cecil - at existing densities; and County Master Development Plan has - on land considered "available located areas in the county with regard and suitable" for urban develop- to the underground water potential, ment on the basis of its natural the soil percolation quality; also characteristics. located are wetlands, areas of over The analysis indicates that seven 15% slope, etc. This locational counties will have an "urban land information could provide the basic deficit" due to: data for an inventory of natural land - the high proportion of their total characteristics for the entire Chesa- land resource deemed desirable peake Bay area. for conservation, - a large expected population growth, 3.2 Urban Land Absorption Impacts - the low density of existing urban Table 5 also relates the land development, or inventory to urban development needed - a combination of these factors. to accommodate expected population For opposite reasons, 12 counties growth to the year 2000. The analysis are designated as having an "urban land is based on "existing trends" -- i.e., surplus." Thus, Queen Anne's County is the amount of urban development acreage indicated as having an "urban land (residential, commercial, industrial, deficit" within the context of the analysis. etc.) used in accommodating the present A review of the data in the land inventory population. In line with assumptions indicates how this conclusion was reached. developed in section b above, urban 95% of the total area of the county has development acreage has been related characteristics which have been designated to 1960 urban population plus rural "unsuitable" for urban development. (58% population in places of 1,000-2,500. of the total land area is prime agricul- Because of possible inconsistencies in tural land.) And existing urban devel- the comprehensiveness of land use opment is very liberal in its consumption inventories in the several counties of land. Carroll County illustrates the (and indeed, because of possible incon- opposite situation. A much lower propor- sistencies in the census categori- tion (58%) of its total land area is zation of 1960 population) the index designated "unavailable or unsuitable" relating total urban development for urban development. Existing urban acreage to population is a rough development is at relatively high densi-. one at best. It does, however, make ties in comparison to Queen Anne's it possible to sketch through the County. Thus, despite considerable expected analysis and raise a number of ques- population growth, an "urban land surplus" tions with regard to environmental is indicated. management and the development and uses of a land inventory accounts 3.3 Towards Regional Land Policy system. a. Land conservation and development 263 less land per capita. The Anne Arundel tradeoffs. Ref 14) What kinds of policy conclusions County Land Use Plan( - , for 7 can be derived from an analysis which jux- instance, indicates that the 1965 taposes an inventory of natural land char- population consumed 0.232 acres per acteristics of interest with estimates capita, that the 1980 population will of land needs in urban development? One consume 0.193 acres per capita, and conclusion is that, however effective that development between 1965 and 1980 controls on the location of development, will consume only 0.143 acres per capita. some counties will be faced with tradeoff But such plans are based on the assumption decisions between preservation of land that effective land use controls will.be with natural characteristics of interest argued that an increasingly affluent and and land needs for urban development. The mobile population will require more urban policy issue related to the value of the development acreage per capita rather land in alternative uses. Prime agri- than less. In this light, the analysis cultural land, for instance, has economic provides a broad indication of the objec- value related to its crop producing poten- tives and performance requirements of tial (this is the basis for land assessment land use control policies in terms of in rural areas in Maryland). It also pro- their ability to preserve valuable duces a certain amount of local and state natural land characteristics in the revenue. And, it has often unidentified various counties. environmental and ecological values. c. Land use controls While, other things being equal, it may A related point is suggested be considered desirable from the environ- by the observation that the matrix of mental management point of view to pre- land designated "available and suitable" serve prime agricultural land, it must for urban development corresponds only be granted that other things are rarely coincidentally with actual urban devel- equal. To attempt to preserve prime opment pressures. Land use controls agricultural land in Queen Anne's County can limit the impact of urban develop- would either stymie development of the ment on natural land characteristics county (because so much of the total land in at least three ways: area is so designated) or cause greater 1) reducing the rate of land consumption by various types environmental disruption (if develop- ment were thereby channelled into flood of urban development; plains, steep slope areas or marsh lands). 2) channelling urban develop- ment into areas which do not The key lies in identifying how much have natural characteristics prime agricultural land should be available for urban development, for of interest; and controlling urban develop- which alternative uses under what condi- 3) ment so that, even as it tions. And these judgements will be extends into undeveloped dependent not only on the inherent land, it does not destroy characteristics of various land types, but also on the land inventory situation important natural land characteristics, in the particular locality. b. Land absorption by future d. Goals and objectives for land use population growth ^57itrol and open space_£olic^ The above discussion is based Implicit in the above discus- on the assumption that urban development sion are goals and objectives for devel- will continue to consume land at current oping and implementing land use controls rates. This, of course, need not be the and open space policies. The Regional case. Most county plans assume that Planning Council, in the context of future urban development will consume developing an open space plan for the 264 Baltimore Region,(Ref- 15) has identi- fied six objectives relating to the goal of resource conservation. The RPC's "water quality enhancement", "flood damage protection", and "ecolog- ical area protection" objectives direct- ly relate to natural land character- istics identified by the State Planning Department on a state-wide basis.8 The RPC's objectives of "geomorphologic area", "botanic area" and "historical and cultural area protection" also relate closely to areas identified state-wide.(Ref. 16) To these, the analysis of the Chesapeake Bay area may also want to include: 1) additional conservation values (e.g., relating to aquifer recharge areas); 2) economic values of prime agricultural lands, marsh lands and certain mineral resource areas to the farming, fishing and manu- facturing industries; and 3) objectives relating to urban development costs and densities (e.g., soils poor for septic tanks, areas of possible higher excavation costs). 265 Plans as Goal Statements various functional areas and agencies, areas of potential goal conflict can be identified. More systematic examination of existing plans and proposals can When plans are officially ap- assist in identifying problems (goal proved, they represent composite goal conflicts), tracing interrelationships statements. That is, goals can be in- and repercussions and setting priorities ferred from them, even if they are not for action. explicitly stated. Plates 25-32 present selected regional plans and proposals of major significance for the Bay: Plate 25 presents a concept plan for an open space and outdoor recreation system for the Maryland Bay region (Ref. 13) and more specific plan proposals for the Baltimore sub- region. (Ref. 15) Plate 26 collects public open space proposals for the Maryland Bay region from several sources (Ref. 17,18). Information from many additional sources could also have been included. Plate 27 presents a graphic reference map for water quality standards of Bay tributaries (Ref. 19). Plate 29 shows selected major proposals in regional infrastructure (Ref. 20,21) . Plate 29 shows the general land use for Anne Arundel County (Ref. 22). Plate 30 shows the locations of areas identified for industrial develop- ment in Anne Arundel County in relation to existing urban areas (Ref. 23). Plates 31 and 32 show proposed sewerage and water supply facilities for Anne Arundel County. By presenting plans and proposals at consistent scales, two related v purposes are served. First, a locational dimension is given to discussions of goals and objectives. Second, by cross- referencing plans and proposals for 266 PLATE 25: Proposed Open Space and Outdoor Recreation System (Ref. 13, 15) PLATE 26: Public Open Space Proposals (Ref. 17, 18) DELAWARE \ PLATE 28: Selected Major Proposals in Regional Infrastructure (Ref. 20,21) PLATE 29: General Land Use Plan Example: Anne Arundel COunty (Ref. 22) 450 N N Marine Activity Centers B Multipurpose Centers • Community Business Centers Q Neighborhood Shopping Centers General Commerce fR] Highway Commerce Heavy Industry •:•:•:•:•:•:• tv.-.v.-i • Light Industry ]| Medium Density Residence Low-Medium Density Residence Low and Rural Density Public and Semi - Public Open Space and Conservation Area SOURCE :2:1A PLATE 30: Areas Identified for Industrial Development (Ref. 23) MANGANESE CHEMICALS CORP. KENNECOTT REFINING CORP. 450 N SOURCE: 4: PLATE 31: Wastewater Collection and Disposal Facilities: Existing to Year 2000 (Ref. 24) " •» « " >• * • w n n » >• n M » M n N n M I'll "U'I'-T-TT^- PLATE 32: Water Supply Facilities: Existing to Year 2000 (Ref. 24) 450 N r- . . . { „ - • " " " - •• - • • • •• - . •• - H " ,. u - ^ •1 M . i. - - . n , , - -- . . „ . i. •• . •• " 1 " - * i- Footnotes References 1. Lower case sub-headings in this 1. North Atlantic Regional Water section and in Charts 1 & 4 refer to Resources Study: Appendix V Coastal major problem areas discussed at greater and Estuarine Areas, January, 1971. length (and for the entire Bay area) North Atlantic Regional Water Resources in the sub-sections of Chapter II. Study Coordinating Committee, pp. 224- The sub-sections of Chapter II have 238; pp. 22-26. upper case headings which correspond to the lower case sub-headings used 2. "Report on Research Activities and in this section. Proposals", September, 1970, Steering Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Cooling 2. Categories a,b,d,e,g,h,i,m,n are Water Studies Group. the same as those used in the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources 3. Wetlands in Maryland: Technical Study, Appendix U. (Ref.. 1) Report, January, 1969, Maryland State Planning Department, Department of Game and Inland Fish, Wetlands Technical 3. The number of farm workers did Advisory Committee. decrease from 39,000 to 33,000 between 1966 and 1968.(Ref. 10) 4. Maryland Wetlands Bills (House Bills 285 and 286),June 24, 1970. 4. See data on livestock and poultry production.(Ref. 10) 5. Green Associates et al, Selection and Preliminary Design of Diked Disposal 5. Reference 11 includes available Areas for Dredged Spoil from Baltimore information on urban land character- Harbor,Vol. I, December, 1970. istics; Reference 12 includes avail- able information on natural land 6. Report on Status of Water Quality characteristics. and Significant Sources of Wastewater Discharges in Maryland, November 1, 1970, 6. As an example, see pp. 31, 61 in Maryland Department of Water Resources, Ref. 13. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Environmental Health 7. The indexes are not comparable Services). to those in Table 5 - which relate urban development acreage to urban, 7. Hamilton, H. R. et al. Systems not total-county population. Simulation for Regional Analysis: An Application to River Basin Planning. 8. That is, ".steep slope areas", MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969, "50 year flood plains", "marsh lands" p.101H in Table 5 and Ref. 12. 8. "Outdoor Recreation in the Baltimore Region", Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Md., July 1967, p. 51. 275 9. "The Economy of Maryland: Projec- Specific Water Quality Standards for tions of Employment to 1980", October 1968, all Maryland Waters", Water Resources Maryland State Planning Department, P. 97, Commission, Department of Water f f . Resources. 10. "Maryland Statistical Abstract", 20. "Chesapeake Bay Case Study, June, 1970, Maryland Department of Economic Trident Engineering Association, Development, p. 199-204. Assapolis, Md., 1968. 11. "Local Land Use Inventory", State 21. CBIPC Work Plan Outline: Source Department of Planning, 1966. Materials", Part 4 G, Transportation. 12. Land Use Classification According ]] . "Anne Arundel County - General to use", State Department of Planning, Development Plan: Summary", May, 1970. 1967, Anne Arundel County Department of Planning and Zoning. 13. "Maryland Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Concept Plan", Maryland Depart- 23. "Community Economic Inventory - ment of State Planning, June, 1970, p. 55, Anne Arundel County", Maryland p. 37. Department of Economic Development (in cooperation with Local Bureaus 14. Ann Arundel County - Land Use Plan of Industrial Affairs). 1980, Technical Report #4, General Development Plan, Marcou, O'Leary & 24. "Anne Arundel County - Water and Associates, July, 1967. Waste Water Master Plan", Whiteford, Falk and Mask, Inc., November, 1969 .15. "A Plan and Program for the (Revised May 1970). Acquisition and Development of Open Space in the Baltimore Region", Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Md., Part I, Part II,p. 12. 16. "Catalog of Natural Areas in Mary- land", May, 1969, Maryland Dept. of State Planning, Maryland Geological Survey, U. S. Geological Service. 17. "Scenic Rivers in Maryland", March, 1970, Maryland Department of State Planning, assisted by Urban Research and Development Associates, Inc., pp. 9, 11. 18. "Potomac Heritage Trail" (Part of Nationwide Trails Study) National Park Service, National Capital Region, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1965. 19. "Water Resources Regulation: General Water Quality Criteria and 276 IV Who Manages the Bay? 277 IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT GOALS INTRODUCTION 280 A. FEDERAL BAY MANAGEMENT 281 1. Federal Bay Management - Executive Branch 281 1.1 Department of Agriculture 281 1.2 Department of Commerce 281 1.3 Department of Defense 281 1.4 Department of the Interior 283 1.5 The Department of Transportation 283 2 . Federal Bay Management - Independent Offices 284 2.1 The Atomic Energy Commission 284 2.2 The Environmental Protection Agency 284 2.3 National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development 285 2.4 The Smithsonian Institution 285 2.5 The Water Resources Council 285 B. FEDERAL-STATE BAY MANAGEMENT 286 Table 1: Federal Agencies with Jurisdiction 286 C. STATE BAY MANAGEMENT 287 1. The Governor of Maryland 287 1.1 Authority and Responsibilities 287 1.2 The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee 287 2. The Division of Economic Development 287 3. The Maryland Port Administration 288 4. Department of Natural Resources ....-.--...-r.^; 7 .". . 288 4.1 Department Organization and .Responsibility 288 4.2 Departmental Agencies 289 4.3 Specific Legislation 292 5. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene •• 292 5.1 Specific Legislation 292 6. The Maryland Environmental Trust 293 7. The Department of State Planning 293 8. The State Roads Commission 294 278 9. Joint Management Responsibilities 294 9.1 Scenic Rivers Review Board 294 9.2 State Soil Conservation Committee 295 D. INTRASTATE BAY MANAGEMENT 296 1. The Regional Planning Council 296 2. Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland 296 3. Delmarva Advisory Council 296 E. "LOCAL" BAY MANAGEMENT 297 Table 1 : Typical County Management 297 Table 2: Land Use Regulations - August 1971 297 F. NON-GOVERNMENTAL BAY MANAGEMENT 298 1. The Wye Institute 298 2. The Chesapeake Bay Institute 298 3. The Chesapeake Research Council 298 4. The Water Resources Research Center 298 5. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc 298 G. MARYLAND STATE MANDATES AS CHESAPEAKE BAY STATEMENTS 299 1. Department of Economic and Community Development 299 2. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene... .' 299 3. Department of Natural Resources 300 3.1 Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs 300 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Administration 300 3.3 Department of Forests and Parks 300 3.4 Maryland Geological Survey 301 3 . 5 Department of Water Resources 301 4. Department of State Planning 302 5. Department of Transportation 302 5.1 Maryland Port Administration 302 5.2 State Highway Administration 302 279 Introduction Who manages the Bay is a very com- plex subject. This chapter briefly re- views current Bay management responsi- bilities at various governmental levels: federal, federal-State, State, Intrastate, local, non-governmental. All have impor- tant environmental management roles. Le- gislative mandates for State agencies with major environmental roles are sum- marized as a reasonable approximation of State agency goals and responsibilities in reference to the Bay. 280 A Federal Bay Management The Office of Sea Grant Programs of the National Science Foundation. Of these functions the "National Weather Service" will continue to develop 1 Federal Bay Management—Executive Branch and give data on weather, and marine, river and flood forecasting and warning; the "National Ocean Survey" continues to 1-1 Department of Agriculture function in accomplishing "earth and The Soil Conservation Service of marine description, mapping and charting.1 the Department of Agriculture is involved The Bureaus of Commercial Fish- in the creation of Soil Conservation eries and Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Districts through and with the cooperation in their new role and agency have the of the "State Soil Conservation Prog- "dual" function of strengthing the fish- rams", ing industry and promoting conservation The "Soil Conservation Service" of fishing stocks." "Research on administers programs related to soil important marine species and on funda- erosion, sedimentation, flood control mental oceanography" is continued, and related activities as provided for The "Office of Sea Grants" in Federal law and closely dovetails permits the Federal Government to assist with the State programs. the academic and industrial communities in developing marine resources and tech- 1.2 Department of Commerce nology. The Oceanic and Atmospheric A "National Oceanographic Data Administration was created under Re- Center" formerly in the Navy Department organization Plan #4 of 1970, and came also became a part of this new "Admin- into being in October of 1970, to com- istration" and will be "responsible bine together "within a single admin- for the collection and dissemination of istration several Federal programs oceanographic data accumulated by all dealing with the oceans and the atmos- Federal Agencies." phere. The programs are, for the most The role that these sections part, scientific and research oriented. of the new "National Oceanic and Components of the new agency that relate Atmospheric Administration" can play to our areas of interest are: in future development and management The Environmental Science of the Chesapeake Bay is significant." Service Administration which contains Maritime Administration the "Weather Bureau" (now the "National The Maritime Administration is Weather Service") and the "Coast and concerned with large maritime shipping Geodetic Survey" (now the "National and the operation scheduling and coor- Ocean Survey"). dination of vessels. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (with some exceptions relating 1-3 Department of Defense to the Great Lakes, Missouri River a.Department of the Army Research, Trans-Alaska pipeline and Gulf Corps of Engineers -- The Corps Breeze Laboratory) formerly in the has perhaps the most influential Federal Department of Interior. role in the Cheaspeake Bay. The Corps' The Marine Sports Fishing range of activities includes: harbor, Program of the Bureau of Sport Fisher- channel and navigation improvements; ies and Wildlife in the Department flood control projects; beach erosion of Interior. control activities; dam and impounding structures; water-resources studies; comprehensive river basin planning; 281 evaluation and approval prerogatives control of noxious weeds, water and responsibilities for construction pollution, water quality control, of piers, docks, bridges, and other beach erosion and recreation. In types of structures in navigable order to carry out the purposes of waters; collection and removal of drift this section, the Secretary, acting to afford relief from various cond- through the Chief of Engineers, shall itions of obstruction; and channel construct, operate and maintain in the dredging and spoils disposal. State of Maryland, a hydraulic model of A recent Supreme Court decision the Chesapeake Bay Basin and associated clarifies for the Corps of Engineers technical center. Such model and center its responsibilities for investigating may be utilized by any department, agency and evaluating environmental impacts of instrumentation of the Federal Govern- of its projects. ment or of the States of Maryland, Vir- The wide scope of the Corps' ginia and Pennsylvania, in connection activities embraces not only engineering with any research, investigation or and construction projects for military study being carried on by them of any installations and operations, but also aspect of the Chesapeake Bay Basin. responsibility in the vast field of Civil The study authorized by this section Public Works outlined above. The legal shall be given priority." requirements of these activities place The "objectives of the study" the Corps of Engineers in close liaison listed in the Corps' "Plan of Study -- with the Public Works Committees of Chesapeake Bay" are to: Congress on a continuing basis. 1. Make a complete investigation The Corps has had many years of and study of water utilization experience in Comprehensive River Basin of Chesapeake Bay. studies, as reflected by recently com- 2. Formulate a long-term sound pleted plans and programs for the water-land management plan Susquehanna River Basin, and continued for the development and use involvement over many years in the of the Bay area's resources, Potomac River Basin. with special attention to im- The Corps, through its North proving the economic and Atlantic Division in New York, is manag- social well-being of the people ing the "North Atlantic Regional Study" of the Chesapeake Bay area. of water resources for the New England 3. Define an early action program and Middle Atlantic States, as far south setting forth those elements as Virginia. That area includes Chesa- which require prompt execution peake Bay and all its tributaries. in order to: (a) prevent de- The Corps' Chesapeake Bay Study -- erioration of the Bay's re- The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Sec- sources and environment; and tion 312) authorizes the Corps to study (b) meet present needs. Chesapeake Bay and construct a hydraul- 4. Make recommendations for imple- ic model. Section 312 of the Act is as mentation of the plans and follows: programs, including instit- "(a) The Secretary of the Army, utional arrangements, cost acting through the Chief of Engineers, sharing and management of the is authorized and directed to make a Bay's resources. complete investigation and study of The prosecution of the study is water utilization and control of the divided into five (5) general areas: Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the wat- 1. Economic Projections ers of Baltimore Harbor, and including, 2. Water Quality and Supply, but not limited to the following: Waste Treatment, and Noxious navigation, fisheries, flood control. Weeds 282 3. Flood Control, Navigation, Ero- Installations sion and Fisheries The Navy operates a numbe r of 4. Recreation large installations in the Chesa peake 5. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Bay region, including The Naval Academy, The "Plan of Study" in the "Scope" the Naval Ship Research and Deve lopment of the Study states in part: "The study Center, the Naval Ordnance Stati on at will be coordinated with all agencies Indian Head, the Patuxent Naval Test of the Federal Government having any Center, and the Mine Test Center interest in Chesapeake Bay and affairs Additionally, the Navy ha s occa- related to the Bay, and with the States, sionally used Maryland areas in the lower counties, cities, small communities and Bay near the Virginia line, and in the private agencies within the Bay area." Virginia part of the Bay, it has con- To this end the Corps of Engineers, ducted surface gunnery tests. as coordinator, has arranged for inputs c. Department of the Air Force from and participation in the Study by: Installations states; Atomic Energy Commission; Smith- The only major Air Force instal- sonian Institution; National Science lation in the Chesapeake Bay dra inage Foundation; Departments of Interior, area is Andrews Air Force Base. Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Health, Education and Wel- 1.4 Department of the Interior fare, Transportation, Navy; Federal The Department of the Interior's Power Commission; Maritime Administration; "Bureau of Outdoor Recreation" admin- and, of course, the Corps of Engin- isters the "Land and Water Conservation eers as a technical agency as well as ' Fund", with application to the State as coordinator. a whole for acquiring open spaces, re- The Study contemplated is a long- creation and conservation lands. range all inclusive detailed study The "Bureau of Fish and Wildlife" scheduled for completion in Fiscal Year manages areas such as "Blackwater 1977 (July 1, 1976) subject to adequate National Wildlife Refuge", (Dorchester and timely funding. County), and "Eastern Neck National The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal-- Wildlife Refuge" (Kent County). It also The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is op- administers Federal programs in the Fish erated and maintained by the Corps of and Wildlife areas including enforcement Engineers to expedite marine shipping and policing, migratory considerations, between Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. propagation of fish and wildlife and the Its proposed widening and deepening has like. caused much alarm on the possible out- The "Federal Water Quality Admin- flow of substantial quantities of istration" as previously cited is now a water from the Chesapeake Bay with part of the "Environmental Protection possible raising of salinity levels in Agency". The "Bureau of Commercial Fish- the upper Bay. eries" previously part of Interior is Military Bases -- Aberdeen Proving now located in the "National Oceanic Grounds and Edgewood Arsenal function and Atmospheric Administration", as is as self-contained units. Aberdeen, the Marine Sports Fishing Program of the particularly, controls a vast area of "Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wild- Bay-front property and restricts and life". regulates uses of adjacent Bay waters The "National Park Service" of in carrying out its arms testing prog- the Department of Interior manages Fort rams. Fort Meade is also in the Chesa- McHenry located in Baltimore Harbor. peake Bay drainage area. b. Department of the Navy 1•5 The Department of Transportation 283 a. United States CoaSt Guard housing and services. The U.S. Coast Guard in ad- dition to having a large ship construc- tion facility in the Curtis Bay section of Baltimore Harbor has many respon- 2 Federal Bay Management—Independent Offices sibilities and obligations relating to maritime commerce in navigable waters. The Coast Guard supplies and 2.1 The Atomic Energy Commission locates channel buoys and markers, en- The Atomic Energy Commission has forces Federal Boating Laws, inspects jurisdiction over nuclear facilities ship construction and licenses passenger nationwide. It would relate in the Bay vessels. It works very closely with the to the nuclear aspects of power gen- Marine Police of the Department of eration stations. Chesapeake Bay Affairs enforcing Fed- Some of the responsibilities of eral Law, while the State Agency en- this activity may now be located in the forces State law. The Coast Guard de- Environmental Protection Agency but signates and marks anchorages; enforces because of the newness of the latter, marine safety; provides for emergency A.E.C.'s area of responsibility is not rescue services; helps with monitoring clearly understood, and enforcing pollution violations; cooperates with Customs and Quarantine 2.2 The Environmental Protection surveillance; and coordinates activities Agency with the Port Authority, Maritime Com- The Environmental Protection mission and Corps of Engineers; it marks Agency was created under Reorganization obstructions and hazards, and generally Plan No. 3 of 1970 and came into being assists in ascertaining the safe and December 1970. It is composed of various beneficial usage of navigable waters departments and agencies heretofore and maritime shipping. functioning under other administrative b. The Bureau of Public Roads direction. These functions are in the The Bureau of Public Roads sets areas of: water quality, air pollution, standards, guidelines, safety measures, radiology, solid wastes, and pesticides, and controls relative to the Interstate The "Water Quality Office" in the Highway system and appurtenances, and new agency is the successor to the Fed- generally functions in the development eral Water Quality Administration of and construction of highway facilities the Department of Interior. This office financed in part by Federal Funds. The has a field station and laboratory in plans and programs of the State Highway Annapolis and works on water quality Administration in Federally-aided, and problems in the Bay and related areas. Federally-assisted highway projects in- It has participated in a study of eluding "Scenic Highways", are subject water quality problems in the Bay and to Bureau of Public Roads approval. related areas. It has participated in On certain Federal installations, a study of water quality problems in the Bureau of Public Roads handles the the Potomac estuary, and in investigations design and construction of major roads, relating to the Sandy Point Sewerage and coordinates location and adjoining Treatment facility which, when put in highway services with local and state operation, will be the first treatment authorities. plant releasing its effluent directly The Bureau of Public Roads has into the Bay. Studies are undertaken a wide range of responsibilities in by the Water Quality Office when water its programs relating to location, site quality problems are interstate, when acquisition, loss and replacement of State and Local governemnts lack 284 adequate facilities or background, or Bay in concert with State efforts, by request of a State or Local agency singularly in the absense of adequate for evaluation of a problem. State provisions, or in pursuit of The Office does have enforcement interstate problems and relationships. capability relative to the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 and similar 2.3 National Council on Marine legislation. In cooperation with the Resources and Engineering Corps of Engineers it investigates Development dredging proposals before the Corps The National Council on Marine of Engineers issues dredging permits, Resources and Engineering Development it cooperates with Maryland's Depart- has its prime focus by law "in the ment of Water Resources in evaluating oceans", but it has an overlap zone chemical and biological composition with the Water Resources Council in and effect of dredging spoils. It is the "coastal zone". There is increasing also involved in the evaluation of the inquiry and interest in this area and a effects of the proposed deepening of particularly vital relationship with the the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. tie-in of Chesapeake Bay and its waters The "Air Pollution Office" of in relation to the "coastal zone" and the Agency succeeded the National Air continental shelf. Pollution Control Administration, formerly in the Department of Health, 2.4 The Smithsonian Institution Education and Welfare. The Smithsonian Institution's The "radiology" function succeeds property on Rhodes River, recently ac- the environmental radiation protection quired, functions as a field biology standard-setting functions of the research center on the Chesapeake Bay. Atomic Energy Commission, to the func- It occupies about 700 acres and concent- tions of the Federal Radiation Council, rates on research and education including and some of the functions of the Bureau "inventorying plants and animals -- on of Radiological Health, formerly in the land and in the adjacent estuaries -- to Department of Health, Education and provide a scientific base for the study Welfare. of all aspects of the Natural environ- The Solid Wastes Office succeeds ment." The scientific programs at the the Bureau of Solid Wastes Management Center are guided by Smithsonian scien- and the Bureau of Water Hygiene, formerly tists in conjunction with an academic in the Environmental Control Administra- consortium of Johns Hopkins University tion of the Department of Health, Educ- and University of Maryland faculty. ation and Welfare. A significant study under way is The Pesticides Office has assumed the control and recording of the amounts the pesticides registration responsibil- of chemical fertilizer applied to the ities of the Department of Agriculture Center's cultivated lands, to study the and the pesticides research and standard- effects of nutrient runoff on adjacent setting program of the Food and Drug estuaries. It is further described in Administration in the Department of Chapter IV. Health, Education and Welfare. Considerable private funding from The Agency will also conduct eco- foundations, corporations, and private logical research to the Council on benefactors assists the Smithsonian effort "Environmental Quality". in the operation of the Center. All of the functions of the Envir- onmental Protection Agency have signif- 2 .5 The Water Resources Council icant bearing in carrying out Federal The Water Resources Council (P.L. legislation as it may be applied to the 89-90) was created "to encourage the 285 B conservation, development and util- Federal—State Bay ization of water and related land re- sources of the United States on a compre- Management hensive and coordinated basis by the Fed- Recently an Interstate-Federal eral government. States, localities and Compact, for the Management of the Water private enterprise with the cooperation and related resources of the Susguehanna of all affected Federal agencies. States, River Basin, has been passed by the local governments, individuals, corp- Federal Congress and by the States of orations, business enterprises, and other Maryland, New York and the Commonwealth concerned. of Pennsylvania. The Commission created It is primarily a planning body by this Compact is about to initiate without management authority and in- its operation. Relative to the Chesa- cludes in its authorization power to peake Bay, the Compact as enacted in- create joint State-Federal planning cludes the following language: "The bodies as provided in Title II of the Comprehensive Plan shall take into Act. It is believed that this arrange- consideration the effect of the plan or ment could apply to Chesapeake Bay as a any part thereof upon the receiving "River Basin". waters of the Chesapeake Bay." The membership of the Water Re- A similar proposal for an Inter- sources Council consists of the Secre- state-Federal Compact for the Manage- taries of: the Army; Agriculture; Health, ment of the Water and related resources Education and Welfare; Interior; Trans- of the Potomac River Basin has been portation; Commerce; and Housing and passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Urban Development; and the Chairman of with action still pending in the other the Federal Power Commission. jurisdictions. Again with respect to the Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac Com- pact language reads as follows: "The Commission shall consider the actual and potential effect of such action upon the receiving waters of the Chesapeake Bay." Table 1. Federal Agencies with Jurisdic- tion by Law or Special Expertise to Comment on Various Types of Environmental Impacts: 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 - Ai r Quality & Air Pollution Control Agriculture X X X X X X 2 - En ergy Commerce X X X X X X X 3 - Ha zardous Substances (toxic materials, Interior X X X X X X X X X pe sticides, herbicides) E.P.A. X X X X X X X X X X 4 - La nd Use and Management H.U.D. X X X X 5 - No ise H.E.W. X X X X X X 6 - Ph ysiological Health and Human Well Defense X X X X X X X Be ing, e.g. (contaminations, sani- Transportation X X X X X X X X X ta tion) A.E.G. X X X 7 - Tr ansportation F.P.C. X 8 - Ur ban, e.g., congestion, rodent con- tr ol, urban planning 9 - Wa ter, e.g., Quality and Pollution Source: Second Annual Report of the CO ntrol, marine pollution, stream Council on Environmental Quality, eh annelization August 1971. 10- wi dlif e 286 State Bay Management than one year unless their existence is specifically continued by the Governor . " 1 The Governor of Maryland 1.2 The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee 1.1 Authority and Responsibilities In February of 1969, the Governor The Governor of Maryland has the directed the formation of what has be- authority to organize principal depart- come known as the "Chesapeake Bay Inter- ments and transfer responsibilities and agency Planning Committee". In a letter services between and among those depart- in which he asked "the State Planning ments. The applicable legislation Department to coordinate the Department (Chapter 156 of the Acts of 1969) reads of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, the Depart- as follows: ment of Economic Development, the De- "The Governor, as Chief executive partment of Forests and Parks, the De- officer of the State Government, shall partment of Game and Inland Fish, the be responsible for the continuing re- Department of Health, the Maryland view of executive organization. He shall Geological Survey, the Maryland Port propose, approve and order not inconsis- Authority, the State Roads Commission tent with the law such reorganization and the Department of Water Resources as he may deem necessary and desirable. in the preparation of a comprehensive He shall be responsible for the organ- plan for the Bay and its related re- ization of the principal departments sources." The Governor cited the "biotic, and for the transfer of departments, economic, aesthetic and cultural values" agencies, other units of State govern- of the Bay as of "the greatest importance ment programs, services and responsibil- to the people of the State of Maryland" ities between and among such departments. and expressed concern that these re- The Governor shall recommend to the sources and attributes "are being General Assembly the placement of all placed under increasing intensive use new programs, departments and other for shipping, seafood production, indust- instrumentalities, within the approp- rial development, residential and rec- riate principal department, and he shall reational home location, pleasure have the authority to assign new units of boating, sport fishing, swimming and the State Government, departments and other purposes." He said that "the programs to such departments at the State has a major responsibility for time of creation unless assigned by law. insuring that the threat to one of Nonstatutory units of the State govern- Maryland's major assets is met on a ment and programs may be assigned to the timely basis and that the total values appropriate principal department by of the Bay and its related resources the Governor. are planned, developed and managed in "Notwithstanding any other provi- such a way as to meet the needs of sion of this article, the Governor may, present and future generations." The when circumstances dictate, establish Interagency Committee was brought into task forces for programs which cut being to address itself to these concerns. across departmental lines. This shall be limited to programs which require integration of services so as to achieve a governmental program which cannot 2 The Division of Economic Development efficiently be performed through a simple cooperation between departments. The Division of Economic Devel- Such task forces may exist for not more opment (formerly the Department of Econ- 287 omic Development) is a part of the newly The "Port Administration" shall "... created Department of Economic and Com- provide for the preservation of navigation munity Development (Art. 41 Section 257A within its territorial jurisdiction, includ- & FF-Ch 527 Acts of 1970). The former ing the establishment of lines beyond which Department was created in 1959 (Ch 185 no piers, bulkheads, wharves, pilings. Acts of 1959), "the Division of Economic structure obstructions or extensions of Development... shall have the general any character may be built, erected, con- purpose of advancing the economic welfare structed, made, or extended;" and also of the people through programs and activi- "adopt reasonable rules and regulations in ties to develop, in a proper manner, the order to prevent any material, refuse, or State natural resources and economic op- matter of any kind from being thrown into, portunities, and to promote and encourage deposited in or placed where the same may the location of the new industries and fall, or be washed into any navigable waters;" business in the State of Maryland..." and "make surveys or charts of navigable The Director of the Division "shall waters under its jurisdiction, and to as- be selected because of his known experience certain the depth and courses of the channels and interest in the development of natural of the same." resources and industrial opportunities..." The "Port Administration" also is The Division sees its role as carrying out to participate in any hearings by agencies its mandate within the guidelines of wise of Government related to the "design, estab- utilization of the Bay's resources. lishment, construction, extension, operation, improvement, repair, or maintenance of any project operated by the Authority (Adminis- 3 Maryland Port Administration tration);" it is also to concern itself actively in matters relating to such areas The Authority was created in 1956 of interest as "river and harbor improvements, (Art 62B of the Maryland Code) and included aids to navigation, permits for structures within the newly created Department of in navigable waters and all other matters Transportation (Ch 526 Acts of 1970 -- affecting the physical development of and Art. 41 Section 207(c) as the "Maryland the business interest of the Authority (Admin- Port Administration" (as of June 30, 1971). istration) and those it serves;" (Art 62B Among the broad-based powers of Section 5). this agency are the "Promotion of Com- merce" and the "Preservation and Protec- tion of Navigation", They include "Ac- quisition, etc. of Port Facilities" and 4 Department of Natural Resources the "Acquisition and Disposition of Property" (including by Eminent Domain). 4.1 Department Organization and Responsi- Its powers would also include ac- bility quiring, leasing, conveying, or otherwise The principal legislation relating disposing "of real and personal property to natural resources in the State is included of every kind and description, and any in Article 66C of the Code. Initially, a right title, interest, franchise, or Department of Natural Resources is created privilege therein, including lands lying as a principal department of State government under water or any riparian rights in under the direction of the Secretary of and adjacent to lands, and also including Natural Resources as spelled out in Article 41, property which is already devoted to a Sections 232 and 239. The Department is the public use in, adjoining or in the vicin- successor to the old Board of Natural Resources, ity of the navigable waters within its The Department is established as "a territorial jurisdiction." State agency which shall, in addition to its 288 mental Service; and the respective Advis- ory Commissions serving these agencies. Also included in the scope of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources,as previously mentioned here, is the administration of programs relating to "Wetlands"; "Open Spaces and Areas"; "Shore Erosion Control"; "Scenic Rivers"; "Sediment Control"; and "Maryland Environmental Trust". Also assigned to the Department of Natural Resources are functiors embracing Maryland representation in interstate ac- tivities relating to the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and the Inter- state Oil Compact Commission. It also relates to the Patuxent River Watershed Advisory Commission, the Water Science Advisory Board and other such entities. Specifically as to the Chesapeake Bay: "the Secretary of Natural Resources is directed to make all effort necessary toward the enactment of appropriate inter- governmental agreements with other states to preserve the optimal state of the Chesapeake Bay through the organization of an interstate body to plan, manage, coordinate, and enforce the proper use of the Bay, so that all users of the Bay area can obtain the maximum advantage of ._ _— -..wo. j. wj, ,_„ i_j-tmsj.ei any runction or the Bay (Art. 66C, Sec.2)(Ch 154 Acts of :tivity common to two or more of the 1969)." uepartments and agencies within the juris- Of the individual departments and diction of the Department of Natural Re- agencies under the Department of Natural sources, together with the staff, funds, Resources specific reference has already and equipment associated with that func- been made to the "Maryland Environmental tion. Service". Brief comment as to the partic- "The Secretary may transfer from any ular assignment of the other departments department or agency within his jurisdic- follows. tion to any other department of agency within his jurisdiction, any function or 4 . 2 Departmental Agencies activity..." a. Department of Chesapeake Bay Among the departments, agencies, Affairs 3, and Commissions included within This department has responsibilities apartment of Natural Resources are: which are geographic as well as functional, spartment of Chesapeake Bay Affairs; whereas the other Department of Natural Resources agencies are mostly functional (Art 66C, Section 6 and following). Legislation respecting Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs contains the 289 following language: "(a) It is the inten- the functions of the Department of Chesa- tion of the General Assembly in the en- peake Bay Affairs and other State agencies. actment of this sub-heading that the The program shall serve as a guide to the planning, development, management, and Department in the performance of its duties..." conservation of the Chesapeake Bay and The Department is charged with control all other tidal waters and the shore of the appropriation of the surface and line and bottoms thereof are the proper underground waters of the State, including responsibilities of the State of Mary- the control and supervision of the construction, land. " reconstruction, and repair of dams, reservoirs, " (b) In order to assure that and all other waterworks in any of the waters these responsibilities will be carried of the State. It has major powers in the out in a manner which will best serve the control and abatement of pollution and in- economic growth and social needs of the dustrial wastes in the waters of the State State there is hereby created a Depart- and in the setting of water quality and ef- ment of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, which fluent standards applicable to the waters of shall be part of the Department of the State including the effects of water tem- Natural Resources." perature changes and dredging operations. The powers of the Department The Department has strong powers in restrain- include: "general supervisory power, ing violators; it functions jointly with the regulation, and control over the natural Department of Health in carrying out and resources of the State within the bounds reporting on the comprehensive water pollution of tidal waters;" licensing and regulation program; it assumes responsibility for devel- relating to fish, oysters, clams, and oping and operating programs to prevent and crabs; issuance of permits for removal contain oil spillage in Maryland waters. of sand, gravel, minerals and other re- The department also establishes requirements sources from the public lands under the and licences "well drillers", and manages public navigable waters of the Bay; ad- the "Maryland Potomac Water Authority"; it ministration of Wetlands and Shore Erosion cooperates with the Federal and local govern- legislation; administration of the State ments in developing and carrying out a long Boat Act; administration for Maryland range program for controlling flood waters of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries of the State; and investigates and takes Compact and the Potomac River Fisheries steps to correct any condition "indicative Compact and many related responsibilities, of damage to aquatic resources." b. Department of Water Resources -- c. The Maryland Geological Survey This department, also consti- is covered in the Statutes of Maryland in tuted within the Department of Natural Re- Article 66C (Sections 15-17); it functions sources', has its duties spelled out in as part of the Department of Natural Resources. Article 96A, Sections 1 and following. Its powers and responsibilities include: Its responsibilities include "supervising "the conduct of topographic, geologic, hydro- and planning the multiple purpose devel- graphic and geophysical surveys"; "the opment of the waters of the State for preparation of topographic, geologic, and the best interest of all its inhabitants. other types of maps to meet specific needs"; The Department shall prepare and develop "the preparation of reports on the extent a general water resources program which and character of the State's geology, min- contemplates the proper conservation and eral, and water resources"; and "the inves- development of the waters of the State, tigation and recommendation of plans and in a manner compatible with multiple policies for the protection of the waterfront purpose management on a watershed and/or of the State against erosion and deposition aquifer basis or other appropriate geo- and the cooperation necessary for carrying graphical unit thereof. The program into effect plans for the development of shall recognize and be consistent with the waterfront property of the State." 290 d. The Fish and Wildlife Administra- all laws, rules, and regulations relating tion, formerly the Department of Game and to forests, parks, scenic preserves, natu- Inland Fish, was established as the suc- ral areas, parkways, historic monuments cessor to that Department by Ch252 Acts and recreation areas, fire control, road- of 1970 (Article 66C 112A), and is now side trees, the restoration of deforested a part of the Department of Natural Re- or denuded areas and the operation of the sources. The Fish and Wildlife Adminis- State forest nursery." The responsibili- tration has responsibility for administra- ties include the administration of "Program tion of "The Game Law and The Game and Open Spaces"; protection of watershed areas; Fresh Water Fish Law". The Administration participation in the Federal "Land and through its Director is "vested with the Water Conservation Fund" program; abatement necessary power, and authority to determine of fire hazards in the forests and open when, to what extent, if at all, and by spaces of the State; operation of Forest what means it is desirable to enlarge, Conservancy Districts; participation in extend, restrict, or prohibit in any de- operation of the Patuxent River Watershed gree the provisions of law obtaining in and the Severn River Watershed. this State for the hunting, taking, f. The Maryland Environmental Service capture, killing, possession, sale, pur- --Ch240 of the Acts of 1970 created the chase, shipment, transportation, carriage "Maryland Environmental Service" as an or export of any wild bird, wild animal, agency within the Department of Natural or fish from inland waters and may adopt Resources. The State of Maryland is to regulations for such purpose." In ad- provide through the "Service" for dependable, dition to powers to "regulate", the Admin- effective, and efficient purification and istration can issue licenses, police, disposal of liquid and solid wastes; to assess penalties and in general fully ad- encourage reduction in the amount of waste minister activities in these areas. It generated and discharged to the environment; has jurisdiction over certain designated and to serve its political subdivisions wildlife sanctuaries and refuges and "may and economic interests." acquire title to or control of lands or The "Service" includes in its waters within the State suitable for responsibility: "...acquisition, design, protection and propagation of game and construction, reconstruction, rehabili- fish or for hunting purposes..." or "es- tation, improvement, operation, maintenance, tablish and maintain State game refuges and repair of waste water purification and for the protection and propagation of solid waste disposal projects either pur- game and fish on all or any portion of suant to an order of the Secretary of Health State game lands where any game and fur- and Mental Hygiene or the Secretary of bearing animals shall not be hunted, Natural Resources as further provided for... pursued, trapped, disturbed or molested or pursuant to a mandatory agreement to at any time." These sanctuaries and ref- provide requested services..." uges may be in and on tidal waters which The "Service" has no authority would embrace the Bay and its immediate or power to perform services for a district tributaries. or area which in the opinion of the Secretary e. The Department of Forest and of Health and Mental Hygiene is receiving Parks, Art. 66C, Section 343 and following, adequate service... except upon the request was "created as a part of the •' Department of the specific municipality or pursuant of Natural Resources to promote, adminis- to a voluntary contract. ter, and manage all State-owned or leased The "Service" has bonding and forests, parks, scenic preserves, natural funding authority; can create regions and areas, parkways, historic monuments and districts throughout the State; charge recreation areas, the administration of for its services; and enter into waste 291 management contracts. The program calls for educational, financial, and technical help in encouraging Shore 4 . 3 Specific Legislation Erosion Control projects and measures and a. Wetlands Legislation (Article calls for cooperation with the Corps of En- 66C, Section 718)--This legislation was gineers, State Roads Commission, Soil Con- created by Ch241 of the Acts of 1970 where- servation Service, and others. in it was "declared to be the public policy d. Sediment Control was defined in of this State, taking into account varying Ch245 Acts of 1970 (Article 96A, Section ecological, economic, developmental, rec- 105-110) to prevent and control the despol- reational, and aesthetic values, to pre- iation of the lands and waters comprising serve the Wetlands and to prevent the de- the watersheds of the State from erosion spoliation thereof." and sediment deposition. The program calls "State Wetlands" are defined as for the development of project plans to "all land under the navigable waters of minimize erosion and sedimentation. The the State below the mean high tide, which program is administered through the Depart- is affected by the regular rise and fall ment of Natural Resources. of the tide." e. The State Boat Act (Article 14B) -- The promulgation of rules and This Act is administered jointly by the regulations relating to Wetlands, and the Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs and general administration is vested in the the Fish and Wildlife Administration (suc- Secretary of Natural Resources and as- cessor to the Game and Inland Fish Department) signed by him to the Department of Chesa- under the Department of Natural Resources. peake Bay Affairs. It includes provisions for the promotion b. Open Spaces and Areas -- "Program of safety of life and property; licensing Open Space" was created by Ch403 of the of boats; development of plans for improve- Acts of 1965 (Article 66C, Section 357B- ment and promotion of all the Waters of 357G) and provides for expediting "the Maryland for recreational purposes; plans acquisition of outdoor recreation and for the improvement of the Waterways of open space areas before the escalating Maryland through the deepening of channels, cost of land prevents its purchase for acquisition, and development of access areas, public use and before potential areas are removal of obstructions, building of docks devoted to some other uses;" and also for and clearing waters of aquatic vegetation. accelerating "the development of needed There is specific provision in outdoor recreation facilities." the Act (Section 12) for "the clearing of This program is administe waterways of logs, debris, and other mate- the Department of Forests and Parks (part rial detrimental to navigation"; for marking of Department of Natural Resources) and channels in tidal and nontidal waters; and is to be funded from time to time by the for creation of waterway improvement districts General Assembly to assist the fulfillment of acquisition and development programs at both the State and local levels. Its possible effect on areas The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene bordering and surrounding the Chesapeake Bay Area can be very significant. c. Shore Erosion Control — A 5 .1 Specific Legislation program to fund and stimulate activity a. Comprehensive Water Pollution in the Control of "Shore Erosion" is de- Control Program tailed in Article 66C, Section 756, and A comprehensive water pollution is assigned to the Department of Natural control program was created by Ch446 of Resources and currently vested in the the Acts of 1968 (Article 42, Sections Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs. 718 to 736). This program, under the 292 jurisdiction of the Department of Health 6 The Maryland Environmental Trust and Mental Hygiene, includes a high level Science Advisory Board. Its goal is to intensify water pollution control programs throughout the State. It includes funding for treatment facilities, water quality The Trust was created by Ch648 Acts monitoring, data processing, and laboratory of 1967 (Article 41, Sections 181L to 181X) services. It also embraces policy and to conserve, improve, stimulate, and per- regulation promulgation for design of petuate "the aesthetic natural, health and sewage collection and transmission facili- welfare, scenic and cultural qualities of ties; controlling waste from marinas and the environment, including but not limited watercraft; training of technical person- to land, water, air, wildlife, scenic quali- nel; regulation of sanitarians and related ties, open spaces, buildings or any interest considerations. therein, and other appurtenances pertaining The Department of Water Resources in any way to the State of Maryland and performs a close cooperative role with through educational, and other media to en- Department of Health and Mental Hygiene courage and motivate the populace of the in administering this program. State and others to do so, and to promote b. Water Supply and Waste Disposal continuing interest in and the study of Plans such matters." Article 43, Section 387C, calls for the development of comprehensive county plans for "public water supply, sewerage and solid waste disposal systems" by 7 The Department of State Planning January 1, 1970, and a "complete county plan dealing also with solid waste disposal in Chapter 155 of the Acts of 1969, systems and solid waste acceptance no the Department of State Planning was recast later than January 1, 1974." as one of the principal State agencies Plans developed are to be sub- headed by a Secretary who serves as a member mitted first to Department of Water Re- of the Governor's Advisory Council (Cabinet) sources for review of "matters pertaining (Article 41, Section 226). to water allocation, adequacy of industrial The basic powers and duties of the waste treatment, and the effect of pro- Department are relatively unchanged. They posed withdrawals and waste discharges on include: waters of the State." The program is ad- To "prepare, and from time to time ministered by the Department of Health revise, amend, extend or add to, a plan and Mental Hygiene. or plans for the development of the State, c. Air Quality Control (Art. 43, which plan or plans collectively shall be Sec. 690 & ff) known as the State Development Plan. ... The Department of Health and in preparing the State Development Plan..., Mental Hygiene has under its responsibility the Department of State Planning may seek an "air quality" program which reflects the cooperation and advice of appropriate the declared policy of the State of Mary- departments, agencies, and instrumentalities land "to maintain that degree of purity of Federal, State, and local government, of the air resources of the State which regional and metropolitan planning commis- will protect the health, general welfare, sions, educational institutions and research and property of the people of the State." organizations,...and of civic groups and The program divides the State into "air private persons and organizations"; quality control areas" and establishes making "studies and investigations... and enforces standards for these areas. of the resources of the State and of existing 293 / and emerging problems of agriculture, in- and the highways that embrace the primary dustry,/commerce, transportation, popu- system of highways..." "He shall have lation housing, public service, local authority to consult, confer, negotiate government, and of allied matters affect- and conclude agreements with the Bureau ing the development of the State..."; of Public Roads and other agencies of the acting"...as the Governor's princ- United States Government, representatives ipal staff agency in planning matters of other states, and other agencies within concer/ning the resources and development this State, on all questions relating to of the State..."; all highways on the interstate system and 'preparing"... the State's capital all highways on the primary system of program and the annual capital budget..."; highways." ' revising "inventory listings of the The director shares these powers State's Natural Resources..."; and responsibilities with the Commission ' advising "the Governor on means and members on the secondary system of roads, methods available to coordinate plans and The Highway Administration has strong programs of all State Departments, agencies, legal base in the "location" of "a highway commissions, and instrumentalities in or portion thereof"; and has the power to orde.r to establish relative priorities "build bridges" for the purpose "of making and ;to avoid duplication and conflict"; and maintaining connections between any and highways or the parts of any highway con- i advising "the Governor as to the structed or improved..." means and methods available to coordinate The construction of bridges is "subject the! plans and programs of Federal, State, to all valid and applicable provisions of loc,'alf regional, metropolitan, county, and laws of the United States concerning bridges municipal governments, in order to avoid over navigable waters of the United States." duplication and conflicts..." The Highway Administration may "ac- quire strips of land for the restoration. In carrying out its functions, the preservation, and enhancement of scenic St'ate Planning Department has subdivided beauty within and adjacent to the Federal- the State into six regions for planning aid highways of this State and to acquire purposes and has staff planners located land for and construct rest and recreation in or assigned to regional organizations. areas adjacent to the interstate and Federal- aid Primary system of highways." The Highway Administration may also 8 The State Roads Commission "regulate and restrict the establishment, operation, and maintenance of 'Junk Yards' In July, 1971, the State Roads in areas adjacent to the interstate and Commission (Md. Stat. Art. 898) will be- primary systems within the State." come the State Highway Administration, It may also co-ntrol and regulate under the new Department of Transportation. "outdoor advertising" as stipulated in the The head of the State Highway Administra- law. tion will be the "State Highway Adminis- trator" , also Chairman of the State Roads Commission, and will serve at the pleas- ure of the Secretary of Transportation. 9 Joint Management Responsibilities The Director of Highways shall have "ex- clusive jurisdiction and control over the 9.1 Scenic Rivers Review Board location, construction, geometries, de- A program relating to the "outstand- sign, and maintenance of highways that ing scenic, fish, wildlife, and other rec- embrace the interstate system of highways reation values of many of the rivers of the 294 State and the related adjacent land areas" is provided for in Article 66C, Sections 759-762. The program declares it to be State policy to protect "the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill vital con- servation purposes through the wise use of resources within the scenic river system. Included in the scenic rivers system are areas such as: "spawning and propa- gation areas"; "trout streams"; "wetlands" areas; "sections of streams where encroach- ment is imminent"; and "sections of streams which are important as food pro- duction areas, areas supporting migratory waterfowl, and spawning areas for shell- fish" . This program is administered by a "Scenic Rivers Review Board" composed of representation of the State Planning De- partment, Department of Natural Resources, and the Maryland Environmental Trust. 9.2 State Soil Conservation Committee Soil conservation programs in the State originate from the "Soil Conserva- tion and Domestic Allotment Act" (Public Law 46, 74th Congress as amended). The administration of this activity for the State is the University of Maryland, with authority given under the State law for creating a State Soil Conservation Com- mittee and Soil Conservation Districts. The aim of soil conservation programs is to preserve the farm and grazing lands of the State from erosion by the insti- tution and encouragement of proper land- use practices, which can prevent silting and sedimentation of stream channels, reservoirs, dams, ditches, and harbors. The State Soil Conservation Com- mittee includes among its members repre- sentation of the State Board of Agricul- ture and the Department of Natural Re- sources and its member departments and agencies. 295 D Intrastate Bay Management Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland The Tri-County Coun cil was created by Executive Order in May of 1965 and At the regional level are planning later established by Stat ute (Ch 586 Acts and development organizations, the terri- of 1966). It was formed "to initiate and torial jurisdictions of which coincide coordinate plans and pro] ects for the with several of the State planning regions development of human and economic resources as defined by the State Planning Depart- of the southern Maryl and counties" (Calvert, ment . Charles and St. Mary' s) . The Council, in addition to local members , has representa- tives of the State De part ment of Planning 1 The Regional Planning Council and the State Division of Economic Devel- opment on its roster. The Regional Planning Council (Art. 78D, Ch. 753 of the Acts of 1963) includes the City of Baltimore, and Anne Arundel, 3 Delmarva Advisory Council Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties. The Council is to create a This Council was initiated in 1963 General Development Plan for the region with joint representation of Maryland and in its adoption have it serve as a (Eastern Shore counties), Delaware, and guide for regional growth and development. Virginia (Eastern Shore counties), with The Regional Planning Law contains pro- the purpose "to advance the economic and vision for mandatory referral of plans cultural welfare of the people of the and projects to the Council. While a Delmarva Peninsula through advice, counsel, State or local agency or body must sub- and assistance of such governmental agen- mit its plans or projects for conformity cies and private organizations as are with the General Development Plan, it concerned with programs and activities to may in actuality proceed under the law, develop the resources and economic without, the approval of the Regional activities of the area." In 1967, the Planning Council. Certain Federal funds Council and the Delmarva Peninsula as its that may be available for various proj- focal point was designated to function as ects may possibly not be released for the "Delmarva Economic Development District" use without the Council's approval. On by the U.S. Department of Commerce under other projects the Council simply has the terms of the Federal Public Works and the power to focus attention and public Economic Development Act of 1965. consideration on the areas' projects, programs and plans. In other functions, the Regional Planning Council can assist and service local groups and programs by supplying informational data and advice. The Regional Planning Council is a State Agency by Law but with broad and considerable local participation and funding. 296 Local Bay Management Table 2. Chesapeake Bay Counties of Maryland - Land Use Regulations, August 1971. Soil Erosion The local level functions associ- Marina & Sedimen- ated with day-to-day living planning, County Zoning Reg . tation* taxing, licensing and controls. These include: the Courts and administration Anne Arundel x X of justice, health regulations, trash Baltimore Ci x X collection and other municipal services ty Baltimore Co unty x X x and operations; schools; road mainten- Calvert X - x ance and traffic control, policing, Cecil X - X granting of building permits, and a wide Dorchester X - X range of other operations and services. Harford X - X Each of these is concentrated in the Kent X - X local county government (or in some Queen Anne X - ca§es municipal governments) in all the St. Mary's - - X counties of the State. Although the Somerset X - X organization and operating procedures of Talbot X - X both governments vary, their functions Wicomico X - are similar. Table 1 lists management positions in a typical Maryland local *Conforming ordinances required by State government. Of particular significance Erosion and Sedimentation Law Deadline is the local control of all zoning for approval of proposed ordinances - (Article 66B and in local laws) and March 1, 1971. planning, including subdivision controls, general development regulations and the like. These functions are administered Each county has a "sanitary district' by local Boards and Commissions, locally organized on county lines under the appointed and locally oriented. jurisdiction of a deputy State Health Officer or County Health Officer who has Table 1: Typical County Management broad powers administering health laws County Council and regulations at the local level in- Plumbing Inspector cluding inspecting and reporting upon Board of Appeals Dept. of Public Works the sanitary conditions of streams and Appeals Tax Court Bureau of Engineering sources of public water supply, sewerage County Executive Utilities Operation Bur. facilities, dairies, creameries, slaught- Super, of Assessments Planning S Zonning Off. erhouses and the like. Bur. of Com. & Ind. Aff. Planning Advisory Bd. Perhaps the key functions at the Economic Development Zoning Hearing Officer local level are county and municipal Board of Education Dept. of Rec. S Parks control over land use, building and sub- Supt. of Schools Rec. Advisory Board division permits and methods, and Library Board Comm. Action Committee almost anything that happens at the Health Officer Coop. Extension Service crucial water's edge. Police Chief Circuit Court Judges The recent wetlands legislation Fire Administrator States Attorney clarified the aspect of ownership of Civil Defense Sheriff the wetlands. However, where the water's Inspections & Permits State Senators edge is firm goound, this "seam" of inter- Building Inspector Members, House of Dele. action as well as the interface between Electrical Inspector underground water and the Bay is under local control with little if any State or Federal surveillance. 297 Non-Governmental ate of the College of William and Mary, and the University of Virginia, and the Bay Management Chesapeake Biological Laboratory of the University of Maryland. The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory does contract re- Beyond the public realm are pri- search for some of the Maryland State vate, semi-public and non-governmental agencies in the field of Natural Re- activities involving the Bay. Private sources, and maintains academic programs has direct real management influences for the University in these areas. on the Bay by offering knowledge and expertise concerning Bay-related matters. Some of these activities and 4 The Water Resources Research Center organizations must be mentioned in re- cognition of the work being done and The Water Resources Research Center the potential they offer. of the University of Maryland is, a publicly supported wholly academic group. It is located at College Park and its purpose 1 The Wye Institute is "to stimulate, facilitate and coordinate research in all aspects of water resources The Wye Institute, a non-profit development, management and conservation private organization, is located at at the University with particular attention Cheston-on-Wye, Wye River, Queen Anne's to problems of importance to Maryland". County, Maryland. The Institute's Additionally, a consortium of ex- purpose is to work with the people on perts from Smithsonian Institution, Johns the Eastern Shore of Maryland in their Hopkins University and the University of efforts to strengthen and expand educ- Maryland are engaged in a "study of the ation, cultural and economic opportun- Chesapeake Bay region as a total system". ities . Four topics slated by this group for investigation are: 1. Inventory of elements which to- 2 The Chesapeake Bay Institute gether and interactively comprise the total Bay system; The Chesapeake Bay Institute, a 2. Formulation of statements of division of Johns Hopkins University, research objectives; conducts research in oceanography and 3. Identification of component related fields with particular involve- parts of a comprehensive research plan and ment in matters in the Bay and its the kinds of institutions best capable tributaries. The Institute undertakes of carrying out the investigations contract research for State, Federal delineated; and other agencies. 4. Study of central organization best suited to administer such a program. 3 The Chesapeake Research Council 5 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. The Chesapeake Research Council, a scientifically-oriented group oper- Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. - a ating in the Chesapeake Bay Area, private, non-profit organization created representing extensive estuarine research to foster interest in and concern for the expertise. The Council includes the preservation of the integrity of the Bay Chesapeake Bay Institute of Johns as a great Natural Resource. Its head- Hopkins University, the Virginia In- quarters are in Annapolis. stitute of Marine Science, an affili- 298 Maryland State Mandates as gainful employment. Chesapeake Bay Goal To Guide ...the building [of an] economic Statements base which will support a total environ- ment of the best quality in Maryland. All levels of government -- Feder- To Initiate, to Implement, and al, the several states, regional and to Support local -- have developed goals, object- . ..programs and activities to ives, standards and policies that are develop in a proper manner the State's natural resources and economic oppor- relevant to the Chesapeake Bay. However, tunities . it would be presumptuous and counter- productive for this study to attempt to To Encourage collect, screen, or evaluate them. This is an important and appropriate function ...development of recreation areas and tourist business. of the Maryland Department of State Planning and other relevant agencies. At the present time there is no To Promote and Assist consistent format or system within which ...sound community development. agencies are responsible to the executive To Inform or legislative branches for organizing, comparing and defining in operational ...the public of the State's terms their goals, objectives, standards historical background and progress. and policies. With or without the To Encourage P. P .B.S.-type approach mentioned prev- iously, it is highly desirable that/ ...formation of local and regional agencies carry out this process so that development organizations. a beginning can be made toward'inter- program comparisons of input and output. The following is a^'l'ist taken from the Governor ' s.^-1'971 Budget Mes- 2 Department of Health and Mental sage (Ref.l) which-both summarizes Hygiene legislative mandates by agency, and states, t-he general goals of each in a To Assist succinct form. ...local health departments with the medical, dental and other health professions, with private health assoc- iations and with citizens' groups in carrying out a wide variety of public 1 Department of Economic and health programs. Community Development To Advance To Cooperate ...the economic welfare of the ...with State and Federal agencies people of Maryland. with the medical, dental and other health professions, with private health assoc- To Encourage and Promote iations and with citizens' groups in ...the location of new industries carrying out a wide variety of public health programs. and businesses in the State and other matters intended to foster and develop 299 To Protect 3 _ 2 Fish and Wildlife Administration ...the public health through elimination of environmental hazards, To Evaluate promotion of individual preventive . . . [wildlife and fish] population health supervision, and active control and harvest parameters, environmental of communicable diseases. factors, and management techniques to insure sustained production and use 3 Department of Natural Resources [of wildlife and fish]. 3 .1 Department of Chesapeake Bay To Maintain Affairs ...abundant populations of shell- fish, fish, and wildlife through To Plan, to Develop, and to biologically sound management of the Manage environment. ...the Chesapeake Bay and all other tidal waters and the shorelines To Provide and bottoms thereof. ...commercial and recreational opportunities for consumptive users To Improve and to Maintain through controlled harvest of commercial . . .waterways. and game species. To Issue To Provide ...permits for the mineral ...recreational opportunities for exploration and exploitation of the non-consumptive users [of fish and Chesapeake Bay bottom. wildlife]. To Preserve ...the contribution of wetlands to the biological, aesthetic, and 3.3 Department of Forests and Parks recreational productivity of the Bay. To Advise and to Assist To Provide ...landowners on management of ...safe and sufficient enjoyment their woodlands. of the boating resources of the Bay. To Promote, to Administer and To Provide to Manage ...leadership in Bay matters ...all State-owned or leased involving all agencies within the forests, scenic preserves, parkways, Department of Natural Resources. historic monuments, and recreational areas. To Reduce ...losses to land and water To Administer resources, both publicly and privately, ...laws, rules and regulations for due to erosion. all State-owned or leased forests, parks/ scenic preserves, parkways, historical To Represent monuments and recreation areas for fire ...the Department of Natural Resources on Bay matters in dealing with Federal, State, and local governments. 300 control, roadside trees, and restoration Division of Archeology, of deforested or denuded areas. To Encourage ...economic development and use 3.5 Department of Water Resources of natural resources. To Acquire To Operate ...interest in rights in real ...a State forest nursery. property for land and watershed management. To Preserve ...natural beauty. To Cooperate ...with the Federal Government. To Promote ...recreational interest through- To Conduct out the State. ...joint study to define bound- aries of tidal and non-tidal waters. To Protect ...watersheds for the improvement To Control of local economy. ...water pollution. To Control ...the appropriation of surface 3.4 Maryland Geological Survey and underground water through a permit system. To Cooperate ... in carrying into effect To Control and to Supervise plans for the development of waterfront ...construction of channels, property of the State. dredging and other construction in tidewater. To Conduct ...topographic, geologic, hydro- To Control graphic, and geophysical surveys. .well drilling through a permit system. To Issue Permits, to License and to Control To Develop the drilling of oil and gas ...a long range program for flood wells. control. To Investigate and to Recommend To Implement ...plans and policies for the ...an abandoned Mine Drainage protection of the waterfront of the Control Program. State against erosion and deposition. To Implement To Prepare ...a program to control agricultural ...reports on the extent and drainage that impairs water quality. character of the State's geology, mineral and water resources. To Plan ...multiple purpose development To Supervise of all State waters. ...the Bureau of Mines and the 301 To Provide To Prepare ...technical assistance to local ...the State annual capital governments. budget and the five-year capital improve- ment program. To Provide ...for the training of industrial To Represent wastewater treatment operators. ...the State in the Office of Intergovernmental Relations To Provide ...leadership for, and oversee, a To Represent State-wide program for soil erosion and ...the State on Federal river sediment control in urbanizing areas. basin planning projects.. To Supervise To Stimulate ...multiple purpose development ...public interest and participation of all State waters. in the development of the State. To Supervise ...discharge of waste waters Department of Transportation Department of State Planning 5 < j. Maryland Port Administration To Assist ...State agencies, regional To Develop councils and local governments in ...trade, planning matters. To Enhance To Coordinate ...advantages of the ports of the ...approximately 50 Federal plan- area, ning and construction grant programs, and the Model Cities program. To Improve ...the physical port facilities To Coordinate important to maritime commerce of the ...its planning activities with State, the planning activities of the other State departments and agencies and To Promote instrumentalities and the local ...maritime businesses of the area, government. To Protect To Guide ...advantages of the ports of ...planning assistance to State the area, agencies, regional councils and local governments. To Prepare and to Maintain 5 . 2 State Highway Administration ...a program for the development and effective employment of all State To Plan and to Control resources, known as the State Develop- ...[exclusive] the location, ment Plan. construction geometries, design and maintenance of the highways. 302 To Formulate Reference ..-matters of policy relating to location, type, design, construction and maintenance of the secondary system of highways. 1. Governor Marvin Mandel; Maryland State Budget, ending June 30, 1972; To Perform Submitted to the General Assembly of ...the construction and mainten- Maryland, January, 1971, p. 1035. ance of highways on the secondary system. 303 V Criteria and Organizational Alternatives for Bay Resource Management 304 V. CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A. IS GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY ORGANIZED FOR BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT? 306 1. Current Limitations of Effective Bay Resource Management 306 2. General Criteria in Designing Resource Management Institutions 307 3. Particular Aspects of the Bay Relevant to the Design of Institutional Arrangements for Resource Management^ 307 \ 4. Conclusions 308 B. ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. Inter-State Compacts 309 2. Federal-Inter-State Compacts 309 3. River Basin Commissions 311 4. Federal-Regional Agencies 311 5. Regional-Federal-State Commissions 312 6. River Basin Inter-Agency Committee 313 7. Federal Administrator of Operations.. 313 8. Intra-State Special Districts. 313 9. Council of Governments 314 10. The Single State Super Agency 314 11. Summary Conclusions on Organization for Bay Resource Management 315 305 A Is Government Adequately become out-of-date but linger on as law. In short, the legislatures have refused Organized for Bay Resource to give administrators the "range of choice" necessary for effective manage- Management ment . Second, those powers which have been delegated by the legislatures have been scattered throughout the states' 1 Current Limitations of Effective administrative apparatus. Various Bay Resource Management state agencies have duplicating, over- Governmental organization for wa- lapping and sometimes inconsistent pow- ers, but in neither Maryland nor Virginia ter resource management has been under almost continual study for the past dec- is there a single agency with the requi- site authority to plan and coordinate ade. Studies have been conducted by the administration of the Bay and its State agencies and non-State agencies, resources." (Ref- 1) often with support of State agency staff. However, this assessment was made The studies have taken various perspec- before the reorganization of Maryland tives on the Bay. In some, the Bay has State Government, the establishment of been, considered as part (or not part, the Maryland Environmental Service or the for administrative purposes) of the lar- formation of the Chesapeake Bay Inter- ger Susquehanna watershed; others have agency Planning Committee. focused on Maryland's water resources Three potential limitations on without specific reference to the Bay; effective Bay resource management are still others have focused on the Bay considered here in summary. itself. In some studies water resources The first is organization and in- policy has been the focus; in others the stitutional arrangement for management. focus has been broadened to include many It is fair to say that Maryland State land and natural resource concerns asso- Government has been effectively reor- ciated with water resource policy; in ganized. Departmental responsibilities still others, administrative arrange- are clearly established to enable effec- ments for administering the array of tive Bay resource management. Federal- State policy responsibility, rather State relations and State-local relations than policy in a particular, functional area, has been the concern. In combina- are not so clear in terms of divisions tion and sequence, these efforts pro- of responsibility. Citizens find the vide a valuable perspective on evolving State more responsive to Bay problems and Bay resource management. more sought after for answers than either Federal or local governments. (Ref. 2) As recently as 1970, the following The second limitation is more import- summary of inadequacies of institutional ant and binding: that of fragmented and arrangements for Bay resource management anachronistic legislation. This has been was offered: discussed under "problems" and is being "...Existing state legal institu- progressively addressed by the newly tions suffer from two major inadequacies. organized departments. First, the state legislatures, have at- The third limiting factor considered tempted to administer the Bay themselves. is the lack of a central planning function. Rather than delegating broad managerial General consensus in State government is power to the executive branch, they have that this is badly needed, and in fact the responded to narrow problems with narrow Governor responded to this need by the legislation. These responses rapidly 306 first step of creating the Chesapeake Bay farming economics. Thus Bay-wide objec- Interagency Planning Committee. tives of resource conservation and dev- The purpose of this Report is, among elopment are complicated by various and, other things, to recommend the next steps at least, partially conflicting sub-re- toward the development of a comprehensive gional economic objectives, plan for the Bay. 3.2 In general, the Maryland economy is growing. Most of the impetus for this 2 General Criteria in Designing growth comes from private market forces. Resource Management Institutions State and local agencies are involved to varying degrees in assisting, guiding Despite the potential of recent Bay an 307 same basis as Maryland to the point 4.4 However, the protection and preser- where an integrated management plan can vation function is more demanding of a be produced and operationalized. Bay-wide organization than is the opposite function of developing the special attri- 3.7 Many of the major tributaries feed- butes of the Bay...This is not to say that ing the Bay form boundaries between county the protection and preservation thrust jurisdictions. Most of the State of Mary- is more important than the development land is drained more or less directly by one.. .but... that our present stage of the Bay. These aspects point up the need development, the dominant forces for for State-wide planning and management. coordinated management of the Bay are the social diseconomies which are now multi- plying at an increasing rate with the 4 Conclusions growing use and development of the Bay." (Ref. 3) There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the above points and 4.5 "The need is not so much for new from the summary of Bay problems and programs (nor indeed for adjustments in goals in Chapters II and III. old ones) as it is for governmental in- stitutions which can resolve the conflicts 4.1 The Bay is a unified ecosystem resulting from one user interfering with that should be dealt with for planning another. This is not to say that no new purposes as an entity using a systems programs are needed, that existing programs approach. do not need expansions nor that their ad- ministration does not need improving. But 4.2 The fundamental factor which urges rather... these actions are not a direct or comprehensive planning and management of adequate response to the problem of con- the Bay's resources is increased con- flict which is central to the demand for flict among Bay uses and users which resource management of Chesapeake Bay." results from increased demands on the (Ref. 3) Bay for liquid waste discharge, water supply, shoreline residential sites, 4.6 The recent reorganization of Mary- water-related recreation, marine trans- land State Government has more clearly portation, thermal waste discharges, etc. established departmental responsibilities "As use pressures upon the Bay grow, in Bay resource management. However, the interdependencies (physical and bio- areas of Federal-State responsibility and logical) operate to preclude some uses local-State responsibility in Bay re- and to depreciate most. Losses sustained source management are unresolved, as is by users or would-be users create conflict the coordination of Bay resource manage- situations and generate demands for ment with similar activity in adjacent governmental instruments to resolve it. areas -- the Susquehanna River Basin Conflicts inherent in intensive use pres- Compact and the States of Delaware and sures demand decisions — decisions which Virginia. Alternatives addressed to the have fundamental economic, social and interstate and watershed aspects of Bay political import but for which we have no problems are discussed next. appropriate governmental decision struc- ture. " (Ref. 3) 4.3 Economic development and utilization of the Bay's resources is central to the economic and social well-being of the State and region. 308 B Organizational Alternatives acreage of private ground does not require a large supply of seed. for Bay Resource Management Virginia laws prohibit shipment of seed oysters out of the State, unless special circumstances warrant it. Maryland also has had a shortage This section reports on organiza- of shell for planting back on oy- tional alternatives that have been con- ster grounds. Public policy and sidered in a long list of studies. The fishery laws of the two States alternatives are listed here briefly. effectively prevent maximum use of the Bay for growing oysters. If these legal barriers did not exist the Bay could be managed as a 1 Inter—State Compacts gigantic oyster farm, making best use of the characteristics of each a. General Description part of the environment to produce The Inter-State Compact is a seed, to serve as growing grounds, legal instrumentality involving two or or as fattening or holding grounds." more states, which must be consented to (Ref. 4) by Congress, providing for the conduct However, the Inter-State Compact, of one or more operations in which the because it usually focuses on a particu- specific states that are parties to the lar problem area requiring inter-state compact are jointly interested. The cooperation, would not seem to be an ap- Federal Government is not a signatory propriate institutional arrangement for party to such a compact, but, in most comprehensive resource management. Most interstate compacts relating to water re- Bay resource management problems have sources, the Federal Government assists more pervasive intra-state than inter- in the work of the compact-administering state dimensions. agency through a Federal representative. The scope and coverage of the operation is spelled out in the establishing 2 Federal—Inter—State Compacts legislation. a. General Description b. Appropriateness in Chesapeake Federal-Inter-State Compacts Bay generally follow the pattern of Inter- An Inter-State Compact between State Compacts but with two essential Maryland and Virginia would seem to have differences: potential application in certain Bay re- 1) The Federal Government is a source management areas. One frequently signatory party to the mentioned problem area is in fish and compact; and shellfish management. The productive 2) The exercise of certain Fed- potential of this valuable Bay resource eral powers in the planning, has not been realized, and an Inter-State construction and operation Compact may be one element in a solution. of projects becomes subject In a paper presented at The Governor's to the Compact Commission. Conference on Chesapeake Bay, Dr. J. L. The Susquehanna River Basin McHugh presents some of the background: Compact recently activated by the United "Maryland does not have a single States, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New large and reliable natural seed York is a Federal-Inter-State Com- oyster bed like the James River in pact as is the proposed Potomac River Virginia, although setting is good Basin Compact of which the United States, in many places. Indeed, the small Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 309 West Virginia are to be the participat- commission which could exercise them in ing entities. coordinated, autonomous fashion (free b. Appropriateness in Chesapeake from state legislative interference) for Bay the compact's duration . . . But the com- Both the Susquehanna and Potom- pact model also has disadvantages. It ac -- the principal fresh water suppliers adds yet another tier to the existing to the Bay -- have Federal-Inter-State surfeit of Bay governments. It would be Compact arrangements either in being or difficult to integrate such a compact with contemplated, each of which makes concern the already negotiated and proposed Pot- for the integrity of the "receiving wat- omac River Basin Compact which has powers ers of the Chesapeake Bay" a substantial, over the estuarine portions of the Pot- if not a major objective. During the pro- omac. Finally, it would be difficult to cess of developing and translating into negotiate a compact which gives adequate law the details of the Susquehanna Com- powers to the governing commission and pact, the question was frequently raised still be acceptable to both Virginia and as to why not include the Chesapeake Bay Maryland. Although Maryland and Virginia within the framework of the Susquehanna have a common interest in various aspects proposal. Among the reasons cited for of Bay management, they also have dis- not seeking such an arrangement were: parate and competitive interests in pre- the difference in the water resources prob- serving the Bay resources within their lem -- fresh water in the river versus respective boundaries exclusively for brackish and salty water in the Bay; the themselves and their citizens. At best, different fisheries and shell fish prob- such a compact would take years to ne- lems, the nature of the port and water- gotiate; at worst, it would be emasculated borne operations on the Bay as opposed to through the retention of powers by the those on the river system; the wetlands states." 310 than complete or satisfactory. undertake planning of similar scope. A practical disadvantage of the Given a choice between federal or State Federal-Inter-State Compact is that they sponsorship for similar planning activi- have often taken years to negotiate. ties, it would seem desirable to have The negotiations leading to the Susque- State sponsorship in order to reflect the hanna Compact took approximately seven breadth of State concern with regard to years and negotiations for the Potomac Bay uses and the States' intimate concern Compact have already taken six years. with the Chesapeake Bay in particular. This leads to the conclusion that much The River Basin Commission, or some sim- of the planning for comprehensive Bay re- ilar institution, may, however, be an source management should be directly re- appropriate planning vehicle for planning sponsible to the State executive. studies leading to an interstate compact between Maryland and Virginia or a Fed- eral-Interstate Compact. The River Bas- 3 River Basin Commissions in Commission is primarily oriented to planning (including programming for re- a. General Description sources management, establishing prior- River Basin Commissions are ities, making recommendations, etc.). authorized by Title II of the Water Re- They do not have authority to operate sources Planning Act (which also created or construct projects or to regulate. the Federal Water Resources Council) and This separation of planning and imple- can be described as "separate federal and menting power is ultimately a major dis- state institutions assisted by joint advantage in terms of effective water federal-state planning bodies." (Ref. 5) and related-land resources management. It is authorized to prepare The executive branch of State government and keep up to date a comprehensive program does not suffer this liability. It now for water and related land resources devel- has significant powers to regulate and opment within a river basin; to make re- construct projects and is capable of commendations as to priorities for data taking on new powers as planning studies collection, and for investigation, plan- demonstrate their need and purpose. ning and construction of projects; and to submit through the umbrella of the Water Resources Council, a development program 4 Federal—Regional Agencies including recommendations for implementation. The basic Water Resources Plan- a. General Description ning Act evolved as a result of past exper-, In a Federal-Regional Agency, ience of Federal Agency coordination and local and state governments have no leg- joint Federal-State Planning Committees. al powers in formulating or executing Many agencies working together in joint policies or programs. The Agency seeks program planning, as visualized in such and receives the cooperation of State institutional arrangements as this, bring and local governments and non-govern- about a great amount of cooperation in mental agencies as advisors and collabr management and administration. orators. An agency of this nature would b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake be financed by Congressional and State Bay appropriations and by government revenue Many of the activities that the and other types of bonds and oper- Water Resources Planning Act authorizes ated by a presidential governing board. the River Basin Commission to undertake The only well-defined example are similar in scope and purpose to those of the Federal-Regional Agency in the recommended for the Chesapeake Bay. How- United States is the Tennessee Valley ever, in Maryland, State government has Authority. already been or could be authorized to b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake Bay 311 The TVA was created in response two or more State governments. It is to a very different situation than that authorized to plan and prepare programs, which exists in the Maryland Chesapeake and to coordinate the activities of the Bay Area in the 1970's. The TVA was or- agencies responsible for administering ganized in part to create a vehicle for projects and activities included in the the construction of major public works programs. The boundaries of such Fed- infrastructure for regional economic eral-State Commissions are related to an development. In the Chesapeake Bay Area, area in which intensive effort to achieve the need is for sensitive and effective economic growth is needed, rather than to management mechanisms for balancing mul- the specific confines of a river basin, tiple demands for resource conservation and drainage area, estuary or the like, development. The Appalachian Regional Commis- The TVA was created for an area sion is the most widely known operation- in which the state and local government al Regional Federal-State Commission, had proved ineffective in raising the b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake economic well-being of citizens. In the Bay Maryland Chesapeake Bay Area, State and The Regional Federal-State local government is much better organized Commission is likely to have more im- to bring to bear appropriate levels of plementing effectiveness than the River expertise and regulatory and implementing Basin Commission (see "3" above) due to power for effective resource management. its authority to "coordinate" the ac- It is unlikely that State government would tivities of state and federal agencies be willing or feel it necessary or desir- whose programs are instrumental in the able to entrust management of Bay resources Commission's plans. On the other hand, to a Federal agency. the Regional Federal-State Commission The outlines of such an organ- has less implementing power than the ization for the Bay can be found in pro- Federal-Regional Agency (see "4" above) posed legislation for a Chesapeake Bay since it does not have power to construct Area Authority introduced by Delegate or operate facilities itself. This Boyer into the Maryland General Assembly middle-ground position may have potential as House Bill 200, January 21, 1970. The applicability in Chesapeake Bay resource bill called for an Authority formed by management. Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware and the Under present legislation, Federal government to "develop and adapt Regional Federal-State Commissions usually a Comprehensive Bay Management Plan." (Ref.6) focus primarily on problems of economic Powers would include: review and approval growth and development. This is reflect- of projects by others; water supply stor- ed in the boundaries selected by these age and release; water quality management; commissions which are usually related to flood protection; watershed management; an area in which intensive effort to recreation; and amenity plans for river achieve economic growth is needed, rather zones. than to an area defined also by resource protection and preservation concerns. In Maryland, the Department of Community 5 Regional—Federal—State Commissions and Economic Development has economic growth and development as a major purpose; "the a. General Description protection and preservation function is Regional Federal-State Commissions ...more demanding of a Bay-wide organ- are provided for in Federal Public Works ization than is the positive function of and Economic Development legislation. developing the special attributes of Such a Commission includes repre- the Bay." (Ref. 3) sentation of the Federal Government and 312 6 River Basin Inter-Agency Committee is less a matter of operation of major a. General Description physical facilities than a matter of A River Basin Inter-agency Com- standard-setting, regulation, establishing mittee is established by Federal inter- priorities, examining alternative means agency agreement rather than being a leg- etc. Also, various State and local a- al entity created by statute. State a- gencies -- the Maryland Environmental Ser- gencies may agree to participate in the vice, the Port Administration, and local proposed program. The basic thrust of sanitation departments have responsibil- such a Committee has been to coordinate ity for operating waste treatment plants planning with some evolving posture to and port facilities in the Bay area. coordinate and review subsequent programs. Committees such as these cannot undertake the construction or operation of projects 8 Intra-State Special Districts but can seek out common ground on studies and investigations and establish priori- a. General Description and Examples ties for continuing attention. Intra-State Special Districts The Water Resources Council has are local units of Government established several of such committees functioning by State laW with authorization to plan, as Field Committees. construct and operate local projects of b. Appropriateness in Chesapeake one or several types. The most common Bay examples of such districts are soil and While coordination of planning water conservation districts, irrigation and programming efforts among Federal districts, water supply districts, and agencies is a worthy endeavor, this is flood control districts. The boundaries not the major need for comprehensive Bay of such districts might include all or resource management from the State's v parts of several counties, or be smaller point of view. From the State's point of than a county, or even be coterminous with view, the major need is to coordinate a county. These districts are often State agency planning, regulation, con- financed through special assessments that struction, etc., for conservation and they are authorized to levy on lands in development of Maryland Bay resources. the district supplemented by State appro- The State would then be in a position to priation and often having substantial expect federal agencies to coordinate their Federal assistance. activities with its comprehensive plan b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake for Bay resource management. Bay Special districts have been effective in doing relatively well and 7 Federal Administrator of Operations narrowly defined jobs for which there is widespread public support (e.g. flood a. General Description and Existing control). Their effectiveness stems from Example their characteristics of combining all The Department of the Interior the aspects of the job (e.g. planning, has responsibility for administering the construction, operation, etc.) in a sin- Colorado River -- an arrangement which gle organization, in their ability to was established by a Federal Enabling define an appropriate area for their op- Act and which incorporates provisions of erations without regard to local juris- a prior interstate compact. dictional boundaries, and in their rela- b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake tive isolation from local and state pol- Bay itical disputes. Unfortunately this does The management of Bay resources not describe the nature of the job of Bay resource management: which involves 313 difficult trade-off decisions among ing the Bay resource management could be multiple objectives, the weighing of through a strengthened single State Agen- costs and benefits for a wide range cy with its powers expanded and augmented. of alternative means, and the resolu- In the case at hand, the State Depart- tion of issues involving many legitimate ment of Natural Resources would seem political interests. closest to fitting the case with its all encompassing mandate for resources man- agement and conservation. There is al- 9 Council of Governments ready specific provision for the Secre- tary of Natural Resources "to seek the a. General Description preservation of the optimal state of The "Council of Governments" the Chesapeake Bay through the organiza- approach is capable of creating valid tion of an interstate body to plan, man- associations of city and county govern- age, coordinate and enforce the proper ments. It acts as a forum to review and use of the Bay..." But to be effective discuss regional problems. It tries to in such a role the agency would have to build on existing conditions without dis- achieve control (either through its law turbing the legal status of cities and or through an aforementioned interstate counties. body) over development factors affecting The Regional Planning Council for the Bay as well as those of a conserva- the Baltimore Region, the Tri-State Plan- tion nature. Additionally, a spread of ning Commission for Southern Maryland and effectiveness through the other levels the Delmarva Planning Council for the of government would have to be attained. Eastern Shore are councils of government A newly created State agency operating in the Maryland Bay Region. might be visualized with broad enough The Washington Metropolitan Area has a powers and functions to cope with the similar organization. problems of the Bay and its management. b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake An agency with shared responsibility Bay with other levels of government, with A combination of the existing significant functional as well as pol- council of government organizations in the itical representation, and with the Maryland Bay Region or a new council of power to plan, to manage and to regulate local governments including Bay-shore coun- might be conceived. Such an agency ties could be an element in Bay resource would have to have broad functional and management, particularly in terms of de- activity prerogatives and would have to velopment infrastructure. be able to lace together in a network However, the council of govern- -- even though probably complicated -- ment approach does not effectively incor- a modus operand! to accomodate the porate State functions, or responsibilities many-faceted problems. in Bay resource management. Also, councils b. Appropriateness to Chesapeake of government are limited in authority -- Bay usually offering recommendations but not The Chesapeake Bay and its area engaging in regulation, construction, or of related influence takes in most of operations . Maryland and Maryland State functions. Creating a super agency with a multi- purpose mandate would be tantamount to 10 The Single State Super Agency recreating another -- and competitive -- State government. It is not considered a. General Description as a serious proposal. A significant device for approach- 314 11 Summary Conclusions on Organization Footnote for Bay Resource Management Maryland State Government is now well orga nized to carry out Bay resource manage- Perspective on Bay Resource Man- ment and single-purpose planning. There agement Studies is 1 ittle purpose in proposing structural Governmental organization for water chan ges in a system that has just been resource management has been under almost inst ituted. continual study for the past decade. Stu- Federal-State responsibilities dies have been conducted by State agen- and State-local areas of authority are cies and non-State agencies, often with not so clear. Each level operates with support of State agency staff. The stu- a co nsiderable lack of communication if dies have taken various perspectives on not outright mistrust of the other. the Bay. In combination and sequence, And most specifically, the organ- these efforts provide a valuable perspec- izat ion for responsibility of developing tive on evolving Bay resource management. and updating a comprehensive overall The following items are a few highlights: plan ning function for the Bay does not a- Future Administration of State now exist. of Maryland Water Resources Activities, (A Report to the Governor), March 1961, Mary- land State Planning Department. b. "Maryland - State Laws, Policies and Programs Pertaining to Water and Re- lated Land Resources", September 1966, Maryland State Planning Department. (A summary of steps taken by the Maryland Legislature in 1964 in realigning state agency responsibilities relating to nat- ural resources.) c. "Maryland's Role in Water Re- sources Development", 1966, Craine, Lyle E. (A study for the Water Resources Study Committee of the University of Maryland. The study reviewed emerging water re- sources problems in Maryland, considers the role of the State in water resource development and concludes that "the State has three general types of respon- ibility regarding water use and develop- ment: 1) to prosecute Maryland's inter- est in interstate waters; 2) to assure optimal use and development of natural waters under its jurisdiction; and 3) to assure efficiency in the provision of water and sewerage service in the overlapping metropolitan areas around Baltimore, Washington and Annapolis." (P- 1). d. "Susquehanna River Basin Com- pact", Revised January 1967, Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna 315 River Basin. (For several reasons, References among them the different stages of plan- ning and analysis for the Chesapeake Bay vis a vis the remainder of the Susque- hanna watershed, the Susquehanna River 1. Power, Garrett, Chesapeake Bay in Basin was defined for administrative Legal Perspective, March 1970, (part of purposes to not include the Chesapeake National Estuarine Pollution Study by the Federal Water Pollution Control Bay. ) e. Maryland State Government Reor- Administration, U.S. Dept. of the Interior), ganization 1970-71. (Formation of super pp. 223, 224; p. 224. State agencies to coordinate State policy in major functional areas: natural re- 2. Central Atlantic Environmental sources, transportation, economic and News, Vol. 1, No. 10, October 29, 1971, community development.) 3. Crairie, Lyle, "Problems of Organ- izing for Coordinated Resources Manage- ment in the Chesapeake Bay", Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesa- peake Bay, 1968, pp. 209; p. 206; p, 207; p. 208, 209; p. 208. 4. McHugh, Dr. J. L., "Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay", Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, p. 11-153. 5. Water Resources Planning Act, Title II. 6. Maryland House of Delegates Bill #200, January 31, 1970, Section 3.02. 316 VI Major Elements of a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay 317 VI MAJOR ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY A WHY MARYLAND STATE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN PLANNING FOR THE " — - . . . 319 BAY B. GENERAL NATURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • 320 C. . SUMMARY OUTLINE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS 321 D. COMPONENT PLAN DESCRIPTION 322 1. Water Resource Element 3 2 2 2. Natural Resource Element 3 2 3 3. Shoreline Protection Element 4. Bay Related Activities Element 325 5 . Coordination and Implementation Element • •3 2 7 327 6. Summary Remarks Regarding Component Plans E. STEPS FOR PLAN PREPARATION 328 1. Steps to Formation of Organizational Entity and Funding for Plan Preparation 328 2. Steps Subsequent to Formation and Funding of Organization for Plan 328 Preparation • SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 3.2 9 Plate 33: Schedule for Preparation of Components and Elements of a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay 330 318 A compass the southern portion of the Bay. Why Maryland State However, it is felt that such an agreement should follow the present Government Should Take comprehensive planning efforts rather than precede them. the Lead in Planning Resource management problems in for the Bay the Maryland portion of the Bay are urgent. In many cases, these problems are separable from those in the Maryland State Government has southern section of the Bay. Many recently reorganized in a manner that of the inter-state dimensions of lends itself to effective Bay resource problems have not been adequately management. The five major State documented. Also, a formal agreement Departments involved can deal effective- (e.g. an interstate compact) between ly with operating problems but need a the states must focus on particular comprehensive plan containing a resource management problem areas -- unifying set of guidelines and concepts, which should be defined and documented prepared through a clearly articulated, by preceding planning efforts. centralized, visible and accessible Even if a full complement of process of planning to give coherence, interstate arrangements is ultimately direction and integration to their created, these will be likely to deal programs. with selected problem areas which The nature of this planning effort benefit from interstate management. and the kind of plan to be prepared There would remain a large area of resource are major factors in deciding who should management problems particularly for prepare it. Therefore, the elements economic development which must be dealt of the plan and the steps necessary to with in anintra-state context. Most its preparation are considered here. inter-state compacts, in fact, have a relatively narrow problem area focus, The case can be made that only a though they seek comprehensiveness in portion of the Bay lies within Maryland geographic scope. Thus, much coordination and therefore a Bay Plan should be and conflict resolution among problem prepared by an agency of the Federal areas would remain to be dealt with at Government or a Federal-interstate the intra-state level. compact organization. Time, urgency, Local jurisdictions bordering the size and other key aspects of the Bay should participate in compre- Maryland's portion of the Bay all point hensive planning for Bay resource manage- toward Maryland State Government taking ment. However, any institutional arrange- the lead in developing a comprehensive ment for planning should avoid geographic plan for coordinated Bay resource management. representation per se since final approval of a Bay plan by General Assembly ensures The northern half of the Chesa- equity on a geographic basis when final peake Bay is entirely within the State trade-offs are made. It is necessary of Maryland. Almost all of the State to preserve a Bay-wide geographic scope of Maryland is within the Chesapeake for comprehensive planning efforts. Bay watershed. By its estuarine nature, Federal agencies with Bay resource the Chesapeake Bay presents resource management responsibilities (e.g. Corps management problems different from of Engineers; Environmental Protection those of the major fresh water streams Agency, etc.) should participate in and rivers feeding it. comprehensive planning for Bay resource Of course, comprehensive planning management. The State must adopt an for the Maryland portion of the Chesa- institutional planning process that peake Bay should not preclude a future gives a central point of contact and formal agreement with Virginia to en- responsibility for relations with Federal and other agencies. 319 B General Nature of the Comprehensive Plan component (other than water); and the human activity that actually happens on, in, or over the Bay. It must also provide a suitable Traditional models of comprehen- mechanism for coordination with present sive plans are not applicable to the on-going planning by all levels of govern- Chesapeake Bay. Those for large urban ment for the Bay and adjacent areas. areas do not deal with resource alloca- It must take a posture of "facilitating" tion problems. Historic as well as and coordinating other planning, not recent examples(Ref.1) of river basin trying to pre-empt it. plans tend to focus on land use and do On the issue of whether a plan for not take cognizance of the dynamics of such a huge area and such a diverse the water system. client can lay claim to "comprehensiveness" There is no exact counterpart for i.e. that it can aggregate goals, examine the kind of plan needed for the Chesa- all feasible alternatives, provide peake Bay. While portions of a plan adequate measures of equity, stand the must address themselves to typical tests of time, and include full means of functional (e.g. transportation) or implementation, the answer must be no, areal (e.g. portions of the Bay) require- if the test is a theoretical ideal.(Ref.4) ments, the need is for a plan for manage- Plans at this scale are more or less ment of the Bay as a system and series comprehensive on a continuum rather of sub-systems. than comprehensive or not. The plan for This kind of plan must recognize the Chesapeake Bay must aspire to as that there are no "solutions" since great a degree of comprehensiveness as any action to modify problems sets up poss ible. new situations and new problems. We Most specifically, the plan and do not have adequate information to the planning process must take account tell the full effect beyond the first of all of the following: round of changes in the system and, a. The entire Maryland portion of therefore, except for short-range manage- the Bay, including all sub-estuaries; ment, the traditional "problem-solving" b. The relation of the Maryland posture of planning is inadequate. In- portion of the Bay to the rest of the stead, a multiple objective approach is Bay and to the Bay's watershed; needed, even though the difficulties of c. The entire scope of Bay functions developing choice criteria for incom- and problems; mensurate goals and other conceptual as d. Water and land planning inter- well as operational weaknesses are relationships ; major.(Ref.2) The San Francisco Bay e. Resource conservation and Plan(Ref.3) appears an appropriate resource development objectives; instrument for control of some aspects f. The wide range available of of that Bay, but is not an adequate alternate means of implementation ,- model, except in part, for the Chesapeake g. And, the range and diversity of situation. What is needed is a shift citizen and governmental interest and from "management by (limited) objective" involvement in Bay affairs. to a "management of means".1 Elements of a Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan must deal much more directly with all aspects of the Bay system than any previous plans for a similar area: the water component and processes; the natural resource 320 c Summary Outline of Major Elements The five major elements of a comprehensive plan for the Chesapeake Bay are: (1) Water Resource Element; (2) Natural Resource Element; (3) Shore- line Protection Element; (4) Bay-Related Activities Element; and, (5) Coordination and Implementation Element. For descrip- tion purposes, the sub-elements of each major element will be called "plans". The network of elements, and component plans follows, with a description of each in the succeeding text. 1. Water Resource Element 1.1 Hydrologic System Plan 1.2 Water Supply Plan 1.3 Water Pollution Abatement Plan 1.4 Waste Discharge Plan 1.5 Flood Control Plan 2. Natural Resource Element2 2.1 Fisheries Plan 2.2 Wildlife Plan 2.3 Wetlands Plan 2.4 Resource Extraction Plan 3. Shoreline Protection Element 3.1 Natural Process System Plan 3.2 Shore Recreation and Open Space Plan 3.3 Shore Development Guidelines Plan 3.4 Soil Conservation Plan 4. Bay-Related Activities Element 4.1 Marine Transportation Plan 4.2 Water-Related Industrial Plan 4.3 Water-Related Power Plan 4.4 Waterfront Access Plan 4.5 Water Recreation Use Plan 5. Coordination and Implementation Element 5.1 Intergovernmental Relations Plan 5.2 Citizen Participation Plan 5.3 Legislative Plan 5.4 Financial Plan 5.5 Information System Plan 5.6 Continuing Planning and Research Plan 5.7 Economic Evaluation Plan 321 D Component Plan DeSCriptiOn establishes the basic benchmark for water quality for Maryland waters. As part of this planning process, specific water use zones are identified. Current standards Each of the component plans is need to be detailed and made more specific described below with a brief list of as constraints related to flow, duration steps or work program items to be of flow, odor, chemical content, appear- developed in its preparation. ance and turbidity. The EPA has also set standards which need to be coordinated with the above. Particular attention must be paid to parts of the system (ground 1 Water Resource Element water, and surface drainage standards) that affect Maryland waters. Since the water 1.1 Hydrologic System Plan use zones already established respond to The concept of this plan is that present water quality, they need it is a descriptive model of the hydro- re-examination and revision, as anti- logic system of the Bay (water budget) pollution steps are taken. The Water Use to which performance goals can be Categories (Shellfish Harvesting, Public applied. The U.S. Corps of Engineers or Municipal Water Supply, Water Contact hydrologic model is an essential tool Recreation, Propograiton of Fish, Other to this end in that, at a gross level. Aquatic Life and Wildlife, Agricultural implications of water withdrawal and Water Supply, and Industrial Water Supply) major projects for the performance will also need to be revised as Use Zones of the system can be evaluated. change. Similarly, micro-climatic effects of the elimination of forest cover or 1.2 Water Supply Plan evapotranspiration can be weighed. The Hydrologic System Plan is a What will make this a plan, "water supply plan" for water in the Bay. rather than simply a descriptive model This plan component deals with supply will be the application of goals for for human use, both for consumption and performance. The analysis of alternative in economic processes. The Water ways of effecting the multiple objec- Quality Standards also serve as goals tives involved, and decisions regarding in this plan. To date water supply has courses of action should be translated been dealt with on a piece-meal basis, into specific legislation and acts. albeit a regional one. Protection In the process of development of measures for ground water and aquifer use the plan, sub-estuary hydrologic system must be incorporated on a Bay-wide basis models and plans will have to be if localized problems are to be resolved, prepared, and calibrated with the Since the question of water supply overall model. At first crude, such is also tied to that.of the location and models can be made increasingly timing of economic and social growth, fore- sophisticated as research is carried casts of Bay-region growth and agreement out on the interaction of the sub- on water need and utilization must be systems. dealt with as part of the planning process. Particular attention must be paid to fresh water input, diversion and land/ 1.3 Water Pollution Abatement Plan water interchange subsystems. The Maryland Environmental Service The adoption of Water Resources is committed to preparation of water Regulation 4.8 "General Water Quality pollution abatement plans for natural Criteria and Specific Water Quality areas wherever pollution exceeds water Standards for All Maryland Waters"2(Ref•5) quality standards set for such an area. 322 The overall plan envisioned here must the guidelines which will protect and en- not only be an aggregation of hance the essential components and charac- constituent sub-estuary plans but teristics of that system. Many human uses also establish priorities and set the of the Bay are directly dependent upon parameters of the Bay-wide need. Ob- the efficient functioning of the total eco- viously one way of reducing or increas- system, including commercial harvesting ing the "pollution problem" is to of fish and wildlife, most recreational redefine zones. The economics involved activities including fishing, waste dis- in the study and reduction of water posal capacity, and the aesthetic ap- pollution require the use of linear pearance of the Bay and its tributaries. programming inter-industry input-output For instance, the Maryland segment of models to enable an adequate level of the Bay, including as it does the low- specific knowledge as to the trade-offs salinity high-population portion of the involved. nation's largest estuary, involves vast nursery areas for fish which are im- 1.4 Waste Discharge Plan portant to the entire Mid-Atlantic Region. This component plan also is In these areas, the ecosystem supports integral to the Maryland Environmental essential food supplies, precludes Service's mandate for pollution abate- dangerous predators, and require specific ment plans for sub-estuaries. Both and positive protection from excessive liquid and solid wastes are involved, alteration. with steps to include the evaluation of all current plans, and a determination 2.2 Fisheries and Wildlife Plan of the receptive capacity of the Bay This plan deals with the harvested for future increases in the need for living resources of the Bay. These waste disposal. living resources require a series of sub- plans for each major type of resource: 1.5 Flood Control Plan e.g. shellfish, anadromous fish, game To a large degree flood control birds, etc. These plans should set is a Federal responsibility. However, productivity goals, establish gaps between Federal programs need to be incorporated performance and goals, analyse alternate into local plans. There are many flood- courses of action to narrow the gaps, prone areas that do not come under propose appropriate programs and policies Federal jurisdiction and/or priority, for implementation, and outline action and development of the shoreline may research to provide feedback into the increase or decrease flood exposure. planning process. The Flood Control Plan should collect data on flood impact in a form 2.3 Wetlands Plan appropriate for benefit-cost accounting The program initiated by the DNR and PPBS-type program evaluation (see under the Wetlands Act should be formalized Economic Evaluation Plan infra). to produce a plan component of the Natural Resource Element. Obviously this is a "hinge" component between water and other natural resources. Based on identification 2 Natural Resource Element and description of the role of wetlands, a method for weighing relative importance 2 .1 Ecosystem Plan and establishing priorities must be This plan would provide for com- evolved, not only for current wetlands pletion of the required understanding but also for the creation of new of the complex and productive ecosystem wetlands areas. The wetlands plan com- present in the Bay and development of ponent should embody a classification 323 system for wetlands that establishes identified by the inventory into dynamic priorities in the natural regimen that biophysical processes, and thence to indicates degree of vulnerability to the formulation of the area under study change, and that provides for acquisi- as an ecological model of interacting tion and/or preservation in a natural biophysical processes. state where appropriate. An important in- The second phase of these ecologi- put to the preparation of the Wetlands Plan cal planning studies consists of re- will be the biological models that will constituting these data as a social enable an understanding and evaluation value system -- that is, attributing of the specific role of each wetland in values that can be widely shared to each small sub-ecosystem. the processes and to the environment. The ecological model then enables the 2.4 Resource Extraction Plan planner not only to trace the effects A first step in the preparation of on the whole system of any change in this plan is to compile an inventory of all part of it, but also to demonstrate a known valuable deposits of sand, gravel, benefit-cost accounting that includes and other non-living resources. They non-economic as well as economic values. should then be examined (on a priority The next step in this planning basis) for their potential environmental process interprets the above data in impact of their extraction. terms of intrinsically suitable land An important aspect of the evalua- uses by matching uses and areas on the tion of the extraction plan is the issue basis of disturbing the natural system of whether other sources are available for least in a "creative fitting". This urban growth, and the cost implications synthesis also shows how various uses, of restricting Bay sources. by skillful design and engineering, can be accommodated with little damage or even beneficial effect on the ecosystem. Paralleling the above steps is a 3 Shoreline Protection Element socio-economic and physical planning study that explores (through socio- 3.1 Natural Process System Plan economic "growth" analysis and evaluation Shoreline land use planning is of current plans, projects, and aspira- a function of local government and it tions) the extent to which these is not the intention of this plan com- development proposals are in conflict ponent to preempt that function. Rather, or congruent with (or neutral to) the the purpose of the Shoreline Protection intrinsic suitabilities of the area and Element and its component plans is to its ecology. determine the nature and extent of The preparation of the Natural Bay-wide — and therefore State -- Process Plan then involves posing alter- interest in local land use decisions nate courses of action to minimize con- vis-a-vis the Bay system. Thereafter flicts and maximize congruence of planned the questions that must be asked are: development with the intrinsic charac- Is the Bay-wide interest being served by teristics of the ecosystem. local decisions? And, if not, what It should be noted that at least steps must be taken? one county (Anne Arundel4) and the Re- The Natural Process System Plan gional Planning Council(Ref•7) have begins with an ecological inventory of taken significant steps toward the the shoreline by sub-estuaries. The preparation of such Natural Process areas involved will be determined by Plans, and the Department of Natural a "zone of interaction" between land Resources has several sub-estuaries al- and Bay using water in motion as the ready under similar types of study. linkage. The next step is the re- constitution of the natural phenomena 324 3.2 Shore Recreation and Open Space violates these criteria, then the Plan burden of proof must be on local The Department of State Planning initiators and a process of review and in conjunction with the Department of higher decision developed as part of the Forests and Parks have published a Coordination and Implementation Element State-wide Outdoor Recreation and Open Ref 8 below. To a degree this might represent Space Concept Plan.( - ) This plan withdrawal of full zoning authority at is at a quite general level and did not the local level. In fact it is a have the background research and under- formalization of authorization the State standing of small ecosystems, or of now has through its concern for overall disaggregated growth patterns that will public health, safety and welfare. result as outputs of other plans and elements outlined herein. The major in- 3.4 Soil Conservation Plan put will be the Natural Process Plan Soil conservation pains have been and other plans, with areas specified for prepared for many counties by the USDA permanent open space in accord with Soil Conservation Service. Much of the criteria of intrinsic suitability, land around the Bay has been classified amenity, historic value and particular for soil type and soil characteristics vulnerability to environmental despolia- and this work is a central input to the tion. This Plan is conceived as a various plans above, particularly the refinement of the present State-wide Natural Process Plan. plan, plus the inclusion of devices for Full coverage has not been achieved its implementation. and positive plans for soil conservation as a major factor in the drainage of sub- 3 • 3 Shore Development Guidelines Plan estuaries and the minimization of silta- The Shore Recreation and Open tion and pollution have not been completed. Space Plan will say where not to build. Soil stabilization and reforestation are The Natural Process Plan will spell out crucial to control of the water regimen. intrinsic suitabilities for each specific With the input from other component plans, area, conflicts and congruences between sub-estuary soil conservation plans can likely and planned development and in- be aggregated to Bay-wide scale as the trinsic land suitabilities. Soil Conservation Plan and properly re- The Shore Development Guidelines lated to other components and elements. Plan has these basic plans as input. It has as its principle component an envi- ronmental matrix.^ An environmental 4 Bay Related Activities Element matrix defines the environmental impact characteristics of all kinds of land 4.1 Marine Transportation Plan uses and human activity. Based on these Much planning has been done for the as "input" to the environment, the major harbors and for the Bay as a whole objective is to "match" specific uses by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and with ecological areas that can accom- the Maryland Port Administration. How- modate the "input" with minimum negative ever, this work has not been aggregated effects. formally as a Bay-wide plan, and it has The Shore Development Guidelines not had the advantage of input from other Plan establishes criteria -- based on component plans, particularly other Bay-wide (i.e. State) interest in local components in the Bay-Related Activities planning and development -- that stipu- Element. late the conditions under which any The development of this Plan should particular land use decision will be begin by forecasting alternative .futures permitted. If local decisions are con- regarding marine activity and casting sistent with the criteria, then zoning these into the development projects changes and ultimate development are necessary to their implementation. unaffected. If proposed development Central to the evaluation of these alter- 325 nate futures for marine transportation (as examination of alternate sites and well as for water-related industry: see criteria for location of power plants , 4.2 below) is the development and use of and the examination of potential impli- a regional inter-industry accounts model. cations and/or "trade-offs" necessary A working model already exists for the for less than optimal locations. Through Baltimore Region(Ref.9) ana at a more environmental impact studies and inter- general scale for the Eastern Megalopo- action with work in other components, such lis.5 Use of these models as well as more as the Natural Process Plan, the most conventional economic benefit-cost suitable sites from a Bay-wide view can analysis will enable an adequate evalua- be reserved, and the special guidelines tion of the value of channel deepening, for plant development can be specified. harbor development and other projects. These values can then be introduced in 4.4 Waterfront Access Plan the PPBS-type evaluation proposed in the County and State transportation Coordination and Implementation Element. plans do not directly address the access The resulting Marine Transporta- problem of the Bay. While this Plan will tion Plan can then clearly spell out the be a part of such plans, it is necessary goals, alternatives, expected environ- to have a transportation component that mental impact and socio-economic implica- outlines proposed shoreline access as tions, actions proposed, and financial an important "agent of change" in en- requirements for carrying out the Plan -- couraging (or discouraging) specific Bay not as an isolated set of projects but uses. Highway plans should be related as part of the overall Bay-Related to plans for marinas, open space, Activities Element of the Comprehensive industrial and residential development, Plan for the Bay. and^conservation areas. Since current transportation plans also have been pre- 4.2 Water-Related Industrial Plan pared without benefit of the input from Bay and water-related industrial intrinsic suitability analysis (Natural planning has been carried out largely Process Plan) they need reexamination to on an ad-hoc basis in response to determine the Bay-wide (and therefore economic problems of local communities. State) interest in them. These separate plans should be screened, coordinated and aggregated into a Bay- 4 .5 Water Recreation Use Plan wide plan. All possibilities of de- Water recreation use is considered veloping the Bay shoreline for water- a component of the Bay-Related Activities related industry should be examined for Element even though it is closely related their direct and indirect impacts on to the Shore Recreation and Open Space local and regional economies. With Plan in the Shoreline Protection Ele- the impacts of industrial development ment (see 3.2 above). The reasoning is proposals estimated "in terms of total that as water recreation demand grows, production volume changes and their recreational use of water areas will accompanying labor requirements",(Ref•9) increasingly have to be more closely the explicit impact of environmental and directly controlled (through use "trade-offs" can be ascertained and zoning, boat licensing, and the develop- recommendations for compromise reached ment of commercial recreation) than through the Coordination and Implementa- will be possible through shoreline con- tion Element of the Bay-wide Plan. trol or the setting of water quality standards alone. This control will be 4.3 water-Related Power Plan largely an operating responsibility, and This Plan will involve the es- only its long-term implications regarding tablishment of long-range goals for use development projects would be part of of the Bay for power plant location. the Plan. 326 5 Coordination and Implementation Element network (CBIN) will be developed, clear- ing houses selected, procedures es- 5.1 Intergovernmental Relations Plan tablished for data selection, storage, In the development of this Plan, and retrieval, and data banks establish- the output of other components will be ed. The Graphic Encyclopedia (mapping) continuously surveyed in terms of the procedures8 will be developed to relationship of Bay planning by State integrate the massive graphic output of agencies with that of other levels of the various Plan components and Elements. government. Basically, this is a plan for the long-term intergovernmental re- 5 - 6 Continuing Planning and Research lations for management of the Bay's Plan resources. Its output will be specific This Plan should outline procedures recommendations for changes (if any) for future long-range planning, research, in assigned responsibilities and coordin- and feedback which will be needed to up- ating mechanisms. It should set up a date the Bay-wide Plan, its elements mechanism for review of current^projects, and components. It should also recommend and county, regional and Federal plans what organization or organizations should as regards their conformance or con- be responsible for continued planning. flict with elements and components of the Bay-wide plan. 5•7 Economic Evaluation Plan Economic evaluation is seen as a 5.2 Citizen Participation Plan service function in both preparation The initial purpose of this Plan of components and elements and in con- is to establish the basis for citizen tinuing planning. The organizational participation in the process of capability for operating the Bay-wide preparing the Comprehensive Plan for the inter-industry regional accounts model, Bay, and to recommend the continuing and the application of benefit-cost relation of citizens to both planning accounting and PPBS-type evaluation and operating levels of management of techniques is the output of this Plan. Bay resources. A program for public education regarding Bay planning will be a part of this Plan. 6 Summary Remarks Regarding Component Plans 5 . 3 Legislative Plan Each of the component plans and It is at once apparent from the Elements will produce (to varying above outline that many rearrangements degrees) proposals for changes in legis- and consolidations of component plans lation. The purpose of this Plan is are possible. Even though division of to integrate these proposals and provide the overall task into elements and for scheduling and priority determina- components inevitably does some damage tion in their presentation to the to what is conceived as an interlocking Governor and the General Assembly. web, it is necessary for purposes of division of labor and responsibility. 5 . 4 Financial Plan The task of reintegration into a coherent, The Financial Plan will play a internally consistent, and defensible function similar to the above as an comprehensive plan will be a major feat overall aggregating and synthesizing of technical and managerial skill and component. the art of government. 5.5 Information System Plan The idea of an information system 327 Steps for Plan Preparation 1.6 Discussion with Federal and local agencies of proposed procedure. 1.7 Discussion with civic, business, Is is estimat ed that three years and academic interest groups of will be required to prepare a Prelimin- proposed procedure. ary Comprehensive P lan for the Chesa- peak e Bay. A short er time is not 1.8 Adoption by government of organiza- real istic when cons idering the complexi- tion and method of funding for and ty a nd size of the task. A longer steps toward preparation of plan. time cannot be take n due to the urgency of m any issues. 1.9 Approval of funds for preparation It is importa nt to realize that of Comprehensive Plan. ther e will be outpu t from the planning proc ess that will a id in decisions during 1.10 Formal initiation of organization the three year peri od. In fact parts for Plan preparation. and recommendations will be put into impl ementations Ion g before the Pre- limi nary Plan is re ady for formal pres entation to the Governor and General Asse mbly. 2 Steps Subsequent to Formation and Funding Steps toward preparation of the of Organization for Plan Preparation Plan include, but o f course, are not limi ted to the foil owing. 2.1 Recruitment of necessary director and staff. Assignment to task forces of various department staff. 2.2 Preparation of draft study design Steps to Formation of Organizational Entity by relevant staffs and consultants. and Funding for Plan Preparation 2.3 Formation of citizen and intergovern- 1. 1 Discussion, modification and mental coordinating committees. agreement by CBIPC on nature of Comprehensive Plan for Chesapeake 2.4 Preparation, Review and Approval of Bay and organizational requirements Final Study Design. for its preparation. 2.5 Commencement of Study 1.2 Recommendation to Governor on next steps. 2.6 Monthly progress reports to Governor, and semi-annual progress 1. 3 Preparation by relevant departments reports to General Assembly and of working papers on study outline public. and responsibilities and pre- liminary cost estimates. 2.7 Preparation of draft component plans as completed. 1.4 Consideration by CBIPC of working papers. 2.8 Review and approval of component plans as completed with continuing 1.5 Preparation of documentation for public meetings and discussion. governmental assignment of responsi- bility for plan preparation. 2.9 Preparation of draft Preliminary 328 Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Elements of a 2.10 Submission of draft Preliminary Comprehensive Plan for Plan to Governor and departments for review. the Chesapeake Bay 2.11 Modifications in draft and Sub- Five elements and twenty-five com- mission of Preliminary Plan to ponent Plans have been identified to General Assembly. constitute a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay. The nature of this Plan 2.12 After review and public hearings, should influence decisions regarding approval of Comprehensive Plan for organizational responsibility for its the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland) in preparation. principle, and enactment of rele- Generally, interdisciplinary teams vant legislation. should be formed to prepare component plans working on sub-estuary and special area assignments. Thus, Natural Process Plans would be prepared for each sub- estuary over the first two years of the study, and then aggregated in the first half of the third year. As each sub- estuary plan was completed, its input to the various other plans -- e.g. Water Pollution, Flood Control, Wetlands- would be made, with a feedback from those planning processes before the aggregate Natural Process System Plan for the Bay was completed. For Bay-wi'de and functional scale planning of components, work would be by groups of specialists within one or a few disciplines. Thus, the Hydraulic System Plan would begin by a preliminary concept of the whole Bay-wide and water- shed system during the first six months. This would be followed by sub-estuary water budget delineation for an estimated year during which work teams would be interdisciplinary. For the final year work would refocus at the Bay-wide scale to prepare for input from all of the other components. Work programs beyond the scope of this Report must be developed for further delineation of team and task force as- signments. The next chapter considers the appropriate general form of organi- zation for preparation of the twenty- five component plans, five elements, and Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay. 329 PLATE 33: Geographically specific focus c Schedule for Preparation of Components and Elements of a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Ba> 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1. Water Resource Element 1.1 Hydraulic System Plan 1.2 Water Supply Plan 1.3 Water Pollution Plan 1.4 Waste Discharge Plan 1.5 Flood Control Plan 2. Natural Resource Element 2.1 Ecosystem Plan 2.2 Fisheries and Wildlife Plan 2.3 Wetlands Plan 2.4 Resource Extraction Plan 3. Shoreline Protection Element 3.1 Natural Process System Plan 3.2 Shore Recreation and Open Space Plan 3.3 Shore Development Guidelines Plan 3 4 Soil Conservation Plan 4. Bay-Related Activities Element 4.1 Marine Transportation Plan 4 2 Water-Relatpd Industrial Plan 4.3 Water-Related Power Plan 4.4 Waterfront Access Plan 4.5 Water Recreation Use Plan 5. Coordination and Implementation Element 5.1 Intergovernmental Relations Plan 5.2 Citizen Participation Plan 5.3 Legislative Plan 5.5 Information System Plan 5.6 Continuing Planning and Research Plan Preliminary Plan Preparation 330 Footnotes References 1. The Bay might be looked at as a 1. Report and Concept Plan for the giant refinery. Its management involves Patuxent River, Maryland Department of control of a complicated series of State Planning, Urban Research and Develop- physical and chemical processes to ensure ment Corporation, 1970. the objective of high octane fuel pro- duction. 2. Hufschmidt, Maynard M., "Environ- mental Quality as a Policy and Planning 2. Water is, of course, a natural Objective", JAIP, July, 1971, pp. 231-241. resource. However, it is a natural resource of such fundamental importance 3. San Francisco Bay Plan, San Fran- that it is dealt with as a major plan cisco Bay Conservation and Development element in its own right. Commission, Jan. 1969. 3. The biological models would be 4. Bolen, Richard S., "Emerging Views similar to those proposed for development of Planning", in Journal of the American by the University Consortium. (Ref.6) Institute of Planners, July 1967, pp.233-245. 4. Work in progress by the Anne Arundel 5. Water Resources Regulation-General Department of Planning and Zoning. Water Quality Criteria and Specific Water Quality Standards for All Maryland Waters, 5. The "Eastern Seaboard Model", being Water Resources Commission and Department developed by the Regional Science of Water Resources, May 22, 1967. Institute in Philadelphia, generates information for eight industrial clas- 6. The Chesapeake Bay: Report of a sifications at a County level of detail Research Planning Study, The Johns Hopkins with regard to estimating economic and University, University of Maryland, Virginia employment changes and impacts. Institute of Marine Science, pp. 127-150. 6. This examination should draw on 7. "Land Utilization Potentials of the current work of the Chesapeake Bay Cooling Baltimore Region, Based on Natural Criteria", Waters Study Group in developing "in- Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, formation that will provide a more ade- Maryland, Martin L. Collin, Dec. 1970. quate basis for decisions with respect to the location, design, size and operation 8. "Maryland Outdoor Recreation and of power plants". (Ref.10) Open Space Concept Plan", Maryland Depart- ment of State Planning. 7. See sub-section V-B-2 above. 9. "The Baltimore Regional Economic 8. See sub-section V-B-3 above. Study", Regional Planning Council, Balti- more, Maryland, October, 1969, p. 1. 9. See sub-section V-A. 10. "Report on Research Activities and Proposals", Steering Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Cooling Waters Study Group, September, 1970, p. 2. 331 VII Who should prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesapeake Bay? 332 VII WHO SHOULD PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY? A. CRITERIA FOR BAY PLANNING 334 1. General Criteria 1.1 Comprehensiveness 1.2 Coordination ...'.'..'..'.'...'.'.. 334 1.3 Responsibility * 334 2. Specific Criteria for Plan Preparation ,,,,,. 2.1 A Major Effort ' ' J 2.2 Planning Period 334 2.3 Separation from Operational Activities 2.4 Interdisplinary Planning '..'....'...... '.....'.... 2.5 Temporary Commission 2.6 Access and Visibility 2.7 Accountability 2.8 Technical Capability ." ...... ].[.[..[] .[ .].]]] [ Ill B. ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PREPARATION 335 1. Alternative One: Assignment to a Single Agency 335 1.1 Possible Assignments 1.2 Evaluation ' 336 2. Alternative Two: Continuation of CBIPC 336 3. Alternative Three: Assignment to a Temporary Commission 337 C FORMATION, ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF A TEMPORARY CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION "" _ • 337 Composition of the Chesapeake Bay Commission 337 2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chesapeake Bay Commission 333 2.1 Plan Review and Coordination Approach 330 a. Water Resources and Natural Resources Elements 333 b. Shoreline Land Use Element " 3,9 c. Bay-Related Activities Element 339 d. Bay Coordinative Management Element 339 e. Information Storage and Retrieval Element *""" 340 2.2 The Task Force Approach 340 3. Report to the Governor D. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 341 333 A Criteria for Bay Planning 1.3 Responsibility An agency that is politically responsible to all jurisdictions related The formation of the Chesapeake to the Bay, directly or indirectly. Bay Interagency Planning Committee with its ten (original) members was in recognition of the need for a comprehen- sive plan and a rationalized management 2 Specific Criteria for Plan Preparation system for the Bay. The reorganization discussed in Chapter VI above has In a systems approach to adaptive sharply focused management responsibili- management, the planning process is seen ty -- as evidenced by the present five as a subsystem of management and opera- member agencies of CBIPC. It was con- tions . cluded that changes in management of However, as has been emphasized, operating programs, except those internal no single agency is authorized to pre- to the various departments/are not pare a comprehensive plan for the Bay, desirable, at least for the present. nor is one currently geared to do so. The fact of five agencies -- each The conclusion is drawn, therefore, with planning functions that affect the that a planning task force must be Bay and jurisdictions adjacent to the formed with appropriate institutional Bay — more than ever argues for a backup. This is necessary for eight centralized planning function, at least reasons. for the development of a comprehensive Bay plan. 2.1 The importance of the task must be recognized as requiring a major effort. No agency alone has the capability under 1 General Criteria current funding. Capabilities of a Bay planning 2.2 The time period for the development organization should include: informa- of a comprehensive plan for the Bay must tion, research, planning, (limited) be no longer than about three years. Re- operations, citizen participation, feed- source issues cannot wait. This accelera- back and adaptation. In addition, a ted pace means that current staff of State Bay planning agency should have the agencies, even in concert, will have great following characteristics: difficulty mounting the effort required. 1.1 Comprehensiveness 2.3 The long-range and goal-setting nature An agency that can take into ac- of the task requires a reasonable separation count the full range of interests, from day-to-day, short-range operational disciplinary points of view, and values planning and management. of all jurisdictions related to the Bay with a Bay-wide approach. 2.4 The interdisciplinary nature of the responsibility involved requires skills 1.2 Coordination and levels of staff commitment not availa- An agency that does not displace ble currently in any single agency. existing agencies at state or local level, but is capable of coordinating 2.5 The temporary nature of the develop- them by means of a single plan and ment of a Plan militates toward a task unified program, at the same time force approach in contrast to a continuing utilizing the expertise and efficiency need for modifying and updating the Plan of existing agencies. and for implementing its programs. 334 B 2.6 The democratic nature of the re- Organizational Alternatives sponsibility requires that the process be accessible and visible to the general for Comprehensive Plan public, that affected interest groups and concerned agencies be involved, and that Preparation the Executive Branch be accountable. The nature of the Plan to be pre- 2.7 The administrative nature of the pared, and the criteria for the process responsibility requires assignment to an of its preparation should influence the organization not only accountable to the decision as to who should prepare it. Governor, but one that will act as a con- Three major alternatives open to the tact point for Federal and local planning Governor are considered -- assignment and research. of the responsibility to: 1. One or another of three major 2.8 The responsible nature of the assign- departments: the Department of State ment means that investigative, analytical Planning (DSP), the Department of and planning capability must be available Natural Resources (DNR), the Department to fully investigate resource utilization of Economic and Community Development issues as background for recommendations (DECD). (The Departments of Health and on decisions . Transportation are not considered as appropriate candidates). 2. All three major departments, with agreed upon specific assignments for planning elements as follows: a. DNR - Water Management and Natural Resource Management Element. b. DECD - Bay-Related Activity Management Element. c. DSP - Shoreline Management Ele- ment; Bay Management Coordina- tion Element. The organizational device for coordination would be the continuation of the CBIPC in its present form. 3. Assignment to a temporary plan- preparation commission (Chesapeake Bay Commission) formed to prepare a plan to be presented to the Governor with recommendations concerning the plan's implementation and the commission's continuing role. (Two variations with- in this alternative are considered in Section C2 below). The following paragraphs consider the advantages and disadvantages of the three alternatives. Alternative One: Assignment to a Single Agency The first alternative for the 335 preparation of a Comprehensive Bay Plan -- would allow any one of the three possible assignment to a single agency -- has points assignments mentioned above, but the to commend it. However, it involves po- criteria for Bay planning (Section A tential bureaucratic difficulties as well above) would suggest none of them as as the implication that the Bay Plan would completely adequate. The importance be dominated by one set of values or point of the Comprehensive Bay Plan and the of view. short time available for its preparation suggest a task force and consultant 1.1 Possible assignments approach that needs to be tightly inte- The Department of Natural Resources grated and orchestrated by a central has the greatest stake in operating re- responsibility. sponsibility,and its mandate could,with- The major trouble with either DNR out much stretching,include performance or DECD taking on the job is the fact of criteria for all land uses regarding their operating responsibilities, their impacts on the Bay. It could have The plan preparation is like making a the responsibility for plan coordination major commitment to the development of and preparation, form a board for interest the atomic bomb while carrying on the group involvement, and, in effect, "sub- war. The analogy cannot be pushed too contracfwith DECD and DSP for their ele- far, but a reasonable separation of mentSi comprehensive planning from operating The Department of Economic and responsibilities (but with feedback and Community Development is a less likely involvement of those operationally candidate. Its legislative mandate and responsible) is critical. Because of operating responsibilities would have to their operating responsibilities, no be radically broadened, and its public image department, not even State Planning, as "development, oriented" would have to be can afford the full-time assignment or modified. major involvement of their top people. Nevertheless its competence does not State Planning is the least in- exist elsewhere in State government and volved in operations but deeply involved it could "sub-contract" water and natural in day-to-day crises of an operational resource elements- nature as advisors to the Governor. The Department of State Planning has It is also deeply involved at regional and the responsibility for preparation and local levels. Any board it would convene updating of the State Development Plan that would serve at the Secretary's pleasure, contains plans for geographic parts (e.g. and therefore would be responsible to plans for counties and regions) and func- the Secretary, not the Governor. The tional elements (e.g. plans for highways, highest level citizen involvement would water supply, outdoor recreation, etc.) of be more difficult to achieve than if the State. Its particular assignment is any board reported to the Governor. For planning and coordination. It could take these reasons, any version of Alternative on the responsibility for a comprehensive One is not recommended, plan for the Bay and establish any necessary boards for interest group participation. This choice might work if it were recognized that the substantive elements would be 2 Alternative Two: Continuation of CBIPC prepared by relevant department experts, either assigned to a DSP task force, or The CBIPC has been effective to a coordinated by such a task force. degree but has been hampered by lack of staff, and by divergent views as to 1.2 Evaluation what it should do. As a committee it The nature of the comprehensive plan serves at the pleasure of the Governor 336 whose attention must be focused to a large degree on the day-to-day decisions. Formation, Organization As a committee, CBIPC does not have and Powers of a Temporary the stature or institutional responsibility 3 necessary for the major task of preparing Chesapeake Bay Commission a Bay plan. it has served as a forum for different ideas and views, but is not Examination of the three alterna- a decision-making group. If it made de- tives in the light of the nature of the cisions they would not be necessarily bind- planning task and the criteria for its ing on the constituent departments. preparation suggests adoption of the Although the CBIPC could be adequate- third alternative. A temporary commis- ly staffed, partly from the departments and sion for the preparation of a Compre- partly with its own personnel, its "in- hensive Bay Plan meets the criteria of formal" status is a compelling reason for its rejection. comprehensiveness, coordinative role and responsibility set up in Section A above. The commission should be established by Act of General Assembly. The proposed 3 Alternative Three: Assignment to a title is the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Temporary Commission 2 Until the commission becomes operative, the CBIPC should be authorized to act The third alternative is to recon- in its stead. stitute the CBIPC as a formal, albeit temporary. Commission, either by assign- ment from the Governor, and concurring resolution by General Assembly, or by 1 Composition of the Chesapeake Bay Commission Act of General Assembly. The latter is not necessary but is desirable to indicate The Commission would be made up of legislative intent. in either event, the both technical and lay representatives. Commission should be responsible to the Technical representatives would be from Governor. State and local agencies, lay representa- A temporary commission best meets the tives from Federal, State and local various criteria for the planning process. governments, in a manner similar to the It centralizes responsibility for prepara- San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel- tion of the plan. Assuming adequate fund- opment Commission. ing , the commission alternative recognizes State agencies represented include: the importance of the effort and would - Department of State Planning provide for a task force of staff and con- Department of Natural Resources; sultants to carry it out. Its work would Department of Transportation; be separated from day-to-day management Department of Economic and Com- planning, but related to it. munity Development; An official Commission would have - Department of Health and Mental status to attract top professionals and Hygiene responsible citizens. It would be fully Public representatives should be drawn accessible and visible through public hear- from: ings. It could be assigned as the contact science - academia; point for coordinating Federal and local industry; agencies within its areas of concern. conservation. Precedent for such a Commission is that In addition, there should be "associate" formed by the State of California to pre- memberships in the CBC so that a broad pare the San Francisco Bay Comprehensive range of potentially affected groups can Plan. be informed during the planning process. These groups could include: 337 - regional and local planning water quality and quantity; agencies directly affected; " conservation and development - other states and interstate of natural resources. - priority for conservation - ?ederilSAgencies: and/or development of wetlands, e g. the U.S. Army Corps of The Department of Natural Engineers, the Environmental Resources would prepare the water re- Protection Agency, the Soil sources and natural resources elements Conservation Service (U.S. Dept. of the Comprehensive Bay Plan. The of Agriculture), the Department Secretary of the Department of Natural of the interior. Resources is "responsible for the coordination and direction of compre- hensive planning in the area of natural 2 Powers and Responsibilities of the resources". The Department of Chesapeake Bay Commission Natural Resources has responsibility to "unify, coordinate, and promulgate Two general approaches would be policies, plans, programs and practices available to the Chesapeake Bay Commission which will insure the preservation, de- in carrying out its responsibilities. The velopment, wise use, and enDoyment of first approach can be described as "plan all the natural resources for the review and coordination" with no changes in greatest benefits to the State and its State agency planning authority. The citizens".(Ref•2> Thus, though Chesa- second approach is the CBC task force with peake Bay" is not specifically mentioned, temporary assignment of planning functions DNR has clear authority m the area of relating to the Bay. comprehensive planning for natural resources and water resources management. 2.1 Plan Review and Coordination Approach In developing a comprehensive Under this approach, the CBC would plan for Bay resource management, DNR have no planning staff. It would review would carry out its responsibility m plans developed by State agencies, and the area of water resources and natural provide a forum for discussion and coordina- resources. Though this planning would tion. No changes in State Department focus on the Bay itself it would authority would be required. The legisla- also have to recognize th« "*^; tion establishing the CBC, in addition to of domestic, industrial, commercial, forming the Commission, would simply place and institutional processes on an additional responsibility on existing the water resources and natural departments — to join together to produce of the Bay. a comprehensive. • „ „-iplan =r, f^vfor +-v,othe wavBay. The various subsections of DNR The planning process would respect now have a considerable array of rele- existing functional areas of State agency vant regulating and implementing powers, planning authority. In rough outline, these However, as yet, a comprehensive plan for their application has not been pre- are as follows a. Water Resources and Natural Re- pared. sources Elements, includT^ While recognizing that the - water quality objectives and protection and preservation thrust is (not) more important than the development - relation of water quality and one" and that, in fact "protection and water quantity; development are but different sides of - impact of domestic, industrial the same coin", Lyle Craine argues that and commercial activities on "the protection and preservation func- tion is...more demanding of a Bay-wide 338 Vx organization than is the positive function power plants, etc. -- have impacts and of developing special attributes of the user patterns which far transcend local Bay". f.3) The Planning effort describ- boundaries. Further, the Bay shoreline ed above would have development aspects, is increasingly seen as a limited particularly in the natural resources area, resource; comprehensive planning from but the main emphasis would be in protec- a Bay-wide perspective is needed to tion and preservation of the integrity of ensure optimal use of the resource for the estuarine system. conservation and development. b. Shoreline Protection Element, Shoreline land use planning including: at the State level would not duplicate - allocation of public uses to local land use planning efforts. The shoreline erosion control; State level effort would consider a - priorities for shoreline erosion broader range of functions -- ecological control; and developmental -- than do most local - comprehensive plan for recrea- efforts. For the limited shoreline tional use of the shoreline; area, the State level effort would very - preparation of shoreline develop- likely be based on different land use ment guides. planning objectives, and oriented In detailed shoreline land use towards a different set of development planning and regulation, a variety of State controls than local land use plans. agencies have major and legitimate interests. Thus, the Bay-wide shoreline 1-and use The relevant agencies include the Depart- plan would not be equivalent to a ments of State Planning, Economic and compilation of local plans for these Community Development, Transportation, and areas. Natural Resources. c. Bay-Related Activities Element, However, the land uses are so including: various, land and water resources management - marine transportation program are so interrelated in shoreline areas, and plan; and conservation and development objectives - water-related industrial de- are so intricately intertwined, that no velopment plan. single State agency has been given major The newly organized Department authority for planning in this area. The of Economic and Community Development Department of State Planning, however, has has the capability and mandate to special authority for coordinating the plans develop the various sub-plans under and programs of State departments, and for this element, working with the Depart- suggesting means for intergovernmental ment of Transportation (Maryland Port planning coordination of plans and programs Administration) and local planning of Federal, State, local, and regional agencies. Its promotional and develop- agencies.(Ref-2) it is therefore suggested ment efforts can be paralleled with the that the State Planning Department under- establishment of long-range plans for take a coordinating role in shoreline land the assigned areas. The Department of use planning. Economic and Community Development is Present land use planning and de- most sensitive to the importance of velopment control in shoreline areas is the Bay and its resources to the whole primarily a local responsibility. However, economy of the State. there is increasing recognition of the need d. Coordination an Implementation for planning for these areas which would Element, including: be more comprehensive in terms of geography, - needed legislation for Bay functions, and objectives. Many shoreline resource management; land uses — ports, industrial areas, - organization for application recreation facilities and parks, electric of technology and research in 339 Bay resource management (e.g. environmental information by means of systems models development and space satellite; the Johns Hopkins Maryland/Virginia academic consortium maintenance); - interstate resource management which is developing techniques for cata- loging the results of Bay-related re- initiatives; - the permanent role and stature search, etc. The information storage and retrieval function can be a major of the CBC. Under this approach the CBC would coordinating force in and of itself. The CBC should have staff to enable it have responsibilit-y to monitor the com- to perform this function. /The staff prehensive .pl-anning process, to provide involved would not be policy planning a forum-'-for discussion of various planning staff but specialists in /library and effcfts contributing to the overall plan, information science. The future State -to recommend legislation and other imple- government organization for information mentation tools for the plan and to make storage and retrieval can be separated recommendations on organization for imple- from the question of the ultimate menting the plan and continuing the plan- organization for Bay resource management. ning process. The mandate establishing On the basis of experience in Bay re- the CBC would give it the authority to source planning, decisions can be made address these tasks. It should be possi- on whether to extend centralized informa- ble to make recommendations on the topics tion services to a broader functional mentioned above with the assistance of and geographic scope, and on what sort limited special staff and consultants as- of State agency should perform these signed to the CBC itself. services. In any case, the comprehen- An important part of the total sive planning effort for Bay resource planning effort is to give special management and the CBC provide a suitable attention to the needs of implementation task and organizational vehicle for an and for future organization for planning experiment in centralized information and plan implementation while the sub- stance of the plan is being developed, as handling. well as hold public hearings and provide 2 . 2 The Task Force Approach citizen involvement. The task force approach differs e. Information System Plan-Part of from the plan review and coordination Coordination and •Implementation approach in that the CBC would have Element including: a substantial task force staff with - Development of the Chesapeake technicians hired specifically, and Bay Information Network (see borrowed from relevant agencies. In Section V-B2); addition major "assignments" could be - Development of Graphic Encyclope- undertaken by Department specialists dia (see Section V-B3). as well as by consultants. Under either approach to compre- The Commission's strength would be hensive Bay planning, the CBC could have by virtue of being the recipient and a special information storage and retrieval distributor of all funds for plan prepara- function. Individuals agencies would con- tion. It would be designated the agency tinue to gather information relating to for receipt of Federal grants1 as well their specific planning, regulating and special State appropriations for planning implementing functions. The CBC, however, related to the Bay as determined by the could assemble all this diverse informa- Commission. tion for comprehensive planning purposes The CBC would have power to hold and coordinate State information efforts public hearings as well as access to with parallel efforts (often using ad- any public data that it required for its vanced technologies) of other agencies: e.g. Federal agencies which are collecting 340 D work. The CBC would have temporary juris- Summary of Recommendations diction for Bay planning activity now as- signed various Departments, and their operational plans would be required to be referred for review and comment to CBC. 1• Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC) The Commission's temporary powers should Form the CBC by Act of General also include mandatory review and comment Assembly. before issuance of permits for all projects designated by it as within its jurisdiction 2• Composition of Commission a. Secretaries of the Departments of State Planning, Natural Resources, 3 Report to the Governor Economic and Community Development, Transportation, Health and Mental Hy- The CBC should, at the conclusion giene . of the planning period, deliver to the b. Citizen members from science, Governor and the General Assembly the academia, industry and conservation. Preliminary Comprehensive Plan for the c. Associate (non-voting) members Chesapeake Bay. The Plan should be then from Federal, regional and local govern- subjected to legislative debate and public ments and agencies. hearings, and, as modified and as appro- priate, approved in principle by resolution 3• Powers and Responsibilities The comprehensive plan for Bay a. Complete within three years resource management would then become a a Comprehensive Plan for the Chesa- part of the State Development Plan pre- peake Bay. pared by the State Planning Department b. Retain an Executive Director to guide the economic and physical develop- and such staff as are deemed necessary. ment of the State. Whatever the organiza- c. Be the designated recipient tional arrangements for comprehensive Bay and disburser of all planning funds for planning, the product should be suitable Bay-related activity within assigned for inclusion in the State Development Plan jurisdiction. The CBC should make recommendations d. Have mandatory review for com- to the Governor regarding additional powers ment over all plans of constituent needed to implement the plan; concurrence agencies. or non-concurrence of agency plans, in- e. Have mandatory reviews for cluding operating plans, with the Compre- comment before issuance of permits for hensive Plan; directions with regard to all projects of constituent agencies. inter-governmental relationships; and its f. Be designated the contact point own permanent role and stature, if any. for all Bay-related matters for Federal, regional and local levels of government. g. Be authorized to conduct re- search and to engage in,such educational and promotional activities as necessary. h. Develop and maintain the Chesapeake Bay Information Network and Graphic Encyclopedia with the cooperation of all State agencies. i. Hold public hearings and have the power to subpoena testimony during the preparation of the plan. 341 Footnotes specific scope of CBC responsibilities would not be finite, generally, the "Com- mission" would serve as a forum for dis- cussion of major issues affecting the Bay; 1. U.S. Senate Bill #582(Ref.l) Would have mandatory advisory responsibilities "establish a national policy and develop on overall programs of Baywide significance a national program for the management, including legislative review and initiation; beneficial use, protection, and develop- offer a broad range of working policies, ment of the land and water resources of technical expertise, and strategies for the nation's coastal and estuarine zones". Bay management; and, responsibility for It would provide up to $600,000 per developing a Bay "road map" for long-range state for three years for plan prepara- management similar to the Susquehanna and tions on a 2/3:1/3 matching basis, and Potomac Commissions. administration grants thereafter for 2/3 b. Create a "Chesapeake Bay Commis- of the cost of implementation. sion" through the Governor's sanction and legislative mandate. The "Commission" com- 2. Three variations on the third Al- position would be the same as a.(above) ternative considered were: with the addition of two members appointed a. Create a "Chesapeake Bay Com- by the General Assembly. Areas pertaining mission" through the Governor's sanction to Alternates and generalized scope of (executive order) and/or legislative man- responsibilities would be the same as date. Said group would be composed of the above with the possible addition of more Governor (or Lt. Governor) of Maryland closely knitting the executive, legisla- as permanent Commission Chairman with the tive and citizen sectors to implement Bay- Secretaries of State Planning, Natural wide management. Resources, Community and Economic Develop- c. Create a "Chesapeake Bay Com- ment, Transportation and Health and Mental mission" through modification of the Hygiene as Commission members. The "Com- existing legislative intent of Chesapeake mission" should meet annually within one Bay Affairs (CBA), an agency of the De- month prior to the Susquehanna River partment of Natural Resources. Said Basin Commission's annual summit meeting group shall be composed of the members attended by the Secretary of Interior and of the existing CBIPC with staff services governors of the three signatory states as provided by CBA. Generally, the role of the four commissioners. Each CBC member this Commission would be policy planning would designate an alternate to represent for comprehensive Bay management and ad- the policies, programs and technical abil- visory responsibilities on land and water ities of his respective agency. The parent related issues. The informal directive of CBC would direct the alternate from the this group would be a comprehensive policy Department of State Planning to supply plan to aid the Governor and legislative staff services to the Commission in ad- decision-makers in prudent management of dition to his other responsibility. The the Bay's resources. Alternates Commission would meet at least quarterly. To insure that a broad spectrum 3. In all cases it should be borne in of the citizenry would be involved in Bay mind that this is a Maryland Chesapeake decision-making, committees would be Bay Commission. Hopefully it will be created at the discretion of CBC. However, followed by Virginia and Delaware Chesa- one permanent committee composed of various peake Bay Commissions and coordinating members of the conservation-industry- action at the Federal level, scientific sector would be established to serve as an advisory council. While the 342 References 1. "National Coastal and Estuarine Zone Management Act of 1971", U.S. Senate Bill #582 (Introduced by Senator Hollings on February 4, 1971). 2. "The Annotated Code of Maryland" Article 41, Section 234, Article 32A, Section 4, Article 88C, Section 2. 3. Craine, Lyle, "Problems of Organizing for Coordinated Resources Management in the Chesapeake Bay", Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, September, 1968, p. 208, 209. 343 Appendix A: Management and Planning Approaches to Conflict Resolution 344 A. MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING; APPROACHES TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION INTRODUCTION 347 A- DAY-TO-DAY BAY MANAGEMENT: REACTIVE FRAMEWORKS " " ' ~ —— 348 1. Reactive Frameworks and Environmental Matrices .... ,„o 2. Geological Survey Circular 645 - A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact Figure 1: Environmental Impact Matrix: Existing Environmental Characteristics and Conditions vs. Proposed Actions 349 3. Maryland Wetlands Framework Figure 2: Framework for Display of Information'Regarding'Wetlands 0 Decisions 351 4. Benefit-Cost Analysis Plate 34; Field Data Stations ' to 'be 'Estabiished '.'.".'.".".'.".'.'.".•.'.'.'.'.'.\\" ." .' 35^ B- ^ INFORMATION AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL STRATEGY: PREACTIVE FRAMEWORKS .. 352 1. Inventorying and Monitoring 1.1 inventorying Bay Characteristics, Activities' knd Facilities". '.'.'. [ 352 1.^ Monitoring Environmental Change • 352 2. A Chesapeake Bay Information Network (CBIN): A Proposal . 354 2.1 A CBIN Prototype: ERIC ^ 2.2 Outline of a Chesapeake Bay Information Netwoik . .1 .].]][ ... '.'...... [ [ .... ' 355 3 Steps Toward the Implementation of CBIN: The Graphic Encyclopedia ... 356 3 2 nlsfan^V ^ GraPhics APP«ach in Regional Environmental Management .'.' 357 3.2 Design Criteria for the Graphic Encyclopedia .. 357 3.3 The Graphic "Telescope" and Examples of the Map System '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 353 Plate 35: Scale A: Interstate Context of the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study 359 Plate 36: Scale B: Regional Scale (Maryland Poition'of'the Chesapeake Bay) 360 03 C: Count Scale Anne P!!^ 11'' f ^ y < Arundei'couniy"as'Exam ie) ".'.'. 361 Plate 38: Scale D: Local Scale (Rhode River-West River Area Pas Example) 362 Plate 39: Scale E: Soils Survey (Parish Creek-Cedaihuis t' Ar'e'a ' as Example) 363 Plate 40: Scale F: Property Ownership (Paiish'cieek-Cedaihuist Area as Example) 354 Figure 4: Aggregation of Data by Means of the Graphic" Telescope' '.'.'.'. '. 366 345 Plate 41: Composite Legend 367 Plate 42: Map Composite: Scale C (Anne Arundel County as Example) 368 Plate 4'3: Map Composite: Scale D (Rhode River-West River Area as Example) 369 3.4 Technological Support for a Graphic Encyclopedia 366 4. Steps Toward the Implementation of CBIN: Coordination of Information Systems • 371 4. 1 Chesapeake Ecological Data and Inventory System 371 4. 2 State Agency Environmental Management Information Needs 372 C. SYSTEM MODELING AND PLANNING - ADAPTIVE FRAMEWORKS 374 1. The Relation of Synthesis and Systems Modeling and Resource Management 374 Figure 5: General Interaction Diagram - Estuary Segment 375 2 . Current Systems Modeling Efforts • 374 2 . 1 U.S. Corps of Engineers Hydrological Model of the Bay 375 2. 2 Baltimore Regional Economic Study 376 2.3 The Linkage of Ecologic and Economic Systems 376 Figure 6: Conceptual Framework for Linkage of Economic and Ecologic Systems 377 2.4 Systems Simulation for Regional Analysis 378 Figure 7: Structure of Susquehanna River Basin Model Elements 378 Ecological and Socio-Economic Planning 379 Introduction 379 Phase I - Formulation of an Ecological Model 380 Phase II - Interpretation of the Area for Intrinsically Suitable Land Use. 381 Phase III - Socio-Economic Planning Study • 383 Phase IV - Match of Ecological and Growth Models • 384 Phase V - Plan Formulation • 384 D. IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS. 385 1. Wetlands Conservation 385 2. The Maryland Environmental Service 385 3. Water Pollution Control 386 4. Comprehensive Water Pollution Control Program. 386 5. Water Supply and Waste Disposal Plans 386 6. Shore Erosion Control Program 386 346 Introduction sed below follow a sequence from reactive response to projects with an environmental component, through preactive response (the development of capability to respond The Environmental Policy Act of to as yet unannounced projects) to adap- 1969 directs all Federal agencies to tive response (efforts to understand and "identify and develop methods and pro- quantify the interactions among ecological cedures which will insure that presently and economic system elements)1. Adaptive unqualified environmental amenities and frameworks attempt to conceptualize and values are given appropriate considera- understand interrelationships within tion in decision-making along with econ- larger portions of the total reality with omic and technical considerations." which management is attempting to cope. This section deals with necessary respon- In the case of Bay management, this in- ses to this and similar State directives. volves the integration of more economic The need for systematic frameworks and ecological system entities and pro- and methods for relating conservation of cesses for more comprehensive geographic the Bay's resources and resource utiliza- areas. Preactive frameworks involve tion objectives is acute. The point has procedures to make information available been made before that a critical problem in an appropriate scope, form and level of planning as it is now practiced is of detail for Bay management decision- the lack of "mediating" concepts and making. Preactive frameworks should re- techniques at an intermediate level flect and assist in the development of between overall goals and specific adaptive frameworks, but they focus on proj ects. decisions regarding the types of inform- Broadly stated goals are of little ation needed to inform environmental specific use in making choices between management decisions, the monitoring of projects and only serve as emotional environmental conditions and the problems arguments. Yet specific projects must of information retrieval. Reactive frame- be related to broad planning goals if works refer to procedures for responding the benefits of comprehensive Bay man- to the day-to-day management decisions agement are to be achieved. that in the aggregate make up environmental The objectives, standards and pol- management policy. The reactive frame- icies outlined for twenty problem areas works discussed below are attempts to in- in Chapter II are intended to help fill corporate available information and know- this "intermediate" gap and to assist ledge into day-to-day decisions and to the planner in evaluating goal inter- ensure a reasonable consistency of day-to- action. However, relatively sophistica- day decisions with broad adaptive frame- ted methods are necessary to utilize works, while maintaining responsiveness the results of goal formulation in a pro- and decisiveness in public policy. cess of plan making and management Most public policy efforts include decision. reactive, preactive and adaptive aspects The approaches discussed in this in some degree. Also, to a certain ex- chapter are oriented towards making reas- tent, the reactive, preactive and adaptive onable, confidence-inspiring decisions frameworks are applicable under different in the context of much uncertainty about conditions, to different subjects, and at the factors and interrelationships in- varying "states of the art". But to a volved and in situations involving great significant extent they are compatible pressure for decisions — where delay and and complementary, reflecting different further study are, in effect, decisions. areas and levels of concern and management The methods and frameworks discus- purposes. 347 A Day-to-Day Management: Reactive Frameworks/ This type of analysis does not produce an overall quantitative rating but por- Environmental Matrices trays many value judgements." (Ref. 2) Analysis involves definition of i Reactive Frameworks and Environmental Matrices two aspects: definition of the magnitude (degree, extensiveness or scale) of the Day-to-day management is the cut- impact on specific sectors of the envir- ting edge of environmental policy-mak- onment, and weighting of the degree of ing, the point at which necessary deci- importance of the specific action on each sions are made or not made in the light environmental factor under analysis. of available knowledge and information- The authors warn that "assignment al resources. Often, of course, there of numerical weights to the magnitude and is neither the time nor the money to importance of impacts should be, to the conduct major systems studies as back- extent possible, based on factual data ground for particular decisions and en- rather than preference. Thus the use of vironmental managers are called on to a rating scheme such as the one suggested make judgemental evaluations of impacts here discourages purely subjective opinion and tradeoffs based on their accumulated and requires the author of an environmental knowledge of the geographic area and impact statement to attempt to quantify subject matter involved. Environmental his judgment of probable impacts. The matrices have been developed both to ap- overall rating allows the reviewer to fol- ply the judgements of competent envir- low the originator's line of reasoning onmental managers to decisions in which and will aid in identifying points of environmental policy is now made by de- agreement and disagreement." (Ref. 2) fault and to expose these judgements to The matrix method is not however a review by other environmental managers. "resolver" of conflicts. It does, however, The environmental matrices act as an serve as "a checklist or reminder of the organizing framework for the application full range of actions and impacts"(Ref• 2> of accumulated knowledge and profession- and is an aid in identifying ways in which al judgement, and as a display device the proposed action can be modified to re- to indicate the variety and magnitude duce the potential environmental impact. of linkages between land use and activity What the matrix method does not do is and environmental consequences. Thus, point up the importance of the action that for example, a shopping center can be is proposed (objectives). Nor does it described by hard top coverage, runoff suggest any ways in which the conflicts rate, and effect on siltation, aquifer it spells out may be ameliorated or re- recharge, etc. Many environmental ma- conciled . trices are being developed for various Figure 1 displays 100 actions which management purposes. (Ref. 1) TWO may cause environmental impact and 88 en- are summarized below for illustration. vironmental characteristics which may be impacted by particular actions. In the circular, the two lists are juxtaposed to form the matrix. 2 Geological Survey Circular 645 — A Procedure The lists are not intended to be for Evaluating Environmental Impact exhaustive but illustrative. With some actions and environmental situations, the "This circular suggests an approach lists would be reduced, or expanded in to [determine the probable impact of a parts. proposed action on the environment] by providing a system for the analysis and numerical weighting of probable impacts. 348 EHVIRQUHENTAL IMPACT MATRIX GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 645 (Rot. 2 ) Existing Characteristics and Conditions of the Environment II. Proposed Actions which Hay Cause Environmental Impact A- Physical and Chemical Characteristics A. Modification of Regime 1. Earth Mineral resources Exotic flora or fauna introduction Construction material Biological controls Soils Modification of habitat Land form Alteration of ground cover Force fields and background radiation Alteration of ground water hydrology Unique physical features Alteration of drainage River control and flow modification Canalization Surface Irrigation Ocean Weather modification Underground Burning Quality Surface or paving Temperature Noise and vibration Recharge Snow, ice, and permafrost B. Land Transformation and Construction Atmosphere a. -Urbanization a. Quality (gases, particulates) b. Industrial sites and buildings b. Climate (micro, macro) c. Airports c. Temperature d. Highways and bridges e. Roads and trails Processes f. Railroads Floods g. Cables and lifts Erosion h. Transmission linos, pipelines and corridors Deposition (sedimentation, procipita i. Barriers including fencing Solution j. Channel dredging and straightening Sorption (ion exchange, complexing) k. Channel revetments Compaction and settling 1. Canals Stability (slides, slumps) m. Dams and impoundmenta Stress-strain (earthquake) n. Piers, seawalls, marinas, and sea terminals Air movements o. Offshore structures p. Recreational structures Biological Conditions q. Blasting and drilling r. Cut and fill s. Tunnels and underground structures Trees Shrubs C. Resource Extraction Grass Crops Blasting and drilling Microflora Surface excavation Aquatic plants Subsurface excavation and retorting Endangered species Well drilling and fluid removal Barriers Dredging Corridors Clear cutting and other lumbering Commercial fishing and hunting Processing Farming Benthic organisms Ranching and grazing Insects Feed lots Microfauna Dairying Endangered species Energy generation Mineral processing Corridors Metallurgical industry Chemical industry Cultural Factors Textile industry Automobile and aircraft 1. Land Use Oil refining Wilderness an open spaces Food Wetlands Lumbering Forestry Pulp and paper Grazing Product storage Agriculture Residential Land Alterati* Commercial Industrial Erosion control and terracing Mining and qu, Mine sealing and waste control strip mining rehabilitation Recreation Landscaping Hunting Harbor dredging Fishing Marsh fill and drainage Boating Swimming Resource Renewal Camping Picnicking Reforestation Resorts Wildlife stocking and management Ground water recharge Aesthetics and Human Interest Fertilization application Scenic views and vistas Waste recycling wilderness qualities Open space qualities Changes in Traffic Landscape design Unique physical features Railway Parks and reserves Automobile Monuments Trucking Rare and unique species or ecosystems Shipping Historical or archaeological sites md Aircraft objects River and canal traffic j. Presence of misfits Pleasure boating Trails Cultural Status Cables and lifts a. Cultural patterns (life style) Communication b. Health and safety Pipeline c. Employment d. Population density Waste Emplacement and Treatment Man-Made Facilities and Activities a. Ocean dumping Structures b. Landfill Transportation network (movement, access) c. Emplacement of tailings, spoil and Utility networks burden Waste disposal d. Underground storage Barriers e. Junk disposal Corridors £. Oil well flooding g- Deep well emplacement Ecological Relationships Such as: h. Cooling water discharge i. Municipal waste discharge including spray Salinization of water resources irrigation v * * Eutrophication j- Liquid effluent discharge Disease-insect vectors k. Stabilization and oxidation ponds Food chains 1. Septic tanks, commercial and domestic Salinization of surficial materi, m. Stack and exhaust emission Brush encroachment n. Spent lubricants Other Chemical Troatmont Fertilization Chemical deicing of highways, at' Chemical stabiliiation of soil Weed control Insect control (pesticides) Explosions Spills and leaks 349 Operational failure 3 The Maryland Wetlands Framework quantify the importance of various factors The Maryland Wetlands Bills (House as a basis for management decision. Though Bills 285 and 286) represent a major new environmental matrices such as those area of State decision-making and respons- mentioned in Section 2 and Section 3 ibility in environmental management. These akove incorporate many structural elements Bills require Maryland State Government of benefit-cost analyses, the term is u- to take environmental concerns into ac- sually reserved for the more elaborate count in the disposition of State-owned efforts to identify, quantify and weigh wetlands and in regulating various ac- the impacts of a proposed project and to tivities on all wetlands. In assessing relate these directly to decision-making how to meet the new responsibilities, criteria. the Department of Natural Resources and 0ne project whose economic and en- cooperating State agencies have designed vironmental consequences appear to justi- a decision-assisting framework (Ref. 3) fy benefit-cost analysis is the proposed which focuses on wetlands and the par- Annemessex Maritime Industrial Complex, ticular environmental management decisions The proposal has been the subject of which will arise as a result of the laws. extensive discussion and investigation The checklists and the information which has been collected and reviewed by display frameworks in the implementation the Maryland State Department of Plan- plan for the Wetlands Bills do not die- ning. (Ref- 8) tate a decision-making process. They do Although it has not been possible not specify how to aggregate and weight to put this information in benefit-cost the various factors, and they do not analysis form, an example of how this indicate conditions under which one or could be done has been prepared by the another decision should be made. But Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium.(Ref•9) they do call attention to the kinds of The example is based on a preliminary information relevent to wetlands deci- project description and impact analysis sions, to the variety of State agencies (Ref. 10), and this is intended to be which are potential suppliers of the illustrative of the benefit-cost analysis information and to possible sources method. The analysis considers direct (e.g., aerial surveys) of continually an(j indirect economic and environmental up-dated information. The set of accounts impacts of the project, calls attention to: - economic and employment impacts - developmental impacts - recreational impacts - impacts on shore erosion and risk of flood damage - impacts on aquatic life - impacts on large ecological systems - aesthetic impacts - etc . 4 Benefit-Cost Analysis The significance of certain proj- ects is such that special efforts are justified to collect relevant informa- tion, trace impacts and repercussions, 350 Figure 2 FRAMEWORK FOR DISPLAY OF INFORMATION RECARDIHG WETLANDS DECISIONS (Ref. 2) ECOLOGICAL ACCOUNT a> Checklist d. Biomass production? Reference Status Ouo Proposed Alteration Alternative Alteration e. Edge/area? f. Index of diversity? »2:7cl Rockfish, perch 10% reduction in 7% reduction in area What are the specific biological outputs of the area? etc. area a. Total energy Fish b. Nutrients c. Fish Spawning 1) Spawning Important area Loss would make Mitigating features 2) Resident significant reduc- would reduce effect by d. Game tion one-half Other organisms Economics account: etc. ^ 1. What is the impact on the following economic sectors \_ ^^ L_/"^ in terms of personal income, employment, and gross revenue? a Commercial fishermen (FSWA) ECONO.-'.IC ACCOUNT > b. Marine services (Boating Division) Tourist services (DESCD) Checklist d. Fish processing (FSWA) Reference Status Quo Proposed Alteration Alternative Alteration Local government (?) State government (?) #2:la Supports about Would force one- Marine construction (?) No change to local Recreation suppliers (?) 20 full time half to drop out of fishery fishermen industry. Would 2. What is the economic impact of proposed new uses depress village and strain about 30 of wetlands on economic sectors other than those listed above? families Local Employment- who are the chief beneficiaries and losers of the Fishermen various alternative situations? (Include opportun- ities foregone.) Rich local Unacceptable loss No change to local fishery fishery what are the income redistribution effects of the various alternatives? a. Between sectors etc. ^^- b. Within the county c. Within the State __—-^"^ ~^\^ d. Interstate and interregional What are the economic measures of effects of the alternatives on: a. Shore erosion loss? a)Note: Above the dotted line -- indication of predicted condition. b. Flood damage loss? Below the dotted line -- expression of the value of this condi- tion either in absolute or relative terms. C. Developmental account: 1. What are the effects of the alternatives on: a. Public services (roads, schools, etc.)? b. Private services (lodging, restaurants)? ii^ea LnecKiist tor Review of Any 2. What other development might the alternatives in- Issue Involving Physical Change^ duce to the area? Ecological account: (FSWA) 3. What would the overall developmental pattern be if the alternatives set land use precedents for the 1. How is the area related to a larger ecological sys- area? tem (such as a sound, bay, reach, or the Bay it- self) or to neighboring areas of the same general D. Recreational account: (Ref.7) scale? (Ref. 4) a. What are the outputs of the area? (nutrients, 1. what would the effect of the alternatives be on the organisms, etc.) following recreational uses: b. How would modification of these outputs affect a. Boating other systems? b. Fishing c. Hunting 2. Is the area ecologically unusual, rare, or unique?(Ref. 5) d. Bird watching a. As a unit? e. Nature study b. Because of particular species present? f. Other 3. Does the area have value as a site for ecological 2. What would the effects be on the quality of these research? experiences? 4. What is the intrinsic value of the area (indepen- E. Aesthetic account: dent of the production of any goods or services)? 1. what would be the landscape character of the area 5. What contribution does the area make to the natural under the various alternatives? life support system of the region? 2. What would be the overall aesthetic quality of the 6. What are the relevant ecological measures available?(Ref. 6) area under the various alternatives? a. Species count? b. Community type? 3. How will the alternatives affect the accessibility c. Standing croo? 351 of the area for aesthetic enjoyment? B An Information and Information Retrieval Strategy: Preactive (Ref. 14), port-oriented land (Ref. 15), shoreline utilization (Ref. 16), Bay-side Frameworks recreational facilities (Ref. 17), public wastewater treatment facilities (Ref. 18), Preactive frameworks are those soil characteristics (Ref. 19), property which put the State (and constituent ownership (Ref. 20). The massive inventory governments) in a posture of prepared- proposed by the Chesapeake Research Con- ness for future crises and potential sortium (Ref. 9) will shortly be under way. actions. They involve developing a It will initially focus on a compilation capability for intelligent reacting by of presently known data, organized as en- preaction, or anticipating the kind of tities, processes and characteristics. information that will be needed in the The calibration of the hydrologic model future. This information is not just being developed by the Army Corps of En- for projections or forecasting, but gineers (Ref. 4) will extend inventories also for management decisions. of water movement characteristics of the Preactive planning includes at Bay. least three interrelated functions: The extensive amount of information inventorying, monitoring change and being developed on Bay characteristics and information storage and retrieval. Also Bay-related activity needs to be coordinated involved is the task of developing and broadly accessible. Needed is a co- priorities and techniques for informa- ordinated map system for all information, tion gathering and the consideration coded by geographic reference as well as of relationships of preactive activities the basic inventory catalogue, and capable with current crises, operational plan- of being printed out by any series or com- ning, and long-range planning. In this bination of descriptions desired. section, discussion of the current status Two facts suggest a whole different and need for inventorying and monitoring order of magnitude as both possible and will be followed by a proposal for the desirable for future inventorying. These creation of a coordinated information are the advent of space photograph (Ref. 21) system as a key element of a comprehen- and current legislation in the U.S. Congress sive planning process for the Bay, and to authorize funds for ecological inven- a discussion of steps towards implemen- tories . tation of the proposed information system. 1. 2 Monitoring Environmental Change If the inventory were static it would be relatively useless although the "obso- lescence" rate of information varies widely. 1 Inventorying and Monitoring Monitoring of water quality is already underway in the Bay by the Department of 1.1 Inventorying Bay Characteristics, Water Resources and the Department of Health Activities, and Facilities and Mental Hygiene (Ref. 11). Monitoring A wide variety of inventories of of property ownership and transfer by the the Bay and related land have been com- State Department of Taxes is up-to-date pleted or are in progress. These include (Ref. 20). The need is for a more complete inventories of sources of industrial monitoring system to include additional waste (Ref. 11), natural areas (Ref. 5), categories of information. Four general wetlands location, types, and character- categories of information are as follows: istics (Ref. 12), local economic charac- a. Physical, including land, air, teristics (Ref. 13), manufacturing firms and water resources, with the aim of 352 PLATE 34 CHESAPEAKE BAY STUDY FIELD DATA STATIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED MODEL SITE 3 RANGE WITH NUMBER OF ~——SALINITY 8, VELOCITY STATIONS p, RANGE WITH ONE SALINITY ^ S VELOCITY STATION # TIDAL OBSERVATION STATIONS recording all changes in land use and air help advance research and development on and water quality. educational problems and processes and to b. Biological-Ecological, to in- accelerate widespread adoption of research- clude the effects of changes in the based education programs. ERIC consists physical environment on the biological of four major interrelated components: system. a. Central ERIC Headquarters staff c. Cultural, to include population, in the Division of Information Technology income, employment, health, housing, etc. and Dissemination, Bureau of Research, USOE, d. Economic, to include all con- is responsible for developing, managing, sumption and production elements' ' and coordinating the system. Adjustment and verification of b. The network of 19 clearinghouses." the Bay hydrologic model being developed Each clearinghouse focuses on a specific by the Corps of Engineers ^Re 'will topic or field (such as Adult Education — require extensive monitoring of water Syracuse University; Counselling and Person- movement characteristics of the Bay. nel Service -- University of Michigan; Dis- "The tides, tidal current velocities, advantaged -- Columbia University Teachers tidal current directions, and salinities College) . (will) be measured at many locations to c. An ERIC Facility, currently oper- provide a valid basis for...verification ated under contract by the North American that model hydraulic and salinity phenom- Rockwell Co.(NR), to provide centralized ena are in acceptable agreement with document processing activities as well as those of (actual Bay water movement computer, lexicographic, and technical characteristics). The field data collec- services. This contractor prepares the tion stations are shown on Plate 34." magnetic tape for the issues of Research in Education (RIE), the major abstracting and indexing publication of the Office of 2 A Chesapeake Bay Information Network Education, as well as all other major output (CBIIM): A Proposal products which are computer generated using the ERIC files. No single inventory or monitoring d. The ERIC Document Reproduction system — even the most comprehensive — Service (EDRS) operated under contract by will contain all the information desired the National Cash Register Company: EDRS by particular users. Detail must often sells the full text of documents cited in be compromised in a trade off with uni- RIE at nominal cost. versality. An information system that ERIC is unique in its attempt to attempted to record all sources would be combine the advantages of both centrali- doomed to irrelevance and failure. Never- zation and decentralization in the operation theless, the need has never been greater of an information facility. "The central- for information pertinent to decisions ized model has many attractive features, of increasing complexity and scope. including the advantages of having all staff under one roof with consequent mana- 2.1 A CBIN Prototype: ERIC gerial efficiency, savings in operational The concept of CBIN is based on costs, and fast processing of documents. the example of the Educational Resources This model, though, had certain obvious Information Center (ERIC), supported by shortcomings when applied to development the U.S. Office of Education (HEW) and of a resources management information system. other Federal agencies supporting re- Prominent features of Bay resource manage- search of interest to the educational ment are decentralization and proliferation community. ERIC is a nationwide decen- of professional organizations and interest tralized information system designed to groups. These characteristics suggested 354 that information services might well be prohibitive, quality would vary outrage- organized around major content areas, ously, and users would be frustrated and problems, or, administrative foci of forced to pay an exorbitant cost in time current Bay management. Each extreme and money, if they had to maintain contact model, a centralized information proces- with each operation to find materials that sing and disseminating facility or a straddle several topics, as most do in Bay large number of uncoordinated, subject- resource management. or problem-based information efforts, Therefore, (in ERIC), a creative had several attractions and limitations... synthesis ... of the two approaches was de- The appeal of the centralized effort veloped. This synthesis (is designed to was its efficiency, lower cost, faster be) highly compatible with the decentralized start-up, ease of thesaural and indexing (Bay resource management) system... Con- development, and greater opportunities sequently, ERIC was built upon the oper- for tighter management control. Offset- ation of decentralized clearinghouses. Each ting these benefits were the greater clearinghouse focuses on a major (resource liabilities of the centralized approach. management) field or topic... The clearing- The first of these potential limitations houses are solely responsible for the selec- of the centralized approach concerned tion of (information for broader) dissemination information acquisition... (Due to the and for the operation of an independent decentralized nature of much Bay resource information analysis program... But each management) interpersonal, discipline- clearinghouse participates in a general based, content-focused, or even problem- system in fulfilling its documentation centered contacts certainly would aid in function... (In brief) those functions developing and maintaining a comprehen- that can best be conducted by professional sive (information) acquisition network..." staff in their academic and organizational (The second criterion concerns practical settings in behalf of their colleagues are matters: the ability of any single reserved to the clearinghouses. Those centralized facility to retain) the functions to which machine processes can number and variety of highly qualified be applied, where economies of scale become specialists on the many topics needed important, and where user requirements (Ref.23) for the operation of a centralized indicate centralization are centralized. facility and for the generation of infor- mation analysis products...(its ability 2.2 Outline of a Chesapeake Bay Informa- to) be assured of benefitting from the tion Network judgments of persons in leadership Using the ERIC model, more properly positions in their specialized fields... desc ribed as a "net work", CBIN could be (the danger that) a centralized proces- orga nized as follows: sing facility without intimate ties to a. Central CBIN - A headquarters (agencies involved in Bay resource man- staf f established in an appropriate lo- agement might) tend to minimize rather cati on in State government. A temporary than optimize the movement of informa- alte rnative might be to utilize the Chesa- tion through already existing communica- peak e Research Consortium to develop CBIN tion channels, professional organizations, unde r contract to the State, to be taken and (Bay management) agencies... over as a State function. But the decentralized route, b. The CBIN Clearinghouses would be attractive as it was, also had its draw- such as the Department of Natural Resources, backs. A completely decentralized and constituent Departments and Bureaus, system, with each subject-based effort the Department of Economic and Community operating with complete autonomy, was Deve lopment, the Department of State Planning, out of the question. Costs would be 355 the Department of Health, and the Depart- ment of Transportation and Constituent already begun with regard to aquatic habi- bureaus and administrations. tats by staff of the Chesapeake Bay Institute. University facilities such as It is called a Graphic Encyclopedia to em- the Chesapeake Bay Institute and other phasize its fundamental purpose: to make existing information centers could also the widest possible variety of information act as clearinghouses for special infor- graphically available at appropriate scales mation . in both a compatible and often a composite The Federal government has an form. overall information and various kinds of The complexity of ecosystems (natural monitoring systems now under study. and man-related phenomena) is such that often CBIN could become an element in such a only generalized graphic representations national network. can be achieved. Nevertheless, the under- lying assumption is that previously unrelated phenomena can be better understood, in terms 3 Steps Toward the Implementation of CBIN: of inter-relationships by having been given The Graphic Encyclopedia graphic representation and "address". These relationships can also be represented symbol- Reasonably up-dated and efficiently ically and as processes and by composite disseminatable information relevant to mapping. current and emerging policy issues is Considerable quantities of informa- an essential component of any successful tion regarding many aspects of environmental planning and management operation. The management presently exist. Additional nature and extent of the interactions information is being produced at increas- among elements of the Bay are currently ing rates, and new sources of information incompletely understood and are the sub- (e.g. aerial surveys, hydrologic models, ject of considerable current research space satellites) are being rapidly devel- effort. In the meantime, the discipline oped. It is clear, therefore, that some- of displaying currently available infor- thing more than an aggregation of existing mation on a consistent set of maps pro- information sources is required. The new vides a sound basis for developing an information systems must be carefully selec- approach to regional environmental man- tive in their areas of emphasis and cogni- agement . zant of the areas of the overall complexity This section focuses on one part thereby chosen for emphasis. of the overall information need -- a At the same time, new information graphic system for assembling and dis- systems must be designed around mutually playing locational aspects of salient supportive relationships with other infor- Bay system elements. It develops the mation systems (existing or currently de- concept of a "Graphic Encyclopedia" and veloping) relative to other aspects of considers its compatibility with other Chesapeake Bay management. These "informa- existing or developing information tion systems" may be as "simple" as a report systems. on an isolated aspect of Chesapeake Bay With such a graphic system, makers management or as complicated as a hydrologic should be able to quickly review infor- model or a catalog of considerations rele- mation in a regional context on both vant to a specific management decision. natural aspects and man-related activi- Any new information system relies on these ties. Information needs can be identi- other information systems for much of its fied and management problems posed. input, and it translates the input into The graphic system is intended to be a form suitable to its purposes of compre- extended and developed -- a process hensive policy review. Reciprocally, the 356 new information system should be a source which-is useful now, which is capable of of specific data, context, and overview, incorporating the insights of on-going and policy directions for other informa- research, and which, by virtue of its usage tion systems. by day-to-day policy-makers on Chesapeake Bay management issues, contributes to the 3.1 Usefulness of the Graphics Approach establishment of research priorities and In Regional Environmental Management directions. The Graphic Encyclopedia is This Report takes a graphic ap- believed to be of major importance to such proach to the description of the Chesa- efforts. peake Bay system. This approach is taken The Graphic Encyclopedia proposed because of the importance of readily in this section is designed to play three accessible knowledge on the location of main roles in comprehensive Bay planning various "entities" -- industries, popu- and management: lation centers, marshlands, sewage treat- -it's maps can be summary documents ment facilities, surface and ground-water for policy review of the comprehens- supply intakes, etc. -- in day-to-day ive scope of existing and emerging management of the Chesapeake Bay system. Bay problems and of the aggregated The graphic approach also provides a set effects of specific management de- of addresses for attaching descriptive cisions. information about various entities. For -it can provide a framework in which example, what sort of manufacturing proc- to incorporate the results of research ess is a located industry engaged in? efforts into functional relationships What is the magnitude of its productive among various aspects of the Bay as capacity? And how is this related to its these relate to the task of comprehens- employment, its water requirements, and ive environmental management, its discharge of various types of pol- -it can be a source of information lutants? Furthermore, the graphic ap- in as much depth as desired relevant proach facilitates the recognition of to specific policy decisions, partic- spatial interrelationships between enti- ularly locational information for ties (e.g., a heavy-industrial park, a facilities, characteristics, proposals, commercial beach, information on Bay etc. sedimentation and erosion) not often found on one map. 3.2 Design Criteria for the Graphic Encyclo- The graphics approach described peaia herein is designed to be developed, elab- In formulating an information system orated, and maintained as part of Bay capable of playing the above planning-manage- planning and management. It is comple- ment roles, several design criteria (areas mentary and intermeshed with on-going of emphasis and de-emphasis) were developed: efforts to coordinate research into the -The information system should be corn- complexity of inter-relationships that prehensive in the range of subject make up the Chesapeake Bay system. 357 at larger or smaller scales. A of the Bay system. There is no policy-related xinformation system attempt to construct simulation should not be confined to general- models of various processes of the ized Bay-wide summaries or to de- Bay system. Much current and pro- tailed information for limited areas. spective research effort, notably The scales chosen should be the the Corps of Engineers hydrologic 4 smallest number necessary to corre- model (Ref- ), the research program spond to the vario,us specific-de- of The University Consortium(Ref•9), cisiori-making contexts, levels of the regional economic model being put management responsibility, and major into operation by the Baltimore Reg- information sources. ional Planning Council " and the -The information system should have recent investigation into the economic a problems-policy orientation. It impact of the Port of Baltimore(Ref•25', should concentrate on areas of exist- are intended to spell out functional ing or developing State environmen- relationships among Bay system elements. tal management responsibility. This Reactions to "what will happen if" orientation should determine the (i.e., impact analysis) a particular categories by which information is environmental management decision is stored. In addition, this orien- or is not taken will of course be tation argues for an emphasis on left to the judgment of policy-makers including specific locations of as informed by on-going research and facilities/characteristics propos- information gathering efforts. als, etc., so that issues can be -An information system does not speci- discussed in relation to a specific fy decision-making structures with context. regard to particular environmental —The information system should not management decisions. It does not only describe the existing situa- tell policy-makers how to reach de- tion but should-also catalog (with cisions in particular cases, nor does locational addresses) identified it assure them that the decisions existing problems, proposals for made are the best ones possible under change, emerging problems, etc. the circumstances. It should supply -The information system should not a broad range of located aspects for "weight" various aspects according consideration in many environmental •to their relative•importance in management decision situations. environmental management. The im- portance of various factors is a 3.3 Graphic "Telescope" and Examples of matter reserved for the users of The Map System the information system. In prac- a. Leve Is of Detail in the Graphic tice, weighting of various factors Ency clopedia is a policy input by the respons- In t he Graphic Encyclopedia, infor- ible agency or agencies with regard mation is pre sented at various scales appro- to the particular' environmental priate to its level of detail. management decision at hand. The Seal e A shows the interstate con- information system concentrates on text of the M aryland Chesapeake Bay Study. the efficient display of the vari- It includes 1 arge portions of Pennsylvania, ety of aspects present in the par- Virginia, and Delaware, the entire water- ticular situation. sheds of the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers. -The information system does not This is, for instance, the scale appropriate incorporate functional relation- for discus sio ns of the Susquehanna and Poto- ships among the many elements mac Compacts. 358 PLATE 35 Scale A: Interstate Context of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study PLATE 36 Scale B: Regional Scale (Maryland Portion of the Chesapeake Bay) PLATE 37 Scale C: County Scale (Anne Arundel County as Example) PLATE 38 Scale D: Local Scale (Rhode River - West River Area as Example) PLATE 39 Scale E: Soils Survey (Parish Creek - Cedarhurst Area as Example) SOIL SURVEY For Interpretation of Letters and Numbers See 9:8, Page-V- PLATE 40 Scale F: Property Ownership (Parish Creek - Cedarhurst Area as Example) the scale at which the Soil Conservation Service maps soils information. This in- formation is invaluable for analysis of development suitabilities. It is a scale appropriate to the presentation of an eco- logical inventory and interpretations used For purposes of socio-economic analysis as background for development proposals. the regional scale includes 5 of the 6 Maryland is unique among the states Maryland sub-regions or 20 of Maryland's in having a comprehensive, continually up- 24 counties. This is the scale appropri- dated property ownership mapping system. ate to discussions of how Maryland State This information is mapped at Scale F and government can organize itself for better is currently used extensively by several management of the Bay. State departments, it is appropriate for Scale C, the county scale, is the detailed evaluation of specific devel- appropriate for focus on a particular opment proposals and policies. county, or a similar size portion of the b. Considerations re the Dissemination Maryland Bay region. This scale is of Graphic Information chosen to be consistent with the scale If the mapping system is to be of much of the local planning effort. operational -- continually up-dated and It is appropriate, therefore, for coordin- continually feeding into policy decisions -- ating local plans and programs with over- the maps themselves must meet several cri- all Chesapeake Bay management. teria not required of illustrations in ad Scale D, the local scale, is hoc studies. The maps themselves must be suitable for including topography, sub- of a drafting size such that additions and watersheds and other planning detail. modifications can conveniently be made. This scale is appropriate for consider- If drafting is done by hand, the map size ation of many planning proposals of must simply be one that is not unwieldy regional significance -- e.g., the Balti- for draftsmen to work with. If drafting more Harbor Study; possible alternative is done by computer, the map size must be consistent with the size of the drum or USPS r,f i-Ko nK^^-jn proving Ground flat bed plotter which is to be employed. Also, the maps must be adaptable both for presentation at meetings and for publica- tion in reports. Current maps should be available with a minimum of extra effort for either purpose. c. Map Compositing The graphic telescope consists approximately four times as large as of a range of scales appropriate for map- S c a lie C . ping entities at various levels of detail. Information is graphically represented at Scales E, F, G, H, and I show how the graphic telescope can be ex- the scale most appropriate to the grain of data and most suited to relate them to the tended to include details of road align- planning context. As the scale increases, ment, utilities, and other site planning data are represented more accurately as their significance become more important to local conditions. Analysis of existing conditions, emerging problems, and altern- ative development plans require aggregation of mappable data. In the Graphic Encyclo- 365 pedia this requirement is accomplished Figure 4 illustrates the in-put by superimposing a series of maps. Such and out-put system, the aggregation of composites are represented at the next data at each scale, as well as the carry- larger scale. In addition to the com- ing over of data from one scale to the posite, more detailed information is next larger or smaller one,. Plates 43 mapped at the larger scale. This de- and 44 present illustrative composite maps tailed information is, in turn, aggre- at the county and local scales (scales C gated to form a new composite at the and D). The composite maps display infor- next larger scale. This method permits mation on the following subjects: mineral aggregation of data from the smallest resources, shore erosion and bay sedimen- to the largest scale. Conversely, it tation, aquatic habitats; major highway permits generalization of data which are network, existing land cover, population collected and mapped at the largest scale, of major centers, major rail and waterways, i.e., fine grain entities and processes manufacturing employment centers and their are simplified as their significance de- relative port dependence, wastewater dis- creases in wider context. charge, sewage treatment plants, developed recreation and public open space, shoreline -IGURE 4i V-^ ••- •'• "r rV-:i pv MFMIF r T'T -pAPI'I- TTLFSZt-F. ownership and major use, and water quality standards. The maps do not attempt to interpret the possible significances of 1 : i ,nm,lidn the conjunction of various portions of data, nor does it attempt to resolve ap- parent conflicts between mapped subjects or activities. (These matters are consid- TH- ered in Chapter II). The reliability of the information presented in the composite MAP M ip Map Ptar D -calp B2 B4 caioral map examples varies considerably, due to 1 '.?.^^ ,0^n Inventory the multiplicity of scales at which source J f data was available. As the graphic en- cyclopedia system is operationalized, this (C) problem can be eliminated. It is felt Com- County Map Map Map poilte Teal" r,2 Ci C4 CountCounty that a refinement of the map compositing C l!62,5n0 Inventory system should be incorporated into the J^ L on-going mapping process, and that this I t * is important as a means to facilitate (D) output from the Graphic Encyclopedia for Com- Local "ap Hap posite Scale D3 D4 Local purposes of Chesapeake Bay management. D IrlS.P^ Inventory 1 T 3.4 Technological Support for a Graphic Encyclopedia (») r—1=* A Graphic En cyclopedia for regional Con- Prooertv 'lap Map Map Map posite Scale rl F2 E3 et Detailed environmental mana gement has immediate po- 1 Inventory F I'^fon tential for showin g the location of various facilities (e.g., sewage treatment plants, deep-water port fa cilities, navigation channels), resourc e characteristics (e.g., Com- posite existing and poten tial shellfishing beds, wetlands, steep si ope areas) and environ- mental management characteristics (e.g., polluted shellfish beds, r 4T recent oil spills, ine c.raip Fine Crain nata Output nita rrput areas unsuitable f or septic tanks) region-wide, 366 PLATE 41: Composite Legend MINERAL RESOURCES EXISTING LAND COVER MFG. EMLOYMENT CENTERS DEVELOPED RECREATION Pleistocene to Recent Wetlands AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE T: Sand and Clay Plio-Pleistocene Forest Cover £3 Federal Upland Graven m $8$ Park and Forest Cretaceous Sand Highway Access State sreap 10,000 SGSil e Fully Controlled Park and Forest Mafic Igrieous Multilane Divided fyStSl Municipal Metamorpic Rock Highway ^B^j Park and Forest Grantic Igneous and Primary and Secondary Private Beach Metamorphic Rock Undivided Highway Crystalline 50,000 ^1 Urban Areas Public Beach Marbles SURFACE DRAINAGE Military PORT DEPENDENCE BY Quasi-Public Camp PATTERN PLANNING REGIONS 7^ Major Watershed POPULATION OF MAJOR 50,000 N Natural Environment _J Boundary CENTERS Area -Port Serviced L.—J Secondary Watershed 1 ' Boundary Public Hunting Area 20,000 "_ SHORE EROSION AND Q 0-500 -1,000 ^ Partly Port BAY SEDIMENTATION •2,000 Wildlife Reserve -10,000 10,000 \ I Dependent HP?? Clayey Silt -50,000 2,000 l-^ I Historical Site 100,000 Employees Iport Fine and Very Fine jDependent Grained Sand 200,000 OWNERSHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE Medium Grained Federal 300,000 Discharge by County into Sand 400,000 major Rivers in mgd Gravel and Course 500,000 0 12 3 Other Public Grained Sand 1 I I I'l I il 111 1 I Erosion over .50 Acres Private per mile per year 1,000,000 People length of bar X number of parallel bars equals quantity in lllllllll Erosion .25-.50Acres MAJOR RAIL AND million gallons per day (mgd) MAJOR USE CATEGORY per mile per year WATERWAYS [771 Public Discharge of Major River Erosion under.25 Acres Major Railways 11 Recreation per mile per year into Bay in mgd 0 12 3 Private or Commercial Major Shipping Channel Recreation AQUATIC HABITATS B Federally Maintained 771 Non- Recreational ~^i] Striped Bass Spawning Major Shipping Channel Development ^^ Area E3 Non-FederallyMaint. , ,1 Undeveloped fHH Oyster Bed Port r* Commerce Soft Shell Clam Bed f\ | Dredging Area MAJOR SEWAGE Project Completed TREATMENT PLANTS Industry Blue Crab Dreding Area I A I Secondary (Biol.) 3 Project not Completed Jlflfl Residence >1 Area Closed to Shell c Spoil Deposit Area I A I Primary (No Biol.) Fishing c=D P^3 Open Space, Public Water Quality - See ~Q~] Major Municipal Surface vO&51 and Semi-Public Map B-lll-2 Water Supply Intakes 367 PLATE 42: Map Composite: Scale C (Anne Arundel County as Example) «00N A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 00 Design Flow »00 Existing Flow ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY WASTEWATER DISCHARGE 83mgd PATAPSCO 10.52 mgd CHESAPEAKE 6.38 mgd PATUXENT EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION CENTERS 'Employment Centers Population Centers See Map BUI 2 -'•V5 (Note: Information on Aquatic fjS2 Habitats superseded. 's.r^ See separate maps.) jgMrWss For Legend See Sheet CD 10 . gjf\ j; PLATE 43: Map Composite: Scale D (Rhode River - West River Area as Example) The Graphic Encyclopedia enables of much environmental data by means of (and disciplines) staff personnel to dis- space satellites. Technology is now being play their specialized knowledge of ele- developed to more efficiently glean in- ments of the Bay system in a consistent formation developed through aerial graphic form which is easily accessible photography. It may soon become pos- to other specialists and to policy-makers. sible to cheaply and efficiently mon- The policy-maker concerned with resi- itor land and water use characterisitics dential development regulation cannot (natural and man-imposed) over the en- be oblivious to the fact that a certain tire region. area is important as an aquifer recharge Other Environmental Monitoring: area because it is clearly displayed on Information gathered by means of a map -- not buried in an esoteric re- environmental monitoring devices such as port. Staff personnel, on the other those being used to calibrate the Corps hand, are kept on their toes by policy- of Engineers hydraulic model of the makers' use of the Graphic Encyclopedia Chesapeake Bay could also be summarized system. If a particular map does not in widely accessible graphic form as an adequately represent the Bay-wide pat- entry in the Graphic Encyclopedia inform- tern of a particular resource or charac- ation system. teristic, what changes are appropriate? Housing and Urban Growth If certain unmapped elements are signifi- Monitoring: cant in particular areas, why can't they Much information on various pro- be represented graphically? This will posed changes, various permit applications, at least call the attention of policy- etc., can be efficiently gathered region- makers to the existence of the character- wide by the use of consistent recording istic and the specialist staff can be forms, electronic data processing, and asked to elaborate with regard to partic- the use of the Maryland grid system for ular decision situations. specifying location/address. Thus, the By this process, the maintenance appendix section of the Maryland Manual of a Graphic Encyclopedia can -- in and of Coordinates dealing with "Housing Sub- of itself -- improve regional manage- divisions and Developments" could be ex- ment of Bay resources. The incidence tended to include, development acreage, of a set of facilities and character- number and type of dwelling units, land istics in an area affected by a policy- coverage, and other information of signif- decision will call attention to possible icance in environmental management. With interrelationships and impacts. How- the application of systems technology ever, the type and degree of interrela- this information could be published tionships among elements in a particular annually in a graphic summary as an entry decision situation are developed on a in the Graphic Encyclopedia system. judgmental basis or are the subject of b. Information Storage and Retrieval special investigations. Another way that emerging systems a. Information Gathering technology could assist in developing Application of emerging systems the graphic information system is in in- technology can assist in developing the formation storage and retrieval. Graphic Encyclopedia in several ways. As the Graphic Encyclopedia de- One of these ways is in information velops, it will become increasingly im- gathering. portant to be able to efficiently compare ERTS : data from combinations of map entries. The "ERTS" (Earth Resources A computer map compositing system being Technology Satellite) system now dev- developed in the Economic Development eloping will enable the gathering of Administration indicates that systems 370 technology can be applied to this task, current level of understanding of the (Ref. 26) The discussions of existing Bay system (as regards other separate and emerging problems in Chapter II of disciplines). Non-experts, including this Report provide preliminary guide- most policy-makers, cannot hope to keep lines as to which Graphic Encyclopedia abreast of such dispersed, various and entries should be composited. esoteric research activity. Since per- sons are free to ignore what they are only vaguely aware of, the uncoordinated, 4 Steps Toward the Implementation of CBIIM: ad hoc nature of current research activ- Coordination of Information Systems ity can be presumed to limit the effective- ness of environmental management of the The Graphic Encyclopedia, as it Bay . becomes operational, must be able to The general systems approach and generate output relevant to policy- the inventory of entities, characteris- decisions, as well as to accept input tics and processes will provide a frame- from on-going research. A number of work into which myriad pieces of know- information systems are currently being ledge can be gathered. By maintaining developed either to organize research on a summary of the level of understanding functional relationships among elements of Bay system, processes and relation- of the Bay system or to support specific ships (both in terms of what is known and decision-making responsibilities of what is not), the general systems inven- State agencies with regard to environ- tory can become a major resource for mental management. This section will policy-making in environmental management. indicate potential linkages between the Potential Linkages with the Graphic Encyclopedia and other currently Graphic Encyclopedia: developing information systems. Its The Graphic Encyclopedia and the major point is that the several informa- general systems inventory are therefore tion systems are compatible and should mutually supportive. The general systems develop in concert. inventory is an aid in identifying re- search priorities and assembling the 4. 1 Cheaspeake Ecological Data and results of research investigations. It Inventory System R also can serve as an "index" to the The research program ( ef. 9) Qf Graphic Encyclopedia with its headings the University Consortium includes an "descriptors" for classifying informa- inventory of Bay system entities, char- tion. acteristics and processes. The inventory The Graphic Encyclopedia is designed emphasizes the general systems approach to inform regional environmental manage- as opposed to the more limited problem- ment. It is important that Chesapeake oriented approach. Use of the inventory Bay environmental management be able to system provides a multiple check list efficiently and continually incorporate for identifying possible functional re- the results of on-going research. lationships between Bay system entities. Evolving efforts in environmental manage- This provides an excellent basis for ment will raise issues and reveal in- identifying gaps in understanding of formation gaps and these should assist various processes and coordinating the in establishing research priorities. cumulative results of the investigations. Differences of Emphasis: Sources As studies about as important and of Compatibility: complex a system as theChesapeake Bay Because of the differences of proliferate, fewer and fewer experts purpose, the Graphic Encyclopedia and will have a real appreciation of the the general systems inventory have a A 371 number of differences of emphasis. and responsibility in environmental First, the Graphic Encyclopedia emphasiz- management. These Bills require Mary- es the display of the locations (Maryland land State Government to take environ- Grid System addresses) of Bay system mental concerns into account in the dis- elements. It places considerable im- position of State-owned wetlands and in portance on the need to be able to ef- regulating various activities on all ficiently map various aspects of the wetlands. In responding to the new res- Bay system and to show various elements ponsibilities, the Department of Water in their geographical relationships to Resources and cooperating State agencies one another. Second, the Graphic Encyc- are developing an information system lopedia lends itself to a problem or- which focuses on wetlands and the partic- ientation as opposed to a general sys- ular environmental management decisions tems orientation. Entries in the Graph- which will arise as a result of the laws. ic Encyclopedia are selected and grouped The information being collected in response to major areas of State (Ref. 12) anticipates questions and is- and local management responsibility. sues which .will be raised by use of the Thus "mineral resources" includes those decision-assisting checklists (discussed minerals which have significant economic in Section A 3 above) in particular value; and efforts are made to differ- wetlands decisions. It is thus the pre- entiate industry according to its degree active complement to the reactive checklists of port and water dependence. and information display frameworks, and As public responsibility and it will enable responses to issues rais- authority in environmental management ed by the checklists to be based on a grows, so should the breadth and depth quantitative evidence. Thus, though the of the Graphic Encyclopedia entries. final weighting of the ecological and Also, the Graphic Encyclopedia places economic accounts and the decision as to considerable emphasis on maintaining the appropriate management response in a descriptions of the existing situation, particular case will be judgmental, the current problems, proposals and emerg- preactive efforts will supply quantitative ing problems -- all in accessible map- assessments of sub-issues. They can thus pable form. It is correspondingly less help reduce conflict over the facts of the detailed in its description of function- case, even though disagreement as regards al interrelationships among elements of the appropriate management response will the Bay system. surely remain. Finally, the Graphic Encyclopedia Potential Linkages with the does not attempt to meet the needs of Graphic Encyclopedia: rigorous analysis. In a decision- The Graphic Encyclopedia relates to making context characterized by multiple the wetlands regulation checklists and ot- goals, complexly overlapping client her specifically policy-related infor- groups, and myriad unidentified or un- mation systems in two potential ways. measured relationships, the Graphic First, the Graphic Encyclopedia provides Encyclopedia attempts to improve a summation device and an overview of the decision-making simply by means of dis- aggregated Bay-wide effect of many scat- playing information more efficiently, tered policy actions. In maintaining suggestively and in composite relations. this summary, the Graphic Encyclopedia can be the source of a periodic report on 4.2 State Agency Environmental Manage- "the state of the Chesapeake Bay". It ment Information Needs could thus be a basis for regional policy The Maryland Wetlands Bills (House decisions regarding the Chesapeake Bay -- Bills 285 and 286) (Ref. 3) represent a but one which is derived from the specif- major new area of State decision-making ic, localized, on-going activities of 372 regulating agencies. Second, the Graphic Encyclopedia could be a source for mapped informa- tion regarding many ecological and socio-economic factors. Many portions of the wetlands checklist could be assembled on the basis of information presently incorporated, or proposed to be incorporated, in the Graphic Encyc- lopedia. The Graphic Encyclopedia should not be a sufficient source for any specific policy decision, but it could provide a developable information base for many specific policy issues. The regulation of wetlands is only one of numerous areas of State responsibility with regard to environ- mental management. Other responsibili- ties reside in other agencies, or combin- ations of agencies and at other govern- mental levels. Decision-making in each area of responsibility involves an "information system". (The information system may be elaborate or sketchy, and adequate or inadequate to the demands made upon it.) The Graphic Encyclopedia should relate to information systems needs in on-going environmental manage- ment decisions as well as to information systems which coordinate and assemble the results of research efforts. 373 System Modeling and Pl3nnin9 — Adaptive ....the systems analysts will construct ^ • diagrams showing the interactions between I I dlTlcVvOrixb the entities in a system and the processes ' and characteristics involved in those Reactive and preactive frameworks interactions, and methodology each have their role. "As an example. Figure 5 illustrates But unless Bay management is able to the interactions within a generalized get into a posture of a fuller under- segment of the estuary. It shows the standing of and adaptive response to the direct interactions of that segment with changing nature of the Bay system, man's the environment.... (The interactions in- needs, and the limitations on the Bay's elude those with) other parts of the es- resources, little more than ad hoc re- tuary itself, those (with) streams and sponses to problems will be possible. rivers which flow into it, those (with) On the other hand, efforts at natural phenomena, and those (with) man- system modeling require the support of related activities." With a general extensive information gathering (pre- system conceptually outlined, particular active) efforts and are eventually jus- subsystems can be developed based on tified as they are reflected and refer- priorities established by management red to in day-to-day resource management concern. (reactive) decision-making. The Univer- "How will the synthesis efforts be sity Consortium provides a useful over- brought to bear on the needs of the reg- view of system modeling (Ref. 9)f parts ulatory agencies governing the Bay?.... of which are quoted here. (These efforts have) the long range ob- jective of obtaining a reasonably com- 1 The Relation of Synthesis and Systems prehensive understanding of the estuary. Modeling and Resource Management However, decisions are being made now and will be made in the future which will have "Synthesis ... involves pulling to- important bearing on the Bay. These gether fragments of understanding and decisions necessarily will be made with information into gradually larger blocks insufficient knowledge of the consequen- of coherent relationships. The purpose ces or alternatives. In addition to is to develop a sufficient understanding responsibility for contributing to the of the complex systems so that predic- acquisition of knowledge, participants tions can be made about future states in this research program will have the and reactions to changes... responsibility to see that existing "The goal of synthesis is a family knowledge is used as effectively as of functional models which can be used possible.... the basic concept is that the to predict the burden which cultural and complexity of the problems facing society economic forces will place on the estuary, requires a formal, continuing program of the effect that burden will have on the synthesis." estuarine water quality and ecology, and the impact that constraints on the use of the resource and that changes in the 2 Current Systems Modeling Efforts water quality and ecology will have on society. Such models would permit the A number of systems modeling efforts evaluation of alternatives available to currently underway have potential signif- decision makers responsible for manage- icance in Bay resource management. Some ment of the Chesapeake Bay. of these focus on functional or geograph- "The basic building blocks of the ic sub-systems of Bay activities and pro- synthesis process are the descriptions cesses; others do not relate directly to of the entities and their interactions the Bay but have potential application in 374 GENERAL INTERACTION DIAGRAM •FIGURE 5: ESTUARY SEGMENT (Ref. 9) ESTUARINF INPUT METEOROLOCICAL- Flew and composition of 4TM0SPHEREIC the remainder of the estuary INPUT into and out of this le.g. gases, energy, water flow 1 segment of the estuary airborne pollutants STREAM INPUT Flow and composition of waters of individual streams and rivers CONCENTRATIONS flowing into this segment of the OF estuary PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL ENTITIES [e.g. organic wastes, inorganic chemicals inutrients. DISTRIBUTED INPUT toxicants, trace elements> Flow and composition of inputs dissolved oxygen] and outputs distributed throughout this segment of the estuary. [Contributions are both natural 'e.g. natural runoff, bank load' and cultural 'e.g. effluent from individual plants, effluent from boats] CONCENTRATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES- COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAL REMOVAL Bay management. the Chesapeake Bay Basin (Ref. 4) "The hydr aulic mod el has been in- 2. 1 U.S. Corps of Engineers Hydro- creasingly used in recen t years in estu- logical Model of the Bay arine water qua lity stud ies. The hydraul- In order to "make a complete in- ic model of Che sapeake B ay will be partic- vest igation and study of water utiliza- ularly useful.. .in makin g studies related tion and control of the Chesapeake Bay to the followin g topics: Basi n" the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1. The sa linity di stribution within 1965 (Section 312) authorizes the Secre- the Ba y system, and interrelation- tary of the Army, acting through the ships of signif icant parameters Chie f of Engineers, to "construct, oper- affect ing salin ity distributions, ate and maintain.... a hydraulic model of 2. The me chanics o f estuary flushing. 375 3. Waste water and heat dispersion. output analysis to a broader range of im- 4. Time of passage of pollution pacts is an area of refinement which is loads. receiving considerable research attention. 5. Investigations for better site locations of sewage treatment 2.3 The Linkage of Ecologic and Economic plants, sub-aqueous outfalls, Systems nuclear and fossil fuel thermal Walter Isard and his collegues are power plants, and port facilities, developing "a new conceptual framework... 6. Study of projects that involve to link both economic and ecologic systems both major changes in the fresh ....The conceptual framework...is in es- water inflow regime and altera- sence a framework for a linear system, tions in existing estuarine hy- It approaches the problem from a tradi- draulic geometry." (Ref. 4) tional input-output or, more strictly, a linear programming standpoint....(The) 2.2 Baltimore Regional Economic Study first step in developing this framework Responding to a "need for some way is to set down....a traditional coeffi- to make.... anticipatory estimates of the cient table with columns representing regional impact of a wide range of alter- sectors (industries and activities) and native economic developments in terms of rows representing commodities associated total production volume changes and with these sectors as outputs and re- their accompanying labor requirements", sources." This is the upper left block the Regional Planning Council in Balti- of cells (the economic system: inter- more has developed "locally tailored sector coefficients) in Figure 6. methods to be used on a continuing basis (The) second step in developing for estimating changes in the regional the framework "involves the hypothesis economy following from various known, that one can fruitfully view the ecologic anticipated, or assumed changes in that system in input-output or activity economy. Such changes (can) be estim- analysis format. Thereby, the ecologic ated for each of nearly 500 private system is considered as a very large set and governmental sectors representing of interdependent activities, involving the broad array of economic activities as inputs and outputs many commodities, making up the overall regional economy. only a few of which correspond to those The estimates for each economic group- of the economic system. Not only do ing (are) expressed as dollar volumes these activities feed upon each other, of production or sales. Such estimates that is provide each other with inputs, (are) also converted to required employ- but also to the exogenous economic system ment changes by occupational skill cat- they furnish final outputs or deliveries egory for each industry and the region (in the sense of exports to the economic as a whole." (Ref. 27) system). In turn these ecologic activities The limitations of the RPC effort are dependent on the economic system (that in the light of Bay management needs are is currently require or receive from it) two-fold: 1) the economic system analysis various commodities (in the sense of im- is limited geographically to the Baltimore ports) to be used as inputs. These im- metropolitan region and 2) there is no ports from the economic system are at the means to estimate environmental impacts same time exports or deliveries of the of proposed economic changes. Still the economic system to the world exogenous to input-output description of the structural it, while the exports from the ecologic interdependence of the Baltimore economy system are at the same time imports into can be of great use in planning marine the economic system, again from the world transportation and waterfront industrial exogenous to it. To the extent that one development; extension of the input- system's imports and exports are the other 376 FIGURE 6: Conceptual Framework for Linkage of Economic and Ecologic Systems (Ref. 28) activity with a certain amount of cod as ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ECOLOGIC PROCESSES an ecologic commodity to be caught and i c 00 0 c i c o consumed. Cod is an ecologic commodity c 8 c i 0 produced by an ecologic process (activ- 00 i c V. 1 a. i ity) involving a system which produces £ c 3 0 00 herring, etc. with the food chain ultim- 3 .22 V c o C c ately completely described. R b < 5 1 5 05 a. 1 2 This conceptual framework has Wheat "> 1 great potential for the Chesapeake Bay. 1 Cloth r In an expansion of the activity-process D C and commodity blocks a number of rows and 2 EC columns can be added to illustrate its ECONOMIC rOLOGIC PROCESSES: Q SYSTEM: 1EIR INPUT AND usefulness. U Ol INTERSECTOR JTPUT COEFFICIENTS o RI For example, aquifers next to the COEFFICIENTS I: ECONOMIC C( )MM0D1TIES Bay are important water resources, are i connected to the Bay as illustrated in 8 the water budget (Fig.1,Sec.II ,F) and are af- UJ Crude Oil Water Intake fected by land made impervious to per- 377 Figure 7: Structure of Susquehann'a River Basin Model Elements (Ref. 29) to a heretofore intractable subject -- how do we really Value the ecologic pro- cesses around us on which we depend? Demographic Employment Sector 2.4 Systems Simulation for Regional Sector Population by age groups, Employment by category, Analysis births, deaths, migration, labor- unemployment, wages, income Recent efforts of a Battelle Mem- torce participation regional attractiveness to orial Institute research team for the industry, etc. Susquehanna River Basin Utility Group (Ref. 29) have explored how systems simulation ("large-scale computer simu- Water Sector lation as a technique... for gaining in- Water quantity and quality, recreation, Downstream sight into complex problems") can be Upstream critical geographic points, dams and Considerations Effects applied to regional analysis. reservoirs "Because demands on the water re- source would be largely^ determined by The three major sectors of a subregional model. population levels and by the levels of economic activity in the region (the study attempted to tie) water quality and quantity variables... to those demo- graphic factors that are relevant in Regional Economic Water Model terms of shaping water demands and in- Model fluencing water quality." Using systems Demands for Water 1. Consumption 2. Withdrawal 1. Population Pollution of Water simulation techniques, the team succeed- 3. Flow ed in "incorporating the normally con- 2. Employment 3. Electric Power 4. Pollution sidered regional economic variables and Consumption Water-Cost Effects 5. River Works those directly relating to the water re- 4. Others . 6. Others sources of the region within the same analytic framework." Figure 7 presents Two submodels forming the regional model an overview of the structure of the model. "The water sector is viewed as a 'technical sector'; it could be replac- Upstream ed or augmented in a model of this type subregions by other technical factors that might be of particular importance to a given region,\for instance, a forest resource River sector, a minerals sector, or a trans- Natural flow portation sector. In fact, the modular additions Water construction of the model, with its to flow withdrawal Regional groups of interrelated equations com- Subregional economy: water bined into sectors and sub-sectors and river flow consumption and withdrawal united by simple connecting relation- Additions , Water by return ships, allows expansion of many parts of reservoir River the model without disturbing the remain- release der in a major way." flow Besides its sophistication in in- terrelating demographic, economic and Downstream water sectors, the simulation techniques subregions make possible "inexpensive experiments on the effects of changes in parameter Diagram of the water-flow submodel. 378 values" in combination with a high degree it is a method that is applicable to plan- of data disaggregation so that "the ning anywhere, with local variations. Its model yields information specific to the utility for Bay management is in its con- various sub-regions of the basin and to cern for the critical Bay Shoreline, the particular geographic points within these water, and the zone behind it that is sub-regions." These features point the most ecologically related to it. way towards making "regional planning a more cohesive and continuing process, 2.1 Introduction rather than a group of separate inputs To proceed to relate ecological concerning an over-all problem that are planning to socio-economic planning, this often difficult to integrate." Memorandum summarizes its view of plan- With regard to potential applica- ning. Planning consists of the presen- bility in the Chesapeake Bay Area, the tation of alternative courses of social Susquehanna model has two present lim- action related to the costs and benefits itations. First, "most potential feed- of such action. Adaptive planning in- backs from the water sector to the dem- eludes feedback into the system and reit- ographic and employment sectors were eration or the process. Increasingly, judged to be inoperative. That is, costs have been at the expense of the while growth of population and industry environment, reflect in environmental obviously affects the river in terms of degradation, and these operate in the water quantity and quality, it was realm of non-price costs and benefits, judged that the resultant changes in It is for this reason that ecological the river will not be of sufficient planning has leapt into prominence. Based magnitude and kind significantly to upon the natural sciences, integrated alter industrial and population growth through ecology, it represents these in- patterns except in some specific in- sights competent to perceive the environ- stances as in the case of certain re- ment as an interacting, bio-physical creation developments." Second, "some process. Yet, ecological planning is not elements of comprehensive basin planning an alternative to socio-economic planning are not included in the Susquehanna but rather is complementary to it. Both model. For instance, those elements are essential. The case for the latter having a large engineering input, such is assured. It represents the orthodoxy as flood control, are not embodied. 0f planning. Ecological planning is still Also, navigation and irrigation did not sufficiently novel that it requires both seem important enough in the Susquehanna explication and justification. This is River Basin to warrant inclusion." (Ref.29) the reason for the reiative emphasis given to it here. An ecological approach to a compre- hensive planning process begins with an 3 Ecological and Socio-Economic Planning ecological inventory, proceeds to the se- cond stage where natural phenomena are reconstituted into dynamic biophysical processes, and thence to the formulation The previous frameworks have pro- of the region as an ecological model con- gressed from inventory through monitor- sisting of interacting biophysical pro- ing to system modeling. This portion cesses. This concludes the first phase, deals with the next big step- and out- The second phase consists of recon- lines a method that integrates ecologi- stituting these data as a social system, cal and socio-economic planning. This identifying, evaluating and locating the is the key step that represents an in- attributes of air, water, land and loca- novative ecological approach to planning. tion most propitious for each of the major 379 land us es - ur banizati on, agri culture, identification of the region as phenomena - recreat ion , fo restry - and fin ally climate, rocks, physiography, water, soils, develop ing a s ynthesis of intr insic plants and animals. The information deriv- suitabi lities for the region. ed is mapped, represented in diagrams and I n the t hird pha se socio -economic described in written form. data ar e colle cted and collate d, first as phen omena, next as social p recesses , Inventory of the Region as Phenomena thereaf ter as a social value s ystem. From this ba se proj ections are deve loped from (i) Climate which a Iternat ive grow th model s are con- (ii) Bedrock Geology structe d, base d upon e xplicit hypothesis . (iii) Surficial Geology T he next phase e nvisages alternative (iv) Physiography matches of the ecologi cal mode 1 with al- (v) Hydrology, Surface Water ternati ve grow th model s'. This ls linked (vi) Hydrology, Ground Water to fisc al and legislat ive comp onents and (vii) Soils togethe r with alternat e sewer, water, (viii) Plant Ecology high an d other infrast ructure layouts (ix) Animal Ecology constit utes a testing phase. The final (x) Limnology phase i s the f ormulati on of th e plan, (xi) Land Use and its adopti on and i mplement ation pro- cedures Citi zen invo Ivement is of course b. Review of Phenomena as Process presume d throu ghout. When the inventory has been com- pleted it is ne cessary to assem ble the 3.2 Phase I - Formulation of an Eco- scientists invo Ived and require them to logical Model explain phenome na in terms of historic T he propo sition whic h unde rlies and dynamic pro cesses which are continu- ecologi cal stud ies is one of pro found ing. That is, time must be add ed - simplic ity; it is mer ely t hat th e know- time past and t ime future. At the con- ledge o f biophy sical syste ms, ec osysterns, elusion of this step the region under is indi spensabl e for the i ntelli gent con- study is reveal ed as consisting of bio- duct of human a ffairs . If this is accept- physical proces ses. The material de- ed, the n it bee omes n ecess ary to identify veloped from th is part of the study will those s ciences wherei n rep oses k nowledge consist of text supplemented by dia- of the biophys i cal wo rid. Weath er, cli- grams and maps. mate an d life a re stu died by bio -metero- legists , geolog ical e volut ion an d process Review of Phenomena as Process are the provinc e of g eolog is ts ; physio- graphy is the r ealm o f phy sical geography ; Climate water p rocesses , both surf ace an d ground Geology are the compete nee of hydr ology ,- aquatic Physiography biology is the provin ce of limno logy; Hydrology plants of botan i s t s ; zoolo gists study Soils x time and animals The d egree to wh ich th ese sci- Plant Ecology interactions ences a re integ rated is th e scie nce of Animal Ecology ecology the s tudy o f the inter actions Limnology or orga nisms an d envi ronme nt (wh ich in- Oceanography eludes other or ganism s) . Land Use a . Invent ory of a Re gion as a Biophy sical Pheno mena c. Representation of the Area by he first stage of a n ecological and Ecological Model plannin g study is an inven tory - the The final step of the first phase 380 is the representation of the area as an of tolerance or intolerance of ecosystems interacting system. Climate factors af- to prospective uses.-*- fect geology, geology affects hydrology, In each category there will be gra- all of these determine soils which influ- dient of values - for example, rocks in ence plants which affect climate, all of terms of value for foundations, water in which affect man and are affected by his a range of quality, soil productivity, actions. It is now required to represent scenic beauty, historic value, etc. Simi- the region as inter-dependent, interact- larly, when the selected attributes are ing, biophysical processes, and, moreover ranked - conditions necessary for crop to identify the major processes and in- agriculture are more stringent than for teractions in the region. This requires small grains which are, in turn, more the construction of an ecological mode. demanding than for pasture, and so for It can be simply descriptive, certain every land use. processes can be quantified and the In this phase each subject heading whole can, if required, be simulated - climate, geology, etc. - is monitored with computer models. The formulation for attributes of air, water, land, life of an ecological model of a region and location, both advantageous or detri- completes the first phase. This phase mental to all prospective land uses. Each has a justification in its own right. of these factors is evaluated in gradient. With such a model it should be possible This material is mapped and represents to predict the biophysical consequences the area as a social value system. of certain proposals - an atomic reac- tor, a sewage treatment plant or the Biophysical Processes as a Social Value location of an interstate highway. System 3.3 Phase II-Interpretation of the Area for Intrinsically Suitable Land Uses a. Reconstitution of Biophysical Processes into a Social Value System The ecological model and its des- criptions of phenomena and process can be given vastly increased value by being reviewed and reconstituted as a social value system. It is important to understand how ecosystems work, but it is of even more value for planning, if the biophysical processes can be seen to offer both opportunities and constraints for all prospective land uses. We can identify the factors of climate, bedrock geology, surficial geology, physiography, hydrology, soils, plant ecology, animal ecology, limno- logy, and land use which are most bene- ficial for every land use. We can al- so identify factors in each of these categories which are detrimental. More- over, we may be able to identify degrees 381 Land Use: Urban, agricultural, fores- Transportation - corridors try, extractive minerals, transporta- Agriculture - by type tion, institutional; historic value, Recreation - terrestrial by type, scenic value, scientific value, etc. aquatic by type b. Optimization for Single Intrin- Forestry - hardwood, softwood sic Land Uses Extraction Industry - by type It is now possible to review the Protection - areas to be regulated evaluation of the region and select, for the health and safety of society, from each category, the attributes areas of unique value of vulnerable most propitious and most detrimental resources for all prospective land uses. For c. Synthesis example, the case of a new town would When the single optimizations have select factors of climate - insolation, been completed it becomes possible to temperature, humidity, wind, absence make a synthesis in which the region is of fog, exposure; it would select su- shown in terms of the sum of highest perior foundation conditions, an ap- uses of areas best able to support the propriate range of slopes from physio- entire spectrum of prospective land graphy as well as propitious physio- uses. As this is a pre-emptive method, graphic features and good aspect. a decision must be made on priorities. From hydrology we would require ade- If the decision calls for a hierarchy of quate amounts of good quality water protection, agriculture, recreation, ur- and a recipient source for sewage dis- banization, forestry and extractive min- posal; soil requirements would include erals, the result will differ from that compressive strength, adequate drainage, in which the hierarchy is changed. Should absence of slipping, low susceptibility the study be computerized, it would be to erosion, and where necessary, suita- possible to see the consequences of all bility for septic tanks. Plant ecology permutations. A synthesis can be developed would be searched for scenic quality, showing the region as intrinsically suita- tolerance, recreational value; ani- ble for single land uses, compatible mul- mal ecology for richness of habitat tiple land uses. It will also show areas and for recreation. For each land use in competition. it is possible to assemble and evalu- When the region has been thus iden- ate the intrinsic suitability of the tified it is possible to locate areas pro- region for that land use in a range pitious for future development and to per- of types and values. Maps can be ceive others as unsuited for the type of made showing the region optimized development envisaged. Even more valuable, for each land use - urbanization, agri- this evaluation permits any proposal to be culture, recreation and forestry. The seen as changing the existing social value maps are accompanied by explanatory text, system. It is therefore possible to test any proposal for its effects upon the eco- Optimization for Single Intrinsic system and measure these in terms of social Land Uses costs and social benefits. When the metro- polis is identified as a hierarchy of social Urbanization: values which are explicit, when the effects Residential - high density, intermedi- upon the ecosystem resulting from planning ate density, low density proposals can be predicted and evaluated as Industry - water-related by type, social costs and benefits, then the planning other by type process can also be explicit and overt. So- Commerce - regional retail, regional ciety can approve or disapprove of develop- wholesale ment proposals based on explicit data, 382 explicit consequences, explicit social represented by the regional ecosystem. costs and benefits. The best matches will be. minimum so- There are criteria for ecosystems. cial cost/maximum social benefit solu- The most advanced are complex, diverse, tions. These, then, can become the stable and evolving, as opposed to sim- bases for social policy. ple, uniform, unstable and degenerating. While the majority of planning stu- There are criteria for the selection of dies emphasize socio-economic determinants environments - whether for a plant, that proposed here differs in certain fun- animal, man or industry - these refer damental respects from the orthodoxy. The to fitness. Is the environment fit for first major distinction is that economic the organism or institution? There will opportunity is related to the intrinsic be degrees of fitness - for agriculture, opportunities represented by the regional recreation, urbanization, a power plant ecosystem. This exhibits degrees of oppor- or a pulp factory. The more fitting tunity, degrees of tolerance, degrees of the location the less the work of adap- intolerance and thus outer limits. Fur- tation. Good fitting is creative in ther, the same ecosystem has been repre- thermodynamic terms; it represents a sented as a social value system so that maximum benefit/least work solution. society can choose to accept or reject The final criterion, which subsumes exchanges of social values - for example, the attributes.of complexity, diver- the transformation of a virgin forest in- sity, stability, and the accomplish- to pulp. The most important difference ment of creative fitting, is the pre- lies in the criteria used to measure per- sence of health - physiological, so- formance. Money is the measure of soci- cial and mental in plants, animals, economic planning. In ecological plan- micro-organisms or entire ecosystems ning the criteria used to assess natural and human societies. An ecological ecosystems applied are stability, the study is a necessary prerequisite to demonstration of creative fitting and the creative fitting and successful adap- evidence of success is the presence of tations which can maintain health. health - physiological, social and mental. The method to be employed is a para- 3.4 Phase III - Socio-Economic llel to the ecological study - it is an Planning Study exercise in human ecology. As was stated earlier planning The first step is the assemblage of consists of identifying alternative information of the region as social phe- courses of action related to social nomena - population, employment, income, benefits and costs. However, ecolo- land use, land value ownership, control gical planning must start as a value and the like. This is the base line for system offering varying degrees of op- planning. An inventory provides little portunity and restraint to all pro- information until it is seen as a product spective land uses. It remains neces- of historical process. Through careful sary to identify the demands now being study, using the perceptions on anthropo- made and future demands, and match logy, sociology, and ethology, the under- social policy with intrinsic opportuni- lying motives and aspirations which gener- ties. This requires an inventory of ated the growth and development of the the present society, an understanding region and its sub-areas may be understood. of the present through historical per- Aspirations and motives differ, as- spective, and projections into the fu- pirations cannot be fully achieved, con- ture based upon different hypotheses. flicts are inevitable. The region must be These projections, or growth models, seen as, not only an ecological model, but can be matched to the opportunities a human ecological model wherein changes 383 affect not only biophysical but also gion can be optimized for each major land social processes. What values do peo- use - urbanization, agriculture, recreation, ple attribute to family, in homes, forestry. The growth models can be applied neighborhoods, schools, churches,- city to these and searched for development op- halls and state houses. Of all build- portunities and constraints within each ings, places and spaces which are most sector. cherished, which least? The region The product of this would be the must be seen in terms of social values identification of locations most fitting attributed to artifices for interven- for the anticipated demand by type. The tions - be they highways or urban re- single optimization patterns can be newal projects - must be measured for assembled to achieve synthesis wherein their effect upon this social value sys- the total amount of development by type tem. With the completion of this stage is located in the most propitious locations. the region can be represented as a so- This can be done for each growth model and cial value system including both bio- these can be compared for the degree of physical and social phenomena and pro- social benefit and cost which they produce. cesses. Upon this value system it is now possible to predict future growth 3.6 Phase V - Plan Formulation patterns, match these to opportunities The degree to which anticipated growth and measure their effects as social is within the power of the region will have costs and benefits. been included in the formulation of the Market analysis is made for growth models. However, when these models each sector - housing, industry, com- have been matched with intrinsic opportuni- merce, agriculture, recreation, etc. ties it becomes possible to formulate plans Parallel projections can be made for to achieve selected objectives. This will collateral public facilities - trans- involve public and private policies. It portation, utilities, community facili- will employ fiscal and legislative tools, ties, etc. These are interdependent capital investment in highways and utilities and each market analysis will be linked It will include planning and regulatory to time and to certain associated fac- powers. Only when the social objectives tors . are identified, and the means to achieve It is possible to establish them have been allocated, is there an adap- hypothetical conditions and project tive planning process. This is dynamic growth potential by sectors and assem- and continuous, a process of action and ble these into alternative growth mod- feedback, responsive to .the ecosystem and els. One of these models, used for social aspirations, continuously engaged comparison, should be an Uncontrolled in creative fitting, its success revealed Growth Model which shows the face of in the health of the ecosystem and the the future assuming the extension society. of the present with similar social conditions. With the conclusion of this phase there are available the compo- nents necessary for planning - the pro- clivities of the region as biophysical process and the present and potential future demands upon its resources. 3.5 Phase IV- Match of Ecological and Growth Models In the ecological study the re- 384 D Implementation TOOlS been issued a license to do so by the Board of Public Works." Section 722 - "The Secretary of Natural Resources... may for the purpose Maryland's array of legislative of promoting the public safety, health and regulatory tools for environmental and welfare, and protecting public and management has been rapidly expanding private property, wildlife and marine in recent years. These provide improved fisheries, promulgate rules and regula- means for resolving resource conservation- tions governing dredging, filling, development conflicts. In the context removing or otherwise altering or pol- of this chapter of the Report, imple- luting private wetlands." mentation tools complete the linkage of Although examination of the Act and reactive, preactive and adaptive approach- of similar statutes in other states in- es to conflict resolution. The imple- dicates that certain changes may be mentation tools mentioned below are needed to further strengthen the law,(Ref-31) based on current knowledge of the rela- Maryland has taken a significant stride tionships among Bay system elements toward conservation of its wetlands by as established and demonstrated in the passage of this legislation, systems models. They also delineate appropriate areas of public responsibil- ity and authority for effective "reactive" 2 The Maryland Environmental Service management in day-to-day decision-making, as informed by data collected in accord- The "Maryland Environmental Service" ance with "preactive" frameworks. creates what is in effect a state-wide Several recent initiatives in developing sanitary district directed to plan for and implementation tools for Bay management provide liquid waste treatment and solid are briefly described below. waste disposal facilities on a wholesale basis to Maryland's communities and industries. 1 Wetlands Conservation It "was created...as an operating and implementing agency and as an instru- M land (RP? "y Wetlands Act of ment of the State for assuring • that the 1970 ' ' is concerned not only needed environmental protection works with the prevention of destruction of are foreseen and put into operation at wetlands by dredging and filling but the proper time...[it has] functions and also with the restriction of activities responsibilities wholly distinct from that would degrade wetlands without [ them] . . . [ 11 has.] ... power to raise funds actually destroying them. The major by revenue bond sales which would be re- provisions of the Act that support the paid by charges for treatment and disposal State's policy of preserving wetlands services, and... responsibility to accept and preventing their despoliation are: and operate facilities upon the proper Section 718 of the Act declares request or by directive originating in the that it is "...the public policy of regulatory agencies... this State, taking into account varying "The Service... represents a prin- ecological, economic, developmental, re- cipal instrument of the State for insuring creational and aesthetic values, to that needed projects are foreseen, funded preserve the wetlands and to prevent and built. The existence of the Service the despoliation and destruction thereof." is evidence of the State's commitment to Section 721 - "It shall be unlaw- raise the necessary funds when needed and ful for any person to dredge or fill to have repaid to it the cost of environ- on State wetlands, except that he has mental projects." (Ref. 32) 385 3 Water Pollution Control ties; control of waste from marinas and shops; training of personnel to oper- Authority for water pollution con- ate facilities; and the development of trol in Maryland is shared by the Depart- design standards for collection and ment of Water Resources and the Environ- transmission facilities. mental Health Services of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. In 1970, the Maryland Water Resources Law was amended "to strengthen and streamline 5 Water Supply and Waste Disposal Plans the authority of the Department to con- trol pollution of State waters." (Ref.ll) Each county in Maryland is required The new law places responsibility and to produce a water supply and waste authority on the Department of Water disposal plan to guide local efforts in Resources to serve written complaints these efforts over a 15-20 year projec- upon violators of the State pollution tion period. It is not always clear, abatement laws and regulations, and on however, that the plans for the various the Attorney General to enforce the law counties are consistent with one another by means of injunction ("without the or with region-wide objectives in water necessity of showing a lack of adequate resource management. remedy at law") and criminal prosecution as appropriate and at the request of the Department of Water Resources. 6 Shore Erosion Control Program (Ref. 33) "The collection, treatment and Maryland passed legislation in 1964 discharge of sewage from domestic that makes the State a partner in private sources are under the jurisdiction of ventures to control erosion. The State the Environmental Health Services of established a shore erosion control the State Department of Health and division within the Department of Chesa- Mental Hygiene.... State law (Ref.33) peake Bay Affairs. The new agency was gives the Department detailed authority empowered to make long-term loans for to discuss with municipal and utility up to 25% of the total cost of protective organizations those actions needed to structures to individual shorefront control pollution and maintain the Water owners who formed themselves into erosion Quality Standards of the State, to control districts. The State raised the approve plans for such sewerage facilities limit for its share to 50% in 1968. In and, when necessary, to require by fiscal year in 1969 the State's approp- official legal action the installation riations for this purpose totaled an of such improvements as are needed to estimated $352,000. At the assumed protect the State waters." (Ref. 11) average of $100 per linear foot, and using the 50% sharing formula, this would be adequate to protect only about 1.4 4 Comprehensive Water Pollution miles of shore. However, the Maryland Control Program Geological Survey is helping greatly in the State's efforts to control shore The "Comprehensive Water Pollution erosion by studying erosional and deposi- Control Program" is designed to inten- tional processes in the Bay, and by con- sify water pollution control programs ducting research aimed at finding the Statewide including: treatment facili- most effective and efficient methods of erosion control. The Maryland Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 makes it State policy to protect 386 the water quality and to fulfill vital conservation purposes of rivers and re- lated adjacent land areas possessing outstanding scenic, fish., wildlife, and other recreation values. The Act sets up a Scenic Rivers Review Board to do the necessary inventorying, planning, and priority setting, and it empowers the General Assembly to establish a program to implement the scenic rivers plan. (Ref. 35) 387 Footnotes resource management" has been substituted for references to educational agencies in Mr. Burchinal's presentation.(Ref•23' 1. The classification of reactive, 5. This information has been super- preactive and adaptive responses was ceded by new maps produced by the Chesa- suggested by Dr. Russell L. Ackoff, peake Bay Biological Institute. Director of the Management Sciences Center, University of Pennsylvania. 2. "This checklist is not purported to be complete or final in its identi- fication and organization of wetlands value elements. The list will grow and be reshaped by inputs from persons in the Department who will use it and from persons outside State government who will want their values identified and expressed. "The purpose of such a list is to attempt to identify wetlands values as explicitly as possible. It is by no means intended to restrict comment on a particular wetlands issue. "The information display frame- work into which the answers from this checklist will be plugged, is not the only format for displaying information relevant to a wetlands decision. The supplier of information should view the checklist-matrix as a guide, not a constraint."(Ref.3) This generalized checklist is supplemented by special checklists for particular types of wetlands decisions -- e.g. "the advisability of conveying State submerged lands to riparian owners" (Checklist #1) and "considera- tions involved in private wetlands decisions" (Checklist #3).(Ref-3) References 4-7 mention existing or developing information sources respond- ing to various portions of the checklist. 3. The example is based on analyses made by EBS Management Consultants, Inc. in 1968. (Ref.10) 4. To make clearer our proposed use of ERIC as a prototype for a Chesapeake Bay Information Network, the term "Bay 388 References 9. "The Chesapeake Bay: Report of a Research Planning Study", Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, 1. Sorensen, J.C., 1971. "A Framework Virginia Institute of Marine Science, for Identification and Control of Re- March, 1971, pp.93-106; pp.94,96,103,106; source Degradation and Conflict in pp.67-84; pp.107-117. Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone", University of California, Berkeley, De- 10. "The Impact of the Proposed Annemesex partment of Landscape Architecture, M.S. Canal Industrial Complex Near Crisfield, Thesis, p.42. (in press) University Maryland", EBS Management Consultants, Inc., of California Press. (This thesis 1968. contains a state-of-the-art review of matrix use in environmental studies). 11. "Report on Status of Water Quality and Significant Sources of Wastewater 2. Leopold, Lune B.,et. al. Geological Discharges in Maryland", State of Maryland Survey Circular 645, A Procedure for Department of Water Resources and the Evaluating Environmental Impact, U.S. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., Environmental Health Services, pp.4-6. 1971, p.6,7. 12. "Wetlands in Maryland -- Volume II: 3. "Maryland Wetlands Bills (House Technical Report", Maryland State Planning Bills 285 and 286) -- An Implementation Department, Maryland Department of Game Plan for the Department of Natural and Inland Fish. Resources", J.R. Capper, June 24, 1970, p.18, pp.19-35. 13. "Community Economic Inventories", Compiled and published by the Department 4. "Chesapeake Bay -- Plan of Study", of Economic Development in cooperation Corps of Engineers and Advisory Group with local Bureaus of Industrial Affairs. to Chesapeake Bay Study (special reference to the Bay hydrologic model 14. "Maryland Manufacturers Directory under development), June, 1970, p.78,- 1969-70", Department of Economic Develop- p.1; pp.5 4,5 5. ment . 5. "Catalogue of Natural Areas in 15. "Inventory of Port-Oriented Land, Maryland", Maryland State Department of Baltimore Region", Maryland Department of Planning, August, 1968. Economic Development, 1963. 6. Plate 4 Aquatic Habitats. 16. "Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline Utili- zation in the Baltimore Region", Paul R. 7. Plate 21 Developed Recreation and Farragut, Regional Planning Council, Public Open Space. Baltimore, Maryland, April, 1969. Plate 27 Compiled Public Open Space Proposals. 17. "Chesapeake Bay: Bayside Recreation Plate 26 Long Range Open Space Inventory in Maryland", Maryland Depart- Concept Plan. ment of Forests and Parks, November, 1969. 8. "Annemessex Maritime Industrial 18. C.B.I.P.C. Work Plan Outline, Port Complex: Review, Analysis and Recom- 4D, Municipal Use, Department of Health mendations", Maryland Department of State and Mental Hygiene, Environmental Health Planning, May, 1971. Services. 389 19. County Soil Surveys conducted by Milliman, J.W., Pugh, A.L, III, Roberts, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil E.B., Zellner, A., Systems Simulation for Conservation Service. Regional Analysis - An Application to River Basin Planning, MIT Press, pp. 1-9; 20. Property maps maintained by the pp.124,125; pp.208,211. Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, Map Division. 30. "Maryland Wetlands Act" House Bill 285, 1970; "Annotated Code of Maryland", 21. National Aeronautics and Space Article 66c, Sections 718-731. Administration, Ecological Survey from Space, NASA AP-30, U.S. Government 31. "Recommendations to Improve the Printing Office, 1970. Maryland Wetlands Act (HB-285)" (un- published memorandum to Department of 22. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Natural Resources), Bosley and Alexander Ridge National Science Foundation Inter- Associates, Inc. disciplinary Research Relevant to Problems of Our Society -- Progress 32. Maryland Environmental Service, Report of Summer Study, 1970, ORNL 4632. Annual Report, 1970. 23. Burchinal, Lee G., "The Educational 33. "Maryland Annotated Code", Article Resources Information Center: An 96A ("Pollution Abatement" Subtitle), Emergent National System", Special Sections 28 and 28A; Article 43, Sections Libraries 59: No. 12, December, 387-466; 617; 645-673. 1968. 34. "Annotated Code of Mary land" (.1969 24. "The Baltimore Regional Economic Cumulative Supplement), Article 66C, Study", Regional Planning Council, Sections 759-762. Baltimore, Maryland, October, 1969. 35. "Scenic Rivers in Maryland", 25. "The Economic Impact of the Port Maryland Department of State Planning, of Baltimore on Maryland", Hille, S.J. assisted by Urban Research and Develop- and Suelflow, J.E. for the Maryland ment Associates, Inc., March, 1970. Port Authority, 1969. 26. "A Composite Mapping System for Practical Location Research", George Nez, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Office of Planning and Program Support, February, 1971. 27. "The Baltimore Regional Economic Study", Regional Planning Council, Baltimore, Maryland, October, 1969. 28. "Some Notes on the Linkage of the Ecologic and Economic Systems", Isard, Walter, Regional Science Assoc., Papers, XXII, Budapest Conference, 1968. 29. Hamilton, H.R., Goldman, S.E. 390 Appendix B: Bibliography and Graphic Reference 391 Bibliography and Graphic Reference Pa<7e Reference Much information relating to Chesa- 393 State and Federals Publications peake Bay management is produced by Federal, State and local agencies. 394 County Publications This information is produced for a wide variety of purposes, and it is pre- 395 Publications on Natural sented in many different formats and at Processes several levels of detail. One purpose of an information sys- 398 Publications on Socio-Economic tem with regard to Chesapeake Bay management Factors would be to continually monitor the informa- tion produced by various agencies; and to 399 Publications on Recreation synthesize it through incorporation into the graphic encyclopedia so that it is acces- 400 Other Publications on sible to a wider group of decision makers. Chesapeake Bay This section is a bibliography of publications and maps relating to Chesa- 401 Related Publications peake Bay management. Included are indica- tions (See "Graphic Encyclopedia Reference" 402 CBIPC Work Plan Outline - G.E.R.) of where the information appears in the graphic encyclopedia. The bibliogra- 403 Basic Map Sources phy is organized as follows: 1. State and Federal Publications 2. County Publications 3. Publications on Natural Processes 4. Publications on Socio-Economic Factors 5. Publications on Recreation 6. Other Publications on the Chesapeake Bay 7. Related Publications 8. CBIPC Work Plan Outline Materials 9. Basic Map Sources 392 1 State and Federal Publications Surface Salinity (%) - Spring Average, p. 11-61. 1• State Planning in Maryland - Activi- ties Report 1969. DSP, State Planning 40-Ft. Salinity (%) - Spring Commission, February, 1970. Average, p. 11-62. Map: DSP Planning Regions, p. 5. Surface Salinity (%) - Summer 2. Maryland State Laws, Policies, and Average, p. 11-64. Programs Pertaining to Water and Related Land Resources. SPD, September, 1966. 40-Ft. Salinity (%) - Summer Average, p. 11-65. 3. Future Administration of State of Maryland Water Resources Activities. SPD, 60-Ft. Salinity (%) - Summer March 1961. Average, p. 11-66. 3a. Future Administration of State of Surface Salinity (%) - Autumn Maryland Water Resources Activities - Average, p. 11-68. Appendices. SPD, March, 1961. 40-Ft. Salinity (%) - Autumn 4. Maryland Wetlands Bills (House Bills Average, P. 11-69. 285 and 286) - An Implementation Plan for the Department of Natural Resources. J.R. Zones of Optimum Salinity for Capper, June 24, 1970. Oyster Survival, p. 11-154. (BI91) 5. Maryland State Budget for the Fiscal 7• Chesapeake Bay - Plan of Study. Year Ending June 30, 1968. Corps of Engineers and Advisory Group to Chesapeake Bay Study, June, 1970. 6a. Maryland State Budget for the Fiscal Maps: Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Year Ending June 30, 1971. Study Economic Subregions, p. 34. 6. Proceedings of the Governor's Con- Corps of Engineers Field Data ference on Chesapeake Bay, September 12- Stations to be Established, p. 84. 13, 1968. Maps: Location of sites for which data 8• Chesapeake Bay in Legal Perspective. is available on subsurface stratig- Professor Garrett Power -- for Department raphy , p. 11-14. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, March, 1970. Erosion rates 1845-1942±, p. 11-30. (BI3). 9. Susquehanna River Basin Compact. Interstate Advisory Committee on the Manor Houses and Indian Villages Susquehanna River Basin. Revised January 1670 - Delmarva Peninsula, p. 11-39, 1967. Location of Railways - Delmarva 10. Potomac River Basin Compact. October Peninsula, P. 11-41. 1968 -- The Potomac River Basin Advisory Committee. Surface Salinity (%) - Winter Average, p. 11-58. 11 - Proposed Potomac National River: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia. U.S. 40-Ft. Salinity (%) - Winter Aver- Department of Interior, N.P.S., 1969. age, p. 11-59. Map: General Development Plan Proposed Potomac National River, p. 12. 393 12 . Maryland Statistical Abstract. f. Public Open Space and Recreation Department of Economic Development, Areas. June 30, 1970. g. Population, 1960 Incorporated and Unincorporated Places. 13. A Brief Synopsis of Legislation Passed by the 1970 Maryland General As- 21. River and Harbor Projects. U.S. sembly of Regional Significance. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dis- trict, 1968. (BIS) 14 . Port of Baltimore Bulletin. Maryland Port Authority. All of monthly 22. Unpublished status report on dredg- issues except September. ing projects to be completed, nearing com- pletion, or recently completed as of April 15. National Shoreline Study - North 1970. Maryland Department of Natural Atlantic Region - Draft Volumes I and II. Resources. (BI8) Corps of Engineers, August 1970. (BI13) 16. Waterborne Commerce of the United 2 County Publications States -- Part I: Waterways and Harbors Atlantic Coast. Department of Army, Corps 1. a. Anne Arundel County - General De- of Engineers, 1968. velopment Plan. Summary. May, 1967. (CI2) b. Anne Arundel County - Land Use 17. Significant Sources of Industrial Plan, 1980. Technical Report #4, General Waste in Maryland. Department of Water Development Plan -- Marcou O'Leary and Resources, January, 1970. (Bill) Associates, July, 1967. c. Anne Arundel County - Water and 18. Report of Status of Water Quality Waste Water Master Plan. Whiteford, and Significant Sources of Wastewater Dis- Falk and Mask, Inc., November 25, 1969 charge in Maryland. Maryland State De- (revised May, 1970). partment of Water Resources and Maryland d. Anne Arundel County - A Proposed State Department of Health and Mental Ordinance for the Regulation of Marinas - Hygiene -- Environmental Health Services, Draft. Marcou O'Leary and Associates, November, 1970. (Bill, BI2, CII2) April, 1966. 19. The Maryland Environmental Services 2. Baltimore City - Comprehensive Plan Act of 1970. Paul W. McKee, Director, for Baltimore - Review Draft. Baltimore Maryland Department of Water Resources and City Department of Planning. Revised Thomas C. Andrews, Natural Resources Plan- November, 1969. ner, Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources . 3. Baltimore County - Proposed Zoning Amendments 1969. Office of Planning and 2 0. Manual of Coordinates: Maryland. Zoning, September 4, 1969. Maryland Department of State Planning, 1969. (BII2) 4 . Calvert County Zoning Ordinance. a. General Alphabetical Listing of June 29, 1967. Places. b. Alphabetical Listing of Places, 6 _ Cecil County - Community Facilities by County. Plan - Draft. Marcou O'Leary and Associates c. Historical Architecture and for Planning Commission and County Commis- Landmarks. sioners, November 17, 1964. d. Housing Subdivisions and Develop- ments . Cecil County Zoning Ordinance. e. Railroad Stations. Cecil County Planning and Zoning Com- mission, June 30, 1962. 394 7 ' Charles County Comprehensive Plan. 18. The Counties of Maryland and Balti- Harland Bartholomew and Associates for more City — Their Origin, Growth and Charles County Planning Commission, Development, 1634-1967. SPD, June, 1968. August, 1966. 19' ...On Wedges and Corridors. Maryland 8- Dorchester County - Background for National Capital Park and Planning Com- Planning. Werner-Dyer and Associates for mission, 1964. (BI7) Dorchester County Planning Commission. 20. A Study of Waterfront Sites in Charles Dorchester County - Plans and County. Tri-County Council for Southern Policies, Werner-Dyer s Associates Maryland, 1967. for Dorchester County Planning Commis- sion . 21. A Study of Waterfront Sites in St. Mary's County. Tri-County Council for Dorchester County Zoning Ordi- Southern Maryland. nance . Revised February 27, 1967. 2 2. A Comprehensive Park and Recreation PXan. Charles and St. Mary's Counties, 9- Harford County - Recommended Re- Maryland; Allen Organization, 1968. visions to Zoning Regulations -- Draft. Harland Bartholomew and Associates for 23. 1970 Directory of County Officials, Planning and Zoning Commission, May, 1969. Maryland Assoc. of Counties. Also, recommended revisions to maps, July 1969. 3 Publications on Natural Processes Harford County Comprehensive Plan. Harford County Planning and Zoning Com- 1• The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay. mission, February, 1969. J. Donald Ryan; Board of Natural Resources, 10 Department of Geology, Mines and Water • Kent County Comprehensive Plan. Resources, 1953 -- Bulletin 12. (BI3) Kent County Planning Commission, 1968. Map: Sediments of Chesapeake Bay. 1:428,000±, p. back. Kent County Zoning Ordinance. November 18, 1969. 3• Final Report -- Baltimore Harbor Studjr. Chesapeake Bay Institutions, Johns 12. Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Hopkins University, Technical Report Zoning Ordinance. Queen Anne's County XXVI, December, 1961. E.D. Stroup, D.W. Planning and Zoning Commission, June 16, Pritchard, J.H. Carpenter. 1964. Map: Series of 1" = 3h" miles maps on water characteristics. A Look Ahead for Queen Anne's County. 1966. 4• Maryland Streamflow Characteristics. John M. Darling; Board of Natural Resources, 13. St. Mary's County -- Recommended Department of Geology, Mines and Water Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Resources, 1962 -- Bulletin 25. (SI1) Area of .. St. Mary's County Planning Maps: Location of Steam-gaging Stations, and Zoning Commission, August, 1967. p. 6. St. Mary's County -- Proposed Zoning Physiographic Divisions of Maryland, Ordinance. July 20, 1970. p. 7. 14. Somerset County Zoning Ordinance. November 15, 1969. Mean Annual Precipitation in Mary- land, in inches, 1931-55, p. 9. 395 Hydrologic Areas and Flood-frequency Crushed Stone, p. 18. (BIl) regions of Maryland, p. 14. Carbonate Rocks, p. 21. Sand and Gravel, p. 23. (Bll) 5. Maryland Water Supply and Demand Clays and Shales, p. 26. Study, Part I. Volume 1: Chesapeake Mineral Fuels, p. 28. Bay West Drainage Basin. Volume 5: Miscellaneous Mineral Deposits, Eastern Shore. SPD, September, 1965. p. 31. Map: Generalized Contour Map of the Base of Pleistocene Deposits in the Delmarva Peninsula, Vol. 5, p. 33. 12. Future Uses of the Chesapeake Bay for Cooling Thermal Discharges. Johns Hopkins University, July, 1969. 6 Chemical Quality Reconnaissance of # Maps: Maryland State and National Wild- Water of Maryland Streams. Jolly D. life Refuges, p. 11. Thomas; Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigations, Nov. 5, 1966. Fishing Areas in the Chesapeake Bay Map: Generalized geologic map showing p. 23. range of dissolved solids in sur- face waters, p. 10. 14. Tidal Flooding and Conversion^ of Lands Adjacent to Tidal Marsh on the 7, Water Resources Regulation -- Eastern Shore of Maryland. Robert M. General Water Quality Criteria and Specif- August; Department of State Planning, ic Water Quality Standards for All Mary- December, 1969. land Waters. Water Resources Commission Maps: Dorchester County -- Soil Types and Department of Water Resources, May 22, influenced by Tidal Action, p. 5a. 1967. (81112) Somerset County -- Soil Types in- 8. The Patuxent River: Maryland's As- fluenced by Tidal Action, p. 5b. set, Maryland's Responsibility. SPD, July, 1968. (SID 15. Maryland's Water Resource Management Map: Patuxent River Basin, p. 4. Requirements in the Susquehanna-Chesapeake Bay Basins. DSP, DNR -- prepared for 5. Catalog of Natural Areas in Maryland. Susquehanna River Basin Coordinating Com- SPD, August, 1968. Publication #148. mittee, December, 1969. (SIl) (BIIIl) Maps: Chesapeake Bay high flow fresh water pool, p. B-VI-2-Md. 11. Ground Water Aquifers and Mineral Commodities of Maryland. SPD, Maryland Effect of Susquehanna River dis- Geological Survey, U.S.G.S. -- SPD publi- charges on surface salinity values, cation #152, May, 1969. B-VI-4^Md. Maps: Aquifers of the Piedmont Region, p.4, 16. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environ- Patuxent Formation, p. 5. ment -- Folio 18 -- the Wildlife Wetlands Patapsco and Raritan Formations, and Shellfish Areas of the Atlantic p . 6 . Coastal Zone. American Geographical Magothy Formation, p. 7. Society, 1969. (BI4) Aquia Greensand, p. 8. Piney Point Formation, p. 9. 17. Scenic Rivers in Maryland. Scenic Manokin Aquifer, p. 10. Rivers Technical Task Force, March, 1970, Pocomoke Aquifer, p. 11. Maps: Potential Scenic Rivers, p. 9. Deposits of Pliocene and Existing Conditions, Pleistocene, p. 12. Patuxent River p. 12. 396 Pocomoke River - Existing Conditions, Choptank River Basin, p. 24. p. 14. Chester River Basin, p. 26. Severn River - Existing Conditions, P- 17- Sassafras River Basin, p. 28. Wicomico River - Zekiah Swamp - Patuxent River Basin, p. 32. Existing Conditions, p. 18. Potomac River Estuary, p. 34. Youghiogheny River - Existing Con- ditions, p. 20. 22. Wetlands in Maryland -- Volume II: Technical Report. SPD, Department of Patuxent River - Concept Plan, p. 24. Game and Inland Fish. Map: Wetlands Survey Regions, p. VII-7. Pocomoke River - Concept Plan, P- 26- 23. A Treatise on the Proposed Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Jess W. Severn River - Concept Plan, p. 29. Malcolm; Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., June 1969. Wicomico River - Concept Plan, p. 30. 24. Shore Erosion in Maryland. Slaughter, Youghiogheny River - Concept Plan, Turbot H. (BI3) p. 32 . 2 5. Striped Bass in Maryland Tidewater. 18. The Effects of Enlargement of the Fish and.Wildlife. (BI4) Chesapeake and Delaware Canal on the Ecology of the Chesapeake Bay. D.W. Pritchard; 26. Report on Patrol of Maryland's April 8, 1970. Closed Shellfish Areas for the Month of June, 1970. Marine Police. (Unpublished). 19. Impacts of the Chesapeake and Dela*- (BI4) ware Canal on the Ecology of the Region. L.E. Cronin, April 8, 1970. 27. Maryland Landings (of Fish and Shell- fish) 1969, CFS No. 5307: Annual Summary. 20. Water Resources Data for Maryland U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and and Delaware - Part 1, Surface Water Wildlife Service; Bureau of Commercial Records. U.S. Department of Interior, Fisheries; Maryland Department of Chesa- U.S.G.S., 1970. (SI1) peake Bay Affairs, Natural Resources Sum- mary. (BI4) 21. Extent of Brackish Water in the Tidal Rivers of Maryland. W. E. Webb 28. Map: Maryland State Forests and and S. G. Heidel; Maryland Geological Parks. Maryland Department of Forests and Survey, Report of Investigations No. 13, Parks. 1970. Maps: Basins of Rivers discharging to 29. Map: Inland Waterway - Delaware Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, p. 4. River to Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Army Dis- trict, Philadelphia, Corps of Engineers, Summary of Extent of Brackish 1967. Water, p. 14. 30- The Potomac Newsletter. Potomac Pocomoke River Basin, p. 20. Basin Center, Vol. IV, Number 7, July 29, 1970. Nanticoke River Basin, p. 22. 397 31. Reader Review. May 27, 1970. Wholesale Trade Areas and a. Sport Fishing. Trade Centers, p. 111-74. b. Recreational Boating. c. The Biology of the Chesapeake 3. Maryland Manufacturers Directory, Bay. 1969-70. Department of Economic Develop- ment. (BI7, BI9, CII2) 32. Water Resources of the Delaware River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey 4. The Economy of Maryland - Pro- Prof. Paper No. 381. (SIl) jections of Employment to 1980. SPD, October, 1968, Publication #143. (BI9) 33. Map: Anne Arundel County, Geologic Formations. Maryland Geological Survey, 5. The Labor Force of Maryland - 1916. (CI3) Projections of Socioeconomic Characteris- tics to 1980. SPD, Publication #144, 34. Map: Maryland Soils. Cooperative October, 1968. Extension Service Bulletin #212, Univer- sity of Maryland, College Park. (BI17) 6. Migration to Maryland - An Analysis of Socioeconimic Characteristics. SPD, 35. Map: Wildlife Resources Map, 1970. Publication #145, October, 1968. Maryland State Roads Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (BI15) 7. "Maryland Population Projections to 1980". State of Maryland, Department 36. Potomac River Basin Report. U.S. of Planning Newsletter, Volume XX, No. 4, Army Engineer District, Baltimore, North July, 1967. Atlantic Division. 8. 2020 Population Projections for 3 7. Water in Maryland: A Review of the Alternate Regional Development Patterns. Free State's Liquid Assets, P. N. Walker, RPC, April, 1969. Maryland Geological Survey, Educational Series, No. 2, 1970. 9. Inventory of Port-Oriented Land, Baltimore Region. Department of Economic Development, July, 1963. (BI9) 4 Publications on Socio-Economic Factors Maps: Shoreline Land Use and Vacant Waterfront Land, p. 34. 1. Community Economic Inventories. Compiled and published by Department of Qualifying Characteristics of Economic Development in cooperation with Vacant Shoreland -- Baltimore Local Bureaus of Industrial Affairs. City, p. 41. For: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Qualifying Characteristics of Anne's,Talbot, and Worcester Counties and Vacant Shoreland -- Baltimore Baltimore, Cambridge, Federalsburg, and County, p. 46. Salisbury Cities. Qualifying Characteristics of 2. Economic Base Study - Chesapeake Vacant Shoreland -- Anne Arundel, Bay Drainage Basins. National Planning P 55. Association for Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra- 10. Local Land Use Inventory, SPD , tion and Corps of Engineers, May, 1968. February, 1966. (SI2) Maps: Ratio of Income (1959) to Whole- sale Sales (1959) by County, p. 111-72. 398 11. Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline Utiliza- Table 7: Population of Counties by Minor tion in the Baltimore Region. Paul R. Civil Divisions. Farragut, Regional Planning Council, Table 8: Population of All Incorporated April, 1969. (BI9) Places and of Unincorporated Maps: Location of Major Port-Oriented Places of 1,000 or More. Vista Points, p. 23. Table 9: Population of Areas Annexed. Location of Large Shoreline Military 17. 1970 Census of Population. U.S. Facilities in the Baltimore Region, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the p. 26. Census. Preliminary Reports, PC(Pl)-22, Maryland. Tables 1 and 2. (BI14, BII) Large Institutions Located Along the Regional Shoreline, p. 44. 18. Preliminary Population Projections, 1970, 1980, 2000, by County. Maryland Location of Existing Public and State Department of Planning, April, 1967 Commercial Beaches in the Baltimore Region, p. 52. (BI12) 19. Preliminary Population Projections 1980, 2000, by Election District. Un- Net Residential Density by Trans- published report: Maryland State De- portation Zones (1965), p. 68. partment of Planning, June 26, 1967. (BI16) Census Tracts Contiguous to Tidal Rivers of the Chesapeake Bay, p. 70. 20. The Baltimore Regional Economic Study. Regional Planning Council, Balti- Access to Shoreline Areas from more, Maryland, 1969. Baltimore CBD, p. 89. 21. Unpublished Material: Existing 12. Twenty Year Highway Needs Study 1971- (1964) Urbanized Areas and Concentrations 1990, State Roads Commission of Maryland, of Development. Developed by: Soil February, 1970. Conservation Service (USDA). (Derived from aerial photographs 1957, 1964) 13. National Defense Related Employment Compiled by: Maryland Department of in Maryland, 1965-1969. DSP, May, 1970. State Planning, 1965. (BI16) Maps: Percentage Distribution of Defense Expenditures in Maryland: 1968, p. 14. Publications on Recreation Unemployment Rates by County: March, 1. Outdoor Recreation in the Balti- 1969, p. 47. more Region. RPC, July, 1967. Maps: Potential Recreation Activity 14. The Economic Impact of the Port of Areas and Corridors, p. xv. Baltimore on Maryland. Stanley J. Hille and James E. Suelflow for Maryland Port Open Space Framework, p. 13. Authority, June, 1969. Watershed Areas, p. 15. 15. Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Executive Office of the President, Picnicking: System Performance, Bureau of the Budget, 1967. (BI9) p. 95. 16. U.S. Census of Population, 1960. Hiking: System Performance, Table 6: Area and Population of Counties, p. 101. Urban and Rural. 399 Golf: System Performance, p. 103. 7. A Guide to Maryland's Public Hunting Areas. Fish and Wildlife Ad- Trailerable Boating: Distribution ministration - DNR. Revised 1970. of Demand, p. 119. (BI12) Map: All State Public Hunting Areas 2. Maryland Sportfishing Guide. Depart- mapped on small sections of ment of Chesapeake Bay Affairs. Revised highway maps. June, 1969. (BI4) Map: Fishing areas mapped on U.S.C. and 8. Potomac Heritage Trail (part of G.S. map sections. Nationwide Trails Study). National Park Service, National Capital Region, U.S. 3. Chesapeake Bay: Bayside Recreation Department of the Interior, 1965. Inventory in Maryland. Department of Forests and Parks, November, 1969. (BI12 , 9. Land Use Survey of Piscataway BIS) Park. National Park Service, National Maps: Location of State, County and Local Capital Region, U.S. Department of the Bayside Ports, p. 23. Interior, 1963. Location of Open Historical Sites 10. Historic Annapolis, Incorporated. and Quasi-Public Camps, p. 24. Location of Existing Commercial 6 Other Publications on Chesapeake Bay Beaches and Campgrounds and Country Clubs, p. 25. 1. Reconnaissance Study of the Chesa- peake Bay. Paul R. Farragut; Regional 4. A Plan and Program for the Acquisi- Planning Council, September, 1968. tion and Development of Open Space in Maps: Watershed Areas, p. 10A. (BI2) the Baltimore Region. RFC, April, 1970. Parts I-IV. Shoreline Physiography, p. 12A. Maps: Long Range Regional Open Space Concept Plan, p. 11-12. Erosion and Deposition, p. 16A. (BI3) Watershed Analysis Areas, p. Il- ls. Polluted Shellfish Areas, p. 46A. Priority Program: General Patterns Incidence of Water Milfoil, p. 50A. of Emphasis, p. III-16. Regional Sewerage Plan, p. 72A. 5. Maryland Forests and Parks. De- partment of Forests and Parks. 2. Planning-Related Organizations in Map: State Parks and Forests with the Baltimore Region. RPC, October, 1967. Description of facilities. 3. Fifth Annual Report, Program Ac- 6. Maryland Outdoor Recreation and tivities, July 1, 1968 -- June 30, 1969. Open Space Plan -- Concept Plan. DSP, Water Resources Research Center, Univer- Department of Forests and Parks, State sity of Maryland. Planning Commission, June, 1970. Maps: Open Space and Recreation Areas 4. Chesapeake Bay Case Study. Trident (Existing and Potential), p. 19. Engineering Association, Annapolis, Mary- land, 1968. Open Space and Outdoor Recreation System, p. 37. 400 5. Johns Hopkins University; Univer- 7. The Nation's Water Resources. sity of Maryland; Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Water Resources Council, November, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 1968. a. Toward a Methodology for Manage- Plates: Wildlife Wetlands and Shell- ment and Control of the Chesapeake Bay. fish Areas of the Atlantic b. "General Systems Method", Roland Coastal Zone, plates 5 and 6. F. Beers, Jr. c. "Utilization and Interpretation 8. Wetlands Preservation. Peter of the Matrix for Identifying Interactions L. Johnson, Open Space Institute, 1969. of Major Components of the Chesapeake Plates: Shoreline Characteristics and Bay System". Erosion Condition (lower Bay), d. "Memorandum" from Chesapeake Bay Vol. II, pi. 15. Study Steering Committee, November 18, 1970. Shoreline Ownership and Use e. The Chesapeake Bay: Report of Map (lower Bay), Vol. II, pi. 16. a Research Planning Study, Roland F. Beers, Jr. et al. Shoreline Characteristics and Erosion Condition (upper Bay), Vol. II, pi. 19. 7 Related Publications Shoreline Ownership and Use 1• Waste Management: Generation and Map (upper Bay), Vol. II, pi. 20. Disposal of Solid, Liguid and Gaseous Wastes in the New York Region. Regional 9. Open Space in Orange County. Uni- Plan Association, March, 1968. versity of California, Irvine, March, 1970. 2• Summary Report on the Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries. Battelle 10. San Francisco Bay Plan. San Memorial Institute for Department of In- Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop- terior, Office of Estuarine Studies, Fed- ment Commission, January, 1969. eral Water Pollution Control Administration, December 30, 1968. 11• Narragansett Bay: A Marine Use Profile. Lewis M. Alexander for Office 3. Waterfront Renewal -- Technical Sup- of Naval Research, June, 1966. plement . Wisconsin Department of Re- source Development, 1964. 12. Economic Impact of Marine-Oriented Activities - A Study of the Southern 4. Where Not to Build -- A Guide for New England Marine Region. Department Open Space Planning. Technical Bulletin of Food and Resource Economics, Univer- No. 1. Department of Interior, Bureau sity of Rhode Island, 1967. of Land Management, April, 1968. 13. Effects of Engineering Activities 5. Economic Impact of a Regional Open on Coastal Ecology. L. E. Cronin, G. Space Program for the San Francisco Bay Gunter, S. H. Hopkins, September, 1969. Area. Development Research Associates for (for Corps of Engineers). People for Open Space, n.d. 14. A Plan for the Marine Resources of 6. The Case for Open Spaoe in the San the Atlantic Coastal Zone. George P. Francisco Bay Area. Development Research Spinner American Geographical Society, Associates for People for Open Space, n.d. 1969. 401 15. Public Policy and Shoreline Land- 2. Physical and Chemical Oceanography owner Behavior. Burby, R. J., Ill: Weiss/ and Hydrology (CBI). S. F. Water Resources Research Institute, Reference 1:6 1970. Proceedings of the Governor's Con- ference on the Chesapeake Bay, "Chemical 16. North Atlantic Regional Water Re- and Physical Oceanography of the Bay". sources Study. Regional Plan Association, 11-49; Prichard, D. W. 1962. (All) 3. Bay Biology (DCBA). 17. The Physiographic Provinces of North a. Introduction. America. Atwood, W. W., 1940. (All) b. General Features. Map: Landforms of the United States. c. Structure and Function. Erwin Raisz, 1957. d. Significant Environmental Factors. 18. Engineering Management of Water e. The Effect of Man's Activities. Quality. McGauhey, P. H., McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968. (CII2) 4. Bay Use Inventories, Impacts, Trends. a. Land Use Classification Accord- 19. Water in Industry: A Survey of ing to Use (SPD, 1970). (SI2) Water Use in Industry. National Associa- b. Commercial Shipping (MPA). (BIS) tion of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce c. Industrial Use (DWR) (incomplete). of the United States in cooperation with d. Municipal Use (BEHS). the National Technical Task Committee on (1) "Sewage Treatment Plants Industrial Wastes, 1965. with Flows Greater than or Equal to 0.5 mgd". Map S, Table SI (location, receiving 2 0. Systems Simulation for Regional stream, treatment, design flow, existing Analysis: An Application to River - flow, population equivalent, lbs. BOD, Basin Planning. Hamilton, H. R., et al, % removal). Maryland State Department MIT Press, 1969. of Health. (Bill). (2) "Sewage Treatment Plants 21 . Engineer's Evaluation Report, Pota- with Flows Less than 0.5 mgd". Table S2 ble Water Supplies, New Castle County, (location, receiving stream, treatment, Delaware, Drawing No. B-9, Roy F. Weston, population equivalent, design flow). April, 1970. Maryland State Department of Health. (3) Major Points of Sewage Dis- 2 2. White Clay Creek Dam and Reservoir, charge Outside of Delineated Area, Table Preliminary or Feasibility Phase, New S3; Towns with Sewerage Systems, but No Castle County, Delaware, Chart No. 4-2, Treatment Facilities, Table S4; Towns under Whitman, Requardt and Associates, March, Specific Order, Table S5; Towns with No 1967. Sewerage Systems and No Treatment Fa- cilities, But Are in Need of Such, Table S6. (Bill) 8 CBIPC Work Plan Outline (4) Waste Water Discharge, by County, Drainage Area. Maryland State 1. Physical Geography (MGS). Department of Health. (BI10, SI3) a. Delineation of the Bay System (5) Surface Water Supply Intakes (incomplete). (public) (Map W, Table Wl). Maryland b. Geological History. State Department of Health. (BI2) c. Area e. Recreation (DCBA, GIF, F & P). d. Shoreline (and shore erosion). f. Commercial Fishing e. Bottom - Geology. Referenc e 1:6 402 Proceedings of the Governor's 4. Corps of Engineers Conference on the Chesapeake Bay, "Bay a. Inland Waterway Map of Chesa- Fisheries Resources". 11-91; Manning, peake and Delaware Canal (April, 1967) J. H. (BI4) 1" = 10,000' b. River and Harbor Project Maps, g. Transportation Baltimore District. 1966, 1967, 1968 (1) Water (MPA). (BIS) and 1969. (2) Roads (SRC) (Incomplete). (3) Rail (MPA) (rail-water inter- CBIPC Work Outline faces ) (BI8) IV, A, Maps: 1:500,000 Map: Chesapeake Bay Rail- Dominant Natural Features. Water Interfaces Outside of Port of Bait- Preliminary Year 2000 State De- imore. velo pment Plan. (4) Airports Transportation Network in Mary- (5) Public Transportation (in- land complete ) . Population. Density 2000. Also Reference 1:6 Population Density 1980. Proceedings of the Governor's Con- Population Density 1960. f eren ce on the Chesapeake Bay, "The Distribution of Urban Land Use, Biolo gy of the Chesapeake Bay". 11-75; Year 2000. Croni n , L . E . Functional Areas Classification, Year 2000. Basic Map Sources 6. Official Highway Map: Maryland. Maryland State Roads Commission, 1970. 1. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (BIS, BI12) Maps a. 1:80,000 1 ,224 7. "Map of Anne Arundel County Show- 1,225 ing Topography and Election Districts", 1,226 (BIS) 1949, 1967 (limited revisions). State 1 :40,000 548 555 of Maryland, Maryland Geological Survey 549 557 (Compiled from topographic sheets from 550 558 Corps of Engineers and U.S. Geological 551 559 Survey) 1:62,500. (DI1) 553 560 554 572 8. Advance Soil Survey (subject to And Nautical Chart 101-SC, change) Anne Arundel County, 1968. (Potomac River). U.S.D.A. - Soil Conservation Service, 4" = 1 mile, 1:15,840. (EI2) 2. Maryland Geologic Survey. (BIS, BIS) 9. Property Maps of Anne Arundel a. Geologic Map of Maryland 1968; County, Maryland (#69, 70). Map 1 : 250,000. Division, Maryland Department of Assess- b. Map of Maryland (Department of ments and Taxation, 1:7,200. (FI1) Geology, Mines and Water Resources) 1961 c. Topographic Map of Maryland 10. Tax Assessment Maps. 1968; 1:250,000. 3. U.S. Geologic Survey 1:250,000 NJ 18-1 Baltimore NJ 18-4 Washington, D. C. NJ 18-5 Salisbury, Maryland NJ 18-2 Wilmington 403