Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library

554
Monitoring
The only practical means by which to measure future success of the
linked methodology described Is to use tho comprehensive Bay monitoring
program put into place In 1984 and somewhat enlarged in 1985. Both
water quality parameters and soma living resources (phyto-and
zooplankton, benthos) arc Included in the program, and sediment samples
for toxicant content covered as well. A total of 28 Virginia and 22
Maryland malnstem stations are Included in the program. Equally
Important, for living resource monitoring especially, considerable
tributary monitoring Is also being carried out.
Nutrients are featured In the water quality monitoring. Although these
appear to have little direct influence on higher trophic levels, in fact
as the source of the remarkably (and unwanted) high primary productivity
by algae in the Bay, nutrient monitoring is vital, If water quality Is
to be seen to Improve.
The zooplankton portion of the monitoring program is also of great
value, given the great Importance of those organisms (especially) as
food for certain fishes. Improvements In the numbers of these and other
key parameters or organisms measured each year will Indirectly attest as
to whatever various basic programs aimed chiefly at water quality
improvements are succeeding.
Other monitoring activities have already been mentioned, such as yearly
SAV surveys and photography-mapping, the FWS winter waterfowl surveys,
state juvenile fish index surveys, oyster spat surveys, etc - When all
are figured in, a potentially quite reasonable sum total of resource
Information Is available against which to match water quality changes,
as the overall Bay restoration program goes forward.
Summary - A description has been given of potential and probable linkage
between water quality and certain kinds of living resources In
Chesapeake Bay. The kinds of data which can be used to document past
quantities of each of these ecosystem elements are reviewed. Suggested
quantitative goals are mentioned, as "coupled" targets to shoot for, In
achieving better water quality standards and increasing populations of
living resources on a geographical segmented basis.
Looking ahead, the monitoring of Bay water quality and some living
resources in the present program, as well as some living resource data
available from other ongoing programs, will be invaluable In gauging
future success of all restoration activities. Other monitoring programs
are discussed briefly In the paper.
Tha Chesapeake Bay's problems are basically these linked to large human
populations. Such environmental problems (particularly perceived as
living resources failures), since they originate with people, can also
be solved by people, given their will and energy (and adequate funding).
By noting Incremental Improvements, as discussed In the paper, patience
for the long pull toward eventual restoration is more likely to be
maintained.