Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library
Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library
manager can look for a reason for the problem. It might be a lack educa tion In that area, the cost share rate may be too low (not likely), or It the specific BHP may not work with the soil type or farming rotation used or the technical assistance being provided may not understand how to design the BMP for the area. All of these are questions that could not have been asked early In a program without a good tracking system, and as you can see the system only pointed out the potential for a problem and allowed the manager to make the proper evaluation of the situation. Summary In summary, It 1s easy to understand the need for a system that allows for the accounting of funds being used for NPS program grants. That Is the normal accounting type of bookkeeping that every agency requires. However, the need to keep track of the actual location of the BHPs that are being bought and paid for 1s a little different from our past exper ience in fundings of sewage treatment plants. The data that can be collected regarding the contracts and the BHPs in the contracts is very useful for a manager and may be used to evaluate the many aspects of the total Implementation program. Not only can the location and effective ness of the BHPs be tracked, other Items can be investigated such as the reasons for BHPs being used too an excess or not used at all. It must be understood that while a tracking system may not be able to answer all our questions, it can and should cause us to ask questions that we would otherwise not have reason to ask. A tracking system used In conjunction with a good, detailed GIS should be able to provide the basic Input data for evaluation models that are not now being used because of lack of a good data base. The need for and the uses of a good tracking system make the time and effort necessary to start and to keep one up to date, small compared to what can be accomplished with such a system. 561
Estuarine and Coastal Management - Toolsofthe Trade. Proceedingsof the TenthNational Conference of The Coastal Society. October 12-15,1986. New Orleans, LA. Copyright by The Coastal Society 1987. Introduction AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTS SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ABUNDANCE OF MARYLAND SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN 1985 James D. Simons The BioneticsCorporation P.O. Be* 1575 Vint Hill Farms Station Warrenton, VA 22186 Communities of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are an Integral part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. They provide an Important habitat for many species which use SAV either as a food source or as protection from predators, e.g., a nursery. They reduce currents and baffle waves, allowing for deposition of suspended material. In addition, they bind sediments with their roots and rhizomes to prevent erosion of the underlying material, and are important In nutrient cycling both through the absorption and release of nitrogen and phosphorus (Thayer, et al., 1975; Kemp, et al., 1984; Orth, et al., 1984; Ward, et a!., 1984). Interest in SAV communities was generated in the 1970's because of their dramatic baywide decline. In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Identified the decline and disappearance of SAV as one of three major areas that required more in-depth research in order to understand the state of the health of the Chesapeake Bay. A key aspect of the SAV research prograns, begun in 1976 and currently being funded by several Federal agencies and the State of Maryland, entails an annual aerial monitoring of all SAV beds In the Maryland Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. A similar effort, which is closely coordinated with the Maryland program, Is annually carried out in the Virginia portion of the Bay. The first aerial survey of Maryland SAV beds was conducted In 1978 and resulted In a comprehensive report on the SAV distribution In Maryland (Anderson and Macomber, 1980). In that year a similar survey was conducted for the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay (Orth. et al., 1979). In addition, an annual Maryland Department of Natural 563
- Page 117 and 118: In general, though, these relations
- Page 119 and 120: meetings. Their recommendations ver
- Page 121 and 122: etveen any other academic departmen
- Page 123 and 124: Many of these same demands vere mad
- Page 125 and 126: Estuarineand Coastal Management- To
- Page 127 and 128: The private sector The motivation f
- Page 129 and 130: It's more and more obvious: those w
- Page 131 and 132: The Center's role is limited to ide
- Page 133 and 134: Estuarine and Coastal Management -
- Page 135 and 136: County. The resulting roport, "Cons
- Page 137 and 138: and shellflshing; to provide open s
- Page 139 and 140: The COD is innovative as a performa
- Page 141 and 142: Estuarine andCoastal Management - T
- Page 143 and 144: provide adequate information for a
- Page 145 and 146: Aquaculture project The most recent
- Page 147 and 148: Estuarine andCoastal Management - T
- Page 149 and 150: CHESAPEAKEBAY VirginiaTippie,Chair
- Page 151 and 152: 542 program with an investment of 2
- Page 153 and 154: 544 Estuarine andCoastal Management
- Page 155 and 156: Estuarine andCoastalManagement - To
- Page 157 and 158: methodology being proposed - develo
- Page 159 and 160: major sections of the 1972 Clean Wa
- Page 161 and 162: Prioritizing makes best use of the
- Page 163 and 164: Degradation of the Bay has taken a
- Page 165 and 166: 558 federal agencies, additional tr
- Page 167: 560 ing system 1t would be helpful
- Page 171 and 172: obtained, or shoreline changes-were
- Page 173 and 174: SAV was sighted as well as water co
- Page 175 and 176: canadensis and Zannlchelia palustri
- Page 177 and 178: greatest percent increases occurrin
- Page 179 and 180: Orth, R.J., K.L. Heck, Jr. and J. v
- Page 181 and 182: Estuarineand Coastal Management- To
- Page 183 and 184: Bromley (1978) considered (1) propo
- Page 185 and 186: 2. Rnyulntorv nrogram-i A number of
- Page 187 and 188: private nuisance is an interference
- Page 189 and 190: property rule. If Congress passed s
- Page 191 and 192: nonpoint source water pollution con
- Page 193 and 194: Estuarineand CoastalManagement - To
- Page 195 and 196: cannot be granted unless there is u
- Page 197 and 198: ecomes subject to cancellation. An
- Page 199 and 200: REFERENCES Morrison, M.D. and M.K.
- Page 201 and 202: 598 other agencies are Involved in
- Page 203 and 204: 600 requirements for dumping of ves
- Page 205 and 206: 602 oatorlal in the future. The oil
- Page 207 and 208: Estuarineand Coastal Management- To
- Page 209 and 210: Application of the doctrine of Impl
- Page 211: oundaries of the dry sand area and
- Page 214 and 215: Estuarineand Coastal Management- To
- Page 216 and 217: compilation of existing data. Areas
Estuarine and Coastal Management - Toolsof<strong>the</strong><br />
Trade. Proceedingsof <strong>the</strong> Tenth<strong>National</strong> Conference<br />
of The Coastal Society. October 12-15,19<strong>86</strong>. New<br />
Orleans, LA. Copyright by The Coastal Society<br />
1987.<br />
Introduction<br />
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTS<br />
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ABUNDANCE OF<br />
MARYLAND SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN 1985<br />
James D. Simons<br />
The BioneticsCorporation<br />
P.O. Be* 1575<br />
Vint Hill Farms Station<br />
Warrenton, VA 221<strong>86</strong><br />
Communities of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are an Integral part<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. They provide an Important habitat<br />
for many species which use SAV ei<strong>the</strong>r as a food source or as<br />
protection from predators, e.g., a nursery. They reduce currents and<br />
baffle waves, allowing for deposition of suspended material. In<br />
addition, <strong>the</strong>y bind sediments with <strong>the</strong>ir roots and rhizomes to prevent<br />
erosion of <strong>the</strong> underlying material, and are important In nutrient<br />
cycling both through <strong>the</strong> absorption and release of nitrogen and<br />
phosphorus (Thayer, et al., 1975; Kemp, et al., 1984; Orth, et al.,<br />
1984; Ward, et a!., 1984).<br />
Interest in SAV communities was generated in <strong>the</strong> 1970's because of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir dramatic baywide decline. In 1976, <strong>the</strong> U.S. Environmental<br />
Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Identified <strong>the</strong> decline and<br />
disappearance of SAV as one of three major areas that required more<br />
in-depth research in order to understand <strong>the</strong> state of <strong>the</strong> health of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Chesapeake Bay. A key aspect of <strong>the</strong> SAV research prograns, begun<br />
in 1976 and currently being funded by several Federal agencies and <strong>the</strong><br />
State of Maryland, entails an annual aerial monitoring of all SAV beds<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Maryland Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. A similar effort,<br />
which is closely coordinated with <strong>the</strong> Maryland program, Is annually<br />
carried out in <strong>the</strong> Virginia portion of <strong>the</strong> Bay.<br />
The first aerial survey of Maryland SAV beds was conducted In 1978 and<br />
resulted In a comprehensive report on <strong>the</strong> SAV distribution In Maryland<br />
(Anderson and Macomber, 1980). In that year a similar survey was<br />
conducted for <strong>the</strong> Virginia waters of <strong>the</strong> Chesapeake Bay (Orth. et al.,<br />
1979). In addition, an annual Maryland Department of Natural<br />
563