main components of the ecological 

 dynamics of the bay. 



3. Definition of physical 

 and chemical tolerances and distri- 

 bution patterns for these organisms 

 (distributions have been produced in 

 a large size map atlas of the entire 

 bay at 1:250,000 scale). 



4. Conceptual and simulation 

 models of bay organisms. 



These tools will then form the 

 basis for analysis of Corps hydraulic 

 model data representing various low 

 flow conditions during Phase II of 

 the Biota Assessment. 



DISCUSSION 



Question : (to Dr. Shea) I'm a 

 little curious about this species 

 basis approach to looking at the 

 slough problem in the Chesapeake. 

 You have identified 57 species 

 you've been working with in terms 

 of their salinity tolerance and 

 how they might respond. I wonder, 

 of these 57 species, how many, for 

 example, were plankton or micro zoo- 

 plankton or bacteria? 



Answer: What happens with that 

 kind of approach—because of what 

 people are conscious of--when you 

 start going at it species by 

 species they will start pointing 

 out things they like to catch or 

 eat or see in the bay. That's 

 where we have species-related data 

 on things like striped bass. 

 Whereas what makes any estuarine 

 system go or operate are things 

 which we can't even recognize as 

 a species. We don't have any data 

 for them. Nobody eats or cares 

 about them on an organism level. 



REFERENCES 



Boesch, H. F. The ecology of the 

 marine cladocera of lower Chesa- 



peake Bay. University of Vir- 

 ginia; 1977 101 p. Dissertation. 



Burrell 1972; Goodwin 1970; Grant & 

 Olney 1979; Heinle 1969, Jacobs, 

 1978; Rupp 1969; Sage & Olson 

 1976. Cited in: Shea, G.B.; 

 Mackiernan, G.B.; Athanas, L.C.; 

 Bleil, D.F. ; Chesapeake Bay low 

 flow study: biota assessment. 

 Phase I: final report. Laurel, 

 MD: WESTECH; 1980. 



Cowardin, L. , Carter, M.U.; Golet,F. 

 C; LaRoe , E.T.; Classification 

 of wetlands and deep-water hab- 

 itats of the United States. 

 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, Department of 

 the Interior; 1977; 100 p. 



Mansueti & Hollis 1963; Ritchie & 

 Koo 1973; and Scott & Boon 1973. 

 Cited in: Shea, G.B.; Mackier- 

 nan, G.B.; Athanas, L.C.; Bliel, 

 D.W.; Chesapeake Bay low flow 

 study: biota assessment. Plase 

 I: final report. Laurel, MD: 

 WESTECH, 1980. 



Maryland Geologic Survey. Water. Bal- 

 timore, MD: Maryland Educational 

 Series No. 2. ; 1970. 



Pritchard, D.W. Observations of Cir- 

 culation in coastal plain estu- 

 aries. Lauff, G.H. , ed. Estuar- 

 ies. Washington, D.C.: Am. 

 Adv. Sci. Publ. 83; 1966. 



Stroup, E.D.; Lynn, R.J. ; Atlas of 

 salinity and temperature distri- 

 butions in Chesapeake Bay 1952 

 to 1961 and seasonal averages 

 1949 to 1961. Graphical summary 

 report 2. Ref. 63-1, CBI ; Balti- 

 more, MD: John Hopkins Univer- 

 sity; 1963: 410 p. 



Symposium on the classification of 

 brackish waters. Oikos 9:311- 

 312; 1959. 



148 



