Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
9 • chincoteague bay
9. Chincoteague Bay9. Chincoteague Bay
David P. Blazer, Mark L. Luckenbach, Mitchell L. Tarnowski, Catherine E. Wazniak, & David E. Wilson
Jane E. Thomas, Joanna L. Woerner,David P. Blazer, Mark L. Luckenbach, Mitchell L. Tarnowski, Catherine E. Wazniak, & David E. Wilson
Jane E. Thomas, Joanna L. Woerner,
138
shifting sands
How healthy is Chincoteague Bay? Conclusions The ecosystem health of Chincoteague Bay is impacted
Chincoteague Bay ranked second in the Coastal Bays for estuarine health and first for watershed health, with nearly all watershed indicators ranked highest in this watershed. However, high stream nitrate and decreased water quality and seagrasses reduced its overall rating. This resulted in Chincoteague Bay’s overall ecosystem health ranking as second in the Coastal Bays. For more information, see Chapter 2—Ecosystem Health Assessment.
Chincoteague Bay issuesAlthough the following issues are presented here as pertaining to Chincoteague Bay, they also apply to other Coastal Bays subwatersheds.
Regional coordination should be implemented
Chincoteague Bay faces transboundary challenges, with approximately one-third of its watershed in Accomack County, Virginia. To address these and other challenges, local planners formed an informal network called the Delmarva Atlantic Watershed Network (DAWN). For information about DAWN, see Chapter 4—Assawoman Bay.
1.0
6.6 3.3
0.0
.
Jane
Tho
mas
The Chincoteague Bay watershed is primarily agriculture and forest.
139
chin
cote
ague
bay
chin
cote
ague
bay
Chapter 9 • chincoteague bay
Watershed area (km2) 315.5Average bay depth (m) 1.22Surface area of bay (km2) 377Watershed area : surface area 0.84Bay water volume (m3 × 106) 374.5Watershed area : water volume 0.84Flushing rate (days) unknownPopulation MD: 10,468 VA: 7,767
PublicLanding
CaptainsCove
Stockton
Chincoteague
Little MosquitoCreek
BoguesBay
JohnsonBay
Green RunBay
WestBay
PurnellBay
BrockanortonBay
TanhouseCreek
PawpawCreek
RobinsCreek
WaterworksCreek
Toms Cove
Chincoteague Bay watershed
..
ScarboroCreek
Swans GutCreek
NewportBay SinepuxentBay
Conceptual diagram depicting general land use and features of Chincoteague Bay and its watershed.
Land use in Chincoteague Bay subwatershed(Maryland only)
Forest 40.2%
Wetlands22.9%
Residential1.5%
Agriculture33.2%
Beaches& bareground
2.1%
Commercial/urban <1%
Assawoman
Sinepuxent
Newport
Chincoteague
Isle of Wight
St Martin River
Aquaculture is an emerging industry
Southern Chincoteague Bay was one of the first and most extensive areas in Maryland where aquaculture was practiced. Oyster culture was the primary source of the succulent bivalves, as the wild Chincoteague Bay populations were limited and could not sustain a fishery. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trainloads of cultivated oysters were sent to market;10 by 1912 there were 40 growers in the region.9 Problems associated with the opening of the Ocean City Inlet led to the demise of Coastal Bays oysters and their culture.1,22 For more information, see Chapter 14—Diversity of Life in the Coastal Bays.
Shellfish aquaculture is attempting a comeback in the Coastal Bays, encouraged by the success of clam farming in Virginia and the decline in wild hard clam
Chincoteague Bay & watershed facts
140
shifting sands
populations. As of 2008, approximately 100 ha (250 acres) of bay bottom have been leased, primarily for on-bottom hard clam culture, although one enterprise is raising oysters with floating gear. Actual market production is still extremely limited.
Numerous obstacles confront aquaculture in the Coastal Bays. The regulatory process inhibits the granting of leases and permits. With the Assateague Island National Seashore side of the bay potentially closed to aquaculture, there is a shortage of suitable habitat (shallow, sandy areas). Suitable habitat for aquaculture is further limited by the potential encroachment of seagrasses into leased areas, which makes the bottom unusable for clam culture, both pragmatically and by lease agreement. Deteriorating water quality, including the proliferation of harmful algal blooms (HABs), is another concern. Neighboring property owners have voiced strong objections on aesthetic and user-conflict grounds. Human activities impact aquaculture sites both directly (poaching,
vandalism, accidental disturbance) and indirectly (indiscriminate use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, malfunctioning septic systems, and loss of waterfront accessibility and infrastructure to development).
To address many of the real and perceived problems associated with aquaculture, the Maryland Aquaculture Coordinating Council has developed a code of best management practices based on a ‘good neighbor’ policy i.e., minimizing impacts to adjacent properties and the environment.11 More egregious or persistent issues can be further resolved through the judicious use of regulations.
On the other hand, shellfish aquaculture can have beneficial effects.19 Clams and oysters are primary grazers, filtering phytoplankton from the water and reducing turbidity. Some of the filtered plant nutrients are incorporated into the sediments where they are sequestered or utilized by other organisms; the remainder is removed from the ecosystem by such means as denitrification and assimilation
Jane
Tho
mas
The town of Chincoteague, Virginia, on Chincoteague Island. Visible in the foreground are clam aquaculture plots.
141
chin
cote
ague
bay
chin
cote
ague
bay
Chapter 9 • chincoteague bay
by the bivalves, which are ultimately harvested. The harvested clams are replaced by a new cohort which continues the process of nutrient removal, resulting in an ecologically sustainable operation. Also, hard clam grazing has been shown experimentally to be capable of controlling HABs such as brown tide at high densities.3 Although localized improvements in water quality may be possible, whether the cultured populations will be of sufficient magnitude to significantly improve water quality bay-wide is another issue. However, since hard clams reach sexual maturity before they are harvested, they can help repopulate the wild stocks, building up the overall filtering capability. Shellfish culture can provide a source of livelihood to the rural inhabitants of the Coastal Bays, allowing them to maintain economic and cultural ties to the water, especially the commercial clammers displaced by the 2007 legislation banning mechanical harvesting gear in these bays.
Water quality is declining
Large areas of what was thought to be pristine habitat are showing significantly degrading water quality trends and living resource impacts. Despite past improvements, nutrients and phytoplankton have been increasing in recent years throughout Chincoteague Bay. Similarly, seagrass coverage increased between 1986–2001, coincident with historically improving nutrient trends. However, this increase leveled off and is now trending downward in Chincoteague Bay, suggesting that seagrass may have also passed a high point.16,17 For more information, see Chapter 13—Water Quality Responses to Nutrients and Chapter 15—Habitats of the Coastal Bays & Watershed.
The large-scale changes in water quality trends are considered a ‘warning shot across the bow’ for the estuary and its watershed. Although management actions have occurred on land, it may take decades to see the results, especially in this system where groundwater is the dominant delivery mechanism and flushing times are so long (i.e., what enters the bay stays for a long time and continues to impact the water quality). Changes in water quality will impact Chincoteague Bay’s living resources (from algae to seagrass to shellfish and other fish), as well as those animals that depend on the bays for sustenance (ducks, ospreys, and otters).
Strong correlations have been shown between total nitrogen input into estuaries and total phytoplankton production.2 Of specific interest are the impacts of
Adri
an Jo
nes
Wave energy exposes and erodes salt marshes in Chincoteague Bay.
142
shifting sands
changing nutrient loads on the abundance and quality of the algal community and whether these loads are related to the proliferation of HABs. HABs are those algae blooms that can be toxic to fish, shellfish, and/or humans, or which can indirectly disrupt ecosystems through production of high biomass and subsequent depletion of light, oxygen, and habitat.6,18,20 Consequently, HABs can lead to severe environmental, economic, and public health consequences.
The HAB species that causes brown tides (Aurecococcus anophagefferens) preferentially uses dissolved organic nitrogen over nitrate (NO3-).8 While fertilizer use throughout the world is increasing, the fraction of total fertilizer that is composed of organic material and manures is increasing at a greater rate.21,24 For example, worldwide use of urea as a nitrogen fertilizer and feed additive has increased more than 50% in the past decade.6 The Coastal Bays were documented as having some of the highest
maximum concentrations of urea in Maryland.7 Furthermore, nitrogen trends in Chincoteague Bay have been shown to be dominated by increasing dissolved organic nitrogen.8
Recommendations• ImplementtheCoastalBaysNutrient
Reduction Strategy.• Developamonitoringstrategyfor
groundwater.• InvestigatedesignatingChincoteague
Bay as an Outstanding Natural Resource Water to prohibit future discharges.
Brown tides occur annually
Brown tides turn bay water to a characteristic coffee color. They are caused by a microscopic alga and were first documented in Maryland in 1998.23,25 Analysis of historic pigment data has since confirmed its presence in Maryland since at least 1993.23 Brown
joan
na w
oern
er
Fishing boats and the Chincoteague Channel bridge on Chincoteague Island.
143
chin
cote
ague
bay
chin
cote
ague
bay
Chapter 9 • chincoteague bay
tide has been observed in all of the Maryland Coastal Bays and significant blooms (Category 3: > 200,000 cells mL-1) have occurred annually in Newport and Chincoteague Bays since 1999 when monitoring began. The Coastal Bays exhibit environmental conditions optimum for brown tide growth (e.g., temperature range of 20–25° C [68–77o F], high salinity, limited flushing, and high organic nutrients).5 Blooms usually occur in late May to mid-June with peak concentrations lasting approximately two weeks.
Brown tide has had particularly detrimental effects on the Peconic Estuary ecosystem in New York. Eelgrass beds, which serve as spawning and nursery grounds for shellfish and finfish, have been adversely impacted by decreased light penetration, partly due to brown tide blooms. The Peconic Estuary bay scallop industry, once worth almost $2 million annually, was virtually eradicated to a dockside value of a few thousand dollars. Oysters, hard clams, and possibly blue mussels have also been impacted to varying degrees by brown tide, although long-term impacts on these shellfish are unknown. Although scientists have not been able to document specific impacts
in Maryland, it is believed that brown tide blooms have limited scallops from re-establishing in the bays, reduced light to seagrasses, and decreased clam growth. For more information, see Chapter 13—Water Quality Responses to Nutrients.
Recommendations• Reducedissolvedorganicnitrogen
responsible for brown tide blooms.• Restorethenaturalresourcesaffected
by brown tide.
Features of Chincoteague Bay & its watershed Bay islands are an essential habitat
Bay islands are being lost to erosion, sea level rise, and natural succession. Although many of these islands are man-made (created from dredge spoil in the 1930s), they are key habitat for some important living resources. For example, bay islands provide essential nesting habitat for numerous waterbird species, as well as spawning habitat for horseshoe crabs (especially as bay beaches on the mainland and Fenwick Island disappear or are significantly disturbed by human
Jane
Tho
mas
Aerial view of the Chincoteague Inlet in Virginia. Assateague Island is visible in the background.
144
shifting sands
activities). Natural vegetative succession or disturbance will change the suitability of islands as nesting habitat according to bird species nesting condition requirements (e.g., natural changes in plant communities over time eliminate key habitats, making the island uninhabitable for certain species). Creation of new islands has faced several obstacles in the past. Particularly important is the debate between essential fish habitat (seagrass) and essential bird habitat (bay islands). For more information, see Chapter 15—Habitats of the Coastal Bays & Watershed.
Recommendation• Developanactionplanforbayisland
creation and preservation.
The Chincoteague Bay watershed is well-protected
Due to strong agricultural zoning and a desire to protect the richness and beauty
of Chincoteague Bay, Worcester County and the state of Maryland have protected 24% of the mainland Maryland watershed of the Coastal Bays’ largest bay. When Assateague Island is included, this number increases to 38%. Most notable are the 2,324 contiguous protected hectares (5,743 acres) in the state’s Rural Legacy Program that surrounds the 1,400-ha (3,500-acre) E.A. Vaughn Wildlife Management Area. Efforts have focused on large shoreline properties in the watershed which harbor dozens of rare and endangered plants and significant blocks of forest, gone from most of the northern Coastal Bays. With the highest wildlife diversity for both aquatic and terrestrial species, Chincoteague Bay will continue to be the focus of conservation dollars.
Wetlands in the Coastal Bays are protected in the Wetlands Reserve Program, in conservation easements, and in public (county, state, and federal) lands.
Jane
Tho
mas
The Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia is just one of many protected areas in Chincoteague Bay.
145
chin
cote
ague
bay
chin
cote
ague
bay
Chapter 9 • chincoteague bay
The Chincoteague Bay subwatershed contains 10 of the 12 Non-Tidal Wetlands of Special State Concern in the Maryland Coastal Bays watershed. They are: Pawpaw Creek, Tanhouse Creek, Scotts Landing Pond, Scarboro Creek Woods, Pikes Creek, Stockton Powerlines, Riley Creek Swamp, Hancock Creek Swamp, Powell Creek, and Little Mill Run. These sites contain populations of rare, threatened, and endangered species or represent examples of unique wetland habitats. For more information, see Chapter 15—Habitats of the Coastal Bays & Watershed.
Recommendations
• Forests:4,14• Establishafundingassistance
program for reforestation and management to include private landowners. Encourage the planting of hardwoods for diversity.
• Educatehomeowners’associationson forest easement management and the ecological functions of forests. Promote native tree diversity and retain urban tree cover.
• Increaselandowneroutreachefforts to promote a goal of 75% of forest land having forest stewardship plans over the next 10 years. Remove the disincentive to farmers who have a combination of forest and crop land who are penalized for having forest management plans (tax rates: $150/acre for those without farmland vs. $100/acre for those with farmland). Woodland should not be taxed at a higher rate.
• Determinesiteswithinthewatershed that have rare, threatened, or endangered species and match these with groundwater recharge areas, wellhead protection sites, and sensitive areas with forest interior dwelling species in order to prioritize high priority conservation areas.
• Wetlands:• ManagementoftheNon-Tidal
Wetlands of Special State Concern requires active management to preserve their unique character. Management recommendations vary depending upon the site,
Jane
Tho
mas
Forests and marshes blanket the bay side of Assateague Island.
146
shifting sands
but establishing a 30-m (100-ft) no-cut buffer from the edge of the wetland would benefit all of these wetlands.15 Additional management measures, depending on the wetland, include minimizing human disturbance (such as trail construction), controlling woody plant succession and invasive species, and minimizing hydrologic alteration.15
• SeveralwetlandsintheChincoteague Bay subwatershed may qualify to be designated as Non-Tidal Wetlands of Special State Concern. They are: Pikes Creek Woods, Spence Pond, Truitt Landing, and Waterworks Creek.13
• MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment has worked to prioritize wetlands for preservation, restoration, and mitigation in the subwatersheds of the Coastal Bays, including assessing species and resources and identifying areas where the
most benefit could be gained.12,13 For more information on wetlands, see Chapter 3—Management of the Coastal Bays & Watershed and Chapter 15—Habitats of the Coastal Bays & Watershed.
Forests & unaltered creeks & streams preserve Chincoteague Bay’s wilderness
Along with the Newport Bay watershed to its north, the 31,550-ha (77,962-acre) Chincoteague Bay watershed remains the most heavily forested drainage basin in the Coastal Bays. Extensive pine monocultures harvested at 30–40-year intervals make its woods less diverse than those to the north and west. Nevertheless, more than half of the watershed’s forests remain deciduous which has helped keep diversity high. The size and contiguous nature of the watershed’s 6,760 ha (16,700 acres) of forest has rendered it one of the primary hubs for forest interior birds in the Coastal Bays watershed. Its
Jane
Tho
mas
An eroding marsh island in Chincoteague Bay.
147
chin
cote
ague
bay
chin
cote
ague
bay
Chapter 9 • chincoteague bay
connection to Newport Bay to the north and protected forests in the Pocomoke and Nassawango Rivers drainages to the west make the watershed’s woods a key target for conservation. Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, watershed property owners have converted some 800 ha (2,000 acres) of farmland to forest over the past eight years and permanently protected 6,580 ha (16,250 acres) of the watershed.
Also unparalleled by any other watershed in the Coastal Bays are Chincoteague Bay’s unaltered tidal creeks. Strong zoning laws and sparse development have left most of the watershed’s creeks with undisturbed riparian habitat. Although high nutrient levels threaten many streams, the habitat quality and lack of disturbance on the creeks make for spectacular scenery. Many also hold nationally and even internationally rare plant species. However, extensively ditched streams have led to poor benthic and fish indices. For more information, see Chapter 15—Habitats of the Coastal Bays & Watershed.
The seldom-traveled and little-known secrets of creeks like Waterworks, Robins, Boxiron, Pawpaw, Tanhouse, Scarboro, and Pikes Creeks have rendered Chincoteague Bay a last bastion of true wilderness on the East Coast.
Wildlife diversity abounds
Wildlife diversity in Chincoteague Bay is spectacular. With ample forests, expansive marsh, and unbroken open space, the land surrounding Chincoteague Bay plays host to plant and animal species found nowhere else in the Coastal Bays watershed. The watershed’s forests harbor over 30 endangered plants and its marshes provide homes for the rare saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), breeding northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), gadwall (Anas strepera), black duck (Anas rubripes), black (Laterallus jamaicensis), king (Rallus elegans), and Virginia rails (Rallus
limicola), barn owl (Tyto alba), and marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). In winter, duck and goose diversity abounds and culminates in the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge at the bay’s southern end. The bay’s importance to migrating waterfowl is noted on an international level.
Chincoteague Bay also has great aquatic diversity, holding 3,133 ha (7,743 acres) of seagrass (about 73% of all the bay grass in the Coastal Bays). Seahorses, terrapin, and burrfish are among the residents. The combination of protected lands, seagrass abundance, and wildlife diversity have made Chincoteague Bay the last wildlife haven in the Coastal Bays.
Chincoteague Bay dubbed ‘Last Chance Scenic Place’
In 2006, Scenic Maryland (www.scenicmaryland.org) released its Last Chance Scenic Places report which includes the coveted gem of the Coastal Bays—Chincoteague Bay. Their description is accurate, describing the remote bay and its watershed as “a wild, largely undeveloped region dotted with tiny islands, marshes, beaches, and hunting and fishing camps [offering] a wealth of scenic beauty and diverse habitats.”
Scenic Maryland releases the annual report to draw attention to the state’s most beautiful places which are also becoming the most imperiled. In Chincoteague Bay’s Virginia portion, burgeoning development and permissive zoning threaten the very nature of the bay and its unspoiled vistas.
•
148
shifting sands
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Tom Brockenbrough from Accomack County, Virginia, for comments helpful in the completion of this chapter.
References1. Boynton, W. 1970. The commercial fisheries of
Chincoteague Bay—past, present, & future. In: University of Maryland Natural Resources Institute. Assateague Ecological Studies, Part I: Environmental Information. Contribution no. 446.
2. Boynton, W.R., J.H. Garber, R. Summers, & W.M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, & transport of nitrogen & phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay & selected tributaries. Estuaries 18: 285–314.
3. Cerrato, R.M., D.A. Caron, D.J. Lonsdale, J.M. Rose, & R.A.Schaffner. 2004. Effect of the northern quahog Mercenaria mercenaria on the development of blooms of the brown tide alga Aureococcus anophagefferens. Marine Ecology Progress Series 281: 93–108.
4. Coastal Bays Forestry Committee. 2002. Coastal Bays Forestry White Paper. http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/documents2008/forrestry_whitepaper.pdf
5. Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpentix, & M. Cottrell. 1989. An examination of the environmental factors important to initiating and sustaining “brown tide” blooms. In: Cosper, E.M., V.M. Bricelj, & E.J. Carpenter (eds). Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes & Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides & Other Unusual Blooms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
6. Glibert P.M., S. Seitzinger, C.A. Heil, J.A. Burkholder, M.W. Parrow, L.A. Codispoti, & V. Kelly. 2005. The role of eutrophication in the global proliferation of harmful algal blooms: New perspectives & approaches. Oceanography 18: 196–207.
7. Glibert P.M., T.M. Trice, B. Michael, & L. Lane. 2005. Urea in the tributaries of the Chesapeake & Coastal Bays of Maryland. Water Air & Soil Pollution 160: 229–243.
8. Glibert, P.M., C.W. Wazniak, M.R. Hall, & B. Sturgis. 2007. Seasonal & interannual trends in nitrogen & brown tide in Maryland’s Coastal Bays. Ecological Applications 17: S79–S87.
9. Grave, C. 1912. Fourth Report of the Shell Fish Commission of Maryland. Baltimore, Maryland.
10. Ingersoll, E. 1881. The oyster industry. In: Goode, G.B. (ed.). The History & Present Condition of the Fishery Industries. u.s. Government Printing Office, Washington, d.c.
11. Maryland Aquaculture Coordinating Council. 2006. Best Management Practices Manual for Maryland Aquaculture. http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/management_practices.php
12. Maryland Department of the Environment. 2004. Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, & Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays. Nontidal Wetlands & Waterways Division. Annapolis, Maryland. Funded by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Wetland Program Development Grant CD 983378-01-1. December 2004.
13. Maryland Department of the Environment. 2006. Prioritizing Sites for Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, & Preservation in Maryland. http://www.mde.state.md.us/
Programs/WaterPrograms/Wetlands_Waterways/about_wetlands/priordownloads.asp
14. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Maryland Coastal Bays Forestry Strategy. http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/documents2008/final_forestry_strategy.pdf
15. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern of Five Central Maryland Counties & Coastal Bay Area of Worcester County, Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Annapolis, Maryland. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment.
16. Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, L.S. Nagey, A.L. Owens, J.R. Whiting, & A. Serio. 2004. 2003 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay & Coastal Bays. Virginia Institute of Marine Science special scientific report #139, Gloucester Point, Virginia. http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav03/index.html.
17. Orth, R.J., M.L. Luckenbach, S.R. Marion, K.A. Moore, & D.J. Wilcox. 2006. Seagrass recovery in the Delmarva Coastal Bays, U.S.A. Aquatic Botany 84: 26–36.
18. Sellner, K.G., G.J. Doucette, & G.J. Kirkpatrick. 2003. Harmful algal blooms: Causes, impacts & detection. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 30: 383–406.
19. Shumway, S.E., C. Davis, R. Downey, R. Karney, J. Kraeuter, J. Parsons, R. Rheault, & G. Wikfors. 2003. Shellfish aquaculture—In praise of sustainable economies & environments. World Aquaculture 34: 15–17.
20. Smayda, T.J. 1997. Harmful algal blooms: Their ecophysiology & general relevance to phytoplankton blooms in the sea. Limnology & Oceanography 42: 1137–1153.
21. Smil, V. 2001. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, & the Transformation of World Food. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
22. Tarnowski, M.L. 1997. Oyster populations in Chincoteague Bay. In: Homer, M.L., M.L. Tarnowski, R. Bussell, & C. Rice. Coastal Bays Shellfish Inventory. Final Report to Coastal Zone Management Division, md dnr, Contract No. 14-96-134-CZM010, Grant No. NA570Z0301. Annapolis, Maryland.
23. Trice, T. M., P.M. Glibert, & L. Van Heukelem. 2004. HPLC pigment records provide evidence of past blooms of Aureococcus anophagefferens in the coastal bays of Maryland & Virginia, USA. Harmful Algae 3: 295–304.
24. Vitousek, P.M., J. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H. Schlesinger, & G.D. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Causes & consequences. Ecological Applications 7: 737–750.
25. Wazniak, C., P. Tango, & W. Butler 2004. Abundance & frequency of occurrence of brown tide, Aureococcus anophagefferens, in the Maryland Coastal Bays. In: Wazniak, C.E., & M.R. Hall (eds). Maryland’s Coastal Bays Ecosystem Health Assessment 2004. DNR-12-1202-0009. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Annapolis, Maryland. Baltimore, Maryland.
