903R83010
£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
Sixth and Walnut Street;
Philadelphia, PA 19106
September 1983
CHESAPEAKE BAY:
A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
Region III Library
Ewrfrwraental Pro
TD
225
.C54C5£
vol.1
-------
;7 /f ^
/
CHESAPEAKE BAY:
A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program
Annapolis, Maryland
Management Coordinator
Virginia K. Tippie
Principal Authors
Mary E. Gillelan
Dan Haberman
Gail B. Mackiernan
Joseph Macknis
Harry W. Wells, Jr.
Contributing Authors
Robert B. Biggs
Linda C. Davidson
David Doss
Frances H. Flanigan
David A. Flemer
Caren E. Glotfelty
Wayne Grube
Jerry Hollowell
Barnes Johnson
Margaret R. Johnston
Stephen J. Katsanos
John Mank
Willa A. Nehlsen
Kent Price
John Roland
Thornton H. Secor
-------
FOREWORD
The Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest and
most productive estuarine system is experiencing
significant stress from pollution. In 1976, Congress
directed the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to undertake a comprehensive study of the
Bay's resources and water quality, and to iden-
tify appropriate management strategies to protect
this national resource. To address this mandate,
the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program (GBP) funded
over fifty research projects. In addition to in-
dividual technical reports, four summary reports
have been developed:
Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to An
Ecosystem
— A primer on the ecology of the Bay
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis
— A synthesis of the GBP scientific studies
on nutrients, toxics, and submerged
aquatic vegetation
Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental
Change
— A characterization of the health of the
Bay and its tributaries
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
— A management report that calls for ac-
tion to mitigate pollution in the Bay
In addition a summary publication Chesapeake
Bay Program: Findings and Recommendations
is available.
A Framework for Action represents the cul-
mination of the seven-year effort that began in
1976. It describes the state of the Bay, the sources
of pollution, control alternatives for reducing
pollution, and recommends a range of actions to
improve the Bay.
This study marks the first time that a basin-
wide assessment of the Bay, its tributaries, and
the surrounding land has been undertaken. Our
knowledge of the workings of the Bay and the in-
terrelationship of land and water is now keener
because of this effort. However, the advances in
our technical understanding are perhaps less im-
portant than the development of the regional
management ethic which the Chesapeake Bay
Program has fostered. This ethic was encouraged
by the Chesapeake Bay Program Management
Committee which guided the program's efforts
over the years. The committee is comprised of
representatives from the EPA, the states of
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the
District of Columbia. In addition, a diverse group
of Bay-users have been involved in developing
alternative strategies to improve the Bay. As a
result, the states and the EPA, with the support
of the public, are now ready to forge new ap-
proaches to managing the Bay. It is our hope that
this document will provide the framework for
achieving the goal of restoring and maintaining
the Bay's ecological integrity.
Greene Jones
Chairman
Chesapeake Bay Program
Managment Committee
VL. xv.
Virginia K. Tippie
Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
in
-------
CREDITS and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editors
Debra Allender Barker
Marion Manganello
Diane Pawlowicz
Stephen Katsanos
Statistical Analysis
and Data Management
Jerry L. Oglesby
L. David Lively
William C. Allen
Paul D. Mowery
Jacklin L. Wheeler
Vicki Mabry
Dewey Blaylock
Production
Dorothy Szepesi
Artwork and Design
Elaine Kasmer
Fishergate Publishing Company, Inc.
Over the years, many researchers have been
involved in this massive effort; it would be im-
possible to recognize them all. However, Tudor
Davies, the former Director of the Program, and
Thomas DeMoss, the former Deputy Director are
gratefully acknowledged for their leadership dur-
ing the critical developmental phase of this proj-
ect. A special thanks is also in order for Gregory
McGinty whose vision guided the initial phase of
the Management Study. Thanks is also extended
to Jack Hartigan, Elizabeth Southerland, and
James Smullen for their efforts in developing a
predictive Basinwide water quality model.
Lastly, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
Citizens Program for The Chesapeake Bay Inc.;
District of Columbia, Department of En-
vironmental Services; Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of En-
vironmental Programs; State of Maryland Depart-
ment of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources; Susquehanna River Basin Commission;
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service; Virginia
Council on the Environment; and the Virginia
State Water Control Board are gratefully
acknowledged for their cooperation, active sup-
port, and sustained interest in the Chespeake Bay
Program.
Staff support for this project was provided
through cooperative agreements with The Univer-
sity of West Florida, Jerry L. Oglesby, Project
Manager; and contracts with GEOMET
Technologies, Inc., Harry Wells, Jr., Project
Manager.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Credits and Acknowledgements iv
Figures vii
Tables xi
Technical Symbols, Glossary xiii
Executive Summary xv
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay
Geography 3
Commerce 6
Fisheries 7
Recreation 7
Historical Trends 8
Population Trends and Land Use 10
The Chesapeake Bay Program 12
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 15
Introduction 15
Water and Sediment Quality 16
Living Resources 22
Relationships Between Water
and Sediment Quality, and
Living Resources
26
An Environmental Quality Classification
Scheme for Chesapeake Bay 29
Summary 33
Monitoring and Research
Recommendations 35
Chapter 3: Nutrients 39
Introduction: The Problem 39
Sources and Loadings of Nutrients:
An Overview 39
Point Sources and Loadings 45
The Effectiveness of Point
Source Controls 48
Point Source Control Options 53
Nonpoint Sources and Loadings 60
The Effectiveness of Nonpoint
Source Controls . . . . , 66
Nonpoint Sources Control Options 79
Summary and Recommendations 85, 86
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 89
Introduction: The Problem 89
Sources and Fates of Toxicants:
An Overview 90
Point Sources and Loadings 96
The Toxicity of Point Source Effluents 102
The Effectiveness of Point
Source Controls 106
Nonpoint Sources and Loadings 109
The Effectiveness of Nonpoint
Source Controls 120
-------
vi Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Summary and Recommendations 123, 124
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 129
Introduction 124
The Upper Chesapeake Bay
(The Susquehanna River Basin) 130
The West Chesapeake Basin 137
The Eastern Shore Basin 142
The Patuxent River Basin 145
The Potomac River Basin 150
The Rappahannock River Basin 155
The York River Basin 158
The James River Basin 161
Summary 166
Chapter 6: Bay Management 169
Introduction 169
History and Background 169
Basis for Evaluation 170
General Goals and Objectives 171
Alternative Management Mechanisms 171
Summary and Recommendations 178
Literature Cited 181
Notes
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
The Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay
drainage basin
4
5
Figure 12.
A cross section of the Bay
showing the deep channel,
shallow shoals, and
geological formations ....
Time-history of northern
Chesapeake Bay, 1600 to
1980
Comparisons of Chesapeake
Bay populations in 1950 and
1980 to the projected
population for the year 2000
Land-use changes in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin, 1950 to 1980
Rank of Chesapeake Bay
segments according to
nutrient status
Comparison of dissolved ox-
ygen levels in Chesapeake
Bay, 1950 to 1980
Station locations and bar
graphs representing concen-
tration sums of all
recognizable peaks for
organic compounds after
normalizing for silt and clay
content (from Bieri et al.
1982c)
11
12
17
19
Degree of metal contamina-
tion in the Bay based on the
Contamination Index
20
21
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
habitat occupied in 1978 for
aggregated sampling areas .
Historical landings of blue
crabs and historical pounds
of shucked oyster meat for
Chesapeake Bay, 1880 to
1981
24
Landings of shad and land-
ings of menhaden,
1880-1980
Percent vegetation compared
to seasonal total nigrogen of
the previous year
Comparison of Benthic com-
munity diversity in the
Patapsco and Rhode Rivers,
Maryland
N/P Ratios for the tidal-fresh
segments of Chesapeake Bay
and tributaries
Environmental quality of
Chesapeake Bay based on
the environmental quality
classification scheme
Major and minor river
basins of the Chesapeake
Bay
Bay-wide nutrient loadings,
(March to October) under
dry, average, and wet
conditions
Percent of expected sub-
merged aquatic vegetation
Nutrient loadings (March to
October) by major basin
under average rainfall
conditions
25
27
28
30
32
34
40
42
43
VII
-------
viii Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Relative importance of point
and nonpoint source of
nutrients within major basins
Discharge of phosphorus and
nitrogen from municipal
point sources based on 1980
operational flow and levels
of treatment. (These are
discharged loads not
delivered loads. See Chapter
5 for delivered loads to the
Bay.)
44
the James, Potomac, and
Susquehanna River basins
under different management
strategies and average
rainfall conditions
55
Figure 29.
44
Discharge of phosphorus and
nitrogen from municipal
point sources based on 2000
projected flow and levels of
treatment. (These are
discharged loads not
delivered loads. See Chapter
5 for delivered loads to the
Bay.)
Figure 30.
Existing (1980) nutrient load
from cropland above and
below the fall line by basin
during average and wet
rainfall conditions and
1980 land uses 63
Existing (1980) nutrient load
from other land uses above
and below the fall line by
basin during average and
wet rainfall conditions and
1980 land uses
67
Figure 31.
47
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) discharge of
phosphorus and nitrogen
from industrial point
sources. (These are dis-
charged loads not delivered
loads. See Chapter 5 for
delivered loads to the Bay.)
Discharge of phosphorus
and nitrogen from point
sources under existing
(1980) conditions and
percentage of point source
discharge from industrial
point sources
State-wide critical areas for
agricultural runoff pollution
in Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and Virginia located within
Chesapeake Bay drainage
48
Figure 32.
Figure 33a.
Hypothetical response of an
ecosystem to increasing stress . .
Major sources of metals to
Chesapeake Bay. Size of
symbol indicates relative im-
nortance of each source
. . . 90
...92
49
Comparison of flow, and
BOD, nitrogen, and
phosphorus in the James and
Potomac River basins,
1970 to 1980
Figure 33b.
Figure 34.
Figure 35.
Relative toxicities of heavy
metals in freshwater and in
saltwater
"Fingerprint" and mass spec-
trograph showing
phenanthrene
93
95
51
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) phosphorus loads
from the James, Potomac,
and Susquehanna River
basins under different
management strategies and
average rainfall conditions
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) nitrogen loads from
Chesapeake Bay shellfish
closures as of December
1982 for Maryland and 1981
for Virginia; superimposed
on locations and flow
(MGD) of publicly owned
treatment works
97
54
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Site-specific "decision-tree"
for identification and reduc-
tion of effluent toxicity
Comparison of industrial
metal loadings discharged to
Baltimore Harbor between
1970 and 1980 (pounds/day)
105
107
-------
Figures ix
Figure 38.
Figure 39a.
Figure 39b.
Figure 40.
Figure 41.
Figure 42.
Figure 43.
Measurements of apparent
photosynthesis of
Potamogeton perfoliatus
treated with varying concen-
trations of atrazine
Figure 44.
114
Metal enrichment of bottom
sediments of Chesapeake
Bay, based on the Con-
tamination Index (Flemer et
al. 1983)
Major shoaling areas in
Virginia (Byrne et al. 1982)
and Maryland (Kerhin et al.
1982)
Percent of existing (1980)
nutrient loads to upper
Chesapeake Bay from Sus-
quehanna, upper Eastern
Shore, and West Chesapeake
drainage areas under average
rainfall conditions
118
119
Figure 45.
Figure 46.
132
The 22 county Mason-Dixon
Erosion Control Area in-
cludes land draining to the
Susquehanna, Potomac,
Patuxent, West Chesapeake,
and Eastern Shore basins of
Chesapeake Bay. The north-
east portion of the control
area drains to the Delaware
Bay
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the Susque-
hanna River drainage basin
under average rainfall
conditions
Figure 47.
134
Figure 48.
136
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the West
Chesapeake drainage basin
Figure 49.
under average rainfall
conditions
140
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the Eastern
Shore drainage basin under
average rainfall conditions . .
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the Patuxent
River drainage basin under
average rainfall conditions . .
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the Potomac
River drainage basin under
average rainfall conditions . .
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the Rappahan-
nock River drainage basin
under average rainfall
conditions
144
149
154
157
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the York River
drainage basin under
average rainfall conditions . .
Existing (1980) and future
(2000) estimates of nutrient
loads and present value costs
for different management
strategies in the James River
drainage basin under
average rainfall conditions . .
160
164
-------
TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
A Framework for the
Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Quality Classification Scheme .
Construction Grants Program
Funding of the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage area (with the excep-
tion of New York) in Millions
of Dollars
33
Selected Virginia Watersheds
(SCS-SWCB 1983a)
75
Table 9.
50
Cost Estimates for Accelerated
Soil Conservation in the
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control
Area Adjusted to the
Chesapeake Bay Basin
(SCS 1983b)
76
Bay-wide Nutrient Reductions
and Costs Associated with the
Implementation of Alternative
Nutrient Control Strategies Ap-
plied to Existing (A) and
Future (B) Nutrient Loads
Estimated Costs (in Millions of
1982 Dollars) to Retrofit
Existing Secondary Treatment
Plants with Nutrient Removal
Capability; Additional Annual
O&M Costs (in Million of 1982
Dollars); and Additional
Monthly Household Costs (in
1982 Dollars). (Source: Derived
from CAPDET Cost Estimates,
Appendix B)
Table 10. Estimated Nutrient Reductions
Achieved in Level Two Model
Simulation Under Average and
Wet Conditions (March to
October)
57
Table 11. Estimates of National Costs per
Acre for Conventional Tillage
and Conventional Tillage in
1979. (Source: Crosson 1981) . .
Table 12.
Table 13.
Major Sources of Organic and
Inorganic Toxicants
81
82
89
Phosphorus Loadings to
Chesapeake Bay by Major
Basin (March to October)
Nitrogen Loadings to
Chesapeake Bay by Major
Basin (March to October)
Potential Critical Watersheds
Developed by State-wide Water
Quality Management Plans
58
64
65
69
Loadings of Metal from Major
Sources to the Chesapeake Bay
in Pounds/Day (Percentge of
Total Load) (Later in this
Chapter References are Given
for Specific Sources)
Table 14. Organic Compounds in
Chesapeake Bay Sediment
(Bieri et al. 1982a and b)
Table 15. Organic Priority Pollutants
Detected in Sediments of Main
Bay, Baltimore Harbor, and
Elizabeth River (Bieri et al.
1982)
91
94
Cost Estimates of Resource
Management Systems in
Table 16. Metal Concentrations Assigned
to POTWs (mg I"1)
94
98
XI
-------
xii Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Table 17. 1980 Municipal Metals Load in
Pounds/Day by Major Basin . . .
Table 18. 1980 Industrial Metals Load in
Pounds/Day by Major Basin . . .
Table 19. Loadings of Organic Com-
pounds from Municipal and In-
dustrial Sources (Wilson et al.
1982)
Table 20. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Discharges to Tidal Basin by
POTWs
Table 21. Chlorine Use at Chesapeake
Bay Power Plants
. 99
. 99
100
101
103
Table 28. Estimated Loading of
Hydrocarbons to Chesapeake
Bay Waters From Urban Land .... Ill
Table 29. Atmospheric Deposition to
Chesapeake Bay and its
Tributaries 112
Table 22. Purgeable Organic Compounds
in Chesapeake Bay POTWs
Compared to EPA's National
Survey of 40 POTWs (ug L'1)
(Wilson et al. 1982, U.S. EPA
1982)
Table 30. Loadings and Transport of
Herbicides to Chesapeake Bay
Waters (Maryland and
Virginia) (Stevenson and
Confer 1978, USDA 1975)
Table 31. Toxicity of Herbicides and In-
secticides Used in Chesapeake
Bay Basin (USDA 1975)
Table 32. Comparison of Two Methods
for Estimating the Loadings of
Cuprous Oxide to the
Chesapeake Bay Basin
Table 23. Toxicity of Effluents from
Chesapeake Bay Facilities
(Wilson et al. 1982)
Table 24. Possible Causes of Toxicity and
High Organic and Bioaccumu-
lative Content
104
104
106
Table 33. Total Organotin Compound
Necessary to Maintain 4 to 10
ug/cm2/Day Leaching Rate and
Prevent Fouling
Table 25. Estimated Average Annual
Loadings at the Fall Line for
six Metals from the Major
tributaries of Chesapeake Bay
for the 1979 to 1980 Period
(Values in Pounds/Day) (From
Lang and Grason 1980)
Table 34. Documented of Likely En-
vironmental Impacts from
Dredging and Disposal (Aurand
and Mamantov 1982)
Table 35. Evaluation of Fungicides and
Spray Programs for Control of
Cercospora Leafspot of Peanuts
in Virginia (Phipps 1981)
113
115
116
116
120
122
109
Table 26. Urban Runoff Metal Loading
from Three Major Metropolitan
Areas of Chesapeake Bay
(Pounds/Day-1) (Bieri et al.
1982)
Table 36. Summary of Percent Reduc-
tions and Implementation Costs
for Management Strategies
Under Existing (1980)
Conditions
167
Table 27. Heavy Metal Loadings From
Urban Runoff
110
110
Table 37. Summary of Percent Reduc-
tions and Implementation Costs
for Management Strategies
Under Future (2000)
Conditions
168
-------
TECHNICAL SYMBOLS
Ag silver Ni
BAT Best Available Technology NCh
BMP Best Management Practice NOs
BOD5 5-day biological oxygen demand NPDES
BPT Best Practical Technology
Cd cadmium O & M
Cr chromium P
Cu copper Pb
DO dissolved oxygen PNAS
Fe iron POTW
ft3 cubic foot ppb
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectography ppm
IFD Industiral Facilities Discharger File SAV
kg kilogram SIC
km kilometer Sn
km2 square kilometer STP
m meter TMDL
m3 cubic meter TN
MGD millions of gallons per day TOC
ug L"1 microgram per liter TP
mg L"1 milligrams per liter TSS
ml L'1 milliliters per liter UPCB
mi2 square mile WPL
N nitrogen Zn
NHs ammonia
nickel
nitrite
nitrate
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
operation and maintenance
phosphorus
lead
polynuclear aromatics
publicly owned treatment plant
parts per billion
parts per million
submerged aquatic vegetation
Standard Industrial Classification
Tin
sewage treatment plant
total maximum daily load
total nitrogen
total organic carbon
total phosphorus
total suspended solids
Upper Chesapeake Bay P Limitation
waste pickle liquor
zinc
xni
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay Program (GBP) Manage-
ment report, Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for
Action describes the state of the Bay, the sources
of pollution, alternative control options, and
recommends specific actions. To make this assess-
ment, a comprehensive data base was compiled
and predictive models were developed. The GBP
computerized data base contains information on
trends in living resources, water and sediment
quality, pollutant sources and loadings, and costs
for alternative control strategies. The GBP predic-
tive models simulate the transport and fate of
nutrients from point and nonpoint sources in the
64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed.
These tools were used to assess the health of the
Bay and evaluate alternative strategies to improve
its conditions. This information was utilized to
develop specific recommendations which are
discussed in the text and summarized below.
The Chesapeake Bay Program findings clearly
indicate that the Bay is an ecosystem in decline.
It is also evident that actions thoughout the Bay's
watershed can affect the water quality of the
rivers flowing into the Bay. Degradation of the
Bay's water and sediment quality can, in turn, af-
fect the living resources. Thus, effective manage-
ment of the Chesapeake Bay must be based on an
understanding and an ability to control both point
and nonpoint sources of pollution throughout the
Chesapeake Bay basin. To achieve this objective,
it is essential that the states and Federal govern-
ment work closely together to develop specific
management plans that address the basin-wide
problems identified by the Program. Our common
goal is to restore and maintain the Bay's ecological
integrity.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
GOAL:
TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE BAY'S
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
1. The Chesapeake Bay Program Management
Committee should be maintained and ex-
panded to provide a coordinating mechanism
for the implementation of the CBP findings
and recommendations.
The Committee will report periodically but at
least bi-annually to the EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator and state secretaries or their
equivalent. In addition, the committee will sub-
mit an annual report to the EPA Federal Ad-
ministrator and Governors outlining new initia-
tives, implementation plans, and improvements
in the environmental quality of the Bay.
2. The States and EPA, through the Chesapeake
Bay Program Management Committee,
should utilize the existing water quality
management process to develop a comprehen-
sive basin-wide plan by July 1, 1984, to
reduce the flow of pollutants into the Bay.
This plan would consist of five-year components
which would be updated every two years. In ad-
dition, specific annual operational and implemen-
tation plans would be developed which would
specify the level of effort for the upcoming year.
STATE OF THE BAY
are
Chesapeake Bay is changing, in ways which
generally considered negative. CBP has
xv
-------
xvi Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
documented declines in living resources such as
submerged rooted grasses, striped bass and shad,
oysters and clams. These declines are paralleled
by changes in water quality which include in-
creases in nutrient concentrations, chlorophyll a,
turbidity, and toxic chemicals, and decreases in
dissolved oxygen. Some of these trends appear to
be long-term ones, but in many instances they
have accelerated over the past decade. These
trends are described in Chapter 2 and discussed
in Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental
Change. They are summarized below:
• Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has
declined throughout the Bay. The loss of
submerged aquatic vegetation appears to be
most severe in the northern Bay and western
shore tributaries.
• Oyster spat set has declined significantly in
the past 10 years, particularly in the upper
Bay, western tributaries, and some Eastern
Shore areas such as the Chester River.
Trends in oyster harvest show a similar
pattern.
• Landings of freshwater-spawning fish, such
as shad, alewife, and striped bass, have
decreased in recent years. Spawning success
of these and other semi-anadromous or
anadromous species has also been fair to
poor in most areas sampled. Harvests of
marine-spawning fish, such as menhaden,
have generally remained stable, or
increased.
• Levels of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus) are increasing in many areas
of the Bay, leading to declining water qual-
ity. Nutrient enrichment is most severe in
the northern and middle Bay, and upper
reaches of tributaries and large algal blooms
have been observed. Only parts of the
Potomac and James River, and some
smaller areas currently exhibit improving
water quality with regard to nutrients.
• The amount of Bay water showing low (or
no) dissolved oxygen in the summer is
estimated to have increased 15-fold in the
last 30 years. Currently, much of the water
deeper than 39.8 ft (12.4 m) is anoxic from
early mid-May through September in an
area reaching from the Bay Bridge to the
Rappahannock River.
• Elevated levels of heavy metals and toxic
organic compounds are found in Bay water
and sediments. Highest concetrations occur
near urban or industrialized area, and in
the upper Bay. Some of these toxicants are
being bioconcentrated by plankton,
shellfish, and finfish.
The observed relationships between the water
quality and resource trends, and laboratory
research has enabled us to begin to identify cause
and effect. For example, Bay-wide, the areas ex-
periencing significant losses of SAV have high
nutrient water column concentrations. The high
levels of nutrients enhance phytoplankton growth
and epiphytic fouling of plants, thus reducing the
light reaching SAV to below critical levels.
However, it is also probable that high levels of
turbidity and herbicides contribute to the SAV
problem in localized areas. In another analysis,
the reduced diversity and abundance of benthic
organisms in urbanized areas was related to tox-
ic contamination of sediments. Low dissolved ox-
ygen (DO) in the summer-time is also a major fac-
tor limiting the benthic population, particularly
in the upper and mid-Bay. The low DO is at-
tributed to increased algal production and decay
triggered by nutrient enrichment. Lastly, nutrient
enrichment and increased levels of toxicants oc-
cur in the major spawning and nursery areas for
anadromous fish, as well as in areas experiencing
reduced oyster spat. This type of information has
been utilized to develop a preliminary En-
vironmental Quality Classification Scheme
(EQCS) that relates water quality criteria to
resource use attainability (Appendix A).
The characterization of the Bay, and the at-
tempt to link water quality trends to living
resource trends, makes science useful to managers
and citizens. This retrospective approach is im-
perfect though, because large gaps in the data base
and necessary assumptions limit our ability to
make strong scientific causal inferences. We have
only correlations, not proof. We also do not know
with certainty to what extent levels of pollution
must be reduced in order to achieve a quality of
water that can support the resource objective.
Mathematical models, which will someday enable
us to arrive at these answers, have not yet been
perfected for the complex Chesapeake estuary.
Based on these significant gaps in our understan-
-------
Executive Summary xvii
ding, some would argue that we cannot afford to
act. It seems more likly that we cannot afford not
to act. Nonetheless, whatever actions are taken,
we must bear in mind that our ability to assess
the effectiveness of control programs and redirect
our efforts will depend on the adequacy of our
monitoring and research efforts.
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
To ACQUIRE INFORMATION TO REFINE THE
CBP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (APPENDIX A)
AND TO DEVELOP STATE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS BASED ON RESOURCE USE
ATTAINABILITY.
3. The states and the Federal government,
through the Management Committee, should
implement a coordinated Bay-wide monitor-
ing and research program by July 1, 1984.
This program should include the following
components:
• A baseline (descriptive and analytical) long-
term monitoring program, as described in
Appendix F.
• A coordinated, and sustained, interpretive
program of monitoring and research to im-
prove our understanding of relationships
between water and sediment quality and
living resources, as described in Appendix
F.
• A research effort to identify important
resource habitats, and guide their preser-
vation and restoration.
NUTRIENTS
Nutrients enter the Bay from point sources,
such as sewage treatment plants, and from non-
point sources, such as agricultural and urban
runoff. In general, the nitrogen entering Bay
waters is contributed primarily by nonpoint
sources, which are dominated by cropland runoff
loadings. Point sources on the other hand, and
especially sewage treatment plants, are the ma-
jor source of phosphorus to Chesapeake Bay. It
is important to note that in dry years, point source
nutrient discharges tend to be more dominant
than in wet years. In contrast, nonpoint sources,
which enter waterways primarily in stormwater
runoff, contribute a greater share of total nutrient
loadings during wet years. Also, different river
basins tend to be dominated by different sources,
and therefore require different control strategies.
For example, nutrient loadings in the Susquehan-
na River are primarily associated with nonpoint
sources, while nutrient loadings to the James are
primarily attributed to point sources. The major
findings regarding nutrient sources, loadings, and
control programs are discussed in Chapter 3 and
are summarized below:
• The Susquehanna, Potomac, and James
Rivers are the major sources of nutrients to
the Bay. They contribute, respectively, 40,
24, and 14 percent of the nitrogen and 21,
21, and 28 percent of the phosphorus in an
average year.
• Runoff from cropland and other nonpoint
sources are the major sources of nitrogen to
the nutrient enriched areas in the Bay. Non-
point sources contribute 67 percent,
whereas point sources contribute only 39
percent, of the total nitrogen load to the
Bay in an average year.
• Point sources, such as sewage treatment
plants, are the dominant source of
phosphorus to the nutrient enriched areas
of the Bay. Point sources contribute 61 per-
cent, whereas nonpoint sources contribute
only 39 percent of the total phosphorus load
to the Bay in an average year.
• Agricultural runoff control strategies, such
as conservation tillage, best management
practices, and animal manure waste
management, can effectively reduce
nutrient loadings from areas dominated by
agricultural nonpoint sources (e.g. the Sus-
quehanna River Basin).
• Urban runoff control efforts have been
shown to be effective in reducing nutrient
loadings to small tributaries located in the
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Hamp-
ton Roads areas.
• Point source control strategies, such as
restrictions on nutrient discharges from
municipal sewage treatment plants, or
limitations on phosphate in detergents, can
-------
xviii Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
significantly reduce nutrient loadings to
those areas dominated by point sources (e.g.
the James and Patuxent River basins).
• Point and nonpoint source controls in com-
bination achieve consistent reductions in
pollutant loadings during varying rainfall
conditions in all basins.
The Federal government and the states have
a variety of point and nonpoint source control pro-
grams to reduce loadings to the Bay. However,
CBP research h#s shown that many areas of the
Bay are over-enriched with nutrients and that the
Bay acts as a sink, essentially trapping and recy-
cling nutrients through the system. We can only
conclude that additional actions designed to
reduce the nutrient loads to the Bay will ulti-
mately be beneficial. In response to these findings,
the states are already taking bold new initiatives,
as well as providing additional funding for pro-
ven old ideas. For example, Maryland is attemp-
ting to provide state dollars to pay for phosphorus
and nitrogen removal at selected sewage treatment
plants which are not eligible for Federal funding.
Virginia has already established an innovative
new incentive program for farmers, paying them
from the state coffers for removing from produc-
tion buffer strips along waterways. Pennsylvania
is initiating a pilot manure management program
that may decrease nutrient loadings to the lower
Susquehanna. Still, there is much more that needs
to be done if we are to achieve our objective.
BAY-WIDE NUTRIENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
To REDUCE POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE
NUTRIENT LOADINGS TO ATTAIN NUTRIENT
AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE LIVING
RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
General Recommendations
1. The states* and the EPA, through the
Management Committee, should utilize the
*The States refers to the District of Columbia, Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
existing water quality management process
to develop a basin-wide plan that includes im-
plementation schedules, to control nutrients
from point and nonpoint sources by July 1,
1984.
2. The States and the EPA, through the
Management Committee, should continue the
development of a Bay-wide water quality
model to refine the ability to assess potential
water quality benefits of simulated nutrient
control alternatives. This model should be
continuously updated with new information
on point source discharges, land use activities,
water quality, etc.
Point Source Recommendations
3. The states and the EPA should consider CBP
findings when updating or issuing NPDES
permits for all point sources discharging
directly to Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Furthermore, the States should enforce
NPDES permit limitations.
4. Technical data from CBP findings should be
considered when evaluating funding pro-
posals for POTWs under the EPA's Advanced
Treatment Policy.
5. The States of Maryland, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia should consider by Ju-
ly 1, 1984, as one of several control alter-
natives, a policy to limit phosphate in
detergents to 0.5 percent by weight, in light
of the immediate phosphorus reductions
achieved.
6. The following administrative procedures
should be reviewed for action by January 1,
1985, by the States, counties, and/or
municipalities:
• To increase POTW efficiency, improve
operator training programs, and provide
or encourage incentives for better job per-
formance, such as increased salaries, pro-
motions, bonuses, job recognition, etc.
• The states should consider CBP findings
when ranking construction grant projects.
• Accelerate the development and ad-
-------
Executive Summary xix
ministration of state and local pretreat-
ment programs.
• Continue to evaluate the application of
innovative and alternative nutrient
removal approaches.
• Improve sampling and inspection of point
source discharges.
• Develop plans to ensure long-term opera-
tion and maintenance of small, privately-
owned sewage treatment facilities.
• Institute educational campaigns to con-
serve water to reduce the need for POTW
expansion as population in the
Chesapeake Bay basin increases.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The states and the EPA, through the Manage-
ment Committee, should develop a detailed
nonpoint source control implementation pro-
gram by July 1, 1984 as part of the proposed
basin-wide water quality management plan.
Initial efforts should concentrate on establish-
ing strategies to accelerate the application of best
management practices in priority subbasins to
reduce existing nonpoint source nutrient loadings.
Long-term strategies should seek to maintain or
further reduce nutrient loads from other sub-
basins to help restore Chesapeake Bay resources.
The implementation program should not be
limited to traditional approaches toward soil and
water conservation; an intensified commitment
of resources for educational, technical, and finan-
cial assistance is warranted and may require in-
novative administration of available resources.
Long-term funding must be assured at the outset
of the implementation program, and a detailed
plan to track accomplishments, including water
quality improvement, should be developed by the
states through the Management Committee. The
framework for this program should include the
following stages:
Stage 1 -
A program that emphasizes increased educa-
tion, technical assistance, and cost-sharing, as
well as other financial incentives, should be in
place by July 1, 1985 in priority sub-basins (i.e.,
those determined through nonpoint source
modeling to be significant contributors of
nutrients to identified problem areas of the
Bay). Full implementation of the abatement
program should occur by July 1, 1988.
Stage 2 -
The Stage 1 program should be expanded to in-
termediate priority sub-basins based on addi-
tional basin-wide nonpoint source modeling
and Bay-wide water quality modeling
assessments that should determine both the
need for additional nonpoint source nutrient
reductions and the additional sub-basins to be
targetted for nonpoint source control.
Stage 3 —
Provide the necessary educational, technical,
and financial assistance to maintain or improve
the level of soil and water resource protection
throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin. Soil con-
servation districts should establish annual con-
servation goals and report annually on ac-
complishments and technical, financial, educa-
tional, and research needs.
Concurrently with stages 1 through 3, the
states and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should initiate research to evaluate
the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing the loss of
soluble nutrients from farmland, to improve soil-
testing procedures to refine recommended fer-
tilizer application rates (especially with respect to
nitrogen), and to explore a range of financial in-
centives, disincentives, or other measures that
would accelerate the BMP-adoption process.
Regulatory alternatives should be evaluated, and
where necessary, implemented if the above ap-
proaches do not achieve the needed nutrient
reductions.
8. The USD A and the EPA, in consultation with
the Management Committee, should
strengthen and coordinate their efforts to
reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution
to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, an agreement that establishes a
cooperative commitment to work toward the goal
of improved water quality in Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries should be developed. The agreement
should outline ways that programs could be
targetted to reduce loadings of a) nutrients (from
-------
xx Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
soil, fertilizer, and animal wastes), b) sediment,
c) agricultural chemicals, and d) bacteria from
animal wastes. Also, the agreement should en-
courage the targetting of EPA and USDA
technical assistance and computer modeling per-
sonnel to Chesapeake Bay priority sub-basins.
9. Federal agencies, states, and counties should
develop incentive policies by July 1, 1984,
that encourage farmers to implement BMPs.
Policies that could be considered include: in-
centives to maintain sensitive or marginal
farmland out of production, such as the USDA
Payment-in-Kind Program or other similar state
or local efforts; cross-compliance; changes in the
Internal Revenue Code, or state and local tax
structures that will encourage landowner invest-
ment in BMPs or discourage the lack of adequate
BMPs; the establishment of Federal, state, or local
agricultural conservation trust funds for addi-
tional cost-share, education, or technical
resources; user fees; dedicated taxes; or expanded
implementation funding.
10. The states, counties, and municipalities
located in sub-basins adjacent to tidal-fresh
and estuarine segments of Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries should implement fully and
enforce existing urban stormwater runoff con-
trol programs.
Although nonpoint source loadings of nutrients
from urban land were not found to contribute
significantly to overall nutrient loads, unnecessary
loadings of nutrients, sediment, heavy metals, and
other pollutants from urbanized or developing
watersheds should be avoided because of their
potential impact on living resources in isolated or
sensitive reaches of the Bay. In addition, storm-
water management programs should place equal
emphasis on runoff quality quantity control
techniques; they should also either establish
owner-developer responsibility for long-term
maintenance of urban stormwater BMPs or else
include innovative finance mechanisms to pay for
long-term BMP maintenance.
11. The States of Maryland and Virginia and
local governments should consider
strengthening wetland protection laws to in-
clude non-tidal wetlands because of their
value as nutrient buffers and living resource
habitat.
Besearch has shown that wetlands vegetation
removes nutrients from the water column and thus
provides a natural treatment process for pollution
control. Wetlands also provide habitat and
breeding grounds for commercially and recrea-
tionally important fish, shellfish, furbearers and
waterfowl.
TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Toxic compounds enter the Bay from point
sources, such as industrial facilities and sewage
treatment plants, and from nonpoint sources such
as urban runoff, dredged material disposal, and
atmospheric deposition. The three major tribu-
taries to the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James Rivers, are the major sources
of metals and organic compounds to the Bay. In-
dustrial facilities and sewage treatment plants
discharging directly to the Bay are signficant
sources of cadmium, copper and organic com-
pounds. Urban runoff is an important source of
lead, and atmospheric deposition is an important
source of zinc to the Bay. The toxic problem is
most severe in industrialized areas such as
Baltimore and Norfolk, where the water and
sediments have high metal concentrations and
many organic compounds. The major findings
regarding toxic sources and controls for toxic com-
pounds are discussed in Chapter 4, and are sum-
marized below:
• The James, Potomac, and Susquehanna
Rivers are the major sources of metals to the
Bay. Collectively, they account for 69 per-
cent of the cadmium, 72 percent of the
chromium, 69 percent of the copper, 80
percent of the iron, 51 percent of the lead,
and 54 percent of the zinc discharged to the
Bay system.
• Over 300 organic compounds were detected
in the water and sediments of the Bay; up
to 480 organic compounds were detected in
Baltimore Harbor. Most of the compounds
detected were toxic and many were priority
pollutants.
• An analysis of effluent from 20 industries
-------
Executive Summary xxi
and 8 publicly owned treatment works
revealed that over 75 percent of the facilities
had toxic substances in the effluent. The
possible causes of toxicity were metals,
chlorine, and chlorinated organic
compounds.
• Point source control programs resulted in
significant reductions in metal loadings bet-
ween 1970 and 1980 to areas such as
Baltimore Harbor. However, these pro-
grams only control the 129 EPA priority
pollutants.
• Nonpoint source control efforts, such as ur-
ban runoff controls, integrated pest
management, and the regulation of dredge
spoil disposal, have probably resulted in
reduced loadings of toxic compounds to the
Bay.
• Toxic pollution control tools, and informa-
tion developed by the GBP, such as the tox-
icity index, the toxicity testing protocol, and
the effluent and sediment fingerprinting
procedure, will help managers address the
toxic substance problem.
The Federal government and states have made
significant advances in the control of toxic
substances. However, we still find alarmingly high
levels of toxic compounds in certain 'hot spot' areas
of the Bay. It is also disconcerting that our pre-
sent monitoring efforts could not detect an illegal-
ly discharged or dumped bioaccumulative com-
pound which exceeded chronic toxicity levels. This
would suggest that a Kepone-type incident as oc-
curred in the James River in 1975 could easily oc-
cur again. Such a possibility is frightening in light
of the fact that toxic materials tend to easily ad-
sorb to sediment and remain trapped in the Bay.
They are often recycled throughout the system,
causing repeated damage, until they are eventu-
ally buried by the accumulation of clean sediment.
The above findings suggest that current permit-
ting, monitoring, and enforcement programs do
not sufficiently control toxic loadings to the Bay.
POINT SOURCES OF TOXIC MATERIALS TO
MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL OR DEMON-
STRATED IMPACT OF TOXICANTS ON THE
LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
General Recommendations
1. The states and the EPA, through the Man-
agement Committee, should utilize the ex-
isting water quality management process to
develop a basin-wide plan, that includes im-
plementation schedules, to control toxicants
from point and nonpoint sources by July 1,
1984.
Point Source Recommendations
2. The states, through the NPDES permit pro-
gram, should use biological and chemical
analyses of industrial and municipal effluents
to identify and control toxic discharges to the
Bay and its tributaries.
Biomonitoring and chemical analyses (GC/MS
"fingerprint") of effluents can be used to identify
toxic discharges and to assess potential impacts on
receiving waters. Initial focus should be on all ma-
jor discharges, facilities known or thought to be
releasing priority pollutants, and POTW's receiv-
ing industrial wastes. In developing this protocol,
the States should follow EPA policy and recom-
mendations (Appendix D). Priority areas for im-
plementation should be the Patapsco, Elizabeth,
and James Rivers, to be expanded to other areas
as appropriate. All effluent biological and
chemical data will be stored in EPA's Permit Com-
pliance System (PCS), as well as the GBP data
base. Monitoring of effluents should be coor-
dinated with the Bay-wide monitoring plan
outlined in Appendix F; this includes analysis of
toxicant levels in sediments, water column, and
in tissues of finfish and shellfish.
BAY-WIDE TOXICANT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
CONTROL AND MONITOR POINT AND NON-
3. The states and the EPA, through the Manage-
ment Committee, should utilize Chesapeake
Bay Program findings in developing or revis-
ing water quality criteria and standards for
toxicants.
-------
xxii Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Initial priority should be given to pollutants
identified as highly toxic and prevalent in the Bay,
specifically chlorine, cadmium, copper, zinc,
nickel, chromium, lead, and in tributaries,
atrazine and linuron. Numerical criteria should
be developed when needed and incorporated in-
to state water quality standards as soon as feasi-
ble. Site-specific criteria that are developed,
should be based on biological and chemical
characteristics of individual receiving waters ac-
cording to EPA guidelines.
4. The states should base NPDES permits on the
EPA effluent guidelines or revised state water
quality standards, whichever are more
stringent. Furthermore, the states should en-
force all toxicant limitations in NPDES
permits.
The EPA should maintain its current schedule
for promulgating BAT effluent guidelines. To
facilitate writing of permits, the EPA should con-
tinue to transfer knowledge and expertise
developed during the effluent guideline process
to the States. The States should also consider in-
creasing the number of training programs for per-
mit writers.
5. Pretreatment control programs should be
strengthened where needed to reduce the
discharge of hazardous and toxic materials.
The pretreatment programs in various basins
have contributed to reductions of toxicants in some
municipal discharges, but the GBP has found that,
as a group, treatment plants continue to be ma-
jor contributors of heavy metals, organic com-
pounds, and other toxicants including chlorine.
Current EPA regulations require pretreatment
programs to be developed by July 1, 1983.
Municipal dischargers who have not submitted
their program should do so as soon as possible. The
EPA and the States should enforce these programs.
6. Chlorine control strategies should be im-
plemented (or continued, where now in
place) in areas of critical resource importance.
Strategies should focus on reduction or
elimination of chlorination, use of alternative
biocides, and reduction of impact of effluents.
Major areas of emphasis would include fresh
or brackish fish spawning and nursery areas, and
shellfish spawning areas. Maryland and Virginia
have already begun to reduce chlorine residuals,
evaluate site-specific effects of chlorine, and con-
sider environmental effects in siting and permit-
ting of dischargers. Specific programs and
strategies for chlorine are described in Appendix
D.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the States should utilize CBP program
findings and other new information in
developing permit conditions for dredge-and-
fill and 404 permits.
Information developed (or assembled) by the
Chesapeake Bay Program includes: a measure of
the relative enrichment of sediments by six metals,
concentrations of organic materials in surface
sediments, shoaling and erosion patterns, distribu-
tion of sediment types, location of submerged
aquatic vegetation beds, shellfish beds, fish
spawning and nursery areas, as well as relation-
ships between habitat quality and living resources.
8. A Bay-wide effort should be made to ensure
proper handling and application techniques
of pesticides and herbicides, particularly in
light of the potential increase in use of these
materials in low-till farming practices.
Innovative strategies, such as integrated pest
management (IPM) and reduction and timing of
application have proven to be successful in the Bay
area. The States should encourage the use of these
reduction strategies, support runoff and erosion
control programs, and monitor the fate and ef-
fect of those substances on the Bay's aquatic
environment.
9. Research, monitoring programs, and control
strategies to reduce urban runoff should be
continued and strengthened by the localities
which are most directly affected.
The states and urban areas should develop and
implement plans which identify urban manage-
ment strategies to protect water quality in those
areas where urban runoff controls provide the
most effective results.
-------
Executive Summary xxiii
10. The states and the EPA should evaluate the
magnitude and effects of other sources of tox-
icants, including atmospheric deposition, acid
precipitation, contaminated groundwater,
acid mine drainage, hazardous waste disposal
and storage sites, accidental spills, and an-
tifouling paints.
As information becomes available, it should
be factored into control and permit processes, etc.
For example, models indicate that 30 to 40 per-
cent of atmospheric emissions generated within
the Bay area are deposited there. CBP has esti-
mated potentially significant inputs of metals from
acid mine drainage and anti-fouling paints, par-
ticularly in tributaries. Many of these toxicant
sources are currently being investigated by federal
and state agencies.
BAY MANAGEMENT
To effectively manage the Bay, we must
recognize both its variability and its unity. The
Bay's water quality needs vary from region to
region as do the controls necessary to support
specific regional resource use objectives. The in-
dustrialized Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers have
a very different water quality problem than the
Choptank or Rappahannock Rivers. Also, the
desired and actual use of these areas varies
significantly, industrial versus agriculture, and
fishing. It is apparent that we must also target our
control strategies by geographic area. Chapter 5,
Basin Profiles describes the different areas of the
Bay and recommends actions to address their
specific regional needs. We must always keep in
mind that the Bay is a complex interactive
ecosystem and that actions in any part of the
watershed may result in water quality degrada-
tion and impacts on aquatic resources
downstream. For this reason, it is essential that
a Bay-wide management mechanism with ap-
propriate representation coordinate the respective
activities of the Federal and state plannning and
regulatory agencies. This concept is discussed in
Chapter 6, which concludes that: The Manage-
ment Committee should be the coordinating
mechanism to ensure that actions are taken to
reduce the flow of pollutants into the Bay, and
to restore and maintain the Bay's ecological
integrity.
The Management Committee's specific respon-
sibilities should include:
• Coordinating the implementation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program
recommendations;
• Developing a comprehensive basin-wide
planning process in conjunction with ongo-
ing planning efforts;
• Investigating new regional approaches to
water quality management including cre-
ative financing mechanisms;
• Resolving regional conflicts regarding water
quality issues; and
• Reviewing ongoing Bay research efforts and
recommmending additional research needs.
Hopefully, the needs of the future can be met
and the quality of the Bay preserved. It is ap-
parent that we are talking about some governmen-
tal change, long-term commitments, and money.
There will be no quick-fix for the Chesapeake's
problems. We will need to continue to study and
to monitor, but while we do that, we will also
need to focus concerted remedial action on some
of the most severe problems in the system. Above
all, we will need to continue the dialogue among
the states and among the users of the Bay. The
new spirit of cooperation and awareness generated
by the Chesapeake Bay Program has brought us
to the point of believing that we can, after all,
manage the Bay for the benefit of all.
-------
PART I
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
-------
CHAPTER 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY
Harry W. Wells, Jr.
Stephen J. Katsanos
Frances H. Flanigan
Estuaries are coastal bodies of water which
contain sea water diluted by freshwater from
riverine sources. Their unique physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics create a favorable
environment for the growth of plants and animals.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest, most
productive estuarine systems in the world. Its
harvests are legendary: fisheries records maintain-
ed since the early 1880's show that the Chesapeake
has yielded millions of pounds of seafood annual-
ly, satisfying the domestic and foreign market de-
mand for oysters, crabs, and other commercial
aquatic species. It has served for centuries as a
commercial shipping center with two major port
complexes connected by modern and efficient in-
terstate highway, air, and rail systems to impor-
tant inland points. The Bay is also a recreational
center, offering boating, sportfishing, and wildlife
experiences to shoreline residents and millions of
visitors each year. It is truly a national treasure.
The Chesapeake Bay main-stem is situated
within two middle Atlantic states: Maryland and
Virginia (Figure 1). It is 195 miles (314 km) long,
3.4 to 35 miles (5.5 to 56 km) wide, and has 1,750
miles (2,817 km) of navigable shoreline (Wolman
1968). It is relatively shallow, having a mean
depth of 28 feet (8.5 m). It also has a deep, natural
channel running the length of the Bay which was
carved thousands of years ago by the Susquehanna
River.
The main stem of Chesapeake Bay is only a
small portion of the 64,000 square mile (165,760
km2) Chesapeake drainage basin (Figure 2). Over
150 rivers, creeks, and branches flowing through
portions of six states and the District of Colum-
bia contribute freshwater to the estuary. Among
the rivers, 50 are considered major. Six of these
50, however, contribute almost 90 percent of the
freshwater contained within the Bay main stem.
The Susquehanna is by far the largest river in the
basin, discharging approximately 50 percent of the
freshwater that reaches the estuary. It begins in
the Finger Lakes region of New York State, et-
ches its way through central Pennsylvania, and
discharges freshwater to the head of Chesapeake
Bay at a mean annual rate of 40,000 cubic feet
(1132.7 cubic meters) per second. It has the
highest freshwater discharge rate of any river on
the east coast of the United States. Its flow is ex-
ceeded only by the St. Lawrence in all of eastern
North America. The Susquehanna's total length
measures about 440 miles (708 km), and its basin
occupies 27,500 square miles (71,225 km2), more
than one third of the entire Chesapeake basin. The
other primary tributaries are the Potomac, the
Rappahannock, the James, the York, and the
Patuxent Rivers. Together, these six rivers shape
the circulation and salinity regimes which govern
the Chesapeake estuary. How land is managed
within each of these basins largely determines the
volume and chemical characteristics of freshwater
discharged to the Bay.
GEOGRAPHY
The modern Chesapeake is a relatively young
estuary, the product of climatic changes that
began 20,000 years ago. At that time, the Atlan-
tic coastline was about 70 miles (113 km) east of
Ocean City, Maryland; sea level was 327 feet
(98 m) lower than at present; and eastern North
America was covered, down to central Penn-
sylvania, by a dense continental glacier. A warm-
-------
4 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
FIGURE 1. The Chesapeake Bay.
-------
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay 5
1. Susquehanna
2. Eastern Shore
3. West Chesapeake
4. Patuxent
5. Potomac
6. Rappahannock
7. York
8. James
FIGURE 2. The Chesapeake Bay drainage basin.
-------
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
ing trend started and, as temperatures rose, the
volume of melt water seasonally discharged from
the North American ice sheet increased. As sea
level rose, the inundation of the continental shelf
began. Eventually, the rising sea reached and
flooded what was then the Susquehanna River
Valley forming the Bay as we know it. The sea
level continues to rise today in response to con-
tinued glacial melting, thus, slowly changing the
shape of the Bay. Figure 3 shows a cross-section
of the Bay with its deep channel, shallow shoals,
and surrounding geological formations.
The Chesapeake Bay region boasts a moderate
climate and a central location between the heavily
industrialized New England states and the high-
growth Southern Atlantic states. Virtually every
type of land usage and economic activity is found
within the basin. Agriculture dominates in many
portions of the 14,300 square mile (37,037 km2)
coastal plain. Forestry, coal mining and other uses
occupy approximately 59 percent of the land area,
including major portions of the 50,600 square mile
(131,054 km2) Piedmont.
Approximately 12.7 million people now live
within the Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
tri-state portion of the Chesapeake drainage basin.
Major urban centers include the Norfolk-
Hampton Roads area, and Richmond in Virginia;
Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Maryland; and
Harrisburg, and York, Pennsylvania. Most of the
population is concentrated in the coastal region
of the basin (i.e. below the fall line). This area
offers many commercial and recreational oppor-
tunities, and is also the most environmentally sen-
sitive. The lure of Chesapeake Bay is vividly
demonstrated in the tidewater portions of Virginia
where 60 percent of the entire state's population
lives on one-third of Virginia's land area.
COMMERCE
For over 300 years the Bay has been used to
support a number of regional use-objectives and
economic needs. One of the earliest colonial uses
of the Bay was waste assimilation; today
thousands of municipalities, and commercial and
industrial facilities use the Bay and its tributaries
as sources of process water and outlets for treated
wastes. The Bay also is a major link in the In-
tracoastal Waterway, and its value as a commer-
cial shipping center increases every day.
The Chesapeake's shoreline, including
tidewater tributaries, measures 4,600 miles (7,406
km); almost 1,750 miles (2,818 km) of the
tidewater region are navigable. This vast
navigable area is relatively shallow, but the Bay's
deep, natural channel has helped make Baltimore
and Hampton Roads two of this country's five ma-
jor North Atlantic port complexes.
Hampton Roads and Baltimore are, without
doubt, the two major export points for coal mined
Appalachian Province
Piedmont
Province
Coastal Plain Province
Sedimentary Wedapt-=^ ---
FIGURE 3. A cross section of the Bay showing the deep channel, shallow shoals, and geological formations.
-------
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay 1
in the United States, accounting for about 50 and
14 percent of total export tonnage, respectively.
The Hampton Roads complex, which includes
Portsmouth, Norfolk, Hampton, and Newport
News, dominates the mouth of the Bay. Together
with the northern Bay's Port of Baltimore, the two
shipping facilities moved 42 million tons of coal
during 1979 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1979).
In 1980, coal exports grew to 61 million tons, a
45 percent increase over 1979 levels. Industry pro-
jections indicate that coal exported through
Chesapeake Bay ports could reach 280 million tons
by the year 2000, and total cargo tonnage han-
dled by Hampton Roads and Baltimore could dou-
ble during the next 20 years. Land-based distribu-
tion systems serving both ports are available, in-
cluding direct rail transportation from the ports
to the rich Appalachian coal seams located in the
Piedmont portions of the Chesapeake basin.
Other major industrial activities found within
the basin are steelmaking and shipbuilding,
leather tanning, plastics and resin manufacturing,
and chemical production. Soybeans, vegetables,
and tobacco are major agricultural commodities
grown in the region. Poultry, seafood, and
vegetable processing are important industries on
the Chesapeake's Eastern Shore. Other animal
husbandry and processing activities can be found
throughout the basin.
FISHERIES
The Bay's ability to support abundant and
diverse populations of finfish and shellfish made
seafood harvesting and processing two of the
earliest commercial activities in the region. The
seafood industry is more than 374 years old, and
it continues to be an important element in the
economies of both Maryland and Virginia. It is
primarily an industry comprised of small
businesses, many of which are family enterprises
with roots as old as the coastal communities they
support. Chesapeake Bay provides thousands of
commercial watermen with jobs harvesting fish,
while on-shore processing and distribution
generates a number of secondary income oppor-
tunities. In many cases commercial fishing is the
primary source of household income, while pro-
cessing, distribution, and related marine
activities represent the revenue base for coastal
communities.
Oysters, blue crabs, soft shelled clams, and
menhaden are the Bay's 'staple' crops. The
Chesapeake oyster, which first attracted world at-
tention in the mid-1800's, has since occupied a
market position exceeded only by Japan. During
the early years when new canning techniques first
enabled processors to ship oysters to Europe, an-
nual production reached 15,000,000 bushels (U.S.
Department of Commerce and the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior 1880-1980). Unchecked
harvests during the legendary 'oyster wars,' con-
tinued harvesting pressure, and other factors have
reduced the Bay's oyster stock, but the harvest has
averaged 27 million pounds (12.5 kg) of meats an-
nually for the last 50 years. By some estimates
Chesapeake Bay oysters represent 42.6 percent of
total domestic production, exceeding all other
areas in the country. Blue crab production totals
about 55 million pounds (24.8 kg) annually, mak-
ing the Chesapeake one of the largest producers
in the world. The Bay accounts for more than one-
half of the total U.S. soft shell clam catch, sur-
passing all of New England's production. Striped
bass, bluefish, white perch, shad, herring, and
spot are other important commercial species
landed in the Bay. The total dockside value of
commercial fish species landed in Maryland and
Virginia primarily by resident watermen was 106
million dollars in 1980. More than one-half of the
total landings were made in Chesapeake Bay,
while the balance was caught in the Atlantic
Ocean offshore of Maryland and Virginia (U.S.
Department of Commerce and U.S. Department
of the Interior 1880-1980).
RECREATION
In addition to commercial fishing, other forms
of recreation such as sportfishing and boating,
generate jobs and a significant portion of the
revenues which sustain local and state economies
in Maryland and Virginia. Millions of visitors
come to the Bay every year, lured by the
Chesapeake's countless recreational opportunities.
Statistics compiled by Maryland indicated that
more than 122,000 sail and power pleasure craft
were registered primarily for use on Chesapeake
-------
8 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Bay during 1979 (Maryland Department of
Natural Resources 1980). Sportfishermen took an
estimated 28 million pounds (12.6 kg) of gamefish
from Chesapeake waters during that same year.
The recreational interest in the Bay is clearly
demonstrated by the number of activity days
recorded in 1979 by Maryland and Virginia,
2,592,072 and 1,529,322, respectively. The Bay's
sportfishing value alone is estimated at 261.33 to
290.14 million dollars annually. Secondary spen-
ding related to sportfishing is estimated to increase
the Bay's sportfishing income value to 770.28
million dollars annually, or one-third of the
Chesapeake's water-based contribution to the
regional economy (JRB Associates 1982).
Boating activity, both sail and power, can be
seen throughout the Bay during most of the year.
Annapolis, home of the Naval Academy, is com-
monly called the "sailboat capital" of the United
States. Oxford, Solomons, Crisfield, Deltaville,
and countless other safe harbors dot the
Chesapeake coastline. The Chesapeake, because
of its recreational appeal, has directly sustained
these small ports as well as the large ones. Boating
and fishing alone, however, do not represent the
only recreational uses of the Bay.
The estuary, with over 7,000 miles (11,270
km) of shoreline, lush wetlands, and numerous
protected creeks, is home to countless animals and
plants and a major stop along the Atlantic
Migratory Bird Flyway. Over one-half million
Canada geese, ducks, and other migratory water-
fowl can be found over-wintering along the
Chesapeake, providing numerous sport oppor-
tunities. Whistling swans in numbers approaching
40,000 can be counted during the winter. The en-
dangered bald eagle nests in the region, and its
threatened cousin, the osprey, is more common
around the Chesapeake than anywhere else in the
United States. The Chesapeake, without doubt,
today supports a mixture of wildlife and commer-
cial activities unmatched by any other estuary.
It appears, however, that the Chesapeake's ability
to maintain its diverse ecological productivity and
other uses is slipping.
HISTORICAL TRENDS
The Bay is no longer the clean, pristine estuary
John Smith knew. Changes in land usage along
the main stem and Bay tributaries have led to in-
creased sediment, nutrient, metal, and organic
chemical loadings to the estuary. Due to its uni-
que circulation, substances discharged to the Bay
by its tributaries are not freely exchanged with
the ocean. They are essentially trapped within the
system where they may be assimilated and utilized
by Bay organisms. As these 'pollutants' accumulate
in Bay waters or sediments, they can alter the
function or quantity of the ecosystem.
Assessing the impact of land usage and related
environmental changes on living resources is dif-
ficult, primarily because accurate records depic-
ting Bay conditions reflect only a small portion
of the Chesapeake's history. The period of scien-
tific research in the Bay is brief, and many aspects
of the Bay's environment were radically altered
by man by the time research was initiated. One
must recognize that the Chesapeake of today is
a reflection of time, constantly changing in
response to nature, and reacting, often unpredic-
tably, in response to human activities. Use-related
conflicts and water quality changes have occur-
red in the past, but the water quality alterations
caused primarily by nutrients and resource diver-
sity shifts during the past 15 years are un-
precedented. Figure 4 summarizes a number of
salient historical features that reflect the changes
in the Bay. These features remind us that many
Bay changes caused by human activity are not of
recent origin, but began at the time of European
settlement and continue today. Another impor-
tant aspect of the Bay's historical ecology is that
this continuous human activity has been operating
against a background of natural climatic cycles
and an occasional extreme event such as a hur-
ricane. The Bay ecosystem is dynamic, and our
view of its current "quality" and assimilative
capacity can benefit from examining the past as
we attempt to manage its future.
In Figure 4, the time horizon begins at 1600,
near the time of the first permanent settlement
in Virginia at Jamestown. Several historical events
mark the calendar, such as the industrial revolu-
tion and major Avars. Major land-use activities and
living resources are listed on the vertical axis and
chronicled over the 380 years of record. Major
land "improvements," primarily clearing of land
for farming, were well along by the mid-1700's.
-------
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay 9
DJDQ
086 \
gjsi, j
IIMM 3
IN \s\,3
IMM^
006 !•
0081-
OOZ1-
0091-
o
CL
Q.C
— o>
o g
Q- -5
C
O
(DO
E ^ .
•6
0)
D Q.
o a
O 2
® E
^5 ^3
•^ 0
O
-------
10 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
The forested area shows a consequent decrease
followed by a return of some cleared land to forest
condition by the 1780's. Much of this land was
devoted to the production of tobacco. After about
1800 there is a distinct and continuous trend of
the conversion of forests into fields. Also, about
the time of the Civil War, discharge of potentially
harmful trace metals to the Bay began to increase
considerably marking the early stages of the In-
dustrial Revolution. In addition, sedimentation
rates began to increase rapidly due to accelerated
erosion.
Bottom sediment cores from Furnace Bay,
located on the northern shore of Susquehanna
Flats, provide insights into the history of sub-
merged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and diatoms,
microscopic algae that leave behind a skeleton
formed from silica (Brush and Davis 1982). These
single-celled algae help in making inferences about
nutrient conditions at the time the diatoms were
deposited. Apparently, at about 1720, the rooted
plant species shifted dominance: the formerly
dominant waterweed and pondweed became
sporadic, with wild celery becoming abundant.
Changes were noted in the epiphytic algae that
grow on the leaves and stems of SAV. During this
period of initial land clearing, many clearwater
diatoms became less abundant and a few species
disappeared as the Bay's clear, shallow waters first
became more turbid. This was the first signal that
nutrient enrichment was occurring. The recent
dramatic decline of SAV, however, is a
phenomenon whose magnitude in the Bay has no
apparent parallel in the past four centuries (Brush
and Davis 1982).
Paralleling the more recent changes in the
Bay's character, shifts in many of the Bay's
fisheries are seen. Harvests of many species have
undergone fluctuations since the first landing
records were published. Marine spawners, such
as menhaden, began to dominate the Bay's fin-
fish communities during the last several decades
while freshwater spawners, such as shad, have
declined. As a result, the quantity and diversity
of finfish found in the estuary is not as great now
as in the past.
This brief summary leaves an indelible impres-
sion. The Bay ecosystem has been interacting with
natural events such as droughts or hurricanes, as
well as cycles of climatic change. The Bay is also
showing changes clearly related to human activity
which began to impact the Bay by the mid-1700's.
The most significant changes began in the
mid-1800's and reached high levels around WWII.
The past 40 years have been a time of new events
for the Bay —many possibly not coded into the
genetic memory of the Bay species, including
humans. Discharges of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, and other toxicants are all relatively
new problems confronting the Bay and challeng-
ing the capabilities of scientists and Bay managers.
Nutrients and sediment, discharged in ever in-
creasing amounts since colonial days, have become
major problems as urbanization and centralized
wastewater treatment elevated the rate at which
these conventional pollutants reach the Bay.
POPULATION TRENDS AND LAND USE
Population estimates between 1950 and 1980
and projections to 2000 are shown in Figure 5.
Basin-wide, the population grew by 4.2 million
between 1950 and 1980 and is expected to grow
an additional 1.9 million, to a total of 14.6 million
by 2000. Although the largest increases in popula-
tion (1.4 million) will occur in the three largest
basins, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James
Rivers, the highest rates of increase between 1980
and 2000 are expected in the York (43 percent),
Rappahannock (40 percent), and Patuxent (27
percent) River basins. More people living in the
drainage basin could place additional stress on the
Chesapeake because of increasing freshwater
withdrawal and larger amounts of wastes
(sewage, urban runoff, construction activity, in-
tensified agricultural activities, additional in-
dustrial activity, etc.) which the Bay will have to
assimilate unless necessary actions are taken.
Land-use changes in the Chesapeake Bay basin
between 1950 and 1980 are illustrated in Figure
6 (Census of Agriculture and Timber Survey
1982). Cropland and pasture land have decreased
significantly (24 and 39 percent, respectively)
throughout the entire watershed while forest land
has increased slightly (3.5 percent). The percent-
age of land in urban and residential usage has
almost doubled (182 percent increase) since 1950.
As shown in Figure 6, the "other" land-use
category represents county lands not identified as
-------
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay 11
Total Population of
Chesapeake Bay
Susquehanna
1950 1980 2000
West
Chesapeake
Eastern
Shore
Work-
appahannoc
FIGURE 5. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay populations in 1950 and 1980 to the projected population
for the year 2000.
-------
12 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
1950
1980
Q
FIGURE 6. Land-use changes in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin, 1950 to 1980.
either cropland, pasture land, or forest land and
may include institutional lands, wetlands, and idle
lands, but most closely reflects the percentage of
urban and residential land uses. These physical
changes in the uses of land, coupled with chang-
ing perceptions of the Bay, have had a significant
impact on the system and the ways humans have
tried to manage it.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The connection between human activities and
the resources of the Bay was recognized in the
nineteenth century. Representatives of the oyster
industry voiced concern over the decline of the
fishery in the twentieth century. Both Maryland
and Virginia established laboratories whose sole
purpose was to study the Bay and its tributaries.
A number of conferences were held (1933, 1968,
1977) and citizens groups became active pollution
control advocates. Whereas in the nineteenth cen-
tury concern for the Bay was voiced primarily by
the oyster industry, today the chorus includes
boaters, sportsmen, fishermen, and a large
phalanx of concerned citizens and their elected
representatives. State governments have respond-
ed with an increasingly complex and sophisticated
range of pollution control and management agen-
cies. In addition, the Federal government
recognized the need for the national protection
of water resources and, in the 1970's, passed a
series of laws which fundamentally changed the
framework for managing and protecting water
resources. Government programs are described in
detail later in this report.
The specific impetus for the EPA's Chesapeake
Bay Program (CBP) came from a tour of the Bay
conducted by Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD)
in 1973. That tour, which focussed on the prob-
lems alluded to above, led to conversations with
Russell Train, then the EPA Administrator. In
fiscal year 1976, Congress directed the EPA to
conduct a five-year, 25-million- dollar study of
Chesapeake Bay. Senate Report 94-326, which ac-
companied the authorizing Act (P.L. 116), re-
quired the EPA to access water quality problems
in the Bay, to establish a data collection and
analysis mechanism, to coordinate all of the
various activities involved in Bay research, and
-------
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Chesapeake Bay 13
to make recommendations on ways to improve ex-
isting Chesapeake Bay management mechanisms.
In choosing problems upon which to focus
research, the EPA looked to the scientific com-
munity, the Bay area governments, and the
public. A list of ten candidate issues was drawn
up. From this list, three topics were chosen as
targets for the 25 million dollar research program.
Nutrient enrichment, toxic substances, and the
disappearance of submerged grasses were major
concerns upon which little previous research
money had been spent. Shortly after the priority
objectives were established, the Chesapeake Bay
Program's managers developed and implemented
a unique approach to managing a water quality
research program. To the greatest extent possible
they involved all components of the Bay com-
munity in the decision process. This included
scientists, state officials, citizens, recreational in-
terests, watermen, business, and industry.
In the scientific area, over 17 million dollars
were spent by the CBP to support over forty in-
dividual scientific research projects, enabling a
broad spectrum of scientists and institutions to
participate in analyzing the Bay. These projects
are summarized in the report Chesapeake Bay
Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. In ad-
dition to coordinating and staffing principal
research efforts, the CBP also developed a com-
puterized data management system to compile
and evaluate the data collected by individual CBP
projects and by other research efforts. All data
entered into the system have been quality assured
and a procedure has been established to allow the
Bay research community access to the system. The
information assembled in the CBP data base is
considered to be the most extensive body of scien-
tific knowledge on any single estuary in the world.
More important, the data base provides a com-
mon set of knowledge about the Bay's ecological
problems — a prerequisite necessary to carry out
individually and collectively the most urgent task
of establishing common goals for action to im-
prove the Bay.
The data base was used to characterize the
state of the Bay by evaluating water/sediment
quality and living resource variables in each of
45 segments of the Bay. The segments were based
on physical and chemical properties and can be
used to compare the relative health or condi-
tion of the Bay. Such a comparison gives an in-
dication of the relationship between water quality
and biological response. These relationships are
discussed in the EPA report Chesapeake Bay: A.
Profile of Environmental Change. To facilitate
citizen input into all aspects of program manage-
ment, the EPA established a public participation
program as an integral part of the CBP. It is the
main mechanism by which information flows be-
tween Bay citizens and Bay Program managers.
The public participitation program is managed
by the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Inc. (CPCB). This program was founded in 1971,
and is an independent, non-profit, Bay-wide
alliance of organizations whose purpose is to pro-
vide an avenue for discussion of issues affecting
the Chesapeake. The EPA grants enabled the
CPCB to transmit research findings to the public
so that informed choices could be made on Bay
resource management issues. To assure the con-
tinuance of the cooperative effort represented by
the Chesapeake Bay Program, the EPA encour-
aged state (Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania)
participation in all aspects of the Program. This
enabled the EPA to receive assistance and support
from state agencies in the areas of program plan-
ning, technical support, data compilation and
processing, scientific planning, and technical pro-
gram development and implementation. The lead
agencies in Maryland are the Departments of
Natural Resources and Health and Mental
Hygene. The counterpart in Virginia is the
Department of Commerce and in Pennsylvania
the Department of Environmental Resources and
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. These
agencies along with the District of Columbia
served as liaison between the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram and other state/federal agencies.
Decisions concerning Program policy and
management were made by the Chesapeake Bay
Program Management Committee chaired by the
EPA Region III. The Committee has represen-
tatives from both water quality and resource agen-
cies from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland.
In addition, citizens, the Distric of Columbia, and
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission are
members of the Management Committee. The
Committee's success in providing guidance and
coordinated leadership to the Chesapeake Bay
Program effort made it the appropriate organiza-
-------
14 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
tion to coordinate the implementation of the GBP
findings. Thus:
"It is recommended that the Chesapeake
Bay Program Management Committee be
maintained and expanded to coordinate
the implementation of the CBP findings
and recommendations."
The Management Committee will therefore,
take the specific responsibility of coordinating a
response to many of the recommendations in this
report. Specific recommendations for monitoring
(Chapter 2), nutrient controls (Chapter 3), toxic
controls (Chapter 4) and basin actions (Chapter
5) are summarized in the text that follows. These
recommendations have been develped in consulta-
tion with the Management Committee and will
be considered by EPA in the context of agency
policy, priorities, and planning processes.
-------
CHAPTER 2
STATE OF THE BAY
Gail B. Mackiernan
David A. Flemer
Will a Nehlsen
Virginia K. Tippie
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is in part a summary of the GBP
characterization report, Chesapeake Bay: A Pro-
file of Environmental Change (Flemer et al.
1983), which describes trends in water and sedi-
ment quality, and in the living resources of
Chesapeake Bay. The water quality parameters
evaluated include nutrients, dissolved oxygen
(DO), organic chemical compounds, and heavy
metals. The living resources that were assessed in-
clude phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, benthic organisms (including shellfish), and
finfish. Trends in water and sediment quality, and
in living resources, including the interrelationships
among these factors, were used to characterize the
current state of the Bay. The GBP's characteriza-
tion of Chesapeake Bay is based on a comparison
of specific segments of the Bay with regard to
selected nutrient and toxicant variables, and to
the diversity and abundance of the living com-
ponents. This characterization has been developed
further in this document as a preliminary En-
vironmental Quality Classification Scheme
(EQCS). Each segment's relative status was
established according to the following GBP prin-
cipal scientific findings:
• Levels of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus) are increasing in many areas
of the Bay, leading to declining water qual-
ity. Nutrient enrichment is most severe in
the northern and middle Bay, and upper
reaches of tributaries. Only parts of the
Potomac and James Rivers, and some
smaller areas, currently exhibit improving
water quality with regard to nutrients.
Concentrations of chlorophyll a are also in-
creasing in most regions where sufficient
data are available for assessment.
The amount of Bay water showing low (or
no) DO in the summer is estimated to have
increased 15-fold in the last 30 years. Cur-
rently, much of the water deeper than 40.0
ft (12.4 m) is anoxic from early mid-May
through September in an area reaching
from the Annapolis Bay Bridge to the Rap-
pahannock River.
Elevated levels of heavy metals and toxic
organic compounds are found in Bay water
and sediments. Highest concentrations oc-
cur near urban or industrialized areas, and
in the upper Bay. Some of these toxicants
are being bioconcentrated by plankton,
shellfish, and finfish.
Oyster spat set has declined significantly in
the past 10 years, particularly in the upper
Bay, western tributaries, and some Eastern
Shore areas such as the Chester River.
Trends in oyster harvest show a similar
pattern.
Landings of freshwater-spawning fish, such
as shad, alewife, and striped bass, have
decreased in recent years. Spawning success
of these and other semi anadromous or
anadromous species has also been fair to
poor in most areas sampled. Harvests of
marine-spawning fish, such as menhaden,
have generally remained stable or
increased.
The recent loss of submerged aquatic
vegetation appears to be most closely linked
to increasing nutrient enrichment: en-
hanced phytoplankton growth and
epiphytic fouling of plants has reduced the
15
-------
16 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
light reaching SAV below critical levels. In-
creased turbidity from sediment loads may
also be contributing to light limitation in
some areas. Toxicants such as herbicides
seem to be a problem primarily in local
areas close to sources.
Reduced diversity and abundance of ben-
thic organisms can be related to toxic con-
tamination of sediments in heavily im-
pacted areas. Low DO in the summer is
another major factor limiting benthic
populations, including shellfish, in the up-
per and mid-Bay. Low DO can also be ex-
pected to reduce available habitat for cer-
tain finfish.
Declining water quality — nutrient enrich-
ment and increased levels of toxicants — is
occurring in major spawning and nursery
areas for anadromous fish, as well as in
areas experiencing reduced oyster spat set.
Classifying Bay regions based on water and
sediment quality status indicates that the
upper and mid-Bay main stem, tidal-fresh
and transition reaches of major tributaries,
and many smaller tributaries contain
moderate to high levels of nutrients. The
pattern of toxic substances is generally
similar, although high contamination is also
found near urban and industrialized areas
in the lower Bay.
WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
The quality of the Bay's water and sediments
reflects both the natural physical and chemical
characteristics, and the impact of human ac-
tivities. Over 150 tributaries drain the 64,000
square mile (165,760 km2) watershed. Along with
fresh water, the rivers bring other materials into
the Bay: nutrients, sediments, and toxic
substances. Although the Bay has the ability to
assimilate much of this material, most remains
within the estuary (Bieri et al. 1982a). As discussed
in Chapter 1, human activities have greatly con-
tributed to the input of nutrients, sediment, and
a variety of synthetic chemicals, heavy metals, and
other potential toxicants into Chesapeake Bay.
The delivery of nutrients to the Bay has in-
creased, reflected by increases in runoff contain-
ing suspended sediment and fertilizers, and
sewage effluents. The amount of toxic
materials —heavy metals and organic
chemicals —has similarly increased as in-
dustrialization has progressed. Many of these
changes occurred before the first scientific surveys
of the Bay. For that reason, it is sometimes dif-
ficult to show strong recent trends, as the bulk of
the change had already taken place before any
data were collected. Recognizing this limitation,
the trends identitifed by the GBP become even
more alarming.
Nutrient Enrichment
Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus,
are essential for plant growth, and thus for
primary productivity in the estuary. However, in
excess, these nutrients can cause problems, in-
cluding blooms of undesirable algae, reduction in
DO, and decreased water clarity. Based on data
collected between 1950 and 1980, the GBP has
determined that most areas of Chesapeake Bay are
experiencing increased nutrient concentrations.
Currently, the northern Bay and upper portions
of the tributaries have relatively high nutrient con-
centrations; the mid-Bay, lower portions of the
tributaries, and eastern embayments have
moderate concentrations of nutrients; and the
lower Bay (where sufficient data exist) appears not
to be enriched (Figure 7).
When data from 1950 to 1980 are analyzed,
they indicate that, in most areas, water quality
is degrading; that is, nutrient levels are increas-
ing. Total nitrogen concentrations are declining
in the Patapsco, lower Potomac, and upper James
Rivers; total phosphorus concentrations are declin-
ing in the upper Potomac and throughout the
James. Elsewhere, trends are increasing (or stable)
for most forms of nutrients, particularly in the up-
per and mid-Bay main stem and larger tributaries.
The improvement in the Potomac is probably due
primarily to phosphorus control efforts at the Blue
Plains Sewage Treatment Plant and facilities in
Virginia. Control efforts appear to be making a
difference, but it is apparent from the effects
discussed below that additional Bay-wide nutrient
controls are needed.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 17
Limited
data
FIGURE 7.
Rank of Chesapeake Bay segments
according to nutrient status.
-------
18 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Dissolved Oxygen Trends
To assess the management implications for
resources of these nutrient trends, it is valuable
to examine a related parameter, dissolved oxygen.
As nutrient levels increase, phytoplankton (algal)
growth is encouraged and more organic matter
is produced. Decay of this organic matter con-
sumes oxygen. If more oxygen is used than is sup-
plied by reaeration or photosynthesis, as often oc-
curs in deep water, the water becomes anoxic and
devoid of most forms of life except anaerobic
bacteria. This process occurs naturally in some
Bay areas during the summer; however, high
nutrient loads can increase its severity.
Both the chlorophyll a, an indicator of algal
biomass, and the DO trends suggest that the dura-
tion and extent of anoxia have been accelerated
in the Bay in recent years. There were no anoxic
waters and only limited areas of low DO in the
main stem of the Bay during July of 1950 (Figure
8). In July 1980, however, a very large area of
the main stem of the Bay was experiencing an-
oxic conditions. It is estimated that the volume
of water with DO concentrations equal to or less
than 0.7 mg L' was 15 times greater in 1980
than in 1950. The duration of oxygen depletion
has also increased. It was sporadic during the
mid-1950's; occurred from mid-June to mid-
August during the 1960's; and, in 1980, began
during the first week in May and continued into
September. This increase in the spatial and tem-
poral extent of low DO levels reduces the area of
the Bay that can support normal finfish and
shellfish populations.
Organic Compounds in the Water and Sediments
Organic compounds can occur naturally; the
ones of major concern are synthetically produced.
The distribution of organic compounds, such as
hydrocarbons, pesticides, and herbicides, in the
bottom sediments and the water column of the
main Bay (Figure 9), and an analysis of limited
tributary data, suggest that organic compounds
concentrate near sources, at river mouths, and in
maximum turbidity areas. The highest concentra-
tions of organic chemicals in the sediments were
found in the Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers, ex-
ceeding 100 parts per million (ppm) at several
locations. In the main Bay, highest concentrations
of organic substances occur in the northern half.
Most observed sediment concentrations range
from 0 to 10 ppm; however, in the upper Bay,
some stations had levels of total organics over 50
ppm.
These general trends suggest that many of the
problem organic compounds in the Bay tend to
adsorb to suspended sediments, and then ac-
cumulate in areas dominated by fine-grained
sediments. Benthic organisms located in such areas
tend to accumulate the organic compounds in
their tissues. Studies of Kepone, a toxic organic
substance which was discharged into the James
River during the 1970's, have further substantiated
these conclusions. A major mechanism for ac-
cumulation of this persistant pesticide appears to
be bioconcentration by plankton; this fact has im-
plications for transfer of this and similar toxicants
through the food web. Some toxic organic com-
pounds (such as the herbicides atrazine and
linuron) appear to undergo fairly rapid chemical
and physical degradation once they enter the
estuary. Therefore, they probably do not pose as
serious a problem Bay-wide, although local im-
pacts could be significant (Kemp et al. 1983).
Metal Contamination
Metals are chemical elements which occur
naturally in the environment; however, in excess,
they can become toxic to organisms. Many areas
of the Bay show metal concentrations that are
significantly higher than natural background
levels. Figure 10 shows the degree of metal con-
tamination in the bottom sediments of the Bay.
The Contamination Index (Cj) was developed by
comparing present concentrations of cadmium
(Cd), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni),
lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) in the Bay's surface
sediments to predicted natural levels from the
weathering of rock in the Bay watershed and
measured pre-colonial levels from sediment cores.
If the present concentration of a given metal ex-
ceeded these natural Chesapeake Bay background
levels, it was considered to be anthropogenically
enriched.
The most contaminated sediments are located
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 19
o
CO
o
.Q
"O
O
O
IO
o
c.
8
o
a
a
t/y
Q)
6
DD
H—
O
i
0(D
-------
20
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
m
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 21
FIGURE 10.
Degree of metal contamination in the Bay
based on the contamination index (Q).
No data exist near shore, and large local
increases could be expected close to
outfalls.
-------
22 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
in the Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers, both heavily
industrialized tributaries. Metal concentrations up
to 100 times greater than natural background
levels were found in these areas. High levels of
metal contamination (Q > 14) were also found in
the upper Potomac, upper James, small sections
of the Rappahannock and York Rivers, and the
upper mid-Bay. Moderate contamination occurs
in the Susquehanna Flats and off the mouth of
the Potomac River. These trends suggest that
higher concentrations are found near industrial
sources and in areas where fine sediments ac-
cumulate, such as in the deep shipping channel
of the upper Bay. In general, there is little move-
ment of metals out of the most contaminated
areas, except when physically transported, as
might occur through movement or disposal of con-
taminated dredge material.
Significant levels of particulate and dissolved
metals occur in the water column. Concentrations
of particulate Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn are greatest
in the upper Bay and near the turbidity max-
imum; actual values vary greatly with the tidal
cycle and the amount of suspended sediment.
High dissolved values, some exceeding EPA water
quality criteria, have been observed, particularly
for Cd, Cu, Ni, and Zn. These are most frequent
in areas near industrial sources, and near upper
reaches of the main Bay and western shore
tributaries.
To better assess the potential biological impact
of these observed high metal concentrations a Tox-
icity Index was developed. The index utilizes
water column toxicity information in conjunction
with the contamination index. It essentially
weights the contamination factors for the six
metals by their relative toxicities from EPA
bioassay information. The analysis is described in
detail in Appendix A.
LIVING RESOURCES
Major changes in Bay resources can be iden-
tified, including shifts in the relative abundance
of species or the types of biological communities
found in various areas. The GBP focussed on in-
dividual living resource groups (e.g., submerged
aquatic vegetation, finfish), describing the
documented trends, and comparing present con-
ditions with the potential status.
Phytoplankton in Two Well-Documented Areas
The upper Bay (above the Annapolis Bay
Bridge) and upper Potomac River (tidal-fresh
reach) have shown increased dominance by a
single species of phytoplankton and increased
biomass. Such changes are considered to be in-
dicative of eutrophication and, in fact, have
paralleled changes in nutrient enrichment in these
areas. These two areas are those for which the best
data are available; similar changes may be occur-
ring elsewhere, or could be expected to occur if
nutrient enrichment continues.
The Potomac River's tidal-fresh reach was
characterized in the 1960's and 1970's by massive
blue-green algal blooms, indicators of excess
nutrients. Increased phosphorus control in the
watershed in recent years appears to have been
beneficial. In 1979, algal populations were
diverse, with bluegreens composing only 25 per-
cent of the total. Total cell counts for 1979 and
1980 were also considerably lower than in the
past.
Trends in nutrient enrichment of the upper
Bay tributaries have closely paralleled those of the
upper Potomac during the 1960's. Massive algal
blooms have been frequently reported in the up-
per main Bay (above the Annapolis Bay Bridge)
in recent years, with elevated chlorophyll levels
caused by increasing numbers of blue-green algae.
By comparison, observers of this area from 1965
to 1966 reported only an occasional occurrence
of blue-green algae. It is estimated that cell
numbers in this area have increased approximately
250-fold in the last 30 years.
Decline of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Since the late 1960's, a dramatic, Bay-wide
decline has occurred in the distribution and abun-
dance of submerged aquatic vegetation. Loss has
moved progressively down-estuary. Submerged
aquatic vegetation now occupies a significantly
more restricted habitat than at any time during
the past, according to GBP studies (Brush and
Davis 1982, Orth et al. 1983). The role of SAV in
the ecosystem has been reduced; its ability to
recover from this current status is uncertain.
Changes in the distribution and abundance of Bay
waterfowl, which feed on SAV, have paralleled
these vegetation changes.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 23
Annual surveys of SAV conducted by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird
and Habitat Research Laboratory have shown
that the number of vegetated stations in Maryland
dropped from 28.5 percent in 1971 to 4.5 percent
in 1982. Species diversity also declined signifi-
cantly. Comparison of the habitat filled in 1978
with the expected habitat (Figure 11) shows that
the areas of greatest loss (upper Bay, western shore
tributaries, and upper Eastern Shore tributaries)
correspond with areas of greatest nutrient
enrichment.
Changes in Benthic Invertebrates
Benthic animals are considered good indicators
of pollution because most are relatively immobile
and cannot readily escape unfavorable conditions.
Changes in benthic biomass, community struc-
ture, and diversity can indicate a variety of
stressful conditions. Where sufficient data exist,
comparisons were made of current conditions,
particularly in the main Bay and in certain
tributaries. Trends in diversity seem to be related
to physical aspects of the environment (i.e., salin-
ity and sediment type). Highest diversity occurs
in the lower Bay. In some polluted tributaries,
especially the Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers,
significant declines in species diversity and
enhancement of pollution-tolerant annelids,
relative to molluscs or Crustacea, are observed.
These changes are characteristic of stressed
communities.
Trends in Commercial Shellfish
The density of annual oyster spat set is a
measure of the success of oyster reproduction and
recruitment, and is a reasonable predictor of
oyster harvest. Comparison of the average oyster
spat set for the past ten years with the previous
ten to thirty years shows significant declines in the
upper main Chesapeake Bay and the Chester,
James, Nanticoke, Patuxent, Pocomoke, Potomac,
Rappahannock, and Wicomico Rivers, Eastern
Bay, Fishing Bay, and Pocomoke Sound. In
general, 1980 was a good year for spat fall, par-
ticularly in Eastern Shore tributaries; this fact is
related to high salinities during the spawning
period. Spat set in the upper Chesapeake and its
western tributaries was generally light even in this
good year. The trend toward light spat set in
upstream reaches has been documented in detail
for the Potomac River; while spat set in the lower
Potomac has continued to vary in response to
salinity, set in the middle and upper Potomac has
been suppressed since the late 1960's.
The harvest of oysters for Chesapeake Bay has
declined since 1880, but has remained relatively
stable since 1960 to 1965 (Figure 12). This is in
part due to management practices, such as shell
and seed planting. The harvest for the western
shore has decreased significantly during the period
from 1962 to 1980; the harvest for the Eastern
Shore increased significantly. This is consistent
with the Eastern Shore's consistently better spat
set. For the Chesapeake Bay as a whole, declines
in oyster harvest have been somewhat offset by
an increased harvest of blue crabs. As a result, the
Bay-wide landings of shellfish have not changed
greatly from 1962 to 1970 and 1970 to 1980.
However, overall shellfish harvest for the western
shore has decreased significantly during this
period.
Shifts in Finfish Harvest
The GBP examined trends in harvest and other
indicators (young-of- the-year surveys) for the ma-
jor commercial species historically landed in
Chesapeake Bay. These include freshwater
spawners such as striped bass, white perch, yellow
perch, catfish, shad, and alewife; marine
spawners such as menhaden, croaker, spot,
bluefish, and weakfish; and three estuarine forage
fish: Bay anchovy, mummichog, and Atlantic
silverside.
The Maryland juvenile index provides consis-
tent data since 1958 for the upper Bay, Nanticoke,
Choptank, and Potomac Rivers. Juvenile indices
of most anadromous and freshwater species show
declines in recent years, with the exception of the
Potomac River where white perch and yellow
perch have increased. Information for Virginia
waters is not directly comparable, because of dif-
-------
24 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
FIGURE 11.
Percent of expected submerged
aquatic vegetation habitat
occupied in 1978 for aggregated
sampling areas.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 25
•Qx107
9x 107
8x10r
7x107
to
•Q
C 6x107
o
— 5x107
0
O
l~ 4x107
3x107
2x10''
1 x 107
12x107
11x107
10x107
9x107
8x107
Q,
O
O
-5 6x10'
5x107
4x107
3x107
2x107
1x107
I
I
1880 1895 1910 1925 1940
Year
1955
1970
1982
1880 1895 1910 1925 1940
Year
1955
1970
1982
FIGURE 12. Historical landings of blue crabs, above, and historical pounds of shucked oyster meat, below,
for Chesapeake Bay, 1880 to 1981.
-------
26 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
ferences in methodology and target species
(sciaenids). However, trends in marine-spawning
fish were similar in both data sets. Marine
spawners show general overall increases in all
basins, although some species show declines in the
most recent surveys. In Maryland, mummichog
shows an increasing pattern similar to that of
marine spawners, while the Bay anchovy and
Atlantic silverside show declines. However, the
anchovy has been increasing in Virginia
tributaries surveyed during the same period. This
may reflect differences in water quality or habitat
(particularly the availability of SAV which is used
as shelter by this species) between the two states.
Harvests of anadromous and freshwater
species have declined in Chesapeake Bay (Figure
13). The downward trend in American shad has
been continuous since 1900, while declines in river
herring and striped bass landings have been more
recent. Landings of alewife, shad, and yellow
perch are now at unprecedented low levels.
Harvests of marine spawners, on the other hand,
have increased in most areas. Menhaden landings
have risen steadily since 1955; the increase in
bluefish landings has been more recent. The in-
creased yield of marine spawners and decreased
yield of freshwater spawners represent a major
shift in the proportion of the finfishery accounted
for by each group: during 1881 to 1890, marine
spawners accounted for about 75 percent of the
fishery; during 1971 to 1980, they accounted for
96 percent. Similarly, an assessment of individual
basins for the two periods from 1962 to 1970 and
from 1971 to 1980, shows significant declines in
freshwater spawners while landings of marine
spawners in most basins increased significantly.
The large relative increase in marine spawners
and actual decline in freshwater spawners il-
lustrate a gradual reduction in the diversity of
Chesapeake Bay fisheries. Diversity is not used
here in the sense of number of species alone, but
in the sense of number of species and the relative
evenness of fhe contribution of these species
toward the total harvest. Such a loss of diversity
can be viewed as potentially undesirable because
harvests are more vulnerable to year-to-year fluc-
tuations in population size of major commercial
and recreational species. There is less resiliency
(both economical and ecological) in single-species
fisheries. The economic impacts of the failure of
the California sardine, the Peruvian anchoveta,
or the Delaware Bay menhaden fisheries are prime
examples. Because freshwater-spawning fish and
estuarine-spawning shellfish spend all or most of
their sensitive life stages in the Bay, their well-
being may be considered as an indication of the
health of the estuary. Thus, the simultaneous
declines in most of these species is reason for
concern.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WATER
AND SEDIMENT QUALITY,
AND LIVING RESOURCES
Organisms respond directly to changes in their
habitat, food supply, competitors, or predators.
Major factors which affect the Bay's living
resources include natural variables such as
freshwater inflow, temperature, or other
organisms, as well as human-induced stress such
as nutrient and toxicant enrichment. Distinguish-
ing between effects triggered by anthropogenic,
as opposed to natural, causes is often difficult due
to the natural variability of organism distribution
and abundance. Although the CBP was unable
to pinpoint exact causes for specific resource
changes, the similarity in patterns and the overlap
in the distribution of water or sediment quality
and living resource trends in the Bay should be
considered as more than a striking coincidence.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
The CBP supported a major research effort to
identify the causes of the recent SAV decline. In-
vestigators focussed on two main hypotheses: 1)
the use of toxic agricultural materials, particularly
herbicides, has increased in recent years. Runoff
of these substances from agricultural areas may
be reducing or eliminating SAV and 2) the reduc-
tion in the light available to the plants because
of an increase in water column turbidity or in-
creased growth of epiphytes (or both) may be
causing the decline. Nutrient enrichment was con-
sidered a major factor affecting both turbidity and
epiphyte growth. Research sponsored by the CBP
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 27
20,000 r
T3
C
D
O
C/>
I
O
15,000
10,000
5,000
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960
Year
600,000 r
400,000
O
-------
28 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
implicated light limitation as the most important
factor regulating the Bay-wide SAV loss. Herbi-
cides could be important locally, or close to
sources (although areas affected may represent
significant habitat).
The GBP's research conclusions are supported
by field observations. Comparison of a map of
current SAV status to Bay nutrient conditions
reveals that vegetation now occurs primarily in
areas that are not enriched or only moderately
enriched. Statistical analysis (rank correlation)
shows a significant correlation between declines
in SAV and increased nutrient concentrations in
many areas. The major nutrient which appears
to correlate with SAV abundance is nitrogen
(Figure 14). A negative response to maximum
chlorophyll a values, an analog of both nutrient
loading and turbidity, was also found. These
analyses support experimental results linking the
recent loss of Bay vegetation to increases in
nutrient loadings and ultimately to light stress
caused by increasing phytoplankton biomass and
epiphytic growth.
Benthic Organisms
Major anthropogenic factors which could
adversely affect benthic organisms in Chesapeake
Bay are toxic materials, either in bed sediments
or in the overlying water column, and nutrients.
Toxicants can produce either acute (elimination
of susceptible species) or sublethal (accumulation
in body tissues) effects. Nutrient enrichment can
alter the Bay's benthic community structure by
stimulating phytoplankton production. Excessive
production of organic material has been linked to
the increased duration and extent of low DO in
Chesapeake Bay, decreasing available benthic
habitat.
A ET-4
ET=Eastern Tributary
WT=Western Tributary
CB = Chesapeake Bay
EE = Eastern Embayment
D Spring
A Summer
25
50 75 1 00 1 25 1 50
Seasonal total nitrogen of previous year (1977)
(mg/L)
1 75
200
225
FIGURE 14. Percent vegetation compared to seasonal total nitrogen of the previous year.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 29
Episodes of low DO have been cited as the ma-
jor factor limiting benthic distribution in deeper
waters of the upper- and mid-main Bay (e.g.,
Mountford et al. 1977). The documented increase
in the extent of anoxic water in the mid-Bay can
be related to the complete loss of benthic habitat
or replacement with ephemeral assemblages. This
may have secondary impacts on bottom-feeding
predators such as crabs or fish, which can be
stressed by food limitation and reduction of
habitat. Recent changes in the mid-Bay blue crab
fishery, especially the necessity to set pots in
shallower water, may be a direct result of these
anoxic episodes. Changes in benthic diversity,
abundance, and community structure could also
be related to toxic contamination of sediments in
areas recognized as "impacted" (e.g., the Patapsco
and the Elizabeth Rivers) (Figure 15). These areas
are characterized by low benthic diversity and
abundance, and dominance by pollution-tolerant
annelids, in comparison to nonpolluted reference
areas (e.g., Rhode River). Elsewhere, other fac-
tors, primarily physical or biological, are ap-
parently controlling benthic distributions. How-
ever, bioaccumulation of certain metals in the
tissues of shellfish could be correlated with enrich-
ment of those metals in the bed sediments, even
in the main Bay.
Oysters
Oysters (and other shellfish) are benthic
organisms but, because of their commercial im-
portance, oysters are treated separately here. Fac-
tors affecting benthic communities in general (i.e.,
low DO water, toxicants in the sediments or water
column) will impact oysters as well. In addition,
oysters are potentially vulnerable to shifts in
phytoplankton species brought about by nutrient
enrichment. Phytoplankton species usable as food
can be replaced by undesirable or inedible forms.
Comparison of EPA water quality criteria to
measured and estimated concentrations of tox-
icants in the water column revealed a number of
violations in the areas of oyster habitat; these were
chiefly for heavy metals. Although the duration
or extent of high toxicant concentrations is
unknown, the observations may be significant.
Some populations, stressed by a variety of factors,
may be more vulnerable than others to diseases
such as MSX or "Dermo." The impact of these pro-
tozoan parasites has increased in recent years
because of higher salinities resulting from drought
conditions. In addition, oyster habitat may be
adversely impacted by the increased rate of
sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay. Beds may be
buried, or spat set impeded, by the deposition of
sediment. Loss of once productive oyster bars in
the upper Bay is probably due in part to sedimen-
tation over the past 100 years.
Fishery Landings and the Juvenile Index
Although total fishery landings have increas-
ed since 1920, the distribution of landings among
species has changed significantly. Anadromous
and other freshwater-spawning fish such as shad
and striped bass have declined greatly; marine
spawners have remained stable or increased. The
finfish juvenile index, a measure of recruitmpnt
success, reflects these changes as well.
Several causes of this change in distribution
have been suggested: 1) nutrient enrichment may
lead to food web shifts as suggested by changes
in phytoplankton species, primarily affecting early
life stages; 2) the levels of toxicants, particularly
heavy metals, pesticides, and chlorine, in major
spawning areas are elevated and, in fact, have ex-
ceeded EPA criteria in some spawning or nursery
areas used by anadromous fish; 3) habitat is be-
ing lost because of an increased area of low DO
water; 4) adverse climatic conditions (freshwater
inflow, temperature, etc.) have reduced the
spawning success of anadromous species; 5) over-
fishing is affecting stock sizes; 6) construction of
dams represents physical obstructions that impede
the spawning success of shad and other
anadromous species; and 7) modifications of
upstream spawning and nursery habitat, such as
wetlands destruction and stream channelization,
further stresses the fisheries stock. It is possible that
all of these factors are working in unison.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR
CHESAPEAKE BAY
A framework for classifying the quality of Bay
-------
30 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Baltimore City
Patapsco
River
I I Low diversity
Moderate diversity
Rhode River ,^^__
9i^K_7AR2 &> \
«-> 0^-R3 )rt (\. \
/' /?
FIGURE 15. Comparison of benthic community diversity in the Patapsco and Rhode Rivers, Maryland.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 31
waters has been developed based on the observed
relationships discussed above between water
quality and living resources (Appendix A).
Theoretically, if these relationships were well
understood, such an environmental quality
classification would allow managers to tailor
water quality controls to the desired resource use
of the waters. However, the ability to relate pollu-
tant loads to water column concentrations is still
imperfect. For this reason, the present classifica-
tion system will undoubtedly be refined in the
future as scientific understanding increases.
It must also be emphasized that the attainment
of a certain water quality criterion alone does not
necessarily ensure that environmental or resource
objectives will be met. While inferior water qual-
ity will not support desired resources, other en-
vironmental factors may prevent resource recov-
ery even if the water quality is improved. For this
reason, this framework is probably most reliably
applied to situations in which the objective is to
maintain existing resources, rather than to im-
prove degraded areas. Also, data are sparse on the
length of time required for a system to recover
once resources have been lost.
With these caveats, the present classification
system was developed based on nutrient and tox-
icant concentrations, and related to resources as
described in this chapter and in the Chesapeake
Bay Program's characterization report (Flemer et
al. 1983). Nutrient criteria were based on concen-
trations of total nitrogen (TN) and total
phosphorus (TP), N:P ratios, and on the contribu-
tion of nutrient enrichment to low DO in
Chesapeake Bay. Toxicant criteria were based on
the enrichment of trace metals in bottom
sediments (the Contamination Index) and their
relative toxicities (the Toxicity Index). The
resource use related to each criterion level was
based on relationships developed in the
characterization report: nutrients to submerged
aquatic vegetation; nutrients to DO and, thus, to
fisheries; and sediment contamination to benthic
communities.
Assessment of N:P ratios and TN or TP con-
centrations indicates that regions where resource
quality is currently moderate to good have lower
concentrations of ambient nutrients and N:P ratios
between 10:1 and 20:1. Regions characterized by
little or no SAV (phytoplankton-dominated
systems) or massive algal blooms had high nutrient
concentrations and significant variations in the
N:P ratios (Figure 16). Moving a system from one
class to another could involve either a reduction
of the limiting nutrient (N or P) or a reduction
of the non-limiting nutrient to a level such that
it becomes limiting. For example, removal of P
from a system characterized by massive algal
blooms could force it to become the a more
desirable phytoplankton-dominated system with
a higher N:P ratio. This, in fact, occurred in the
Potomac after removal of phosphorus at the Blue
Plains Sewage Treatment Plant. Because of recycl-
ing during the growing season, it is estimated that
only a relatively small reduction in nutrient loads
could result in significant reductions in
phytoplankton production.
Metal enrichment and the toxicity of bottom
sediments in general follow a pattern similar to
that of nutrient enrichment. Sediments of the
upper- and mid-Bay and western shore tributaries
have the greatest enrichment of toxic metals, par-
ticularly Cd and Cu. Areas with the highest Tox-
icity Index (Tj > 10) were found to have reduced
benthic diversity as well as altered community
structure in favor of pollution-tolerant forms,
whereas areas with a low Toxicity Index (Tt< 1)
had high diversity.
Comparing levels of nutrients, DO, and sedi-
ment toxicity to the observed resources enables the
requirements needed to sustain different resources
to be defined. Table 1 provides the best estimate
at this time of the relationship between these re-
quirements or criteria and environmental qual-
ity objectives. The criteria presented are only
preliminary "target levels," to be refined as ad-
ditional data are obtained on living resources and
water quality relationships. The CBP anticipates
that both accuracy and precision can be improved
dramatically in the near future.
Figure 17 classifies the different areas of the
Bay using the Environmental Quality Classifica-
tion Scheme. Each area is classified based on the
mean of the TN, TP, and Tx classes (or ranks).
The map indicates that the upper Bay and upper
reaches of several major the tributaries are Class
C or D (poor or fair-to-poor transition); the mid-
Bay, middle and some lower reaches of tributaries
are Class B (fair); while the lower Bay, eastern
embayments, and lower reaches of major western
-------
32 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
"D
c
O
o"
QD
(D
a
2
0)
6
c
Q)
O)
0
.0
"5
•O
LJJ
G:
O
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 33
TABLE 1.
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
Class Quality Objectives
A Healthy supports maximum diversity
of benthic resources, SAV,
and fisheries
Quality
Very low
enrichment
T,
1
TN Tp
<0.6 <0.08
Fair moderate resource diversity moderate
reduction of SAV, chlorophyll enrichment
occasionally high
1-10 0.6-10 0.08-0.14
C* Fair a significant reduction in resource
to diversity, loss of SAV, chlorophyll
Poor often high, occasional red tide or
blue-green algal blooms
high 11-20
enrichment
1.1-1.8 0.15-0.20
D Poor limited pollution-tolerant resources, significant
massive red tides or blue-green enrichment
algal blooms
>20
>0.20
Note: I, indicates Toxicity Index;
TN indicates Total Nitrogen in mg L~1;
Tp indicates Total Phosphorus in mg L~1.
'Class C represents a transitional state on a continuum between classes B and D.
shore tributaries are Class A (good).
In general, the resource quality of these areas
fall into similar classes. Lack of SAV in some areas
where present conditions are Class A may in part
reflect the impact of past conditions as well as pro-
blems of recolonization. However, the agreement
shown with the initial effort indicates that fur-
ther refinement and development of the EQCS
would be useful for Bay managers. It further sug-
gests that, to improve the quality of resources in
the Bay, water and sediment pollution must be
reduced. Achieving this goal will require the con-
certed effort of both government and the private
sector.
SUMMARY
To further develop the Environmental Quality
Classification Scheme, as well as to determine the
effectiveness of any control programs, a com-
prehensive monitoring program is necessary. Such
a framework is presented in this report (Appen-
dix F). Monitoring should not only be directed to
ambient water quality, but should gather data in
such a manner that relationships can be made be-
tween environmental parameters and Bay
resources. This will serve to strengthen the
classification system, and to give managers bet-
ter direction in instituting control programs.
The linking of monitoring and research
through systems-level field experiments or through
a series of microcosm studies of ecosystem response
to perturbations can give additional insight into
resource and water quality relationships. Support
of a program such as the MERL mesocosms
(Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory at Nar-
ragansett, RI) could be useful and informative for
-------
34 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
FIGURE 17.
Environmental quality of Chesapeake Bay
based on the environmental quality
classification scheme.
-------
Chapter 2: State of the Bay 35
scientists and managers alike. In addition, such
monitoring and research information improves the
understanding of Bay processes, and will provide
important inputs to future water quality model-
ing efforts.
Water quality monitoring and research efforts
can give information on factors affecting
Chesapeake Bay for which very incomplete infor-
mation is now available. These factors include:
the magnitude of inputs, as well as the source and
effects, of atmospheric deposition of nutrients and
toxicants from dryfall as well as from precipita-
tion; the impact of toxic metals from anti-fouling
paints and acid mine drainage; runoff from in-
dustrial sites and other facilities; the flux of
nutrients and toxicants from bottom sediments;
and the magnitude of inputs of pesticides from
agricultural sources.
Resource monitoring and research programs
can help us identify, preserve, and restore critical
resource habitats. The importance of habitat
preservation for many resource species, particu-
larly freshwater-spawning fish, is well
documented (Flemer et al. 1983). Unfortunately,
we do not always recognize the indirect impacts
of human activity on aquatic habitats nor do we
fully understand how best to restore critical
habitats.
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATION
The states and the Federal government,
through the Management Committee,
should implement a coordinated Bay-wide
monitoring and research program by July
1, 1984.
This program should include the following
components:
• A baseline (descriptive and analytical)
monitoring program, as described in Ap-
pendix F.
• A coordinated, interpretive monitoring and
research program to improve our
understanding of relationships between
water and sediment quality, and living
resources, as described in Appendix F.
• A monitoring and research effort to iden-
tify, preserve, and restore important
resource habitats.
Information from this monitoring and research
effort should be utilized to refine the CBP En-
vironmental Quality Classification Scheme (Ap-
pendix A) and to develop state water quality stan-
dards based on resource-use attainability.
-------
PART II
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
-------
Mary E. Gillelan
Joseph Macknis
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
enter the Bay from a variety of sources including
runoff from forests, farmland and urban areas as
well as discharges from sewage treatment plants
and industries. Research conducted by the
Chesapeake Bay Program has shown that very lit-
tle of the nutrients entering the Bay are
transported out to the Atlantic Ocean. Nutrients
are essential to the productivity of the Bay but,
as documented in Chapter 2, the Bay and its
tributaries contain higher concentrations of
phosphorus and nitrogen than were evident thir-
ty years ago. The increased nutrient availability
in the Bay has stimulated excess phytoplankton
growth that has contributed to the worsening pro-
blem of low dissolved oxygen levels (DO) in the
Bay. Simultaneously, populations of living
resources of the Bay, such as freshwater-spawning
fish, oysters, and submerged aquatic vegetation,
have been decreasing. These trends suggest that
reductions in the loading of nutrients to the Bay
would limit the total amount of nutrients available
and, thus, improve the state of the Bay over the
long term.
This chapter indicates what the primary
sources of nutrients are; discusses how much
phosphorus and nitrogen each source contributes
to the Bay and to major river basins; summarizes
what controls are currently in place to reduce
nutrient loadings and their effectiveness to date;
and describes the range of controls or other
measures that could be instituted and their relative
cost and effectiveness. This information on
nutrient sources, loadings, and alternative
measures provides the raw material needed to for-
mulate objectives and strategies for the improve-
ment of Chesapeake Bay. Recommendations are
proposed for Bay-wide policies and for more
specific action within tributary systems.
SOURCES AND LOADINGS:
AN OVERVIEW
The sources and loadings of nutrients1 to
Chesapeake Bay are influenced by population
growth and land-use changes (described in
Chapter 1 and detailed in Appendix B). Popula-
tion growth contributes to the major point source
of nutrients to the Bay, sewage treatment plants,
also referred to as publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs); the other major type of point
source in the basin is industrial wastewater.
Changing land-use activities such as intensified
agricultural activities or urbanization can result
in higher nutrient loads from diffuse or nonpoint
sources. Before initiating efforts to reduce nutrient
loads to the Bay, it is necessary to determine the
relative contributions of point and nonpoint
sources now and in the future in each major
drainage area, or basin, of Chesapeake Bay.
Figure 18 shows the location of the major and
minor basins described throughout this chapter.
Nutrient control strategies should be based
upon a knowledge of the relative contributions of
point and nonpoint sources of nutrients. Com-
parisons of these contributions have to be made
not only Bay-wide, but also at the river basin level
to link specific sources of nutrients to problem
areas in the Bay. In addition, it is important to
know how much of the loading originates above
the fall line and how much enters tidal waters
39
-------
40 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Susquehanna (1-5)
1 Above Sunbury
2. West Branch
3. Juniata
4. Main stem, Harrisburg to Sunbury
5. Main stem, Harrisburg to mouth
Eastern Shore (6)
West Chesapeake (7)
Patuxent (8)
Potomac (9-10)
9. Above Fall Line
10. Below Fall Line
Rappahannock (11-12)
11, Above Fall Line
12. Below Fall Line
York (13-14)
13. York above Fall Line
14. York below Fall Line
James (15-16)
15. Above Fall Line
16. Below Fall Line
FIGURE 18. Major and minor river basins of the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 41
directly. Computer modeling, described in more
detail below, was used to determine how much
of the point and nonpoint loadings discharged to
freshwater rivers between March 1 and October
31 (the most critical period for water quality in
Chesapeake Bay) are delivered to tidal waters. In
this way, the effectiveness of upland point and
nonpoint controls on Bay water quality can be
evaluated against controls implemented in the
land area adjacent to tidal waters.
Bay-wide Point and
Nonpoint Sources of Nutrients
Most of the phosphorus loadings to
Chesapeake Bay come from point sources which
are concentrated close to tidal waters, and most
of the nitrogen enters the Bay from nonpoint
sources located throughout the Chesapeake Bay
basin. Figure 19 indicates that the total nutrient
load to the Bay varies in magnitude according to
rainfall conditions. This figure also shows that the
relative amounts of point and nonpoint source
loadings to the Bay similarly change with rain-
fall conditions. Bay-wide, nonpoint sources con-
tribute between 31 and 64 percent of the
phoshorus load (39 percent — average rainfall con-
ditions) and between 62 and 81 percent of the
nitrogen load (67 percent — average); point sources
contribute between 36 and 69 percent of the
phosphorus load (61 percent — average) and 19 to
38 percent of the nitrogen load (33 percent —
average), depending upon the annual rainfall
conditions.
Basin Nutrient Loadings
Figure 20 illustrates the present loadings of
phosphorus and nitrogen from each major basin
draining to Chesapeake Bay in an average year
of rainfall (March 1 to October 31). Collectively,
the James (28 percent), Potomac (21 percent), and
Susquehanna (21 percent) River basins contribute
70 percent of the total phosphorus load to the Bay
(6,900 tons). The total nitrogen load of 73,000 tons
is primarily associated with the Susquehanna, (40
percent), Potomac (24 percent), and the James (14
percent) Rivers. The West Chesapeake basin is
also significant, contributing 17 percent of the
phosphorus and 11 percent of the nitrogen loads.
The Eastern Shore and other basins (Patuxent,
Rappahannock, and York River basins) contribute
the remaining loads. To determine the impact of
each basin's loadings on Bay water quality, the
loadings must be evaluated by Bay segment
(rather than comparisons with total Bay-wide
loadings) in order to link water quality to resource
problem areas and their specific contributing
sources.
Figure 21 evaluates the nutrient loads
originating from each of the 16 sub-basins shown
in Figure 18 to determine whether point or non-
point sources are the major source of nutrients
from individual sub-basins. Tables 5 and 6 con-
tain the actual nutrient loads. It is important to
recognize that Figure 20 differs from Figure 21
which illustrates point versus nonpoint contribu-
tions from entire river basins. For example, while
the major sources of nitrogen from the entire
Potomac River basin are nonpoint sources, the
point source nitrogen load from the tidal Potomac
River basin (below the fall line) by itself exceeds
the nonpoint source load generated in this sub-
basin.
The fact that point sources are concentrated
in sub-basins adjacent to Chesapeake Bay is strik-
ing in Figure 21. The predominant sources of
nitrogen and phosphorus from the West
Chesapeake, tidal Potomac, and tidal James River
basins are point sources. In the Patuxent River
basin, point sources dominate the phosphorus load
and are significant contributors of nitrogen. Point
sources of phosphorus are also significant from the
tidal portion of the York River basin. Nonpoint
sources of phosphorus are dominant in the Eastern
Shore, Susquehanna, and the upper portions of
the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James
River basins. Nonpoint sources of nitrogen are
dominant in all areas except the West Chesapeake
and tidal portions of the Potomac and James River
basins.
Estimates of future (year 2000) nutrient
loadings (summarized below and fully described
in Chapter 5) indicate significant increases in
phosphorus (43 percent) and nitrogen (7 percent).
These will put even more stress on the living
resources of the Bay than current loadings are
already causing. Measures to curb the loadings of
-------
42 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Phosphorus
Dry Year Average Year
12,084,000 Ibs.
Nitrogen
Dry Year
123,127,000 Ibs.
13,758,000 Ibs.
Average Year
146,225,000 Ibs.
Point Sources
ii-
Wet Year
23,810,000 Ibs.
Wet Year
263,273,000 Ibs.
Non-
point Sources
FIGURE 19. Bay-wide nutrient loadings, (March to October) under dry, average, and wet conditions.
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 43
CO
D
O
o
Q.
CO
O
o
c
D
0>
D
CT
co
CO
55
^_
CM
v^O
CM
oo
CM
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
LO
o
.c
0 £
~u> O
O.C
LU CO
0)
o
CO
"O
O
CL
o
o
o
o
0.
o
c.
c
o
(D
CO
LO
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
LO
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
LO
CO
TJ
c
^
o
Q.
C
O
o
o
0
O)
D
O
D
C
c
"co
E
^
"D
E
o
"o
O
O
D
D)
c
T3
D
_O
0)
O
CM
LU
D:
Z)
O
-------
44 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
WJ
E
b
"o
F
c
c
O
O
O
T3
O
a
o
i
a
0)
a
(D
CN
L1J
Qi
Z>
0
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 45
nitrogen and phosphorus to the Bay must not only
keep pace with these increases, but must reduce
them to levels below today's loadings if the con-
dition of the Chesapeake Bay is to improve. The
text of this chapter provides the detailed informa-
tion needed to formulate effective nutrient-
reduction strategies: sources, loadings, effec-
tiveness of current programs and policies, and
alternative measures. General recommendations
to reduce nutrients from the Chesapeake Bay basin
as a whole are presented in this chapter; Chapter
5 includes nutrient recommendations for in-
dividual regions within the Bay basin.
POINT SOURCES AND LOADINGS
Point sources are concentrated waste streams
discharged to a water-body through a discrete
pipe or ditch. Although there may be daily or
seasonal fluctuations in flow, including occasional
starts and stops, point sources are essentially con-
tinuous, daily discharges which occur throughout
the year. The significance of point sources in-
creases during the summer and other periods of
low rainfall because the freshwater flow is low
and the dilution of effluent is reduced. Con-
versely, their relative significance decreases dur-
ing periods of wet weather when rainfall, runoff,
and nonpoint loadings increase. Examples of point
sources include discharges from industrial produc-
tion facilities and POTWs. The GBP data base
contains an inventory of over 5,000 industrial and
municipal point sources located within the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area (Smullen et al.
1982).
Municipal Point Sources (POTWs)
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works collect and
treat human wastes and wastes associated with
household washing and cleaning activities. Studies
have shown that household wastes may contain
nutrients and toxicants in significant quantities
(U.S. EPA 1982a). In addition, POTWs may col-
lect and treat process water from industrial
facilities, or indirect dischargers. These may in-
clude manufacturers of organic chemicals and
plastics, metal finishers, pulp and paper mills, and
commercial establishments such as restaurants, of-
fices, and hotels. Indirect dischargers add signifi-
cant variability to the concentrations and types
of pollutants which must be removed by a POTW.
Nonetheless, municipal wastewater can be ex-
pected to contain certain physical, chemical, and
biological constituents. These substances can be
grouped into the following general classes: 5-day
biological oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, bacteria, heavy
metals, synthetic organic chemicals, pH, heat,
gases, chlorine, proteins, carbohydrates, and fats
and oils.
Figure 22 presents the total municipal nutrient
discharge by major basin. Not all of these
discharges reach tidal waters, however, due to in-
stream assimilation and decay processes (for the
actual nutrient load from POTWs that is delivered
to Bay waters from each major basin, see Chapter
5, Basin Profiles). It is interesting to note in Figure
22 that although the Potomac River must
assimilate the largest total volume of treated
wastewater [589 million gallons per day (MGD)],
the total phosphorus discharge to the Potomac is
less than the loadings discharged to either the Sus-
quehanna or James Rivers because many POTWs
located in the Potomac basin remove phosphorus
prior to discharge. These plants do not remove
nitrogen, and the nitrogen discharge reflects the
large volume of waste water treated in the
Potomac. In the West Chesapeake basin, 100
MGD of secondary-treated waste water contain-
ing 3,755 pounds of phosphorus and 16,189
pounds of nitrogen from the Back River
wastewater treatment plant are transferred to the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation where 2,000 pounds
of phosphorus per day (480,000 pounds, March
1 to October 31) are removed prior to discharge.
Although discharged by Bethlehem Steel, this
nutrient load is attributable to a municipal source
and is therefore included with municipal
discharge to the West Chesapeake basin in Figure
22.
Appendix B contains an inventory of
municipal treatment plants located in the
Chesapeake Bay basin, including facility name;
1980 flow; year 2000 projected flow; NPDES per-
mit number; type of treatment; and concentra-
tions of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
BOD5, TSS, and total residual chlorine (TRC).
-------
46 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Basin Millions of pounds
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
Potomac
James
Susquehanna
1 0.05
] 0.07
~] 0.26
0.41
198
2.23
2.72
3.76
• • • ^ —
1.0
2.0
3.0
Phosphorus
Millions of pounds, March-October
'Includes .42 million pounds of phosphorus in
treated effluent from Back River sewage treatment
plant discharged by Bethlehem Steel.
Basin
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
James
Susquehanna
Potomac
Millions of pounds
0.14
0,19
] 0.72
1.44
9.23
9,83
11.33
15.98
10
15
Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
"Includes 4.0 million pounds of nitrogen in treated
effluent from Back River sewage treatment plant
discharged by Bethlehem Steel.
FIGURE 22. Discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen from municipal point sources based on 1980 operational
flow and levels of treatment. (These are discharged loads not delivered loads. See Chapter 5
for delivered loads to the Bay.)
This inventory contains all POTWs with
discharges greater than 0.5 MGD located above
and below the fall line, as well as some smaller
POTWs below the fall line.
Future nutrient discharges from POTWs
estimated by the GBP are shown in Figure 23
(Chapter 5 for future loadings that reach Bay
waters). These were developed assuming that in-
creases in flow due to population growth will be
treated at 1980 levels of treatment; in areas where
increased flow exceeds existing 1980 design capa-
city of individual POTWs, the excess flow was
assumed to be treated at secondary-level treat-
ment. As a result, POTWs upgraded since 1980
where effluent concentrations and loads have been
reduced, such as the Back River (West Chesapeake
basin) and Blue Plains (Potomac River basin)
POTWs, are not reflected in year 2000 loadings.
Appendix B contains a listing of plants in this
category and identifies effluent concentration
changes resulting from upgrading. Under future
conditions, it is estimated that Bay-wide POTW
phosphorus loads will increase by 43 percent and
total flow will increase by 35 percent.
Industrial Point Sources
Industrial manufacturing activities require
water for many purposes, often in large quantities.
Frequently, all of the water used during the
manufacturing process is discharged into receiv-
ing waters which eventually reach Chesapeake
Bay. Such discharges contain a variety of
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 47
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Basin Millions of pounds
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
Potomac
James
Susquehanna
0,11
0.07
"1 0.45
0.81
3.08
2.52
4.00
4.99
Phosphorus
Millions of pounds. March-October
'Includes .42 million pounds of phosphorus in
treated effluent from Back River sewage treatment
plant discharged by Bethlehem Steel.
Basin
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
James
Susquehanna
Potomac
Millions of pounds
0.28
0.25
~^ 1.26
2.79
12.88
14.71
15.96
18.40
i^.i__ .J
10
15
20
Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
"Includes 4.0 million pounds of nitrogen in treated
effluent from Back River sewage treatment plant
discharged by Bethlehem Steel.
FIGURE 23. Discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen from municipal point sources based on 2000 projected
flow and levels of treatment. (These are discharged loads not delivered loads. See Chapter 5
for delivered loads to the Bay.)
chemicals and, depending on the type of industry,
may include nitrogen or phosphorus.
In addition to requiring water for manufac-
turing processes (process water), industry uses
large quantities of water for cooling. The volume
of cooling water required varies from one industry
to another, depending on the amount of heat to
be removed from process waters. A large in-
dustrial facility may discharge a total of 30 MGD,
of which only 1 MGD is process water; the re-
mainder is primarily cooling water. Cooling water
can become contaminated by small leaks within
the cooling system or by corrosion products. Cool-
ing water also may contain biocides, such as
chlorine, to control algal growth in cooling pipes.
Pollutants generated by industrial manufacturing
processes include: floating solids (lighter than
water), organic matter, suspended solids,
nutrients, toxic chemicals, heat, acids and/or
alkalis, inorganic salts, color, and foam-producing
matter.
Industries located within the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area that generate and discharge signifi-
cant amounts of nutrients include industrial
organic and inorganic chemical manufacturers,
paper mills, refineries, and food-processing in-
dustries (Smullen et al. 1982). Overall, they con-
tribute only 20 percent of the total point source
load of nitrogen and 12 percent of the total point
source load of phosphorus discharged within the
Chesapeake Bay basin.
Figure 24 illustrates by major basin the
nutrients generated by industrial dischargers
(Smullen et al. 1982). It shows that the greatest
-------
48 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Basin
Patuxent
Rappahannock
York
Eastern Shore
Susquehanna
Potomac
West
Chesapeake
James
Millions of pounds
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.09
0,21
0.06
0.51
0
0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.5
Phosphorus
Millions of pounds, March-October
Basin
Patuxent
Rappahannock
York
Eastern Shore
Susquehanna
Potomac
James
West
Chesapeake
Millions of pounds
0.03
0.07
] 0.18
] 0.18
0.63
0.91
3,19
2.38
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
FIGURE 24. Existing (1980) and future (2000) discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen from industrial point
sources. (These are dsicharged loads not delivered loads. See Chapter 5 for delivered loads to
the Bay.)
industrial nutrient discharges are in the James,
West Chesapeake, and Potomac River basins
where several large industrial complexes account
for the significant industrial contribution. Chapter
5 includes data on the industrial nutrient load
from each major basin that actually reaches tidal
waters. Appendix B lists major industrial nutrient
dischargers and their individual nutrient
discharges by major basin. Future loadings from
industrial dischargers were assumed to remain at
existing levels. All of the projected increases in
point source nutrient loadings using the above
assumptions are therefore due to the estimated in-
creases in POTW discharges.
Figure 25 compares the magnitude of the 1980
industrial and municipal nutrient discharges in
major Chesapeake Bay basins. It indicates that in
all of the larger basins, municipal discharges
dominate the point source nutrient contributions,
ranging from 76 to 95 percent of all point source
effluent. In the smaller basins (York, Rappahan-
nock, and Eastern Shore) the municipal discharge
is still generally dominant, ranging from 44 to 80
percent of the total; industrial discharges, primari-
ly from seafood, poultry, and meat processing in-
dustries, however, still represent a significant pro-
portion of the total point source contributions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
The effectiveness of point source control pro-
grams to restrict nutrient loadings can be traced
to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Am-
mendments (FWPCA) and its subsequent version,
the 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA). The main
thrust of the water pollution control program
established by the FWCPA has been to reduce the
discharge of "conventional" pollutants: BOD5,
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 49
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Basin
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
Potomac
James
Susquehanna
Percent of point
source load from
industry
10 2.0 3.0
Phosphorus
Millions of pounds, March-October
Legend: Type
Basin
York
Rappahannock
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
West
Chesapeake
James
Susquehanna
Potomac
Percent of point
source load from
industry
5 10 15
Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
[industrial [ I Municipal
FIGURE 25. Discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen from point sources under existing (1980) conditions and
percentage of point source discharge from industrial point sources.
TSS, pH, temperature, oil and grease, bacteria
and, in some cases, ammonia, heavy metals, and
phenols. Nutrients are not considered to be con-
ventional pollutants; discharge restrictions for
nutrients are imposed only when there is sufficient
scientific evidence that their removal will result
in water quality benefits.
The authority to set limits on the amounts or
concentrations of pollutants discharged by point
sources is delegated to the states by the CWA; this
permit program is known as the National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES.
Data indicate that the NPDES permit system has
been effective in controlling the discharge of con-
ventional pollutants from industrial point sources.
For example, Virginia compliance reports show
that in 1972, thirty industrial point sources col-
lectively discharged 275,000 pounds per day of
BOD5 and 330,000 pounds per day of TSS. By
1980, NPDES monitoring data showed that the
undelivered loads from these same discharges were
reduced to 98,000 pounds per day of BOD5, and
160,000 pounds per day of TSS, reductions of 64
percent and 51 percent, respectively.
While the CWA established two levels of
pollution-control technology standards for in-
dustrial dischargers (best practicable technology,
BPT and best available technology, BAT) to be
implemented in succession, it generally established
a single technology level for municipal dis-
chargers, namely, "secondary treatment." Muni-
cipal NPDES permit limits, however, can be based
either on the application of available technology
(secondary treatment) or on the protection of
water quality (advanced secondary, tertiary, or
other treatment technologies), whichever is more
-------
50 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
stringent. Secondary-treatment technology is
designed to limit conventional pollutants such as
BOD5, TSS, pH, and flow. Although nutrients
are not targets for control by secondary treatment,
some reductions (e.g., from 11.5 mg Lr1 to 8.0
mg Lr1 for phosphorus and from 22.5 mg L'1 to
18.5 mg Lr1 for nitrogen) can be achieved
through this process. Specific effluent limitations
for nutrients may be set (as in the Upper
Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy
and the Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy,
discussed below) if secondary treatment does not
result in the protection of the desired water quality
because of excessive nutrient loadings.
To assist communities with upgrading their
POTWs to meet the secondary-treatment regula-
tion, the FWPCA established the Construction
Grants Program, a Federal and state cost-sharing
program. The EPA, or states with delegated
authority, distribute construction grants to
municipal agencies to plan, design, and build
new, or upgrade existing, POTWs. Grants have
funded 75 percent of the eligible project costs for
conventional-treatment systems and 85 percent of
the eligible costs for innovative and alternative-
treatment technology systems. Recent legislation
has reduced the Federal cost-share percentage to
55 percent of total eligible costs beginning fiscal
year 1985.
Table 2 summarizes the Federal dollars spent
on the Construction Grants Program within the
Chesapeake Bay basin between 1972 and 1983.
Basin-wide, approximately 2.5 billion dollars were
spent by the Federal government to improve the
level of wastewater treatment. When added to the
approximately 25 percent-share paid by the states,
municipalities, and local governments, the total
amount spent is nearly 3.3 billion dollars.
Data indicating what has been bought by these
grants in terms of water quality improvement are
scarce, but nonetheless encouraging. Chapter 2
showed that one of the areas in the Chesapeake
where water quality trends are improving is the
Potomac River. Approximately one billion dollars
were spent there to limit POTW loadings. Figure
26 compares the loadings of BOD5, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and flow in 1970 and 1980 in the
James and Potomac River basins. During this
TABLE 2.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE AREA
(with the exception of New York)
IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
State
Step 1 Planning Step 2 Design Step 3 Constr.
Step 4
Design/Constr.
State Total
Number Number Number Number Number
of EPA Of EPA of EPA of EPA Of EPA
Projects Amount Projects Amount Projects Amount Projects Amount Projects Amount
D.C.
DE
MD
PA
VA
WVA
13
10
143
75
70
11
$ 14.2
0.8
19.7
7.5
7.3
1.1
2
8
74
29
51
12
$ 0.7
1.2
27.0
13.5
20.3
2.4
5
14
201
144
85
12
$ 165.1
33.2
835.1
557.3
643.5
23.5
—
5
43
15
6
—
—
$ 8.4
42.6
27.6
5.6
—
20 $
37
461
263
212
35
180.0*
43.6*
924.4*
605.9*
676.7*
27.0*
Region 322 $50.6 176 $65.1 461 $2,257.7 69 $84.2 1,028 $2,457.6
* This amount represents 75 percent of the eligible cost of the projects.
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 51
600
500
O
o
400
300
I
LU
200 -
100
•i^o
>.
o
§100
(D
g>
o
S 75
T!
CO
T5
c
8 so
Q.
"D
C
% 25
o
_c
I —
0
•
•
•
•
,
•••
•^^^
James
Potomac
James
Potomac
Flow
BOD5
.100
D) 75
5
O
-------
52 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
period, the volume of effluent (flow) discharged
by POTWs in the James more than doubled, yet
the BOD5 load was nearly halved. Nutrient
discharges have continued to increase in the James
relative to flow because secondary-treatment is the
highest level of treatment required there. In the
Potomac, there has been a similar increase in flow,
but both the BOD5 and phosphorus loads have
been reduced, the latter due to implementation
of phosphorus effluent limitations at Blue Plains
and other sewage treatment plants discharging to
the upper Potomac. Improvements in water qual-
ity observed since the late 1960's in the Potomac
estuary are principally attributed to these reduc-
tions obtained through the NPDES and Construc-
tion Grants programs. The data in Figure 26
emphasize that, in areas where nutrients are con-
tributing to poor water quality, secondary-level
treatment alone is not effective in curbing
phosphorus or nitrogen loadings; some form of ad-
vanced wastewater treatment will be needed to
limit further nutrient enrichment due to point
source loadings in problem areas of the Bay.
Nutrient enrichment in the main stem of the
Bay is currently being addressed by implementa-
tion of the EPA's Upper Chesapeake Bay
Phosphorus Limitation Policy. This policy, ap-
proved by the EPA for funding in 1979, was
established to reduce increasing chlorophyll a con-
centrations in the upper Bay, an indication of
eutrophication. Under the Upper Chesapeake Bay
Policy, Maryland and Pennsylvania have imposed
phosphorus effluent limits on POTWs impacting
this area. In Maryland, the policy requires all
point sources with flows greater than or equal to
0.5 MGD discharging into the Maryland portion
of the Bay north of and including Gunpowder
River (Zone I), or POTWs with flows greater than
or equal to 10.0 MGD between Gunpowder River
and the southern edge of the Choptank River
(Zone II), to meet the effluent limitation of 2
mg L'1 effluent. In Pennsylvania, state regulations
require 80 percent removal (approximately equal
to 2.0 mg Lr1 effluent) of phosphorus for all new
or modified wastewater treatment facilities dis-
charging to tributaries and the main stem of the
Susquehanna River below its confluence with the
Juniata River.
Chesapeake Bay Program modeling studies in-
dicate that full implementation of the Upper
Chesapeake Bay Policy will only maintain existing
point source phosphorus loadings to the Sus-
quehanna River in the year 2000. More stringent
phosphorus limitations may be necessary in the
future to improve upon the present condition of
the upper Bay. Appendix B identifies the POTWs
subject to the policy and their 1980 effluent
phosphorus concentrations. Chapter 5, Basin Pro-
files, contains nutrient load reductions that can
be achieved through the full implementation of
this policy.
In the Potomac River basin, phosphorus
limitation at the larger POTWs has resulted in
water quality improvement of the tidal-freshwater
portion of the river. In the Patuxent River basin,
the State of Maryland is preparing to limit
nitrogen effluent concentrations, as well as
phosphorus, in an effort to reduce chlorophyll a
concentrations in the tidal-freshwater portion and
to alleviate low DO concentrations in the lower
reaches of the river. Water quality monitoring
over a number of years will be necessary to deter-
mine the effectiveness of this policy once im-
plemented. Then, based on water quality im-
provements in the Patuxent, Bay-area states may
choose to limit nitrogen from sources contributing
to other problem areas around the Bay.
Although loadings of conventional pollutants
and nutrients, to some extent, have been lowered
by existing programs, compliance monitoring data
indicate that nutrient loads could be further
reduced if permit compliance were improved. Na-
tional EPA statistics on plant performance in-
dicate that at any point in time, 50 to 75 percent
of the POTWs are somehow in violation of their
NPDES permits. (Statistics may include ad-
ministrative or effluent violations and do not
necessarily reflect the severity or duration of the
violations.)
The Maryland Office of Environmental Pro-
grams, Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, estimates that in 1983, six (17 percent)
of the 35 major municipal dischargers were not
in compliance with either BOD5 or TSS permit
limitations.2 The Virginia Bureau of Enforcement,
State Water Control Board, estimates that in
1982, 21 (37 percent) of the 56 major POTWs
were not in compliance with either BOD5 or TSS
permit limitations (VA SWCB 1982). The Bureau
of Water Quality Management, Pennsylvania
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 53
Department of Environmental Resources,
estimates that approximately 20 percent of all
wastewater treatment facilities in the Susque-
hanna River basin were not meeting their BOD5
and TSS permit limitations. A higher percentage
of facilities, however, in the lower Susquehanna
River basin (below the confluence with the Juniata
River) that are required to remove 80 percent of
the phosphorus load, are not meeting their
phosphorus permit limitations.3
In summary, although loading trends for both
POTWs and industries indicate continuous reduc-
tions in certain conventional pollutants and
nutrients in certain areas, the improvements may
be inadequate. Secondary-treatment, the
minimum POTW discharge limitation, is not
designed to control nutrients, and permit non-
compliance is evident. Another concern is the fact
that many segments of the Chesapeake Ray system
are showing early or advanced signs of nutrient
over-enrichment and oxygen depletion that
parallel historical trends in the Potomac (Flemer
et al. 1983). The inability of some localities to im-
prove waste water treatment capabilities in step
with population growth and the need for water
quality protection indicates that many of the gains
made in point source controls during the past
decade have leveled off or are being hampered by
administrative and technical problems such as
operation and maintenance (O & M) deficiencies
and lack of pretreatment. A number of control
options are offered in the following section.
POINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS
Options to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen
loadings can be oriented toward technological
controls, such as the implementation of one of
many types of nutrient-removal technologies to
meet specified effluent limitations. Other options
include improvements in the administration of
current control programs, such as better enforce-
ment and compliance efforts, more thorough ef-
fluent monitoring, or encouraging the application
of less capital-intensive nutrient-removal
technologies. This section evaluates the relative
costs of technological controls and their effec-
tiveness in terms of reducing nutrient loads. In ad-
dition, it discusses some of the major areas in
which administrative or procedural changes in
current programs could result in more effective
point source controls.
Technological Control Options
The technology-based effluent limitations
(secondary treatment for POTWs, and BPT and
RAT for industries) serve as a nation-wide
minimum or base-level treatment standard for
point source pollution control. The option exists,
however, for individual states to institute effluent
limitations that are more stringent than those set
by EPA for nutrients. Three such examples were
described previously: phosphorus limitations in
the upper Potomac River, the Patuxent River, and
the upper Chesapeake Ray, including the lower
Susquehanna River. For the purpose of estimating
nutrient load reductions that can be achieved from
technological control options, the CRP tested
several policies that limit the discharge of
phosphorus and nitrogen:
TP = 2:
Phosphorus effluent limitation of 2 mg Lr1
applied basin-wide to all POTWs with 1980
flows greater than 1 MGD, tested for ex-
isting conditions.
UCBP Policy:
Upper Chesapeake Ray Phosphorus Limita-
tion Policy: fully implemented in the lower
Susquehanna basin only (2 mg L~J P in
POTWs greater than 0.5 MGD) for year
2000 flow; fully implemented in the West
Chesapeake for 1980 and 2000 flows.
Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy:
Total daily point source phosphorus load of
420 pounds and total daily nitrogen load of
3,900 pounds to be achieved by 1987.
TP = 1, TN = 6:
Combination of phosphorus limitation (1
mg L'1) and nitrogen limitation (6 mg L-1)
applied basin-wide to all POTWs with 1980
flows greater than 1 MGD, tested under
both existing and future conditions.
P Ban:
Phosphate detergent limitation to 0.5 per-
cent by weight in household detergents,
resulting in a 30 percent reduction in 1980
-------
54 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
S3 £82
O C OCN O
II
CN o •
o o
• o •«- •sr if>
• o ooo o
• •*- rv. o iv
o
- OO 1
CN tv co 10 r^ o
*I CN -5- CN oo T
ooo
CN CO CN
o o o o
^f oo O CN ~
'
co
CO
t- CO CO OO CN •*- CN O t CN CN CO CM CN CM CM CN •
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
O
C
p
-i
-n
p—
r-
-|
CM
"0 O
> II
0) ~7
~
;,
-
-j
_
CN
"0 O
> II
0 ^
-i
•
•
PI
-
—
-
p
-1
m
•
CN
nj \y
1
Z3
CO
"0
§
•^ o
1 is
•tr f~\ f\
O n —
n Q-4-
1 ui'O
^0 CO
co oo y £ o
DO O_
o5 "? o
jc .
S oo
:— (rt "O
1 0 §
r-» -C o>
^ 0-0
i'09
a~*^
o
§00
"c
CM, 0
0 20
5 Q?
0-0 a g
S " T3Q
+ >- CN -^.^ CN + ^ CN §^
CN^-" O"0 CM •«-" O"0 CN^-" <3"0 pr-"c
W_ HE ^^ Us i|_ ||s 11
$ 222 c^c^D+E 222 c^u^c,,.
o 552lig"n^iS ^55lig7n75
g 555 S^c^cLO ,255 aSo-P^P^
0
o
o
o
£
o
c.
o
0
« T3
"x £
CN
LU
CD
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 55
CO CO
I?
il
o LO LO
•<- CM LO
:$:
LO LO
CN CN -
oooo •
CN CN CN CM •
> •*- oo O -^- OOO co •*- co oo LO •*- LO OOO
• O co O C> oq co r-v q O co CM LO q p--. <> •*- P^.
' O P~ Oi O cd LO ^JLOOP^-OO- LO •*- 06
•CM CO ^ CN CO OO CO OO CN CO •*- LO P~. O
O O O O O O oo
oj~qLqroLqr~~.ro
06 r^ O O- LO 06 csi
LO LO O O O O LO
c
~-
^^= III 71*
23.2 L250-&&
5co
] Q^
+ Z
7s
P-.O
CM •*-
II II
CL CL
122 .c-
o "
I
o
O
O
O
Q.
o
c
c
D
0
I
CO
D
O
ob
CL C
- O
35 °
0) D
£0
F °>
o «
CM ffi
D O
II
O m
oo S
"« "D
x c
00
CN
O
-------
56 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
phosphorus effluent concentrations for all
POTWs not providing advanced treatment,
under existing conditions.
The Chesapeake Bay basin model (Hartigan
et al. 1983), described below and in Appendix B,
was used to test the effect of these strategies in
reducing point source loadings delivered to
Chesapeake Bay. Although these options were
tested on POTWs only, they could be applied to
industrial discharges of nutrients as well. To test
the maximum point source reduction (no nutrient
discharge), the model was run with zero point
source nutrient loadings (the "Total NFS" control
option). In addition, a combination of point and
nonpoint control options (TP = 2 and
conservation-tillage Level 2 measure on all
cropland) was tested and is discussed in Chapter 5.
Reductions in loadings to Bay waters from
both above and below the fall line for the three
major river basins that can be achieved through
these options are shown for phosphorus in Figure
27 and for nitrogen in Figure 28. More extensive
discussions and comparisons among these options
are contained in Chapter 5, Basin Profiles, for
each major river basin. The major types of
nutrient-removal technologies and some newly-
developed systems are described in more detail in
Appendix B.
The effectiveness of these options is dependent
upon several factors. In river basins dominated
by point sources, these options will have more ef-
fect than if nonpoint sources are dominant. The
existing level of treatment affects the magnitude
of load reductions; for instance, in the Potomac,
where a significant quantity of phosphorus is cur-
rently being removed from POTWs, a 2 mg L"1
phosphorus limitation does not result in great load
reductions. Also, travel time to tidal waters
reduces the effect of point source load reductions.
The POTW load reductions from above the fall
line associated with different options were routed
downstream to tidal waters. Depending on the
distance from the tidal waters, load reductions to
the Bay are not as great as the actual effluent
reduction because of in-stream assimilation pro-
cesses such as nutrient cycling, settling, conver-
sion, etc. (Appendix B). For POTWs located
below the fall line, effluent reductions result (i.e.,
no nutrient assimilation) in direct load reductions
to tidal waters. As a result, strategies directed at
controlling point sources below the fall line can
be expected to be more effective in reducing
nutrient loads to the Bay than those directed at
point sources above the fall line. Table 3 includes
the average reductions in Bay-wide nutrient loads
that are achievable by implementing each of these
options, based on model simulations. Chapter 5
includes this information for each major basin.
Costs Associated with Point Source
Control Options
In addition to modeling the options above,
data on the cost to implement these options and
the cost per pound of nutrient removed were
estimated to identify the least-cost pollutant con-
trols. Bay-wide costs are shown in Table 3, and
are provided for each basin in Chapter 5. The
least-cost pollution control strategy can be deter-
mined by comparing the present-value cost to in-
stall and implement the option with the reduc-
tion in nutrient loadings it achieves. Present-value
cost is an economic tool that allows for comparison
of different amounts of money spent at different
times to determine the relative cost of each op-
tion. One-time capital installation costs for new
plants can thus be evaluated against retrofitting
costs and annual O & M costs associated with
upgrading sewage treatment plants. The present-
value cost of each option can then be divided by
load reductions to calculate the present-value cost
per pound of nutrient removed to determine the
least-cost option. A discount rate of 7.25 percent
over a 20-year planning period was used in this
analysis. A more detailed account of cost calcula-
tions for POTW upgrading and the phosphorus
ban is presented in Appendix B.
Sewage treatment upgrading and O & M costs
are based on the CAPDET computer program
developed by the EPA in coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE, 1981). The
CAPDET program is a technique to screen waste-
water treatment alternatives for preliminary cost
estimating and user charge assessment in the Con-
struction Grant's 201 facilities planning process.
Capital retrofitting and O & M costs to obtain a
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 57
TABLE 3.
BAY-WIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ALTERNATIVE NUTRIENT CONTROL STRATEGIES APPLIED TO EXISTING (A)
AND FUTURE (B) NUTRIENT LOADS
Strategy
Present Value
(millions $)
A. Strategies tested against existing loads
P Ban
TP=2 mg L~1
TP=1 mg L-1
TN=6 mg L-1**
TP=2 mg L-1
plus Level Two
Level Two
359.1*
669.5
804.6
2,533.5
678.6
10.53
% Reduction
N
11
28
35
33
6
B. Strategies tested against future (2000) loads
TP=1 mg L-1 1,154.3 29/50***
TP=2 mg L^
plus Level Two 1,065.3 24/46***
TN = 6mgL-1** 3,459.1 -
26
1.3
10/26"
Dollars per Pounds
Removed over 20 Years
7.83
5.87
5.53
3.58
5.22
0.43
9.67/4.01
10.68/3.95
4.32/3.03
'Consumer costs only. Does not include O & M savings at POTWs.
* 'Does not include the Susquehanna
1 * *"x/y"—x is the percent reduction of the existing load, and
y is the percent reduction ot the future load.
1 mg L"1 phosphorus effluent are based on treat-
ment costs to provide activated-sludge treatment
and lime addition. Retrofitting costs for a 2
mg L"1 phosphorus effluent are based on provid-
ing the same treatment as for the 1 mg L"1 effluent
but with lower O & M costs because of reduced
chemical and sludge disposal costs. Costs to ob-
tain a 6 mg L"1 total nitrogen effluent are based
on wastewater treatment process consisting of ac-
tivated sludge followed by nitrification and
denitrification. Table 4 illustrates additional costs
required to retrofit (capital) and maintain (annual
O&M) existing secondary-treatment plants with
various flows, including the additional cost per
contributing household per month. Sludge
disposal costs (landfilling) that are associated with
a policy to limit phosphorus in effluent are in-
cluded in the O&M cost estimates.
Potential costs imposed by a policy to limit
phosphates in detergents to 0.5 percent by weight
(P ban) may cost consumers anywhere from 4.29
to 11.10 dollars per household per year due to the
increased use of hot water to achieve the same
level of cleaning (Folsom and Oliver 1980). Based
on the average of these values (7.69 dollars per
household per year), a basin-wide P ban would
cost consumers 27.6 million dollars annually, an
average of 10.50 dollars per pound of phosphorus
removed. Consumer organizations believe that the
cost to consumers would be zero. Cost savings,
however, may result at sewage treatment plants
subject to phosphorus effluent limitations. For ex-
ample, annual O&M costs associated with ef-
fluent limitations would be cut by about 15 per-
-------
58 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 4.
ESTIMATED COSTS (IN MILLIONS OF 1982 DOLLARS) TO RETROFIT EXISTING SECONDARY TREATMENT
PLANTS WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL CAPABILITY; ADDITIONAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
(IN MILLIONS OF 1982 DOLLARS); AND ADDITIONAL MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD COSTS
(IN 1982 DOLLARS). (SOURCE: DERIVED FROM CAPDET COST ESTIMATES, APPENDIX B.)
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Flow
MGD
1.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
80.0
180.0
317.0
Capital
0.77
1.55
2.22
3.63
6.56
12.85
24.27
41.30
62.88
Annual
O&M
0.14
0.26
0.38
0.68
1.23
2.31
4.42
9.51
16.39
Additional
$/household/mo.
5.39
3.47
3.07
2.67
2.41
2.29
2.18
1.96
1.87
Capital
1.63
2.73
3.80
6.17
14.13
23.02
44.03
86.51
144.54
Annual
O&M
0.24
0.59
0.95
1.80
3.47
6.79
13.37
29.73
51.95
Additional
$/household/mo.
9.88
7.47
6.94
6.60
6.37
6.01
5.88
5.69
5.60
cent. In the upper Bay area, these savings are
estimated to be 5.1 million dollars annually.
Administrative and Regulatory
Point Source Control Options
In addition to technological control options,
there are a number of measures dealing with ad-
ministrative aspects of point source control pro-
grams that, if carried out, could result in reduc-
ed nutrient loadings. Significant percentages of
major POTWs in the Chesapeake Bay basin were
found in violation of permit limitations for
BOD5 and TSS; the need for improved enforce-
ment of permit limits has been often cited as a ma-
jor impediment to pollution control. The need for
better sewage treatment plant operators is another
issue often raised. Pretreatment of industrial
dischargers could improve POTW operations.
With respect to construction grants, criteria used
in the state priority systems to rank POTW pro-
jects could be revised to give more weight to water
quality protection and use attainment. These and
other issues are discussed below.
Permit compliance and enforcement — Despite
a Federal investment of almost 2.5 billion dollars
since 1972, plus state and local funds to construct
new wastewater treatment plants or to modify
and expand existing plants in the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area, many are not treating waste water
at the efficiency levels they were designed to
achieve, as described above. Establishing account-
ability for new treatment plants to perform ac-
cording to their design specifications would shift
the burden of responsibility for proper operation
of the POTW from the municipality (grantee) to
an architect-engineering design firm or permit-
ting agency (state or EPA). If the burden were
placed on the permitting agency, increased time
delays because of a more thorough review of plant
design-specifications would have to be weighed
against the potential long-term improvements in
POTW performance.
Operator training incentives and technical
assistance — The leading cause of poor perfor-
mances by POTWs nation-wide is improper
operation and maintenance, according to the U.S.
General Accounting Office (1980). One way to
improve plant performance and compliance is to
improve existing operator training programs and
educational materials. In some cases, states have
taken action to require training and certification
of POTW operators. Operators, however, are
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 59
often poorly paid and job turnover places an enor-
mous strain on these programs. Raising their
salaries and improving job recognition would pro-
vide an incentive for better job performance and
could reduce the high turnover rate. Providing
technical assistance to operators to solve site-
specific problems would also improve perfor-
mance and protect Federal and state investments
in POTWs.
Funding levels —The control of municipal
sources has been more difficult, complex, and
costly than Congress contemplated in 1972. Con-
sequently, in the Chesapeake basin, as in most of
the country, there is a remaining backlog of public
treatment needs yet to be funded, and built. Ac-
cording to the EPA's 1980 Needs Survey, 1.7
billion dollars are needed to address the basin's
remaining secondary-treatment municipal sewage
treatment needs (U.S. EPA 1981). New funding
mechanisms will have to be found now that the
combined state and local share of construction
costs has been raised from 25 to 45 percent of the
total cost.
Priority system for POTW construction
grants —The money available to each state for
construction grants is allocated within the state
through the use of an EPA-approved priority list.
Once EPA approves the prioritizing system, then
any project within the fundable portion of the
resulting state priority list is eligible for funding.
Criteria used to rank projects vary in each state.
Maryland gives approximately equal weight to
pollution abatement, protection of water use, type
of facility improvement, and "special program
goals." Pennsylvania's system is structured to sup-
port water-use objectives established by the state.
Virginia sets priorities based on public health im-
pacts, water quality conditions, population, and
maintenance of existing high quality waters. Once
a state recommends a project for funding, the
EPA, or a delegated state, reviews the project to
determine whether the specific requirements of
the CWA have been complied with. The priority
system could be revised at the state or EPA-level
to give added weight to criteria regarding the pro-
tection of water quality and water use or to proj-
ects that would discharge to segments of the Bay
targetted for accelerated cleanup.
Grant eligibility —To receive construction
grant funding for nutrient removal technology,
the EPA's Draft Policy For the Review of Ad-
vanced Treatment requires that the proposed
treatment works must be shown to result in signifi-
cant water quality and public health im-
provements (U.S. EPA 1982b). Such projects must
be scientifically supported by an adequate data
base and technical studies which demonstrate the
relationships between waste load and receiving
water quality or public health. For example, the
State of Maryland has decided that both nitrogen
and phosphorus reductions are needed from
POTWs in the Patuxent River basin to improve
water quality, based on extensive modeling
analyses. The EPA Region III office fully supports
the State's prerogative to implement the Patux-
ent River Basin Plan, even though the EPA does
not believe that the studies performed to date pro-
vide an adequate technical basis to support
nitrogen control in addition to phosphorus con-
trol. As a result, if a funding decision were to be
made today, Federal Construction Grant funds
would only be provided for the cost-effective solu-
tion to achieving the technically-justified nutrient
effluent requirements, that is, phosphorus removal
to 1.0 mg L"1. (One exception to this funding
limitation is provided under current policy; ad-
ditional Federal participation is possible if land
treatment is utilized and the costs are not ex-
cessive.) More flexibility in this review policy
would allow the State of Maryland to test the im-
pact of nitrogen control in a limited region such
as the Patuxent. Using the Patuxent as a case study
could improve future decisions regarding nitrogen
removal for other portions of the Bay where it may
be applicable.
Pretreatment —Many industrial facilities use
Bay area POTWs to handle their wastes. This
practice can cause serious problems at POTWs
because toxicants in industrial wastes may con-
taminate sludge and interfere with biological
treatment processes, resulting in inadequately
treated wastes. To prevent such problems, Con-
gress directed the EPA to establish pretreatment
standards for industries that discharge to POTWs.
Due in part to delays in finalizing EPA pretreat-
ment regulations and to the relatively low priority
placed on program developmentT-the development
of state and local pretreatment programs has been
slow. The State of Maryland, however, is expected
to start its program in 1983, and the Hampton
-------
60
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Roads Sanitation District has administered a local
program since 1977. In terms of nutrients, more
emphasis on pretreatment Bay-wide will ensure
POTW efficiency.
Monitoring —The adequacy of current
monitoring requirements has frequently been
called into question. Existing NPDES permits con-
tain monitoring and reporting requirements for
conventional pollutant parameters and, in some
cases, for heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, mercury,
lead). However, in the majority of cases (with the
exception of facilities required to remove
nutrients), no effluent limits and, therefore, no
monitoring requirements have been established for
nutrients. To develop accurate estimates of
nutrient loads from POTWs, especially the larger
facilities, frequent monitoring of nutrient concen-
trations is essential.
Bypasses and combined sewer overflows —
Most systems in the Bay area are not designed to
treat stormwater flows. In those communities
where storm and sewer systems are combined,
such as D.C., Richmond, and the Greater Hamp-
ton Roads areas, heavy stormwater flow either
bypasses the treatment processes completely or
floods through it. In either case, following major
rain events, large quantities of sewage and urban
stormwater runoff head directly to the Bay, un-
treated. While very effective in reducing conven-
tional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, etc.), secondary-
treatment is not designed specifically to reduce
nutrient loads; consequently, nutrient concentra-
tions in raw sewage are not much greater (about
30 percent) than in treated effluent, so combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) or bypasses at these plants
do not increase the nutrient load significantly
unless they occur often. On the other hand, CSOs
and bypasses at POTWs with nutrient-removal
technologies would result in significant load in-
creases (e.g., secondary-treated phosphorus con-
centrations average around 8 mg L"1, four times
a limit of 2 mg L"1).
Separation of storm sewers in the older cities
with combined systems would be prohibitively
costly and enormously disruptive. More selective,
less costly measures, however, could be identified
and installed to control the frequency, volume,
and quality of combined sewer overflow.
Package plants —More and more, new
developments provide their own sewage treatment
facilities rather than hooking up to POTWs. There
is some concern that in the future, these will suf-
fer from O & M neglect and perform poorly.
Owners of many small treatment plants or
package plants may not assume the responsibil-
ity to solve their plant performance problems. As
a consequence, their discharges may not be ade-
quately treated and result in local water quality
and resource habitat degradation. The adverse im-
pact on habitat may be mitigated with proper
treatment of effluent. In Maryland, when con-
tracted by plant owners, the Maryland En-
vironmental Service (MES) provides the technical,
financial, and professional staff necessary to en-
sure adequate treatment or disposal of waste.
Their services are available to any political
jurisdiction, agency, business, or industry within
Maryland. Expansion of this type of service would
enable other jurisdictions outside of Maryland to
provide adequate treatment of their wastes at a
reasonable cost.
Water conservation — Reductions in the
volume of waste water to be treated, will enable
POTWs to provide longer retention times and bet-
ter treatment and, most importantly, accomodate
the projected population growth without addi-
tional construction costs. As a result, a higher
quality effluent and an increase in hydraulic
capacity can be realized from water conservation,
allowing funds to provide these enlargements to
be directed elsewhere. Steps that can be taken to
bring about a reduction in water usage include
eliminating minimum water allowances which
establish minimum rates based on a volume of
water regardless of whether it was used, and
eliminating lower rates for water used in excess
of a given volume.
More efficient use of the treatment system
limits the frequency of storm overflows and
bypasses which carry raw sewage into the water
systems. It also reduces the total amount of
freshwater withdrawal from the river systems
feeding the Bay. Especially during low-flow warm
weather periods, limiting upstream withdrawals
can be critical to the maintenance of water quality
in the lower regions of the Bay area's rivers.
NONPOINT SOURCES AND LOADINGS
Nonpoint sources of nutrients are those that
enter waterways in the form of stormwater runoff
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 61
from agricultural, urban, and forest lands and
from baseflow to streams and atmospheric deposi-
tion on land and water. The diffuse nature of non-
point sources makes them difficult both to quan-
tify and control. In addition, nonpoint source
loads are largely determined by unpredictable
rainfall patterns. In wet years, nonpoint source
loads are generally very high and in dry years,
they are low.
Within the major river basins discharging to
Chesapeake Bay, variations in population, land
use, and land management affect the size and
nature of non-point pollutant loadings to the Bay.
In general, lands located in and around the coastal
plain contain the fastest-growing populations and
are being used more intensively for residential,
commercial, and industrial activities than other
parts of the Bay basin. Agricultural lands com-
prise 29 to 48 percent of the Coastal Plain that
lies below the fall line. Above the fall line,
agricultural lands are prevalent in the Piedmont
Province, especially in the lower Susquehanna (58
percent) and central Potomac (53 percent) River
basins. Future increases in urbanization and in-
tensified agricultural activities are expected to oc-
cur in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions
where over half of the basin's population resides.
In the Appalachian Ridge and Valley, and the Ap-
palachian Plateau provinces, the predominant
land use is forest and low-intensity agricultural
activities. More detailed data and a description
of methodologies used to estimate land use and
population trends are contained in Appendices B
and C.
Extensive research was conducted for the GBP
to quantify basin-wide nutrient loadings from
cropland, pasture, urban, and forest land. Inten-
sive small watershed projects —Pequea Creek,
lower Susquehanna (Lietman et al. 1983); Chester
River, upper Eastern Shore (Bostater et al. 1983a);
Patuxent River (Bostater et al. 1983b); Occoquan
basin, Potomac River (Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Laboratory 1982); and Ware River,
Mobjack Bay (Anderson et al. 1982) — were con-
ducted to establish nutrient loading factors for use
in a nonpoint source runoff model (described in
Appendix B and Hartigan et al. 1983). In addi-
tion, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
monitored water quality for two years at the fall
lines of the three major tributaries (Susquehan-
na, Potomac, and James Rivers) for use in
calibrating and verifying the basin model. Land-
use data for the entire Bay basin were developed
using LANDS AT scenes taken in spring 1977,
1978, and 1979 (for summary of data and
methodology, see Appendix B or Hartigan et al.
1983).
The Chesapeake Bay basin model (Hartigan
et al. 1983) simulated nonpoint source loadings
between March 1 and October 31 because this
period is the most important in terms of algal
growth in Chesapeake Bay. The USGS rainfall
records from a wet year (1975), dry year (1966),
and an average year of rainfall (1974) were used
in the modeling simulations. The basin model
routed these loads from each of 35 sub-basins to
the fall line, simulating the processes which
transform the pollutants as they are transported
downstream. Because point sources above the fall
line were also added by sub-basin and routed to
the fall line, the percentage of the fall line load
attributed to point and nonpoint sources was
determined for each tributary. For basins located
below the fall line, the 'unrouted' point and non-
point source loadings determined the total load.
Cropland Loadings
Basin-wide — Modeling results indicate that
cropland generates the largest share of the non-
point source load basin-wide, as shown in Tables
5 and 6. Basin-wide, cropland contributes be-
tween 27 and 53 percent of the phosphorus load
and 60 and 75 percent of the nitrogen load in
average and wet years. Its contribution during dry
years was not estimated (although total NPS con-
tributions were estimated). Loadings from
cropland in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and
James Rivers contribute 60, 23, and 12 percent
of the total phosphorus load of each river basin
in an average year, and 77, 50, and 29 percent
in a wet year. Collectively, cropland loadings
from these three rivers represent 19 and 37 per-
cent of the Bay-wide phosphorus load in average
and wet years, respectively. Of the nitrogen load
from the three major rivers, cropland contributes
85, 48, and 29 percent of the average-year load
and 91, 66, and 49 percent of the wet-year load
(collectively representing 49 and 51 percent of the
-------
62 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Bay-wide nitrogen load in average and wet years,
respectively).
By major river basin —Actual loadings of
phosphorus and nitrogen, in pounds, can be com-
pared by basin, as illustrated in Figure 29. It is
important to note that in all basins the loadings
double between average and wet years. This find-
ing has strong implications for nonpoint nutrient
controls; they should exhibit the greatest effec-
tiveness during relatively wet periods, and dur-
ing dry to average-rainfall years they may not
result in nutrient reductions that are proportional
to wet-year reductions.
Cropland activities are diverse across the
basin, and it is important to note that these
loadings are based only on the major factors af-
fecting runoff loads, including tillage (conserva-
tion or conventional), soil type, soil moisture,
slope, vegetative cover, and rainfall. Other fac-
tors, especially fertilizer and manure manage-
ment, can also have significant influence on
runoff. The model in this case estimated the
nutrient content of the soil, or potency factor,
based on results from the intensive watershed
studies; they are accurate to the extent that these
represent the variability within each basin. Also,
in areas with concentrated livestock or areas
receiving high quantities of nitrogen fertilizer,
baseflow contributions of nitrogen would be ex-
pected to be higher than in other regions. The
model, however, used baseflow loadings to help
calibrate the model, and these were not estimated
for each land use separately, but by sub-basin
(i.e., forest produced the same amount of baseflow
loadings, on a per acre basis, as cropland for in-
dividual sub-basins). Baseflow loadings were in-
cluded in the estimates for cropland and nonpoint
source loads from other land uses on an acreage
basis.
The purpose of the basin model was to com-
pare total nutrient loads from various sources
among the major sub-basins to evaluate in which
areas to focus either point or nonpoint source con-
trol efforts to improve Bay water quality. On this
basis, it was not necessary to include all of the
minor variables affecting nutrient loads from non-
point sources. The excellent model calibration and
verification results (Hartigan et al. 1983) indicate
that the nonpoint source loading estimates can be
used with confidence in guiding water quality
management planning for Chesapeake Bay. Now
that the basin model has been developed, it can
be refined in the future to include additional data
collected at a finer level of detail for planning
assessments within individual sub-basins of the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
Above versus below the fall line — Cropland
above the fall line represents a significant portion
of the total load under average conditions (46 to
60 percent) and wet conditions (63 to 86 percent)
(Table 5) for all basins except the Patuxent, where
most of the phosphorus load, even under wet con-
ditions, is of point source origin. Nitrogen loadings
from cropland above the fall line (Table 6) repre-
sent a greater percentage of the total nutrient load
than phosphorus. In individual basins, nitrogen
ranges from 72 to 85 percent during average con-
ditions and 78 to 91 percent during wet condi-
tions, with the exception of the Patuxent River
basin where cropland supplies 29 and 53 percent
of the total average and wet-year loads.
Below the fall line, phosphorus loadings from
cropland, by basin, range from 3 to 14 percent
in the James River to 50 to 79 percent in the
Eastern Shore for average and wet conditions;
overall, cropland contributes between 12 and 36
percent of the total below-fall-line phosphorus
load. Nitrogen loadings from cropland below the
fall line range from 15 and 32 percent in the James
during average and wet years to 83 and 92 per-
cent in the Eastern Shore; for the entire area
below the fall line, cropland contributes 30 to 54
percent of the total nitrogen load for average and
wet conditions.
Other Nonpoint Sources
Runoff loadings from the entire land surface
of the basin (forest, pasture, and urban lands) are
included in this category, with the exception of
cropland. Basin-wide, they contribute only 11 to
12 percent of the phosphorus load and 6 to 7 per-
cent of the nitrogen load under wet and average
conditions, respectively. These low percentages,
however, do not necessarily indicate that these
nonpoint sources, especially urban, are not a prob-
lem in Bay waters.
According to LANDSAT analysis, only three
percent of the land in the 64,000 square mile
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 63
Basin Rainfall
Eastern Shore Average
Wet
James Average
Patuxent Average
Wet
Potomac Average
Wet
Rappahannock Average
Wet
Susquehanna Average
Wet
West Chesapeake Average
Wet
York Average
Wet
Basin Rainfall
Eastern Shore Average
Wet
James Average
Wet
Patuxent Average
Wet
Potomac Average
Wet
Rappahannock Average
Wet
Susquehanna Average
Wet
West Chesapeake Average
Wet
York Average
Wet
Legend: Type
Millions of
Pounds
| 0.41
| 1.68
111 0.44
'fc'fe^U -^'lldr 1 4 A A
0,05
-i Phosphorus 022
SSH 1 0.65
^^^:>',::-f'i:^:-'\ | 2.57
1 0.11
1~1 0,55
174
^^^^^f^^^^yy^^^^: ^S'f " :- 1 4,85
] 0.19
] 0.09
10 20 3.0 4.0 5.0
Total Phosphorus
Millions of pounds, March-October
Millions of
Pounds
^] 7.26
| 19.23
ID 6.02
Tififl I 14.91
Nitrogen 1.06
] 3.05
^ J I 16.92
-f- " ",,-"£ | 42.12
] 2 13
HJ 6.90
- ' ;„ :> .."•''; * | 49.47
*' ..V , '. f ,...>. ^K.:t '"r',.J .','..' | 95.55
] 320
| 8.83
| 1,79
O 6.70
20 40 60 80 100
Total Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
KffljAbove fall line | | Below fall line
FIGURE 29. Existing (1980) nutrient load from cropland above and below the fall line by basin during
average and wet rainfall conditions and 1980 land uses.
-------
64 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
tt
LU
§
O
O
1
f \
tv
2
^•^
,^^
z
CO
o
—>
5
•^
CO
"* rf
w S
CO LU
< *
LU
Q.
^^
V)
UJ
^Q
O
o
S
C9
5
^£
O
C/)
3
O
Q.
to
O
Q.
- C |
||1
4— O C
•z. o
o
TJ ^
_ O •£
O O Q
£ ~" o
O O Q)
8* 3 0
O 3
*" £
TJ C
C O
111
O ~J c
8s O
c
I 8 1
o S: n
"• g £
a* 5 g
O
1
c
O)
o
z
1
!
5
"5
$
"d>
>
>.
\~
0
^
?
<-
5
B
D)
^
O
*r
W
5
?
>.
Q
c
"w
S
OO *C P
00 CN C
O O Lf
rv ^- a
O CO P
rv r-
•c- LO t
•c- C1
-O P3 P
<- c*
1
f^ a 0
O iv c
O u
1
csi o r
-«^ IV
CO O U
CN O ^
T CN r-
CN O C
o o c
o o c
o o c
o" co" c
O oo r-
CO CO P
o" c
§o c
o c
0 0 C
O co" •*
O CM U
O co o
CN
o o c
§o c
o c
O ^J r
rv 13- i
O co r-
uj CN"
z
«J
_J
^
u.
UJ
z o
*~ c
1— C
< o ^_
< 1 1
S CT 3
< So"
a. oo a_ c
3 O 00 O
* O O fv
3 a CO ^T
3 O O -O
3 O CO LO
- O O LO
- -sT CN O
-J CN •*- •*-
3 -^ O- CO
3 *sT ^~ •*"
1 1 1
M LO O CO
- iv CO -O
•>! CO ST O
3 LO Iv -xT
1 1 1
-- T- CN •*-
CN
3 "^~ Iv -O
co
^ •«- rv uo
•J ^
3 O O O
3 O O O
3 O O O
3" LO CN ^
^ OO CO -^~
3 CN CO LO
-^
<3 CO
CO CN
CN U3
r^ ^~
rv rv
-O
^r co
^
o rv
•^~
CM LO
Iv CM
CO CO
LO
rv
•«- 0
CO LO
CM CO
CO CO
CO O
8 8
o o
rv" LO"
CO *?
•«- o
T-" co"
O CD
8 i 8
CM" ^ -r-~
CO O
o 3 co
LO" < CM"
u.
UJ
O > O
o So
LO O o
•*- uj co"
*O ^Q 1^^
co" w CM"
UJ
*
< ®
e o
H- Q)
2 g
— 1 * ^
<£_ H- f)
1 — tt
( — OL ^
"cf co CO -sT O •<*
O 'tf rv co •=- co
•«- •=- O o rv o
CO CN CO LO <3
-T
O^ CN O* ^ *O ^1
rv CO CO CO O ^T
§OOOOO
O O O O O
o o o o o
<3 O^ -O lv co" Iv
co rv co LO LO •*-
CN rv ^ ^d" ^j ~^~
CM" co" CN"
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o p o o o p
o" CM" -^f co" co" co"
LO •*- rv ^- CM CO
•*- p ^- •«- O oo
CN" co"
o o o o o o
0 O O 0 O O
o o o o o o
O O O LO LO O
co M' •«- oo •»- O
•=- CN
^,
o
o ®
C Q
d J—
t f\ O co
S g 0 m £
D O a -* ® ®
"5 "5 D O o O
O_ r( Oi ^>- — > LU
OO CN <
oo M- -<
^T iv iv -^
^ IV -«r- -^
O -O CN P
CO •«- O ~<
" '
CO
rv rv a
IV t- t
1 1
<3 iv co C
CO IV CO Lf
CN OOP
•«- <3 •«- r
1 1
O CN CO ^
LO •«- LO P
•«- co CO C
CO CN OO U
rv ^j co r-
CO CN CO ~<
o o o c
o o o c
o o o c
CO" o" f> C
CM O -O *
-O P3 -O •«
CM" -o" u
o o o c
So o c
0 0 C
o" o" co" -<
CM o rv -<
rv o -^ o
co" CN" r
o o o c
o o o c
p p p c
CN~ o" ^J~ r-
CN rv rv u
^"- m P ^ "*
co" CM" c
f£
$
_J_
^
h- O
O£ C
o- D ^ (
- 6 S 1 1
< £ cr D
O < 3 "5 1
fi Q. CO Q- C
3 O O iv T
3 CO Ch co Lf
- •=- LO o a
I <3 O •«- C-
3 CO O ^ ^
3 LO LO *• -e
3 U3 ^f CO O
^— ^^ ^r
3 CN O IV P
- CN •*
1 1 1
3 -c- -0 f> C
3 rv iv CN P
3 O ^ CN U
vl P3 ^" "^- •*
1 1 1
T ^ O P3 C
3 •*- •«- <3 -5
^ O LO -^ P
3 co co co r-
- Iv O O •<
3 'q- LO CO a
3 O O O C
3 O O O C
3 O O O C
^ ^- O O Lf
t rv co rv •;
- rv rv o c
3" ^r" p
3 O O O C
3 O O O C
3 O O O C
Bco" ^-" •»-" •«
iv CN O C
0 CN CM IV p
J P3~ C
D 0 O O C
§o o c
LO O C
-" o" •=-" CN" p
3 CM LO rv r-
3 CN •=- LO •=
•J P3~ C
•^ 1
o 1
c
il >
1 £* E^
D o o n ~~
- Ci >~ — > *
- ^
3 a
3 C
•J <
r <
- Lf
-1 Lf
3 C
i- C
3 I-
3 C
- u
S ^
f •«
3 C
^ -^
3 i
3 ^
3 C
3 C
3 C
3" 1-
t «!
3 •«
3~ 0
? g
3 C
- p
h p
3 0
M~
3 C
3 ?
3" c
V ^
- r-
M'
)
3 (
*
N
)
3 J
>
> L
r
3
3
3
3
3
~>
3
h
3
3
3
3
t
J
3
3
3
M
3
3
3"
3
D
3
3
3"
3
D
3
0
5
7
U
S
o
P3
CO
^-
^
CN
•*"
CO
LO
IV
CN
<3
CO
^_
<3
S
O
O
O
o"
CO
C0~
CN
0
8
oo"
LO
rv
co"
^~
o
o
o
S
p
CN
"^~
^
Q
1 —
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 65
s
UJ
ca
O
1—
O
•J»i
0
2
z
<
CO
q
2
CO
LU
LU
Q.
O9
UJ
I
0
o
o
AB
Q
<(
O
z
LU
O
o
CX.
z
c
•*• o
1 •§ 1
o a 5
_ o "c
z o
O
^
"0 "C
III
£ O
u 0 0>
s« 3 y
0 3
"O C
c o
'S- o 1
O o S
3s O
O
III
o
I
c
o
§>
=
"5
>
^
a
"5
5
6
>
>^
Q
O
6
<
1
1
>.
A
I
5
d>
>.
°
c
«
O
m
LO O O O O CM
O LO O O O O
O LO O O O T-
O co O O O O
o o o o o o
O- CN O O O" O
*3" >o -o CM oo ^J
LO O l~s OO CM CO
I 1 1 1 1 1
•«- CO -xf OO CM OO
o LO co h-. oo hs.
LO O CO CM CO CO
co CN oo r*s i^ r^.
I 1 1 1 1 1
LO •=- O O O 00
o LO p o o a
o -r- o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
§0" o" o" o" o"
co o •*- CN rv
o r^. ^- r^> ^ o
LO" •«-" o" co" CM" ^-"
O CO ^-
s
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
p p p p p p
o" o" o" o" o o
O CO O O •«- t*-
CN T- O ~O co O
co" •*- o" •*- LO"
LO •«-
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
O CO O O CO CN
o -o o co o r*s
co CM CO LO <3 00
1 S"'5'"" "
_l
<
u.
¥ o
E o o
c c
>-. c c
< E - " 9-
C. r\ -C
< $ Q) X D "
•- 2- >< t a a>
/V LJ ~J U Q ^ C
^ D D O D O n
^ C/3 O_ Q- Qi >- — )
co o
O •<;
O o
OO C
o u
co •«
LO a
O o
CO C
CO i
CO C
CO 0
s
^~ LJ
•^ a
o c
o c
o c
o" •*
co a
CO C
co" c
>o c
^
8 07 S
p Z c
CM" j 'j
^ - §
co < i/
CO U, ^
Ul
fE
0 >. C
o f c
o O c
co" nJ ^
•o So
co" f
<3 OC -r
UJ
£
< i
*" !
2 S
- (
— 1 £.
<" t— (
j± OS *-
i— o- 'S
o ^r u
J CO ^
D LO ~<
M <3 C
•3 CM P
- LO C
D O 0
3 O C
1
3 LO r-
r r^ C*
3 co r
vl LO t
1
•J <3 LT
3 •»- a
•J LO •?
- co r-
-> m r-
3 ^ !-
3 O C
3 O C
3 p C
f" co" r
3 •«- •<
3 CO C
^" CN" L(
•J 0
3 O C
3 O C
3 q c
" co" r-
>• co "^
3 •<- a
"V
3 O C
3 O C
3 O C
• LO t-
3 o a
3" r^
^-
)
3
)
i- c
J S ?
) S ^
; D "c
• O- Q
~) LO LO _-. -O
j o a n o
3 CO LO -c- O
M CO CO CN O
0 CO <3 CN 1^
M O -O T- CO
3 o LO o ^r
>• o O <3 r^
1 1 1 1
- O O CM CM
•3 co O co O
•- CO <3 LO co
~ r-^ i^ •*- co
1 1 1 1
3 LO LO CN ^
^ ~o
f r-. LO o o
si — SJ CO CO
s CO CO OO •*-
D O O O O
3 O O O O
3 O p O O
-" LO" co" o" •»-
3 O O O O
3 CO O O O
3" ^f -sf o" o"
•J -c- CN
3 O O O O
3 O O O O
3 O p p O
s LO" co C> ^~
' co LO ^ r-v
3 ^- •<- LO CO
3 O O O O
3 O O O O
3 O O O O
•- co co O -^
3 t- 0 0- C>
co" r^"
^
O
o 2
g 0
5 D CO E
5 a •* E ^
5 O 0 o 0
- o: > -o LU
5 C>l5^C>C>KSc>
CO OCOLOOOOOCOCOO
00 OOCMCOCOOCNI^
CN OCOLOOOI^-CNCMOO
r- ^co~ooocoo-=f
oo Lococoiooo^~r^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
s c>sssE5^$s;
O COCOOOCNI^OOCO
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO CN CM ^ •<*
CM OO^COCOCNCOO
*O ^~ ^T ^" ^~ ^~ ^O *O **~
CN O ^~ oo 1^ CN ^~ oo CO
r^ ^~ ^o ^" ^~ CM (^ r^ ^~
o oooooooo
o oooooooo
o oooooooo
^ oS^oSSKaoo
^> f~i LQ ^~ CV ^D ^O ^D Q*
o* ^o ^r ^" oo r^* C3 c^ ^3
O O -O CO CN CN
'e~
o oooooooo
8 oooooooo
p p p p p p p o
CM" o" co" r^~ LO' o" LO" ^" •^-~
CM" oo" CM" LO" CM" CM" o CM" oo"
O LO CO CM •*-
o oooooooo
o oooooooo
p o o o p o o o o
^" CD CO r^ LO "O ^~ C3 ^-
•O OCOOVcOf^CNO
^T~ °° rC CM" •«- CM" •*- r-C o" r-."
LO gj ^ CO
a.
< ^ $
^ o %
H- O O DO
flc C r~ CD ^~
< c c a o
^ E *- o D S «
g 1 III ll 1^1
oo
<3
CN
0
o
f^
LO
o
0
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
O
O
co"
CM
CO
CN
O
LO"
CN
CN
§
"^
0
o
o
i-C
CN
CO"
CN
^
e
-------
66 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
(165,760 km2) Chesapeake drainage basin is in ur-
ban use. Nonetheless, the flushing of pollutants
from urban lands during wet weather contributes
significant quantities of both conventional and
toxic pollutants. Moreover, the largest metropol-
itan areas —Baltimore, MD; Washington, D.C.;
Richmond, VA; and Greater Hampton Roads,
VA — are all located in or adjacent to the Coastal
Plain and therefore have a great potential for in-
fluencing the Bay's water quality. About 7 per-
cent of the Coastal Plain land draining directly
to tidal waters is considered urban; in the upland
portion of the basin (80 percent of the total Bay
watershed) only 1.8 percent of the land is urban.
The CBP estimates that urban land use will reach
8 percent by the year 2000 below the fall line and
2.3 percent above the fall line.
By the nature of nonpoint source pollution,
loadings enter tidal waters in pulses following rain
events. These pulses can temporarily elevate
receiving water concentrations of nutrients, sedi-
ment, heavy metals, and other conventional and
toxic pollutants. In heavily-developed watersheds
adjacent to critical habitats, such as tidal-
freshwater spawning grounds, temporary changes
in water quality can, over the long-term, cause
more permanent ecosystem damage. The impact
of urban runoff, however, in regions characterized
by a mixture of contributing land uses and point
sources is very difficult to determine solely on the
basis of relative loadings. In urban areas,
pollutants that have built up on the land surface
between rain events are washed into receiving
streams. The length of time between storms, the
amount of paved surfaces, housing density,
vegetative cover on unpaved surfaces, automobile
traffic, and other factors determine urban non-
point source loads. The watershed model
simulated these influencing factors in each river
basin to estimate the nutrient contribution to the
Bay from urban runoff. However, the nutrient
loads from urban runoff, when compared to those
from cropland and point sources, are relatively
minor on a Bay-wide scale. As a result, the
nutrient load from urban runoff was combined
with the nutrient load from forest and pasture
land uses and presented as "other" nonpoint
sources. Nutrient loading factors used in the basin
model were based on extensive studies conducted
in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area (Har-
tigan et al. 1983). Pasture and forest loading fac-
tors were developed using data from CBP inten-
sive watershed studies cited above.
Figure 30 shows the actual other-nonpoint
source loadings by basin. Other nonpoint source
loads in the Potomac River basin approximately
equal those from the Susquehanna for both
nitrogen and phosphorus. The other NFS loads
from the James and West Chesapeake basins
follow in magnitude. The Eastern Shore, Rap-
pahannock, York, and Patuxent River basins con-
tribute the remainder.
Future loadings from urban runoff were
estimated to determine whether the expected in-
creases in urban land use would significantly raise
future nutrient loads. In the area below the fall
line, where most of the new development is ex-
pected to occur, model estimates of the year 2000
nonpoint-source nutrient loads from all land uses
indicate increases of 5.0, 3.0, and 1.4 percent for
phosphorus and 2.0,1.3, and 0.8 percent increases
for nitrogen in dry, average, and wet years,
respectively. All of this estimated increase is due
to expansion of urban land (at the expense of
forested land to show the largest possible loading
increase) and is based on projected population
growth (Appendix B). When compared to future
point source load increases, described above, ur-
ban runoff increases are not very significant on
a Bay-wide perspective. In certain tidal water-
sheds, however, future urban development could
result in sizable nutrient load increases (described
in detail in Appendix B). The estimates of future
nutrient loads in Chapter 5 include the additional
loadings from both POTWs and urban runoff.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NONPOINT
SOURCE CONTROLS
In general, government agencies and the
general public on the whole lack a commitment
to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. While
there are many reasons that account for this, some
explanations include the low-visibility of nonpoint
source pollution as compared to point source
pollution, and also the fact that scientific tools to
estimate loadings from nonpoint sources were
developed just in the last decade. The Clean
Water Act of 1972 attempted to balance the lop-
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 67
Basin
Eastern Shore
James
Patuxent
Potomac
Millions of
Pounds
West Chesapeake Average
Rappahannock
0.2 0.4 0.6
Total Phosphorus
Millions of pounds, March-October
Basin
Eastern Shore
James
Patuxent
Potomac
Total Nitrogen
Millions of pounds, March-October
Legend: Type Above fall line | |Below fall line
Millions of
Pounds
West Chesapeake Average
FIGURE 30. Existing (1980] nutrient load from other land uses above and below the fall line by basin during
average and wet rainfall conditions and '1980 land uses.
-------
68
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
sided approach toward pollution control by re-
quiring Section 208 Water Quality Management
Plans to evaluate both point and nonpoint sources
of pollution in a given area and to develop
strategies to deal with nonpoint sources more
specifically. By 1980, most area-wide and state-
wide 208 plans had been prepared and these
recommended, in some cases, very specific actions.
In other cases, general guidance on agricultural,
urban, and silvicultural nonpoint source and
management is recommended. The following
discussion focuses on the control of agricultural
sources, the largest nonpoint contributor of
nutrients to Chesapeake Bay, and highlights what
has been accomplished toward urban runoff
management.
Agricultural Runoff
The 208 process has been successful in bring-
ing together agencies that for many years have
dealt with either soil and water resource protec-
tion or water quality management. In the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), both the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
have over 40 years experience in working with
farmers to curb soil erosion and to conserve water.
State agencies dealing with water quality, sedi-
ment and erosion control, health, fisheries, etc.
were involved in 208 planning to varying degrees
(see Appendix E for more detail). In addition,
local governments, with authority over land-use
planning, zoning, soil conservation, sediment and
erosion control, stormwater management, etc.,
assisted in the development of 208 plans. While
the process helped tremendously to educate, focus
attention, and instigate research on agricultural,
urban, and silvicultural runoff, it has not gener-
ally resulted in strong programs to reduce non-
point source loadings.
State-wide 208 plans to deal with agricultural
runoff were developed to identify critical problem
areas; select suitable techniques, or best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), to reduce pollution; and
to designate management agencies responsible for
agricultural nonpoint source planning and im-
plementation. All three states in the Chesapeake
Bay basin have completed their plans. All are
voluntary approaches to nonpoint source control
with one exception: Pennsylvania requires all
farmers to submit an erosion and sedimentation
control plan for approval. This regulation,
however, is enforced only on the basis of com-
plaints of water pollution impacts. While
Maryland and Virginia do not require such con-
servation plans, both states have laws requiring
a farmer to apply the necessary BMPs if his farm
is the cause of a water quality problem.
State Agricultural Water Quality Management
Efforts —The states' approaches toward
agricultural nonpoint source management vary
greatly from one state to another, in contrast to
state point source control programs which are ad-
ministered using fairly uniform structures based
on Federal regulations. Therefore, the effec-
tiveness of present agricultural nonpoint source
programs must be evaluated in terms of each
state's programs and accomplishments, described
below. Summaries of additional nonpoint source
programs are included in Appendix E.
Virginia — The Virginia Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission (SWCC) is the lead
management agency in Virginia for agricultural
runoff. The State Water Control Board (VA
SWCB) has also been actively involved in the
preparation and implementation of the state-
wide, voluntary 208 water quality management
plan for agriculture (VA SWCB 1980a). A Best
Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture
was prepared by these two agencies, the SCS, and
other organizations to assist farmers and soil con-
servation districts in reducing nonpoint source
runoff (SWCB 1979a). The districts are the
designated local lead management agencies.
The SWCB, in addition, conducted an assess-
ment of potential nonpoint sources of pollution
in cooperation with the SCS. This project was con-
ducted in three phases over a two-year period for
agricultural as well as forestry-related water pollu-
tion. In phase three, the two agencies selected 26
small watersheds which showed a high potential
for contributing to water quality problems, of
which 11 are situated in the Chesapeake Bay basin
(SCS 1983a). Each watershed, listed in Table 7
and illustrated in Figure 31, was examined to
determine the severity of water pollution
originating from soil loss, animal waste, fertilizer,
herbicides, and pesticides. The total cost to install
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 69
TABLE 7.
POTENTIAL CRITICAL WATERSHEDS DEVELOPED BY STATE-WIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Eastern Shore
Exmore area
Rappahannock River Basin
Mine-Walnut Runs
Conway River
VIRGINIA
Potomac River Basin
Dry Run
Happy Creek
Passage Creek
Lower and Upper S. Fork
Shenandoah River
Lower and Upper N. Fork
Shenandoah River
Christians Creek
Opequon Creek
Upper Goose Creek
Holmes Run—Difficult Run
Cedar Run—Kettle Run
Westmoreland County
Additional data on these watersheds are included in SWCB (1980) and SWCB (1983)
MARYLAND
Potomac River Basin
Double Pipe Creek
Lower and Upper Monocacy R.
Seneca Creek
Main Stem of Potomac R.
(Frederick & Montgomery Co.)
West Chesapeake
Liberty Reservoir
Loch Raven Reservoir
South Branch Patapsco River
Prettyboy Reservoir
Little Gunpowder River
West River
Eastern Shore
Lower Elk River
Additional data on these watersheds are included in Maryland State Soil Conservation
Committee (1979)
PENNSYLVANIA
Susquehanna
East side of River from Staman's Run to and including Conestoga Creek
Conewago Creek
East side of River from Swatara Creek to and including Staman's Run at Washington
East side of River from Conestoga Creek to Maryland state line
From Conewago Creek to and including Codorus Creek
West side of River from Codorus Creek to Maryland state line
West side of River from Sunbury to north of Mahantango Creek
East side of River from Loyalsock Creek to Sunbury
West side of River from Mosquito Creek to Sunbury
Potomac
from Green Ridge to eastern basin boundary
from Cove Mountain to Green Ridge (at Blue Ridge Summit)
Eastern Shore
Elk and Northeast Creeks
Additional data on these watersheds are included in PA DER (1979) and PA DER (1983)
-------
70 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Rural clean water projects
Statewide critical areas
Virginia— Agricultural Nonpoint pollution assessment of selected Virginia Watershed (combined Phase II
& Phase II Watersheds) SCS/State Water Control Board, 1983.
Maryland— Statewide Critical Areas for Nonpoint Sources of soil erosion and animal wastes—Method of
Selection, Md State Oil SoilConservation Committee, 1979.
Pennsylvania—Statewide plan for agriculture and earthworming activities. Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1979.
FIGURE 31. State-wide critical areas for agricultural runoff pollution in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia
located within Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 71
needed BMPs and to provide technical assistance,
water quality monitoring, soil tests, and informa-
tion in the 11 priority watersheds in the Bay basin
was estimated at nearly 30,000,000 dollars or
6,800 dollars per farm, over a combined priority-
watershed acreage of 1,025,000 acres, or 29.27
dollars per watershed acre. To put this estimate
in perspective, the ASCS Agricultural Conserva-
tion Program (AGP) cost-sharing funds allocated
to the entire State of Virginia (covering 25.5
million acres of which approximately 54 percent
drain to Chesapeake Bay) amounted to 2,681,917
dollars in fiscal year 1979 and 3,916,394 dollars
in fiscal year 1983.
Maryland — Maryland's State Soil Conserva-
tion Committee (MD SSCC) is the designated
management agency for coordinating and guiding
the implementation of the Maryland State-wide
Agriculture Water Quality Management Program
for the Control of Sediment and Animal Waste
(MD DNR 1979). Soil conservation districts have
the lead responsibility for implementing soil-
conservation and water-quality plans on a priority
basis in critical areas. The MD SSCC identified
13 critical watersheds on the basis of sediment and
bacteria severity scores (Table 7 and Figure 31).
The MD SSCC (1981) estimates that 24 million
dollars would be needed to implement BMPs in
the top three priority watersheds. Maryland's
allocation of ASCS-ACP funds totalled 2,070,000
dollars (including long-term agreements and
special projects) in fiscal year 1983. Soil conser-
vation districts in Maryland worked with land-
owners to apply conservation practices on 23,200
acres of farmland in 1980. At this rate, it would
take 197 years to protect the 1.1 million acres of
crop and pasture land needing treatment in Mary-
land. The Office of Environmental Programs, De-
partment of Health and Mental Hygiene,
estimates that at least 90 million dollars are needed
to address soil erosion and animal-waste needs in
Maryland (Maryland Department of Legislative
Services, in press).
Districts are now focusing on areas with the
greatest potential for pollution, but much remains
to be done according to a recent MD SSCC assess-
ment (1981). The report notes that "the amount
of assistance currently obtainable, both cost-
sharing, and technical, is not sufficient to meet
the goals of the Maryland Agricultural Water
Quality Program." To develop conservation plans
on 40 percent of the operating units in the districts'
critical areas would require an additional 20 soil
conservationists and 35 technicians, at a cost of
over 1 million dollars per year.
To increase the availability of funds needed
to implement BMPs in priority areas, the
Maryland legislature approved an agricultural
cost-sharing water pollution control program in
1982 with a 5 million dollar budget. This program
supplements the Federal cost-sharing program and
is designed to assist farmers in priority areas in
implementing BMPs to lessen water pollution
caused by nutrients, sediment, animal wastes, or
agricultural chemicals. Regulations, adopted in
June, 1983, were established jointly by the
Maryland Departments of Agriculture (MDA) and
Health and Mental Hygiene (MD DHMH 1983).
The MDA and soil conservation districts will im-
plement the program.
In addition to the State-wide Agricultural
Water Quality Management Plan, Section 208
river basin plans were developed for other areas
of the state not included in these two regional
plans. The 208 Water Quality Management Plan
for the Patuxent River Basin (MD DHMH 1983)
is note-worthy because it has been prepared with
the Patuxent River Policy Plan (Patuxent River
Commission 1983) to ensure that the programs
work together to accelerate the development of
a watershed approach to planning. If successful,
these two plans will guide Maryland efforts
toward integrated watershed planning in other
river basins of Chesapeake Bay. The policy plan
contains watershed-wide policies directed at
agricultural runoff control. These include the
establishment of: 100-foot wide filter strips along
the streams and river banks, accomplished
through conservation easements; incentive and
compensatory programs such as cost-sharing and
education; annual reports from soil conservation
districts that document current efforts and ac-
complishments in critical areas, obstacles en-
countered, further actions that are needed, etc.
The plan urges the MDA to work with the districts
to direct all cost-sharing funds to critical areas.
The plan also stresses that conservation plans
should be prepared and carried out for all
publicly-owned lands in the watershed that are
leased for agricultural operations and that prime
-------
72 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
agricultural land should be reserved from intense
development to maintain water quality.
Pennsylvania — Pennsylvania's State-wide 208
Plan for Agriculture and Earth-moving Activities
[Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PA DER) 1979] is based upon the 1970
Clean Streams Law of Pennsylvania which pro-
vides the PA DER with authority to regulate any
activity that creates a danger of pollution. These
regulations stipulate that all farmers must have
either an erosion and sedimentation control plan
or have applied to their county conservation
district for the plan; the implementation schedule
in the plan must be followed, and plans must
reflect current operations. These regulations have
not been enforced, however, and as the data in
Appendix C indicate, about half the farms lack
plans, while a small percentage of the remainder
have up-to-date or implemented plans.
In addition, the state-wide plan incorporated
existing state regulations concerning manure
management, and herbicide and pesticide control.
Manuals for agricultural soil erosion control and
manure management were developed in 1974 and
1977, respectively. The State-wide Plan for
Agricultural and Earth-moving Activities also
identified 21 high-priority watersheds (9 of which
are located in the Susquehanna River basin and
2 in the Potomac River basin) shown in Table 7
and Figure 31, and 26 medium-priority watersheds
(10 in the Susquehanna River basin).
In June 1983, the Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation, DER, published an "Assessment of
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Selected
High Priority Watersheds in Pennsylvania" (PA
DER 1983). This document evaluated 10 of the
high-priority watersheds (including 4 Susque-
hanna and 1 Potomac River watersheds) to iden-
tify potential nonpoint sources of agricultural
pollution, to develop recommendations to prevent
these potential sources from creating water pollu-
tion problems, and to develop an educational pro-
gram to encourage BMP implementation. The
study identified two major on-farm problems —
soil and nutrient management. Soil management
problems include lack of BMPs on rented land,
high soil loss on half of the farm acreage with con-
servation plans, a high percentage (60 percent) of
row crops on farmland, traditional reliance on
conventional tillage, and over-grazed pasture
lands. The study found the following nutrient
management problems: poor use of soil test recom-
mendations; over-applications of manure and
commercial fertilizers; and inadequare animal-
waste control measures. The major recommenda-
tions of the report suggest:
Special cost-sharing for chronic problems;
• Tax incentives to reduce the financial
burden on landowners who apply best
management practices;
• More research to improve nutrient testing
and application and tillage equipment;
• Installation of stream-improvement devices
to reduce bank erosion and livestock use;
• Installation of livestock-waste facilities for
improved storage, application, and
distribution of manure;
• Increased technical and financial assistance
to improve livestock-holding areas that pre-
vent uncontrolled runoff; and
• Continuation and initiation of water qual-
ity monitoring programs in selected water-
sheds to determine the impact of
agricultural pollutants on stream ecology.
Summary
The above review of selected state nonpoint
source management efforts indicates that much
progress has been made in placing increased em-
phasis on nonpoint problems, evaluating critical
watersheds, and identifying appropriate BMPs.
The states' voluntary agricultural runoff control
programs, however, have not resulted in increased
implementation of BMPs, with the major excep-
tion of the three EPA/USDA Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP) projects. These projects —
Conestoga Headwaters, PA, 16,000 critical acres;
Double Pipe Creek, MD, 18,180 critical acres; and
Nansemond-Chuckatuck Rivers, VA, 18,750
critical acres —have together received 7.4 million
dollars for targetted cost-sharing, education, and
technical assistance. While these projects should
result in the installation of needed measures,
quantify the effectiveness of specific BMPs, and
alleviate water quality problems within local
waterways, it is less likely that they will result in
measurable reductions in sediment and nutrient
loadings to Chesapeake Bay waters. CBP nonpoint
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 73
source modeling results suggest that many more
of these intensive projects are needed to reduce
substantially the loading to the Bay.
Figure 31 illustrates the location of state-wide
potential critical watersheds identified by each
state (Table 7) as well as the three RCWP water-
sheds. Every acre in these broad regions, centered
around the Piedmont Province, does not con-
tribute excessive amounts of nutrients or sediment;
nonetheless. Figure 31 indicates that, collectively,
the critical watersheds are not isolated regions.
Implementation of BMPs in these areas has not
been possible largely because of the lack of ade-
quate cost-sharing, education, and technical
assistance resources, as well as other incentives to
encourage BMP adoption. The cost to apply
needed BMPs in critical watersheds was estimated
(discussed below); however, alternative financial
mechanisms to obtain the necessary resources have
not been fully explored by the states. A concerted
effort to reduce agricultural runoff pollution, with
the goal to improve Chesapeake Bay water qual-
ity, and not simply local freshwater streams, is
also currently missing from the state-wide 208
plans.
Another oversight of the state plans deals with
the identification of BMPs. The BMPs selected by
the 208 process are primarily oriented toward soil
loss and animal-waste control. While these BMPs
will reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loadings to
varying degrees, they are designed primarily for
sediment and bacteria control rather than nutrient
control. There is a need, especially in light of CBP
findings concerning increases in nutrients to the
Bay, that BMPs which are particularly effective
in reducing nutrients be identified and incor-
porated into 208 plans.
Scientific, Economic, and Administrative
Issues —An evaluation of agricultural nonpoint
source programs must look beyond specific 208
planning efforts to scientific, administrative, and
economic factors that could potentially impede or
improve the progress of these programs.
Scientific Uncertainties — The effectiveness of
certain programs to reduce nonpoint source pollu-
tion from agricultural activities has been limited
by a high degree of scientific uncertainty. The
Pennsylvania State-wide Plan for Agriculture and
Earth-moving Activities (1979), for example,
states that the effectiveness of its erosion and
sedimentation control program "cannot be affirm-
atively demonstrated with any existing water
quality data." The plan also states that unless at
least ten years of water quality data collected prior
to program implementation and at least ten years
of data collected following program implemen-
tation were available, meaningful conclusions
could not be drawn regarding effectiveness; even
with sufficient data, assumptions must be made
to distinguish between natural and man-made
sediment and nutrient contributions. With recent
improvements in nonpoint source runoff models
and receiving water quality models, management
and planning agencies are now able to test the
relative effectiveness of specific BMP strategies
before implementing them. Although models will
help in developing successful runoff control pro-
grams, the actual effectiveness in terms of water
quality improvements can be determined only
through long-term monitoring of the quality of
the receiving water.
Other indicators of the effectiveness of runoff
controls can be evaluated, however, such as the
number of acres needing treatment to meet
tolerable levels of soil loss, the number of acres
covered by conservation plans and how many of
these plans are up-to-date and being followed, the
number of farmers testing their soils for the cor-
rect amounts of fertilizers and manure needed for
application, the percentage of leased land that is
adequately protected, and so forth. Some of these
indicators were evaluated by the CBP, in coopera-
tion with the SCS, and are presented in Appen-
dix C of this report. In summary, data collected
from soil conservation districts in Maryland and
Pennsylvania indicate that soil loss exceeds
tolerable levels in most areas; the percentage of
district cooperators (farmers who have developed
conservation plans with the help of the local soil
conservation district) who have updated, im-
plemented conservation plans is low — especially
in rapidly developing counties where district
resources are also utilized for reviewing sediment
and erosion control permits for construction earth-
moving activities; farmers who lease farmland
generally install far fewer conservation practices
than on their own land because of the short-term
nature of leases; and animal-waste handling and
storage facilities are needed in areas with concen-
trated livestock operations. As indicators, these
-------
74 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
data infer that the voluntary approach toward
agricultural nonpoint source control may not be
sufficient to achieve a tolerable level of runoff con-
trol. On the basis of this report, much clearly re-
mains to be done toward adequate agricultural
runoff management. Scientific uncertainties still
remain and will continue to hinder the effec-
tiveness of agricultural nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. Unresolved questions include:
• The processes of dissolved nutrient
movement;
• Relationships between sediment transport
and water quality, specifically an
understanding of the relative rates and
volumes delivered to the Bay from land-use
activities, receiving water channels, and
shorelines under different storm frequencies
and intensities in each major sub-basin;
• The relative magnitudes of nutrient
loadings associated with various levels of
erosion and sediment delivery and how
these vary throughout Chesapeake Bay
basin;
• What happens to nutrients attached to
sediments after being transported to the
Chesapeake Bay and what is the short and
long-term bioavailability of these nutrients;
• Suitable techniques for analyzing nitrogen
content in soil to develop optimum fertilizer
application rates;
• Whether alternative types of fertilizer
materials and application methods increase
or reduce nutrient loadings; and
• Techniques to pinpoint individual sources
(i.e., farms) of agricultural pollution for en-
forcement purposes.
Lack of priority setting —A major failure of
the districts has been that available staff and
financial resources have not been directed toward
solving the most critical erosion problems in any
area. Instead, districts have tended to provide
assistance on a first-come, first-served basis. The
districts are busy enough working with those will-
ing to cooperate, regardless of the severity of the
erosion or runoff problems of farmers who do not
voluntarily seek assistance. This policy is slowly
changing, however. With fewer Federal cost-
sharing and technical assistance funds, and with
the targetting of critical watersheds, im-
provements in setting priorities are becoming
evident.
A problem related to the lack of priority set-
ting is insufficient record-keeping by conservation
districts in their efforts to encourage the installa-
tion of erosion and animal-waste control practices.
Two recent documents dealing with agricultural
runoff in the Chesapeake Bay basin (Patuxent
River Policy Plan, July 1983; Assessment of Agri-
cultural Nonpoint Source Pollution High Priority
Watersheds in Pennsylvania, June 1983) site the
need for districts to keep improved records of their
accomplishments to assess program effectiveness
and to redirect their operations, if necessary to
meet goals. This issue was also highlighted in a
national report on the implementation status of
state 208 programs (U.S. EPA 1980). The report
indicated the need to produce a statement of ob-
jectives or goals, by which the programs the states
have developed can be judged, that are tied to
milestones. Such milestones would provide the
needed incentive for states and districts to focus
educational, financial and technical assistance —
the key elements of a voluntary approach — on the
implemention of measures required to meet goals.
The report further suggests that deadlines for
evaluating implementation measures be estab-
lished when voluntary methods are shown not to
be successful.
Limited Financial Incentives — Cost-share
funding available to farmers is another major
economic constraint on agricultural BMP installa-
tion. As mentioned, at current rates of cost-sharing
assistance, it would take nearly two hundred years
to address conservation needs, assuming that other
incentives for adopting BMPs remain constant.
Cost-sharing is one of the primary incentives for
accelerated implementation of nonpoint source
control practices on farmland. Unlike other
sources of water pollution, such as industries or
municipal sewage treatment plants, farmers do
not receive tax relief for installing pollution con-
trol measures and cannot pass on the cost of con-
trol to consumers because individually they have
little influence on the price of their products.
Farmers generally must shoulder the cost of
capital improvements, including BMP installa-
tion, unless cost-share funding can be acquired.
Present Federal agricultural cost-sharing and
technical assistance programs are not sufficient to
meet conservation needs. The maximum Federal
cost-sharing assistance (3,500 dollars per farm per
year) is adequate to meet conservation needs on
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 75
most farms, but it is not sufficient to meet the con-
servation needs on farms needing animal-waste
handling and storage facilities which can cost be-
tween 10,000 and 100,000 dollars.
State assistance, such as the 5 million dollar
agricultural cost-sharing program in Maryland,
will provide some additional assistance. The
Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee,
however, has estimated that it will need approx-
imately 24 million dollars to abate soil erosion and
animal-waste problems just in the top three
critical areas of the state. Virginia and Penn-
sylvania have not adopted cost-sharing programs.
In Virginia, 30 million dollars are needed to
achieve tolerable soil and nutrient losses in the
state's priority agricultural watersheds draining
to Bay waters (Table 8).
The SCS has developed a proposal to address
a large portion of the critical watersheds in the
Piedmont region of Maryland and Pennsylvania,
the Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Area (SCS
1983b). This area includes parts of the lower Sus-
quehanna, upper Eastern Shore, West
Chesapeake, upper Patuxent, and Potomac River
basins, as well as part of the Delaware River
basin. Of the 14 counties in the Pennsylvania por-
tion, nine drain to the Bay, and all of the eight
Maryland counties in the project are located in
the Chesapeake drainage area. The SCS has
allocated 700,000 dollars in targetted technical
assistance funding for fiscal year 1984 to this
region; the estimated cost to apply needed
resource management systems to the entire region
is 21 million dollars per year for 10 years. For the
portion of this area within the Chesapeake Bay
basin, the cost is estimated at about 15.7 million
TABLE 8.
COST ESTIMATES OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN SELECTED1 VIRGINIA WATERSHEDS
(SCS-SWCB 1983)
Cedar-Kettle Runs
Christians Cr.
Con way R.
Happy Cr.
Lower S. Fork
Shenandoah R.
Mine-Walnut Cks.
Opequon Cr.
Passage Cr.
Upper Goose Cr.
Upper N. Fork
Shenandoah R.
Westmoreland
Total
Acreage
72,778
66,290
112,190
14,189
99,449
76,220
95,280
47,484
161,842
228,215
50,669
1,025,0003
S/Farm
$ 8,388
4,063
7,604
3,672
2,024
4,121
5,191
8,831
4,375
11,941
9,287
$ 6,777
$/Watershed/Acre Total Cost2
$14.98
33.72
24.26
8.28
6.73
20.16
18.74
22.13
22.33
52.06
58.10
$29.27
$ 1,090,500
2,234,850
2,722,250
117,500
670,200
1,537,300
1,785,750
1,051,000
3,614,260
11,881,000
2,944,000
$29,648,610
111 out of 26 Priority Watersheds for Agriculture.
Includes cost-sharing, owner/operator expenditures, technical assistance, water quality
monitoring, soil tests, and education.
37.5 percent of Virginia's Bay drainage area
-------
76 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
dollars per year over 10 years (9.6 million dollars
in Pennsylvania and 6.1 million dollars in
Maryland), as shown in Table 9. Based on existing
program funding, the SCS estimates that, over the
entire region, an additional 9.1 million dollars per
year in cost-sharing assistance and 34/additional
personnel are needed. Like the state 208
agricultural plans, the needed funding for im-
plementation of BMPs has not been provided as
yet.
Increased cost-sharing funding at the Federal
or state level, in addition to some other financial
incentives, is one of the most important com-
ponents of an accelerated effort to meet soil con-
servation and nutrient runoff control needs. State
and local governments should look more seriously
at the establishment of innovative financial incen-
tives or disincentives for agricultural pollution
controls. A recent conference on Chesapeake Bay
management held for Maryland legislators dis-
cussed the feasibility of instituting user fees,
dedicated taxes, and a trust fund for agricultural
pollution control efforts (Maryland Department
of Legislative Services, in press). Other measures
could be explored to limit additional government
expenditures. For example, Federal taxation of
local cost-share assistance is a disincentive to BMP
installation; the EPA, the U.S. Treasury Depart-
ment, and the Council on the Environment could
evaluate existing disincentives in the Internal
TABLE 9.
COST ESTIMATES FOR ACCELERATED SOIL CONSERVATION IN THE MASON-DIXON EROSION CON-
TROL AREA, ADJUSTED TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN (SCS 1983)
Acreage Proposed for Treatment in Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Area
Chesapeake Bay Basin Portion
Total Cropland
(acreage)
Cropland Needing Treatment
(acreage)
Cropland Proposed for Treatment
at $ 178 per acre1
at $ 89 per acre2
Total Estimated
Treatment Cost
Estimated Number of Operating Units
Total Cost per Unit
Treatment Cost per Year
for 10-Year Program
Entire Area
2,796,527
1,833,642
1,085,315
187,082
$ 209,836,368
24,351
$ 8,617
$ 20,983,637
Pennsylvania
1,291,568
839,519
496,904
85,654
$ 96,072,118
11,519
$ 8,340
$ 9,607,212
Maryland
794,960
532,623
315,254
54,342
$ 60,951,650
6,500
$ 9,377
$ 6,095,165
1Total cost to apply resource management systems.
2Total cost to apply benefitting conservation practices.
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 77
Revenue Code and propose changes to encourage
land-owner investment in BMPs. It is essential for
any program to integrate water quality-based
practices with Federal soil conservation programs
(U.S. EPA 1980).
Priority of Education —For voluntary pro-
grams to achieve maximum success, a strong
educational effort is crucial. While cooperative
extension agencies provide an excellent network
for education, their programs work toward many
ends, and the reduction of agricultural runoff is
one of several. Current educational programs
could be strengthened to reach more farmers and
inform them about the effects of runoff on water
quality and the range of BMPs that can be util-
ized to curb loadings. Educational and public-
awareness efforts should be used more aggressively
to increase the number of farmers with conser-
vation plans. Through wide publicity and by en-
couraging participation, cooperative extension ser-
vices could take the fullest advantage of
demonstration projects, model farms, and other
means to convince farmers of the benefits of BMPs
to them and to water quality improvement; to
describe techniques used to implement BMPs; and
to document the need to control runoff. An ag-
gressive education campaign in an Indiana water-
shed draining to Lake Erie utilized demonstration
projects on model farms and resulted in signifi-
cant adoption of BMPs by local farmers (Morrison
1983). Descriptions and results of special projects
funded by the SCS and the three Rural Clean
Water Projects in the Bay region could be
publicized outside of their immediate areas for
greater exposure. Pennsylvania's high-priority
watershed assessment (PA DER 1983) places
strong emphasis on a coordinated educational pro-
gram to promote conservation tillage and other
low-cost BMPs, the protection and maintenance
of riparian vegetation, sound nutrient application
and management, BMPs for pasture improve-
ment, proper pesticide and herbicide handling
and application, and integrated pest
management.
Changes in Federal Agricultural Programs —
The Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act
of 1977 (RCA) was passed amidst concern that
present soil conservation efforts were not being
adequately administered. The act formalized a
process to review annually soil and water conser-
vation goals and program performance. It was
also designed to develop programs to address these
goals effectively. Appendix C includes responses
from Maryland and Pennsylvania concerning
goals outlined in the RCA Report (1980) and
describes the USDA's preferred program to im-
prove efforts to deal with soil conservation. Ap-
pendix E includes maps of nonpoint source prob-
lem areas in Bay-area states and specific projects
funded by the EPA to address these problems.
Urban Runoff
Research conducted by the Chesapeake Bay
Program indicates that a primary cause of de-
graded water quality in populated areas is urban
runoff. In particular, stormwater runoff from the
four largest cities in the drainage basin (Baltimore,
Washington, Richmond, and Hampton-Norfolk)
carries relatively high concentrations of pollutants
such as sediment, nutrients, bacteria, heavy
metals, and oil and grease. Because the four fall-
line cities drain into the tidal-fresh zones of the
Bay where prime spawning grounds for much of
the biological resources are located, they have the
potential to place long-term stress on the system.
Similarly, the Hampton Roads area drains into
the lower James River and, while this more saline
area is less sensitive to pollutants than the tidal-
fresh zones, the potential for long-term impacts
is an important consideration because the receiv-
ing water contains one of the most productive
oyster regions in the Bay.
The problem of urban runoff is not unique to
these four major metropolitan areas. For example,
field studies in the Occoquan River basin in
Virginia indicate that urban land-uses contribute
more nitrogen and phosphorus to receiving waters
than do most rural-agricultural land uses (North-
ern Virginia Planning District Commission 1979).
The main focus of current urban runoff control
programs lies in the growing portions of urban
centers where they are designed to minimize sedi-
ment loss from construction sites and to mitigate
future impacts of increased volumes and rates of
discharge through proper development and site
planning. In general, it is more difficult to con-
trol urban runoff in already-established urbanized
-------
78 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
areas where stormwater quantity and quality
management may require large-scale retrofitted,
structural solutions, as opposed to pre-
development stormwater planning in developing
areas.
To date, governmental efforts to deal with ur-
ban runoff have been directed largely toward
determining urban nonpoint source loads and
identifying effective control measures. This has
contributed to a greater awareness of the problem
and what needs to be done to reduce it. However,
very few regulatory programs have been initiated.
In addition, many of the programs currently in
place have not been vigorously implemented.
Federal Programs: The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency-In 1978, the EPA initiated the Na-
tionwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). The
program's major objectives were to collect the
necessary data to assess urban nonpoint-source
problems and evaluate the impacts of those sources
on receiving water quality. The program was also
designed to identify and evaluate various BMPs
which could be utilized to control the pollution
from urban runoff. As part of this program, ma-
jor studies, discussed below, were completed in
1983 in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore
areas.
The EPA has also dealt with urban runoff
planning and management through three other
programs. Under Section 208, a number of "area-
wide," or metropolitan area water quality
management plans were developed. Area-wide
208 plans in the Baltimore, Washington, D.C.,
and Greater Hampton Roads areas have all been
completed (Regional Planning Council 1980,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments 1978 and 1980, and Hampton Roads Water
Quality Agency 1979). The EPA has the author-
ity to grant NPDES permits for separate storm-
sewer discharges, although none have been issued.
The EPA also estimates the cost to treat separate
storm sewers; in the 1980 Needs Survey, the cost
was estimated at 114 billion dollars (U. S. EPA
1981).
State and Local Programs — States and local
governments are more active in regulating urban
runoff through programs authorized by state and
local ordinances. Current state efforts fall into two
broad categories of requirements for communities
or counties: sediment and erosion control and
stormwater control ordinances. In most states, ur-
ban stormwater control has been left a matter of
local decision although, in 1983, Maryland
enacted state-wide regulations for the control of
stormwater quality and quantity. Pennsylvania
has enacted a law requiring local stormwater con-
trol plans, but the lack of state funding has limited
its implementation. All three states and D.C. have
laws requiring the adoption and enforcement of
sediment and erosion control measures to
minimize runoff from construction or earth-
moving activities. More detailed information on
these programs is contained in Appendix E.
Responsibility under Section 208 for develop-
ing nonpoint-source control plans in urban areas
is shared by state and local planning agencies. In
most of the major urban areas of the Chesapeake
Bay region, these "area-wide" responsibilities are
held by regional planning agencies. Each of the
states are then responsible for "state-wide" urban
runoff controls outside of these major urban areas.
Of the state-wide 208 programs, only
Virginia's deals with the problem of urban runoff
separately [Maryland's twelve 208 river basin
plans and Pennsylvania's Comprehensive Water
Quality Management Plans (COWAMP) identify
urban runoff problem areas, but generally cover
the more rural areas of the states]. The Virginia
state-wide 208 program developed Best Manage-
ment Practice Handbooks on a number of non-
point source problems, including handbooks on
urban BMPs and sediment and erosion control
practices (VA SWCB 1979b, VA SWCC 1980) to
accompany their state-wide urban runoff manage-
ment plan (SWCB 1980). In addition, Virginia
has identified priority watersheds for urban areas
(South Fork of the Shenandoah River near Staun-
ton; the James River and York River drainage
around Richmond; and the lower James River
draining the Newport News-Hampton and
Norfolk-Portsmouth regions). As with area-wide
208 plans, all three states chose to adopt volun-
tary rather than regulatory implementation of
their urban nonpoint source control strategies.
Numerous other state laws and local or-
dinances exist to reduce the quantity of runoff in
urban areas and to prevent receiving water quality
impacts of urban runoff. Flood prevention laws
are designed to reduce runoff volumes and
velocities and thus encourage proper stormwater
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 79
management planning. Land-use and transpor-
tation planning, zoning, and subdivision regula-
tions at the local level help in keeping
development away from sensitive areas with the
potential for erosion, flooding, or water quality
problems. Other municipal services such as gar-
bage, used oil and leaf collection, street-sweeping,
and road-salting play important roles in manag-
ing urban runoff quality.
With the exception of Richmond, the regional
planning agencies in the four major urban areas
have addressed the problem of urban runoff in
their 208 plans. The following descriptions sum-
marize their activities.
Baltimore, Maryland —The Jones Falls Water-
shed Urban Stormwater Runoff Project, a NURP
study run by the Regional Planning Council
(RFC), examined the problems associated with ur-
ban stormwater runoff in a densely populated sec-
tion of Baltimore. The project also evaluated the
feasibility of implementing structural and
nonstructural BMPs in the area. Major conclusions
from the study include: urban runoff contributed
significant amounts of copper, lead, and zinc to
stream loadings; implementation of structural
BMPs was found to be prohibitively expensive due
to the extensive infrastructure changes required;
nonstructural BMPs such as manual and mechan-
ical street-sweepers were judged to be of variable
effectiveness; and implementation of nonstruc-
tural BMPs such as removal of animal waste by
dog owners was highly dependent on the popula-
tion's level of awareness regarding the relation-
ship between animal-waste removal and water
quality. Based on these latter findings, the in-
vestigators concluded that education, particularly
of urban dwellers, is a prerequisite for the adop-
tion and success of nonstructural BMPs (RFC
1983).
Washington, D.C. — In contrast to the Jones
Falls Project, the Metropolitan Washington Coun-
cil of Government's NURP study investigated con-
trol measures in developing areas. During the four
year study, the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of
twelve types of BMPs (including wet ponds, dry
ponds, porous pavement, etc.) were studied at
several suburban sites in Virginia and Maryland.
The investigators concluded:
• Wet ponds are among the most effective
means of controlling urban runoff,
although the initial costs for constructing
these structures is significantly higher than
for dry ponds. These initial outlays tend to
be offset by increased property values which
wet ponds tend to generate;
• Porous pavement is an effective BMP for
reducing the rate of stormwater runoff and
pollutant loads; and
• Grassy swales, long favored by developers,
are no more effective than the curb-and-
gutter systems they were designed to
replace.
The study's recommendations, call for the
strengthening of existing stormwater regulations
to make them an instrument for improving water
quality, as well as reducing stream-bank erosion;
and regulations requiring the government and
developers to absorb BMP-implementation and
O&M costs, rather than leaving this responsibil-
ity to homeowners' associations, which have fewer
resources.
Norfolk-Hampton Roads, Virginia — The
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
(HRWQA) has funded extensive water quality
analyses of Hampton Roads and the James River
tributaries draining Norfolk, Portsmouth,
Newport News, and Hampton. The HRWQA has
also evaluated the existing urban runoff control
practices in the region and is currently testing the
effectiveness of selected practices in the Lynn-
haven River, an urban watershed.
In summary, urban runoff is gaining attention
with respect to legislation. The implementation
of these laws, however, has not been entirely ade-
quate. The lack of inspectors to enforce laws, in-
adequate personnel to review permit proposals,
poor funding for BMPs, and other factors con-
tribute to the problem (Martin and Helm 1981).
A more thorough evaluation of these issues is con-
tained in each of the three area-wide 208 plans.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS
Agricultural runoff contains nutrients from
three main sources: eroded sediments, dissolved
fertilizers, and animal wastes. There are dozens
of specific agricultural practices that reduce
nutrient loadings from these sources. Because
farmers have a wide choice of alternative prac-
-------
80
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
tices to combat erosion and runoff, for most situa-
tions, a mix of practices will control the problem.
From a soil conservation perspective, the goal is
to reduce soil loss to a "tolerable" (T) level, the
rate at which soil can be lost without reducing the
productive capacity of the soil. It should be kept
in mind that meeting a goal of "T" tons of soil loss
per acre per year does not necessarily protect
water quality; however, many acres of cropland
and pasture land are presently not meeting T-
values. It is used here as an interim goal that is
currently desired by the agricultural community.
Technical Control Options:
Agricultural Runoff
Although the effectiveness of BMPs is depen-
dent upon site-specific factors such as soil type,
slope, proximity to streams, tillage, drainage, and
cropping factors, the options described briefly
below represent general levels of effort designed
to offer steps necessary to reduce sediment and
nutrient runoff problems. For example, Level One
should be implemented on all farms simply as
sound farm management. For light soil loss prob-
lems, Level Two should be carried out and, as
problems require additional BMPs to meet "T",
Levels Three and Four should be implemented.
Level Five refers to BMPs specific to animal-waste
management.
Level One:
Soil testing, timing of fertilizer applications
to meet crop needs, avoiding fertilizer ap-
plication on frozen land, use of crop
residues for winter cover and mulch,
manure incorporation, spring versus fall
plowing, etc.
Level Two:
Conservation tillage (plow-plant, minimum
or no-tillage)
Level Three:
Contour farming, strip cropping, use of
grassed waterways, buffer and filter strips,
and other practices
Level Four:
Diversions, terraces, sub-surface drains,
ponds, and etc.
Level Five:
Animal-waste collection, handling, storage,
and disposal practices.
The Level Two option was tested basin-wide
using the Chesapeake basin model. The
conventional-tillage cropland in each basin was
converted to conservation tillage. The factor in
the model that represents percent vegetative cover
was the primary adjustment made to simulate this
option. Level Two was also combined with a point
source strategy (TP = 2 mg L'1) and tested under
existing and future conditions. Agricultural land-
use was assumed to remain unchanged in the year
2000 model simulations.
Table 10 contains the estimated reductions in
nutrient loads, by major basin, achieved in the
conservation-tillage model simulation. The
conservation-tillage BMP is more effective in
reducing phosphorus loads than in reducing
nitrogen loads because phosphorus is transported
in the particulate form adsorbed to sediment par-
ticles. This Level Two BMP minimizes distur-
bances of the soil surface and significantly reduces
soil loss. Nitrogen, however, is mostly soluble and
what does not wash off is taken up by plants, or
transformed to gas, and percolates down into the
groundwater, some of which flows into adjacent
water bodies. The complicated nutrient forms and
pathways, along with diverse crop and pasture-
land management systems, illustrate the need to
implement separate BMPs to control both nitrogen
and phosphorus.
The percent reductions achieved by this op-
tion are related to the amount of cropland con-
verted to conservation tillage, as well as soil type,
slope, and other factors that vary among river
basins. The amount of land estimated to be
presently in conventional tillage is thought to be
an under-estimate when compared to other land-
use data sets (Appendix B); therefore, reductions
achieved from large-scale adoption of this option
could be even greater than these data indicate.
Because of funding limitations, Level Two was
the only nonpoint-source option tested basin-wide,
with the exception of a Level Two plus Level
Three option tested in the lower Susquehanna
River basin, discussed in Chapter 5. Modeling
results however, provide a good indication of the
sensitivity of total nutrient loads to changes in
cropland practices by region (Table 10). Other op-
tions should be tested in the future using the
Chesapeake Bay basin model which is presently
set up as a management tool for basin-to-basin
comparisons and can be refined to evaluate river
basins individually. The GBP is not suggesting,
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 81
by testing Level Two basin-wide, that it should
be adopted by all farmers. In some areas, physical
conditions prevent its use, and its benefits in
preventing sediment and nutrient losses must be
weighed against the increased use of herbicides
and other farm management considerations. The
Level Two results should only be considered in
the development of much broader agricultural
strategies that leave the decision of what mixes
of specific BMPs are needed to the discretion of
farmers and soil conservationists.
Costs for agricultural runoff options —
Level One — Fertilizers represent the largest
cost to farmers to grow crops; therefore, proper
fertilizer and manure management can reduce
costs. For example, the baseline model runs in the
Susquehanna found that, under average rainfall
conditions, 49,470,000 pounds of nitrogen and
1,740,000 pounds of phosphorus are delivered to
Chesapeake Bay from the 3.17 million acres of
cropland in the Susquehanna drainage area be-
tween March and October. Some of this loss is in-
evitable and not all is from fertilizer or manure
application. Nevertheless, in terms of dollars lost,
these nutrient losses represent 6.42 million dollar
losses to farmers, at current commercial fertilizer
prices,4 24.25 cents per pound of nitrogen and
24.40 cents for phosphate (56.12 cents per pound
phosphorus), assuming that only 50 percent of the
cropland nutrient losses are attributable to fer-
tilizer applications. Because the estimated
cropland nutrient losses are based on the eight-
month period between March 1 and October 31,
these dollar losses represent an under-estimate
over a twelve-month period. Nonetheless, millions
of dollars could thus be saved by farmers in the
Susquehanna basin and elsewhere by adopting
better fertilizer management practices that
TABLE 10.
ESTIMATED NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED IN LEVEL TWO MODEL SIMULATION UNDER AVERAGE
AND WET CONDITIONS (MARCH TO OCTOBER)
Basin
Susquehanna
West Chesapeake
Eastern Shore
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Basin-wide
% Phosphorus Load Reduction
(Ib. reduction)
Avg. Year Wet Year
% Nitrogen Load Reduction
(Ib. reduction)
Avg. Year Wet Year
16.0
(464,000)
2.3
( 55,000)
14.3
(119,000)
1,1
( 5,000)
4.3
(123,000)
5.1
( 14,000)
6.7
( 18,000)
0.8
( 32,000)
6.5
(830,000)
32.0
(2,016,000)
14.4
( 439,000)
43.7
( 926,000)
14.2
( 95,000)
25.4
(1,306,000)
35.0
( 269,000)
37.0
( 310,000)
9.5
( 470,000)
24.5
(5,831,000)
1.3
(780,000)
1.7
(264,000)
6.3
(549,000)
0.8
( 20,000)
1.3
(455,000)
1.9
( 54,000)
2.5
( 57,000)
0.5
(107,000)
1.6
(2,286,000)
8.0
(8,400,000)
10.9
(2,415,000)
23.9
(5,000,000)
11.6
( 531,000)
11.1
(7,102,000)
18.0
(1,472,000)
20.0
( 960,000)
7.6
(2,345,000)
10.7
(28,225,000)
-------
82 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
decrease losses and, in most cases, result in
minimizing the amount needed for application.
Level Two — Table 11 compares national
energy costs in conventional and conservation-
tillage farming methods. When total costs, in-
cluding additional costs for the insecticides and
herbicides required by reduced and no-tillage
farming, are compared with those for conven-
tional farming, conservation-tillage is less expen-
sive than conventional-tillage. The major reason
farmers are adopting conservation tillage is the
economic benefit of reduced labor and fuel re-
quirements (Batic 1983). Yields achieved using
conservation tillage can be greater, the same, or
less than those achieved with conventional tillage
depending on the circumstances (Christensen and
Norris 1983).
District conservationists in Pennsylvania,
responding to a CBP/SCS worksheet (Appendix
C), estimated that total costs for implementation
of no-till farming would be zero dollars. However,
if accelerated adoption of conservation tillage is
desired, education, technical assistance, and cost-
sharing may be necessary to demonstrate to
farmers the benefits of this practice. Significant
costs can be attributed to the accelerated technical
assistance required to assist the farmers in the im-
plementation of a conservation-tillage manage-
ment system on farrris. The Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1982) estimated that a conservation-
tillage system program in the Lake Erie basin
would cost 11,290,000 dollars over 10 years. None
of these costs were capital outlays by farmers, but
instead were for increased technical assistance by
conservation districts to promote, educate, and
assist in the installation of conservation-tillage
systems. The Lake Erie program would result in
the adoption of conservation tillage on approx-
imately 950,000 acres, or 1.19 dollars per acre per
year. Using this estimate, the total cost to convert
lands in the Chesapeake Bay basin presently
farmed using conventional-tillage methods is
estimated to be 10.53 million dollars.
Levels Three, Four, and Five — Every farm
must be evaluated separately to determine the op-
timum combination of BMPs required to reduce
excessive nutrient and sediment losses. For this
reason, the Chesapeake Bay Program did not
estimate basin-wide costs for installing Levels
Three, Four, and Five. Future nonpoint source
model tests can be conducted for priority sub-
basins to evaluate the effectiveness of applying
these levels to various lands, and then costs may
be estimated. Presented below are cost estimates
of a number of BMPs (in Levels Three and Four)
derived from estimates to install resource manage-
ment systems and developed by the SCS for the
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Area (1983a).
Pipe Outlet Terraces $300/acre
Terraces $2507acre
Diversions $100/acre
Sub-surface Drains $100/acre
Waterways $ 50/acre
TABLE 11.
ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL COSTS PER ACRE FOR CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
AND CONVENTIAL TILLAGE IN I979. (Source: Crosson, I98I)
Conventional Tillage
Corn Soybeans
Wheat
TOTAL COSTS
$165.00 $105.00
$79.00
Conservation Tillage
Corn Soybeans
Wheat
Labor
Machinery
Fuel
Pesticides
$ 13.24
36.32
9.02
8.72
$ 12.21
31.28
6.83
9.13
$ 9.25
25.30
5.57
1.21
$ 6.62
31.32
7.02
11.63
$ 6.10
26.28
4.83
12.17
$ 4.63
20.30
3.57
1.61
$154.00
$95.00
$68.00
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 83
Strip-cropping $ 20/acre
Contour Farming $ 20/acre
Level Five costs of 10,000 to 25,000 dollars for
animal-waste management systems per farm were
estimated by The Soil Conservation Service in an
assessment of priority sub-basins in Virginia (SCS
1983a).
Administrative Control Options: Agricultural
Runoff
In addition to what can be done technically
to reduce agricultural runoff loadings, there are
many issues surrounding administrative options
that could redirect current control programs to
make them more effective at curbing runoff im-
pacts. Generally, these options define the purpose
of agricultural control programs: how to imple-
ment a program, set its policies, priorities, and
funding to achieve an effective water quality
management plan for nonpoint source control.
The major agricultural administrative issues and
options were discussed in the previous section,
regarding scientific uncertainties, lack of prior-
ity setting, limited financial incentives, education,
and changes in Federal programs. In summary,
specific policy options to improve agricultural
water quality management programs include the
following:
• The EPA and the states could include, as
part of the monitoring program proposed
in Chapter 2 and described in Appendix F,
long-term monitoring efforts designed to
detect trends in nonpoint pollution loadings
before and after implementation of control
measures. These efforts are necessary to
determine the effectiveness of a nonpoint
source control program once in place.
• The EPA and the states could utilize the
Chesapeake Bay basin model to determine
which individual sub-basins are the most
significant contributors of nutrients to Bay
waters from cropland and other nonpoint
sources. This information is known for areas
below the fall line but cannot be compared
to unit-area loadings from sub-basins above
the fall-line without additional model tests.
These model tests could determine which
areas in the Bay basin should be targetted
for nonpoint source programs to improve
the conditions of degraded segments in the
Chesapeake Bay. The model should be fur-
ther utilized to run additional tests on a full
range of agricultural and urban runoff con-
trol alternatives to determine the most ef-
fective strategy from a technical standpoint.
Additional data on land use activities, slope,
soils, etc. should be incorporated in the
model for more detailed modeling studies
in the identified priority sub-basins.
Agricultural research could focus on
answering questions on the processes of
dissolved nutrient movement, sediment and
nutrient relationships, improved soil-testing
techniques, and other unresolved scientific
concerns outlined above.
Soil conservation districts could be required
to keep detailed records of accomplishments
to improve their ability to assess the effec-
tiveness of their programs and to redirect
their activities accordingly. This effort
could be accomplished through annual
reports which evaluate whether their ac-
tivities are meeting specific objectives and
milestones, and which explain obstacles en-
countered in the administration of nonpoint
source control efforts.
All levels of government could consider ex-
panding their funding for implementing of
nonpoint source control programs, and
alternative sources of funding should be ex-
plored. Accelerated efforts to reduce
nutrient runoff from agricultural lands de-
pend upon increased cost-sharing funds as
the primary financial incentives, and pre-
sent sources do not even approach the
amount needed in each state's critical
watersheds. Other incentives could be con-
sidered such as incentives to maintain sen-
sitive or marginal farmland idled through
the USDA Payment-in-Kind Program, or
similar state or Federal efforts. Educational
efforts could be strengthened to reach
farmers and other landowners in priority
watersheds. Existing projects, model farms,
etc. could be utilized to the fullest extent
to demonstrate the problem of agricultural
and urban runoff and what techniques
reduce the pollutant loadings. In addition,
-------
84 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
a nonpoint source clearing-house could be
established to coordinate information on
BMPs, etc.
• The states in the Chesapeake Bay basin
could coordinate an effort to target special
program funds from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to accelerate soil conserva-
tion and water quality improvement in the
Chesapeake Bay.
• The EPA and the states could pursue the
full implementation of existing water qual-
ity mangement plans, ensure that they are
updated with Chesapeake Bay Program
findings and revised to address nutrient con-
trol. This effort and those above could be
accomplished through a comprehensive
nonpoint source implementation program
with improved Bay water quality as the
primary goal.
Technical Control Options: Urban Runoff
Urban runoff control practices can be grouped
into a number of categories. Urban Level One
control options, the base level of effort, include
practices that remove or reduce the sources of ur-
ban runoff pollutants. Urban Level Two controls
reduce the volume of runoff reaching waterways.
Urban Level Three controls are needed usually in
the severest cases of urban runoff pollution, and
consist of runoff collection and treatment
measures. One special category of urban runoff
control is sediment and erosion control on con-
struction sites; BMPs in this category contain both
Level One and Level Two practices. The most
commonly used practices are source controls,
which stabilize or trap sediments, and volume
controls, which enhance infiltration or detain
stormwater to reduce the rate of stormwater
discharge. The following BMPs are examples of
meausres represented by each level of control:
Level One:
Source controls, planning (street-sweeping,
sewer catch-basin cleaning, vegetative
cover, straw bales, educational programs
on the disposal of used oil and use of fer-
tilizers and pesticides, domestic animal
waste ordinances, controls on the use and
storage of street de-icing compounds, land-
use planning and pre-development land-
scape planning), etc.;
Level Two:
Volume or discharge controls (rooftop and
parking lot storage, infiltration pits,
modular concrete-grid pavement, porous
pavement, vegetative cover, grassed swales,
detention basins, etc.;
Level Three:
Sewer conveyance-system storage, conven-
tional and fluidic flow-regulators in sewer
lines, off-site retention basins, waste-water
treatment, etc.
Level one —These controls are generally
amenable to urbanized and devloping areas
because most are designed to reduce lawn or
street-surface pollutant build-up. The effec-
tiveness of each depends on many factors. The
value of a street sweeping program, for example,
is determined by the type of sweeper (broom ver-
sus vacuum sweepers), number of times a street
or curb is swept per week, percentage of curbs
swept, pavement conditions, percentage of
pollutants attached to fine particles (the most dif-
ficult to remove), and public reactions. Runoff
studies in the Washington, D.C. area have found
that street-sweepers used three times a week can
remove up to 50 percent of the phosphorus from
the street surface, depending on the land use
(Northern Virginia Planning District Commission,
1979). Conclusions in the EPA's Nationwide Ur-
ban Runoff Program, however, suggest that street-
sweeping is not as effective in reducing nonpoint
source pollution as once thought (U.S. EPA
1982c).
Source-control urban runoff programs are ad-
ministered at the local level. The county planning
and zoning offices have control over where
development will occur, and local standards dic-
tate whether development takes place with the
necessary sediment and erosion controls. Also,
municipal public works programs, directly or
through contractors, administer street-sweeping,
sewer cleaning, solid-waste collection, and road-
salting operations. Funding and attitudes toward
the importance of reducing urban runoff loadings
largely determine the level of effort applied. The
effectiveness of voluntary controls, such as those
generally applicable to used-oil disposal or ap-
plication of lawn and garden chemicals, depend
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 85
upon an informed and responsible public. Educa-
tional programs will enhance the public's feeling
of personal responsibility for protecting water
quality and increase the effectiveness of voluntary
controls.
Level two —Volume controls reduce the
amount of stormwater entering receiving waters
by detaining runoff temporarily, allowing par-
ticulate pollutants to settle out, and by slowing
the rate of stormwater discharge to receiving
streams. They also improve infiltration, which
takes advantage of soil processes to remove
pollutants. Volume controls can achieve higher
nonpoint source control benefits than other runoff
controls due to the removal of both dissolved and
suspended pollutants through infiltration and
natural nutrient-removal processes within the soil
profile. They are multipurpose controls because
they also reduce peak-flow rates, usually extend-
ing the runoff discharge over a longer period of
time, and because they minimize flooding,
although the potential for stream-bank erosion
and channel souring may be increased. Research
in the Washington, D.C. area on volume controls
such as wet ponds indicates they are very effec-
tive urban BMPs (Northern Virginia Planning
District Commission 1979; Metropolitan Washing-
ton Council Of Governments 1983).
Their effectiveness is dependent on how much
of an area's runoff is collected or slowed down by
volume controls. Their use is not generally feas-
ible in established urban areas because they are
structural in nature, and installation requires ex-
pensive retrofitting. Developing areas offer a
better potential for the application of volume con-
trols because they can be incorporated into site-
design plans; much more of the runoff can be
controlled at less expense if source and volume
control measures (Levels One and Two) are an
integral part of the design of new developments.
The EPA NURP study found that these two types
of controls are the most effective, although they
are not as effective for water quality purposes as
once thought (U.S. EPA 1982c).
Level three —These practices are structural
engineering solutions that reduce peak flow dur-
ing a runoff event through off-site storage and,
in extreme situations, remove pollutants from the
runoff by natural processes or through some type
of wastewater treatment. These practices are often
implemented in areas with combined sewer
overflows and flooding problems. Although these
are the most costly urban runoff controls, they
may be the only type that could significantly
reduce pollutant loadings from established urban
areas with severe runoff problems. Source and
volume controls may not provide sufficient
coverage to reduce large runoff volumes, rates of
discharge, and pollutant loads from these areas,
and Level Three could offer the best solution.
SUMMARY
Over the past seven years, the Chesapeake Bay
Program has received many comments from scien-
tists, administrators, sport and commercial
fishermen, landowners, and interested Bay
citizens expressing a desire to see the Bay in an
improved condition. The overall nutrient strategy,
then, is to reduce nutrient concentrations to a
range that does not limit healthy populations of
finfish, shellfish, aquatic vegetation, waterfowl,
etc. Any reduction in nutrient loads will lower
nutrient concentrations to some extent; unfor-
tunately, without an adequate water quality
model, it is difficult to predict with confidence
what would be the water quality or ecological
response to successive reductions in nutrient
loadings to the Bay. Instead of using scientific
uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, and thereby
testing the ultimate experiment in Bay eutrophica-
tion, enough is known to call for limiting nutrient
loads to Bay waters.
CBP research, described in Chapter 2, points
to some major conclusions between water qual-
ity and nutrient loadings. Phosphorus was found
to limite algal production in tidal-fresh and brack-
ish waters year-round, and nitrogen can be the
limiting nutrient in summer in estuarine waters
(e.g., mid-Bay and lower portions of tributaries).
The low dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper
waters of the Bay appear to be closely associated
with increased nutrient concentrations (and
resulting stimulation of algal growth). Also, the
decline of SAV appears to be associated with
nitrogen increases..From a Bay-wide perspective,
both phosphorus and nitrogen loadings should be
reduced. To improve water quality in the upper
Bay and upper and middle segments of tributaries,
-------
86
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
phosphorus load reductions are essential.
The Bay-wide point and nonpoint source
nutrient strategies presented below are intended
to be carried out in tandem. In addition, they are
designed as a phased approach: a) instituting or
reinforcing nutrient-reduction controls in what
GBP considers to be the most critical problem
areas in the Bay (see Figure 7, Chapter 2) with
respect to nutrients, b) using the results of these
strategies to guide nutrient control efforts
elsewhere in the Bay, and c) tightening up or im-
proving the efficiency of existing point source pro-
grams that aim to protect water quality.
BAY-WIDE NUTRIENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
REDUCE POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE
NUTRIENT LOADINGS TO ATTAIN NUTRIENT
AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE LIVING
RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
General Recommendations
1. The states5 and the EPA, through the
Management Committee, should utilize the
existing water quality management process
to develop a basin-wide plan that includes im-
plementation schedules, to control nutrients
from point and nonpoint sources by July 1,
1984.
2. The states and the EPA, through the Manage-
ment Committee, should continue the
development of a Bay-wide water quality
model to refine the ability to assess potential
water quality benefits of simulated nutrient
control alternatives. This model should be
continuously updated with new information
on point source discharges, land use activities,
water quality, etc.
Point Source Recommendations
3. The states and the EPA should consider CBP
findings when updating or issuing NPDES
permits for all point sources discharging
directly to Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Furthermore, the states should enforce
NPDES permit limitations.
4. Technical data from CBP findings should be
considered when evaluating funding pro-
posals for POTWs under the EPA's Advanced
Treatment Policy.
5. The states of Maryland, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia should consider by July
1,1984, as one of several control alternatives,
a policy to limit phosphate in detergents to
0.5 percent by weight, in light of the im-
mediate phosphorus reductions achieved.
6. The following administrative procedures
should be reviewed for action by January 1,
1985, by the states, counties, and/or
municipalities:
• Improve operator training programs and
provide or encourage incentives for bet-
ter job performance, such as increased
salaries, promotions, bonuses, job recogni-
tion, etc.
• The states should consider CBP findings
when ranking construction grant projects.
• Accelerate the development and ad-
ministration of state and local pretreat-
ment programs.
• Continue to evaluate the application of in-
novative and alternative nutrient removal
technologies.
• Improve sampling and inspection of point
source discharges.
• Develop plans to ensure long-term opera-
tion and maintenance of small, privately-
owned sewage treatment facilities.
• Institute educational campaigns to con-
serve water to reduce the need for POTW
expansion as population in the Chesapeake
Bay basin increases.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The states and the EPA, through the Manage-
ment Committee, should develop a detailed
-------
Chapter 3: Nutrients 87
nonpoint source control implementation pro-
gram by July 1, 1984 as part of the proposed
basin-wide water quality management plan.
Initial efforts should concentrate on
establishing strategies to accelerate the applica-
tion of best management practices in priority sub-
basins to reduce existing nonpoint source nutrient
loadings. Long-term strategies should seek to
maintain or further reduce nutrient loads from
other sub-basins to help restore Chesapeake Bay
resources.
The implementation program should not be
limited to traditional approaches toward soil and
water conservation; an intensified commitment
of resources for educational, technical, and finan-
cial assistance is warranted and may require in-
novative administration of available resources.
Long-term funding must be assured at the outset
of the implementation program, and a detailed
plan to track accomplishments, including water
quality improvement, should be developed by the
states through the Management Committee. The
framework for this program should include the
following stages:
Stage 1 —
A program that emphasizes increased
education, technical assistance, and cost-
sharing, as well as other financial incen-
tives, should be in place by July 1, 1985 in
priority sub-basins (i.e., those determined
through nonpoint source modeling to be
significant contributors of nutrients to iden-
tified problem areas of the Bay). Full im-
plementation of the abatement program
should occur by July 1, 1988.
Stage 2-
The Stage 1 program should be expanded
to intermediate priority sub-basins based on
additional basin-wide nonpoint source
modeling and Bay-wide water quality
modeling assessments that should determine
both the need for additional nonpoint
source nutrient reductions and the addi-
tional sub-basins to be targetted for non-
point source control.
Stage 3 -
Provide the necessary educational,
technical, and financial assistance to main-
tain or improve the level of soil and water
resource protection throughout the
Chesapeake Bay basin. Soil conservation
districts should establish annual conserva-
tion goals and report annually on ac-
complishments and technical, financial,
educational, and research needs.
Concurrently with stages 1 through 3, the
states and the EPA, through the Management
Committee, should initiate research to evaluate
the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing the loss of
soluble nutrients from farmland, to improve soil-
testing procedures to refine recommended fer-
tilizer application rates (especially with respect to
nitrogen), and to explore a range of financial in-
centives, disincentives, or other measures that
would accelerate the BMP-adoption process.
Begulatory alternatives should be evaluated, and
when necessary, implemented, if the above ap-
proaches do not achieve the needed nutrient
reductions.
8. The USD A and the EPA, in consultation with
the Management Committee, should
strengthen and coordinate their efforts to
reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution
to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, an agreement that establishes a
cooperative commitment to work toward the goal
of improved water quality in Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries should be developed. The agreement
should outline ways that programs could be
targetted to reduce loadings of a) nutrients (from
soil, fertilizer, and animal wastes), b) sediment,
c) agricultural chemicals, and d) bacteria from
animal wastes. Also, the agreement should en-
courage the targetting of EPA and USDA
technical assistance and computer modeling per-
sonnel to Chesapeake Bay priority sub-basins.
9. Federal agencies, states, and counties should
develop incentive policies by July 1, 1984,
that encourage farmers to implement BMPs.
Policies that could be considered include: in-
centives to maintain sensitive or marginal
farmland out of production, such as the USDA
Payment-in-Kind Program or other similar state
or local efforts; cross-compliance; changes in the
Internal Revenue Code, or state and local tax
structures that will encourage landowner invest-
-------
88
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
ment in BMPs or discourage the lack of adequate
BMPs; the establishment of Federal, state, or local
agricultural conservation trust funds for addi-
tional cost-share, education, or technical
assistance resources; user fees; dedicated taxes; or
expanded implementation funding.
10. The state, counties, and municipalities
located in sub-basins adjacent to tidal-fresh
and estuarine segments of Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries should implement fully and
enforce existing urban stormwater runoff con-
trol programs.
Although nonpoint source loadings of nutrients
from urban land were not found to contribute
significantly to overall nutrient loads, unnecessary
loadings of nutrients, sediment, heavy metals, and
other pollutants from urbanized or developing
watersheds should be avoided because of their
potential impact on living resources in isolated or
sensitive reaches of the Bay. In addition, storm-
water management programs should place equal
emphasis on runoff quality quantity control
techniques; they should also either establish
owner-developer responsibility for long-term
maintenance of urban stormwater BMPs or else
include innovative finance mechanisms to pay for
long-term BMP maintenance.
11. The states of Maryland and Virginia and local
governments should consider strengthening
wetland protection laws to include non-tidal
wetlands because of their value nutrient buf-
fers and living resource habitat.
-------
CHAPTER 4
TOXIC COMPOUNDS
Dan Haberman
Gail B. Mackiernan
Joseph Macknis
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM
Toxic materials enter the Bay from a variety
of sources, including industrial effluents and other
point sources, runoff from urban areas and
agricultural lands, atmospheric inputs, and
disposal of contaminated dredge spoil (Table 12).
Except for long-range atmospheric deposition, the
primary sources are located within the basin. The
materials include heavy metals, synthetic organic
compounds (including pesticides and herbicides),
petroleum hydrocarbons, and other chemical
substances such as chlorine. While some of these
materials are transitory, others have been shown
to accumulate in the sediments or water column,
or within tissues of Bay biota. The variety of toxic
materials already present in the estuarine environ-
ment, as well as continued inputs, represent
potentially serious threats to the integrity of the
Chesapeake ecosystem (Figure 32). In addition,
some toxicants can become human health-hazards
if bioaccumulated in the tissues of food organisms.
For these reasons, control and monitoring of toxic
substances is necessary.
This chapter indicates what the primary
sources of toxicants are; discusses types and
amounts of metals, organic compounds, and other
substances contributed to the Bay and to major
river basins; summarizes what controls are cur-
rently in place to reduce toxicant loadings and
their effectiveness to date; and describes the range
of controls or other measures that could be in-
stituted to further reduce inputs of toxic
substances. This information on toxicant sources,
loadings, and alternative measures provides the
raw material needed to formulate objectives and
strategies for the improvement of Chesapeake
Bay. Recommendations are proposed for Bay-
wide policies and for more specific action within
tributary systems (Chapter 5).
TABLE 12.
MAJOR SOURCES OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC TOXICANTS
Source
INDUSTRY
POTWs
RIVERS
ATMOSPHERE
URBAN RUNOFF
SHORE EROSION
MARINE ACTIVITIES
Inorganic
most metals
most metals, chlorine
most metals
zinc, lead
lead, cadmium
iron, chromium
copper
Organic
PNAs
PNAs, chlorinated organics
pesticides
hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons, organotins
89
-------
90 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
C
U
£
o
O
o
z
j/5
C
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 91
Metals
The James, Potomac, and Susquehanna River
systems are by far the major suppliers of each
metal examined by the GBP. Collectively, they
account for 69 percent of the Cd, 72 percent of
the Cr, 69 percent of the Cu, 80 percent of the
Fe, 51 percent of the Pb, and 54 percent of the
Zn discharged to the Bay system. The other prin-
cipal source of each metal is: Cd, industry (13 per-
cent); Cr and Fe, shore erosion (13 percent and
18 percent, respectively); Cu, industrial and
municipal point'sources (21 percent); Pb, urban
runoff (19 percent); and Zn, atmospheric (31 per-
cent) (Table 13, Figure 33). Sources and loadings
of metals are discussed more fully in Chesapeake
Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis (Bieri
et al. 1982a).
Except for Fe, which is not a toxic trace metal
and is largely a natural constituent of shore ero-
sion, the most commonly found metal in Bay
sediments is Zn. More than 16,000 pounds of Zn
are delivered from the major tributaries, or
deposited directly to the Bay, each day. More than
4,000 pounds each of Cr and Cu are contributed
daily to Bay waters (Bieri et al. 1982a). Based on
EPA water quality criteria, Cu is the most toxic
metal in estuarine and marine waters and Cd is
the most toxic in freshwater (U.S. EPA 1980).
Thirty-six hundred pounds of Pb are contributed
daily, primarily from urban areas and largely
from Baltimore, MD; Washington, D.C.; Rich-
mond, VA; and Hampton Roads, VA (Bieri et al.
1982a). (Calculations based on data developed by
Hartigan et al. 1981, Appendix D.) Sediment
metal concentrations are highest in the upper and
mid Bay, upper western shore tributaries, and
near industralized areas (Figure 10).
Analyses in which total or (estimated) dissolv-
ed metals data (in water column) were screened
against published EPA water quality criteria
showed highest values to be found primarily in
the main Bay and western shore tributaries
(Fiemer et ai. 1983). Many of these exceeded the
EPA acute criteria; some exceeded even chronic
criteria. The highest water column metal concen-
trations in Maryland are in the Potomac River (Zn
in the fresh portion, Cu in the estuarine),
Baltimore Harbor (Cu and Zn), and the main Bay
between the Gunpowder River and Cove Point
(Cu, Cd, Cr, Zn). In Virginia, the estuarine
segments of the Rappahannock, York, and James
Rivers contain levels of Ni and Cu that exceed both
acute and chronic criteria. A similar pattern ex-
ists for the western half of the main Bay in
Virginia. Details of the analyses, and implications
for the Bay ecosystem, are discussed in Chesapeake
TABLE 13.
LOADINGS OF METALS FROM MAJOR SOURCES TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY IN POUNDS/DAY
(PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOAD)
(LATER IN THIS CHAPTER REFERENCES ARE GIVEN FOR SPECIFIC SOURCES)
Industry
Municipal
Wastewater
Atmospheric
Urban Runoff
Rivers
Shore Erosion
Cd
18 ( 3)
42 ( 6)
452 (69)
7( 1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
54 ( 8) 288 ( 6) 501 (11)
Zn
84 (13) 378 ( 8) 454 (10) 22,877 ( 1) 302 ( 8) 418 ( 3)
66 ( 1)
3323 (72)
587 (13)
169 ( 4)
54 ( 1)
3118 (69)
205 ( 5)
9,395 (-) 379 (11) 917 ( 5)
525 (-)
5,89! (-)
1807083(80)
404,404(18)
205 ( 6)
670 (19)
1851 (51)
198 ( 5)
4,975 (31)
380 ( 2)
8708 (54)
679 ( 4)
TOTAL
657
4642
4501
2250175
3605
16077
-------
92 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
o
;5
O
05
O
0
O
c
_D
O
Q.
E
o
o
-Q
|
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds
93
Toxicity in Freshwater
Toxicity in Saltwater
rf ^ »? -.
ff
FIGURE 33b. Relative toxicities of heavy metals in freshwater and in saltwater.
Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change (Flemer
et al. 1983).
High enrichment of metals is found in
suspended material in the mid-Bay, and is
associated with organic matter. This suggests that
biological activity is the proximal cause of ac-
cumulation (Bieri et al. 1982a). Highest concen-
trations of metals in oyster and other shellfish
tissues were observed in samples from heavily in-
dustrialized areas such as the Elizabeth River
(Flemer et al. 1983).
Organic Compounds
Synthetic organic compounds have been
detected in the water and sediments of the Bay
(Bieri et al. 1982 b and c). The Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS) found that many of the
compounds detected in sediments were uniden-
tifiable and most were toxic (Table 14) (also Figure
9). The mean concentrations of all organic com-
pounds detected were often in hundreds of parts
per million, particularly in industrialized or ur-
banized areas. Priority pollutants were detected
in all areas sampled and some were at relatively
high concentrations (Bieri et al. 1982b and c). The
results are shown in Table 15. Although the in-
dustrial facilities, circulation patterns, and bed
sediments vary between the regions, the overall
patterns suggest that large contributions of PNAs
from the fossil fuel combustion processes are
associated with urbanized environments. The
methodology known as gas chromatography/mass
spectrophotometry (GC/MS) fingerprinting,
which was developed and used by the CBP to
identify and evaluate organic compounds in ef-
fluents, sediments, or tissues, is described in Ap-
pendix D. An example of a "fingerprint" is shown
in Figure 34. Each GC/MS effluent scan is unique
and can be used to identify and compare effluents
or to detect specific compounds within the
discharge.
In the VIMS study of the main Bay, over 300
organic compounds were found during the spring
-------
94 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 14.
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENT (BIERI ET AL. 1982a and b)
Location
Main-stem Chesapeake Bay
Baltimore Harbor
Elizabeth River
# compounds
detected
327
480
310
unidentified
compounds
yes
yes
yes
priority
pollutants
yes
yes
yes
TABLE 15.
ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENTS OF MAIN BAY, BALTIMORE HARBOR,
AND ELIZABETH RIVER (BIERI ET AL. 1982)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
ldeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
and fall of 1979. It is likely that more extensive
analysis would have revealed thousands of
undetected compounds. Nonetheless, the com-
pounds observed showed a trend of increasing con-
centrations from below the Potomac River mouth
toward the Baltimore Harbor mouth (Figure 9).
North of Baltimore, the total concentration of
organic compounds decreased and then increased
to another maximum toward the mouth of the
Susquehanna River.
Polynuclear aromatic compounds (PNAs) were
the most abundant organic compound found in
the sediments. They are released during the com-
bustion of fossil (i.e., carbonaceous) fuels and
transported from point and nonpoint sources with
sediment, water, and air-borne particulates. The
concentration trends for PNAs are similar to the
total concentrations of all organic substances. The
highest concentrations are found in the northern
Bay; the highest levels in the southern Bay are near
river mouths; concentrations increase northward
from the mouth of the Potomac toward Baltimore
Harbor; and high (but varied) concentrations are
found at the mouth of the Susquehanna.
Twenty-eight surface samples from the
Elizabeth River were analyzed for the presence
of primarily aromatic and polar organic com-
pounds. The highest concentrations of total
aromatics reached 440,000 ppb at the sampling
site farthest up the Southern Branch. Concentra-
tions declined toward the mouth of the river, sug-
gesting export of pollutants from the Elizabeth
River. Polynuclear aromatic compounds com-
posed 40 percent of the largest concentration. The
similar overall composition of the samples reflects
a large input of coal tar creosote, apparently from
a single source.
Total aromatic concentrations in the Patapsco
River ranged from 2.7 x 106 to 6,100 ppb with un-
substituted PNAs contributing about half of the
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 95
10 15
20
25 30 35
40
45 50
Gas Chromatograph or "Fingerprint" showing location of phenanthrene.
.. i 1 ..... 1 .
T^P^T""1^f*^r^"l
100 150
L
50
I
200
Mass Spectrograph of phenanthrene.
FIGURE 34. "Fingerprint" and mass spectograph showing phenanthrene.
resolved concentrations. The highest total concen-
tration, found in Bear Creek at Coffin Point, was
primarily unresolved but contained the largest
single concentration of unsubstituted PNAs
(89,000 ppb). The presence of several sub-
maximas in undredged areas suggest multiple
point sources and poor pollutant transport beyond
a few hundred meters. Samples taken within the
dredged channel indicate transport toward the
main Bay. Sources and loads of organic com-
-------
96 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
pounds are discussed more fully in Chesapeake
Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis (Bieri
et al. 1982a).
Chlorine
Chlorine is used in the Chesapeake Bay basin
for disinfection of drinking water and municipal
and industrial wastewaters, for control of biofoul-
ing in power plant condensers, and in a variety
of industrial processes. The majority of municipal,
industrial, and power plant dischargers are
located on the Bay's western shore, predictably
near urban or industrial centers. Many of these
release effluents to portions of tributaries in the
freshwater or brackish (oligohaline) reaches; these
areas are often critical habitats for important
resource species. In recent years, concern has
grown about the use of chlorine because of its
powerful biocidal nature, and the resulting poten-
tial adverse environmental impacts. A detailed
discussion of the use, chemistry, impacts, and con-
trol strategies for chlorine is presented in Appen-
dix D. Many organisms which inhabit Bay waters
(for example eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish, oyster
and clam larvae, zooplankton, and phytoplank-
ton) have shown sensitivity to relatively low con-
centrations of chlorine in laboratory studies.
Microcosm research and other controlled ex-
periments have demonstrated community changes
in phytoplankton and benthic organisms. It has
been suggested that chlorinated effluent plumes
in streams may hinder spawning runs of migrating
fish. The GBP research concluded that chlorine
was a possible cause of moderate or high toxicity
to bioassay organisms at six POTWs and three in-
dustrial facilities in Chesapeake Bay waters
(Wilson et al. 1982). Screening of measured water
column values of total residual chlorine against
proposed EPA water quality criteria showed high
values exceeding criteria in fresh and oligohaline
(brackish) areas of major western shore tributaries
(Flemer et al. 1983).
POINT SOURCES AND LOADINGS
Municipal Treatment Plants: Metals
Wastewater discharged from municipal point
sources often contains metals and other toxic
substances (Figure 35). Concentrations of metals
in the effluent from major POTWs were deter-
mined from plant measurements. In cases where
no information was available, default values were
assigned. Measured and default values used in
calculating POTW loads are presented in Table
16.
Loadings from POTWs were computed by
multiplying discharge flow rates (MGD), obtained
from the EPA 1980 Needs Survey, by concentra-
tion values obtained from results of pilot-scale
studies conducted by the EPA Municipal En-
vironmental Research Laboratory (MERL)
(Petrasek 1980). Discharge flow-rates are com-
piled in the Needs Survey for use in Congressional
allotment of construction grant funds to upgrade
or expand existing POTWs. Using this procedure,
estimates of the municipal metal load by major
basin are presented in Table 17. The West
Chesapeake basin and Potomac River are the
largest sources of metals discharged from POTWs.
Industrial Plants: Metals
The concentration of metals in various in-
dustrial effluents was obtained from EPA effluent
sampling data from Resources for the Future in
the "Pollution Matrix Lookup Routine." Concen-
tration values were assigned based on the in-
dustry's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code. The discharge rates for each industry were
obtained from data collected for an EPA project
referred to as the "Industrial Facilities Discharger
File" (IFD). Loadings of metals in pounds per day
were computed by multiplying the effluent dis-
charge rate in millions of gallons per day by the
concentration of the various metals in milligrams
per liter, and applying the appropriate conver-
sion factors. However, when assigning effluent
concentration values, the industries discharging
cooling water were assigned concentrations
representative of cooling water, not wastewater.
Those industries discharging cooling water and
process wastewater were assigned concentration
values approximately 85 percent less than those
industries in the same SIC code but discharging
all process wastewater. These numbers were then
evaluated and adjusted, when necessary, by of-
ficials of Maryland's Office of Environmental Pro-
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 97
0. MGD
+ ) 100. MGD
( _|_ ] 300. MGD
Closure area
FIGURE 35.
Chesapeake Bay shellfish closures
as of December 1982
for Maryland and 1981 for Virginia;
superimposed on locations and flow (MGD)
of publicly owned treatment works.
-------
98 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 16.
METAL CONCENTRATIONS ASSIGNED TO POTWs (mg L-<)
Cadmium Chromium
Basin
Default Value
Alexandria
(27 MGD)
Arlington
(22 MGD)
Army Base
(12 MGD)
Back River
(81 MGD)
Blue Plains
(317 MGD)
Chesapeake-
Elizabeth
(20 MGD)
Fredericksburg
(2 MGD)
Patapsco
(30 MGD)
Western Branch
(1.9 MGD)
James River
(13.7 MGD)
Lamberts Point
(20.6 MGD)
Boat Harbor
(17.6 MGD)
(Cd)
.009
.00978
.0018
.01
.01
.002
.0003
.0012
.0062
.0007
.0042
.0004
.004
(Cr)
.042
.00978
.0086
.03
.05
.041
.01
.0012
.17
.007
.005
.023
.01
Copper
(Cu)
.034
.0098
.034
.04
.06
.029
.02
.033
.45
.048
.026
.023
.04
Iron
(Fe)
1.01
—
—
1.67
1.5
.101
.77
.66
1.48
1.2
.44
1.7
1.8
Lead
(Pb)
.036
.0098
.0038
.13
.04
.009
.05
.0264
.038
.039
.0011
.05
.003
Zinc
(Zn)
.192
.038
.052
.23
.16
.103
.03
.108
.26
.31
.06
.09
.10
grams (MD OEP) and the Virginia State Water
Control Board (VA SWCB). The metal loadings
from major facilities are given in Appendix D. In-
dustrial metal loads by major basin are shown in
Table 18.
Comparison of Tables 17 and 18 shows that,
for most metals, overall loads to the Bay from
POTWs and from industrial dischargers are
similar. The exceptions are Fe (2.5 x greater in in-
dustrial dischargers) and Zn (2 x greater in POTW
flows). By far the largest input of metals from in-
dustrial sources comes from the West Chesapeake
basin, an area which contains the heavily in-
dustrialized Patapsco River. Major municipal
loads come from the Potomac, West Chesapeake,
and James River basins.
Municipal and Industrial Plants: Organic
Compounds
Industrial and municipal effluents were
evaluated as part of the Monsanto Research Cor-
poration's (MRC) characterization of point sources
(Wilson et al. 1982). The results showed that
significant concentrations of identified and
unidentified organic substances (some chlori-
nated), as well as metals, were present in the ef-
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 99
TABLE
1980 MUNICIPAL METALS LOAD IN
Basin
Eastern Shore
James
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
West Chesapeake
York
Total
Cadmium
(Cd)
0.5
5.4
0.3
11.3
—
35.7
—
53.2
Chromium
(Cr)
4.5
39.9
3.0
103.8
0.8
135.3
0.3
287.6
17.
POUNDS/DAY BY MAJOR
Copper
(Cu)
9.0
79.1
6.0
207.7
1.7
197.2
0,6
501.3
Iron
(Fe)
176.6
2055.4
117.1
4035.2
33.6
2965.1
12.0
9395.0
BASIN
Lead
(Pb)
7.3
78.4
4.8
167.8
1.3
119.0
0.5
379.1
Zinc
(Zn)
19.4
195.8
12.8
443.4
3.6
255.9
1.3
932.2
TABLE
1980 INDUSTRIAL METALS LOAD IN
Basin
Eastern Shore
James
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
West Chesapeake
York
Total
Cadmium
(Cd)
2.0
11.5
—
—
—
69.8
0.1
83.4
Chromium
(Cr)
3.2
40.8
0.1
5.9
—
322.5
4.8
377.3
18.
POUNDS/DAY BY MAJOR
Copper
(Cu)
25.0
55.2
—
2.0
—
357.6
0.8
440.6
Iron
(Fe)
43.8
—
—
0.2
22831.2
—
22875.2
BASIN
Lead
(Pb)
28.0
0.2
9.8
—
255.3
1.8
295.1
Zinc
(Zn)
16.7
—
1.5
—
346.9
8.9
374.0
fluent of power plants, industrial facilities, and
sewage treatment plants. Some of these are EPA
priority pollutants.
Monitoring and evaluation of organic com-
pound loadings from these point sources are dif-
ficult to quantify. The flows at industrial facilities
can vary greatly and process changes within the
plants can alter the nature of the effluent.
Municipal facilities tend to have more regular
flows, but monitoring of organic material is usu-
ally limited to the EPA's priority pollutants and
is not routinely required for NPDES permits under
normal conditions.
Many of the priority pollutants detected in
Chesapeake Bay sediments in high concentrations
were found to be present in the effluent of forty
POTWs around the United States, according to
a study by the EPA (U.S. EPA 1982a). Many of
-------
100 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
these pollutants were also detected in the effluent
of POTWs in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Synthetic
organic compounds such as pesticides, phthalate
esters, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
found in the effluent of local industrial and
municipal facilities. The organic degradation pro-
ducts of domestic sewage were also found at
municipal facilities. The concentrations of total
organic compounds and the presence of unknown
and priority pollutants for twenty-eight facilities
in the Chesapeake basin are listed in Table 19.
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants: Chlorine
A major use of chlorine in the Bay area, and
TABLE 19.
LOADINGS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
(WILSON ET AL. 1982)
Plant
Code
A 109
B 112 D
B 119 D
C 150 D
C 155 D
C 156 D
C 157 D
C 161 D
C 164 D
C 169 D
B 133 S
B 141 S
B 142 S
B 149 S
A 101
B 111 D
B 113 D
B 124 D
C 151 D
C 153 D
C ' Kl D
C V j D
C 159 D
C 160 D
B 126 S
B 143 S
B 147 S
C 169 S
Total Sum of Organic
Compounds (mg L~1)
3.62
2.78
0.30
0.91-0.96
0.29-0.40
0.80
0.05
2.24
0.12-0.34
0.63
0.68-0.74
3.06-3.19
0.93
3.58
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.33
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.03
0.04
Flow
(MGD)
NA
NA
0.22
2.45
19.0
26.4
21.3
10.5
8.0
31.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.1
1.3
6.57
1.4
4.1
2.8
NA
70.0
1.2
0.094
NA
NA
NA
NA
Priority Pollutants
Present?
no
yes
yes
yes*
yes*
yes
yes*
yes*
yes
yes
yes*
yes
yes
yes
no
yes*
no
yes*
no
no
yes*
yes*
yes*
no
yes
yes*
no
no
Unknown
Compounds Present?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
*10 ug L"1 is the quantitative limit of the computerized identification system,
NA: not available
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 101
a significant source of chlorinated effluent, comes
from the discharge from municipal sewage treat-
ment plants (STPs) (Figure 35). Disinfection of
sewage effluents is done for public health reasons,
and is considered necessary for waters which are
a source of drinking water, which are used for
shellfish harvest, where water contact recreation
occurs, or where water is used for the irrigation
of crops (MD OEP 1982). Presently, it is estimated
that STPs discharge some 12,500 pounds of
residual chlorine per day to tidal waters (below
the fall line) (Table 20). This estimate is based on
discharge monitoring reports of residual chlorine
and flow from POTWs (MD OEP 1982, VA
SWCB 1982). Effluents of sewage treatment
facilities are of particular interest because of the
greater potential for the production of chlorinated
organic compounds, particularly in plants receiv-
ing significant industrial wastewater (Roberts et
al. 1980, U.S. EPA 1982a). Currently, all
Chesapeake STPs disinfect throughout the year.
Industrial Dischargers: Chlorine
Chlorine is also used in a variety of industrial
processes, including fiber, pulp and paper, meat
and poultry packing, seafood processing, other
food industries, laundries, and etc. Many of these
discharge to municipal treatment plants, and
others directly to natural receiving waters. In the
Chesapeake area, chlorine is generally used for
treatment of industrial wastewater, or for the
disinfection of food or equipment during process-
ing (Brinsfield 1982, Carr 1982, Schlimme 1982).
The magnitude of the source depends primarily
on the process involved and the amount of flow.
Large paper or packing plants can also supply
significant loads with high concentrations of
chlorine in effluents. On the other hand, many
small seafood houses do not use chlorine, or use
it only in a "clean-up" mode or for the depura-
tion of shellfish (VA SWCB 1983, MD OEP 1982).
Effluents may be concentrated however, and
could cause significant local effects in small receiv-
ing streams. Brinsfield (1982) found a number of
processors whose residual chlorine effluents
discharges exceeded 85 mg Lr1. This is in part due
to relatively ineffective means of application of
the chlorine to the wastewater. Both Maryland
and Virginia have existing guidelines for
discharges of chlorine from municipal and in-
dustrial effluents; these are specified in NPDES
permits (Appendix D).
Power Plants: Chlorine
The second major use of chlorine in the
Chesapeake region is at steam electric power
plants, where it is used as a biocide to prevent
biofouling of the heat exchange condensors.
TABLE 20.
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE (TRC) DISCHARGES TO TIDAL BASINS BY POTWs
Basin
Eastern Shore
James River
Patuxent River
Potomac River
Rappahannock River
West Chesapeake River
York River
TRC (Ibs/day)
365
3,694
177
5,205
67
2,938
24
POTW flows (MGD)
21
220
30
479
4
134
1
TOTAL
12,470
889
-------
102 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Typically, plants initiate chlorination when am-
bient water temperatures reach 50 or 54°F (10 or
12°C) in spring (when fouling becomes a prob-
lem), and continue until temperatures drop below
these values in the fall. Thus, the majority of
plants in the Chesapeake area use chlorine for
about 200 days a year (MD DNR 1983). Chlorine
may be applied intermittantly (as per EPA regula-
tions), but in some parts of the estuary continuous
chlorination is necessary and permitted by the
EPA. Not all steam electric plants use chlorina-
tion as an anti-fouling measure; necessity for
chlorination depends to a great extent on the
nature of the water at the site and major fouling
organisms present. Plants at the oligoha-
line/mesohaline boundary typically have the most
serious problems with fouling.6 Only plants with
"once-through" cooling systems have the poten-
tial of discharging significant amounts of chlorine
residuals to the environment. Table 21 gives the
chlorine use (in pounds per day), discharge limit,
and hours per day chlorination takes place for
steam electric plants discharging to tidal waters.
Although use of chlorine (in Ibs/day) is high at
some plants, the volume of water passing through
the plants is so large (~108 to 10n gal/day) that
residual chlorine concentrations in the effluent are
low. For example, measured residual chlorine at
the discharge of the Westport plant in 1979 ranged
from 0.09 to 0.4 mg L"1 with a mean of 0.17 mg
L'1; for Wagner, the range was 0.019 to 0.23 mg
L"1, with a mean of 0.03. Conversely, however,
the large flows mean that significant volumes of
water are exposed to some concentration of
chlorine.
An important point is that the characters of
chlorinated effluents from sewage treatment, in-
dustrial, and power plants differ. Typically,
power plant effluents are less concentrated and
contain significantly less organic material. The
potential for forming halogenated organic com-
pounds at power plants would depend to a great
extent on the nature of the ambient water at each
site. Incoming cooling water containing high
organic loads represents the major problem
(below).
The Formation of Chlorinated Compounds
During Chlorine Disinfection
One concern with the chlorination of effluents
containing significant organic matter is the poten-
tial of forming chlorinated (or brominated) com-
pounds. Jolley et al. (1976) identified a number
of halogenated organic substances from waste-
water, and Helz (1980b) found brominated com-
pounds in sea water to which chlorine was added.
Some of the resulting organic materials are toxic
and can be bioaccumulated by organisms.
It was noted in the EPA study of 40 plants
nation-wide that certain chlorinated hydrocar-
bons listed as priority pollutants increased in
concentration following chlorine disinfection at
secondary and tertiary facilities. Chloroform con-
centrations increased the most —in 39 instances
a pre-chlorinated average of 2 ug L'1 increased
to a post-chlorinated average of 10 ug L"1 (U.S.
EPA 1982a). Chloroform was also detected in the
effluent from all eight POTWs in the Chesapeake
Bay basin; values at five plants ranged from 17
to 28 ug L'1. It should be noted that chloroform
is a carcinogen for humans and the EPA's 10"6risk
level (which results in one additional human death
in one million) is set at 15.7 ug L"1. A comparison
of concentrations of purgeable organic materials,
between Chesapeake Bay POTWs and national
POTW averages shows correspondingly high con-
centrations of chloroform and toluene, and
frequent detection of methylene chloride, tetra-
chloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethylene, 1,2-trans-
dichloroethylene, and trichlorofluoromethane at
local facilities (Table 22).
THE TOXICITY OF POINT SOURCE
EFFLUENTS
Seventy-five percent of the point source ef-
fluents tested during a GBP analysis of wastewater
from 28 plants were rated as being moderately or
highly toxic to bioassay organisms (Table 23,
Wilson et al. 1982). The acute, static bioassays
were conducted using mysid shrimp and fathead
minnow. Based on this analysis, seven of the eight
municipal effluents were moderately or highly
toxic, 13 of 19 industrial effluents were moderately
or highly toxic, and the power plant wastewater
was evaluated as having moderate toxicity. An
LC50 value (i.e., concentration causing 50 per-
cent mortality of test organisms) was used as a
starting point for further evaluation. Therefore,
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 103
those effluents in which 50 percent or more of the
test species died in a 50/50 effluent/dilutent solu-
tion were further evaluated to determine the pos-
sible causes of the toxicity. To determine if
significantly high levels of organic compounds
were present in effluent, those effluents with total
organic carbon (TOG) greater than or equal to
50 mg L'1 were checked and evaluated. If bioac-
cumulative compounds were present, then the ob-
jective was to identify them, evaluate their poten-
tial toxicity, and determine whether or not they
were the cause of aquatic toxicity. Monsanto's site-
specific toxicity reduction program is shown in
Figure 36. It is essentially a "decision tree." The
Monsanto Protocol for toxicity screening is dis-
cussed further in Appendix D.
The possible causes of toxicity and high
organic and bioaccumulative compound concen-
trations in point source effluents were analyzed
using fractionation bioassays. These are sum-
marized in Table 24 and listed for each plant in
Appendix D.
It appears that much of the toxicity of
municipal plant effluents can be explained by the
presence of chlorinated organics, metals, or free
available chlorine. Bioaccumulative compounds
and high levels of total organic carbon were also
detected in the STPs, but most of the organic com-
pounds could not be identified. In comparison,
the effluents from industrial and power generating
facilities were less likely to have high concentra-
tions of organic and bioaccumulative compounds.
However, priority pollutants were detected and
many other compounds could not be identified.
TABLE 21.
CHLORINE USE AT CHESAPEAKE BAY POWER PLANTS
Plant
Maryland
Wagner
Brandon Shores
Westport
Gould St,
Morgantown
Chalk Pt.
Vienna
Calvert Cliffs
C.P. Crane
Riverside
D.C.
Potomac R.
Benning Rd.
Virginia
Portsmouth
Chesterfield
Yorktown
Surrey
Possum Pt.
Chlorine
Ibs/day
1750
200
200
200
4000
4000
830
32-50
165
427
1.7
56
hrs/day
24
24
24
24
24
24
does not chlorinate
does not chlorinate
does not chlorinate, equipment
does not chlorinate
2
intermittent
2 or less
does not chlorinate, equipment
2 or less
at sewage
at sewage
Discharge
Limit
0.20 mg LH
0.20 mg L'1
0.20 mg L'1
0.20 mg L'1
0.14 mg L"1
0.50* mg L~1
in place
0.20; 0.5 max.
in place
0.20; 0.5 max.
treatment plant only
treatment plant only
currently under review
-------
104 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 22.
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY POTWs COMPARED TO EPA'S NATIONAL
SURVEY OF 40 POTWs (ug L-1) (WILSON ET AL. 1982, U.S. EPA 1982)
% Times Concentrations detected at Chesapeake Bay2
detected at
40 POTWs1 Organic compound C150D C155D C156D C164D C169C B141S C164D C158D
86
82
79
53
52
45
24
23
13
8
6
4
3
1
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane *
Trichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1 -1 -dichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
***** *
28 21 28 18 17
* * * *
14 11 30
16
* * *
* * *
17
* * * *
*
*
* * * *
*
*
1At least 276 samples were analyzed for each parameter (U.S. EPA 1982).
Confidentiality code; all POTWs are in Virginia except B141S (Maryland) (Wilson et al. 1982).
* 10 ug L~1 is quantitation limit of computerized identification system for samples,
TABLE 23.
TOXICITY OF EFFLUENTS FROM 28 CHESAPEAKE BAY FACILITIES (WILSON ET AL. 1982)
Facility
POTWs
Industries
Steam Power Plant
Total #
Tested
8
19
1
#Not
Toxic
5
#Low
Toxicity
1
1
#Mod.
Toxicity
3
8
1
#High
Toxicity
4
5
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 105
-GCEC
- N or P Specific GC
- Direct Injection
- Total Sulfur
- Exotic Metals
-Other
L
r
24 Hour
Composite
Sample
1
Basic Analysis
NPDES -t- AMONS
Yes
/
No
\
^^ls sarnple*^,^ No
~~ ^ — mon
thly s^
Yes
Conduct combination ot the following
Frequent monitoring
Froctionation bioassay
Flow through bioassay
AWES/CHO Microtox
On In plant streams
FIGURE 36. Site-specific "decision-tree" for identification and reduction of effluent toxicity.
-------
106 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 24.
POSSIBLE CAUSES OF TOXICITY AND HIGH ORGANIC AND BIOACCUMULATIVE CONTENT1
POTWs
Metals
Chlorine
Chlorinated Organics
Other Organic Compounds
Cyanide
Ammonia
1Faciities are individually shown in Appendix D.
X
X
X
X
X
Industries
X
X
X
X
X
X
Power Plant
X
X
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POINT SOURCE
CONTROLS
Permit Programs
Progress both nationally and in the Bay area
in achieving the first level of pollution control for
industry, "Best Practical Technology" (BPT), has
been good. The EPA compliance data indicate
that, nationally, approximately 90 percent of the
industrial facilities were in compliance with BPT
at the time of the 1977 deadline. It is estimated
that metal and other pollutant loadings discharged
by point sources to Chesapeake Bay may have
decreased by 33 percent during the 1970's when
BPT was installed. The BPT technologies general-
ly remove (or regulate) conventional pollutants,
including BOD5, TSS, pH, and oil and grease.
At the same time, treatment for removal of con-
ventional pollutants also achieves some removal
of organic chemicals, which appear to volatize or
transform in the treatment process, and metals,
which adsorb to suspended sediments.
Specifically, metal loads to Baltimore Harbor
from Bethlehem Steel and other industrial
dischargers decreased significantly after the pro-
mulgation of BPT controls. Other significant
changes were the construction of the Humphreys
Creek industrial waste-treatment plant by
Bethlehem Steel in 1971 and large reductions in
water use by industries Bay-wide between 1968
and 1977. Reductions of metal loadings to
Baltimore Harbor are shown in Figure 37. It is
anticipated that further reductions will be
achieved when NPDES permits for industrial
dischargers are reviewed and upgraded. This will
require that either "Best Available Technology"
(BAT) toxic limitations be promulgated by the
EPA for each industrial category or that the states
develop their own limits.
Pretreatment
Two pretreatment programs have been ini-
tiated in the Bay area to further reduce point
source loadings. The Hampton Roads Sanitation
District (HRSD) in the Hampton Roads area has
developed a program, and Baltimore City and
Baltimore County have started a planning effort
this year. The HRSD program, approved by the
EPA in 1982, was developed because of the need
to protect the District's relatively small facilities,
to preserve the quality of their sludge, and to limit
hazardous discharges to the James, Elizabeth and
York Rivers, Hampton Harbor, Chesapeake Bay,
and the Atlantic Ocean. The purpose of the pro-
gram is to monitor and limit toxic influents from
the major industrial facilities. Permits are based
on national pretreatment information, the EPA
Development Documents, and the District's
monitoring and engineering knowledge of the
facilities. In 1983, nine treatment plants, rang-
ing from 10 to 36 MGD, will be receiving
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 107
3000
1000
Metal loadings from Bethlehem Steel
3011
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
1053
Metal loadings
from all other industrial sources
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
| | 1970
1980
FIGURE 37, Comparison of industrial metal loadings discharged to Baltimore Harbor between
1970 and 1980 (pounds/day).
-------
108 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
discharges from 205-permitted facilities.
However, most jurisdictions are not developing
pretreatment programs because 1) the EPA has
not finalized the general pretreatment regulations;
2) there is no construction grant guidance explain-
ing what is and is not eligible for pretreatment
program funding; and 3) the EPA's proposals and
promulgation of categorical standards for
regulated industries have not been completed.
Chlorine
Concern over the use of chlorine has been
generated by considerable work in the past 15
years on toxicity and potential environmental ef-
fects, chlorine chemistry, and the toxicity of reac-
tion products. In a national survey conducted by
the Virginia State Water Control Board,
Maryland was identified as one of two states that
was doing the most to reduce the use and poten-
tial impacts of chlorine. One Maryland program
works with POTW operators to improve or
modify existing chlorination procedures and
reduce the amount of chlorine discharged to
spawning areas. Under another program, dechlor-
ination facilities are installed in those sewage
treatment plants discharging high residual
chlorine concentrations to major fish-spawning
areas. Also, many industrial facilities are reduc-
ing chlorine discharges. A variety of nonchemical
or mechanical techniques, such as abrasive clean-
ing, are being used in steam electric power plants
in the basin. Alternative sterilization techniques
are being voluntarily used at 10 percent of the
seafood packing houses in Virginia. These pro-
grams are discussed in detail in Appendix D.
Summary
Although existing programs are reducing the
concentrations of metals, organic compounds, and
chlorine being discharged to Bay waters, there are
still toxic problems in the Bay. In areas heavily
contaminated with metals and organic com-
pounds, such as the Patapsco and Elizabeth
Rivers, there are changes in benthic species com-
position and reduction in organism abundance
and diversity relative to similar uncontaminated
areas (Reinharz 1981, Schaffner and Diaz 1982).
Laboratory studies have shown that these
sediments are toxic to benthic organisms (Swartz
and DeBen, in prep; Alden et al. 1981). Similarly,
levels of toxicants exceeding EPA Water Quality
Criteria have been observed in many areas of the
Bay, particularly near developed areas. These
findings are reason for concern and justify action.
Additional information on toxicant/organism rela-
tionships is presented in the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis (Macalaster et al.
1982) and the Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental
Change (Flemer et al. 1983). The above findings
and the following incidents further suggest that
current permitting, monitoring, and enforcement
programs do not sufficiently control point source
toxic loadings to the Bay.
• In Baltimore Harbor, 6-phenyldodecane, a
substituted benzene, was found to be widely
distributed (Huggett et al. 1981). Project
data from the Monsanto Research Corpora-
tion's analysis of industrial discharges were
cross-checked, and it was discovered that
a number of local industrial dischargers had
the compound in their wastewater (Wilson
et al. 1982). A review of the NPDES per-
mits revealed that there were no facilities
which were allowed or permitted to
discharge the compound.
• In the James River, high levels of the
pesticide Kepone were discovered in 1975.
Apparently, for years the pesticide had been
discharged into the James River at
Hopewell, Virginia. The amount and ex-
tent of Kepone discharged to the water up
to 1975 remains unknown.
• In Baltimore, at the Back River Sewage
Treatment Plant (BRSTP), discharges of
ethyl benzene were detected using GC/MS
analysis and, subsequently, a particular in-
dustrial plant was identified as the source.
The industry, which had discontinued use
of the chemical because of production prob-
lems, was surprised to learn that ethyl
benzene was still being discharged, but now
as a result of recombinations during a
distillation process. On the basis of that
GC/MS analysis at the treatment plant, it
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 109
was detected, and once again, removed
from the effluent.
In 1983, current monitoring programs would
not detect an illegally discharged or dumped
bioaccumulative organic compounds which ex-
ceeded chronic toxicity levels but did not cause
acute effects. It is evident that an ongoing pro-
gram to monitor effluent, sediments, and
resources should be established.
NONPOINT SOURCES AND LOADINGS
source of all metals except Cd. The contribution
of acid mine drainage to any of these loads is not
well quantified.
A portion of the metals delivered to the fall
line may never reach the estuarine two-layered
portion of the Bay because they are sorbed to the
surface of fine grained sediments which are
deposited in the maximum turbidity zones of
Chesapeake Bay tributaries. These highly efficient
"sediment traps" decrease the riverine metal load
to the Bay, although they may reach the main Bay
following intense storm events (Bieri et al. 1982a).
Riverine Inputs: Metals
A GBP-funded study by the U.S. Geological
Survey estimated loadings of metals at the fall line
of the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers
(Table 25).
Thirteen naturally-occurring metals were
identified and six — Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn —
were found in large enough amounts to indicate
that anthropogenic additions by point and non-
point sources exist above the fall line. The Sus-
quehanna, contributing 50 percent of the
freshwater inflow to the Bay, contributes the
highest loadings of each metal. The Potomac, con-
tributing one-fifth of the freshwater inflow to
Chesapeake Bay, is the second largest riverine
Urban Loadings: Metals
The common metal constituents of urban
runoff are Fe, Pb, Cr, Cu, and Cd. The major
urban sources of these metals are Hampton Roads,
Baltimore, and Washington. Hampton Roads is
at the mouth of the James River, near one of the
most productive oyster regions in the Bay. The
other two cities lie along the fall line and drain
into important freshwater or brackish fish- and
shellfish-spawning grounds. Estimates of metal
loadings for the major metropolitan areas are
presented in Table 26. The data necessary to
calculate these loadings are shown in Appendix D.
It is likely that the loadings of heavy metals
and hydrocarbons from urban runoff have a
TABLE 25.
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL LOADINGS AT THE FALL LINE FOR SIX METALS FROM THE MAJOR
TRIBUTARIES OF CHESAPEAKE BAY FOR THE 1979 TO 1980 PERIOD (VALUES IN POUNDS/DAY)
(FROM LANG AND GRASON 1980)
Metal
Cd-T*
Cr-T
Cu-T
Ni-T
Pb-T
Zn-T
Susquehanna
392
2310
2352
1381
1049
5047
Potomac
24
633
519
657
615
1942
James
36
380
247
386
187
1719
Total
452
3323
3118
2424
1851
8708
*T=Total
-------
110 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 26.
URBAN RUNOFF METAL LOADING FROM THREE MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY
(POUNDS/DAY-1) (BIERI ET AL. 1982)
Pb
Baltimore
Norfolk/Newport
News/Hampton/
Portsmouth
Washington, D.C.
TOTAL
211
157
302
670
Zn
115
90
175
380
Cu
18
12
24
54
Mn
30
18
42
90
Fe
Or
1755
1284
2852
5891
18
24
24
66
Cd
30
6
6
42
Ni
36
24
60
120
greater influence in local receiving waters, such
as the tidal-fresh Potomac River, than on the en-
tire Bay. The local effects of urban runoff may
be one of several factors contributing to the signifi-
cant declines in both the juvenile index and land-
ings that have been observed for both anadromous
and semi-anadromous fish in the Potomac. For
example, urban runoff contributes 28 percent of
the Pb and 15 percent of the Cd to the Potomac
River (Table 27). Therefore, although urban
runoff has primarily a local impact, areas affected
may represent significant or critical habitat for
major resources or food chain species.
Research in smaller tributaries of the Potomac
indicates that these important spawning areas for
alewife, blueback herring, white and yellow
perch, and striped bass (as well as forage fish) are
more likely to have concentrations of trace metals
which exceed EPA water quality criteria (Lipp-
son et al. 1973, Flemer et al. 1983). Seneca Creek,
a tributary of the Potomac which drains a mixed-
use watershed north of Washington, DC, has been
shown to be adversely affected by at least four
water quality constituents — trace metals, sedi-
ment, bacteria, and pH. Copper, Pb, Zn, and
silver (Ag) were among those which chronically
exceeded EPA criteria (Schueler and Sullivan
1982). Lead and Cd in urban runoff are associated
with automobile exhaust, brakes, tires, and leaded
gasoline.
TABLE 27.
HEAVY METAL LOADINGS FROM URBAN RUNOFF
Metal
Pb
Cd
Zn
Cr
Cu
To Chesapeake Bay Basin
19 percent
6 percent
2 percent
1 percent
1 percent
To Tidal-Fresh Potomac
28 percent
15 percent
7 percent
3 percent
3 percent
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 111
Urban Loadings: Hydrocarbons
The GBP estimated that the loading of
hydrocarbons to Chesapeake Bay [using unit
loading rates developed at a Rhode Island site by
Hoffman et al. (1982)], from residential, commer-
cial, and industrial land is greater than 100,000
pounds per day (Table 28). This is a conservative
estimate because highways and roads, significant
hydrocarbon sources, were not differentiated by
the LANDS AT analysis of the basin. The results
indicate that industrial land-uses have the largest
hydrocarbon unit loading rate, followed by
highway, commercial, and residential land-uses.
At a commercial land-use study site, the primary
source of hydrocarbons was found to be
automobile crankcase oil.
It should be noted that moderate amounts of
hydrocarbons in the water column and the bed
sediments have been shown to adversely affect
organisms. Declines in zooplankton populations
are seen when water column concentrations of No.
2 fuel oil exceed 0.1 ppm. Benthic communities
are drastically affected when oiled sediments con-
tain concentrations of 500 ppm of No. 2 fuel oil
(Olsen et al. 1982). Management and control of
hydrocarbons in the Chesapeake Bay basin should
concentrate on:
• Industrial sources — greater care and handl-
ing of fuel and crankcase oil;
• Urban runoff from highways and commer-
cial areas —use of crankcase oil disposal
facilities and maintenance of automobile
gaskets and seals; public education of effects
of careless disposal; and
• Combined sewer overflows — new diversion
structures and/or better control device
maintenance.
Atmospheric Deposition: Metals
The atmospheric deposition of metals to the
Bay has been shown to be continuous and signifi-
cant. The concentrations of metals in the at-
mosphere are proportional to the total mass of the
metals released into the atmosphere from fossil-
fuel combustion, manufacturing processes, and
many other anthropogenic and natural processes
(Bieri et al. 1982a). Metals are deposited as dryfall
(dust) and as dissolved constituents of wetfall
(rain, snow, hail). Estimates based on wetfall dur-
ing six storm events are shown in Table 29. As in-
dicated, Zn is the metal deposited in the highest
TABLE 28.
ESTIMATED LOADING OF HYDROCARBONS TO CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERS FROM URBAN LAND
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Highways
Hydrocarbon
loading factor
(g/m2/yr-1)
0.181
0.62
14.03
8.24
Acreage
Chesapeake Bay
basin5
683,715
(289,995)
(289,995)
unknown
square
meters
2,775x106
(1,177x106)
(1,177x106)
loading
(Ibs/day1)
3,017
4,285
96,554
103,856
i3Loading rate based on polynomial equation developed by Hoffman et al. 1982.
2*4Based on average of factors derived from polynomial and linear equations developed by
Hoffman et al. 1982.
5Based on LANDSAT (from Hartigan et al. I983).
-------
112 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
concentration by atmospheric wetfall. Almost
5000 pounds per day, 31 percent of the total Zn
loadings to the basin, are contributed by deposi-
tion on the Bay and its tributaries. Much of the
deposition is indirect — either with urban runoff
or through leaching of metals by acidic precipita-
tion (Bieri et al. 1982a). Direct impacts of acid
precipitation on freshwater tributaries is not
known, but is being currently studied in some
areas of the Bay.7
Some atmospheric deposition to the Bay may
have traveled from industrial sources in the
midwest United States. However, a climatological
atmospheric dispersion and deposition model
(NOAA 1981) showed that 30 to 40 percent of the
emissions generated within the Chesapeake Bay
"cell" are deposited within the 150,259 sq. mile
(58,000 km2) area. Whether this represents a
significant percentage of the total contribution
from all areas cannot be determined.
Research in the Baltimore region has shown
that aerosols and large particulates settle rapidly
near the city (Baltimore Regional Planning Coun-
cil, unpublished data). The wind patterns near
Baltimore typically demonstrate west-northwest
movement, suggesting that metal emissions from
this regional industrial center may be an impor-
tant source of loadings to Chesapeake Bay.
Research efforts and regional and national
coordination of programs must be emphasized.
Initial efforts could include:
• Development of a centralized data base
containing the results of past and present
research and monitoring of air and water
in the Chesapeake Bay basin;
Coordination of effort through a voluntary
association of concerned and active
researchers;
Monitoring of local sources and deposition
areas;
Research and regulation of deposition
which is potentially harmful to local
resources —crops, waters, soils, human
health, and ecosystems; and
Development of regional strategies by in-
terstate councils or associations.
Agricultural Toxicants: Pesticides and
Herbicides
Agricultural activities do not contribute
significant amounts of metals and petroleum
hydrocarbons to Chesapeake Bay. The chief toxic
constituents of agricultural runoff are pesticides
and herbicides. Because of application rates, crop-
ping patterns, and chemical characteristics, six
herbicides are considered of primary importance
in the Chesapeake Bay basin: atrazine, alachlor
(Lasso), linuron, paraquat, trifloralin, and2,4-D.
More than 200,000 pounds of atrazine, alachlor,
and linuron are applied to corn and soybeans an-
nually (Stevenson and Confer 1978). (All loadings
are shown in Table 30.) Atrazine and other her-
bicides were suspected as a cause in the decline
of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Bay.
TABLE 29.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
Metal
Zn
Fe
Pb
Cu
Ni
Mn
Cd
Pounds per Day
4975
525
205
169
151
133
18
Percent of Total
31
6
4
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 113
However, GBP-sponsored research found that am-
bient atrazine concentrations in the main Bay
rarely exceed 1.0 to 5.0 ppb; linuron concentra-
tions were between 2.0 and 3.0 ppb. High con-
centrations of both pesticides were sometimes
found in near-field waters (up to 140 ppb); such
levels would have significant impacts on SAV in
these areas (Figure 38). With half-lives of 2 to 26
weeks, the levels of herbicides in the main estuary
and in sediments remain relatively low (Kemp et
al. 1982a).
Commonly-used herbicides and insecticides in
the basin are shown in Table 31. The modes of
transport are derived from field experiments and
estimates of water solubilities of the chemicals.
It can be seen that these compounds are both
water-soluble and sorb to soil particles. The
dissolved fraction is more toxic to fish than the
portion adsorbed to sediment, and the fish tox-
icity values represent concentrations in the water.
The chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as Tox-
aphene, primarily adsorb to soil. The organic
phosphates —Ethoprop, Phorate, Malathion, and
Dimethoate — tend to dissolve in water. Therefore,
controlling both soil erosion and runoff is
necessary for keeping pesticides and herbicides on
agricultural fields and preventing environmental
degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Results of two
pesticide reduction programs —the Virginia
Leafspot Advisory Program and the Integrated
Pest Management Program in Maryland —are
discussed in a later section on the effectiveness of
nonpoint strategies.
Pesticides and herbicides can enter the estuary
from other sources: widespread spraying of
marshes and residential areas for mosquito con-
trol; spraying for gypsy moths; herbicide use for
weed control along road and powerline right-of-
ways; runoff from residential areas; and improper
disposal of unwanted pesticides in waterways. It
should be noted that a pesticide widely used for
mosquito control in marshes —malathion —is very
toxic to fish (Table 31).
To keep herbicides and pesticides on
agricultural fields, both runoff controls, for highly
persistent herbicides dissolved in water, and ero-
sion controls, for those which are adsorbed to
organic soil colloids, are necessary. In addition to
protecting water quality, control of herbicide and
pesticide losses through the soil conservation pro-
grams has direct and immediate financial benefits
for farmers. Some additional practices which have
been shown to significantly reduce loadings,
minimize effects, and which have potential in the
Bay area are:
• Reduction of pesticide use; increase in the
use of integrated pest management (IPM)
(now in use, see section on Existing
Strategies);
• Timing application periods to avoid rain-
fall events and subsequent large losses to
productive freshwater-spawning areas and
TABLE 30.
LOADINGS AND TRANSPORT OF HERBICIDES TO CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERS (MARYLAND AND
VIRGINIA) (STEVENSON AND CONFER 1978, USDA 1975)
Herbicide
Atrazine
Alachlor (Lasso)
Linuron
2,4-D
Trifluralin
Paraquat
Lbs Applied Per Year
108,000
97,000
31,000
11,000
11,000
10,000
Primary Transport Mode
sea1., water
sed., water
sediment
sed., water
sediment
sediment
268,000
-------
114 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
0) 4
O
•O 6
O
a. 4
c 9
0) ^
8. 6
a
< 4
2
Potamogeton/Atrazine-l
Control
15 ppb
100 ppb
500 ppb
3456
Week of Experiment
FIGURE 38. Measurements of apparent photosynthesis of Potamogeton
perfoliatus treated with varying concentrations of atrazine.
other habitats;
Use of non-persistent pesticides and her-
bicides that degrade quickly; use of
"biologicals" such as Dipel, BTI; (long-
term) development of pesticides that bet-
ter resist wash-off;
Reduction or elimination of unnecessary or
low priority uses of pesticides, especially
near waterways (e.g., spraying of estuarine
marshes); replacement with alternatives
such as BTI;
Groundcover planting to reduce weed
populations, especially along roadways and
powerlines, to reduce herbicide use;
Roadside or powerline mowing as an alter-
native to chemical treatments; and
Use of resistant crop varieties which require
fewer treatments (USDA 1975).
The effectiveness and appropriateness of these
programs will, of course, vary with region, crop,
season, etc.
Marine Activities
Marine activities contribute a variety of
organic and inorganic pollutants to Bay waters.
Major industrial shipyards, which have NPDES
permits, contribute to the point source totals (Ap-
pendix D). The discharge or spillage of fuel oil
and hazardous materials from ships is also a prob-
lem. However, copper and copper compounds,
which have been used as antifoulants since the
17th century, may be a major "pollutant" from
marine activities.
In 1925, following 20 years of paint research,
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 115
TABLE 31.
TOXICITY OF HERBICIDES AND INSECTICIDES USED IN CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
(USDA 1975).
Crop
Predominate
transport
mode mg L"1
Toxicity
fish LC50
days
Persistence
in soil,
Herbicide (trade name)
Atrazine (AAtrex)
Alachlor (Lasso)
Linuron (Lorox)
Insecticides
Carbofuran (Furadan)
Ethoprop (Mocap)
Phorate (Thiem)
Malathion
Dimethoate (Cygon)
Carbaryl (Sevin)
Toxaphene*
S = sediment, W,= water, U = unknown
'Will be phased out by 1986.
Corn
Corn
Soybeans
Corn,
Soybeans
Corn
Soybeans
Vegetables
Ornamentals
Marshes
Soybeans
Soybeans
Corn
S, W
S, W
S
W
U
S, W
W
W
S, W
S
12.6
2.3
16.0
0.21
1.0
0.0055
0.019
9.6
1.0
0.003
300-500
40-70
120
cuprous oxide became a primary constituent of the
U.S. Navy's standard coal tar-rosin anti-fouling
paint (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
1952). The minimum acceptable leaching rate for
cuprous oxide paints is 10 ug/cm2/day, although
leaching rates immediately after application are
as high as 1,000 ug/cm2/day. Also of concern are
organotin compounds which are currently being
developed for use in bottom paints and other ap-
plications. They are two or three times more toxic
to biota than copper, and leach at a much lower
rate of 4 to 10 ug/cm2/day.
Accurate estimates of loadings from anti-
fouling paints are extremely difficult to quantify.
Maintenance and wear varies considerably among
boat types, materials, uses, and locations. Further-
more, the loading from the 273,800 registered
boats in Maryland and Virginia are not equally
distributed over the Bay throughout the year.
Their use is confined primarily to the summer
months and more concentrated in near-shore areas
of the Bay. As a result, marinas and poorly flushed
sub-estuaries may be significant nonpoint sources
of Cu to local areas.
Copper loadings were estimated using two
methods — one based upon how much paint would
be applied to registered boats and another on the
basis of the minimum leaching rate necessary to
prevent fouling. It was assumed that every
registered boat that is not aluminum is painted
annually with copper-based paint and that no
unregistered boat is ever painted, which is prob-
ably a conservative assumption. The range of
values shown in Table 32-from 488 to 969
pounds of Cu per day —is too large to make a
definitive statement about loadings and effects to
-------
116 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 32.
COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE LOADINGS OF CUPROUS OXIDE
TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN1
Method
Total gallons applied to registered boats
Total gallons necessary to maintain 10 ug/cm2/day
leaching rate on registered boats
1Calculations are shown in Appendix D.
gallons/year
76,884
38,690
Ibs/Cu/day
969
488
the Bay generally. However, estimated loadings
are similar to those from industrial and municipal
point sources.
Loadings of bis(tributyltin)oxide (TBTO) and
tributyltin floride (TBTF), used on larger ships,
are estimated to be from 7 to 16 pounds per day
(Table 33). Although large commercial ships, U.S.
Navy ships, and smaller leisure craft can be
treated with either biocide, there is an increas-
ing use of organotins over Cu-based paints. The
organotins last longer, are available in a variety
of colors, provide more consistent protection, and
kill a broader spectrum of biological foulers.
Marinas and other areas with high concentra-
tions of boats may be significant nonpoint sources
of Cu, TBTF, and TBTO to local areas. In
Maryland waters, there are 268 public marinas
and hundreds of private ones. In Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, there are a total of 313 public
and private facilities. There are 180 commercial
marinas in Virginia with a storage capacity for
approximately 10 percent of the registered boats.
The speciation of Cu and Sn in the estuarine
system is extremely complex and current scientific
knowledge does not allow us to fully estimate the
effects on the ecosystem. Laboratory studies under
TABLE 33.
TOTAL ORGANOTIN COMPOUND NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN 4 TO 10 ug/cm2/DAY LEACHING RATE
AND PREVENT FOULING
Number of ships entering
Baltimore Harbor per day
10.21
10.21
avg/ft2/ship
80,0002
80,0002
leaching rate
Ibs/ft2/day
8x10-63
8x10-54
Total
Ibs/day
7
16
13,733 ships at Baltimore Harbor in 1981 (Maryland Port Administration, 1982)
2Personal Communication "Application Rate of Antifouling Paints," Chandler, Bethlehem Steel
Shipyard, 1983.
3Equivalent to 4 ug/cm2/day
Equivalent to 10 ug/cm2/day
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 117
controlled conditions provide the most accurate
assessment available on the toxicity of metals. To
ensure the protection of aquatic life, the EPA
Water Quality Criteria for Cu are 23 ug L'1
(acute) and 4 ug L"1 (chronic) in salt water. Com-
parable criteria have not been developed for Sn
or organotin but research on the levels and effects
has demonstrated their toxicity. Some concentra-
tions of Sn in Bay-waters (152 ug L'1 in a water
sample taken below a sewage treatment outfall)
and sediments (239,633 ug kg'1 in Baltimore Har-
bor) exceed levels shown to be toxic to fish, algae,
barnacles, shrimp, and tubeworms (Hallas and
Cooney 1981).
Dredging and Disposal
Sedimentation and dredging of navigational
channels and ports is a continuing process in the
Chesapeake Bay estuary. Research conducted by
the Bay Program found that there were several
documented or probable environmental effects
from dredging and disposal activities. This infor-
mation emphasizes the importance of thoroughly
evaluating future sites.
Major channels and disposal sites — The two
major dredging projects in the Maryland portion
of the Bay are centered around Baltimore Har-
bor and the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D)
Canal. Since 1870, 82 million cubic yards of
material have been dredged from the Baltimore
Harbor. The approach and connecting channels
have had approximately 95 million cubic yards
of material removed. Dredging the C & D Canal
area required the movement of 100 million cubic
yards of material from the canal itself and 55
million cubic yards from the canal's approach
channel (Schubel and Wise 1979).
In the past, most material was dumped into
open-water sites in the main Bay or diked near-
by dredging sites. A dike is presently being con-
structed on Hart and Miller Islands for disposal
of contaminated spoils from Baltimore Harbor
and from the Chesapeake's main channel which
leads into the Harbor. Future Federal dredging
projects include deepening and maintaining the
Baltimore Harbor, the Harbor approaches, the C
& D Canal connection, and maintaining the C
& D Canal.
The major dredging projects in the Virginia
portion of the Bay are centered around Hampton
Roads and Norfolk. Maintaining the port of
Hampton Roads requires 3.8 million cubic yards
to be dredged annually. This would increase by
1.2 million cubic yards if proposals for deepen-
ing the shipping channels to 55 feet are approved.
Almost 70 percent of the sediments dredged in the
Norfolk District from 1970 to 1980 were placed
in the Craney Island disposal area because of their
potential contamination by toxicants.
Environmental considerations — The major en-
vironmental effects from dredging and spoil
disposal operations have been well-documented
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National
Dredged Materials Research Program. In addi-
tion, several studies have been conducted locally
(Cronin et al. 1970, also see Table 34). All of these
studies suggest that, in selecting a disposal site,
the following objectives should be considered:
• The material dumped should be no more
toxic than the existing bed sediments to pre-
vent environmental degradation;
• The receiving area should be one of active,
continuous deposition to prevent movement
of the spoils;
• The receiving area should be continuously
below the wave base to prevent resuspen-
sion; and
• To prevent ecological impacts, the receiv-
ing area should not contain important ben-
thic organisms, or be near critical habitat
areas for other organisms.
Several sources of information have been
developed by CBP researchers to help Bay
managers meet these objectives (Figure 39). They
are as follows:
• The Contamination Index (CI), a measure
of the relative enrichment of sediments
above natural levels by six metals (Chapter
2-State of the Bay);
• Historic shoaling data for the Virginia
(Byrne et al. 1982) and Maryland (Kerhin
et al. 1982) portions of the main Bay
(Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmen-
tal Change);
• Bottom-wind 'wave orbital velocities
developed by Dean and Biggs, 1981; and
• The location of commercially important
shellfish bars (Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of
-------
118 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
FIGURE 39d.
Metal enrichment of bottom sediments of
Chesapeake Bay, based on the
Contamination Index (Flemer et al. 1983).
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 119
FIGURE 39b.
Major shoaling areas in Virginia (Byrne et
al. 1982) and Maryland (Kerhin et al.
1982).
-------
120 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
TABLE 34.
DOCUMENTED OR LIKELY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM DREDGING AND DISPOSAL (AURAND
AND MAMANTOV 1982)
Physical-
Chemical—
Biological-
topographical changes, increased suspended sediment,
altered sediment type
disposal of hazardous substances, release of sediment-bound
contaminants
nutrient release, oxygen depletion, elevated levels of turbidity
Environmental Change), major fish-
spawning areas, and SAV beds.
Furthermore, another potential strategy in-
volving the disposal of clean (i.e., noncon-
taminated) dredge spoil might involve overboard
disposal of this spoil in areas where bed sediments
are heavily contaminated with toxic materials.
This would serve to cover and isolate toxic bot-
tom sediments. Other criteria (i.e., receiving area
being one of active deposition and below wave
base) would have to be met. These sources of in-
formation will provide some guidance in locating
potential disposal sites. However, site-specific
studies on a particular location must be conducted
prior to any final disposal decision.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NONPOINT
SOURCE CONTROLS
Local planning agencies, in cooperation with
state agencies and the EPA, are responsible for the
development of local programs and management
alternatives for controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution. This planning and regulatory program
was created by section 208 of the Clean Water
Act. All nonpoint sources of pollution within the
planning area (i.e., agricultural and mining ac-
tivities, construction, land disposal, and irriga-
tion) must be identified and be evaluated for con-
trol measures and land-use requirements. The
EPA's recommended planning strategy involves
five steps: 1) identification and assessment of
water quality problems and nonpoint sources of
pollution, 2) identification and assessment of alter-
native management practices, 3) best manage-
ment practice selection and alternative control
program formulation, 4) evaluation and testing
of alternative control programs, and 5) selection
of control program(s) for implementation.
Urban Activities
Water quality sampling conducted during the
208 program showed very high concentrations of
particulate and organic materials from urban ac-
tivities in the Baltimore region. In the Baltimore
region, which includes Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties, and
Baltimore City, there are a variety of best
management practices used, including solid-waste
management and reduction, street cleaning and
runoff storage, and collection system controls
(RFC 1980). Water quality sampling data have
been limited; therefore, the effectiveness of these
controls is uncertain. In Virginia, the Hampton
Roads Water Quality Agency (HRWQA) has been
evaluating water quality in the lower James River
basin. Evaluations are being conducted on the ef-
fectiveness of existing urban runoff controls in the
region and the effectiveness of selected BMPs in
the Lynnhaven River basin, an urban watershed.
Preliminary results from the EPA's Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program indicates that heavy
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 121
metals, especially Pb, Sn, and Cu are frequently
present in concentrations which are considered to
be threatening to beneficial uses (U.S. EPA
1982c). Organic priority pollutants are found in
certain urban runoff discharges; monitoring is
recommended in those areas where potable water
supplies are in close proximity to urban runoff
(U.S. EPA 1982c). A survey of the effectiveness
of urban control programs found that some deten-
tion basins are extremely effective — with pollu-
tant reductions of 90 percent or more, including
high removal of metals — while others are "con-
sistently poor performers." Preliminary results also
indicate that recharge basins offer promise
because of their effectiveness and relatively low
cost (U.S. EPA 1982c).
Many of the preliminary findings from the
NURP projects are applicable (where needed) to
Baltimore, MD; Richmond, VA; Hampton Roads,
VA; Washington, D.C.; and Harrisburg, PA, the
major urban areas in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Researchers determined that source controls, such
as urban housekeeping and solid-waste disposal,
were the most effective strategies in the older ur-
ban core areas. In the fringe urban areas with
lower development densities, structural controls,
such as wet detention ponds, grassed infiltration
strips, and recharge basins, reduced the levels of
toxicants in receiving waters. Conventional street-
sweeping was only effective in areas with long
periods of dry weather.8
Generally, the effectiveness of many of the
reduction strategies is limited by technological
restraints, costs, and local site conditions. In some
cases, very high degrees of removal may be
necessary because of the toxic potential to humans
and organisms. Reduced loadings, especially over
an entire urban area, are prohibitively expensive
in some cases and must be limited to those areas
which can be improved most conveniently. Con-
trol programs in central urban areas, which could
provide significant reductions in large loadings of
pollutants, are limited because of density and
space restrictions (U.S. EPA 1982c).
Pesticides and Herbicides
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act of 1972 required that farmers and
others who apply pesticides commercially obtain
a pesticide applicator's license by 1977. It is
estimated that by early 1978, almost every com-
mercial pest control operator and 85 percent of
the farmers in the Washington Metropolitan Area
were certified (WashCOG 1978). The licensing
procedure, designed to educate farmers on the use,
handling, and care of pesticides is considered to
be more effective and less expensive than remov-
ing pesticides using conventional or advanced
water treatment processes (WashCOG 1978).
Conservation plans, designed to reduce the
losses of soil and pesticides from erosion and pro-
tect water resources, are developed and im-
plemented by local soil conservation districts with
assistance from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
According to the Baltimore Regional Planning
Council, "limitations on staffing and on the funds
available to help farmers implement these plans
keeps this program from achieving its full poten-
tial" (RPC 1978). These pesticide reduction
strategies must be supplemented by increased en-
forcement of pesticide controls, additional
technical assistance to farmers, and support for
research on farm management practices which
reduce reliance on chemical pesticides (WashCOG
1978).
The use of alternative pesticides, particularly
bacterial diseases, has become more common, par-
ticularly for large-scale spraying. The bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), marketed under the
name Dipel or Thuricide, has been used exten-
sively in the Maryland and Virginia areas for con-
trol of the gypsy moth. Pilot programs to evaluate
the effectiveness of a related pesticide, B. thur-
ingiensis israeliensis (BTI), for the control of mos-
quitoes in marshes have begun in Maine and in
the New York/New Jersey area. Two local efforts
to reduce pesticide use (as well as costs and energy
expenditures) are described below: one (Virginia)
is a timing strategy, the other (Maryland) involves
integrated pest management (IPM).
Case Study: Reduction and Timing of
Herbicide Applications: The Virginia Leafspot
Advisory Program —
A pilot project in southeast Virginia, which
monitors temperature and humidity conditions
and recommends fungicide application informa-
tion, is saving money and energy for local peanut
-------
122 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
farmers. Early Leafspot and Late Leafspot are
caused by fungi that require high relative humid-
ity (95 percent or above) and warm temperatures
as a stimulus to grow and infect peanut leaves
(Phipps 1981). The project has established stations
at Blackstone and Suffolk, Virginia, which
monitor environmental conditions and recom-
mend spraying after two consecutive days of
adverse conditions. Growers can call a toll-free
Virginia number, contact county agents, or listen
for advisories on radio and television programs.
Spraying less frequently than under a tradi-
tional six-day schedule, farmers have been able
to reduce applications, control leafspot, maintain
yields, and save approximately 8 to 10 dollars per
acre each time they do not spray. Results for one
test farm are shown in Table 35. It can be seen
that in every case, the yields are higher under the
advisory schedule than the standard scheule. In
1982, only two fungicide sprays were recom-
mended, four less than usual. Because each spray
on Virginia's 94,000 acres of peanuts costs approx-
imately 906,000 dollars, there was a potential sav-
ings of 3.6 million dollars state-wide.
Case Study: Integrated Pest Management:
Maryland's Soybean Program —
The Mexican bean, beetle is a destructive pest
to soybeans in several mid-Atlantic states, in-
cluding Maryland. An effective IPM program, run
by the Maryland Department of Agriculture and
the USDA, uses a parasitic wasp to suppress the
Mexican bean beetle population and reduce the
need for chemical controls. Monitoring and
evaluation are conducted to ensure that the crop
is sufficiently protected. Although unusually large
beetle populations may require an application of
insecticide, the quantity needed is below that re-
quired without the IPM program.
Marine Activities
Recreational boating and commercial shipping
have been recognized as a source of estuarine
water pollution, most significant in areas of the
Bay with large numbers of boats and maritime
traffic. In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, some
facilities which are used for painting and clean-
ing boats use local water and subsequently return
it untreated. Baltimore and Harford Counties are
also major recreational boating areas, have con-
siderable commercial traffic, and are subject to
pollution from marine activities. Impacts com-
monly noted in the Baltimore region include shore
erosion, dumping of sewage and wastes, and oil
TABLE 35.
EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES AND SPRAY PROGRAMS FOR CONTROL OF CERCOSPORA LEAFSPOT
OF PEANUTS IN VIRGINIA* (PHIPPS 1981)
Total no.
Treatment
Benlate/Super 6
Benlate/Super 6
Outer/Super 6
Outer/Super 6
Bravo 500
Bravo 500
Kocide 404S
Kocide 404S
Unsprayed Check
% leafspot
Schedule
Standard
Advisory
Standard
Advisory
Standard
Advisory
Standard
Advisory
Yield
sprays
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
at harvest
26
48
11
49
4
21
38
61
97
(Ibs/ac)
4345
4380
4231
4412
4027
4390
4198
4300
3381
'Savage Farm Rt., Suffolk, 1982
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 123
spillage. The RPC's report on marine activities in
Baltimore County concludes, "it seems likely that
water pollution problems are associated with some
of the marina activities, but no water quality data
are available to substantiate this belief" (RFC
1980).
Dredging
The Chesapeake Bay contains two major com-
mercial ports, Baltimore and Norfolk, which
together load approximately 90 percent of the
domestic coal exports, excluding the Great Lakes.
However, because of the Bay's importance as a
commercial fishery and recreational area, the en-
vironmental and economic effects of both private
and public dredging projects are major issues
within the Chesapeake Bay region. To ensure that
the quality of the Bay does not deteriorate in the
future, the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Baltimore
and Norfolk district offices and the States of
Maryland and Virginia set performance standards
and issue permits for both new starts and
maintenance dredging projects.
Maintenance dredging, private dredging, and
harbor expansion projects are known to cause in-
creased turbidity. Along with the disposal of
dredge materials, which are sometimes con-
taminated by toxicants, these activities are viewed
by fishermen and environmentalists as being
detrimental to fisheries. Generally, it appears that
current operations do not produce major conse-
quences on the ecology of the Bay (Aurand and
Mamantov 1982). However, local effects may be
more pronounced.
SUMMARY
Nonpoint control programs have not been suc-
cessful enough in reducing the harmful loadings
of metals and organic compounds. Many NFS pro-
visions have been voluntary, some have not been
enforced adequately, and some represent only
preliminary stages of planning and control. Also,
impacts of some nonpoint sources are not fully
known. All four states have reported that nonpoint
source pollution will likely be a major reason for
failing to meet the fishable/swimmable goals of
the Clean Water Act in the near future.
The previous sections discussed the sources,
fate, and potential effects of toxicants in
Chesapeake Bay. It is apparent that toxic
materials enter the estuary from a variety of
sources, some not well understood; that the iden-
tity or impacts of many substances is now known;
and that many toxicants accumulate in Bay
sediments or in the tissues of organisms. Further-
more, in many cases, current permitting, monitor-
ing, or enforcement programs fail to detect or con-
trol toxic inputs. The following recommendations
are the result of the CBP studies, and are designed
to strengthen existing programs and to help in-
itiate other efforts to control toxicants in
Chesapeake Bay.
The overall strategy is to determine and
monitor sources of toxicants, to identify toxic
discharges, to assess potential impacts on receiv-
ing waters and important resources species, and
to initiate, strengthen, or coordinate programs to
control both point and nonpoint inputs of toxic
materials. The eventual goal is to reduce loadings
and concentrations of toxicants to ranges which
will not limit healthy populations of finfish,
shellfish, SAV, etc. as well as the food chains on
which they depend, and also to prevent accumula-
tions of toxicants in tissue of food organisms which
could represent potential threats to human health.
One recognized difficulty in dealing with tox-
icants is the almost overwhelming variety of
materials —particularly synthetic organic
compounds — which have been identified in
discharges to the Bay by the CBP researchers;
many of these are known to be toxic at some con-
centration. However, demonstrating clear impacts
in the naturally variable estuarine environment
is difficult in many cases. Nevertheless, in light
of the analyses and research summarized in
Chapter 2, it would be inadvisable to discount im-
pacts of at least some of the more prevalent tox-
icants. It is further recognized that ongoing and
proposed research and monitoring programs will
supply needed information for control of other
toxicants. This information can be incorporated
into management programs as an ongoing part of
the toxicant control strategy.
The Bay-wide point and nonpoint source tox-
icant strategies presented below are intended to
be implemented simultaneously. Initial focus is
-------
124 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
designed to be on 1) areas^ known to be heavily
impacted by toxic inputs; 2) critical resource
habitat areas; and 3) materials identified as highly
toxic and widespread in the Chesapeake Bay en-
vironment. Results of the initial programs can be
coupled with monitoring and research inputs to
guide toxicant control efforts elsewhere in the Bay
and to refine or modify programs already in place.
BAY-WIDE TOXICANT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OBJECTIVE:
CONTROL AND MONITOR POINT AND NONPOINT
SOURCES OF TOXIC MATERIALS TO MITIGATE THE
POTENTIAL OR DEMONSTRATED IMPACT OF TOX-
ICANTS ON THE LIVING RESOURCES OF THE BAY.
General Recommendations
1. The states9 and the EPA, through the
Management Committee, should utilize the
existing water quality management process
to develop a basin-wide plan, that includes
implementation schedules, to control tox-
icants from point and nonpoint sources by
July 1, 1984.
Point Source Recommendations
2. The states, through the NPDES permit pro-
gram, should use biological and chemical
analyses of industrial and municipal effluents
to identify and control toxic discharges to the
Bay and its tributaries.
Biomonitoring and chemical analyses (GC/MS
"fingerprint") of effluents can be used to identify
toxic discharges and to assess potential impacts on
receiving waters. Initial focus should be on all ma-
jor discharges, facilities known or thought to be
releasing priority pollutants, and POTWs receiv-
ing industrial wastes. In developing this protocol,
the states should follow the EPA's policy and
recommendations (Appendix D). Priority areas for
implementation should be the Patapsco,
Elizabeth, and James Rivers, to be expanded to
other areas as appropriate. All effluent biological
and chemical data will be stored in the EPA's Per-
mit Compliance System (PCS), as well as in the
GBP data base. Monitoring of effluents should be
coordinated with the Bay-wide monitoring plan
outlined in Appendix F; this includes analysis of
toxicant levels in sediments, water column, and
in tissues of finfish and shellfish.
3. The states and the EPA, through the Manage-
ment Committee, should utilize the
Chesapeake Bay Program findings in develop-
ing or revising water quality criteria and stan-
dards for toxicants.
Initial priority should be given to pollutants iden-
tified as highly toxic and prevalent in the Bay,
specifically chlorine, cadmium, copper, zinc,
nickel, chromium, lead and, in tributaries, atra-
zine and linuron. Numerical criteria should be
developed when needed and incorporated into
state water quality standards as soon as feasible.
Site-specific criteria that are developed should be
based on biological and chemical characteristics
of individual receiving waters according to the
EPA guidelines.
4. The states should base NPDES permits on the
EPA effluent guidelines or revised state water
quality standards, whichever are more
stringent. Furthermore, the states should en-
force all toxicant limitations in NPDES
permits.
The EPA should maintain its current schedule for
promulgating BAT effluent guidelines. To
facilitate writing of permits, the EPA should con-
tinue to transfer knowledge and expertise
developed during the effluent guideline process
to the states. The states should also consider in-
creasing the number of training programs for per-
mit writers.
5. Pretreatment control programs should be
strengthened where needed to reduce the
discharge of hazardous and toxic materials.
The pretreatment program in various basins has
contributed to reductions of toxicants in some
municipal discharges, but the GBP has found that,
as a group, treatment plants continue to be ma-
jor contributors of heavy metals, organic com-
pounds, and other toxicants including chlorine.
Current EPA regulations require pretreatment
programs to be developed by July 1, 1983.
-------
Chapter 4: Toxic Compounds 125
Municipal dischargers who have not submitted
their program should do so as soon as possible. The
EPA and the states should enforce these programs.
6. Chlorine control strategies should be im-
plemented (or continued, where now in
place) in areas of critical resource importance.
Strategies should focus on the reduction or
elimination of chlorination, use of alternative
biocides, and the reduction of the impact of
effluents.
Major areas of emphasis would include fresh or
brackish fish spawning and nursery areas, and
shellfish spawning areas. Maryland and Virginia
have already begun to reduce chlorine residuals,
evaluate site-specific effects of chlorine, and con-
sider environmental effects in siting and permit-
ting of dischargers. Specific programs and
strategies for chlorine are described in Appendix
D.
Nonpoint Source Recommendations
7. The EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the states should utilize the CBP program
findings and other new information in
developing permit conditions for dredge-and-
fill and 404 permits.
Information developed (or assembled) by the
Chesapeake Bay Program includes: a measure of
the relative enrichment of sediments by six metals,
concentrations of organic materials in surface
sediments, shoaling and erosion patterns, distribu-
tion of sediment types, location of submerged
aquatic vegetation beds, shellfish beds, fish
spawning and nursery areas, as well as relation-
ships between habitat quality and living resources.
8. A Bay-wide effort should be made to ensure
proper handling and application techniques
of pesticides and herbicides, particularly in
light of the potential increase in use of these
materials in low-till farming practices.
Innovative strategies, such as integrated pest
management (IPM) and reduction and timing of
application have proven to be successful in the Bay
area. The states should encourage the use of these
reduction strategies, support runoff and erosion
control programs, demonstration projects, and
monitor the fate and effect of those substances on
the Bay's aquatic environment.
9. Research, monitoring programs, and control
strategies to reduce urban runoff should be
continued and strengthened by the localities
which are most directly affected.
The states and urban areas should develop and
implement plans which identify urban manage-
ment strategies to protect water quality in those
areas where urban runoff controls provide the
most effective results.
10. The states and the EPA should evaluate the
magnitude and effects of other sources of tox-
icants, including atmospheric deposition, acid
precipitation, contaminated groundwater,
acid mine drainage, hazardous waste disposal
and storage sites, accidental spills, and an-
tifouling paints.
As information becomes available, it should be
factored into control and permit processes, etc.
For example, models indicate that 30 to 40 per-
cent of atmospheric emissions generated within
the Bay area are deposited there. The CBP has
estimated potentially significant inputs of metals
from acid mine drainage and antifouling paints,
particularly in tributaries. Many of these toxicant
sources are currently being investigated by Federal
and state agencies.
-------
PART III
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
-------
CHAPTER 5
BASIN PROFILES
Joseph Macknis
Gail B. Mackiernan
Mary E. Gillelan
INTRODUCTION
What is the cost to clean the Bay? What do
we have to do to re-establish Bay grasses or to in-
crease striped bass harvests? Chesapeake Bay is
too diverse an ecological system to allow a single
answer to these questions. In addition, the various
salinity, depth, and energy regimes the Bay pro-
vides for living resources at different times
throughout their life cycles are influenced by a
great number of factors. Certainly, nutrient and
toxic substances present in runoff from cropland
and urban areas, as well as in effluent discharged
from municipal and industrial point sources are
primary factors. However, the relative magnitude
of each of these factors may vary in intensity and
importance throughout the year and within each
of the eight major drainage areas discharging to
the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Furthermore, cer-
tain environmental conditions, such as circulation
patterns or substrate, may be more favorable to
particular resources in one basin than in another.
This chapter recognizes the unique nature of
each basin discharging to the Chesapeake Bay and
summarizes information on area, population
(1950, 1980, 2000), land use (1980), and sources
of toxic (total metal) and nutrient loads within
the basin. (A more detailed fact sheet is provided
in Appendix B.) In addition, a general descrip-
tion of the basin's resource and water quality con-
ditions and trends is included followed by a sum-
mary of major existing policies and programs to
address these issues. Lastly, the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads is presented as
are specific recommmendations to mitigate or pre-
vent water quality problems within the basin.
The effectiveness of the management strategies
in reducing existing (1980) and future (2000)
nutrient loads within each basin is illustrated in
the form of bar charts in Figures 42 through 49.
The effectiveness of the management strategies (P
ban, Level 2, and TP = 2) in reducing existing
(1980) nutrient loadings has been extrapolated to
provide an estimate of their effectiveness in reduc-
ing future (2000) loadings. Corresponding percent
reductions in nutrient loads and estimates of
present-value implementation costs for manage-
ment strategies are included with each bar graph.
To allow comparison of present-value costs and
percent reductions in nutrient loads, the present-
value cost to remove one pound of nutrient has
been calculated and is included on the bar graphs.
This allows comparison of strategies on a uniform
basis, and identification of the least-cost alter-
native. (Although the TP = 1, TN = 6 and Future
TP = 1, TN = 6 strategies limit both phosphorus
and nitrogen effluent concentrations, implemen-
tation costs are presented in terms of phosphorus
or nitrogen control alone.) More detailed infor-
mation regarding costs may be found in Appen-
dix B.
129
-------
130 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
UPPER
CHESAPEAKE BAY
(THE
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER BASIN)
The upper Bay represents the estuarine por-
tion of the Susquehanna River and extends from
the Susquehanna Flats to the Patuxent River basin
on the western shore and to the Choptank River
on the Eastern Shore, including all tributaries in
between. The area draining to the upper
Chesapeake Bay encompasses over 30,000 square
miles (77,700 km2), almost half of the Bay's 64,000
square mile (165,760 km2) drainage area. It can
be divided into three areas: the Susquehanna
River basin, the western Chesapeake, and the up-
per Eastern Shore. The Susquehanna basin, stret-
ching from the Adirondocks in New York to the
Coastal Plain in Maryland, provides more than
90 percent of the freshwater discharged to the
upper-Bay and is the major source of nutrients to
the upper-Bay.
Resources and Water Quality
The upper Bay in the vicinity of the Sus-
quehanna Flats is a major freshwater-fish spawn-
ing area. However, in recent years the success of
these species has declined greatly, particularly for
shad and river herring, white and yellow perch,
and striped bass. The once-abundant beds of
submerged vegetation have been reduced or
eliminated except in a few areas; most remain-
ing beds consist of the introduced species Eura-
sian watermilfoil. The harvest of soft crabs has
been particularly impacted by the loss of SAV.
Prior to 1970, the area at the mouth of the Chester
River was a good oyster recruitment and harvest
area. However, spat set has been reduced to near-
zero since 1971, and present harvest depends on
the planting of seed from other areas. The upper
Bay area has been experiencing oyster mortalities
in summer, probably due to disease and/or low
dissolved oxygen levels. Soft clam populations
were decimated by Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972,
and recovery has been slow, with numerous sum-
mer mortalities of unknown cause. Recently,
SUSQUEHANNA BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 27,100 square miles; 17,344,000 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 1980 2000
3096.7
LAND USE (1980):
3693.5 4080.6
Percent of Total
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
18.3
2.2
16.2
17.5
61.8
2.4
TOXIC SUBSTANCES: Fall line metal loads of
12,531 Ibs/day indicate additions from municipal
and industrial point sources are occurring. No
discharges below the fall line.
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
2,900,000
Nitrogen
58,200,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 7
Municipal* 16
Cropland 60
Other nonpoint
sources 17
Total
100
1
9
85
5
100
*Number of dischargers
Industrial 15, Municipal 118
however, clam numbers (and harvest) have been
good in the vicinity of the Annapolis Bay Bridge
and south. The upper Bay was once a major
waterfowl wintering area; however, because of
the loss of SAV, waterfowl populations have
shifted down-Bay or even to other states.
Analysis of main-Bay sediment samples in-
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 131
dicates that organic compounds and metals are
abundant in upper-Bay sediments. Depth-
averaged mean concentrations for total nitrogen
indicate that the waters are presently over-
enriched with respect to total nitrogen. Trend
analysis indicates that both annual and seasonal
chlorophyll a concentrations and annual total
phosphorus and nitrate/nitrite concentrations are
increasing in upper-Bay waters. The increase in
nutrient concentrations appears to be contributing
to the temporal and spatial increase in low dis-
solved oxygen levels observed in the main chan-
nel bottom waters.
The relative sources of nutrients and toxic
materials to the upper Bay vary by sub-basin. For
example, intensive agricultural land-use in the
Susquehanna basin generates significant nutrient
loadings; industrial and urban complexes in the
West Chesapeake basin contribute large amounts
of toxic materials. In terms of general water qual-
ity, however, nutrient enrichment appears to be
critical. During an average rainfall year, the up-
per Chesapeake Bay receives more than 5 million
pounds of phosphorus, almost 40 percent of the
total phosphorus load delivered to the Bay, and
76 million pounds of nitrogen, approximately 52
percent of the total nitrogen load delivered to the
Bay. Figure 40 illustrates the nutrient contribu-
tion from the Susquehanna, West Chesapeake,
and upper Eastern Shore to the upper Bay dur-
ing average year rainfall conditions, 1980 land
uses, and 1980 point source loadings. The Sus-
quehanna is the dominant source of phosphorus,
contributing 53 percent of the total phosphorus
load to the upper Bay. The West Chesapeake is
second, contributing 44 percent of the total load,
and the upper Eastern Shore is the smallest, con-
tributing 3 percent of the total phosphorus load
reaching the upper Bay. The Susquehanna is also
the dominant source of nitrogen, contributing 77
percent of the nitrogen delivered to the upper Bay.
The West Chesapeake and upper Eastern Shore
areas contribute 21 percent and 2 percent,
respectively.
It is important to recognize not only the
magnitude of the nutrient contribution from each
of the three areas discharging to the upper Bay,
but the relative contribution from nonpoint and
point sources within each basin. The Susquehanna
and upper Eastern Shore are dominated by non-
point sources which account for 76 and 60 per-
cent, respectively, of the phosphorus and 90 per-
cent of the nitrogen loads from within each basin.
The West Chesapeake is dominated by point
sources which account for 85 percent of the
phosphorus and 72 percent of the nitrogen load.
Due to the different sources of nutrient loadings
within each basin, it can be anticipated that dif-
ferent strategies will be more effective in reduc-
ing nutrient loads within each basin. For this
reason, the effectiveness of the management
strategies will be determined separately for each
of the three areas discharging to the upper Bay.
The most effective strategies within individual
basins can then be combined to provide the best
mix of management strategies to reduce nutrient
loads to the upper Bay. Because the Susquehanna
is the dominant factor in determining water qual-
ity in the upper Bay, it alone will be discussed in
detail in this section. Nutrient loads from the West
Chesapeake and that part of the Eastern Shore
discharging to the upper-Bay have been sum-
marized here and will be discussed in detail in
their respective Basin Profiles.
The Susquehanna River basin is the largest
drainage area in the Bay catchment area. A high
percentage of the nitrogen (85 percent) and
phosphorus (60 percent) loadings delivered by the
Susquehanna are attributable to runoff from
cropland. Moreover, Chesapeake Bay watershed
modeling studies (Hartigan 1983) determined that
41 percent of the Susquehanna's nonpoint source
load comes from the intensively-farmed area in
the lower basin below Sunbury. Soil loss from un-
treated cropland within this sub-basin may be as
high as 17.7 tons/acre/year as compared to
average soil losses of around 7.4 tons/acre/year
(SCS 1983b). Large concentrations of livestock
within the lower Susquehanna drainage area have
resulted in excessive manure applications (Appen-
dix C and Pennsylvania DER 1983). For example,
in the upper Conestoga River area, the plant
nutrients being applied through manure and com-
mercial fertilizer exceed the per acre crop needs
for nitrogen by 203 pounds, for phosphorus by 81
pounds, and for potassium by 15 pounds (Robin-
son et al. 1983). Currently, the chief crop in the
lower Susquehanna drainage area is corn, upon
which nitrogen and phosphorus are applied at an
average rate of 130 pounds and 140 pounds per
-------
132 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Phosphorus
Total pounds=5.4 million
Susquehanna
53%
(76% NFS)
West Chesapeake
44%
(15% NFS)
Upper Eastern
Shore
3%
(60% NFS)
Nitrogen
Total pounds = 75.9 million
Upper Eastern
Shore
2%
(90% NFS)
Susquehanna
77%
(90% NFS)
West Chesapeake
21%
(28% NFS)
fIGURE 40. Percent of existing (1980) nutrient loads to upper Chesapeake Bay from Susquehanna, upper
Eastern Shore, and West Chesapeake drainage areas under average rainfall conditions.
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 133
acre, respectively (Appendix C.) Improved fer-
tilizer management in many cases would not only
reduce nutrient loads to the upper Bay, but would
save farmers money, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Furthermore, the lower Susquehanna sub-
basin has the highest percentage of conventional-
tillage cropland and the lowest percentage of
forest land within the basin (Appendix B.) »This
is significant because nutrient loadings from
conventional-tillage cropland are potentially the
highest for all land uses while those from forest
land are the smallest (Hartigan 1983). In addi-
tion, of the entire river basin, nutrients from the
lower Susquehanna River have the shortest travel
time to the Bay and, based on modeling results,
99 percent of the nonpoint nitrogen load and 82
percent of the nonpoint phosphorus load
generated within the lower Susquehanna are
delivered to the fall line (Appendix B).
Existing Policies and Planning
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Project — The
Maryland and Pennsylvania State offices of the
USDA/SCS have included the lower Susquehanna
drainage area and parts of the Potomac, Patux-
ent, Eastern Shore, and West Chesapeake
drainage areas in the Mason-Dixon Erosion Con-
trol Area (SCS 1983b). They have proposed that
the area receive targetted technical assistance. The
primary objective of the proposal is the protec-
tion of the soil resource-base and improvement of
the productive capability through a significant
reduction in annual soil loss in the 22-county area
in Maryland and Pennsylvania (Figure 41). The
SCS has included 700,000 dollars in its current
budget to provide technical assistance by way of
soil conservation technicians and engineers re-
quired to identify appropriate BMPs and to form-
ulate a strategy for sediment, erosion, and animal-
waste control. The estimated cost to install
resource management systems (a combination of
needed BMPs) in the Mason-Dixon Erosion Con-
trol Project, which also includes land draining to
the Delaware Bay, is 21 million dollars per year
for 10 years. This represents a 9.1 million dollar
increase in present funding. For the portion of this
area within the Chesapeake Bay basin, the cost
is estimated to be about 15.7 million dollars per
year for 10 years (9.6 million dollars in Penn-
sylvania and 6.1 million dollars in Maryland);
parts of the lower Susquehanna, Eastern Shore,
West Chesapeake, and Potomac River basins
would be included.
It is not known what effect the sediment, ero-
sion, and animal-waste control BMPs advocated
by the Mason-Dixon Project will have on nutrient
loadings. However, Chesapeake watershed model-
ing results indicate that applying a Level 3
agricultural conservation practice, contour plow-
ing, in concert with a Level 2 practice, such as
conservation-tillage, reduces direct-stream
loadings of phosphorus and nitrogen from non-
point sources in the lower Susquehanna River by
30 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
An Assessment of Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution in Selected High Priority Water-
sheds in Pennsylvania — The Pennsylvania DER
(June 1983) proposes a number of recommenda-
tions based on detailed studies. The complete
recommendations may be found in Appendix C.
In general, the report recommends that soil con-
servation districts establish realistic time frames
in which to accomplish the goals they originate.
In addition, they should seek the assistance of their
cooperating agencies and/or private agricultural
organizations to accomplish these goals i
Connestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water
Program — This Federal nonpoint source control
program provides 1.9 million dollars for the con-
trol of fecal coliforms, nitrate, dissolved solids,
sediment, and pesticides from nonpoint sources
of pollution. The BMPs instituted on agricultural
and urban land in the Connestoga River and
tributaries include animal-waste controls, ter-
races, water-ways, and grazing land.
Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation
Policy —In the Susquehanna, the Upper
Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy
(UCBP) requires 80 percent removal (approx-
imately equal to 2.0 mg L'1 effluent) of
phosphorus for all new or modified wastewater
treatment facilities with flows greater than or
equal to 0.5 MGD and discharging to tributaries
and the main stem of the Susquehanna River
below its confluence with the Juniata River. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PA DER) has a similar regulation for
phosphorus removal but without the 0.5 MGD
-------
134 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Chesapeake Bay
Susquehanna
Delaware
Bay
Pennsylvania
Maryland
N
I
Potomac
^••.. £ Cecil
Harford
Baltimore \ ^ V I Eastern Shore
/ . ••. \ *J *-' West Chesapeake
Montgomery "'.V.Hqward
Patuxent
14 0 14
Scale in Miles
Chesapeake Delaware Bay
Basin Boundary
County line
State line
••••••• Major Chesapeake Bay
Basin Boundaries
FIGURE 41. The 22 county Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Area indcludes land draining to the Susquehanna,
Potomac, Patuxent, West Chesapeake, and Eastern Shore basins of Chesapeake Bay. The north-
east portion of the control area drains to the Delaware Bay.
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 135
limitation. The Pennsylvania DER estimates that
40 percent of the POTWs in the lower Susque-
hanna providing phosphorus removal and subject
to the policy are not in compliance with the 2.0
mg L'1 limitation; noncompliance is greatest
among smaller plants. Failure to meet the limita-
tion is most often attributable to operation and
design problems, and to inadequate sludge-
handling capabilities.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 42 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the Sus-
quehanna River basin. In addition, it quantifies
the percent change in nutrient loadings and sum-
marizes estimated implementation costs for the
different management strategies. According to
Figure 42, the least-cost alternative for reducing
existing loads from the Susquehanna to the up-
per Bay is implementation of the Level 2 strategy,
conservation-tillage. This strategy provides a 16
percent reduction in the phosphorus load and a
one percent reduction in the nitrogen load with
present-value costs of 0.34 and 0.26 dollars per
pound removed, respectively. The largest reduc-
tion in the existing (1980) phosphorus load is
achieved by combining the Level 2 option,
conservation-tillage, with a 2 mg L'1 phosphorus
effluent limitation (TP = 2 + Level 2). This
strategy reduces the Susquehanna phosphorus load
29 percent and increases the nitrogen load 18 per-
cent. A policy to limit the content of phosphorus
in detergents (phosphorus ban) would reduce the
total phosphorus load 4 percent with the highest
present-value cost to remove one pound of
phosphorus, 29.47 dollars. Based on pollutant
delivery ratios (Appendix B), it is calculated that
the simultaneous implementation of Level 2 BMP
basin-wide and Level 3 BMP in the lower Sus-
quehanna would reduce existing (1980) total
phosphorus and nitrogen loads from the Sus-
quehanna 22 and 5 percent, respectively. This in-
dicates that significant basin-wide reductions in
nutrient loadings, including nitrogen, can be
achieved with implementation of appropriate
BMPs in the lower Susquehanna drainage area.
The UCBP policy which focuses on the
POTWs in the lower Susquehanna drainage area
is projected to reduce the year 2000 total
phosphorus load from the Susquehanna by 32 per-
cent. This reduction equals the projected increase
and, as a result, existing (1980) conditions would
be maintained. The wisdom of this policy is that
it applies to point source dischargers (POTWs) in
an area that directly impacts the upper Bay.
Modeling studies (Hartigan 1983) indicate that 59
percent of the phosphorus load discharged by
point sources in the lower Susquehanna reach the
fall line. In contrast, only 16 percent of the point
source load discharged in the Juniata, 11 percent
in the North Branch, and 11 percent in the West
Branch make it to the fall line (Appendix B).
As evidenced in the previous discussion of
management strategies, watershed modeling pro-
duction runs that reduce phosphorus loadings to
tidal-fresh areas may increase nitrogen loadings
(Figure 42, Nitrogen). The explanation for this
phenomenon lies in the utilization of nutrients by
phytoplankton. During photosynthesis, phyto-
plankton consume phosphorus and nitrogen in
specific ratios. When less phosphorus is available
because of decreased loadings, less nitrogen is con-
sumed and a greater load is made available to be
passed downstream. This phenomenon is best ex-
emplified in the Susquehanna basin, all of which
is considered freshwater. In light of this
phenomena, it is important that nonpoint source
control strategies that decrease nitrogen loads,
such as the Level 2 BMP and the Level 2 and Level
3 combination of BMPs, be implemented in con-
junction with phosphorus-reducing point source
strategies to control nitrogen loads.
Recommendations — Susquehanna River Basin
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 2,900,000 pounds
total phosphorus and 58,200,000 pounds total
nitrogen (existing 1980 load). To improve condi-
tions, future total basin loads must be reduced
below these levels. It is anticipated that the follow-
ing recommendations will best meet the goal of
maintaining current conditions into the year 2000
and allow for improvements in these conditions
-------
136 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Strategy
Future |
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1 TN = 6
Future UCBP Policy
Level 2 HHHRHHHi
TP=2 MBBBIH
Tp=i,TN=6 RHMHIHi
Level 2 + Level 3 ' * BHHHMHIi
TP = 2+Level2 BBHIHRIIi
Total NPS pBHHHHHBI
Percent change
(relative to existing) (mil
| +32
"I -23
-13
0
mmmm m
HHHHHBH '4
HIIBMBIIHH -"
BHHHHH -22
HHlHi -29
••IHHi -23
0 1,0 20 30 40
Total Phosphorus
[Millions of pounds March-October]
'O&M savings realized bv POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
' 'Calculated from delivery ratios— Level 2 basin-wide and Level 3 in lower Susquehanna
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1 TN=6
Future UCBP Policy
Percent change
(relative to existing) (mil
-4
| +22
| +18
0
Total value
ons of 1982 dollars)
2733
2869
557
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
577
740
207
4 65 0 34
1054/332' 2947
1887 1544
2014 1407
9 0
1918 766
9 1
Present Value
Total value
ions of 1982 dollars]
2733
11948
557
465
1054/332'
1887
779 1
9
191 8
9
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
N increases
N increases
026
N increases
N increases
N increases
9
N increases
•?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
'O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
' 'Calculated from delivery ratios— Level 2 basin-wide and Level 3 in lower Susquehanna
FIGURE 42. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the Susquehanna River drainage basin under average rainfall
conditions.
if nonpoint source controls are successfully
implemented.
1. The Piedmont region of the lower Sus-
quehanna basin should be targetted by the
proposed Comprehensive Implementation
Program to reduce agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. Funding for the Mason-
Dixon Erosion Control Project and similar
projects in critical sub-basins should be
strongly supported and expanded to pro-
vide for immediate installation of Best
Management Practices that focus on com-
mercial fertilizer management, animal
waste application management, animal
waste control, erosion control, and sedi-
ment control. Recommendations outlined
in the Pennsylvania DER report, An Assess-
ment of Agricultural Nonpoint Source
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 137
Pollution in Selected High Priority Water-
sheds in Pennsylvania (June 1983) should
be implemented. The recommendations
are listed in their entirety in Appendix C.
In general, they call for soil conservation
districts to establish goals and realistic
schedules for accomplishing the specified
goals.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost—109 million
dollars
Annual O & M cost —10.4 million
dollars
Pennsylvania should continue to imple-
ment its regulation similar to the UCBP
Policy which requires 80 percent removal
of phosphorus at all new or modified point
source discharges.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost —55.7 million
dollars
Capital cost—19.8 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —3.46 million
dollars
(Assumes secondary treatment capability
is in place,and does not include costs to
maintain secondary treatment or to con-
trol industrial dischargers.)
THE
WEST CHESAPEAKE
DRAINAGE
AREA
The West Chesapeake drainage basin extends
from the mouth of the Susquehanna to the Patux-
ent River basin. Most of the northern catchment
area lies in the Piedmont Province while the west
and southern portions lie in the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. Slicing through the West Chesapeake basin
is the steadily expanding corridor of urban and
suburban development that stretches north-
eastward from Washington, D.C., through Bal-
timore, and on to Wilmington, DE. The Patapsco
WEST CHESAPEAKE BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA; 2,058 square miles; 1,317,420 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 I960 2000
1365.6
LAND USE (1980):
1874.9 1993.9
Percent of Total
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers (43)
Municipal dischargers (28)
23.0
2.4
20.6
19.3
45.2
12.5
total metal load
(Ibs/day)
1352.1
743.1
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
2,391,000
Nitrogen
15,984,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 02 0 11
Municipal* 0 83 0 61
Cropland 08 0 20
Other nonpoint
sources 07 08
Total 0 100 0 100
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 15, Municipal 28
River is the largest of the numerous western shore
tributaries located within the basin, and includes
the Baltimore Metropolitan Region which has
developed into one of the nation's largest urban
centers. Much of this growth has been encourag-
ed by marine, commercial, and industrial ac-
tivities made possible by the development of the
Port of Baltimore.
-------
138 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Resources and Water Quality
Most of the small western shore tributaries of
the West Chesapeake support (or supported) runs
of anadromous and semi-anadromous fish, par-
ticularly alewife, white and yellow perch, and
some striped bass. However, many of the tributary
streams in this area have physical structures which
adversely impact migratory species of finfish and
prevent full utilization of habitat. Loss of
submerged vegetation in all but a few areas has
also affected habitat for fish and other organisms.
Only the southern-most rivers provide potential
oyster habitat area, and spat set is poor to nonex-
istent. Harvests from these bars depend on seed
planting, and have generally been low for the past
decade or more. Soft clam populations have
recovered in many areas, supporting good harvests
at this time. Landings of crabs have been rela-
tively stable, although the loss of submerged
vegetation has affected the availability of soft
crabs in some areas. Some of these tributaries sup-
port moderate populations of waterfowl, par-
ticularly where food is abundant (i.e., SAV, ben-
thic organisms). Two very impacted tributaries,
the Back and the Patapsco Rivers, show the
greatest loss of living resources, including altera-
tions of benthic community structure.
The economic growth and development of the
West Chesapeake has not been without en-
vironmental cost. Sediments in the Baltimore Har-
bor are among the most toxic found in the Bay
(Flemer et al. 1983). Concentrations of organics
in bed sediment found in the tidal-fresh portion
of the Patapsco River were among the highest in
the Bay. The sum of all organic compounds
detected exceeded 100 ppm at several locations.
Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons ranged from 1 to 90 ppm, and levels of PCBs
were as high as 8,000 ppb. It is apparent that these
unusually high levels are due to industrial ac-
tivities in Baltimore Harbor. This is further
substantiated by sediment core analyses which
show correlations between the variation in both
the concentrations of phthalate esters and
polynuclear aromatics and historical rates of coal
production (Flemer et al. 1983). In addition, the
entire Baltimore region poses potential stormwater
runoff problems which increase with intensified
suburban development. Also, maintenance of the
shipping channel to Baltimore Harbor generates
large amounts of spoil which need to be disposed
of in an environmentally sound manner. Depth
averaged mean concentrations for total nitrogen
and total phosphorus, indicate that the Patapsco
and the Back Rivers are presently over-enriched
with respect to total nitrogen, and the Back River
is over-enriched with respect to total phosphorus
(Flemer et al. 1983). Trend analysis shows that
total nitrogen is decreasing from historically
higher levels in the Patapsco River.
Existing Policies and Planning
UCBP Policy-In the West Chesapeake
drainage area, the UCBP policy requires all point
sources with flows greater than or equal to 0.5
MGD discharging into the Maryland portion of
the Bay north of and including Gunpowder River,
(Zone I), or point sources with flows greater than
or equal to 10.0 MGD between Gunpowder River
and the southern edge of the Choptank (Zone II),
to meet a 2.0 mg L"1 effluent limitation.
Jones Falls Watershed Urban Stormwater
Runoff Project — The Jones Falls Watershed Ur-
ban Stormwater Runoff Project examined the pro-
blems associated with urban stormwater runoff
in a densely populated section of Baltimore. The
project also evaluated the feasibility of implemen-
ting structural and non-structural BMPs in the
area. Major findings and conclusions from the
study include:
• Urban runoff contributed significant
amounts of Cu, Pb, and Zn to stream
loadings.
• Implementation of structural BMPs was
found to be prohibitively expensive due to
the extensive infrastructure changes
required.
• Non-structural BMPs such as manual and
mechanical street sweepers were judged to
be of variable effectiveness.
• Implementation of non-structural BMPs
such as removal of animal waste by dog
owners was highly dependent on the
population's level of awareness regarding
the relationship between animal waste
removal and water quality.
Based on these latter findings, the investigators
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 139
concluded that education, particularly of urban
dwellers, is a prerequisite for the adoption and
success of nonstructural BMPs.
The Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP)-The 181 MGD Back River WWTP
serving Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and
other bordering municipalities is the largest
POTW located in the West Chesapeake drainage
area and the second largest in the Chesapeake
basin. At present, the Maryland Office of En-
vironmental Programs (MD OEP) is evaluating
three distinct treatment alternatives for the Back
River WWTP to satisfy water quality objectives
in Back River (Whitman, Requardt and Associates
1982). Phosphorus concentrations associated with
the different levels of advanced treatment con-
sidered are 0.2,1.0, and 2.0 mg L"1. The present-
value costs of the alternatives under consideration
range from 221 to 323 million dollars. These costs
reflect an almost total rebuilding of the existing
secondary treatment system which became opera-
tional in 1909 and is currently unable to con-
sistently meet NPDES permit limits. Cost
estimates generated by the GBP to upgrade
POTWs in the West Chesapeake do not include
costs to rebuild the Back River plant. The CBP
cost estimates assume an existing secondary treat-
ment plant is in existence and include only costs
to upgrade for nutrient removal.
A pretreatment program to control the
discharge of toxic substances from industrial
sources to the Back River Plant is near comple-
tion. Metal loads from certain industries have
already been substantially reduced as part of the
program and a permit-compliance schedule for
all dischargers to the plant is to be completed by
July 1, 1984. The program developed for the Back
River plant may serve as a model for the Patapsco
and other POTWs in the West Chesapeake basin
receiving and treating industrial wastes. Industries
that discharge directly to surface waters are
regulated through the NPDES and subject to ef-
fluent limitations promulgated by the EPA.
By agreement with the City of Baltimore, the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation purchases and
discharges at least 100 MGD of Back River ef-
fluent which it uses as industrial process water at
its Sparrows Point plant. Almost 2,000 pounds of
phosphorus are removed from this wastewater by
Bethlehem Steel before its final discharge.
Through another agreement, Back River accepts
iron-rich waste pickle liquor (WPL) from
Bethlehem Steel and uses it as a reagent to
precipitate phosphorus from its wastewater. As
a result, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation is able
to minimize disposal problems and the Back River
treatment plant realizes significant operating cost
savings by using WPL rather than other treatment
chemicals (the Blue Plains treatment plant also
receives WPL, free of charge, from Bethlehem
Steel). This cooperation serves as an example of
innovative utilization of waste products to pro-
tect water quality. Similar opportunities to be ex-
plored include the use of industrial wastes such
as corn silage derivative, yeast, whey, and agent
sulfite liquor as sources of organic carbon in the
denitrification treatment at POTWs (Skrind and
Surinder 1982).
Double Pipe Creek Rural Clean Water
Project —This Federal nonpoint source control
program provides 3.6 million dollars to control
bacteria and sediment from agricultural lands and
septic tanks in the Double Pipe Creek and
Monocacy River. The BMPs implemented include
animal-waste control, diversions, grazing land,
and waterways.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 43 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the West
Chesapeake basin. The Level 2 nonpoint strategy,
conservation-tillage, reduces the existing (1980)
phosphorus and nitrogen loads each 2 percent. It
also has the lowest present-value cost per pound
of phosphorus removed. The largest percent
reduction in the phosphorus load is achieved with
the TP = 1 strategy. It reduces the existing
phosphorus load 51 percent at a present-value cost
of 4.90 dollars per pound of phosphorus removed.
Combining the TP = 2 strategy with the Level 2
option reduces the phosphorus load 45 percent at
a present-value cost of 4.78 dollars per pound of
phosphorus removed. The phosphorus ban is
estimated to reduce the existing load 19 percent
at a present-value cost of 3.85 dollars per pound
of phosphorus removed. If the ban were im-
plemented in concert with a basin-wide
-------
140 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2 + Level 2
Future TP=1,TN=6
Future LICBP Policy
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=2
TP=1.TN = 6
TP=2+Level2
UCBP Policy
Total NPS
I I
I I
1 1
1
..iL&s ,_„_. IT: jj.. '» * .. ~, i
*BB:tjS?"iiZ3K3ib£3S* i
HSS* "4i _;,%;%?»
2dr."T7"s?;4
BS'.ArfTST.srri
•«„,. i,. .-,;?:_,. ±.j '
Z3 '
Percent change Total value
(relative to existing] [millions ot 1982 dollars)
_ _
-28
-42
-23
-2
-19
-43
-51
-45
-41
-85
2474
254 1
2370
038
530/197'
1529
1778
1533
1496
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
463
398
475
023
385
496
490
478
504
Total Phosphorus
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
"O&M savings realized try POfWs it required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2 + Level 2
Future TP=1,TN= 6
Future UCBP Policy
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=2
TP=1,TN=6
TP=2+Level 2
UCBP Policy
Total NPS
Percent change
(relative to existing)
+ 23
| +22
-14
| +24
,
i .aLJS.t*' 'A.i&'i^r .-ft^'f .^*t.r,if o
i&,ttt'£&rSe!&2&&iiiB&%' I¥S/i] -2
. 7,SJiiT*^*^J¥S^1^;^l*lse?:r.J o
'•sefei- r;l**/1SiX 1A.'**'t?3l*1<£TTr3t o
^f^S^I? ^" ^I4T^ -49
£ !. L ^f ^' ^^Trs& ^ 'f"^"'" ii^fcptf fe -2
*SJeti JL« "jJtJt'X? 13&"" *i , i>
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 141
to levels below existing (1980) loads. The Future
TP = 1, TN = 6 nitrogen effluent limitation
reduces future (2000) nitrogen loadings to a level
14 percent below existing (1980) level. It is evi-
dent that municipal point source strategies are ef-
fective in reducing nutrient loadings in the West
Chesapeake.
A sediment and water quality analysis in-
dicates that toxic materials are being discharged
by point sources in the West Chesapeake drainage
area. The possible causes of toxicity in municipal
and industrial effluents, as well as the source of
the effluents, can be determined through the
biomonitoring and fingerprinting programs
developed by the GBP and described in Appen-
dix D. Pretreatment programs can control the
discharge of toxic substances to POTWs and the
NPDES permit can control the discharge of toxic
substances from industrial dischargers to surface
waters.
Recommendations — West Chesapeake
Drainage Area
To maintain current nutrient conditions,
future total basin loads must not exceed 2,391,000
pounds total phosphorus and 15,984,000 pounds
total nitrogen (existing —1980 load). To improve
conditions and prevent deterioration, both
nutrient and toxic substances must be reduced.
Based on a desired goal of improving conditions
in the West Chesapeake, the following recommen-
dations are proposed.
1. Expand the UCBP to include all new or
modified plants less than 10.0 MGD but
greater than 1.0 MGD in Zone II. Existing
plants that are less than 10 MGD and
greater than 1 MGD located near the
boundary between Zone I and II should
consider phosphorus removal. Implement
UCPB Policy.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost —237.0 million dollars
Capital cost —74.8 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —15.6 million
dollars
(Assumes secondary treatment capability
is in place and does not include costs to
maintain secondary treatment or to con-
trol industrial dischargers.)
2. The State of Maryland, through the
NPDES program, should establish a pilot
biomonitoring and chemical fingerprinting
program for identification and control of
toxic discharges to the Patapsco River.
— Cost Estimate—
Present-value cost —4.2 to 8.3 million
dollars
Annual O & M cost —0.4 to 0.8 million
dollars
(Monitoring program costs only. Does not
include cost to set up lab or to provide
removal of toxic substances).
3. Implement storm water control recom-
mendations proposed as a result of the
Jones Falls Nationwide Urban Runoff Pro-
ject (NURP). Counties in the West
Chesapeake should implement and enforce
1983 state regulations for urban storm-
water management. In addition, the find-
ings from the Jones Falls Project should be
considered in their planning and im-
plementation process.
4. All counties in the West Chesapeake basin
should be targetted by the proposed Com-
prehensive Implementation Program to
reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Implement an accelerated nonpoint
source control program in Harford,
Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Carroll
counties to reduce nutrients, sediment, and
animal waste from agricultural operations.
5. The State of Maryland and the counties
should consider, as one of several control
alternatives, a policy to limit the content
of phosphorus in detergents in light of im-
mediate significant reductions achievable
in phosphorus loads. This policy could im-
pact the level of removal required in the
UCBP Policy and could also impact O & M
costs at treatment plants with phosphorus
removal. Evaluation of this policy should
be completed by July 1, 1984 and, if deem-
ed appropriate, implemented by July 1,
1986.
— Cost Estimate (to consumers) —
Present-value cost —53.0 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —5.1 million dollars
-------
142 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
- Cost Savings Estimate (to POTWs) -
Present-value cost —19.7 million dollars
Annual O & M cost—1.9 million dollars
6. All dredging and disposal permit decisions
in this area should reflect Chesapeake Bay
Program findings.
THE
EASTERN SHORE
DRAINAGE
AREA
The Eastern Shore lies wholly within the
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Elevations of over 100 ft
(31 m) above sea level occur in the upper portion
of the Eastern Shore but are seldom greater than
20 ft (6 m) south of the Choptank River. The land,
mostly level, is well suited to large, mechanized
farming operations and of all Chesapeake Bay
drainage areas, the Eastern Shore has the highest
percentage of cropland (40.8 percent). Wood-
lands, game and wildlife, and recreation areas are
plentiful. Rivers are numerous and the water table
is close to the surface.
Resources and Water Quality
The Eastern Shore contains a number of small
to moderate-sized rivers and embayments which
are rather diverse biologically and in their pres-
ent water quality. A number of the northern-most
tributaries and the upstream regions of the larger
rivers are important finfish-spawning and nursery
areas, supporting runs of alewife, blueback her-
ring, shad, striped bass, white and yellow perch,
as well as the young of marine spawners such as
spot and menhaden. Abundance of some species,
especially herring and white perch, has declined
in these rivers. Striped bass are doing moderately
well in the Nanticoke and Choptank Rivers,
although numbers of young fish do not equal peak
years of 1970 and before. Many of the smaller
tributaries of these rivers have dams or other struc-
tures which block the migration of fish to spawn-
ing grounds.
Major spat set areas occur in small tributaries
of the lower Choptank, the Little Choptank, the
Miles, and the Honga Rivers. Although the
Chester lost its spat set after 1971, the Eastern
Shore sustains better spat set overall than do other
areas. Oyster harvests reflect a similar pattern.
The upper reaches of tributaries in the Eastern
Shore (Elk, Bohemia, Sassafras, Chester) have lost
most of their submerged aquatic vegetation, and
there have also been declines in the upper and
EASTERN SHORE FACT SHEET
AREA: 3,821 square miles; 2,445,550 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 1980 2000
282.7
LAND USE (1980):
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers ( 6)
Municipal dischargers (29)
415.5 485.9
Percent of Total
40.8
4.8
3b.O
7.5
50.2
1.5
total metal load
(Ibs/day)
30.2
4U.7
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
833,000
Nitrogen
8,741,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 0
Municipal* 0
ropland 0
Other nonpoint
sources 0
Total 0
9
31
50
10
100
2
8
83
7
100
Number of dischargers - Industrial 9, Municipal 29
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 143
mid-Choptank as well as the Honga, Nanticoke,
Wicomico, Monokin, Annamessex, and Pocomoke
Rivers. Eastern Bay, the lower Ghoptank River,
and the Tangier Sound area still retain relatively
healthy beds of SAV. These areas are major blue
crab harvest areas, especially for soft crabs. Soft
clams are found in many of these rivers, more
abundantly in the mid-Bay. Lower rivers and
Tangier Sound support populations of the hard
clam which depend on higher-salinity water for
successful recruitment. A major waterfowl winter-
ing area exists in the Eastern Shore rivers and em-
bayments, but the loss of SAV has caused some
species to forage in agricultural fields. Overall,
the Eastern Shore maintains the best resource
quality compared to other Bay areas, but declines
are occurring.
Although concentrations of pesticides and
herbicides may reach elevated levels in the upper
reaches of Eastern Shore tributaries for short
periods of time immediately after storm events,
toxic substances are not a problem. Examination
of nutrient trends shows increases in concentra-
tions of nitrogen in the Elk, Chester, Nanticoke,
and Wicomico Rivers and increases in concentra-
tions of phosphorus in Tangier Sound. Currently,
the Elk and Choptank Rivers are enriched with
respect to total nitrogen and the Chester River is
enriched with respect to total phosphorus. None
of the Eastern Shore embayments are enriched
with nutrients (Flemer et al. 1983).
The increasing enrichment of its waters from
nonpoint source runoff is the major problem fac-
ing the Eastern Shore. Runoff from cropland ac-
counts for 50 percent of the total phosphorus and
83 percent of the total nitrogen load from the
Eastern Shore. It is estimated that 20 percent of
the nutrient load from the Eastern Shore is
discharged to the upper Bay.
Existing Policies and Planning
Maryland Small Watershed Program (Public
Law 83-566) - Currently, the Maryland SCS is
proposing the ditching of more than 90 miles
(128.8 km) of small waterways along the upper
Chester River. The objective of the project is to
drain water from lands along the river for in-
creased farm production. The CBP findings in-
dicate that submerged aquatic vegetation has suf-
fered a precipitous decline since the early 1970's
(Flemer et al. 1983). The unprecedented loss of
this vital resource is attributable to decreases in
the availability of light, resulting from increased
turbidity and epiphytic growth on plant surfaces.
It is estimated that without proper conservation
measures, such as soil erosion and sediment con-
trol measures, the sediment and nutrient load to
the Bay from the Chester River watershed will
likely increase as a result of this project and
precious existing SAV beds in the Chester estuary
may be endangered. In addition, tidal wetlands
which act as nutrient and sediment sinks may be
lost unless adequate precautions are taken.
Comparison of Basin Strategies
Figure 44 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads from the Eastern
Shore drainage area. The least-cost strategy for
reducing nutrient loads from the Eastern Shore
is the Level 2 strategy, conservation-tillage. Model
results indicate that the existing phosphorus load
could be reduced 14 percent and the nitrogen load
7 percent with this strategy. The present-value
dollars per pound cost to remove one pound of
phosphorus is 0.41 dollars and 0.08 dollars for
nitrogen. The TP = 1 strategy reduces the existing
load about the same as the Level 2 option (15 per-
cent versus 14 percent) but at a much higher
present-value cost per pound removed (4.97
dollars versus 0.41 dollars). A phosphorus ban
would reduce the existing phosphorus load 9
percent.
Future phosphorus loads are projected to in-
crease 22 percent and future nitrogen loads 6 per-
cent over the existing (1980) load. Both the Future
TP = 1, TN = 6, and Future TP = 2 and Level 2
strategies reduce projected phosphorus loads to a
level below existing (1980) loads. The Future
TP = 2 and Level 2 combined strategy provides
a 13 percent reduction in existing loads and at the
lowest present-value cost per pound of phosphorus
removed (3.49 dollars).
The effectiveness of the Level 2 strategy can
be extrapolated to determine its effectiveness on
future (2000) nutrient loads. The projected 22 per-
-------
144 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2 +Level 2
Future TP=1.TN = 6
Future Level 2 + P Ban1
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=2
TP=1, TN=6
TP=2 + Level 2
Total NPS
Percent change Total value
(relative to existing] [millions ot 1982 dollars)
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
+22
-13
-4
-14
-15
-25
-40
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Total Phosphorus
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
'O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to mee1 a phosphorous effluent limitation
' 'Extrapolated from effectiveness on existing (1980) loads
299
314
153
144
11 8/1 8'
156
179
170
349
493
207
041
526
585
497
273
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1. TN=6
Future Level 2-t-P Ban''
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=2
TP=1.TN=6
TP=2 + Level2
Total NPS
Percent change
(relative to existing)
+ 6
0
0
-7
0
0
-7
-7
Total value
(millions ot 1982 dollars)
Cost to remove
1 pound [dollars]
299
666
153
1 44
118/18*
156
369
170
202
098
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
'O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
' 'Extrapolated 1iom effectiveness on existing (1980) loads
FIGURE 44. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the Eastern Shore drainage basin under average rainfall
conditions.
cent increase in phosphorus and 6 percent increase
in nitrogen loads are due to increases in the
volume of municipal wastewater discharged. The
Level 2 nonpoint strategy has no effect on
municipal point sources and a decrease in the ef-
fectiveness of this strategy is expected when ap-
plied to future (2000) loads. The 14 percent reduc-
tion in phosphorus and 7 percent reduction in
nitrogen loadings achieved by the Level 2 strategy
reduces the existing (1980) phosphorus load 0.116
million pounds (833,000 pounds x 0.14) and the
existing (1980) nitrogen load 0.612 million pounds
(8,741,000 x 0.07). When these reductions are ex-
trapolated to future loads, the projected
phosphorus load is reduced to a level 8 percent
greater than the existing (1980) phosphorus load
and 1 percent less than the existing (1980) nitrogen
loads. A phosphorus ban is calculated to reduce
future (2000) loadings 0.13 million pounds. When
this reduction is combined with the reduction
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 145
achieved by the Level 2 nonpoint strategy and ex-
trapolated to projected phosphorus loads, future
(2000) loads are reduced to a level 8 percent below
existing levels. If Level 3 BMPs and animal-waste
controls were implemented in concert with a
Level 2 BMP, it is anticipated that additional
phosphorus and nitrogen reductions could be
achieved.
Recommendations — Eastern Shore
Drainage Area
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 833,000 pounds of
total phosphorus and 8,741,000 pounds of total
nitrogen (existing 1980 load). To improve condi-
tions, future total basin loads must be reduced
below these levels. Based on the desired goal of
maintaining existing conditions and protecting the
valuable marine resources of the Eastern Shore,
the following recommendations are proposed.
1. Accelerate implementation of current non-
point source programs in the Eastern
Shore. The upper Eastern Shore should be
targetted by the proposed Comprehensive
Implementation Program to reduce
nutrients, sediment, and animal waste
from agricultural activities.
2. If the accelerated nonpoint source control
program does not reduce future phos-
phorus loadings below existing levels, then
Eastern Shore counties should consider, as
one of several control alternatives, a policy
to limit phosphorus in detergents. Evalua-
tion of the policy should proceed concur-
rently with the accelerated nonpoint source
control program and be completed by July
1, 1984. The decision to implement the
phosphorus limitation policy should be
made as soon as the effectiveness of the
nonpoint source control is known.
— Cost Estimate (to consumers) —
Present-value cost —11.8 million dollars
Annual O & M cost—1.13 million
dollars
-Cost Savings Estimate (to POTWs)-
Present-value cost —1.8 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —0.17 million
dollars
3. All Federal and state permits for drainage
and construction projects affecting tidal
wetlands should consider Chesapeake Bay
Program findings regarding the value of
wetlands as nutrient and sediment buffers
and as habitat for living resources.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost —0.55 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —0.053 million
dollars
(Includes coordination of 404 permit and
EIS review and 404 permit enforcement.
Does not include EIS preparation or state
costs.)
4. The States of Maryland and Virginia
should require nutrient and BODS controls
for industrial dischargers in the Eastern
Shore where appropriate.
THE
PATUXENT RIVER
BASIN
This long, slender watershed lies entirely
within Maryland's boundaries and occupies one-
tenth of the state's land area. It is the smallest
drainage basin in the Bay catchment area. The
upper third of the river's main-stem and two of
its three major tributaries, the Middle and Little
Patuxent, are entirely in the Peidmont Province.
The lower two-thirds of the river drains the Atlan-
tic Coastal Plain. The rapid population growth
and replacement of agricultural and forest lands
by urban development within the Patuxent River
basin is attributed to the basin's location near the
"urban corridor" stretching north-eastward from
Washington, D.C. to Delaware. Bay-wide, the
-------
146 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
highest percentage of urban and other land-use
is within the Patuxent basin (5.6 percent).
Resources and Water Quality
The Patuxent River has experienced changes
in major living resources during the past 20 years.
The river supports (or once supported) runs of
PATUXENT BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 884 square miles; 565,750 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 1980 2000
195.2
LAMP USE (1980):
678.1 851.1
Percent of Total
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers ( 1)
Municipal dischargers (31)
20.6
1.1
19.5
20.7
53.1
5.6
total metal load
(ibs/day)
.3
26.«
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
478,000
Nitrogen
2,493,000
Source Above Below
Fall line Fall line
Above Below
Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 3
Municipal* 59
Cropland 5
Other nonpoint
sources 2
Total
69
1
20
6
4
31
1
28
13
3
45
1
19
30
5
55
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 4, Municipal 10
American and hickory shad, alewife, blueback
herring, white and yellow perch, and striped bass.
In addition, many marine spawners, including
spot, croaker, menhaden, and bluefish use the
estuarine portion as a nursery area. Because the
river is not monitored annually for juvenile fin-
fish, information on trends is spotty. However,
the loss of community diversity was noted as early
as 1971. Submerged vegetation is virtually absent
from the Patuxent, after a relatively abrupt
decline in the late 1960's. Oyster spat set is now
low, except at an area near the river mouth.
Harvests have remained relatively stable only
because of management practices such as seed
planting. Harvests of crabs have increased since
1960. Moderate numbers of ducks use the Patux-
ent as a wintering area; these feed mostly on ben-
thic animals because of the lack of SAV.
Chesapeake Bay Program research has shown
that the reduced abundance of finfish and shellfish
in the Patuxent is related, in part, to the low
dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper waters,
depressed by increased nutrient levels. The high
levels of nutrients are also believed to be respon-
sible for the decline of SAV in the Patuxent. When
compared to other basins, the highest nutrient
concentrations have been found in the Patuxent
and, when compared to similar segments, the
highest chlorophyll a concentrations are also
within the river. Land-use changes and popula-
tion growth have caused the water quality prob-
lems observed in the Patuxent. For example, the
volume of wastewater discharged from POTWs
has increased 360 percent since 1950 and currently
(1980), municipal treatment plants account for 79
percent of the total phosphorus and 47 percent of
the total nitrogen load within the estuary.
Existing Policies and Planning
Hydroqual Modeling Results —In 1980,
Hydroqual, Inc. conducted a study to determine
the relationship between point and nonpoint
source nutrient loads to the Patuxent estuary,
water quality problems defined as high algal levels
(chlorophyll a) in the upper portion of the tidal
Patuxent, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the bottom waters of the lower estuary. This
was accomplished through a review of historical
water quality data, an analysis of nutrient inputs
to the Patuxent, and the development and applica-
tion of a two-layer, steady-state eutrophication
model of the Patuxent estuary. The use of the
validated model to project water quality condi-
tions in the Patuxent estuary for various treatment
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 147
alternatives under consideration produced the
following results:
• Nonpoint source nutrient loads alone could
support a background summer phytoplank-
ton level comparable to historical levels
observed in the early 1960's.
• Neither nitrogen nor phosphorus currently
limit algal growth in the upper Patuxent
estuary. Light and detention time are
primarily the controlling factors. In the
lower estuary, nitrogen appears to be the
limiting nutrient under existing conditions,
although the evidence is certainly not
conclusive.
• Upstream point source and background
loads have little direct impact on lower
estuary chlorophyll a and DO levels. Lower
estuary chlorophyll a levels and low bottom
layer DO levels are due primarily to the
release of nutrients from the sediment, sedi-
ment oxygen demand, and exchange with
Chesapeake Bay water. There is, however,
an indirect link between upstream loads
and lower estuary water quality. This
linkage is based on the hypothesis that
reduced chlorophyll a levels upstream will
reduce both sediment nutrient releases and
sediment oxygen demand in the lower
estuary.
• Upper estuary chlorophyll a levels are due
primarily to nutrient inputs from point and
upstream nonpoint sources. As a result,
either nitrogen or phosphorus control can
reduce upper estuary chlorophyll a
concentrations.
• Dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom layer
of the lower Patuxent estuary are most sen-
sitive to the degree of stratification, which
worsens the effect of sediment oxygen de-
mand and algal respiration.
Patuxent River Policy Plan —The Patuxent
River Policy Plan (Patuxent River Commission
1983) is a land-management plan that has both a
broad foundation of basin-wide goals as well as
specific, focused actions to carry-out the goals.
Unlike previous plans for the river, the policy plan
cuts across all levels of government: state, local,
as well as provisions for Federal cooperation. The
Policy Plan is based on goals set during an inten-
sive three-day workshop known as the Patuxent
Charette that was convened in December, 1981.
At the Charette, approximately 40 Federal, state,
and county officials, watermen, and concerned
citizens developed a series of agreements designed
to restore water quality to 1950 levels in the Patux-
ent basin. These agreements included recommen-
dations to Maryland's Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, the seven river basin counties
adjacent to the river, and the Patuxent River
Commission for the establishment of water quality
goals, nutrient limits, nonpoint source controls,
monitoring and research, and proposals for water
conservation and increasing finfish and shellfish
populations.
The Patuxent River Commission was charged
to develop a comprehensive plan for nonpoint
source pollution control. The central concept of
the plan, developed by the Commission and in-
corporated into the policy plan, is to establish
policies applicable throughout the watershed and
to focus attention on lands closest to the river and
its tributary streams. The latter approach
recognizes the particular significance of the
resources adjacent to those water bodies, and the
great potential for these lands to degrade water
quality if improperly managed. The watershed-
wide policy developed by the Commission con-
sists of two parts: the first part calls for
establishing primary management areas and ac-
complishing specific actions within these areas;
the second part calls for the application of
development and management guidelines through
out the watershed via adjustments to state pro-
grams and local comprehensive plans, zoning, and
other regulatory and guidance activities. Thirty-
four percent of the 5 million dollars in Maryland's
Agricultural Cost-Sharing Program (ACP) is to be
directed toward controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution in the Patuxent. The ACP is described
in Chapter 3.
Nutrient Control Strategy for the Patuxent
River Basin — Adapted by the Maryland Office of
Environmental Programs (MD OEP) in January
1982, the Nutrient Control Strategy (NCS) pro-
vides the foundation for the 208 Water Quality
Management Plan (Maryland Department of
Health 1982)for the Patuxent River basin. Like the
Patuxent River Policy Plan, the NCS is based on
the Charette held in the fall of 1981. The NCS
-------
148 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
calls for point sources to provide nutrient removal
to meet a total daily phosphorus limit of 420
pounds and a total daily nitrogen limit of 3,900
pounds. These limits or goals are to be achieved
by the year 1987. However, to receive construc-
tion grant funding for nutrient removal, the EPA's
Draft Advanced Treatment Review Policy re-
quires that the proposed project must be shown
to result in significant water quality and public
health improvements. Such projects must be scien-
tifically supported by an adequate data base and
technical studies which demonstrate the relation-
ships between waste load and water quality or
public health. In the case of the Patuxent River,
it is the EPA's opinion that the information and
studies performed to date do not provide an ade-
quate technical basis to support nitrogen control
in addition to phosphorus control. In view of the
EPA's reluctance to fund nitrogen control, Gover-
nor Hughes of Maryland has pledged to provide
an additional 18 million dollars to the 29 million
dollars already earmarked for upgrading POTWs
in the Patuxent River basin to specifically imple-
ment the Patuxent NCS.
Patuxent River Studies —The Academy of
Natural Sciences has recently completed a study
analyzing the effects of zooplankton grazing on
phytoplankton in the Patuxent River system. Find-
ings of the study will be used to further define
nutrient dynamics in the Hydroqual Water Qual-
ity Model. Another study, conducted by the USGS
and the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene is aimed at determining sediment
oxygen demand and benthic nutrient fluxes in the
Patuxent estuary. This three-year study is in its
second year. In addition, a microcosm study to
investigate the effects of nutrient loading on algal
productivity, to identify nutrient limitations, and
to evaluate the nutrient and organic matter
transport and exchange mechanisms in the water
column and benthic sediments has been proposed.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 45 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the Patux-
ent drainage area. The Level 2 nonpoint source
strategy, conservation-tillage, has the lowest
present-value cost per pound of nutrient removed
of all strategies examined. However, the magni-
tude of the reduction achieved is so small (1 per-
cent phosphorus and 1 percent nitrogen) that it
cannot be expected to improve water quality
substantially. The phosphorus ban strategy
reduces the existing phosphorus load 10 percent
with present-value consumer costs estimated at
19.3 million dollars. Present-value O & M savings
at treatment plants required to meet a phosphorus
effluent limitation are estimated to be 4.0 million
dollars (0.39 million dollars annually). The
TP = 1, TN = 6 strategy reduces the 1980
phosphorus load 64 percent and the nitrogen load
30 percent. The present-value cost of this strategy
is calculated to be 135.2 million dollars.
Future (2000) phosphorus loads are projected
to increase 77 percent and future (2000) nitrogen
loads are projected to increase 34 percent over ex-
isting (1980) loads. Implementation of a Future
TP=1, TN = 6 strategy reduces projected
phosphorus loads 54 percent and nitrogen loads
19 percent below existing (1980) loads. The Future
TP = 2 and Level 2 strategy reduces projected
phosphorus loads to a level 37 percent below ex-
isting (1980) loads. Either strategy can be modified
and applied to selected POTWs to maintain ex-
isting loadings. The Patuxent NCS reduces existing
(1980) phosphorus loadings 63 percent and ex-
isting (1980) nitrogen loadings 57 percent. The
Patuxent NCS strategy removes phosphorus at ap-
proximately the same cost as the TP = 1, TN = 6
strategy. However, it removes nitrogen at about
a 25 percent lower present-value cost per pound
than the TP = 1, TN = 6 strategy, largely because
it takes advantage of economies of scale by con-
trolling nitrogen at larger plants. The Patuxent
NCS and Patuxent River Policy Plan enjoy wide
support and provide an opportunity to assess
water quality benefits resulting from comprehen-
sive point and nonpoint source controls of
nutrients.
Recommendations — Patuxent River Basin
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 478,000 pounds total
phosphorus and 2,493,000 pounds total nitrogen
(existing 1980 load). To improve conditions, future
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 149
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1, TN = 6
Patuxent NCS (1987)
Existing
|
1
" " * ~../" ,!
: *J~.5.». - ,JL j?a2K5*?lje'flS!i
Percent change
(relative to existing) (m
1 •i-7''
-37
-54
-63
PBan
TP=1, TN = 6
TP = 2 + Level 2
Total NPS
^S'JfavXtKSt ' /-Hf*???*^
KS'TSI
G^L" '"' f,"" '1
2E3
-10
-64
-55
-83
• • • M^^^^^^J
Total value
Ilions of 1982 dollars)
670
732
1352'
007
193/40"
41 9
388
9
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
409
391
464
046
1408
458
492
9
Total Phosphorus
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
'Includes costs for nitrogen removal
' 'O&fvt savings realized by POTWs if required fo meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1 TN=6
Patuxent NCS (1987)
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=1, TN = 6
TP=2 +Level 2
Total NPS
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
(relative to existing) (millions of 1982 dollars) 1 pound (dollars)
____ _
+ 36
-19
-30
0
-49
670
1766
007
19 3/ 40
938
388
N increases
449
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds March-October)
•Includes costs for phosphorus removal
' *O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
FIGURE 45. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the Patuxent River drainage basin under average rainfall
conditions.
total basin loads must be reduced below these
levels. Based on the desired goal of restoring water
quality to 1950 levels in the Patuxent River, the
following recommendations are proposed.
1. The State of Maryland should be encour-
aged to implement the Patuxent River
Policy Plan and Nutrient Control Strategy
which recognize the significance of non-
point source pollutants and the role of
nitrogen as a potential limiting nutrient in
estuarine waters. If the Patuxent Policy
Plan and Nutrient Control Strategy result
in significant improvements to the condi-
tion of the Patuxent, the States of Maryland
and Virginia should consider implementing
a similar approach in other river basins.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost—135.2 million dollars
-------
150 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Capital cost —36.2 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —9.2 million dollars
(Does not include costs to maintain existing
secondary treatment capability or to im-
plement policy plan.)
2. Maryland research projects on sediment ox-
ygen demand, bottom and main Bay
nutrient fluxes, and microcosm studies
within the Patuxent should be continued
and used to determine water quality
benefits arising from the Patuxent Policy
Plan and Nutrient Control strategy.
— Cost Estimate —
Total Project costs —0.74 million dollars;
3. Water quality models should be further
developed for use in the Patuxent to assess
the impact of management strategies on
water quality in the upper and lower
Patuxent estuary.
THE
POTOMAC RIVER
HASIN
The Potomac River basin drains 14,134 square
miles (36,748 km2), and is the second largest in
the Bay catchment area. It stretches from West
Virginia across the Appalacian Ridge and Valley,
Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Atlantic Coastal Plain
Provinces to Point Lookout, Maryland and Smith
Point, Virginia. About 3 million people live within
the metropolitan Washington area that surrounds
the Nation's Capital and marks the southern ter-
minus of the "urban corridor."
Resources and Water Quality
The Potomac River is a major spawning area
for anadromous and semi-anadromous fish, in-
cluding American and (rarer) hickory shad,
alewife, blueback herring, white and yellow
POTOMAC BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 14,134 square miles; 9,045,550 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 1980 2000_
2106.8 3659.6 4390.8
LAND USE (1980):
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers ( 6)
Municipal dischargers (99)
Percent of Total
16.1
1.9
14.2
18.2
61.6
4 .2
total metal load
(Ibs/day)
19.2
934.0
In addition to these discharges below the fall
line, fall line metal loads of 4,390 Ibs/day
indicate significant additions from point sources
above the fall line.
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
2,866,000
Nitrogen
35,077,000
Source
Above Below Above Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 1
Municipal* 3
Cropland 16
Other nonpoint
sources 10
Total
30
0
55
7
70
1
3
39
47
1
39
9
53
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 15, hunicipal 95)
perch, and striped bass. Marine spawners (spot,
croaker, seatrout, menhaden, bluefish) use the
lower and middle river as a nursery area. Declines
in the spawning success of some freshwater
spawners occurred during the 1970's, but alewife,
blueback herring, and white and yellow perch
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 151
have been relatively stable or have even increased
in recent years. The Potomac lost the abundant
SAV of the upper tidal-fresh river in about 1930,
while that of the lower estuary disappeared in the
late 1960's. However, relatively healthy popula-
tions of submerged vegetation exist in the riverine-
estuarine transition zone. There has been some
slight recovery of SAV in the upper river near
Washington in the last few years.
Wintering waterfowl, especially diving ducks,
use the Potomac shoreline where suitable food is
available, particularly in smaller tributaries of the
river where submerged vegetation still occurs.
Oyster spat set has declined to near zero in the
upper portion of the species' range in the Potomac
due to sedimentation, reduction in water qual-
ity, and the impact of Tropical Storm Agnes. Spat
set in the lower river, particularly at the mouth,
remains good. Oyster harvest has declined signif-
icantly in the decade since 1971, as compared to
the previous decade, due in part to the loss of
upstream productivity. Crab harvests have also
declined in the Potomac, compared to the decade
before 1971. Whether this reflects economic (i.e.,
fishery) changes or the loss of crab habitat (SAV)
is not known. Soft clam populations have again
reached harvestable densities in the lower river,
after a decade of lower populations.
In the 1960's the Potomac was often charac-
terized by massive blue-green algae blooms and
low dissolved oxygen levels associated with high
levels of nutrients. It was described as an open
sewer and a national disgrace. Fortunately, ef-
forts were made to halt the river's degradation by
upgrading the treatment capabilities of POTWs
discharging to the river. This policy, costing about
1 billion dollars, seems to have worked. Today
there is a decrease in the total phosphorus con-
centration in the water column of the upper seg-
ment and a decrease in total nitrogen levels in the
lower portion of the estuary (Flemer et al. 1983).
In addition, there has been moderate recovery in
some resources, particularly finfish.
Municipal point sources account for 58 per-
cent of the phosphorus and 42 percent of the
nitrogen load in the Potomac River basin and, as
stated earlier, the river's cleanup is the result of
actions taken to upgrade municipal treatment.
Specifically, Virginia, Maryland, and the District
of Columbia require phosphorus removal at treat-
ment plants discharging to the Virginia em-
bayments and upper Potomac estuary. For ex-
ample, the 317 MGD Blue Plains treatment plant,
the largest POTW in the Chesapeake drainage
area, employed advanced waste-water treatment
in 1980 to produce an effluent with a total
phosphorus concentration of 1.2 mg Lr1. As of
1983, the level of treatment has been improved
to produce an effluent in the 0.5 to 1.0 mg L'1
range. In addition, the Alexandria (27 MGD), Arl-
ington (22 MGD), Lower Potomac (22 MGD),
Mooney (6 MGD), Aquia (1 MGD), and
Piscataway WWTPs (15 MGD) each have
phosphorus removal technology in place to meet
effluent limits.
Although the District of Columbia and other
jurisdictions in the Washington metropolitan area
have actively pursued the goal of clean water
through the expansion and upgrading of area
wastewater treatment plants, a significant volume
of sanitary sewage can escape treatment and be
discharged to contaminate area waters. This un-
treated discharge results from wet weather
overflows from the sewers in that part of the city
where the sanitary sewers and storm drains are
connected together as a single combined sewer
system. Overflows from these systems significantly
contribute to dissolved oxygen-demanding
materials in the bottom sediments.
Existing Policies and Planning
Blue Plains Feasibility Study-The Blue Plains
Feasibility Study (Greeley and Hansen 1983) in-
cludes consideration of the effects on the Potomac
estuary of variations in the quality of treated
waste-water effluents from current NPDES per-
mit levels. Effluent limits based on combined
phosphorus and nitrogen removal, and on in-
dividual nutrient removal are evaluated.
The Potomac Strategy-In April 1979, the
EPA Region III developed the Potomac Strategy,
which coordinates local, state, and EPA water
quality planning efforts into a comprehensive pro-
gram aimed at addressing the most significant
water quality issues of the Potomac River. The
primary focus of the first phase of the strategy,
which is scheduled for completion in early 1984,
is to address the eutrophication and dissolved ox-
ygen issues for the upper 50 miles (81 km) of the
tidal Potomac River (Chain Bridge to approx-
-------
152 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
imately Maryland Point). The ultimate objective
of the first phase effort is the development of
recommendations for a control strategy which,
upon approval by the States of Maryland and
Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the EPA,
will lead to the establishment of updated total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and NPDES
permits.
To accomplish first-phase objectives of the
strategy, two main-stem Potomac River models
(short-term and long-term) were developed to
project the water quality response of the Potomac
estuary to various pollution control alternatives,
including phosphorus and nitrogen control. These
are under evaluation in the Blue Plains Feasibil-
ity Study. Although the modeling effort is not due
for completion until early 1984, preliminary
results indicate the following:
• The improvements in water quality ob-
served since the late 1960's in the upper 50
miles (81 km) of the Potomac estuary are
principally attributed to the current point
source control program.
• Phosphorus removal alone, at or below ef-
fluent limits of 1 mg L'1, will begin to limit
algal growth under low flow (1977) condi-
tions in the upper 35 miles (56 km) of the
estuary.
• Nitrogen removal alone at a total nitrogen
effluent limit of 2 mg L"1 will limit algal
growth under low flow (1977) conditions
in the upper 50 miles (81 km) of the estuary
but will be considerably less effective at
higher river flows, and generally no better
than phosphorus-only removal programs in
reducing peak chlorophyll a levels in the up-
per estuary.
• Reductions in lower estuary (between mile
35 and 50) algal levels can only be achieved
through some reduction in nitrogen
loadings. The major algal problem,
however, occurs above mile 35.
• Nitrification alone at the POTW will in-
crease summer average DO levels by 2
mg L"1 under 1977 low flow conditions.
Another element of the Potomac Strategy for
the clean-up of the upper Potomac's surface water
resource is the Combined Sewer Overflow Abate-
ment Program (O'Brien and Gere 1983).
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Program — The Combined Sewer Overflow Abate-
ment Program defined water quality problems at-
tributable to combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
and developed a two-segment program for con-
trol and abatement. The first segment of the CSO
control program principally consists of minimal
modifications of the existing sewerage system to
maximize containment of wet-weather flows for
treatment at the existing central treatment facility,
and the implementation of a major end-of-pipe
treatment facility to mitigate water quality prob-
lems in the Anacostia River. The second segment
of the CSO abatement program is to be based on
a mid-course reassessment of environmental con-
ditions following completion of the Segment I pro-
gram to assure the most effective expenditure of
resources. Probable elements in the Segment II
program would include two additional swirl treat-
ment facilities along the Anacostia River, and con-
struction of an 885 MGD capacity screening facil-
ity on the Piney Branch overflow, the largest CSO
along Rock Creek.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments Nationwide Urban Runoff Pollution
Project — The Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments' Nationwide Urban Runoff Pollu-
tion (NURP) project investigated control measures
in developing areas. During the four-year study,
the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of twelve types
of BMPs (including wet ponds, dry ponds, porous
pavements, etc.) were studied at several subur-
ban sites in Virginia and Maryland. The in-
vestigators concluded the following:
• Wet ponds are among the most effective
means of controlling urban runoff.
However, the initial costs for constructing
these structures is significantly higher than
for dry ponds; these initial outlays tend to
be offset by increased property values which
wet ponds tend to generate.
• Porous pavement is an effective BMP for
reducing the rate of stormwater runoff and
pollutant loads.
• Grassy swales, long favored by developers,
were found to be no more effective than the
curb and gutter systems that they were
designed to replace.
In their recommendations, the coordinators of
the Washington area NURP plan call for the
strengthening of existing stormwater regulations
to make them an instrument for improving water
quality and reducing stream-bank erosion. The
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 153
program also advocates the promulgation of
regulations requiring the government and
developers to absorb implementation and O & M
costs, rather than leaving this responsibility to
homeowners' associations, which have fewer
resources.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 46 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the
Potomac River drainage area. The Level 2 non-
point source option, conservation-tillage, provides
a 4 percent reduction in the total phosporus load
and at the lowest present-value cost per pound
removed. In addition, the strategy reduces the
nitrogen load 1 percent. The next least-cost alter-
native is the combination of the Level 2 nonpoint
source control with a phosphorus effluent limita-
tion of 2.0 mg L"1. This strategy reduces the
phosphorus load 17 percent and increases the
nitrogen load 2 percent.
The TP = 1, TN = 6 effluent limitation reduces
the phosphorus load 10 percent more than the
TP = 2 effluent limitation (22 percent to 12 per-
cent) and at a slightly lower present-value cost per
pound removed (6.02 versus 6.30 dollars). The
cost to remove a pound of phosphorus through a
phosphorus ban (24.24 dollars) is very large when
compared to costs for other strategies in the
Potomac and other basins. There are two reasons
for this: first, many POTWs in the Potomac
already employ phosphorus removal technology
so reductions in phosphorus loading associated
with the ban will be small; second, there is a large
population in the Potomac area which would bear
increased consumer costs. However, a phosphorus
ban would reduce POTW O & M costs for
chemicals and sludge disposal and result in an-
nual savings of 4.8 million dollars basin-wide with
3.5 million dollars in savings for the Blue Plains
POTW. Because Blue Plains meets some of its
chemical needs with waste-pickle liquor supplied
free by Bethlehem Steel, the actual savings may
be less. A 21 percent reduction in total nitrogen
loadings can be achieved by the TN = 6 strategy.
The present-value cost of the strategy is 1.2 billion
dollars.
Future (2000) phosphorus loads are projected
to increase 65 percent and future (2000) nitrogen
loads are projected to increase 5 percent over ex-
isting (1980) loads. As stated earlier, significant
improvements in phosphorus removal have taken
place at the Blue Plains treatment plant since
1980. These improvements should be viewed as
progress toward the implementation of manage-
ment strategies and would reduce estimated im-
plementation costs. Implementation of the Future
TP=1, TN = 6 strategy reduces projected
phosphorus loads 14 percent and nitrogen loads
18 percent below existing (1980) loads. The Future
TP = 2 strategy combined with the Level 2
strategy reduces projected phosphorus loads to a
level 3 percent below existing (1980) loads. The
present-value cost per pound of nutrient removed
is slightly less with the Future TP=1, TN = 6
strategy than with the Future TP = 2 plus Level
2 strategy (2.08 versus 2.26 dollars). Application
of either strategy to maintain existing (1980) loads,
however, should be preceeded by an accurate
assessment of current loads based on improved
nutrient removal at Blue Plains and other treat-
ment plants discharging to the upper Potomac.
Recommendations — Potomac River
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 2,866,000 pounds
total phosphorus and 35,077,000 pounds total
nitrogen (existing 1980 load). To improve condi-
tions, future total basin loads must be reduced
below these levels. Based on the desired goal of
maintaining existing conditions in the Potomac
River, the following recommendations are
proposed.
1. The governments of the metropolitan
Washington area should continue to
develop and implement the Potomac
Strategy to achieve optimum nutrient
reduction from point and nonpoint sources.
Water quality models for the Potomac
should be expanded to simulate water
quality impacts in the lower Potomac.
2. All counties in the Potomac basin should
be targetted by the proposed Comprehen-
sive Implementation Program to reduce
-------
154 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2+Level 2
Future TP=1,TN=6
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP = 2
TP = 1.TN = 6
TP = 2 +Level 2
Total NPS
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
(relative to existing] (millions oi 1982 dollars] 1 pound (dollars]
-5
-12
-22
-17
-59
1302
1403
2 13
,103 3/499*
665
1152
685
226
208
057
2424
630
602
479
Total Phosphorous
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
•O&rvl savings realized Dy POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1,TN = 6
Existing
Level 2
P Ban
TP-2
TP-1, TN-6
TP =2 + Level 2
Total NPS
I
i
i
I
i
i
— —- — twBt™~wfyTO'""tera~re*^*^
L .
} 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 40
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
[relative to existing] [millions of 1982 dollars] 1 pound (dollars]
__ _ _
+ 3
-21
+ 2
-44
1302
1,581 0
2 13
1033/499'
665
1,2724
685
N increases
649
0 15
N increases
N increases
581
N increases
Total Nitrogen
(Millions 01 pounds, March-October]
"O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a nitrogen effluent limitation
FIGURE 46. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the Potomac River drainage basin under average rainfall
conditions.
agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Im-
plement an accelerated nonpoint source
control program in Frederick and Carroll
counties to reduce nutrients, sediment, and
animal waste from agricultural operations.
3. The District of Columbia should imple-
ment the two-segment program for abate-
ment of pollution from combined sever
overflows developed as part of the Potomac
Strategy.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost —72.6 million dollars
Capital cost —70.6 million dollars
Annual O&M cost —0.191 million
dollars
The states and the District of Columbia
should consider, as one of several control
alternatives, a policy to limit phosphorus
in detergents in the metropolitan
Washington area. Sludge disposal is a ma-
jor problem facing Blue Plains and other
POTWs removing phosphorus in the
Potomac basin. A phosphorus limitation on
detergents would reduce the amount of
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 155
sludge generated and result in reductions
in O&M costs. Evaluation of the policy
should be completed by July 1, 1984 and,
if deemed appropriate, implemented by
July 1, 1986.
— Cost Estimate (to consumers) —
Present-value cost —103.3 million dollars
Annual O&M cost —9.94 million
dollars
- Cost Estimate (to POTWs) -
Present-value cost —49.9 million dollars
Annual O&M cost —4.8 million dollars
The District of Columbia and surrounding
counties should implement the
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) recommendations to
reduce nutrient and toxicant loadings to
the Bay. In addition, Prince Georges and
Montgomery counties should implement
and enforce new state 1983 regulations for
stormwater management. Northern
Virginia counties should continue to imple-
ment and enforce their nonpoint source
control program.
THE
RAPPAHANNOCK
RIVER
RASIN
The Rappahannock River basin is located en-
tirely in the northeastern section of Virginia. The
drainage area is quite narrow below Fredericks-
burg, only 10 miles wide (16 km) at one point,
but fans out to a maximum width of about 50
miles (80 km) in its headwaters in the Peidmont
RAPPAHANNOCK BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 2,631 square miles; 1,683,880 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950
96
LAND USE (1980):
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other Uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers (0)
Municipal dischargers (8)
1980
2000
150 209
Percent of Total
15.5
19.6
64.3
0.6
total metal loud
(Ibs/day)
0
7.4
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
278,000
Nitrogen
2,945,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 0.5
Municipal* 0.5
Cropland 21.0
Other nonpoint
sources 15.0
Total
37
15
23
17
63
0
5
40
10
55
1
7
33
45
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 2, Municipal 8
Province. The basin is largely rural with less than
0.6 percent in urban use. The Rappahannock
drains 2,631 square miles (6,841 km2) and
discharges less than 2 percent of the average year
total phosphorus load and 2 percent of the total
nitrogen load delivered to the Bay system. While
these loadings may be minor in terms of Bay-wide
loadings, they have an important influence on
local water quality and resources.
Resources and Water Quality
The Rappahannock is considered one of the
least-impacted western tributaries of the Bay.
Nevertheless, negative trends in some living
resources have been recorded. The river supports
runs of hickory and American shad, alewife,
-------
156 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
blueback herring, white and yellow perch, and
striped bass. There is only scattered information
on trends in freshwater-fish spawning success, but
significant declines in the landings of these species
probably indicate at least some reduction in
stocks. The Rappahannock also lost its beds of
submerged vegetation between 1970 and 1975.
Declines in oyster spat set have been reflected in
significant declines in oyster harvest since 1971.
Spat set has also declined in the Piankatank, a
small river included in the lower Rappahannock
estuary. Crab landings have been reduced
significantly since 1971. Parts of the Rappahan-
nock have supported commercial densities of soft
clams in the past, but populations are variable.
Hard clams occur occasionally in the lower
Piankatank. The Rappahannock is an important
wintering area for waterfowl in Virginia, espe-
cially for geese and diving ducks.
Although concentrations of phosphorus in the
mid- and lower reaches of the river are currently
low, trend analysis indicates that concentrations
of inorganic phosphorus have been increasing
(Flemer et al. 1983). Nutrient loadings in the Rap-
pahannock drainage system are chiefly from non-
point sources. Industrial activities generate more
than one-third of the total point source
phosphorus load. Small areas of the lower Rap-
pahannock are moderately enriched with cad-
mium from natural sources, but over all, toxic
substances are not a problem in the river.
Existing Policies and Planning
From 1969 to 1970, the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration (FWPCA), precur-
sor to the Environmental Protection Agency, par-
ticipated with local, state, and other Federal
agencies in a joint water resources study of the
Rappahannock River. At the time, a need was
found for a mathematical model of the river to
be used as a planning tool for predicting the water
quality responses of the river to various combina-
tions of waste loads, flows, and so forth. An in-
tratidal single-stage biochemical oxygen demand
and dissolved oxygen model was developed by the
FWPCA to meet this need. Subsequently, in an
effort to better represent the complex processes
which determine the DO levels of the river, ad-
ditional significant parameters such as nitrogenous
BOD were modeled and a more extensive data
base was used. In addition, the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science developed mathematical models
for the prediction of salinity and dissolved oxygen
in the Rappahannock River.
The City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
County are planning to renovate the abandoned
FMC Corporation industrial site to provide ad-
ditional waste-water treatment capacity (initial
phase -2.6 MGD) to attract light industry and to
accomodate future population growth.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 47 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the Rap-
pahannock drainage area. The Level 2 nonpoint
source strategy, conservation tillage, reduces the
existing phosphorus load 5 percent and the existing
nitrogen load 2 percent with the lowest present-
value cost per pound removed (phosphorus 0.82
dollars and nitrogen 0.21 dollars). A phosphorus
ban reduces the existing phosphorus load 4 per-
cent. The present-value cost to remove a pound
of phosphorus with the ban is greater than with
the TP = 1, TN = 6 strategy. This indicates that
phosphorus removal in the Rappahannock is more
cost effective at POTWs than through a phos-
phorus detergent ban. A phosphorus ban would,
however, provide annual O & M savings to
POTWs subject to a phosphorus effluent limita-
tion of 0.07 million dollars. The TN = 6 strategy
would reduce the existing nitrogen load 6 percent
at a present-value cost of 3.32 dollars per pound
removed.
Future (2000) phosphorus loads are projected
to increase 1 percent and future (2000) nitrogen
loads are projected to decrease 5 percent relative
to existing (1980) loads. The Future TP=1,
TN = 6 strategy and Future TP = 2 plus Level 2
strategy reduce projected phosphorus loads to
levels 13 percent and 12 percent below existing
(1980) loads. The Level 2 nonpoint strategy re-
duced existing (1980) phosphorus loadings 5 per-
cent and did so at a present-value cost per pound
removed lower than the effluent limitations or
phosphorus ban strategies. The effectiveness of the
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 157
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2 + Level 2
Future Level 2"
Future TP=t TN = 6
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP = 1, TN = 6
Total NPS
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
(relative to existing) (millions of 1982 dollars) 1 pound (dollars)
-12
-4
-13
-5
-4
-17
-39
11 2
035
11 7
035
42/07-
83
1003
062
1026
082
13 M
5 83
Total Phosphorus
(Millions of pounds, March-October]
'O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
•Extrapolated from effectiveness on existing (1980) loads
Present Value
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
(relative to existing] [mjllionsj-f 1982 dollars) ^ pound (dollars)
_________ -
-2
0
-6
-13
11 2
243
035
42/07-
163
increases
551
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
"O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
FIGURE 47. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the Rappahannock River drainage basin under average rainfall
conditions.
Level 2 strategy can be extrapolated to determine
its effectiveness on future (2000) nutrient loads in
the Rappahannock. The projected 1 percent in-
crease in year 2000 phosphorus loads is due to in-
creases in the volume of municipal waste-water
discharged. The Level 2 nonpoint strategy has no
effect on municipal discharges, so there is a
decrease in the effectiveness of this strategy when
extrapolated to future (2000) phosphorus loads.
The 5 percent reduction in phosphorus achieved
by the Level 2 strategy reduced the existing (1980)
phosphorus load 0.0139 million pounds (278,000
xO.05). When this reduction in existing (1980)
loads is applied to future (2000) phosphorus loads,
they are reduced to a level 4 percent less than the
existing (1980) phosphorus load.
Recommendations — Rappahannock River
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 278,000 pounds total
phosphorus and 2,945,000 pounds total nitrogen
(existing 1980 load). To improve conditions,
-------
158 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
future total basin loads must be reduced below
these levels. Based on the desired goal of main-
taining existing conditions and protecting the
valuable marine resources of the Rappahannnock
River, the following recommendations are
proposed.
1. Federal, state, and county agencies should
encourage the implementation of needed
BMPs in critical sub-basins.
2. All new or modified wastewater treatment
plants should consider providing nutrient
removal. This would ensure that popula-
tion growth does not increase existing
(1980) loads.
3. The State of Virginia should require
nutrient and BOD5 control for industrial
dischargers in the Rappahannock River,
where appropriate.
THE
YORK RIVER
BASIN
The York River basin, the third smallest in the
Bay drainage area, is largely rural and has the
smallest percentage of urban and other land uses.
More than 70 percent of this basin is forested. The
upper reaches of the Pamunkey and Mataponi,
tributaries to the York, extend into the Peidmont
Province, while the York River itself lies wholly
in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province.
Resources and Water Quality
The York is another relatively unimpacted
western shore tributary, but it has also lost some
resource quality in the past decade or so. The York
supports runs of American and hickory shad,
alewife, blueback herring, white and yellow
perch, and striped bass. Landings of alosids (shad,
herring) have declined drastically during the
1970's. The spawning success of white perch and
striped bass has shown some improvement in 1980
and 1981, although present harvests are low. In
YORK BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 2,986 square miles; 1,911,310 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950 1980 2000
98
LAND USE (1980):
180 25»
Percent of Total
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Forest
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers ( 2)
Municipal dischargers (11)
16.6
13.1
70.6
0.2
total metal load
(Ibs/day)
16.4
2.7
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
221,000
Nitrogen
2,329,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 0
Municipal* 2
Cropland ' 26
Other nonpoint
sources 7
Total
35
23
10
26
6
65
0
3
2
4
35
0
2
49
6
65
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 2, Municipal 11
fact, overall landings of freshwater-spawning fin-
fish have declined throughout the basin. The York
also supports juvenile marine spawners, par-
ticularly sciaenids such as spot and croaker.
Juvenile abundance of these finfish has been good
in the last few years; subsequent harvests are af-
fected greatly by winter survival, however. The
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 159
York river lost most of its submerged vegetation
in the period from 1971 to 1975; good populations
remain in Mob jack Bay and at the river's mouth.
The York River does not contain much oyster
bottom; spat set is low to moderate, and has
shown little change in the past 20 years. Mobjack
Bay, although it has low oyster acreage, has good
spat set and is a potential seed area. Oyster harvest
has declined significantly in these two areas since
1960 because of the impact of MSX, a protozoan
parasite. Blue crab landings have been relatively
stable during this period. Soft clams are not found
in commercial quantities, although harvestable
populations of hard clams are sometimes found.
The upper York is an important wintering area
for geese and puddle ducks; diving ducks use the
lower river and Mobjack Bay.
The tidal-fresh portion of the York is
moderately enriched with respect to phosphorus,
and trend analysis indicates that nitrogen concen-
trations are increasing in the Pamunkey and
Mataponi Rivers, tributaries to the York (Flemer
et al. 1983). Overall, toxic substances do not pre-
sent any water quality problems. Nonpoint sources
are the major source of nutrients, contributing 65
percent of the phosphorus and 87 percent of the
nitrogen load. Industrial discharges are signifi-
cant, and account for more than 23 percent of the
basin's total phosphorus load and 8 percent of its
nitrogen load. The largest POTW in the York
River basin has a discharge of 0.75 MGD and was
not subject to any POTW effluent limitation
strategies. Some POTWs provide only primary
treatment (Appendix B).
Existing Policies and Planning
As part of the 208 Planning Process, a water
quality model was developed for the study of en-
vironmental questions in the York River basin.
Model projections show that water quality con-
ditions are not at desired levels and will not
change significantly in the future. Dissolved ox-
ygen levels in the upper layer of the river will nor-
mally be above 5 mg L'1 but levels of dissolved
oxygen in the bottom layer will virtually always
be below the 4 mg L'1 standard (Hampton Roads
Water Quality Agency 1978).
The York Wastewater Treatment Plant (15
MGD design) is scheduled to begin operation in
the fall of 1983. The plant will be administered
by the Hampton Roads Sanitation District
(HRSD), and will discharge to the lower York
estuary. The plant will treat wastewater from
York County that is currently treated at the James
River wastewater treatment plant. The plant will
increase the capacity for treatment of the HRSD
and will provide wastewater treatment for the an-
ticipated population growth in the lower James-
York River area.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 48 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing (1980)
and future (2000) nutrient loads within the York
River drainage area. The Level 2 option, conser-
vation tillage, reduces the existing (1980)
phosphorus load 8 percent and the existing (1980)
nitrogen load 3 percent. A phosphorus ban reduces
the existing (1980) phosphorus load 6 percent. The
present-value cost per pound phosphorus removed
is 0.40 dollars with the Level 2 strategy, as com-
pared to 14.11 dollars with the phosphorus ban.
There are no POTWs with 1980 operational flows
greater than 1 MGD in the York basin, and no
POTW effluent strategies were simulated.
Future (2000) phosphorus loads are projected
to increase 122 percent and future (2000) nitrogen
loads are projected to increase 26 percent over ex-
isting (1980) loads. Three treatment plants, in-
cluding the 15 MGD York Wastewater Treatment
Plant, are projected to have flows greater than 1
MGD in the year 2000 and POTW effluent
strategies were applied to these plants (Appendix
B). Implementation of the Future TP = 1, TN = 6
municipal point source strategy does not reduce
projected phosphorus and nitrogen loads to levels
below existing (1980) conditions. This indicates
that municipal point source controls alone can-
not maintain existing (1980) loadings in the York.
The Level 2 nonpoint source strategy reduced ex-
isting (1980) phosphorus loads 8 percent and the
phosphorus ban reduced them 6 percent. Ex-
trapolating the combined effectiveness of the two
strategies, future (2000) phosphorus loads, which
are projected to increase 122 percent, are reduced
to a level 77 percent greater than existing (1980)
levels.
-------
160 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 +Level 2
Future TP = 1, TN = 6
Future Level 2 + P Ban"'
Existing
Level 2
PBan
Percent change Total value
// [relative to existing) (millions of 1982 dollars)
I fy \ +122
' °4' +25 160
I +16 175
tiff | +77 788
039
w ^ TIT 'IfT ^-1 *^ ^ "V \* ^ s ^ K ' *~ — —
F#*S?2*4ir"f.S*J,''if*S;..r_,,'i.» fr*.,.. ,,,'t/ >fc,flA ."SI | -8 051
f^iffcT'fs&jiiS-ik.:''.1': "*:r.rj-?.ii"4..'.i i -* 5210-
r.TJ'^'.'A^^ss'/^rJiri*?.'"; *"/!> 'V. / r-- -i
'Mfty,'^''; -??'f "jgp^jgjj"^" « - «-»•• | | 0 0
• • • • •
Cost to remove
1 pound (dollars)
251
257
265
040
14 11
Total Phosphorus
(Millions ot pounds March-October)
•O&M savings realized by POTWs if tequited to mee! o phosphorous effluent limitation
' 'Extrapolated from effectiveness on existing (1980) loads
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP=1. TN = 6
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=1r TN=6
Total NPS
Percent change Total value Cost to remove
(relative to existing] [millions of 1982 dollars) 1 pound (dollars)
~~ +26 " " - - ~~
ni f .
...gfcg- jj, At fc Jg.g jft
-3
0
0
-13
160
440
051
52/0'
0
1073
366
004
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds March-October)
•O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
FIGURE 48. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the York River drainage basin under average rainfall conditions.
Recommendations — York River
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 221,000 pounds of
total phosphorus and 2,329,000 pounds of total
nitrogen (existing 1980 load). To improve condi-
tions, future total basin loads must be reduced
below these levels. Based on the desired goal of
maintaining existing conditions and protecting the
valuable marine resources of the York River, the
following recommendations are proposed.
Federal, state, and county agencies should
encourage the implementation of needed
best management practices in critical sub-
basins.
The State of Virginia should require nu-
trient and BOD5 control for industrial dis-
chargers in the York, where appropriate.
Complete upgrading of all primary treat-
ment plants to secondary treatment plants.
All new or modified treatment plants
should consider providing nutrient
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 161
removal. This would ensure that popula-
tion growth does not increase existing
(1980) loads.
— Cost Estimate —
Present-value cost —53.3 million dollars
Capital cost—15.9 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —3.6 million dollars
(Provides for nitrogen and phosphorus con-
trol at York POTW and upgrades from
primary to secondary treatment. Does not
maintain existing secondary treatment.)
Local planning agencies should work with
the counties to encourage implementation
of urban runoff stormwater management
programs in the lower York River basin.
THE
JAMES RIVER
BASIN
Draining roughly one quarter of Virginia's
total area, the James River basin is the largest in
the state and the third largest in the Bay catch-
ment area. The James River winds 434 miles (694
km) through the basin from its headwaters along
the Virginia-West Virginia state line across the
Appalachian Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Pied-
mont, and Coastal Plain Provinces to its mouth
at Hampton Roads. The James basin has the
greatest percentage of forested land (72.6 percent)
and the smallest percentage of cropland (10.5 per-
cent) . The James is different than other basins in
that it contains several areas where population
and industrial activity are concentrated below the
fall line (Richmond, Hopewell, and Williams-
burg) and it is the only basin that has major
nutrient and toxic dischargers located in its lower
estuary (Greater Hampton Roads area). Further-
more, the lower James River estuary is located
near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay where
strong tidal flushing from the Atlantic Ocean takes
place.
JAMES BASIN FACT SHEET
AREA: 10,195 square miles; 6,524,900 acres
POPULATION (1000's): 1950
1930
2000
LAND USE (1980):
1206.2 2001.0 2287.6
Percent of Total
Cropland (total)
Conventional tillage
Conservation tillage
Pasture
Fo re & t
Urban and other uses
TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
Industrial dischargers (28)
Municipal dischargers (31)
10.5
1.3
9.2
13.7
72.6
3.2
total metal load
(Ibs/day)
152.2
398.6
In addition to these discharges below the fall
line, fall line metal loads of 2,91)5 Ibs/day
indicate significant additions from point sources
above the fall line.
NUTRIENTS:
Total Load
(Ibs, March-October)
Phosphorus
3,791,000
Nitrogen
20,505,000
Source
Above
Below
Above
Below
Fall line Fall line Fall line Fall line
Industrial* 1
Municipal* 6
Cropland 9
Other nonpoint
sources
Total
4
20
12
b2
3
4
80
1
2
Ifa
4
25
16
43
11
5
75
*Number of dischargers - Industrial 22, Municipal 31
Resources and Water Quality
The James River shows environmental
degradation and the consequent loss of biological
resources. Historically, the James supported runs
of shad, alewife, blueback herring, white and
yellow perch, and stiped bass. There is relatively
little information available on the recent spawn-
ing success of these species. However, landings of
-------
162 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
all freshwater spawners declined in the early
1970's before the Kepone-induced ban on fishing
was in place (1975). The James has had no SAV
in the upper and middle portions of the river as
far back as the earliest surveys; this has been
related to the turbidity of the river. The few
vegetation beds in the lower estuary were lost in
the mid-1970's.
The James River once supported the major
oyster-seed area for the entire Chesapeake Bay;
however, in 1959 to 1960, a large drop in spat set
occurred, particularly on the upstream bars.
Although still relatively productive, these bars no
longer produce the millions of bushels of spat an-
nually as in the past. Adult oysters are subject to
MSX in this river, and harvests have dropped
significantly since 1960. There has been a reduc-
tion in crab harvests as well; these have been af-
fected by the Kepone ban. Only scattered popula-
tions of soft and hard clams occur in this river.
Major waterfowl users of the James are Canada
geese (mostly on refuges), Bay ducks (lower river),
puddle ducks (upper river), and sea ducks (lower
river). Diving ducks feed primarily on benthic
organisms in the James River.
Most of the James' total toxic and nutrient load
is generated below the fall line by industrial and
municipal point sources. Research by Bieri et al.
(1983a) indicates that toxic organic compounds
in Bay waters are most often associated with point
and nonpoint sources located in industrial areas;
the highest concentrations of organic substances
in bed sediment were found in the Elizabeth
River. Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons ranged from 1 to over 100 ppm in
Elizabeth River sediments. The degree of metal
contamination in the sediment is very high in the
Elizabeth and upper James Rivers. Because of the
high levels of Kepone, much of the James River
was closed to fishing in 1975. The Contamination
Index, a useful indicator of potential problem
areas in the Bay, identified the industrialized sec-
tion of the James, such as in the Norfolk and
Hampton Road areas as the most contaminated
sections of the Bay.
High levels of both phosphorus and nitrogen
are found in the upper- and mid-reaches of the
river (Flemer et al. 1983). However, trend analysis
indicates that both phosphorus and nitrogen con-
centrations are declining throughout most of the
estuary. Municipal point sources below the fall
line account for 62 percent of the phosphorus and
43 percent of the nitrogen load in the James River.
Some POTWs provide only primary treatment
(Appendix B). Industrial discharges are significant
sources of toxic substances and nutrients.
Existing Policies and Planning
208 Planning-As part of the 208 Planning
process, a water quality model was developed for
the study of environmental questions in the James
River basin. The model includes the portion of the
river from Richmond to Old Point Comfort, and
the Appomattox, Chickahominy, Nansemond,
and Elizabeth Rivers. Studies which have been
conducted in the James include channel modifica-
tions, point sources, and thermal plumes. The
original study for which the model was con-
structed was the proposed dredging of the naviga-
tion channel from the James River Bridge to the
Richmond Deepwater Terminal.
Modeling results indicate that elevated col-
iform levels at the mouth of the Elizabeth River
or immediately adjacent to Craney Island are due
to conditions in the Elizabeth River and not due
to runoff or discharges to the James (Hampton
Roads Water Quality Agency 1978). Chlorophyll
a projections are around 10 ug L"1, levels that
should not result in environmental stress. Nutrient
levels are projected to remain reasonably high.
Although no readily observable impacts are noted,
nutrient enrichment should be watched closely.
Stormwater runoff increases BOD levels; as a
result, dissolved oxygen concentrations drop below
5 mg L"1 for a small number of stations. However,
the minimum level predicted for dissolved oxygen
is 4.87 mg L'1. This concentration does not repre-
sent a severe impact or a critical problem.
Richmond-Crater Interim Water Quality
Management Plan —In 1980, the Virginia State
Water Control Board was designated by the
Governor to complete the area-wide 208 manage-
ment plan which would control the Richmond-
Crater study area's point and nonpoint sources of
water pollution and residual wastes to maintain
existing water quality standards in the upper
James River (The Richmond Regional and Crater
Planning District 1982). Adopted by the board in
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 163
February 1983, the plan calls for Richmond-area
localities to spend nearly 400 million dollars to
upgrade sewage treatment facilities and to build
a new 30 MGD secondary treatment plant in
Henrico County. Under the plan, the City of Rich-
mond and the County of Chesterfield are required
to have additional outfalls located downstream to
prevent unacceptable stress on the dissolved ox-
ygen demand in the upper portions of the estuary.
This would be accomplished by constructing a
common pipeline to transport treated effluent
from the Richmond, Proctor's Creek, and Fall-
ing Creek sewage treatment plants to a regional
outfall upstream of Hopewell. The plan provides
for continuing monitoring of the river's quality
by a regional advisory committee and establishes
waste-land allocations for industrial and
municipal dischargers to the river. It also calls for
a voluntary control to limit pollution of the James
by runnoff from agricultural lands and city streets.
Despite the improvements in wastewater treat-
ment called for by the plan, higher levels of treat-
ment may be required to maintain existing water
quality in the Hopewell and Prince Georges areas
of the James River.
Combined Sewer Overflow Monitoring
Sampling Program —Approximately 50 percent of
the area of the City of Richmond (11,803 acres)
is served by combined sewers which transport both
urban stormwater runoff and municipal waste-
water (Proceedings 1977). Increased wet-weather
flows due to rainfall during storm events causes
these sewers to overflow and to discharge treated
and untreated municipal and industrial waste,
surface water, street wash, and other wash waters
directly to the upper James River. A detention
basin is under construction and currently pro-
jected to go into operation in early 1984 to con-
trol combined sewer overflows in the largest of
the 46 combined sewer basins in the Richmond
area, the 7,300 acre Shockoe basin. The objectives
of the Combined Sewer Overflow Monitoring
Sampling Program (CSO) are to determine water
quality improvements that result from the installa-
tion of the Shockoe detention basin, the relative
impact of the remaining CSOs in the Richmond
area, and the extent of upgrading necessary for
the Richmond sewage treatment plant. However,
the Shockoe detention basin was originally
scheduled to be in operation as early as January
1983, and the postponement may place the opera-
tions phase of the detention basin beyond existing
monitoring fiscal resources and prevent realiza-
tion of these objectives.
Pretreatment—Approved by the EPA in 1982,
the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)
has developed a pretreatment program for the
nine POTWs within its jurisdiction, each of which
receives significant volumes of industrial
wastewater for treatment. The objective of the
program is to remove, prior to treatment, those
industrial wastes which might create problems in
sewers (fire, corrosion, explosion) inhibit
municipal sewage treatment processes; or pass un-
treated into waterways or sludge, rendering it un-
fit for beneficial use or disposal.
Nansemond-Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water
Program — This Federal nonpoint source control
program provides 1.8 million dollars for the im-
plementation of RMPs to control runoff of fecal
coliforms, nutrients, and sediments from
agricultural land. The BMPs investigated included
animal-waste controls, conservation tillage,
vegetative buffers, and diversions.
Comparison of Strategies
Figure 49 illustrates the effectiveness of
management strategies in reducing existing and
future nutrient loads within the James River
drainage area. The phosphorus ban reduces the
existing (1980) phosphorus load 18 percent. The
TP = 2 and TP = 1, TN = 6 strategies reduce the
existing (1980) phosphorus load 44 and 55 percent,
respectively. The present-value cost to remove 1
pound of phosphorus with the phosphorus ban is
2.82 dollars. The present-value costs to remove
1 pound of phosphorus with the 2 or 1 mg L'1 ef-
fluent limitation are 4.13 dollars and 3.88 dollars,
respectively. This indicates that although a smaller
reduction in the total phosphorus load is
achievable on a cost per pound removed basis,
phosphorus can be removed more economically
with a phosphorus ban than with an effluent
limitation at POTWs. The Level 2 nonpoint op-
tion, conservation-tillage, is not very effective in
the point-source-dominated James, reducing the
phosphorus load 1 percent and the nitrogen load
even less. The TP = 1, TN = 6 strategy reduces the
-------
164 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Present Value
Strategy
Future
Future TP = 2 + Level 2
Future TP-1 TN = 6
Future P Ban"
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP=2
TP=1, TN=6
TP = 2 + Level2
Total NPS
Percent change Total value cost to remove
(relative to existing] (millions ot 1982 dollars} 1 pound [dollars]
1 0
569/238-
207 1
2422
2082
1 06
282
413
388
409
50
Total Phosophorus
(Millions of pounds, March-October}
'O&M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
• 'Extrapolated from effectiveness on existing (1980} loads
Strategy
Future
Future TP=2 + Level 2
Future TP=1 TN=6
Existing
Level 2
PBan
TP-2
TP=1, TN = 6
TP=2+leve! 2
Total NPS
Percent change
(relative to existing)
I .22
• • • • •
+ 23
-24
0
+ 01
1 + 2
-30
-62
•
Total value
(millions ol 1982 do
3090
8477
1 0
569/238-
2071
5897
2082
?
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Cost to remove
1 pound of Nutrient
(dollars!
N increases
297
1 13
N increases
N increases
322
N increases
Total Nitrogen
(Millions of pounds, March-October)
•O&M savings realized by POTWs if requited to meet a phosphorous effluent limitation
FIGURE 49. Existing (1980) and future (2000) estimates of nutrient loads and present value costs for different
management strategies in the James River drainage basin under average rainfall conditions.
nitrogen load 30 percent with a present-value cost
of 589.7 million dollars. The water quality
benefits to be realized from nitrogen removal
should be fully investigated before initiating a
nitrogen removal strategy in the James River.
Future (2000) phosphorus loads are projected
to increase 32 percent and future (2000) nitrogen
loads are projected to increase 22 percent over ex-
isting (1980) loads. Implementation of the Future
TP=1, TN = 6 strategy reduces projected
phosphorus loads to a level 49 percent below ex-
isting loads and nitrogen loads to a level 24 per-
cent below existing levels. The Future TP = 2 com-
bined with the Level 2 strategy reduces projected
phosphorus loads to a level 41 percent below ex-
isting loads. Either effluent strategy can be
modified and applied to selected POTWs based
on size to maintain existing (1980) loadings. The
effectiveness of a phosphorus ban in reducing ex-
isting (1980) phosphorus loads can be extrapolated
on future (2000) loadings. The 32 percent pro-
jected increase in projected phosphorus loadings
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 165
is due to increases in the volume of municipal
wastewater treated and discharged. A phosphorus
ban reduces the municipal effluent phosphorus
concentration 30 percent. A phosphorus ban
would reduce the projected increase in phosphorus
loadings 0.36 million pounds (future
load - existing load x 0.30). Combining the reduc-
tion achieved by the phosphorus ban with existing
(1980) loadings (3,791,000 x 0.18 = 0.682 millions
pounds), and the calculated reduction in the in-
crease in existing (1980) loadings (0.364 million
pounds), it is estimated that future phorphorus
loadings can be reduced 1.04 million pounds by
a phosphorus ban.
The significant number of municipal and in-
dustrial dischargers in the James River represents
a potential toxic threat to water quality and liv-
ing resources. The possible causes of toxicity in
municipal and industrial effluents as well as the
source of the effluents can be determined through
the biomonitoring and fingerprinting programs
developed by the GBP (described in Appendix D).
The NPDES permit can be used to control the
discharge of toxic substances from industrial
dischargers to surface waters and the pretreatment
program developed by the HRSD can be used to
control the discharge of toxic substances from in-
dustrial dischargers to municipal treatment plants.
Recommendations—James River
To maintain current conditions, future total
basin loads must not exceed 3,791,000 pounds
total phosphorus and 20,505,000 pounds total
nitrogen (existing 1980 load). To improve condi-
tions and prevent deterioration, both nutrient and
toxic substance loads must be reduced. Based on
the desired goal of improving conditions in the
James, the following recommendations are
proposed.
1. Complete upgrading of all primary treat-
ment plants to secondary.
— Cost Estimates —
Present-value cost — 33.1 million dollars
Capital cost —33.1 million dollars
(Does not include cost of maintaining
upgraded secondary treatment plants.)
2. The State of Virginia should establish a
pilot biomonitoring and chemical finger-
printing program for identification and
control of toxic discharges in the Elizabeth
and James Rivers.
— Cost Estimates —
Present-value cost —4.2-8.3 million
dollars
Annual O & M cost —0.4-0.8 million
dollars
(Monitoring program costs only. Does not
include cost to set up lab or to provide
removal of toxic substances.)
3. The State of Virginia, through the NPDES
program, should continue to evaluate the
impact of sewer overflows on water quality
in the greater Hampton Roads and Rich-
mond areas.
— Costs Estimates —
Annual Costs —0.15 million dollars
(Monitoring cost only. Does not include
cost to control combined sewer overflows.)
4. The State of Virginia and the political
jurisdictions in the upper James River basin
should consider, as one of several control
alternatives, a policy to limit the content
of phosphorus in detergents in light of im-
mediate significant reductions achievable
in phosphorus loads. Evaluation of the
policy should be completed by July 1,1984
and, if deemed appropriate, implemented
by July 1, 1986.
— Cost Estimates (to consumers) —
Present-value cost —56.9 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —5.48 million
dollars
-Cost Savings Estimates (to POTWs)-
Present-value cost —23.8 million dollars
Annual O & M cost —2.29 million
dollars
5. Federal, state, and local agencies should
utilize results from the Nansemond-
Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water Program
to implement needed BMPs in other
agricultural subbasins.
-------
166 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
6. The State of Virginia should evaluate the
effectiveness of nutrient removal at
POTWs in improving water quality in the
tidal-fresh upper James estuary.
SUMMARY
Table 36 summarizes the present-value im-
plementation and effectiveness of management
strategies in reducing existing (1980) nutrient loads
from the major drainage basins discharging to the
Chesapeake Bay. The largest reduction in
phosphorus and nitrogen loads is achieved with
the TP = 1, TN = 6 strategy. On a present-value
dollar per pound removal cost basis, the Level 2
strategy is the most cost effective of those tested.
Basin-wide, this nonpoint-source strategy removes
one pound of phosphorus at an average present-
value cost of 0.43 dollars as compared to 5.61 and
5.83 dollars, respectively, with the TP=1 and
TP = 2 municipal point source controls. As discuss-
ed earlier, reductions in freshwater phosphorus
loads may lead to increases in nitrogen loads. This
phenomena is exemplified in the Susquehanna and
Potomac basins. The Level 2 nonpoint source
strategy is the only strategy that provided consis-
tent reductions in both phosphorus and nitrogen
loads. This indicates the need for nonpoint source
controls to effectively reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings.
Table 37 summarizes the present-value im-
plementation cost and effectiveness of manage-
ment strategies in reducing future (2000) nutrient
loads from the major drainage basins discharg-
ing to the Chesapeake Bay. Not all strategies tested
against existing (1980) conditions were tested
against future (2000) conditions. In basins where
strategies were effective in reducing existing loads
but not applied to future (2000) loads, their ef-
fectiveness was extrapolated and included in the
discussion of that basin. The table indicates that
future (2000) loadings can be reduced to levels
below existing (1980) loadings, although with great
cost. Data calculated from Table 36 for the
present-value cost per pound of nutrient removed
strongly indicate that nonpoint source control is
a cost-effective way to reduce both phosphorus
and nitrogen loadings and should be included in
any nutrient reduction strategy.
-------
Chapter 5: Basin Profiles 167
t—
z
LU
LU
O
z
<
ae
2
_ tn
¥> z
co O
O K=
0|
§o
PO
^ 0
z «o
UJ O*
2 £.
li
— 55
9x
^ LU
•
^
=
3
CM
II
a.
i—
1
o
o
£
a.
- £
0. O fc
W
1- C0 O
c §S
7= «S
O)
S> o
CO £
flu O £
— * _. «0
2 3: 2 0)
d> 5 O >
l€ "oo
> N
•g <*
3 c i w
"" o
•o ^
SO ^?
Q ^_
•l— f\
c S
0) O
1°
«y
g'oo.
li1"
|x
1
ca
O- O O O CO
+
^>T CO ^>T LO CM
^- ^ ^- LO •^~
1 1 1 1
"1
r^ c> -o r^ LO J
CO CM LO CO OJ CL CL Q
1 ^
1 +
i 7
3 "O
^5-0
O (/>
) 0) r*^-
- ••- O
5 ow
- c
3 O O
t -O 00
1 T
CO
5 o co
CM
s| CN O
r LO o
§o
o
o
•) 0- LO
s CM O
» CO LO
5 CN O
CM
3 O O
3 O O
3 O O
3 •«- •*-
» CM ^J
g CN P^N
CO
i
)
3
I
3 CO
i*?
?5^
? O
—
CM
1 CN
a)
«
LO CM
1 -
<) ^
2 O
c
1
cs
_M
Tit
w
2 ^
CO
^_
LO
CO
o
o *o
0 II
LO' z
CM t—
CN
1 I
O
o
o
co'
LO
CO'
]5
IS5
CO £
CL O °-
CM
CO
c o ^ 52
£ •* = TJ
E
~
~ a>z
8?
S o
(D £
CL O 0-
*"~
CM
- §
c o •*• £
§3 <0 0
.^§3
a. ^ = TJ
E,
? a>z
§?
E O
l—
m CM >O
§ « II
5-^5
^ « O
O •— -n v
II t
£
00 CM Pv -^ CM i | O
•«- 1 i 1 + 1 1
O LO LO LO r^ LO
CM ^t CM LO ^ 1 1 *J
1 1 1 1 1 ' ' 1
"O "0
OOCOOLOLO-2-2o
^~COP^OOOO 0 CD°O
O-LO'-co-O-^-^O
0-5^
C C
CO
x- CM P-. •«- t- CM ' O
1 1 1 1 1 1
OCM^^-^LOoO^-
| |
LO GO ^T P^ CO LO ^~
-OcO'sj'O-^cOLOO
MJO-^OCMOO^-
CNOP^O-^OOO
•«- ^r i co CN i co
1 1 11 1
Pv ^- LO ^J CM P^ O LO
•c- LO •*" ^ CM •*- LO
1 I 1 1 1 1 g
•«- ^T O oo ^ co h^
O'sJ'^OcOCM'OOO*
P^ CN CO O (^ ^- CO
P^ LO CM LO
•q- CO O O CM CM CN
^-pxP^^~LOCOOCM
CM •*- T- CM
CD ^
O O ffi o
c CD X c
c 0° c
O D OT <- (i D
fislM «
J6i5la*?
3>OOOOOO
co>LUO-CLG:>-n
i- o
CO
CO
1
O
06
O
CO
1
0
CO
CD
CO
* CD
•O w
CM O
O
C
LO "D
co O
Z
LO <0
§ 1
" §
-o o
S |
0"
CO
3
CD
"0
"o
C
"
"o
(O
5 8
B Q
1— •
-------
168 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Z
LU
LU
O
z
S
O
<2 w>
OQ
0!=
^Q
uj O
SO
,< UJ £i
CO ft! LU
o£
g^U
UJ I—
«>
o
LU
Q.
5
C «
O O)
o!
0) Ok
^00
If2
o ^~ O"
£ *"
o o1
o g
°-O '
il
H
CN CM CO •«- CN
CN CM •«- oo t- CN 1
i I I I ; i -1- i
to M O_ o 01 oj p eo
cqc><3<)pcOprv
O-<--OP^oocsl'«T1
•«- 1^ •<- 10 to
CO M' CN IV O CN to
> O O O O O O O
i O O O O O O O
I O O O O O O O
i O to co *O O co O
O" O-" CO <3 CN CN lO
CO CM
lOO
IO •»-
§000000
o o o o o o
ooooooo
CNOI'-IO'-OOO
tX3 IO O OO r--. CN T
O
O
O
O
O
O
CT
f > ^
.£ 0)
« 'g
o 75
o-£
§1
-------
CHAPTER 6
BAY MANAGEMENT
Harry W. Wells, Jr.
Caren E. Glotfelty
INTRODUCTION
Previous chapters have discussed the nature
and extent of water quality problems in
Chesapeake Bay, and have suggested a range of
actions to solve these problems. It is clear that
more effort is necessary at all levels of government
to control the sources of nutrients and toxic
materials reaching the Bay and its tributaries.
Responsibility for implementing Chesapeake Bay
Program recommendations does not rest solely
with the EPA, the states, individual local govern-
ments, or private individuals. Everyone must play
a role in improving the water quality and
resources of Chesapeake Bay. This chapter will
help policy makers consider alternate options for
Bay management including the use of existing in-
stitutions or the creation of new mechanisms. It
will help Federal, state, and local officials review
the options, consider the recommendations, and
select the mechanism or sequence of events which
can most effectively manage the Bay's water qual-
ity and productivity. A more comprehensive dis-
cussion of existing institutions is included in Ap-
pendix G.
Part of the directive to the EPA from Congress
when it initiated the Chesapeake Bay Program
was to "determine what units of government have
management responsibility for the environmental
quality of Chesapeake Bay and define how such
management responsibility can best be structured
so that communication and coordination can be
improved not only between the respective units
of government but also between those units and
research and educational institutions, and con-
cerned groups and individuals on Chesapeake
Bay."
The CBP has determined that effective
management of Chesapeake Bay requires a
management structure which is responsive to the
diverse commercial and recreational needs of the
Chesapeake Bay basin. If this management struc-
ture is to maintain or improve the quality of
Chesapeake Bay, it must act on CBP findings at
all levels. It must also improve coordination
among the various agencies taking actions to solve
Bay water quality problems.
The process of review to determine or confirm
the optimal structure is too important to be left
to chance. This chapter describes and evaluates
managment structures and recommends an ap-
proach for Bay management.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
A report prepared by John Capper et al. (1981)
under contract to the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram traced the early attempts to manage the
Bay. The following brief review will help the
reader understand the most recent approaches to
Bay-wide management.
In 1965, the Congress authorized the Corps
of Engineers "to make a complete investigation
and study of water utilization and control of the
Chesapeake Bay basin . . . including . . . naviga-
tion, fisheries, flood control, control of noxious
waste, water pollution, water quality control,
beach erosion and recreation." To aid in the
Chesapeake Bay study, the Corps was author-
ized to build a hydraulic model of the Bay. The
resulting study has covered a span of approxi-
mately 18 years, and led to the publication of the
multi-volume Existing Conditions Report and
169
-------
170 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Future Conditions Report (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1973).
In 1978, the General Assemblies of Maryland
and Virginia passed resolutions creating the
Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission
to evaluate existing and potential management in-
stitutions for Chesapeake Bay. The Commission
reviewed seven general types of alternative
management institutions which could be adapted
for use in improving and coordinating Bay
management activities in the two states. The
following alternatives were considered: (1)
reliance upon existing government agencies with
no new entity being created; (2) a bi-state com-
mission without Federal participation; (3) a
Federal-interstate commission; (4) a commission
created under Title II of the Water Resources
Planning Act of 1965; (5) a commission or agency
created pursuant to Section 309 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972; (6) an interstate
planning agency created under Section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments; and (7) a Federal regional management
authority.
The Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory
Commission concluded that a greater level of
cooperation was needed between state policy-
makers; the primary responsibility for governing
Chesapeake Bay should remain with the states and
their political sub-divisions; and management dif-
ficulties arising from intra and interstate jurisdic-
tional boundaries should be resolved through the
efforts of the states. Accordingly, in 1980, the
Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies cre-
ated the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which con-
sists primarily of legislative members from both
states, with one executive agency and one citizen
member from each state.
In 1979, the Governors of Virginia and
Maryland formalized an agreement to coordinate
research, planning, and management activities af-
fecting the Bay through the formation of a Bi-State
Working Committee of executive agency represen-
tatives from both states.
In 1980, Congress enacted the Chesapeake Bay
Research Coordination Act, creating a Chesa-
peake Bay Research Board, comprised of state and
Federal members, to coordinate research efforts
in the Chesapeake Bay region. Although never
funded, a Research Board has been established in
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA) in the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
There are two other regional institutions
operating in the Chesapeake Bay region. These
are the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission
is a Federal-interstate compact commission,
created in 1970, to coordinate Federal, state,
local, and non-governmental plans for water and
related land resources through centralized and
comprehensive planning, programming, and
management. The Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin is also a Federal-interstate
compact commission which was organized in 1940
to promote interstate cooperation in the preven-
tion of stream pollution through water quality and
land-planning measures.
BASIS FOR EVALUATION
The Capper Report shows that there are many
institutions involved in Chesapeake Bay evalua-
tion and management. However, many critical
questions remain —is a new institution needed
and, if so, are any of the five existing institutions
noted suitable for carrying out the activities and
responsibilities, and what other alternatives exist?
The Chesapeake Bay Program commissioned
a report from Resources for the Future, Inc. to
evaluate institutional arrangements for water
resource problems (RFF 1979). The report was
designed to examine alternative water manage-
ment arrangements used by other domestic and
international groups to accomplish regional en-
vironmental objectives. The report did not recom-
mend a particular institutional arrangement for
Chesapeake Bay management. Rather, it primar-
ily discussed organizational behavior as applied
to regional environmental management institu-
tions, based on the review of existing institutions.
The RFF report concluded that, in general,
regional institutions in the United States have not
performed as expected in solving the problems that
they were designed to address. This has occurred
because new regional institutions tend to be
resisted by existing local, state, and Federal en-
-------
Chapter 6: Bay Management 171
tities; thus, the exercise of authority by such new
regional institutions tends to be limited, regardless
of how strong their actual authority is. The
authors of the RFF report identified criteria to be
considered in designing a new regional institution.
These criteria, which are summarized below, are
useful in evaluating the various institution
alternatives.
1. The jurisdictional scope of institutions
should correspond to the impact boundaries
of problems insofar as adequate knowledge
about impact boundaries is available. This
criterion is based on the conclusions that:
• Small institutions are more efficient and
responsive than large institutions;
therefore,
• Institutions should be no larger than
necessary to incorporate all relevant par-
ties affected by a problem.
2. A multiple-institution structure is most
desirable for dealing with problems having
potentially serious consequences where ade-
quate information about the impact boun-
daries of those problems is not available.
This criterion is based on the conclusions
that:
• Where very little is known about the ef-
fects of a problem, the most important
function an institution can perform is to
collect and generate new information
about this problem;
• Unbiased information can best be col-
lected and generated through a multiple-
institution structure; and
• The cost of a multiple-institution structure
for collecting and generating new informa-
tion about a problem is justified if the prob-
lem has potentially serious consequences.
This criterion suggests that complex prob-
lems are best handled by a number of in-
stitutions rather than a single institution.
Further, the potential inefficiencies of a
multiple-institution structure are out-
weighed by the benefits of a number of dif-
ferent perspectives on complex problems.
3. Creating a new institution is feasible only
if a favorable incentive structure exists for
the participants in that institution. Incen-
tives are most likely to be favorable if the
participants:
• Receive side benefits merely by par-
ticipating in the new institution;
• Gain benefits from collective resolution
of a problem;
• Lose only small amounts of autonomy,
power, and representation in the new in-
stitution; and
• Spend only a small amount of time and
resources to participate in the new
institution.
In other words, the prospective members
must believe that the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages by participating in the
institution.
The criteria suggest that the institution should
correspond to the states and municipalities which
drain or border the Bay. Because the Bay drainage
area encompasses significant portions of five states
and the District of Columbia (D.C.), the institu-
tion should encompass either all five states and
D.C., or at least those states whose land area or
volume of effluent can significantly affect the Bay
and its tributaries. The last criterion suggests that
lacking an incentive, the existing mechanisms
should be tried as is until it is demonstrated that
those mechanisms cannot achieve the desired
objectives.
GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The institution or management mechanism
should ideally be able to influence a coordinated
approach to managing the Bay's water quality and
biological resources. Its goal should be to restore
and maintain the Bay's ecological integrity. To
accomplish this, the structure should ideally be
able to perform or coordinate all of the tasks
which relate to the objective. Those tasks include:
comprehensive planning, technology transfer,
data management and analysis, model refinement
and development, conflict resolution, progress
reporting, monitoring, research, and public in-
formation and education.
ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT
MECHANISMS
The following evaluation further explores a
range of potential actions from relying primarily
on existing institutions to creating a comprehen-
-------
172 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
sive Bay-wide Authority. It must be stressed that
while ten options are explored, this is not a finite
list. Any number of variations could be recom-
mended or could evolve.
Three broad classes of action could be taken.
The first, that of using existing structures, con-
tains two options; the second, to modify an ex-
isting institution, contains six options; the last, to
establish a new institution, contains two options.
The ten options are as follows:
1. EPA Region III
2. EPA Region III and the GBP Management
Committee.
3. Chesapeake Bay Policy Board and
Management Committee
4. Bi-State Working Committee
5. Chesapeake Bay Commission
6. Interstate Commission on Potomac River
Basin
7. Susquehanna River Basin Commission
8. Chesapeake Research Coordination Board
9. Basin Commission
10. Comprehensive Bay-Wide Authority
Maximum Utilization of Current Programs
This option continues existing institutional
mechanisms and current programs with no new
management entity. Each Federal and state
agency would be responsible for incorporating
recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Program
into their existing regulatory structure. For ex-
ample, states would be responsible for revising
their water quality standards and funding priority
lists to satisfy nutrient loading recommendations
of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The EPA would
retain its responsibility to implement the
Chesapeake Bay Program recommendations
within the provisions of the Clean Water Act, and
local governments would focus on POTW com-
pliance, urban runoff, and other local issues.
Many observers feel that sufficient laws and
programs exist to create significant improvement
in the Bay's waters. The problem could be one of
enforcement of existing laws and possible inade-
quate use of authority already vested in certain
institutions. Under existing authority the EPA
could negotiate "tough" state and EPA agreements
to:
• Channel 201 money to protect the Bay;
• Expedite permit efforts to protect the Bay;
• Target monitoring to protect the Bay in a
coordinated way;
• Bring all three states to equal performance;
• Guide state programs aimed at reducing
runoff from agricultural lands, construction
sites, and urban stormwater;
• Force states to act, not study;
• Establish a 404 wetlands protection policy
for the Bay; and
• Establish oil and hazardous chemical spill
prevention plans for all sites in the Bay
drainage area.
The states have the authority to:
• Require gas chromatograph/mass spec-
tophotometer (GC/MS) analysis of all
POTW and major industry sources;
• Require bio-monitoring of the same;
• Expedite pretreatment program compliance
by POTWs;
• Enforce permits against POTWs and
industry;
• Push for coastal zone plans to protect the
Bay; and
• Apply vigorous controls under 208 on non-
point sources.
Local and county governments could:
• Improve performance at POTWs;
• Apply tough pretreatment programs;
• Sample effluents with GC/MS to monitor
other than sanitary flows;
• Apply user-charges and other financial
methods to ensure that funds are adequate
for operation, maintenance, and replace-
ment costs; and
• Promote agricultural urban nonpoint source
programs.
The major Federal responsibility is the en-
forcement of abatement programs under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). While nonpoint source
programs are generally considered to be in the
primary domain of state and local governments,
the EPA does have review and approval author-
ity for state water quality standards, total max-
imum daily loads, continuing planning processes,
and water quality management plans. Given the
GBP findings, the EPA could use these authorities
to influence state and local nonpoint source ap-
proaches and practices. Utilizing the consistency
requirements of section 208 (d and e) of the
NPDES construction grant water quality manage-
-------
Chapter 6: Bay Management 173
ment plan, the EPA should attempt to assure non-
point source implementation where needed to pro-
tect water quality in the Bay. These various CWA
authorities provide the opportunity to coordinate
Federal, state, and local point and nonpoint
source decisions and responsibilities to address
these issues without minimizing state and local
responsibilities and actions.
Some of the CBP recommendations, however,
fall outside the EPA's jurisdiction. The EPA has
a minimal role in storm-water management (ur-
ban runoff) and fisheries management, and has
no authority to implement programs in these
areas.
1. EPA Region /// — The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's Division of Water Quality Stan-
dards and Enforcement has the explicit charge
under the Clean Water Act to enforce abatement
programs in Region III. This region includes all
the states which drain into the Bay except New
York. The EPA, under the criterion of abatement,
has the authority, structure, and staff to address
certain aspects of Bay management. Although
legal authority exists, formalized enforcement ac-
tivities can be tedious and time consuming due
to inherent checks and balances in the legal pro-
cess. It should also be noted that some states tend
to be cautious in dealing with any Federal
regulatory agency that has potential oversight of
state resources.
2. EPA Region HI and the CBP Management
Committee —All comments regarding the ap-
propriateness of option number 1 apply. It should
be noted that it is not necessary to have a formal-
ized Management Committee that reports to the
EPA, as the EPA already has the authority to con-
vene meetings with state representatives. Under
this option, the present CBP Management Com-
mittee could continue to function after September
30, 1983. The Committee has been effective in
providing program guidance to the EPA on an in-
formal consensus building level. The result has
been an effective approach to managing a com-
plex Congressionally-mandated Federal and state
program. The Management Committee could
oversee the implementation of a Chesapeake Bay
Data Management Center and encourage the ini-
tiation of monitoring activities recommended by
the EPA's CBP.
The Management Committee could be
modified to include representatives of state and
Federal agencies responsible for managing
resources. The voluntary consensus building
characteristic of the Committee would remain un-
changed, and staff support would be provided by
the states and the EPA.
Modification of an Existing Institution
This second category assigns the primary
responsibility to an institution which already ex-
ists, and modifies that institution to carry out the
necessary role. This approach does not suggest that
the existing state and Federal management agen-
cies would cease to carry out their present plan-
ning and regulatory functions, nor that other ex-
isting interstate institutions would cease to func-
tion in a coordinating role. It does suggest that
the institution being modified could acquire the
following purpose, structure, function, and fund-
ing arrangements:
• It could include policy-level coordination
of water quality and resource management
programs at the state and Federal level to
achieve long-term goals for enhancing the
environmental quality of the Bay.
• It could be structured to include participa-
tion by important Federal agencies (EPA,
NOAA, USDA, and others), the States of
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the
District of Columbia, and local
governments.
• It must be capable of performing or manag-
ing technical analyses, oversight of monitor-
ing programs, maintenance and use of com-
puter models, public outreach programs,
and interaction with the scientific com-
munity. This presupposes that staff support
and funding would be available which
would be devoted wholly or largely to the
tasks.
One advantage of modifying an existing in-
stitution is that minor changes could be made with
relative ease, and the institution could begin
operating immediately in its new or expanded
role. If staff are already available, one may only
need to shift emphasis of activities and avoid
-------
174 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
lengthy start-up delays. On the other hand, if
modification requires a fundamental change in the
institution's purpose or structure, the situation
would be similar to creating a new institution.
In establishing a new institution or
mechanism, greater use of both citizen and
technical advisory committees should be con-
sidered. Committees or subcommittees could be
established in areas of public participation,
monitoring, and research.
3. Chesapeake Bay Policy Board and Manage-
ment Committee— A Chesapeake Bay Policy
Board could be composed of representatives of the
Federal Government, states, or municipalities
whose jurisdictions are within the Bay and con-
tain either significant land area or facilities which
affect water quality resources. The Board
membership would be limited to appointed policy
level officials who report directly to a Federal Ad-
ministrator, Governor, or Mayor. Board members
would be individuals who have the authority to
directly implement programs and policies agreed
upon at Board meetings. The Board could meet
bi-annually and be administratively coordinated
by the EPA Region III Administrator. Other
representatives from Federal agencies, non-
member states, or River Basin Authorities could,
depending on the agenda, attend Policy Board
meetings at the invitation of the Region III Ad-
ministrator. The Policy Board would be supported
a Management Committee and a staff.
The relative functions and structure of a Policy
Board and the Management Committee could be
as follows:
Membership:
Four representatives, appointed by the Gover-
nors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
the Mayor of Washington, D.C.
Chairman:
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III
Meeting Frequency:
No less than semi-annually
Functions:
• Maintain a strong role for the Federal
government and the affected states;
• Set policy and make resource-allocation
decisions at the highest levels of government;
• Mobilize and build upon existing laws and
institutions;
• Involve all appropriate institutions in
specific activities in the most effective man-
ner possible;
• Accomodate the diverse needs of the
Federal, state and local governments; and
• Provide a continuing forum for discussion
and resolution of issues and disputes over
policy affecting the ecological health of the
Bay.
The Policy Board could be responsible for
coordinating the work of appropriate Federal and
state agencies to carry out certain planning and
implementation components of a Bay-wide effort
to ensure adequate control of all sources of
pollutants. Therefore, the EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator could initiate cooperative activities
with the National Oceanographic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, the Corps of Engineers,
the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal
jurisdictions affecting the quality of Chesapeake
Bay. Likewise, senior regional, state, and District
of Columbia officials could coordinate and
organize efforts of their respective counterparts.
A management committee supporting the
policy board could have the following structure:
Membership:
Two representatives each from the states of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, for
water quality and resources, and one represen-
tative from each Federal agency with
regulatory responsibilities affecting the water
quality and resources of the Bay
Chairman:
Director EPA Region III, Water Division
Meeting Frequency:
Monthly
Functions:
• Implement control strategies based on the
findings of the Chesapeake Bay Program;
• Implement comprehensive Bay-wide
monitoring programs to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of control efforts;
• Develop comprehensive basin-wide plans to
control nutrients and toxic substances;
• Investigate and develop regional approaches
to setting water quality standards, making
waste load allocations and establishing
priorities for funding;
• Identify and review conflicts regarding
-------
Chapter 6: Bay Management 175
regional water quality issues and make
recommendations as appropriate; and
• Review ongoing Bay research efforts and
recommend additional research needs on
specific issues.
4. Bi-State Working Committee —The Bi-
State Working Committee ensures the day-to-day
working level coordination of a multitude of ex-
isting state programs. It has not been charged with
setting goals for the Bay, other than generally im-
proved management through coordination. To
evaluate the EPA's CBP findings and recommen-
dations, the committee would have to more nar-
rowly focus its efforts toward water quality and
aquatic resource effects, and set long-term goals
for its efforts in this endeavor.
To function as the CBP management
mechanism, the Bi-State Committee would have
to add, at a minimum, Federal members and
Pennsylvania members. Because the Committee
has no full-time staff, arrangements would need
to be made to assign full-time staff (possibly from
EPA and the states) to the management of the
computer data base, development of management
proposals, and oversight of monitoring efforts.
The Bi-State Committee cannot employ in-
dependent staff and has no budget. Staff members
would have to be provided by assignment by each
member agency. The current Governor's agree-
ment does not commit any member to providing
specific resources; this should be spelled out in any
modification of the Agreement. Funding and per-
sonnel assignments would be subject to regular
Federal and state bugetary processes.
Modification of the Bi-State Committee would
require action by the Governors of Maryland and
Virginia to modify the charge of the committee,
and to invite Federal and Pennsylvania member-
ship. The Governor of Pennsylvania and the heads
of Federal agencies would have to agree to par-
ticipate. These executive actions could be ac-
complished in a matter of months.
5. Chesapeake Bay Commission —"The pur-
poses of the Chesapeake Bay Commission are con-
sistent with the implementation recommendations
of the CBP. The Commission is not limited in
focus, however, to water quality and living
resource issues. It also deals with commercial ship-
ping, and other economic uses of the Bay.
The Commission, however, was directed not
to actually carry out the administrative functions
of state government (i.e., planning, regulating,
or funding water quality or fisheries programs),
but rather to serve as an advisor and catalyst for
action by administrative agencies. Thus, carry-
ing out the maintenance and operation of the com-
puter system or data base, and acquiring sufficient
staff to do technical planning and analysis, might
be outside of its current mandate. Most of the
resources of the Commission have been directed
toward achieving legislative solutions to mutual
problems.
The Commission currently has no Federal
membership and does not include Pennsylvania.
Including Pennsylvania could be a minor effort
but providing for Federal membership would in-
volve a fundamental change in the Commission.
Some form of Federal participation short of
membership may be preferable.
The Commission has a permanent staff but
does not currently have the technical expertise re-
quired to maintain and operate the computer and
associated data base and models, and to oversee
monitoring. An increase in staff by at least four
positions would be required. The Commission's
150,000 dollar budget is not sufficient to handle
this level of expansion, but there is no limitation
on the amount of funding the Commission can re-
quest of its member states. The Commission is
authorized to accept grants and contracts from
Federal, state, or private sources. Thus, while the
change in funding level would involve a 3- to
4-fold increase, the administrative structure ex-
ists to receive funds and devote them to the ap-
propriate tasks.
Modification of the Commission would in-
volve: ammendment to the enabling legislation by
Maryland and Virginia, adoption of the Ammend-
ment by Pennsylvania, and some means of Federal
recognition. This change would require at least
one full session of each state's General Assembly.
The timing of Federal recognition would depend
on whether this involved executive action or Con-
gressional action.
6. Interstate Commission on Potomac River
Basin (ICPRB) - The ICPRB currently deals only
with the Potomac River Basin and, thus, a fun-
damental change would be required to expand it
to deal with the Bay as a whole. The ICPRB
-------
176 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
already has membership from Maryland, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District
of Columbia (D.C.), and the EPA. A review of
Federal membership would be necessary to ensure
that necessary agencies were involved. Further-
more, the way in which states are involved
revolves around its Potomac focus: West Virginia
has not been proposed for inclusion in the GBP
implementation mechanism. Thus, to be consis-
tent, New York, Delaware, and D.C. would also
have to be included.
In its functioning as a planning analysis and
coordinating body, the ICPRB would not require
much change. Some expansion of existing staff
might be required to provide appropriate data
management expertise. The ICPRB has a budget
in excess of 500,000 dollars and has appropriate
mechanisms to receive funds to accomplish CBP
tasks. It would be necessary to supplement the
ICPRB budget to ensure sufficient funds to cover
an expanded role.
Modification of the ICPRB Compact would
involve Congressional action and approval by all
state legislatures of changes. This could easily in-
volve several years.
7. Susquehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC) - The SRBC is oriented toward improv-
ing the Susquehanna River as an entity, rather
than as a tributary of the Bay. Its charter and
comprehensive plan recognizes the river's in-
fluence on the Bay and the need to deal with
adverse impacts on the Bay. The SRBC was ori-
ginally proposed as a regulatory and management
institution, as well as a planning and coordinating
body.
The SRBC participants include Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and New York. Thus, at minimum,
the State of Virginia should be added to be con-
sistent. The States of New York, West Virginia,
and Delaware might also be added. Federal
membership is provided through the Interior
Department. Arrangement should be made for
EPA and NOAA involvement.
In function, very little change would be
needed. The SRBC currently operates in a plan-
ning, technical analysis, and coordination mode.
Some expansion of staff may be necessary to pro-
vide appropriate expertise. A change in issue-focus
to more specifically deal with water quality and
living resource concerns would be necessary, but
this would be consistent with its current mandate.
In addition, the SRBC has the authority to act in
a regulatory and management capacity if this
were necessary to implement CBP findings.
The SRBC currently has a budget in excess of
500,000 dollars and is set up to receive funds from
all signatories and dispense funds for appropriate
activities. It does not currently devote this level
of funding to Chesapeake Bay concerns and, thus,
significant reorientation of the current budget or
addition of new funds would be necessary.
Modification of the SRBC compact would re-
quire Congressional action and action by each
state legislature involved. Traditionally, adoption
of major modifications of interstate compacts re-
quires several years.
8. Chesapeake Research Coordination Board
(CRCB)-T:he CRCB is currently mandated to
deal only with the coordination of research. The
development of strategies, resource planning, and
oversight of monitoring are not part of its role.
Thus, major modification would be required.
As currently composed, the Board has ap-
propriate Federal membership and involvement.
Maryland and Virginia have members but Penn-
sylvania does not. The Board was proposed to be
staffed by an office within the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with a
budget of 300,000 dollars. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration has set up an ad
hoc committee, but no office has been set up to
date, and no funds have been provided. States do
not provide any funds.
Modification of the Board's role and the in-
clusion of Pennsylvania would require an act of
Congress and appointment of members by the
Secretary of Commerce and the Governor of
Pennsylvania. It would also require authorization
of funds through NOAA —something that NOAA
and Congress have been reluctant to do. Several
years could be required to make legislative
changes and at least one year would be needed
to set up the office.
Establishment of a New Institution
The third approach to managing the Bay in-
cludes two alternative options to create a new in-
stitution. Suggestions to create new institutions to
-------
Chapter 6: Bay Management 177
deal with insterstate management issues have been
discussed extensively and a number of models ex-
ist. Strong and pursuasive agreements are heard
on both sides of the question.
At a 1977 Bi-State Conference on the
Chesapeake Bay, Senator Charles McC. Mathias,
Jr., suggested that a single institution was needed
to coordinate all of the Federal, state, local, and
private agencies with an interest in the Bay. At
that time he estimated that there were 10 Federal
agencies with some jurisdiction over the Bay, five
interstate agencies and commissions, 31 state agen-
cies in Maryland and Virginia dealing with the
Bay, seven Maryland and Virginia colleges and
universities studying the Bay, and scores of private
organizations and citizens groups concerning
themselves with some aspect of the Bay. Senator
Mathias argued his preference for establishment
of a Title II Commission as provided by the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1965. His preference
for a single comprehensive institution to manage
all Chesapeake Bay problems has been shared by
a number of observers in the Bay region.
On the other hand, as stated earlier, the RFF
report (1979) concluded that, in general, regional
institutions in the United States have not met ex-
pectations about their performance and ability to
solve problems they were designed to address. This
has occurred because new regional institutions
tend to be resisted by existing local, state, and
Federal entities, and thus the exercise of author-
ity by such new regional institutions tends to be
limited, no matter how strong their actual
authority is.
9. Basin Commission —A Basin Commission
could be established by one of three mechanisms,
Water Resources Planning Act (Title II), Coastal
Zone Managment Act (CZMA) (Section 309), or
Clean Water Act (CWA) (Section 102c). The
Commission would be empowered to:
• Have Chesapeake Bay designated as a
priority water body;
• Have a portion of the construction grant
program authorized by Section 205 reserv-
ed for Chesapeake Bay activities;
• Influence the construction grant priority
lists;
• Have nonpoint loadings considered as water
quality standards and control measures
adopted; and
• Influence the NPDES program.
Such an organization has several advantages.
First, it could be established at the request of a
majority of the affected states. Its jurisdiction,
however, would be basin-wide. Second, being
clearly an interstate entity, it would have visibility
and a role in regional regulations. As such, it could
serve as an advisor to the EPA during agency
reviews of individual state water quality stan-
dards, construction grant priority lists, waste-load
allocations, procedures for administration of the
NPDES program, and priorities for use of Federal
environmental grants. Advantages of a Basin
Commission include:
• Required state and Federal participation;
• Required petition from a majority, but not
all, of the Governors in the drainage basin;
• Has interstate authority;
• Has authority to recommend treatment
needs and how they should be financed;
and
• Could recommend necessary research.
10. Comprehensive Bay-Wide Authority —
This option for the Chesapeake Bay would create
an Authority which could be charged with the
responsibility of protecting and managing the
Chesapeake Bay estuarine system and its
resources. The Authority could have all the
necessary powers and resources to manage and
coordinate all aspects of the Bay as a national
resource.
A Chesapeake Bay Management Authority
could be created to manage the Chesapeake Bay
estuarine system as a single national resource. The
functions of the Authority could be those necessary
to ensure the protection and beneficial use of the
Bay's waters and resources. The Authority's
primary means for carrying out its responsibilities
would be Federal water quality and resource laws
and programs. The secondary means would be the
coordination of other efforts with relevant state
laws and programs. The Authority would be a
creation of Congress and would include voting
representatives of Federal and state governments
as well as representatives of private sector and
public interest groups.
Because the Authority would have a wide
range of responsibilities, it would require the crea-
tion of a substantial new "agency" with specialized
staff devoted to various aspects of its respon-
-------
178 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
sibilities. Effective coordination of Federal and
state programs, in particular, would require a
large technical and legal staff. The Authority
could be directed by a board of voting represen-
tatives, and the chairmanship of that board would
be determined by its members on an annual basis.
The Authority could require an Executive Direc-
tor and an administrative staff to manage the ac-
tivities of the staff specialists as well as other or-
dinary administrative tasks.
Creating a special Authority for the manage-
ment of Chesapeake Bay would require Federal
legislation unless the Authority were to be based
upon a Federal and interstate compact of some
type. If such a law could be passed, the creation
of an effectively operating organization could be
accomplished within two to three years. Funding
for the Authority could be primarily Federal with
in-kind contributions from the states. A procedure
could be devised to draw a major percentage of
funding for the Authority directly from the
budgets of appropriate Federal agencies.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current state of the Bay and the forecast
for the future requires that immediate steps be
taken to halt the deterioration of the Bay. As
outlined in the previous chapters, many Federal,
state, and local entities must be involved in the
Bay clean-up. Also, the costs of such a clean-up
are significant. As discussed in Chapter 5, the cost
of implementing the specific basin recommenda-
tions is approximately one billion present-value
dollars. The longer-term costs of implementing the
general monitoring and programmatic recommen-
dations outlined in Chapters 2 through 4, will
probably range between 1 to 3 billion dollars over
the next 20 years. These costs are in addition to
our current expenditures. It is probable that they
will double or triple if there are significant delays
due to lack of coordination.
The need for immediate action and the costs
involved make it essential that an existing
mechanism with basin-wide Federal-state
representation be responsible for coordinating the
Bay clean-up. The Chesapeake Bay Program
believes that option #2, EPA Region III and the
Management Committee can best serve this im-
mediate coordination function. Specifically:
It is recommended that the Management
Committee be the coordinating mechanism
to ensure that actions are taken to reduce
the flow of pollutants into the Bay and to
restore and maintain the Bay's ecological in-
tegrity. The Committee should periodically
brief the EPA Regional Administrator and
state secretaries or their equivalent. In ad-
dition, the committee should submit a writ-
ten annual report to the EPA Administrator
and Governors outlining new initiatives,
implementation plans, and changes in the
environmental quality of the Bay.
The Management Committee's specific respon-
sibilities should include:
• Coordinating the implementation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program recommen-
dations;
• Developing a comprehensive basin-wide
planning process in conjunction with ongo-
ing planning efforts;
• Investigating new regional approaches to
water quality management including
creative financing mechanisms;
• Resolving regional conflicts regarding water
quality issues; and
• Reviewing ongoing Bay research efforts and
recommending additional research needs.
It is anticipated that these responsibilities may be
modified and/or expanded as a result of delibera-
tions of the Chesapeake Bay Conference to be held
December 1983.
The Management Committee will be sup-
ported by a staff office comprised of Federal and
state personnel. The Chesapeake Bay Office will
maintain the computer data base, coordinate the
Bay-wide monitoring program, refine the CBP
water quality models, coordinate public educa-
tion activities, and provide ongoing analyses in
support of implementation efforts. The Office will
be located at the EPA's Central Regional
Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland.
To assure public participation and effective
coordination between Federal, state, and local en-
tities, the Management Committee should estab-
lish subcommittees, as appropriate, to provide in-
sights and recommendations from a broad range
-------
Chapter 6: Bay Management 179
of technical areas as well as public and private is anticipated that these subcommittees could pro-
interest groups. Subcommittees could be estab- vide the "network" that is critical to the successful
lished to address the following issues: nonpoint implementation of control programs. In the final
source controls, point source controls, model analysis, the people of Chesapeake Bay will be
development, monitoring, and research needs. It responsible for its protection.
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, Gary F., Andy Bosco, and Bruce Neilson.
1982. Ware River Intensive Watershed Study:
Nonpoint Source Contributions. Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences. Gloucester Point, VA.
Aurand, D., and A. Mamantov. 1982. Implementa-
tion of Innovative Dredging Techniques in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. Contract No.
CR807987010. Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. An-
napolis, MD.
Baltimore Regional Planning Council, unpublished
data. Baltimore, MD.
Batic, Sandra S. 1983. Soil Erosion: Crisis in America's
Cropland. The Conservation Foundation. Wash-
ington, D.C.
Bieri, R., O. Bricker, R. Byrne, R. Diaz, G. Helz, J.
Hill, R. Huggett R. Kerhin, M. Nichols, E.
Reinharz, L. Schaffner, D. Wilding, and C.
Strobel. 1982a. Toxic Substances. In: Chesapeake
Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M.E.Kasper, eds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. 635 pp.
Bieri, R.H., P. Defur, R.J. Huggett, W. Maclntyre,
P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and C.W. Su. 1982b.
Organic Compounds in Surface Sediments and
Oyster Tissue from the Chesapeake Bay. Final
Report to the Environmental Protection Agency by
the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,
Gloucester Point, VA. 155 pp.
Bieri, R.H., P. DeFur, R.J. Huggett, W. Maclntyre,
P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and C.W. Su. 1982c.
Organic Compounds in Surface Sediments from
the Elizabeth and Patapsco Rivers and Estuaries.
Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA. 136 pp. +
Appendices.
Bostater, Charles, Stephanie Berlett, Diana McCraney,
Michael Davis. Bruce Nierwinski, and Of tab
Hasan. 1983a. Chester River Intensive Watershed
Study. Maryland Department of Natural Re-
sources. Annapolis, MD.
Bostater, Charles, Diana McCraney, Stephanie Berlett,
and David Pushkar. 1983b. Intensive Watershed
Study—Patuxent River Estuary. Maryland De-
partment of Natural Resources. Annapolis, MD.
Brinsfield, R.B. 1982. Wastewater Treatment and
Disinfection Alternatives for the Chesapeake Bay
Seafood Processing Industry. Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake
Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium. Chlo-
rine—Bane or Benefit. Proceedings of a Con-
ference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. pp.
139-146.
Brush, G.S., and F.W. Davis. 1982. Stratigraphic
Evidence of Human Disturbance in Chesapeake
Bay Tributaries. Final Draft Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake
Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
Byrne, R.J., C.H. Hobbs, and M.J. Carron. 1982.
Baseline Sediment Samples to Determine Distribu-
tion, Physical Properties, Sedimentation Budgets
and Rates in the Virginia Portion of the
Chesapeake Bay. Grant No. R806001010. Final
Report to the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. 200
pp.
Capper, John, Garrett Power, and Frank R. Shivers,
Jr. 1982. Governing Chesapeake Waters: A History
of Water Quality Controls of Chesapeake Bay,
1607-1972. EPA-X003226010. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 145
pp.
Carr, L.E. 1982. Chlorine Use in Boiler Processing
Plants — Status Quo. In: Chesapeake Bay Founda-
tion, Citizen Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Research Consortium. Chlorine—
Bane or Benefit. Proceedings of a Conference on
the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28,
1981. Fredericksburg, VA. pp. 147-152.
Christensen, Lee A., and Patricia E. Norris. 1983. A
Comparison of Tillage Systems for Reducing Soil
Erosion and Water Pollution. Natural Resource
Economics Division, Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural
Economic Report No. 499.
181
-------
182 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Crosson, Pierre. 1981. Conservation Tillage and Con-
ventional Tillage: A Comparative Assessment. Soil
Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa.
Cronin, L.E., R.B. Biggs, D.A. Flemer, G.T. Pfitz-
meyer, F. Goodwyn, Jr., W.L. Dovel, and D.E.
Richie, Jr. 1970. Gross Physical and Biological Ef-
fects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper
Chesapeake Bay. Natural Resources Institute
Special Report No. 3 Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, University of Maryland. 66 pp.
Cunningham, J.J., W.M. Kemp, J.C. Stevenson, W.R.
Boynton, and J.C. Means. 1981. Stress Effects of
Agricultural Herbicides on Submerged Macro-
phytes in Estuarine Microcosms. In: Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. W.M.
Kemp et al., eds. Annual Report to the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. UMCEES, Horn
Point Environ. Labs., Cambridge, MD. pp.
147-182.
Dean, R.G., and R. Biggs. 1982. An Assessment of
Shore Erosion in Northern Chesapeake Bay. Tide-
water Administration for Coastal Resources Divi-
sion. Maryland DNR. 225 pp.
Flemer, D.A., G.B. Mackiernan, W. Nehlsen, V.K.
Tippie, R.B. Biggs, D. Blaylock, N.H. Burger,
L.C. Davidson, D. Haberman, K.S. Price, and
J.L. Taft. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of En-
vironmental Change. E.G. Macalaster, D.A.
Barker, and M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program.
Washington, D.C. 120 pp. + Appendices.
Folsom, James M., and Lloyd E. Oliver. 1980.
Economic Analysis of Phosphate Control:
Detergent Phosphate Limitations. Glassman and
Oliver Economic Consultants, Inc. Washington,
D.C.
Greeley, and Hansen. 1983. Water Quality Analysis
Criteria and Status of the Potomac Strategy and
Development of Parameters for Reviewing Results
of Water Quality Modeling. District of Columbia
Department of Environmental Services. Washing-
ton, D.C. 60 pp.
Hallas, L.E., and J.J. Cooney. 1981. Tin and Tin-
Resistant Microorganisms in Chesapeake Bay. Ap-
plied and Environmental Microbiology. Feb. 1981.
pp. 446-471.
Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. 1978. Hamp-
ton Roads Water Quality Management Plan.
Hartigan, Jack. October 21, 1981. Memorandum.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission.
Hartigan, John P., E. Southerland, H. Bonucelli, A.
Canvacas, J. Friedman, T. Quasebarth, K. Roffe,
T. Scott, and J. White. 1983. Chesapeake Bay
Basin Model Final Report. Northern Virginia Plan-
ning District Commission. Annandale, VA. 204
pp. + Appendices.
Helz, G.R., andL. Kosak-Channing. 1980b. Chlorine
Alternatives: Reactions of Os, H2O2 and BrCl with
Inorganic Components of Seawater. Final Report
to Maryland Power Plant Siting Program. 58 pp.
Hoffman, E.J., G.L. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G.
Quinn. 1982. Annual Input of Petroleum Hydro-
carbons to the Coastal Environment Via Urban
Runoff. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:0000-0000.
Huggett, R.J., R.H. Biere, P. DeFur, W. Maclntyre,
P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and C.W. Su. 1981. The Pre-
sent State of Organic Xenobiotics in the
Chesapeake Bay — A Synthesis Paper. Gloucester
Point, Va.
Hydroqual, Inc. 1980. Summary Results Water Qual-
ity Analysis of the Patuxent River. U.S Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 8
pp. + Figures.
Jolley, R.L., G. Jones, W.W. Pritt, and J.E. Thomp-
son. 1976. Chlorination or organics in cooling
waters and Process Effluents, pp. 115-152. In:
Jolley (ed.). Proceedings of the conference of the
Environmental Impact of Water Chlorination.
CONF-751096. National Technical Information
Service. Springfield, VA.
JRB Associates. 1982. Benefits Analysis of Chesapeake
Bay. Draft Report prepared for the EPA office of
Analysis and Evaluation. McLean, VA. November
9, 1982.
Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.C. Stevenson, J.C.
Means, R.R. Twilley, and T.W. Jones. 1983. Sub-
merged Aquatic Vegetation in Upper Chesapeake
Bay: Studies Related to Possible Causes of the Re-
cent Decline in Abundance. Final Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake
Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
Kerhin, R.T., J.P. Halka, E.L. Hennessee, P.J.
Blakeslee, D.V. Wells, N. Zoltan,' and R.H.
Cuthbertson. 1982. Physical Characteristics and
Sediment Budget for Bottom Sediments in Mary-
land Portion of Chesapeake Bay. Grant No.
R-805-965. Final Draft Report to the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, MD. 190pp. + Appendices.
Lietman, P.P., J.R. Ward, and T.E. Behrendt. 1983.
Effects of Specific Land Uses on Nonpoint Sources,
Pequea Creek Basin, Pennsylvania, 1979-1980.
U.S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, PA.
Lang, D.J., and D. Grason. 1980. Water Quality
Monitoring of Three Major Tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay—Interim Data Report. USGS/
WR1-80-78. U.S. Geological Survey. Towson,
MD. 66 pp.
Lippson, A.J. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.
An Atlas of Natural Resources. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. Baltimore, MD. 55 pp.
Martin, S.R., and J.M. Helm. 1981. Evaluation and
Revision of Sediment and Erosion Control Pro-
grams in Urbanizing Areas for Nonpoint Source
Management. In: Nonpoint Pollution Control:
Tools and Techniques for the Future. Proceedings
of a Technical Symposium. Kevin C. Flynn, ed.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. Rockville, MD.
-------
Literature Cited
183
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
1983. 208 Water Quality Management Plan
for the Patuxent River Basin. Office of En-
vironmental Programs, Baltimore, MD. 410 pp.
+ Appendices.
Maryland Department of Legislative Services. In Press.
1983. Proceedings of the Workshop on Chesapeake
Bay Management, June 14-15, 1983, Annapolis,
Maryland. Conducted by the House Environmen-
tal Matters Committee. Maryland General
Assembly, Annapolis, MD.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1979.
Statewide Agriculture Water Quality Management
Program for the Control of Sediment and Animal
Wastes. Water Resources Administration. An-
napolis, MD.
Maryland Office of Environmental Programs. 1981.
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report (Com-
puterized). Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Port Administration, Vessel Traffic Report
from 1 January through 31 December 1982.
Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee. 1979.
State-wide Critical Areas for Nonpoint Sources of
Soil Erosion and Animal Wastes — Methods of
Selection. Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Annapolis, MD.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
1978. Water Quality Management Plan. Water
Resources Planning Program. Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
1980. Supplement to Water Quality Management
Plan. Washington. D.C.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
1983. Draft Report of the Washington, D.C., Na-
tionwide Urban Runoff Program Study.
Washington, D.C.
Morrison. 1983. Executive Summary on Blackcreek
Project. Purdue University.
Mountford, N.K., A.F. Holland, and J.A. Mihursky.
1977. Identification and Description of Macro-
benthic Communities in the Calvert Cliffs Region
of the Chesapeake Bay. Ches. Sci. 18(4):360-369.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Workbook for Estimating the Climatology of
Regional-Continental Scale Atmospheric Disper-
sion and Deposition over the United States. 1981.
Air Resources Laboratories. Silver Spring, MD.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission.
1979. Guidebook for Screening Urban Nonpoint
Pollution Management Strategies. Prepared for
Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments. Annandale, VA.
O'Brien and Gere. 1983. Combined Sewer Overflow
Abatement Program. District of Columbia
Department of Environmental Services. Washing-
ton D.C. 218 pp. + Appendices.
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1982.
Evaluation of Management Tools in the Occoquan
Watershed. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. Manassas, VA.
Olsen, S., M.E.Q. Pilson, C. Oviatt, and J.N. Gear-
ing. 1982. Ecological Consequences of Low, Sus-
tained Concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in Temperate Estuaries. Marine Ecosystems Re-
search Laboratory, Graduate School of Oceano-
graphy, University of Rhode Island.
Orth, R.J., K.A. Moore, and J. Van Montfrans. 1983.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: Distribution and
Abundance in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and the
Interactive Effects of Light, Epiphytes and
Grazers. Contract No. X003246. Final Report to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 136
pp.
Patuxent River Commission. 1983. Patuxent River
Policy Plan. Maryland Department of State Plan-
ning. Baltimore, MD.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management.
1979. State-wide Plan for Agriculture and Earth-
moving Activities. Pennsylvnia Bulletin. Vol. 9,
No. 38.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. 1983. Assessment of Agricultural Non-
point Source Pollution in Selected High Priority
Watersheds in Pennsylvania. Bureau of Soil and
Water Conservation. Harrisburg, PA.
Petrasek, A.C., Jr., B.M. Austern, T.A. Pressley, L.A.
Winslow, and R.H. Wise. 1980. Behavior of
Selected Organic Priority Pollutants in Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Systems. Presented at
the WPCF 53rd Annual Conference. Las Vegas,
NV. 28 pp.
Phipps, P.M. 1981. Leafspot Control. Virginia-
Carolina Peanut News. p. 10-12.
Regional Planning Council. 1978. Water Quality
Manaement Plan for the Baltimore Metropolitan
Region. Part I, Technical Plan, Chapter 3: Non-
point Sources. Baltimore, MD.
Regional Planning Council. 1980. Water Quality
Management Plan for the Baltimore Metropolitan
Region. Baltimore, MD.
Regional Planning Council. 1983. Draft Final Report
of the Jones Falls Watershed Urban Stormwater
Runoff Project. Baltimore, MD.
Reinharz, E. 1981. Animal Sediment Relationships: A
Case Study of the Patapsco River. Maryland
Geological Survey. Baltimore, MD. Report Sub-
mitted to the U.S Environental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 96 pp.
Resources for the Future. 1980. An Evaluation of In-
stitutional Arrangements for the Chesapeake Bay.
Washington, D.C.
Richmond Regional and Crater Planning District.
1982. Richmond-Crater Interim Water Quality
Management Plan. Richmond, VA. 66 pp.
Roberts, M.H., Jr., N.E. LeBlanc, D.R. Wheeler,
N.E. Lee, J.E. Thompson, and R.L. Jolley. 1980.
Production of Halogenated Organics During
Wastewater Disinfection. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. SRAMSDE No. 239. 48 pp.
-------
184 Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
Robinson, D.M., R.J. Anderson, and D.E. Baker, et
al. 1983. Corn Yield Responses to Zinc and
Magnesium on Soils Excessive in Phosphorus and
Potassium. Department of Agronomy, The Penn-
sylvania State University. University Park, PA. 16
pp.
Schaffner, L.C., and R.J. Diaz. 1982. Biogenic Struc-
ture and Community Composition of the
Elizabeth and Ware Rivers. Draft Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Schlimme, D.V., Jr. 1982. The Use of Chlorine and
Potential Alternatives in the Tri-State Vegetable
Processing Industry. In: Chesapeake Bay Founda-
tion, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1982.
Chlorine —Bane or Benefit. Proceedings of a Con-
ference of the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. pp.
153-156.
Schubel, J.R., and W.M. Wise. 1973. Questions
about Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal in
the Chesapeake Bay.
Schueler, Thomas R. and Michael P. Sullivan. 1982.
Water Quality in Seneca Creek: A Technical
Assessment. Metropolitan Council of Govern-
ments. Washington, D.C. 82 pp.
Skrinde, J.R., and B.K. Surinder. 1982. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation. 54(4):370-377.
Smullen, J.T., J.L. Taft, and J. Macknis. 1982.
Nutrient and Sediment Loads to the Tidal
Chesapeake Bay System. In: Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M. Kasper, eds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C.
Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1980. Ero-
sion and Sediment Control Best Management
Handbook. Richmond, VA.
Soil Conservation Service (in cooperation with the State
Water Control Board). 1983a. Agricultural Non-
point Pollution Assessment of Selected Virginia
Watersheds, Phase Three. Richmond, VA.
Soil Conservation Service. 1983b. Mason Dixon Ero-
sion Control Area. Harrisburg, PA and College
Park, MD.
Stevenson, J.C., andN.M. Confer. 1978. Summary of
Available Information on Chesapeake Bay Sub-
merged Vegetation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS/78/66.
U.S. Dept. of Interior. 335 pp.
U.S. Depart, of Agriculture. 1975. Control of Water
Pollution from Cropland, Report No. ARS-H-5-1.
Hyattsville, MD.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Computer
Assisted procedure for the Design and Evaluation
of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET).
Program User's Guide. Environmental Engineer-
ing Division, Environmental Laboratory.
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Lake Erie Waste-
water Management Study Final Report. Buffalo,
NY.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Waterborne
Commerce of the United States.
U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior. Fisheries Statistics of the
United States. 1880 to 1980.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1982. Census Bureau.
Bureau of the Census. Agriculture Division.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Im-
plementation Status of State 208 Agricultural Pro-
grams: Summary of the Harbridge House Review
of State Agricultural Nonpoint Program Status and
Implementation Readiness. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. 1980
Needs Survey: Cost Estimates for Construction of
Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
EPA 430/9-80-001, FRD-19. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Fate
of Priority Toxic Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. Final Report. Prepared for: Ef-
fluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water
Regulatios and Standards. EPA 440/1-82/303.
Washington, D.C. Volume 1. 438 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Draft
Policy for the Review of Advanced Treatment. Of-
fice of Water. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982c.
Preliminary Results of the Nationwide Urban Run-
off Program. Water Planning Division. Washing-
ton, D.C.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1980. Costly Waste-
water Treatment Plants Fail to Perform as Ex-
pected. CED-81-9. Washington, D.C.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979a. Best
Management Practices Handbook: Agriculture.
Planning Bulletin 316. Richmond, VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979b. Best
Management Practices Handbook: Urban. Plan-
ning Bulletin 321. Richmond, VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1980a. Best
Management Practices Handbook: Planning
Bulletin 316. Richmond, VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1980b. Discharge
Monitoring Report (Computerized). Richmond,
VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1982. Discharge
Monitoring Report. Richmond, VA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1983. Guidelines
for Chlorine in Industrial and Municipal Effluents.
VA SWCB. Richmond, VA.
Whitman, Requardt, and Associates. 1982. Back River
Wastewater Treatment Plant 201 Facility Plan.
Baltimore, MD. 11 pp.
-------
Literature Cited 185
Wilson, S.C., B.M. Hughes, and G.D. Rawlings. 1982. Geology and Geography. In: Proceedings of the
Toxic Point Source Assessment of Industrial Dis- Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay,
chargers to the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Phase III. September 12-13.
Protocol Verification Study. EPA-68-02-3161. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. 1952. Marine
Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH. Fouling and Its Prevention. Prepared for Bureau
Vol. I and Appendix A. of Ships, Navy Department. United States Naval
Wolman, M. Gordon. 1968. The Chesapeake Bay: Institute, Annapolis, MD.
-------
NOTES
2.
The nutrient loads in this chapter are reported as
total phosphorus and total nitrogen. They are not 3.
divided into more specific forms, such as or-
thosphosphate, organic phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite, 4.
ammonia, and etc. Some sources may contribute
greater amounts of nutrient forms which are more
readily available to Bay organisms as compared to 5.
other sources. For example, sewage treatment
plants discharge primarily orthophosphate and am- 6.
monia which are both readily available to
phytoplankton, while agricultural runoff con-
tributes phosphorus, generally in forms attached to 7.
soil particles, and nitrate which is less preferred by
phytoplankton than ammonia. The GBP, however,
has developed estimates of total nitrogen and 8.
phosphorus loads because, over the long term, all
nutrient forms are transformed and recycled in the
Bay, thereby becoming biologically available at 9.
some point in time.
Personal Communication: "Compliance with Per-
mit Limitations," C. Charles, MD OEP, 1983.
Personal Communication: "Compliance with Per-
mit Limitations," C. Charles, MD OEP, 1983.
Personal Communication: "Agricultural Runoff in
Terms of Dollars Lost," D.E. Baker, Professor of
Soil Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University 1983.
The "States" refers to the District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Personal Communication: "Biofouling of Conden-
sors at Steam Electric Plants," R. Roig, MD DNR,
1983.
Personal communication: "Current Studies on Acid
Precipitation," R. Roig, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, 1983.
Personal Communication: "Conventional Street
Sweeping," S. Martin, Baltimore Regional Planning
Council, 1983.
The "States" refers to the District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
186
-------
------- |