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

-------

-------