TD
225
.C54
B199
copy 2
•
Chesapeake Executive Council
903R88102
Baywide Conventional
Pollutants Control
Strategy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
July 1988
-------
Baywide Conventional
Pollutants Control Strategy
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
R?2ic;i 111 information Resource
Cerior (2P./52)
841 Chestnut Street
PiiiisdcSphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1988
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Basinwide Conventional Pollutant Strategy, in fulfillment
of Water Quality Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...By July 1988, to develop and adopt, as required by the Water Quality Act of
1987, a basinwide implementation strategy for the management and control of
conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and
nonpoint sources."
This Strategy presents the programs underway and planned by the Bay area jurisdictions
(Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland) to address the water quality
problems caused by conventional pollutants.
The document outlines the conventional pollutant control programs related to point
sources for each jurisdiction, under the common topic headings of NPDES Permit Program, Water
Quality Standards, Enforcement, National Municipal Policy, and Financial Aid to Localities. For
nonpoint source control, the strategy focuses on Erosion and Sedimentation Control in Urban
Areas, and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Agricultural and Forested
Areas.
Finally, the Strategy recognizes the need for continual information exchange among the
Bay area jurisdictions to improve the quality of the control programs, and ensure, to the degree
appropriate for baywide issues, that these programs are implemented in a coordinated fashion. In
order to maintain a viable baywide program, annual Conventional Pollutant Working Conferences
shall be held to provide an information exchange forum. Program staff from the jurisdictions shall
meet and assist each other in achieving Bay restoration objectives, by discussing new programs
or improvements to existing ones.
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Jurisdiction Strategies
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Maryland
III. Basinwide Strategy
-------
INTRODUCTION
As stated in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the improvement
and maintenance of water quality are the single most critical
elements in the overall restoration and protection of the Chesapeake
Bay. Commitments in the Agreement focus on reducing and managing
three major water quality problems impacting the Bay and its
tributaries: nutrient enrichment, toxic pollutants, and conventional
pollutants.
This document fulfills the commitment to develop a Basinwide
Conventional Pollutant Strategy.
A. Background
Much of the attention concerning the water quality problems of
the Chesapeake Bay system has focused primarily on two areas: 1.
excessive levels of nutrients entering the Bay and its tributaries;
and, 2. contamination of major water bodies within the Chesapeake Bay
system by toxic pollutants, consisting of organic pollutants and
heavy metals.
While the nutrient and toxic problems have received much of the
attention it is also vitally important to the Chesapeake Bay
restoration efforts that the problems caused by conventional
pollutants, and the ongoing programs to combat these problems, not be
ignored.
For the purposes of this Strategy, the term "conventional
pollutant" refers to the following:
o Oxygen demanding pollutants, which are commonly
measured by one of these test methods: BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand); COD (chemical oxygen
demand); or, TOG (total organic carbon)
o Suspended solids
o pH
o Temperature
o Oil and Grease
o Bacterial contamination
o Sediment erosion from rural and urban areas
These conventional pollutants are of concern because they cause
many of the same water quality, habitat, and resource problems that
are attributed to nutrient enrichment or toxics. Reduced river
oxygen levels below wastewater discharges, high turbidity, shellfish
-------
bed closures, and preclusion of habitat have been, and continue to
be, serious problems within the Bay system.
Reducing the impact from conventional pollutants is not a new
concern. The focus of federal, state, and local water quality
programs for many decades has been directed toward reducing the
discharge of these pollutants. The federal Clean Water Act, state
water pollution control laws, erosion and sediment control laws and
ordinances have each resulted in the expenditure of enormous amounts
of public and private funds to combat the conventional pollutant
problems.
The Chesapeake Bay Program participants recognize that the
restoration efforts within the Bay watershed must not only implement
nutrient and toxic control programs but must also continue to deal
with the problems caused by conventional pollutants. Therefore, the
Water Quality section of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains
the following commitment:
By July 1988, to develop and adopt, as required by the
Water Quality Act of 1987, a basin-wide implementation
strategy for the management and control of conventional
pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point
and nonpoint sources.
In order to develop this basinwide strategy representatives of
the point and nonpoint source management agencies from each of the
participating jurisdictions agreed to prepare individual strategies
that would outline their approach towards managing and controlling
conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system.
B. Outline of Basinwide Conventional Pollutant Strategy
The strategies of the jurisdictions are structured along the
following outline:
1. In the area of point sources, the strategies focus on how
the jurisdictions are implementing aggressive programs in
the following areas:
NPDES Permit Program
o Mechanisms to ensure that the NPDES permit system is
being managed in the most efficient manner possible.
o Mechanisms to ensure that all permits remain current
and incorporate limits for conventional pollutants
that are appropriate for the receiving stream
quality.
o Description of how animal waste and no discharge
facilites are regulated to ensure pollutants do not
reach the Bay or its tributaries.
-------
o Description of planned improvements to state
regulations that will improve management of the
permit program and ensure conformance with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act?
Water Quality Standards
o Planned revisions to current water quality standards
that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay restoration
effort.
Enforcement
o Mechanisms to ensure that timely and appropriate
enforcement actions are taken against violators of
discharge permit conditions, state laws, and
regulations.
o New programs (such as DMR auditing or on-site
inspections) that are planned or underway to improve
enforcement actions.
National Municipal Policy
o Status of the NMP program, including the number of
facilities affected; the number scheduled to comply
by July 1988; the number under court order for
schedules extending beyond July 1988.
o Description of the jurisdiction's plans to deal with
owners who do not comply with their NMP
requirements.
Financial Aid To Localities
o Description of the current financial aid programs
for meeting point source control needs.
o Actions that are being taken to establish a
revolving loan program in the jurisdiction in
accordance with the Clean Water Act of 1987. How is
the loan fund being capitalized in the
jurisdiction? What amount of funding has been
provided or is planned for use in the loan program?
2. In the area of non-point source control, the strategies
focus on how the jurisdictions are implementing aggressive
programs in the following areas:
-------
Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas
o Description of the current state program for erosion
and sediment control, including any new legal,
regulatory, administrative, or budgetary initiatives
being taken or planned to strengthen the program.
Sediment BMPs in Agricultural and Forested Areas
o Description of the current state program for
sediment control in agricultural and forested areas,
including any new legal, regulatory, administrative,
or budgetary initiatives being taken or planned to
strengthen the programs.
-------
II. JURISDICTION STRATEGIES
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT STRATEGY
NPDES Permit Program
Pennsylvania operates a "decentralized" water quality management program. NPDES
permits are developed and issued in six (6) Regional Offices which receive program direction
and over sight by the central office. Engineering staff are involved in issuing/reissuing
NPDES permits. Field staff are involved in NPDES compliance monitoring and enforcement.
Over the past five years the process of developing and defending NPDES permits has become
substantially more complex and time consuming. This is largely due to the requirements
which have occurred in the water quality standards implementation process and related
factors such as antidegradation, antibacksliding, toxics management, citizen suit
intervention, and appeals of NPDES permits.
During this same time period, Pennsylvania has been attempting to maintain and increase
NPDES permitting productivity. A water quality management permit program strategy has
been developed which focuses upon managerial, decision-making, and organizational aspects
of the program.
Greatest emphasis is placed on issuing new NPDES permits and reissuing permits for "major"
municipal and industrial dischargers. Enforcement cases also receive high priority for
NPDES permit actions.
In Pennsylvania animal manure management encourage reuse and recycling. Nutrient
management plans emphasize the land application of manure at the proper times and rates
to maximize crop utilization of nutrients and minimize off-site effects. This program
consists of extensive education efforts and a series of management practice manuals. These
manuals are used to implement the best management practices discussed in the Nutrient
Strategy and also help to control conventional pollutants. As a result, manure applications
are considered nonpoint source, discharges. Where point source discharges are the only
-1-
-------
option, they are treated as any other NPOES permit and subject to technology and water
quality based effluent limitations.
Other activities which present the potential for pollution through leaks, spills, and accidents
are managed under Pennsylvania's Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Planning
Program. Under this program anyone who generates, transports, or stores materials which
could cause water pollution must develop a plan to adequately respond to any release of
these materials. This program is under review as a result of a recent oil storage tank failure
in western Pennsylvania. An underground storage tank regulation program is also under
development to address this growing area of concern.
Current state regulations are considered adequate in terms of authority to regulate point
source discharges. Statewide pretreatment regulations have recently been adopted.
Delegation of the pretreatment element of the NPDES program to Pennsylvania is expected
by July, 1988.
Water Quality Standards
Pennsylvania's water quality standards have been adopted to protect uses of waters within
the state. Although interstate standards are incorporated in our regulations, water quality
standards have not been.specifically designed to protect uses in neighboring states. The
protection provided to waters in the Bay portion of Pennsylvania through our current
conventional pollutant and nutrient, water quality standards is assumed to be adequate to
protect water quality and uses in Maryland and the Bay. As better information and modeling
tools become available for the Bay basin, the assumption will be reevaluated.
Enforcement
Pennsylvania takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions on significant violations of
discharge permit conditions. Dischargers in significant noncompliance are identified on
EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR), and all high priority violations are
addressed prior to their appearance on the next QNCR. Those which are not resolved in a
timely manner are reviewed with EPA and a strategy developed for either State or EPA
enforcement action to resolve the violations. The primary enforcement action to resolve
-2-
-------
violations is the Consent Order and Agreement, which is a document that is enforceable in
court and includes a compliance schedule and penalties.
An extensive review and revision of Pennsylvania's enforcement procedures is underway in
an effort to improve enforcement response. Revisions should be in place in 1989.
National Municipal Policy (NMP)
Pennsylvania's NMP Program includes 107 POTWs located in the Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin in violation of permit limits. Many of these discharges are small and many are long
distances from the Bay. Of these 33 are major discharges (greater than 1 mgd). At the time
the NMP program was initiated in 1985, all of these plants were violating the final limits in
their NPDES permits. The violations ranged from discharging raw sewage to violating a
single parameter. Of the 33 major cases that were originally included in the NMP program
in 1985, 17 are currently in compliance. The remaining 16 cases are under formal
enforcement schedules which are included in a number of different legal actions (consent
orders, consent decrees, orders, etc.), Federal or State Court Order and NPDES permits
schedules. All major cases are expected to be in compliance prior to 1991.
The remaining 74 minor NMP cases which represent 10% to 15% of the flow are being
addressed through enforcement actions on a priority basis. Those with the most significant
water quality and public health impacts are addressed first. Nineteen minor cases have
achieved compliance. All minors with significant water quality and public health impacts
have been addressed by enforcement actions and are expected to be in compliance prior to
1991. Many of the remaining discharges are moving toward compliance without formal
enforcement actions.
Financial Aid to Municipalities
There are currently six funding programs that provide some means of financial assistance to
municipal sewage projects for meeting point source control requirements in Pennsylvania.
They are described as follows:
-3-
-------
1. The Federal Sewerage Construction Grant Program, which is administered by the
Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants, Bureau of Water Quality Management, has
provided approximately $96 million in grants annually to municipal governments for
sewerage facilities construction. This program is being phased out by Congress by
1990.
2. The Act 339 reimbursement and Subsidy Program, which is administered by the
Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants, Bureau of Water Quality Management
provides approximately $20 million annually under Act 339 to help defray operation
and maintenance cost of publicly-owned sewage treatment plants. The annual subsidy
amounts to 2% of the local share of facility construction costs. These subsidies total
over $20 million each year.
3. The Farmers Home Administration Loan and Grant Programs provide financial help to
rural communities with low median household incomes to construct needed sewerage
facilities. Generally, municipalities in which the annual median income is less than
$12,918 and debt service exceeds 1% of the annual median income qualify for grants,
and those with populations of less than 10,000 may qualify for reduced interest loans.
4. The Department of Community Affairs Grant Program provides financial assistance to
small communities with low household incomes. Generally, funds are intended for use
in communities which are listed as financially distressed communities. The Bureau of
Housing and Development, Small Communities Program Division, is responsible for
administering the Pennsylvania Community Development Block Grant Program. This
program provides approximately $6 million annually to help local municipalities meet
sewerage needs.
5. The Department of Commerce Loan and Grant Program provides financial assistance
to small communities with low median income. The $190 million Business
Infrastructure Development Program, which is administered by the Bureau of
Appalachian Development and State Grants, provides grants and loans up to a
maximum amount of $1.5 million to local communities to help install infrastructure
(drinking water and sewerage) improvements. The Communities Facilities and Site
-4-
-------
Development Grant Programs also provide approximately $7.5 million annually to
communities for sewage collection line construction.
6. Under Act 537 the Department of Environmental Resources provides 50% grants for
development of municipal plans to provide adequate sewage facilities. Under this Act
all municipalities are required to develop and maintain Official Sewage Facilities
Plans. Amendments and revisions of these plans are also grant eligible.
On March 1, 1988, Governor Casey signed into law an Environmental Infrastructure
Investment Program (PENNVEST) designed to make state funding available to repair,
rehabilitate, improve, and construct drinking water and sewer systems in Pennsylvania. This
new legislation establishes an authority known as the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment
Authority which will make funds available to local sponsors for water and sewer
infrastructure projects. The Authority will be managed by a 13-member Board of Directors
chaired by the Governor.
Funding for the Authority will come from several sources including a General Obligation
Bond authorized by a 1981 referendum and a new $300 million referendum, revenue based
bonds, capitalization grants under the Federal Clean Water Act, State General Fund
appropriations, and repayments of principal and interest on issued loans. The Board is
authorized to approve loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance, including loan
guarantees.
Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E & SPC) Program is adminstered by
the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation through rules and regulations contained at 25 PA
Code, Chapter 102, Erosion Control.
The purpose of these regulations is to minimize erosion and to prevent sediment pollution to
the waters of the Commonwealth caused by all earth disturbance activities regardless of
size or type. Although the overall program goal is protection of all water resources, the
major program emphasis has been and will remain the protection of surface water resources.
-5-
-------
In order to achieve program goals, all earth disturbance activities must be conducted in such
a way as to minimize erosion and to prevent resulting sediment pollution. Any landowner,
person, or municipality engaged in earth disturbance activities must develop, implement and
maintain erosion and sediment pollution control measures and facilities. The measures and
facilities must be set forth in a plan which must be available at the site of the activity.
The required erosion and sediment pollution control plans are site specific but must adhere
to standards and criteria contained within the Chapter 102 regulations. Requirements for
control measures and facilities are written to utilize best management practices, primarily
by establishing maximum and/or minimum design and performance standards. In this regard,
the quality, not type, of best management practices is mandated to the extent that the
overall plan is effective in minimizing erosion and preventing sediment pollution.
Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program is implemented through a
delegation of authority from DER to county conservation districts. Although the actual
level of participation may vary among districts, the processing of earth disturbance permits,
review of erosion and sediment pollution control plans, and site compliance inspections are
performed by districts in all but a few counties. Enforcement actions concerning violations
of the regulations and/or the Clean Streams Law are performed by the Department in all but
four counties where the districts have elected to also accept this responsibility.
Although not required by the Chapter 102 regulations, conservation districts also perform
erosion and sediment pollution control plan reviews under the agreement with local
municipalities (primarily in conjunction with issuance of building permits) and other state
and/or federal agencies.
In 1980, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) assumed the responsibility for
administering the E & SPC Program without allocation of any additional staff. Without
sufficient staff resources, the BSWC has been limited in its ability to develop program
administrative and engineering manuals, develop training programs for county conservation
districts, provide adequate engineering reviews for both permitted and nonpermitted erosion
and sediment pollution control plans, and to conduct the necessary enforcement actions to
prevent accelerated erosion and sediment pollution to the waters of the Commonwealth.
-6-
-------
Steps to alleviate these problems have been difficult to complete because of the present
staff shortages.
Revisions to the Chapter 102 rules and regulations were adopted by the Environmental
Quality Board for proposed rulemaking in December, 1987, and were the subject of public
review and comments in the Spring of 1988.
Following are the major substantive changes to the existing regulations contained in
Chapter 102. All sections listed are numbered under the new format.
1. The organizational format has been arranged to match that of other DER Rules and
Regulations. The title has been revised to read Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control.
2. Section 102.4(b) establishes a "buffer zone" of seventy-five (75) feet on each side of
streams designated by Section 93.9 of Title 25, as High Quality or Exceptional Value
waters where, except in limited circumstances, no earth disturbance shall occur.
3. Section 102.5(c) - Authorizes the Department, in certain circumstances, to require
submission and approval of an erosion and sediment pollution control plan for earth
disturbance activities involving less than 25 acres.
4. Section 102.5(d) - Requires that an erosion and sediment pollution control plan be
submitted to the Department 10 days in advance of the start of earth disturbance for
all projects of 5 or more acres in size located in High Quality and Exceptional Value
watersheds as designated in Section 93.9 of Title 25. It also provides the Department
with authority to disapprove any plan which does not meet the requirements of
Chapter 102.
5. Secton 102.11(a)(2) - Deletes the need to secure a separate earth disturbance permit
where other DER permits are issued requiring compliance with the standards of
Chapter 102.
-7-
-------
6. Section 102.11(a)(4) - Provides a permit waiver for all logging operations less than
250 acres if an erosion and sediment pollution control plan is submitted to the
Department five days prior to the start of operations. It also provides the Department
with authority to disapprove any plan which does not meet the requirements of
Chapter 102.
7. Secton 102.11(b)(4) - Authorizes the Department, after publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin, to reduce the acreage limitation for securing a permit for any activities
which pose a serious threat of sediment pollution or where similar activities have
caused pollution in the past.
8. Section 102.23 - The entire "control facilities" section has been rewritten to eliminate
obsolete engineering standards.
9. Section 102.32(a) - Requires local, municipal, or county planning commissions which
review subdivision or land development plans with five or more acres of earth
disturbance to provide the Department with a copy of the preliminary development
plan within five days of its receipt.
When finalized, the revised regulations will strengthen the program's overall effectiveness.
In a similar development, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) has revised its
procedures for delegating program authority to county conservation districts. These
revisions and other reporting and administrative changes have been incorporated into a
program administrative manual which was issued to the conservation districts in
March, 1988. Although procedural and administrative components of the program's
enforcement section have been strengthened by the administrative manual, overall
improvements are limited by the availability of only one-half a man-year of permanent staff
to enforcement activities.
The BSWC conducts evaluations of conservation districts' performance in administering their
delegated E & SPC program responsibilities. Twelve evaluations are conducted annually on
a rotating basis. An effort is currently underway to develop a computerized system for the
-8-
-------
conservation districts to report on their E & SPC program activities, as required in the
delegation agreements.
Chesapeake Bay program funds have been used to hire five conservation district engineers,
and an engineering supervisor and trainer has been assigned under an intergovernmental
personnel agreement with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The BSWC remains
extremely limited in its ability to provide direct engineering support and technical training
to the conservation districts.
An engineering design manual is planned, based on the revised Chapter 102 rules and
regulations. This effort and technical training have been delayed due to the limited staffing
problem.
Additional program improvements under development include the creation of a certification
program for erosion and sediment pollution control technicians, sponsored by the National
Institute for Certifications in Engineering Technologies (NICET). The test and certification
criteria have been developed by the Department of Environmental Resources and SCS
engineers. A pilot examination was given in Pennsylvania in June, 1988. This certification
program is intended to improve the quality and effectiveness of technical competency in the
program.
The State Conservation Commission provides $1.2 million in cost share money to
conservation districts for administrative and technical personnel expenses. This
Conservation District Fund Allocation Program is being revised. The cost share rates for
technicians will be based on the districts' acceptance of the delegated E & SPC program
responsibilities, and on the NICET certification of district technicians.
Current Funding Sources
Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program is funded under the
Commonwealth's General Fund budget. Despite existing adequate regulatory capacity and
scope to effectively control erosion and sedimentation, limited financial resources and
manpower have seriously hampered program implementation and effectiveness throughout
its history. Serious shortages in the state level management system and field level
-9-
-------
supervision of conservation districts have continually minimized the program's overall
effectiveness and limited development of district capabilities due to the lack of training and
assistance. A large portion of the conservation districts' financial resources under this
program is also obtained from the Commonwealth's General Fund. Despite increases in the
past few years, the current level of funding continues to lag behind actual staff and material
resource needs by the districts.
Section 205(j)(5) funds will be sought from EPA for demonstration projects to obtain
research and/or performance data on control measures and control facilities specified in the
Department's E <5c SPC Program regulations. The more critical need, though, is for
Section 319 funds to be allocated for technical and enforcement positions within the
Department to implement the existing E & SPC Program. Establishing and maintaining
these positions over a long term commitment will allow for the immediate implementation
of a more serious nonpoint source control program of both region and national significance.
Current standards and criteria would be extensively evaluated and allow for any necessary
changes to improve and/or streamline the program.
Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control
In addition to the regulatory Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program described
above, agricultural sediment sources are treated through a variety of voluntary program
including the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Commonwealth, through the State
Conservation Commission and the DER Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, provides
technical, administrative, and financial assistance to the conservation districts in each of
the Bay basin counties.
Agricultural sediment reduction will be accompanied in conjunction with the efforts to
achieve nutrient reduction goals. Since nutrients, particularly phosphorus, adsorb to soil
particles, erosion and sediment control BMP's will be used to reduce nutrient loads. While
the Chesapeake Bay program includes erosion and sediment control BMP's, much of the
expected sediment reduction will be achieved through USDA programs, especially the Food
Security Act mandate to control erosion on all highly erodible cropland by 1995.
-10-
-------
There were 1.4 million acres of cropland eroding at greater than tolerable soil loss rates in
1985. It is estimated that all available voluntary programs will reduce crop land erosion to
tolerable levels on about 1.0 million acres by 2000. This will result in a reduction of about
5.8 million tons of sediment per year. These estimates are based on extrapolation from
current rates of treatment, and do not account for the dynamics of land ownership, changes
in farm enterprises, fluctuations in farm commodity prices, or the life span of conservation
practices, all of which can alter conditions.
Current Funding Sources
Funding and personnel considerations for agricultural erosion and sediment control in the
Chesapeake Bay Program are included in the nutrient reduction strategy narrative.
Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Program
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is considered a major nonpoint source of pollution to streams
flowing through Pennsylvania's coal regions including the Susquehanna Basin. The primary
source of this AMD is abandoned coal mines.
Some of the major affects of AMD from abandoned coal mines include:
1. The virtual elimination of aquatic life in effected streams which limits the
recreational uses of the streams.
2. The degradation in the quality of public and private water supplies; mine drainage can
affect both surface and ground water supplies.
3. The decreased value of property surrounding affected streams.
4. Intensifying corrosion of bridges, locks, and dams, and other structures constructed in
affected streams.
-11-
-------
In 1967, a $500 million Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Fund was created by
voter referendum, with $120 million earmarked for prevention, control, and elimination of
stream pollution from abandoned mining areas.
Approximately $4 million remain in this fund for acid mine drainage abatement. In addition,
the Commonwealth is spending $5 million per year to reclaim abandoned strip mines that
have had their bonds forfeited; many of these strip mines were a source of acid mine
drainage or sedimentation.
The Commonwealth is currently receiving funds from the Federal Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) to correct abandoned mine problems in Pennsylvania. These funds, by law, must
initially be used to correct problems that pose a threat to health and safety. The
Commonwealth is not permitted to spend OSM funds for AMD abatement work until after
most of the health and safety problems are corrected. We do not anticipate this will happen
within the life of the program.
-12-
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT STRATEGY
The Commonwealth has a number of ongoing programs to reduce the
introduction of conventional pollutants into the waters of the state
from either point or nonpoint sources. The following summarizes the
major ongoing and planned program activities in these areas.
A. Point Sources
1. NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
The Commonwealth was delegated the authority to administer the
NPDES permit program in 1975. The Virginia Water Control Board
(VWCB) has issued permits to 3800 regulated facilities (NPDES and
No-Discharge); 2700 of these are in the Bay drainage area. Through
the NPDES permit system, appropriate effluent limits for conventional
pollutants (such as biodegradable organics, suspended solids, and
pH), toxics, and nutrients are specified in the discharge permits.
The VWCB will continue to manage this permit system in the most
efficient manner possible, to ensure that all permits remain current
and incorporate limits that are appropriate for the receiving stream
quality. In order to efficiently manage the Permit Program the VWCB
annually updates the NPDES Procedural Manual. This manual details
permitting procedures for determining effluent limitations which meet
all Federal and State requirements. It also standardizes procedures
to ensure that EPA, other Virginia agencies, and adjacent States
review permit applications.
The VWCB ensures that permits are current and contain
appropriate limitations to protect water quality through a number of
activities within the Permit Section of the Agency:
1) Permits for significant discharges are reviewed by
both the Regional and Headquarters' staff. The
headquarters' review ensures the proper technical
evaluation has been conducted and statewide
consistency is maintained.
2) Permits which are issued through the Regional Offices
without headquarters involvement are reviewed as part
of a QA/QC audit. These audits evaluate both
procedural and technical aspects of the permitting
process.
3) Facilities with compliance problems may be issued
short term permits (less than 5 years), so the staff
may reevaluate the situation more frequently to ensure
appropriate limitations are established and met.
-------
4) Through the VWCB Inspection Strategy's routine
technical, laboratory, and sampling inspection
programs, the staff note any changes in the facility
operation or production which require further
investigation. If changes at the facility have
occurred which affect permit limitations permit
modification procedures are initiated.
The VWCB regulates No-Discharge facilities to ensure that
pollutants do not reach the Bay or its tributaries. Certain design
and operational conditions are required to preclude any point source
discharge of pollutants to State waters except under prescribed
severe rainfall conditions (25 year - 24 hour storm intensity). Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are also included for land application of
waste as conditions of the permits. These conditions may include
restrictions on wastewater application rates, requirements for buffer
zones from ditches and receiving streams, maximum slopes used for
land application, and restriction from application during inclement
weather. Inspections are conducted according to the VWCB Inspection
Strategy. High priority facilities are inspected annually to
determine if permit conditions are being met. Low priority
facilities are inspected once every five years.
The VWCB has recently revised Regulation No. 6, under which the
NPDES permit program is administered. The amendments ensure that
Virginia's permit program conforms with the requirements of the Clean
Water Act. The most important change in these amendments is the
inclusion of the Virginia Pollutant Abatement (VPA) Permit. The new
VPA permit will replace the state No-Discharge Certificate thereby
clarifying procedures and requirements for the regulation of
facilities and operations which have the potential to discharge to
state waters. The regulation will also require application for VPA
permits for "concentrated animal feeding operations" (maximum permit
life of 5 years) and "intensified animal feeding operations" (maximum
permit life of 10 years).
2. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The VWCB completed the most recent triennial review of its water
quality standards in 1987. Significant amendments to the standards
included the following: 1. procedures for site specific temperature
requirements; 2. prohibition on the use of chlorine for disinfection
of discharges larger than 20,000 gpd into waters containing
endangered, threatened, or rare species or trout populations; 3.
application of the chlorine standard to intermittent dischargers; 4.
modification of the fecal coliform bacteria standard to include an
instantaneous maximum and specified sampling frequencies; 5.
specifically establishing the State's authority to utilize water
quality criteria in establishing permit limitations; and, 6.
incorporating reference to EPA's regulation governing recommended
analytical procedures.
-------
The VWCB plans to initiate the process for the next triennial
review during FY 89. However, the Water Control Board has directed
its staff to initiate the process of incorporating EPA toxics
criteria as required by the Clean Water Act of 1987 when national
guidance is received from EPA.
In addition to the above the VWCB adopted at its March 28-29,
1988 meeting regulations for nutrient enriched waters which will
become effective in June of 1988.
Other activities in the standards area that will impact VWCB
programs within the Chesapeake Bay are as follows:
1. Dissolved Oxygen - The Environmental Protection Agency
has published separate cold water and warm water
dissolved oxygen criteria for early life stages and
other life stages. Current VWCB dissolved oxygen
standards recognize the differences in warm water and
cold water criteria for dissolved oxygen, but do not
incorporate the concept of separate dissolved oxygen
standards for early life stages and other life
stages. Consideration is being given to retaining the
single standard for all life stages, but modifying the
dissolved oxygen standards to insure protection of the
early life stages.
2. Bacteria - For over a year a multi agency committee
(State Health Department, Virginia Water Control
Board, and Division of Consolidated Laboratories) has
explored the possibility of switching the bacterial
indicator standards from fecal coliform (E. coli) to
enterococci. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science
has experienced some difficulties with the analytical
procedure for saltwater analysis of enterococci which
has caused the committee to act cautiously on this
matter. Consideration is being given to using both E.
coli and enterococci standards and possibly going to
just enterococci standards if possible.
3. ENFORCEMENT
Timely and appropriate enforcement actions will be taken against
violators of discharge permit conditions, state laws, and
regulations. Returning violators to compliance, mitigating the
adverse impacts on water quality, and providing a deterrent to future
violators has always had statewide emphasis.
The VWCB enforcement system has recently been expanded to
provide improved response by the agency to noncompliance by owners
and operators with State Water Pollution Control laws, regulations
-------
and policies. The new Compliance Auditing program is designed to
establish compliance and enforcement procedures which will achieve
timely and consistent enforcement actions against all violators. The
enforcement process catalogues different violations by subjecting
them to point assessment criteria. The point assessment criteria are
uniformly applied with higher values given to violations of greater
environmental consequence. Chronic violations will also receive
higher point assessments.
The Compliance Auditing program presently focuses on NPDES
permit violations reported to the agency through the permittee self
monitoring system. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) are submitted
to the VWCB and under the new Compliance Auditing process the DMRs
are subjected to a rigorous computer analysis to detect violations.
An automated program called the Compliance Auditing System (CAS)
scans reported DMR data and assesses violation points for all
reported infractions.
In recognition of the fact that the new enforcement system will
likely bring more violations to the threshold of formal
administrative or judicial enforcement action, a new enforcement
tool, the issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV), has been
incorporated into the process. This action is essentially a warning
device which informs the violator of noncompliance problems and
requires action to correct the violations to avoid a potentially
higher level of enforcement action which could include court action
and penalties.
As a further deterrent and to better document violations, all
issued NOVs are hand delivered to the violating facility by an VWCB
inspector who also conducts a site compliance inspection. Additional
violations are often found upon conducting these inspections which
can lead to the assessment of additional violation points.
At present, the agency is issuing over 100 NOVs per month which
also results in a like number of compliance inspections being
conducted.
By virtue of General Assembly action during the 1988 session,
the VWCB will have certain administrative penalty authorities. The
agency will be able to exact penalties for violation liabilities if
the owner agrees to pay as part of an administrative settlement
action.
The proposed 88-90 biennium budget includes funding for an
enhanced compliance auditing and inspection program. Under this
initiative, additional enforcement staff will be assigned to
specifically address compliance problems. It will also allow for
closer scrutiny of compliance in other program areas, such as toxics,
pretreatment, underground storage tanks, and spill incidents.
-------
4. NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
In cases where final effluent limits are not currently achieved,
the VWCB has implemented the National Municipal Policy (NMP), which
requires all municipal dischargers to meet secondary (or more
stringent) limits by July 1, 1988 unless an extension has been given
by the appropriate court of law. The NMP currently affects 75 plants
in Virginia's portion of the Bay drainage area. Needed upgrades must
be accomplished even if federal grant funds are unavailable.
All NMP facilities were required to submit compliance plans to
the VWCB. The VWCB has placed virtually all municipalities that came
under the National Municipal Policy on enforceable schedules. Out of
the 75 Bay community plants affected by the Policy only five hardship
cases are not yet under a court imposed schedule. These are all
minor facilities as the major dischargers have been completely
addressed with enforceable schedules. The remaining cases have
either returned to compliance (37), are under an Administrative Order
to comply by July 1, 1988 (29) or are under a court imposed schedule
to comply beyond July 1, 1988 (5).
Violations of these schedules will be referred to the VWCB
Office of Enforcement for action if deemed significant. Penalties,
sewer moratoriums and other punitive actions will be considered as
appropriate.
5. FINANCIAL AID TO LOCALITIES
To meet the financial obligations resulting from requirements to
protect water quality, several financial aid programs have been
developed.
The Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) was
created by the 1984 General Assembly to facilitate self sufficiency
for wastewater financing at the state and local levels and to provide
a long term, renewable funding source.
On June 10, 1988 EPA awarded Virginia a Phase I Revolving Loan
Capitalization Grant of $29.6 million. Virginia became the fifth
state in the nation to receive EPA approval, and the first state in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The state will apply $10 million in
state funds to the RLF for a total of $39.6 million. Under Phase I
Virginia is limited to funding National Municipal Policy projects.
Virginia is getting ready to solicit applications from communities
for Phase II funding which will be open to all types of projects,
such as, nutrient removal or toxics control. Phase II funds will
include $12 million from EPA and initially $10 million from the
state.
-------
By the time the Fund is fully capitalized, the Board anticipates
the availability of approximately $250 million in federal money and
$50 million in state matching funds.
Another funding source is the Virginia Resources Authority
(VRA). In addition to serving as the financial manager of the RLF,
the VRA has been authorized to issue bonds up to $300 million for
wastewater treatment needs.
-------
B. NONPOINT SOURCES
1. Erosion and Sediment Control in Agricultural Areas
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) administers
an ongoing program to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution
in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The voluntary program relies upon
educational activities, technical assistance and financial incentives
promote the installation of best management practices (BMPs) to
control nonpoint sources from agricultural lands. Three main
strategies guide the program as follows:
1. Pollutant source contribution identification
from cropland, pasture land, etc. throughout
the Bay basin.
2. Development of appropriate management
strategies or BMPs for identified problems.
3. Targeted implementation of these strategies and
practices in the most critical areas.
The agricultural nonpoint source control program consists of
six primary elements to address these strategies:
Agricultural Pollution Source Identification Data Base
Agricultural Demonstration/Research Projects
Nutrient Management Program
Agricultural Best Management Practice Cost Sharing
Technical/Administrative Assistance to SWCDs
Agricultural Education Program
Each of these program elements has been refined annually to
better target the efforts needed to achieve the overall program goal
of improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay basin by reducing
the influx of nonpoint pollutants. The program elements being
utilized to meet these goals are discussed below.
Agricultural Pollution Source Identification Data Base
One of the greatest challenges of implementing a large scale
agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program is to identify
areas of greatest pollution potential. The Virginia Geographic
Information System (VirGIS) project was initiated in the fall of 1985
through a contract with VPI&SU to create a cost effective database
-------
designed to identify and prioritize areas with the greatest relative
potential to be nonpoint source pollution problems. A secondary use
intended for the VirGIS database is to supply base line information
for computer based mathematical models. These models can be used to
assess the relative effectiveness and accomplishments of BMPs to
reduce sediment delivery and nutrient losses. The VirGIS database
consists of six basic computerized data layers that are spatially
referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate
system. The six basic layers include elevation, soil types, water
bodies, land use, watershed boundaries and county boundaries. These
basic layers can be manipulated and combined to generate additional
working data layers or maps such as Erodibility Index (El), Water
Quality Index (WQI) and many other maps that can be used as technical
management tools.
Potential sediment loadings (PSL) were calculated during phase
I (85-86) of the project for 19 counties in the York and Rappahannock
drainage area. The PSLs were grouped into categories representing
high, moderate and low NPS pollution potential. Maps displayed on
clear mylar overlays and sized to fit USGS 7 1/2 minute quadrangles
were generated and distributed to the SWCDs for use in prioritizing
critical NPS pollution areas.
Phase II (86-87) and phase III (87-88) of the VirGIS project
have continued the development of the database beyond the York and
Rappahannock drainage basins. A total of 38 counties covering
approximately 8 million acres in the Bay area are scheduled to be in
the database by the end of phase III. Methods of prioritizing
potential nonpoint source pollution areas have been refined to
include the Erodibility Index (El) and the Water Quality Index (WQI)
maps. The maps have also been found very useful in identifying land
areas eligible for the USDA conservation reserve program.
Work is continuing on refining and improving VirGIS
capabilities. Databases for soil type, elevation, land use,
waterbodies, watersheds and counties will be developed for 6
additional counties during phase III of the project. Routines will
be developed to access soils interpretation data from which
suitability maps can be generated for a variety of scenarios that
relate to soils (i.e., septic drain fields, specific crop yields,
etc.). A user friendly database management system is also under
development to enable the DSWC to address both in-house and remote
user needs. Work is being conducted to interface VirGIS with SCS
CAMPS and farm plan algorithms for incorporating water quality goals
in farm plans. An investigation will also be initiated to assist the
DSWC in evaluating alternative nonpoint in-stream nutrient control
strategies using VirGIS, existing W.Q. data and models.
-------
Agricultural Demonstration/Research Projects
The nonpoint source pollution control strategy has since its
inception included the support and funding of demonstration and
research projects aimed at better understanding NFS problems and
methods of controlling NFS pollution. During 1985-1986 twenty- six
innovative BMP methods were funded statewide to research and field
test new BMP technologies. These research efforts provided important
field performance data and also became important educational tools
for all parties concerned. One ongoing research/demonstration
project is a rainfall simulator which is utilized statewide to
educate farmers and others concerned as to the relative importance
and success of BMPs in reducing erosion and related problems caused
by rainfall events. Six sites were demonstrated during the summer of
1987 to coincide with existing tours and field days to maximize
public exposure to the demonstrations.
Two other major ongoing research projects involve the
monitoring of two small watersheds over a 10 year study period to
address the issue of the effects of BMP usage on downstream water
quality. One watershed was selected for study since it was
representative of a watershed dominated by cropland land use and the
absence of point source discharges which could affect water quality.
A second watershed was chosen because it contained a large percentage
of livestock operations representative of a watershed where livestock
management BMPs could be utilized. Information from these projects
will be critically important in verifying water quality changes due
to BMP implementation.
Nutrient Management Program
The nutrient management program basically evolved out of
educational and research programs as a necessary program area
requiring greater emphasis. The program is based upon a concentrated
educational effort combined with the provision of technical services
to farmers to ensure the proper utilization and application of animal
wastes and commercial fertilizers. This program is considered to
have the greatest potential impact on the reduction of nitrogen from
nonpoint sources.
The program consists of an ongoing educational program
primarily through county extension agents and other extension
personnel under contract to the DSWC to promote the development and
use of fertilizer and animal waste plans for farms throughout the
state. Demonstration plots have also been established yearly to
demonstrate comparable yields grown on cropland receiving optimized
and normally reduced levels of fertilizer and animal waste applied at
optimum periods for plant growth. These demonstration plots have
been widely advertised and been very effective in demonstrating the
benefits of optimum fertilizer and animal waste application.
-------
Technical services are provided through this program through free
animal waste nutrient analyses, plant tissue testing for nutrient
levels and soil testing, as well as in the development of fertilizer
and animal waste management plans. A computer program has been
developed to assist county extension agents in the development of
animal waste plans. All county agents have been trained in its
usage.
This program is projected for significant expansion in the
future. Greater staff reso\irces are projected to provide more
intensive assistance statewide to better ensure the proper
utilization of fertilizer and animal wastes. Such assistance will
include but not be limited to more staff time devoted to development
of fertilizer and animal waste utilization plans, more demonstration
and research efforts, greater one to one contact with farmers to
include hands-on technical assistance in proper fertilizer and animal
waste utilization and in tissue, soil and animal waste sampling
working with the ag-chemical industry and greater training and
educational efforts for all concerned parties.
Agricultural Best Management Practice Cost Sharing
The agricultural best management practice cost-sharing program
is a DSWC project to improve water quality in the State's streams,
rivers and the Chesapeake Bay through the provision of financial
cost-share assistance for the installation of agricultural BMPs. The
program is funded with state and federal monies through local soil
and water conservation districts. The districts, in turn, administer
a cost-share and incentive program to encourage farmers and
landowners to apply needed BMPs to their land to better control
sediment and nutrient loss and transportation into our waters from
excessive surface flow, erosion and inadequate animal waste
management.
The districts receive their funding allocation based on need
as determined from an analysis of major agricultural factors that
influence water quality such as intensive cropland cultivation,
erosive soil conditions and animal unit numbers. The district then
distributes assistance to voluntary applicants whose requests have
been evaluated to have the highest cost effectiveness potential for
water quality improvement. This targeting of funds based on the
cost-effectiveness of water quality improvement is utilized rather
than a first-served payment or other distribution method to achieve
the maximum benefits per dollar spent.
Although resource based problems affecting water quality occur
on all land uses, this program emphasizes efforts for corrective
action on agricultural and forested lands only, and offers cost-share
assistance as an incentive to carry out construction or
implementation of selected BMPs. Beginning in 1983, state cost-share
10
-------
funds were available for the Chowan basin. The program was expanded
in 1984 to include the Chesapeake Bay Basin through funds provided
under the EPA Chesapeake Bay program. Since 1986 the General
Assembly has provided funds for cost-sharing BMP installation
statewide.
Technical/Administrative Assistance to Soil and Water Conservation
Districts
The DSWC provides extensive technical and administrative
assistance to soil and water conservation districts within the Bay
basin and statewide. This assistance includes, as an example,
guidance and training in operating the BMP cost-share programs within
the Bay basin. This assistance included the funding assistance for
computer systems for Bay districts for cost-share tracking and
management, other assistance is provided in the form of financial
management assistance, information and guidance on other DSWC
programs such as the erosion and sedimentation control program and
keeping the districts up-to-date on ongoing federal and state
programs affecting local soil and water conservation activities.
Primary assistance to the soil and water conservation districts is
provided by six field specialists serving various portions of the
state supervised by a district operations chief in Richmond.
In addition to the assistance provided by the DSWC, the extent
of the nonpoint source programs, particularly within the Bay basin
has resulted in the need for additional technical and administrative
assistance within the soil and water conservation districts. All 25
districts in the Bay basin receive some personnel assistance support
through the DSWC. In 1986 this support amounted to a total of 34
manyears for the basin. Of the 34 manyears, 27 manyears were for
technical positions with the remainder providing administrative
assistance. The majority of the technical positions provide
assistance in agricultural programs. Several of the technical
positions, however are specifically designated for assistance in
urban programs.
Agricultural Education Program
The state BMP cost-share program by itself will probably not
result in sufficient implementation of BMPs to reduce agricultural
pollutant loads to desired levels because there is no guarantee that
farmers would implement the estimated $170 million needed in BMPs
under a voluntary program even if cost- sharing were available. With
only limited cost-share funding of approximately $1.2 million a year,
the critical nature of education is evident to the success of the
agricultural BMP program. The education program is vital not only to
sell the benefits of BMP implementation to farmers to encourage their
11
-------
participation in the cost-share program but also to encourage their
voluntary implementation of BMPs.
Many of the BMPs that are being promoted for their water
quality benefits are also economically beneficial to the farmer. The
challenge is to convince farmers to try BMPs so that they can
evaluate their performance for themselves. It is hoped that a
substantial number of farmers can be convinced to implement BMPs
through education, thus reducing reliance upon a cost-share program.
A primary objective of the education program is to reach farmers who
normally do not participate in local conservation programs.
The DSWC is working closely through a contract with the
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to conduct an intensive
educational program in the Chesapeake Bay basin. This program
coordinates the educational activities of county extension agents to
promote the NPS control programs at the local level through farm
visits, educational meetings, news articles, radio programs and
similar methods.
Many other educational activities are ongoing to promote BMP
usage and NPS controls statewide including the prevention of
shoreline erosion. These include promotion of the cost-share
program, a clean water farm farmer recognition program, promotion of
research activities, promotion of BMP usage related activities
through talks and speeches to interested groups, displays at fairs,
publication of promotional literature, distribution of news releases
and many similar activities,
Future Activities
Recent actions by the 1988 General Assembly have provided
support for the continuation and expansion of the above listed
programs. The legislature authorized the addition of 22 new staff
personnel for the DSWC to specifically work in the Chesapeake Bay
basin on the control of agricultural sources of nonpoint source
pollution. In budgetary terms over the biennium this equates to
$1,450,405 in additional state funding for fiscal year 1988-1989 and
$1,691,925 for fiscal year 1989-1990.
The additional personnel will provide support in all the above
program areas. Particularly strengthened will be the nutrient
management program where at least ten additional personnel will be
distributed throughout the Bay basin to assist in this program area
described above. Additional staff will also provide greater
technical assistance to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
improved and expanded educational programs and continued development
and improvement of the VirGIS system throughout the Bay basin.
12
-------
2. Erosion and Sediment Control From Forested Areas
The Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) is the lead state
management agency for the implementation and management of the
forestry water quality management plan which includes the forestry
BMP handbook containing measures to minimize nonpoint source
pollution due to silvicultural activities. The DOF oversees or
provides technical assistance for several state and federal programs
which relate to the control of forestry nonpoint pollution sources.
These are discussed individually below.
The Federal Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)
The program provides cost-share funds to landowners to carry
out forestry projects. These projects can include practices such as
logging road stabilization and tree planting which reduce nonpoint
source pollution from forested land. The funds for the program are
administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) county committees which also determine the cost-share
rates. Technical assistance and determination of eligibility for the
funds are provided by the Department of Forestry.
The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)
This program provides cost-share funds to landowners to carry
out conservation practices. These practices help reduce nonpoint
pollution from agriculture and forested lands primarily through
reducing erosion and sedimentation occurring on the land. The ACP is
administered by the ASCS and provides funds directly to landowners
for practices that conserve soil, water and woodland resources.
There may also be special ACP funds available in any given year that
can be used to help control forestry nonpoint source pollution. The
Department of Forestry provides technical assistance for the forestry
related ACP programs.
The Reforestation of Timberlands Act (RT)
This program is a State cost-share program available to
landowners for the purpose of planting an area in pine trees. The
landowner can receive up to 50 percent of the cost of a project (up
to $60/acre) through the RT program which is administered by the
Department of Forestry. The program is funded equally by the
pine-using forestry industry and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Reforestation can reduce nonpoint source pollution originating from
forest lands by stabilization of an area that is eroding and
degrading a watercourse. Log roads and other critical areas are
often stabilized in conjunction with the reforestation project
utilizing proper BMPs.
13
-------
The Cooperative Forest Management Program (CFM)
This is a cooperative federal/state program which recognizes the
need for management practices and logging methods. In cooperation
with the Virginia Department of Forestry which receives partial
funding from the U.S. Forest Service Cooperative Forest Management
Program provides assistance to the landowner in the management of his
timber resources. Emphasis is placed on erosion control where timber
harvesting is recommended by providing recommendations concerning
logging road layout and maintenance. Specific reforestation
recommendations are then provided each landowner. Stabilization is
encouraged through on-the-ground logging road and gully stabilization
demonstrations.
Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share Program
Under this program administered by the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation cost-share funds may be provided for the planting
of permanent vegetative cover on critical land areas, where critical
land areas include logging roads, skid trails and other lands where
tree planting is the recommended vegetative cover, the DOF provides
technical assistance in the development of proper plans and for
inspection of completed projects.
The DOF is also involved in educational activities to promote
good forestry practices and the utilization of best management
practices. They also provide general technical assistance to
landowners and commercial loggers in forestry practices, logging road
layout and the specifications for BMP implementation. The DOF has
recently drafted an updated version of the Forestry BMP handbook
incorporating updated specifications for forestry BMP practices.
The DOF reports annually on its progress in implementation of
forestry BMP practices and ongoing efforts in forestry NPS pollution
control.
The USDA Forest Service administers the National Forest System.
In Virginia this involves the management of 1,631,686 acres of land
contained in the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests.
The Service is also involved in research to find better ways to
manage timber and forest lands.
The participation of the U.S. Forest Service in the Virginia
nonpoint source voluntary program of BMP implementation is primarily
through its management of the Jefferson and George Washington
National Forests. Only the George Washington National Forest is in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. The Forest Service encourages the
use of BMPs on all forestry activities conducted on National Forest
land. The agency also encourages the use of BMPs in conjunction with
any agricultural or hydrologic modification work permitted on
14
-------
National Forest land. Monitoring and surveillance of forestry BMPs
utilized on National Forest land for compliance and effectiveness is
conducted by the Forest Service.
The Virginia Forestry Association (VFA) is also involved in
nonpoint source control activities. The logging committee of the VFA
is currently developing a program to increase the application of BMPs
on forested land.
3. Erosion and Sediment Control In Urban Areas
Virginia has had an Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Law since
1973 (Section 21-89 et. seq., Code of Virginia). The administrative
program operates under standards and regulations promulgated by the
Board of Soil and Water Conservation. The law and regulations are
implemented and enforced primarily by 171 local governments who are
required under the law to adopt erosion and sediment control programs
consistent with guidelines established by the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC). State agency and some jurisdictional
projects are regulated by the DSWC. The law is an extension of the
State's police power, in this case to protect the rights and
properties of citizens neighboring land development projects as well
as the quality of state waters. It regulates new "land disturbing
activities" as defined in the statute, but includes several
exemptions for certain types of activities.
The law basically requires that no person may commence a land
disturbing activity without first obtaining approval of a plan for
controlling erosion and containing sediment on the project site. The
regulations include control of stormwater runoff to protect the
integrity of receiving stream channels. Furthermore, localities are
not allowed to issue any permits for a project until the required
control plan is approved.
Local governments are required to conduct periodic inspections
of the projects to ensure compliance with the law, the approved
control plan and the regulations. Failure to comply results in a
sequence of notification and alternative enforcement procedures.
Technical assistance for the program is provided by DSWC.
The 1988 General Assembly enacted six separate bills that
amended the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and provided for
significant improvement of the program. The following is a summary
of legislative actions which affected the program:
* Removed or further qualified problem exemptions under
the law. Exemptions for projects on federal lands,
telephone and electric utility lines and railroad
construction were removed. Exemptions for single
family homes, agricultural engineering and gas and oil
well feeder lines were clarified.
15
-------
* Added provision requiring periodic review of local
programs by the DSWC was added to the law, further
establishing clear authority for state oversight.
* Increased DSWC's staff for the erosion and sediment
control program by twenty positions.
* The limit on local plan review/permit fees for erosion
and sediment control projects was raised from $300 per
project to a maximum of $1,000 per project.
* Authorized a certification program for local erosion
and sediment control inspectors.
* Added authority to the law to allow regulation of
"erosion impact areas" that are not related to current
land disturbing activities.
* Added provisions to strengthen performance guarantees
and boundary requirements.
* Added provisions to allow for civil penalties and
civil fines as enforcement options.
The above actions will greatly strengthen the State's overall
erosion and sediment control program. Of particular importance is
the additional state oversight responsibilities which should improve
local implementation and the uniformity of implementation statewide.
Other provisions significantly strengthen the law and provide greater
enforcement and performance guarantees.
While the erosion and sediment control program operates
statewide significant activity occurs in the Chesapeake Bay drainage
area which includes the majority of the State's urbanized areas.
Under budgetary provisions passed by the legislature, 12 new erosion
and sediment control personnel will be added to the DSWC staff to
work on erosion and sediment control within the Bay drainage area.
In dollars over the next biennium, this equates to $555,910 for
fiscal year 1988-1989 and $455,750 for fiscal year 1989-1990 for
urban nonpoint source control activities for the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area.
16
-------
D.C. Conventional Pollutants Strategy
In 1985 Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant achieved average
effluent concentrations of 1.1 mg/1 TKN, 1.9 mg/1 BOD and 1.7
mg/1 TSS. While there are a few other point sources of
conventional pollutants in the District they are of small
quantity loadings and general meet secondary treatment levels.
With the phase out of the construction grant program the District
has drafted legislation to establish a revolving loan program.
It is anticipated that the program will be in place in 1989. At
the $2.4 billion national level the District Would receive about
$12 million in capitalization grants and contribute $3.0 million
in matching funds.
The two major uncontrolled Scources of conventional pollutants
are combined sewer overflows and urban runoff. The 1985 CSO loads
were 1.4 million pound of BOD and 6.9 million pounds of TSS. The
urban runoff loads were 4.3 million pounds of BOD and 21.7
million pounds of TSS.
Implementation of Phase I of the CSO abatement Program will
provide a 55% reduction in BOD and TSS. Because the primary
impact of CSO's in the District is the low D.O. of the Anacostia,
after Phase I is operational the District will conduct additional
studies to determine the resulting water quality improvements and
-------
-2-
effectiveness of the controls used in Phase I. Phase II will be
implemented as needed.
The District promulgated in January 1988 Stormwater Control
Regulations requiring permanent BKP's for all new development and
redevelopment. Previously, the District had only required
temporary BMP's during the actual construction of the
development. It is projected that by the year 2000 approximately
6% of the District area will be under BMP control.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
Conventional Pollutant Load
Reduction Strategy
Department of the Environment
Water Management Administration
I. Water Quality Standards
Maryland's water quality standards (criteria) are embodied in State regulations
(COMAR 10.50.01). The regulations define four different "use classes", then designate
all Maryland surface waters as belonging to one of these four classes. The regulations
establish in-stream standards for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, bacteria, turbidity
and six toxic substances, standards which differ in one respect or another for the four
"use classes". The standards for D.O., turbidity and bacteria in receiving waters provide
the basis for the effluent limits set for BOD, suspended solids and bacteria in the
discharge permits given to public and private sewerage plants and to industrial point
sources.
Maryland currently plans no revisions to its water quality standards which will
involve either conventional pollutants (such as BOD, suspended solids or bacteria) or
nutrients.
IL Discharge Permit Program
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit program which covers all discharges to
surface waters from publicly owned (sewage) treatment works (POTWs), private sewage
treatment plants, businesses and industries. Since 1974, Maryland has operated a
combined federal (NPDES)/State discharge permit program under a specific "delegation
agreement" with the EPA. There are about 350 permits in effect for public and private
sewage plants in Maryland, and about 590 active industrial discharge permits. State law
establishes a discharge permit requirement for discharges to groundwater, a function not
called for under the federal CWA. This would include infiltration ponds, spray irrigation
and subsurface injection of treated (or partially treated) wastewaters.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) develops, issues and enforces
all of the discharge permits issued in the state, including all federal facilities. The
Water Management Administration (WMA) handles all sewage plants, both public and
private. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration (HSWMA) handles
all discharges from industries and other activities discharging wastewaters of non-sewage
origin. The EPA (Region III) reviews every draft major discharge permit before it is
adopted by the State.
Discharge permits to surface waters (NPDES/State permits) are developed by
several different means, depending on whether the discharger is a sewage plant
("municipal discharger") or an industry, and depending on the properties of the receiving
waters.
-------
For "municipal" (including private) dischargers, consistent with the CWA, all permits
are written to require secondary treatment or more. MDE/WMA does a preliminary
"water quality impact analysis" for every municipal discharge permit application, which
involves site-specific calculations to determine if secondary treatment is sufficient to
allow the receiving water to meet State water quality standards; if not, more stringent
discharge limits are set. Generally, the smaller the stream or the more poorly flushed
the estuary, the more stringent the concentrations of pollutants (especially those
pollutants affecting oxygen demand, a "conventional pollutant") that will be required.
All sewage discharge permits include limits for dissolved oxygen, pH, biological oxygen
demand, suspended solids, chlorine residual, and coliform bacteria. Some municipal
permits will also address phosphorus, nitrogen forms, and toxics which may be present
because of local industries.
For industrial dischargers, the requirements of the CWA again set the overall
framework for the NPDES program. Several different "levels" of treatment (or
approaches) are specified in the law. "Best available technology" is required for all
nonconventional pollutants, and "best conventional technology" (BCT) is required for
conventional pollutants. EPA has developed industry-wide "effluent limitation guidelines"
(ELGs) for many major industrial categories. HSWMA uses the ELGs whenever possible
for setting permit limits for individual discharges; in the absence of ELGs or where BCT
may be insufficient, further technical analyses or "best professional judgement" may
dictate the effluent limits.
All permits are issued for a five-year period, at the end of which the discharger
must apply for a renewal permit. Plant performance, new plant processes, new State and
EPA policies, and new information about water quality conditions are factored into the
decision whether or not to change the permit requirements.
In recent years, a backlog of municipal permit renewals and amendments developed
at WMA. Principal causes of the problem included the time needed to develop and run a
computer model for each permit, the competing demands of developing draft permit
limits for use in 201 facilities planning, and reliance on time-consuming procedures for
internal review and public hearings on each permit (regardless of the level of local
interest). In the past six months, WMA has conducted a detailed internal review of the
problem, has acted to accelerate the final public review of half of the pending permits,
and has instituted changes in the municipal permits process. These changes will involve
more selective use of site-specific models in developing permit limits; careful screening
of new requests for draft permit conditions for facilities planning; and changes in the
public hearing procedures to allow more efficient scheduling of hearings without
compromising the public's "right to know". The last of these changes will require an
amendment to the present State regulations governing the issuance of municipal permits.
Fortunately, similar problems have not developed with the issuance and renewal of
industrial NPDES permits. No major changes in tht program are expected.
Facilities lacking a surface water discharge — i.e., discharging to groundwaters —
are required to obtain a State groundwater discharge permit from MDE. Effluent quality
requirements are set, just as with surface discharges; prevention of soil clogging and of
groundwater contamination are principal concerns in the permitting process.
-------
There presently is an informal "approval letter" process for proposed large farm
animal waste facilities which involves a review of the facility construction plans by
HSWMA. However, it is certain that not all Maryland facilities have come under this
voluntary program, and there have been several incidents in recent years in which major
failures of waste storage structures have caused locally catastrophic water pollution.
HSWMA is therefore proposing a more formal permit program to regulate such facilities,
in cases where the manure is managed with a "wet system" involving spray irrigation of
waste waters. The principal benefit of this new program would be the establishment of
regular State inspection of each structure, to verify structural safety and compliance
with the operating conditions specified in the State permit. Presently there is no routine
State inspection program for large manure storage structures.
IILPermit Enforcement
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is responsible for the
enforcement of all the permits which it issues. The enforcement program involves self-
monitoring/reporting by permittees, compliance sampling by MDE personnel, compliance
inspections by MDE, technical evaluation, operator training and licensing, and formal
enforcement actions as necessary. By late 1987, of the 183 municipal (publicly owned)
sewage plants in Maryland, about 125 were in compliance with the final effluent limits in
their discharge permits. This rate of compliance (68% of the public plants) represents a
significant gain from the 37% rate documented for 1983. MDE expects the compliance
rate to increase to 90% by the end of 1988, as a result of plant construction underway
and operating improvements at various facilities. (See discussion of National Municipal
Policy, below.)
Both the Water Management Administration (WMA) and the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Management Administration (HSWMA) have permanent divisions or programs
committed to inspection and enforcement. WMA conducts some 1,600 sewage plant
inspections a year, with the larger plants receiving more attention. Inspectors offer
operators assistance in diagnosing plant performance problems. If significant permit
violations occur, the agency will issue a notice of violation or a directive requiring
corrective action. If those fail to bring results, legal Consent Orders, Administrative
Orders or court action may be used. Fines and hookup moratoria may be associated with
the orders, and court action may include assessment of civil penalities. Review of
compliance status is a continuous effort, with WMA updating its report on the status of
compliance on a quarterly basis. Once a year, a statewide list of allowable "hookup
capacity" at POTW's is developed, which denies capacity to plants which have
consistently violated their permits or are overloaded.
Present efforts to enhance this program include the establishment of a computerized
Permit Compliance System which will handle all self-reported municipal compliance
data. MDE is also conducting performance audit inspections in order to evaluate and
certify each plant's lab procedures and to increase the reliability of the self-monitoring
data. Since 1985, WMA has maintained a program to respond to all reports of sewage
conveyance system spills and overflows; this includes pumping station failures and
interceptor blockages. For public sewerage systems with industrial contributors, WMA is
presently intensifying its efforts to help municipalities to properly manage their
industrial "pretreatment" programs. In some cases, this will have a direct beneficial
effect on the sewage plant's performance.
-------
Sometimes noncompliance results from operator inexperience or the operational
complexities of the particular sewage plant. Since 1985, MDE has increased its support
for the Maryland Center for Environmental Training, which provides certification
training for plant operators and which comes in as a consultant (at MDE's request) to
provide intensive diagnosis and assistance for plants with persistent operating problems.
IV. Maryland Compliance With National Municipal Policy
EPA's National Municipal Policy establishes a nationwide program to bring all public
sewage plants (POTWs) into compliance with the final effluent limitations in their
NPDES permits by July 1, 1988. In October 1987, there were 58 of Maryland's 183
POTWs not in compliance; MDE expects that this number will be reduced to around 20
plants by July 1. Of these, eight have received grant funding that will allow them to
meet their permit requirements at a later date, and the balance (mostly State-owned
STPs for which capital funds have not yet been budgeted) have not yet adopted
compliance schedules. Some of these latter have received funding to begin design work.
Four POTWs (Back River, Mattawoman, Oakland and Berlin) are under court orders to
meet compliance schedules which extend beyond July 1988. (Oakland and Berlin are not
in the Bay drainage basin.)
MDE's Water Management Administration is handling each POTW that will miss the
July deadline on a case-by-case basis. In a number of instances, the fund source for the
needed improvements has not been identified or awaits inclusion in the State capital
budget. In other cases, there are other problems, such as finding an acceptable site for
land disposal of treated effluent. WMA staff are working closely with the owners of
these plants in order to identify and (wherever possible) overcome the obstacles to
compliance. Because there are valid reasons for the delays, there seems to be no need to
take punitive action against any of these POTWs at this time.
V. Financial Aid to Municipalities for Point Source Control Needs
Title n of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) enacted in 1972 established a massive
nationwide grant program to assist communities and states in meeting the expense of
improving sewage conveyance and treatment. Initially, federal "201" funds were
authorized to cover up to 75% of the eligible project costs, a share which dropped to 55%
after 1981. Maryland legislation established a State "matching grant" program that
covered 12-1/2% of eligible project costs. When the federal share decreased to 55%, new
State legislation increased the state grant share to 32-1/2%. Hence, the local
government's share of the cost of a project remained at 12-1/2%. The State share was
funded through bonds authorized by a series of Water Quality Loan Acts, the first of
which was enacted in the 1960's and which are still enacted (as needed) today.
Since Maryland began operation of the federal/State construction grants program
under Title II, about $1.3 billion in federal funds, $460 million in State funds and a like
amount in local funds have been spent for eligible sewerage projects. Because a
significant portion of these funds have supported the upgrading of our publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) to meet the CWA requirement of secondary treatment or
better, the grants program has been a powerful tool for reducing the discharge of
conventional pollutants to Maryland waters. Recently, Maryland's annual allotment from
EPA for Title II grants has been about $59 Million.
-------
In addition to State funds used as "match" for EPA grants, there are monies
earmarked for special sewage projects which are a priority under Maryland law or
policy. These include funds earmarked for dechlorination, nitrogen removal, and projects
meeting special water quality needs.
Under the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the sewerage construction grants program
will be phased out after FY 1990 and will be replaced beginning in FY 1989 by a State
revolving loan fund. In order for a State to be eligible for the federal "seed money",
called a capitalization grant, it must have the legal authority and mechanism in place to
operate a self-sustaining loan fund. Starting in FY 1989, EPA grant funds will be
replaced by "seed money" funds which will gradually decrease to a modest level ($15
million) by FY 1994.
Beginning in FY 1995, no further federal funds will be available to finance
improvements at POTWs. Thereafter, the State and its political subdivisions will bear
the full cost of POTW improvements and expansions — and for meeting the wastewater
treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. (This includes removal of conventional
pollutants to the secondary treatment level or better.) The creation of the Maryland
Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund will allow the State to establish a perpetual source
of capital for the construction of sewerage projects and some other types of pollution
control measures.
Legislation has been enacted by the 1988 Maryland General Assembly (SB 393, HB
622) which establishes the Maryland Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund (the Fund) and
which creates a Water Quality Financing Administration within the Department of the
Environment. The provisions of the legislation comply with the requirements of Title VI
of the 1987 Clean Water Act. The Fund will be a continuous, non-lapsing fund, and the
new Administration will be responsible for maintaining and administering the Fund.
Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Environment and the Board of Public
Works, the Administration may issue revenue bonds for the purpose of establishing and
operating the Fund.
The Fund will be capitalized by (1) annual federal (EPA) capitalization grants to the
State through FY 1994, (2) 20% matching funds provided by the State, (3) interest on
investing the Fund (4) interest on loans to municipalities/countries as they are repaid to
the Fund, and (5) the proceeds of bonds that are issued by the Administration (subject to
approval of the Secretary of the Environment and the Board of Public Works).
Under the federal law, the Fund may not be used for grants. Loans will be made to
local governments from the Fund at rates below current market rates. (A variety of
financing techniques will be used to reduce the interest rates at which the loans will be
made.) Each loan must be repaid to the Fund in less than 20 years. Interest and principal
payments will help perpetuate the Fund and amortize the State bond funds underwriting
the program.
It is projected that the new Water Quality Financing Administration will be able to
loan between $60 and $70 million per year to local governments at interest rates ranging
from 0% to 5%. In addition, the State will continue to operate a portion of its present,
State-funded construction grant program.
-------
VI. Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas
Sediment washed off farmland, surface mines and construction sites is the most
prevalent pollutant in Maryland waters, in terms of sheer mass and volume. Not only is
sediment a "conventional pollutant", but it often serves as the delivery mechanism for
other pollutants, such as phosphates, heavy metals and pesticides. In 1970, the Maryland
General Assembly enacted the Sediment Control Law, the first such state-level
legislation in the country, and one of the State's first nonpoint source control programs.
The Sediment Control Law states that erosion and sediment deposits entering
Maryland's waters are resulting in these waters "being polluted and despoiled to such a
degree that fish, marine life, and recreational and domestic uses of the waters are being
affected adversely." The law requires local governments (counties and municipalities) to
adopt building and grading ordinances that contain sediment and erosion control
provisions. Local governments must have their ongoing programs for sediment control
reviewed and approved by the Department of the Environment on a triennial basis.
Under the statewide program, each county or municipality, with the assistance of
the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) and the appropriate local soil
conservation district, implements its own ordinance to carry out the sediment control
program. The following activities are exempt from the erosion and sediment control plan
approval requirement: agricultural land management practices; the construction of
agricultural structures, except in Montgomery or Calvert Counties; the construction of
single-family homes on lots of 2 or more acres; and minor projects of limited volume,
area and duration, as specified by local ordinance. Hence, almost all construction sites,
highway construction projects, commercial forestry and surface mining activities are
subject to the State and local laws.
Under the local ordinances, a person must receive a grading or building permit from
the county (or municipality) before clearing, construction, or development may begin. A
grading or a building permit may not be issued until the developer: (1) submits a grading
and sediment control plan approved by the soil conservation district, and (2) certifies
that all land clearing, construction, and development will be done according to the plan
and the written recommendations; of the soil conservation district.
Failure to adhere to the plan approved by the soil conservation district or to comply
with the State's sediment and erosion control law and the local ordinance may result in
the issuance of "stop work" orders and the assessment of civil and/or criminal penalties.
Originally, enforcement (except on State or federal projects) was the responsibility of
each county or municipality. However, the level of local commitment to effective
enforcement varied greatly across the state, and concerns arose that the local sediment
control efforts were falling far short of the statewide requirements.
As a result, Maryland's 1984 Chesapeake Bay Initiatives included a major
modification to the sediment control law. The revision took primary responsibility for
enforcement away from the local governments and gave it to the State (then Department
of Natural Resources, now MDE). Under the original 1970 law, the burden of proof was
on the State to show that the local program was inadequate, and the sanctions in the law
were never fully applied. After the enactment of the Bay initiative, the State had the
-------
primacy, and each local government had to seek and qualify for the authority to enforce
its local program and to do so on a biennial basis. In order to put this into effect, DNR
was given 17 new State positions for inspection at the local level (these positions now fall
within MDE). The annual cost of this enhancement amounted to about $540,000 in FY
1985, and remains a permanent part of the State budget.
The response of the local jurisdictions to the change has varied across the state.
Some counties gladly turned over the enforcement function to DNR, while others
actually added local resources to their programs to reach the point where they would
qualify for "delegation" of enforcement authority from the State. In FY 1988, 11
counties, 5 municipalities, and WSSC run their own enforcement programs, while MDE
performs enforcement in the remaining jurisdictions. (Throughout the life of the
Maryland law, the State agency has performed plan review and enforcement for State
and federal projects.)
VII. Sediment Control of Sediment from Agriculture
Sediment washed off the land and scoured from streambeds and streambanks
contributes to suspended solid levels downstream. In Maryland, agricultural lands
contribute significant levels of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In
the past seven years, Maryland has greatly intensified its program for addressing
agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
The 1987 Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Management Program was prepared
by the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC). The program is composed of an
interrelated set of programs and actions to control water pollution arising from
agriculture. The document presents the history behind the current program, defines
agency roles, and enumerates these goals for the program:
— Within five years (1991), every farm within the State's priority watersheds will
have a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (SCWQP). By definition, the
areas affected by this five-year goal are the watersheds identified by the
SSCC (1984) as having the greatest potential to deliver nutrients to
Chesapeake Bay; and those areas within the 1000-ft. Critical Area established
around the Bay by the Critical Area Commission.
— Within ten years (1996), every farm in the State will have a SCWQP.
— Best management practices identified through the on-site planning process will
be recommended in each SCWQP to correct existing and potential water
quality problems.
— Information and education programs to promote farm conservation planning
will be expanded.
The Maryland agricultural program consists of five elements designed to achieve
these goals statewide. Starting in 1984, these State-funded initiatives were phased in,
with all components in place by 1987.
-------
— Outreach and technical assistance to farmers is primarily provided by the local
soil conservation districts (with assistance from the federal Soil Conservation
Service, the State Department of Agriculture and the University of Maryland
Cooperative Extension Service). State support of the SCDs
(personnel/operating costs) has increased three-fold since 1983; there are now
100 State-funded positions working on soil conservation efforts.
— Cost-share funding intended to help farmers pay for the installation of best
management practices is provided through the Maryland Agricultural Cost
Share Program (MACS). To date, $22 million in State funds and $3 million in
EPA Bay Funds have been committed to the MACS program.
— State-funded agricultural research intended to help answer questions about
nutrient sources, pathways and effects of best management practices will be
carried out by the University of Maryland and other qualified institutions.
— Information and education efforts will be continued by all the above agencies
(both individually and collectively through the State Soil Conservation
Committee).
— Enforcement will be accomplished via a cooperative effort between the local
conservation districts, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
the Environment.
In order to effectively allocate the manpower and the funds available for cost-
sharing, outreach and technical assistance, the State has selected priority watersheds
(State Soil Conservation Committee, 1984). Greater resource levels are being
concentrated in the priority watersheds, where the potential release and delivery of
nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay is the greatest. Since potential sediment delivery
figured significantly in the development of the "phosphorus" watershed ranking, sediment
control is also being affected by targeting of resources.
Maryland's current strategy is to continue all these efforts at their present levels of
funding and manpower. Under the MACS program, some 3,500 best management
practices have been committed to, of which 2,320 would involve practices controlling or
reducing sediment loss. One initiative being considered as part of Maryland's Bay
nutrient reduction strategy is the use of forested buffer strips between croplands and
streams, which will provide for improved interception of sediment from farmland. There
is no new funding initiative under consideration at this time, because the increases in the
State agricultural non-point source program since 1984 have been considerable, and they
all have become part of the State's annual budget.
The requirements for soil conservation practices within the lOOO-ft.-wide
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area are expected to reduce sediment and nutrient losses from
farmland into the Bay. New legislation enacted in 1988 will allow us to "piggyback"
Maryland funds on top of the USDA payments to retire "highly credible" cropland under
the Conservation Reserve Program. It is hoped that this will serve to increase
participation in the USDA program by Maryland farmers. If successful, these initiatives
also will reduce sediment inputs from farming to Maryland's waterways.
-------
III. Basinwide Strategy
The individual strategies presented in Section II, taken
together, will comprise the basinwide strategy called for by the
conventional pollutant commitment contained in the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
The jurisdictions recognize the need to sustain aggressive
programs in these areas while increased attention is focused on
nutrients and toxics. Since the environmental and resource issues
and problems are unique in many respects to each jurisdiction they
also recognized that these programs have evolved differently through
the years and implementation has progressed at different rates. In
addition, each jurisdiction administers these programs under various
legislative, regulatory, and budgetary requirements.
The jurisdictions agree that periodic exchanges of information
will provide a means of improving the quality of these programs and
ensure, to the degree appropriate for baywide issues, that these
programs are implemented in a coordinated fashion.
To this end the jurisdictions agree to hold Annual Conventional
Pollutant Working Conferences at the program staff level designed to
exchange information on any new program developments in order to
cooperatively assist each other in achieving Chesapeake Bay
restoration objectives.
The major comments received during the public comment period on
the first draft of this Strategy suggested the following:
1. The jurisdictions should give consideration to a baywide
anti-degradation policy. This would be implemented by
placing a "cap" on the existing total load (in pounds per
day) of oxygen demanding wastes and suspended solids
discharged by point sources operating under NPDES permits.
2. The feasibility of land application of wastewater effluent
in lieu of direct discharge to surface waters should be
evaluated. This evaluation should focus on smaller
treatment facilities (less that 0.5 MGD).
3. A cooperative effort by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Bay jurisdictions should be undertaken to develop a
comprehensive baywide permit compliance project covering
municipal and industrial discharges.
In order to give proper consideration to these suggestions the
signatories to the Agreement agree that a detailed review of these
issues should be conducted that would identify the benefits to the
Bay cleanup program, the feasibility of implementation, and the
costs. The Chesapeake Bay Program will schedule these reviews for
consideration at the 1989 and 1990 Annual Working Conferences.
------- |