Chesapeake Executive Council
TD
225
.C54
B195
copy 2
Baywide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
My 1988
-------
Baywide Nutrients
Reduction Strategy
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.ej'.oii ill information Resource
C?n[er (3PM52)
8U Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1988
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Strategy, in fulfillment of
Water Quality Commitment Number 1 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...by July 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin implementation of a basinwide
strateg)' to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40percent reduction of
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. The
strategy should be based on agreed upon 1985 point source loads and on
nonpoint loads in a average rainfall year."
The Strategy establishes the baseline nutrient loading conditions and the year 2000 nutrient
loading target for each jurisdiction. The Strategy outlines a phased approach toward meeting the
40% reduction of nutrients by the year 2000 so that the most environmentally effective and cost
effective control programs are implemented.
The Strategy also identifies additional information that is needed during the next several
years in order to refine the strategy in the coming years. A Basinwide Nutrient Strategy Progress
Report will be produced on an annual basis to report on progress and incorporate any necessary
refinements to the Strategy.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has under development a sophisticated water quality model
of the Bay that is scheduled to be completed in time to be used during the December 1991
revaluation of the 40% reduction commitment. This model will allow managers to evaluate al-
ternative nutrient control strategies for each major river basin in the Bay watershed and select an
equitable mix of programs and tributary reduction targets to meet the overall nutrient reduction
goal for the Bay.
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 OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title
1. Background and Underlying Assumptions
2. Baseline Conditions and Year 2000 Target
3. Phased Approach To Nutrient Reduction
4. Steps Toward Refining The Basinwide Strategy
5. Appendices
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Strategy
Commonwealth of Virginia Strategy
District of Columbia Strategy
State of Maryland Strategy
-------
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
Introduction
On December 14, 1987, Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, Governor
Schaefer of Maryland, Governor Baliles of Virginia, Mayor Barry of
the District of Columbia, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas and
Pennsylvania Representative Kenneth Cole (for the Chesapeake Bay
Commission) signed the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement
contained statements of goals, objectives and specific commitments in
six major areas, one of which was water quality.
The goal stated for the Bay's water quality is to "Reduce and
control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to attain the water
quality condition necessary to support the living resources of the
Bay." The Agreement adds, "The improvement and maintenance of water
quality are the single most critical elements in the overall
restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay." Consequently,
specific commitments are made in the pact to prepare baywide
"strategies" for the control and reduction of inputs of nutrients,
toxics and conventional pollutants to the Bay.
This document was prepared by the three states and the District
of Columbia, working through a Water Quality Task Group, to fulfill
the specific commitment in the Agreement to prepare a basinwide
nutrient load reduction strategy by July 1988.
Background
Water quality investigations and living resource assessments
conducted by EPA and the states since before 1970 have demonstrated
that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is deteriorating, and that high
levels of nutrient inputs are a major cause of these trends.
Excessive amounts of nutrients, primarily phosphorus (P) and nitrogen
(N), continue to enter the Chesapeake Bay system from a variety of
sources: municipal and industrial point source discharges, nonpoint
source runoff from agricultural and urban areas, and atmospheric
deposition. Scientific research, monitoring, and modeling now relate
these excessive levels of nutrients to many of the Bay's water
quality and living resource problems. Excess nutrients promote
excessive levels of algae, which in turn cause problems of
aesthetics, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction in the
amount of light reaching submerged aquatic plants, and shifts to
algal species that do not support desirable aquatic life. The EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program has produced a number of reports (starting in
1983) which document these problems in some detail.
-------
The Water Quality section of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
contains the following commitments relating to nutrient enrichment:
o By July 1988/ to develop, adopt, and begin implementation
of a basinwide strategy to equitably achieve by the year
2000 at least a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the mainstern of the Chesapeake Bay.
The strategy should be based on agreed upon 1985 point
source loads and on nonpoint loads in a average rainfall
year.
o By December 1991, to reevaluate the 40 percent reduction
target based on the results of modeling, research,
monitoring and other information available at that time.
The 40% nutrient load reduction target is an ambitious one which
is without precedent in the history of Chesapeake Bay protection
efforts. This report documents the estimates developed by the Water
Quality Task Group to define the 1985 "baseline" loading conditions
and to set the allowable year 2000 loading goals for N and P. It
then discusses the actions and programs that are being implemented
within the point source and nonpoint source categories to achieve the
necessary load reductions. Lastly, it describes the information that
we need to gather over the next few years in order to more accurately
measure our progress towards the year 2000 target.
Organization of This Document; Supporting Materials
In the spring of 1988, representatives of the point and nonpoint
source management agencies from each of the four jurisdictions agreed
to prepare strategies that would outline their respective
jurisdictions1 plans for achieving their "share" of the baywide 40%
nutrient load reduction. The first public draft of this document
(April 1988) was essentially a compilation of the four separate
"state" (including D.C.) plans.
Because each state has a different "mix" of point source and
nonpoint source inputs, and because each employs a different set of
programs and policies to try to reduce nutrient loadings to the Bay,
each of the four plans was unique. The Water Quality Task Group
decided to keep the four plans distinct and intact; they are attached
as appendices to this document. The main strategy document
summarizes the major common elements from the four plans and thereby
attempts to present a "baywide" perspective. (Several of the
jurisdictions have prepared technical supplements which provide the
technical details behind the estimates presented in their respective
plans; these are available from those states, as noted in their
plans, but are not considered a part of this document.)
1-2
-------
Public comment from several groups and individuals indicated
that the four components of the earlier baywide draft were much too
dissimilar to constitute a "baywide plan" for nutrient load
reduction. Some of the differences arise from significant
differences in the data bases available to the respective states.
Other differences are due to the different stages of the various
programs that the states have developed over time. However, the
important point is that through the process of developing this
Strategy the jurisdictions, essentially for the first time, have
begun to identify areas where they need to work towards more
consistency. Such major differences could not be overcome in the
time available to produce this Strategy. Therefore, Chapter 4 reviews
the areas needing additional work that has been identified so far.
In the final analysis it is not essential that the states set forth
identical strategies or plans of action. It is essential that the
states estimate their present and future load reductions responsibly
and accurately. More consistency among the programs is needed, and
this Strategy points out areas where future efforts in this regard
will be directed.
With this view in mind, the Strategy has been structured to
place emphasis on common approaches, assumptions and remaining
technical concerns of the four jurisdictions. As noted below, the
baywide strategy will be refined in the coming months and years; we
recognize that there are a number of areas needing improvement. The
present document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 - Background, underlying assumptions, caveats and
limitations
Chapter 2 - Defining "baseline" (1985) conditions and
establishing year 2000 loading goals
Chapter 3 - Phased Approach To Nutrient Reduction
Chapter 4 - Steps Toward Refining Basinwide Strategy
Appendices - Individual strategies of Pennsylvania, Virginia,
the District of Columbia, and Maryland
Origin of the 40% Goal; Future Review Needed
The federal/state Chesapeake Bay Program developed a
two-dimensional, steady-state, water quality model of the mainstem
Chesapeake Bay during 1985-87. The model was run under a variety of
hypothetical conditions or "scenarios". The model runs suggested
that a significant improvement in the Bay's water quality
(particularly dissolved oxygen in the deeper waters) could be
realized, if overall nutrient inputs to the Bay from point sources
and "controllable" nonpoint sources could be reduced by 40%.
1-3
-------
It is believed that significant reductions in nutrient inputs
will not only improve dissolved oxygen in the Bay bottom waters, but
decrease algal counts and possibly help in the reesstablishment of
rooted aquatic plants, which provide multiple benefits to the Bay
ecosystem. The likely response of rooted aquatics; and fish
populations cannot be quantified, but they are expected to occur,
nonetheless.
We face many uncertainties in this effort. Disagreement
continues over the relative importance of nitrogen vs. phosphorus in
causing the Bay's problems. The role of atmospheric inputs of
nitrogen is poorly understood even though it was the largest external
source of nitrogen input to the steady-state model. (The atmospheric
source of nitrogen loading was placed in the "uncontrollable"
category during the modeling analysis. Therefore, its input was not
reduced when predicting water quality improvements expected from a
40% reduction of "controllable" nutrient sources.) Even with the
steady-state model, the response (in terms of algae and dissolved
oxygen levels) to specific nutrient load reductions in a dynamic
system such as the Bay can be estimated only with imprecision.
In hopes of being able to make predictions with more confidence,
the Chesapeake Bay Program has authorized the development of a more
detailed, "second generation" model of Bay water quality. Completion
of this three-dimensional, time variable model through the
sponsorship of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Army Corps of
Engineers is scheduled for 1991. The new model will incorporate
hydrodynamic, water quality and sediment models into a management
tool with unprecedented capabilities for predicting the Bay's
response to alternative nutrient control strategies. It is
conceivable that projections made with the 3-D model will indicate
that the 40% reduction is not enough (or possibly more than we need),
or that the different states need to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus
inputs in different proportions. This is the main reason that the
1987 Bay Agreement contains a separate "commitment" to reevaluate the
40% load reduction goal by December 1991.
A Common Approach; Underlying Assumptions
Given only the language of the commitment "tO' equitably achieve
by the year 2000 at least a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay," the states
(including D.C.) had to agree on certain major assumptions about how
to interpret the commitment. These included the following:
o Each jurisdiction would estimate its 1985 point source and
"controllable" nonpoint (NPS) source N and P inputs to the
Bay. Each jurisdiction would be responsible for reducing
its own N inputs by 40% and its own P inputs by 40% (as
opposed to different states removing different percentages
1-4
-------
of N and P). The District of Columbia would be given
"credit" for major reductions in P realized at the Blue
Plains wastewater treatment plant prior to 1985.
o Each state would determine the "mix" of point source
controls and nonpoint source (NFS) controls that it would
employ to achieve its required N and P reductions by the
year 2000.
o Baseline conditions would be defined as actual
(observed/calculated) N and P inputs from point sources in
1985, and estimated NFS inputs of N and P from the 1985
landscape in an "average rainfall year".
o The goals would be expressed as allowable year 2000 N and P
input "caps" for each jurisdiction, equivalent to 60% of
that state's respective 1985 N and P inputs. The goal for
any one state is not expressed as a "total pounds saved",
equal to 40% of 1985 inputs, because that would allow
actual loadings to increase above the 60%-of-1985-inputs
level, due to new growth and increasing sewage flows. The
goals are set once, and held constant or "flat" over time,
regardless of population growth before the year 2000.
o The concept of "controllable" vs "uncontrollable" nonpoint
sources (NPS) was used in order to be consistent with the
approach used in developing and applying the 2-D steady
state model which provided the basis for the 40% reduction
target. The relative contribution of nitrogen and
phosphorus used to derive the loads simulated in the 2-D
model are shown in Figure 1.1. The definition of each
varied somewhat among the jurisdictions. The states
interpreted the "commitment" language to mean that the
desired load reduction from NPS would be 40% of the
"controllable" portion of the total NPS inputs. The
Strategy is not attempting to be accountable for reducing
the "background" NPS inputs of N and P that would have come
from a pristine or forested Bay watershed.
As the members of the Water Quality Task Group have worked
intensively this spring to develop the present document, we have
become more and more aware of the limitations of the data presently
available to us to estimate and project our progress. Therefore, we
have agreed to the principle that this plan will have to be the
subject of continuing review and refinement, and that there will be
an annual report prepared on our progress. As is explained below and
in Chapter 4, we are committed to gathering the kinds of improved
data (in a more consistent fashion from state to state) that will
allow us to estimate our progress with more accuracy. We expect that
1-5
-------
this new data will play a very important role in the 1991
reevaluation of the baywide nutrient reduction goals and of our joint
progress toward those goals.
Differences in Procedures; Caveats and Limitations on Data
The present document has essentially been prepared during the
past four months. The staff members of the respective states' point
source and NFS control agencies did not have the time to generate new
data; all calculations had to be based on data bases or file data
already on hand. Each jurisdiction has done the best it could do to
estimate 1985 N and P input loads from the data available, and to
estimate the load reductions that will result from proposed control
measures. At the same time, the structure of each state's existing
control programs also strongly influenced the form that the load
reduction strategies could take.
Differences among the jurisdictions' estimates and strategies
include the following areas:
o The methodologies used to estimate each state's 1985
"baseline" NFS loads of N and P varied among the
jurisdictions, largely because of significant differences
in the available data bases.
o The definition of which sources (types) of NFS pollution
would be defined as "controllable" vs. "uncontrollable"
varied from state to state.
o The major categories of NFS pollution included in the
baseline estimates and the projected load savings varied
among the jurisdictions (for example, some states did not
include the urban/suburban NFS component).
o Different states handled agricultural NFS loads delivered
via groundwater flows (as opposed to surface runoff)
differently.
o Load reducing efficiencies of specific point source
controls and NFS controls were estimated by the states
using different techniques and numbers.
o Assumptions concerning the effective "working life" of
different agricultural NFS best management practices varied
among the jurisdictions.
1-6
-------
o In order to project the net changes in point source
nutrient loads after new controls are applied, the states
had to predict increases in municipal sewage flows due to
growth between 1985 and 2000. The availability and the
accuracy of the population projections used for this
purpose varied significantly among the states.
o Each state has selected a different "mix" of point source
controls and nonpoint source controls to achieve its
desired load reductions of N and P over the coming 12
years. These pronounced differences in the four strategies
arose because each jurisdiction targeted its future efforts
to those sources of N and P which it believed would be most
cost-effective to control and would produce the largest
reductions.
Some of these points of difference arise from honest differences
in approach that may be resolved over time by negotiations among the
jurisdictions. Other points of difference can be resolved only by
further field studies and by compilation of significantly improved
data bases. The states, the Chesapeake Bay Program and other federal
agencies (such as the SCS) are continuing to work on gathering the
missing information and on developing methods to track progress (such
as NFS "best management practices" actually applied) more accurately
and consistently. Chapter 4 discusses in more detail the steps that
will be taken between now and 1991 to improve all the relevant data
bases and to resolve the differences in the states' methodologies for
load estimation.
Explanations of the different methodologies are contained in the
states' individual strategy documents, included as appendices to this
report. The projected load reductions from different sources within
individual states appear to be in the proper proportions. However,
the Water Quality Task Group believes that the load reduction totals
for N and P for the different states cannot properly be added
together, because they are based on such dissimilar estimating
methodologies. This is another reason to strive for improved
consistency among the states' estimates in the coming years.
The 1991 reevaluation of the baywide program (and the individual
states' efforts) is expected to be comprehensive and highly
significant. By that time, we expect to have available to us:
projections from the new 3-D model of the Bay; better information
about atmospheric inputs of nitrogen; improved data bases on actual
point source discharges, land cover, and NPS best management practice
application in all the states, and much better information about the
costs and effectiveness of different point source control
1-7
-------
technologies and NFS control practices. Taken together, these tools
and new data should equip the federal agencies and the states to
predict with far more confidence the full set of policies and actions
that will be needed to restore the Bay's water quality to acceptable
levels by the year 2000.
Conclusion
Chapter 1 has described the background and the format of the
present baywide nutrient strategy document, has identified the major
assumptions agreed to by the four jurisdictions, and has noted the
principal areas where differences in data, assumptions or
methodologies remain. The ensuing chapters describe the actual
definition of the 1985 "baseline" loading conditions and the major
actions committed to by each state during each phase of the planning
period. The final chapter discusses the new information that will be
gathered to refine the entire baywide load reduction effort in the
coming years.
1-8
-------
FIGURE 1-1
CHESAPEAKE BAY NUTRIENT LOADS
USED WITH 2-D MODEL
Total Nitrogen in Average Year
Total Phosphorus in Average Year
D
NATURAL BASE LOAD
MAN-INDUCED BASE LOAD
AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
AIR SOURCES
NATURAL BASE LOAD
MAN-INDUCED BASE LOAD
AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
3 URBAN NONPOINT SOURCES
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
AIR SOURCES
-------
CHAPTER 2: BASELINE CONDITIONS AND YEAR 2000 TARGET
The commitment to achieve at least a 40% reduction in the amount
of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay by the year 2000 is based on agreed upon 1985 point source loads
and on nonpoint loads in an average year.
Baseline Conditions - Figures 2-1 and 2-2 present the base loads
for point and nonpoint sources that each of the jurisdictions has
developed for the Basinwide Strategy.
Due to a number of reasons, including data availability and the
structure of existing programs, the Bay jurisdictions have developed
nutrient base load calculations using many common, but some unique,
criteria. Detailed explanations of the methodologies used by each
jurisdiction are contained in the individual jurisdiction strategies
contained in the Appendices. In general, the approaches used to
develop these base loads were as follows:
POINT SOURCES - Nutrient loads from point sources were
calculated using measured flows and nutrient concentrations
where available. Although there are several thousand point
source discharges within the Bay watershed, the major
discharges, over 1 million gallons per day (MGD), generally
account for greater than 90% of the point source pollutant
loading to the Bay. Each jurisdiction included in their
analysis these major discharges and any other discharge
judged to be significant.
All of the jurisdictions used measured annual average 1985
flow values available from NPDES permit monitoring reports.
Except for the District of Columbia, the jurisdictions do
not have measured 1985 nutrient concentrations for all of
their major discharges. Using the measured values they do
have, the state water quality agencies developed average
default values for those discharges where measurements were
not available. These default values may vary depending
upon regional waste characteristics and the amount of
extraneous water in sewer systems from infiltration and
inflow.
The point source loadings from the District of Columbia
include the entire loading from the Blue Plains treatment
plant. The State of Maryland also included in its loading
estimates the portion of Blue Plains loading that
originates from Maryland. For phosphorus the loading is
about 46,000 pound per year, while for nitrogen the loading
-------
is 5.156 million pounds per year. For this reason the
reader is cautioned not to add the loadings presented in
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 since this will result in double
counting of these loadings.
NONPOINT SOURCES - Nonpoint sources of pollution are a
result of rainfall draining the land surface and relocating
sediment and other constituents to tributaries of the Bay.
Direct deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere also
occurs. For the purpose of this report, the "average
rainfall year" is the benchmark for flow. It was
determined early in this process that an "average rainfall
year" does not exist on record for the entire Bay drainage.
Therefore, the jurisdictions established the average year
based upon localized basin and sub-basin rainfall data.
Actual basin loads were calculated by each jurisdiction
using a combination of fall line measured loads and soil
characteristic and land use information, adjusted by point
source and background load data.
Each jurisdiction partitioned this overall "corrected"
nonpoint basin load to a general variety of impacts, i.e.
agricultural cropland, pastureland, animal waste and urban
runoff.
In some cases partitioning was accomplished relative to
surveyed land use; in other cases the proportions
calculated by the watershed model were used to distribute
the basin load among sources. The end result is source
identified loads by river basin which are subject to
control by reduction measures described in each of the
three phases in Chapter 3.
Year 2000 Target - The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement calls for a
Basinwide Strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a
40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem
of the Chesapeake Bay. In order to meet the July 1988 date for
development of the Baywide Strategy the jurisdictions agreed to
proceed using the following approach at this time:
To meet a Baywide 40% reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen
each jurisdiction would meet a 40% reduction of its portion
of the baseline nutrient loads.
Although this is the agreed upon approach at this time, it does
raise questions whether it is an equitable approach given previous
nutrient control programs and whether it will be an equitable
approach over the long term. Major point source phosphorus
reductions occurred prior to 1985 in the Washington, B.C. area
2-2
-------
treatment plants. Therefore, the Strategy assumes no further point
source phosphorus removal is needed from the District of Columbia.
Other sections in the Strategy describe how more equitable approaches
to a Baywide 40% reduction will be evaluated in the future.
The year 2000 target loadings are presented for each
jurisdiction at the bottom of Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
2-3
-------
LJ
>
co
m
_j
z
o
11
10
9
S
7l
3
2
1
0
FIGURE 2-1
BASELINE PHOSPHORUS LOADS
POINT SOURCES: 1985
NQNPOINT SOURCES: AVE. YR. (COHTRQLIABLE)
TOTAL BASELINE
LOAD
YEAR 2000
TARGET
PA
3.254
1.950
VA DC
(MILLION LBS./YEAR)
8.456
5.073
0.225
0.179
NONPOINT
POINT
-------
0,
80
75
70
65
60
t/> 45
340
z: 354
20-
15
10-
5-
0
FIGURE 2-2
BASELINE NITROGEN LOADS
POINT SOURCES: 1985
NONPOINT SOURCES: AW. YR. (CONTROLMBLE)
PA
TOTAL BASELINE 60.860
LOAD
VA DC
(MILLION LBS./YEAR)
59.641 14.538
NONPOINT
POINT
YEAR 2000 TARGET 36.540
35.784
8.723
31.746
-------
CHAPTER 3: PHASED APPROACH TO NUTRIENT REDUCTION
In order to reach the year 2000 target loads for phosphorus and
nitrogen presented in the previous Chapter, a broad range of nutrient
control programs will have to be implemented within the Chesapeake
Bay basin. Fortunately, many of these point source and nonpoint
source control programs have already been initiated at the federal,
state, or local government levels. Many are common to the four major
jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement. However, since many of
these programs were started at different times and operate under
different laws, regulations, and funding levels, they cannot be
expected to be identical - either in how they are implemented
throughout the Bay watershed or in the results they achieve.
The goal of the Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Strategy is to
equitably achieve the year 2000 target loads for phosphorus and
nitrogen using a mix of control programs - some underway, some
planned, and some yet to be developed - implemented by cooperating,
independent jurisdictions. The Strategy adopted in July 1988 cannot
possibly foresee events of the mid-1990s and select the best course
of action for current or new programs for that time. Therefore, the
Strategy has been developed based upon using a phased approach.
The Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Strategy is presented in the
following three phases:
PHASE I
The period between the bench mark loading year 1985 and the
present. Significant nutrient reductions occurred during this
period which must be accounted for in reaching the 40% reduction
goals.
PHASE II
The period between the adoption of this strategy and the
reevaluation date (December 1991) contained in the Agreement.
This will allow the signatories to gauge progress to the point
the reevaluation will occur.
PHASE III
The period following the reevaluation (December 1991) till the
year 2000. This represents the period of time following the
major "mid-course correction" in the baywide effort made in
1991.
The current programs to be used by the states (MD, VA, PA, and
-------
DC) in achieving the goals are listed in Phase I and new programs or
modifications of programs are listed in Phases II and III.
The individual state strategies are included in the Appendices
in more detail. Of the nearly 40 programs and initiatives listed in
the three phases, over 80% are common to at least two of the
signatories. This large percentage of programs common to the
jurisdictions indicates the success of the partnership in achieving
cooperation and mutual support for restoring the Bay.
PHASE I
Point Source Programs
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Phosphorus Removal
Permit Compliance Programs
Phosphate Detergent Bans
Dual Biological Nutrient Removal Demonstration Projects
Water Quality Standards
Patuxent River Basin Nitrogen Removal
Nonpoint Source Programs
Agricultural
*
*
*
*
Agricultural Conservation Program
Watershed Protection Projects
Conservation Reserve Program
Rural Clean Water Projects
Education Assistance Funding Program
Technical Assistance
Animal Waste Control Programs
State Agricultural Cost Share Programs
Urban
*
*
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Laws
Storm Water Management Regulatory Programs
Retrofit and Demonstration Projects
Combined Sewer Overflow Controls
Other
Critical Areas/Riparian/Wetlands Laws
3-2
-------
PHASE II
Point Source
* Continued Installation of Phosphorus Removal
* Policies Encouraging Nitrogen Removal
* Coupled with other permit required upgrades
* State Revolving Loan Fund Programs
* Nitrogen Removal Feasibility/Targeting Studies
Nonpoint Source
Agriculture
* Increased Staffing For Existing Programs
* Nutrient Management Plans (Manure and Fertilizer)
* Forested Buffer Strips
* Targeting of Control Program
* Incentives for Conservation Compliance
* Increased Inter-Program Coordination
* Improved Geographical Information Systems.
Urban
* Expanded stormwater management regulatory authority
* Stormwater utility (grant) program for targeted installation
and maintenance of BMP's
* Combined Sewer Overflow Effectiveness Evaluation
* Increased implementation/enforcement of existing and new storm
water laws.
Other
* Improved/Increased nutrient monitoring and reduction tracking.
* Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
3-3
-------
PHASE III
Point Source
* Regulatory Programs for Nitrogen Removal
* Financial Assistance Programs.
Nonpoint Sources
* Expansion of Agriculture Control Programs
* Expansion of Urban Control Programs
The ability to describe the Phase III programs is limited due to
several factors. One is the ability to project funding of programs
that far into the future. Second is the amount of new information
that the signatories are working diligently to gather that will
greatly improve the decision making ability. The watershed model and
time variable 3-D model will provide information on a geographical
and seasonal basis thereby allowing trading of point and nonpoint
source controls on an interstate and intrastate basis. Increased
fall line monitoring will provide refinements of the nutrient loads
to the Bay and information from wastewater treatment plants using
biological nutrient removal will be available.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present a summary of the estimated loading
reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen resulting from the various
nutrient control programs mentioned above and described in greater
detail in the Appendices. The total height of each bar represents
the total projected loads in the year 2000 for the jurisdictions if
no nutrient control programs were implemented. The loading
reductions estimated to have been accomplished during Phase I and
projected reductions for Phases II and III are shown. The total
reductions during the three Phases is shown to reach the target loads
for each jurisdiction. (NOTE: Figure 3-1 shows the states will
exceed the 40% reduction for phosphorus, i.e. the resulting year 2000
phosphorus loads will be below the target. The dotted line next to
the "T" indicates the target load for those states;.)
Keeping track of the reductions in nutrient loads is one way of
measuring progress in the Bay cleanup. Another important measure is
the projected improvement in the water quality of the Bay due to the
implementation of these nutrient reduction programs. As mentioned in
the Introduction, a 2-D, steady state water quality model of the Bay,
3-4
-------
which was developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program, was the management
tool used to derive the 40% nutrient reduction goal. In order to
evaluate the progress due to this Basinwide Nutrient Strategy this
model was used to simulate water quality conditions at the end of
Phase II when the reevaluation is scheduled. Figures 3-3 through 3-6
illustrate the projected improvements in water quality from 1985 to
1991, and the further improvements expected from implementation of
the full 40% reduction target by the year 2000. An explanation of
these Figures is as follows:
FIGURE 3-3:
o Minimum Summer Average Dissolved Oxygen - In the deepest
portions of the Bay the lowest summer dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) levels in 1985 averaged less than one half of a
milligram per liter. After implementation of the Phase I
and II reductions this concentration will more than
double. Full implementation of the 40% target will result
in the average lowest dissolved oxygen increasing to 1.67
mg/1.
FIGURE 3-4:
o Anoxic Waters - In 1985 about 1.35 billion cubic meters of
water in the Bay went anoxic, i.e. had no dissolved oxygen
sometime during the summer. The Strategy will reduce this
to about 0.31 billion cubic meters by 1991. When the full
40% reduction takes place in the year 2000, there will no
longer be any anoxic water in the Bay under average
circulation conditions according to the model.
FIGURE 3-5
o Peak Summer Average Chlorophyll - In 1985 the peak
chlorophyll concentration in the mainstem of the Bay was
13.6 micrograms per liter (ug/1). By the year 2000 it will
be reduced to 8.8 ug/1. The Strategy will achieve most of
this reduction by 1991.
FIGURE 3-6
o Total Mass of Algae - Full implementation of the 40% load
reduction will reduce the total mass of algae generated by
nutrients in the Bay and its tributaries by 30%. According
to this Strategy we will achieve well over half of this
reduction by 1991.
Whichever water quality indicator is used to measure progress,
the nutrient reductions projected for 1991 in the Basinwide Nutrient
3-5
-------
Reduction Strategy will result in substantial improvements in water
quality.
Due to the limitations of the 2-D model, the following caveats
should be noted when interpreting these model projections:
1. Although the 1991 loading projections were used, the model
must use the 1985 flow and circulation conditions of the tributaries
and the Bay. Therefore, if actual flow and circulation conditions in
1991 are substantially different from 1985, then actual water quality
conditions will also differ from these model projections.
2. The model cannot predict how long it will take the Bay to
respond to the reduction in nutrient loadings. The water quality in
the mainstem of the Bay is controlled in large part by the release of
nutrients from the Bay's sediments. However, the 2-D model does not
include any mechanism relating the time period between the reduction
in nutrients discharged into the Bay and the corresponding reduction
in nutrients released from the sediments.
3. For nonpoint source inputs to the Bay the 2-D model uses a
baywide average percent reduction in order to project any response in
water quality.
Since these same caveats also apply to the y&ar 2000
projections, the information in the figures can still be used to
compare projected progress in 1991 against projected progress in the
year 2000 from the 40% reduction.
The 3-D, time variable model will overcome these limitations and
allow managers to make more confident projections of the expected
changes in water quality due to nutrient control programs.
3-6
-------
FIGURE 3-1
BASINWIDE PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION
STRATEGY
PROJECTED YEAR 2000 LOADS
PA VA DC MD
JURISDICTION
PHASE
PHASE
PHASE
T TARGET
-------
FIGURE 3-2
BASINWIDE NITROGEN REDUCTION
STRATEGY
PROJECTED YEAR 2000 LOADS
PA VA DC MD
JURISDICTION
PHASE
PHASE
PHASE
T TARGET
-------
BASINWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION
STRATEGY
QUAL/rr CHANGE'S.- D/SSOLVE'O
FIGURE 3—3
2.O
3
1.5 +
1.O-
.5-
1985 1991 2OOO
YEAR
FIGURE 3-4
1.5
2
O
.
o
o q
52 3
1.2"
.9 •
.6 •
"
§ -3
o
1985 1991 2OOO
YEAR
BASINWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION
STRATEGY
Qt/AL/rr CHANGE'S.'
FIGURE 3-5
FIGURE3-6
15
14
Si 13-1-
a 12
n
11 ••
5 10-
fe
9
.a
3
.6-
.-*••
teg
.2"
1985 1991 2OOO
YEAR
1985 1991 2OOO
YEAR
-------
CHAPTER 4: STEPS TOWARD REFINING THE BASINWIDE STRATEGY
The nutrient control measures that have already been taken in
Phase I, and that are planned for the near future in Phase II, are
clearly necessary as we proceed toward attaining the Water Quality
goal of the Agreement. The jurisdictions agree that additional
control measures best suited for the future (Phase III and beyond)
will be identified as we develop new understanding about the Bay and
its resources and develop new point source and nonpoint source
technolgies. The Phase II implementation programs will proceed
toward the nutrient reduction goals while new technical information
is developed. Control program implementation will be paralleled by
technical studies to address the issues described below.
The commitment to reevaluate the 40% reduction target by
December 1991 provides an appropriate time to review reduction
targets, program implementation, the effectiveness of control
measures, and incorporate any new technical information into the
Strategy.
As more information from research, monitoring, and modeling
becomes available, the jurisdictions recognize that refinements to
the Basinwide Strategy will be necessary. Therefore, a Basinwide
Nutrient Strategy Progress Report will be produced on an annual basis
by the jurisdictions in order to:
1. Provide information on the point source and nonpoint
source management programs and document progress
toward the year 2000 target;
2. Report on new information that is collected that fills
in the gaps that were identified during the
development of this strategy; and,
3. Incorporate any necessary adjustments to the
approaches outlined in this Basinwide Strategy.
The process of developing this Strategy has identified: 1. key
areas where the jurisdictions need to arrive at a common means of
organizing and using existing information and data; and, 2. areas
where additional information is needed. The jurisdictions need to
develop a consensus on water quality monitoring to satisfy the need
for consistent baseline data and nutrient reduction measurements.
Point source, nonpoint source, and ambient stream monitoring needs
must be addressed. The effort must maximize the use of ongoing
monitoring programs where possible and utilize the methodologies
developed by the Bay Program's Fall Line Monitoring Ad Hoc Work
Group.
-------
Similarly, a consensus must be reached on load calculation
methods for point source, nonpoint source (including agricultural,
urban, and atmospheric sources), and ambient stream nutrient loads,
to improve the consistency of nutrient load information from a
basinwide perspective. Both the monitoring and load calculation
procedures must address the concerns about seasonal load variations,
variability of loads throughout the basin, the definition of
controllable vs uncontrollable sources, and the need to redefine "an
average rainfall year" along the lines of "an average runoff year" or
"average load year" for each of the bay's tributary watersheds.
A consensus must also be reached on the appropriate nutrient
load reduction factors to be assigned to each BMP. Present load
reduction estimations must be improved on the basis of monitoring
results and ongoing and planned technical studies by the
jurisdictions, EPA, and other parties. These efforts will be
coordinated through the Nonpoint Source Subcommittee. The need for
research on the effectiveness of BMP's has been identified in the
Comprehensive Research Plan being prepared concurrently with this
strategy.
Table 4-1 presents an outline of the steps the Bay Program
participants will take during the next three years in order to be
ready for the 1991 reevaluation. The results of these studies and
agreements will be presented in the Annual Progress Reports,
beginning with the first report in the summer of 1989.
Completion of the milestones listed in Table 4-1 will allow the
jurisdictions to conduct an in-depth reevaluation of the Basinwide
Strategy at the end of 1991. Based upon this information the
jurisdictions commit to take the following action:
BY DECEMBER 1991: Develop a tributary based
basinwide strategy to achieve the required levels
of nutrient reductions for the Chesapeake Bay.
The jurisdictions will refine the present basinwide nutrient
strategy incorporating the data and modeling information that has
been developed, so that the strategy recognizes the variations among
the tributary watersheds in determining the equitable reduction
goals. The refined strategy may set different load reduction goals
for different tributaries to provide optimum benefit for the Bay.
While we are fully committed to the current strategy, we realize that
new and better information will allow us to improve it. The refined
strategy will be developed using the nutrient load and reduction data
described above, in the following sequence.
The three-dimensional bay model and the results of technical
studies will be used to define proper levels of nutrient reductions
4-2
-------
to maintain and improve habitat for the living resources of the bay.
The three dimensional bay model, the improved watershed model, and
the results of technical studies will be used to assign target
nutrient reduction levels to each tributary watershed. Alternative
point and nonpoint source policies and programs will be identified,
with cost and nutrient reduction estimates that are appropriate for
the situation in each tributary watershed.
On the basis of the target nutrient reduction levels and
alternative control programs, the jurisdictions will cooperate in the
development of tributary control programs for point and nonpoint
sources. The basinwide strategy will then consist of a set of
tributary watershed strategies, with equitable load reduction goals
based on increased knowledge of the bay's needs and the most
effective means of meeting them.
Finally, since the strategy and specific control programs must
remain dynamic and responsive to changes, the jurisdictions will
continue to monitor improvements and modify the tributary watershed
control programs as necessary to meet the goals for the Chesapeake
Bay contained in the 1987 Agreement.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
STEPS TOWARD REFINING THE NUTRIENT STRATEGY
BAYWIDE MILESTONES
-------
1989
Continue development of consistent baseline data (both fall
line and basinwide)
Develop consistent methodologies for estimating loads
and/or load delivery calculations, for:
- point sources, including projected increases
- cropland and pastureland
- nutrient management impacts
- transport conversions
- animal waste production and storage
- developed land uses
Survey and locate to the extent possible all significant
nutrient sources in the Bay basin, both point source and
nonpoint source (including agriculture, urban, forest, and
shoreline erosion), and identify actions needed to improve
the resolution and accuracy of our estimates
Identify and evaluate the necessity of new and expanded
monitoring programs; for example:
- upland watersheds
- nonpoint source loads below the fall line
- edge of field
- point source nutrients
- atmospheric inputs
- shoreline erosion
Develop consistent accounting for loads delivered via
groundwater flows
Develop consistent approaches for defining controllable and
uncontrollable nonpoint source components
-------
1989 (cont.)
Identify informational and other needs to be addressed by
the Nonpoint and Living Resources Subcommittees as well as
other work groups
Evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of application
of biological nutrient removal (BNR) at plants throughout
the Basin
Develop specific point and nonpoint source implementation
plans for each state
-------
1990
* Implement necessary new and expanded monitoring programs
for point sources
* Implement necessary new and expanded monitoring programs
for nonpoint sources
* Quantify and characterize non-agricultural (urban, forest,
shoreline erosion) nonpoint source loadings into the Bay
basin
* Develop consistent load reduction accounting methodologies
for BMPs (to include the effective "working life" of
various BMPs)
* Complete development of the basinwide watershed model
* Identify performance capability and refine cost information
for wastewater treatment processes such as BNR
* Complete refinement of habitat requirements for living
resources that will be used with the 3-D model
* Evaluate approaches that may be used for nitrogen reduction
(e.g., available technology, regulatory actions, incentive
programs)
* Evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary programs for
the implementation of BMPs
* Update state implementation plans
-------
1991
* Complete development of the 3-D Model and input data (fall
line, point source, and nonpoint source) for the 3-D model
* Utilize 3-D model, habitat requirements, scientific
research, and other available information to develop
appropriate reduction levels for nitrogen and phosphorus
* Develop additional regulations to reduce phosphorus where
needed
* Develop additional regulations to reduce nitrogen where
needed
* Develop tributary based reduction goals to provide optimum
benefit for the Bay
* Identify additional control programs that are needed in
light of the tributary based reduction goals, the new load
reduction data on effectiveness of control measures, the
evaluation of voluntary BMPs, and cost effectiveness data
gathered during Phase II
* Refine cost estimates for point source and nonpoint source
control programs
* Update state implementation plans
-------
APPENDICES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF MARYLAND
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
Nutrient enrichment has been identified as a major factor in the decline of the Chesapeake
Bay. Nutrients - primarily nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater and run-off from
farmland - drive the process of excess productivity, decomposition, and recycling that
contributes to oxygen depletion of bottom water in the Bay. Only a reduction in phosphorus
and nitrogen can slow this process and bring about the improved water quality in the
Chesapeake. To achieve this end, the 1987 Bay Agreement calls for a 40% reduction by the
year 2000 in nitrogen and phosphorus entering the main stem of the Bay. Reductions will be
calculated from point source loads for 1985 and nonpoint source loads in a year of average
rainfall.
The Pennsylvania portion of the Chesapeake Bay basin is divided into the eight subbasins
shown in Figure 1, for the purposes of data collection and program development. Five of the
subbasins are in the Susquehanna River Basin. The other subbasins are the Potomac River,
Eastern Shore (Elk Creek) in Chester County, and West Chesapeake (Deer Creek) in York
County. The Susquehanna and Potomac subbasins are all above the fall line, and the others
are below the fall line, as defined by EPA for their delineation of subbasins for computer
models of the bay and its tributaries.
Regulation of point and nonpoint sources in Pennsylvania is shared by several programs
within the Department of Environmental Resources. Programs to regulate point sources of
municipal and industrial waste include state and federal permit requirements. The nutrient
loadings from these sources are fairly well defined. The fall line loads from point sources
are calculated using the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) watershed model.
The nutrient loads resulting from nonpoint sources are not as well defined. The sources of
these loads, the portions which are controllable, and projections of fall line loads from these
sources are estimates at best. Based on these estimates, 33% of controllable phosphorus and
12% of controllable nitrogen load at the fall line from Pennsylvania are from point sources.
- 1 -
-------
FIGURE 1
u o
-2-
-------
The remaining controllable nutrient loads are from urban, agricultural, and anthropogenic
nonpoint sources.
Phosphorus controls are in place for point source discharges on the Lower Susquehanna
where the impact on the Bay from Pennsylvania discharges is the greatest. The Chesapeake
Bay Financial Assistance Program to control nutrient loads from agricultural nonpoint
sources also has been focused in the lower portion of the Susquehanna basin. That program
is now being extended to other parts of the Basin.
Much has already been accomplished through education, financial grants, permitting,
monitoring, and enforcement actions directed at both point sources and nonpoint sources to
reduce nutrient load to the Bay from Pennsylvania. This nutrient reduction strategy is
premised on the continuation of both voluntary and regulatory programs. Point source
discharges are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, including a phosphorus removal program in the lower Susquehanna Basin,
as described later in this document. Nonpoint source manure and sediment discharges to
waters of the Commonwealth are regulated under authority of the Pennsylvania Clean
Streams Law. Rules and regulations contained at 25 PA Code, Chapter 101 empower the
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) to issue permits and take enforcement
actions on violations involving animal manure storage facilities and land application of
animal manure. Similarly, 25 PA Code, Chapter 102 empowers DER to issue permits for
earth disturbance activities over 25 acres in size and to initiate enforcement actions for
erosion and sediment pollution control violations. These programs have resulted in the use
of nutrient control technologies, the imposition of fines for violations, and the correction of
non-compliant activities.
Pennsylvania's strategy for achieving the reduction goal is based on an evaluation of the
problem, including the sources and geographic distribution of nutrients, on a consideration of
accomplishments already achieved, and on projections of further accomplishments using
existing, expanded, and new nutrient reduction programs. The strategy was developed using
the best available information. Recognized shortcomings in the available data and the
means of dealing with them are acknowledged in this document. Several assumptions were
made in projecting future program accomplishments. These include the continuation of
Chesapeake Bay Program funding from state and federal sources, the authorization to
satisfy staffing needs identified later in this document, the successful completion of the
- 3 -
-------
federal Food Security Act mandate to apply conservation treatment to all highly erodible
lands owned by farmers who wish to remain eligible for other USDA programs, and a
sustained 80% best management practices (BMP) success rate. The dynamics of land
ownership, changes in farm enterprises, fluctuations in farm commodity prices, and the life
span of conservation practices, all of which can alter the long term sustained effectiveness
of the BMP's, are the reasons for making the 80% adjustment.
BENCHMARK LOADS
The nutrient reduction strategy is based on the nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to
the Bay from all the subbasins. The 1985 delivered loads (129.995 million pounds nitrogen,
4.010 million pounds phosphorus) were supplied by EPA (See Tables 1 and 2). For the
subbasins below the fall line, the loads were determined using the Chesapeake Bay
watershed computer model. This included partitioning of the total subbasin loads to the
various point and non-point sources. For the two rivers above the fall line, EPA provided
total delivered loads calculated from water quality monitoring data, and the loads from
major source categories. This did not include load data for the individual subbasins in the
Susquehanna River Basin.
A major portion of the nutrient reduction strategy development was the allocation of
nutrient loads to the various point and nonpoint sources. The allocation process is described
below. A more detailed description is available in the form of a separate Technical
Supplement.
The point source portion of the benchmark loads was developed using 1985 permit and
discharge monitoring data. Where no actual data existed, as with nitrogen where no permit
limit or monitoring data was available, default data for typical point source effluent was
assigned to the discharge. The CBP watershed model was used to calculate point source
delivered nutrient loads for Pennsylvania at the fall line. Total point source nitrogen load is
about 7.060 million pounds, and phosphorus is about 1.086 million pounds. Population
projections for the county in which the point source is located were used to proportionately
increase control loads and flows to project future loads and flows. This process was used to
project loads and flows for each municipal point source. This model and its delivery ratios
are under review. Changes could affect the point source fall line loads.
- 4 -
-------
The 1987 Bay Agreement states that the nonpoint source nutrient loads should be based on
"an average rainfall year." Since more than half of Pennsylvania is in the Chesapeake Basin,
it is unlikely that the entire area would experience average rainfall in any one year. In the
absence of nutrient load information for an average rainfall year, EPA provided fall line
monitoring data for 1985 as benchmark nutrient loads. While 1985 was not a year with
normal annual flow, the integrity of the nutrient reduction strategy is not jeopardized by the
use of fall line loads for that year. Nutrient source loads and edge-of-field reductions were
determined independently from the fall line load values, and were then equated to the fall
line values using approximate transport factors as described later. In the absence of a
reliable watershed model to simulate the transport process, a revision of benchmark fall line
loads would only result in a change in the approximate transport factors.
As additional monitoring data and improved load calculation methods become available, a
better representation of "an average rainfall year" will be possible. A better
characterization of the nutrient problem would be the "normal annual nutrient load," unique
to each river basin. This load would be best determined by considering the mean monthly
flows as representing average conditions. Use of the mean monthly flows would also
account for seasonal variations in flow and loads, and be an improvement on the use of gross
annual total flows which can mask fluctuations within the year. An ongoing effort by the
Fall Line Monitoring Ad Hoc Work Group with participation by the U.S. Geological Survey,
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the four jurisdictions, will resolve this issue.
Since there are five subbasins in the Susquehanna River Basin, with varying land uses and
distances from the Bay, there was a need to identify the relative contributions from the
subbasins and the source categories within them. The total delivered nitrogen and
phosphorus loads, and the uncontrollable source contributions were accepted as reported by
EPA. The uncontrollable sources include the natural sources (base flow, air, and forests),
pasture and cropland not needing treatment. The strategy addresses the point source and
controllable nonpoint source loads. Point source loads, known from monitoring programs,
were computed as delivered to the Bay, as described above. The nonpoint source nutrient
loads from each subbasin were calculated for animal waste, cropland eroding at more than
tolerable soil loss rates, and urban land. These were calculated as loads delivered to the
nearest stream. Animal waste nutrient contributions were calculated from animal
population data for each county in the basin and average animal weights and manure
production rates. Land use data is based on Natural Resources Inventory data from the Soil
- 5 -
-------
Conservation Service for each county in the basin. The data was weighted by the
percentage of each county in a given subbasin.
To account for the transport of nutrients from subbasins to Bay, the nonpoint source loads
were weighted by the proximity of the subbasin to the Bay. This procedure will be replaced
with a more accurate delivery ratio approach when EPA's watershed model is recalibrated.
The nonpoint source loads were also weighted so that the total delivered point source and
controllable nonpoint source loads from the Susquehanna River Basin equal the fall line load
values provided by EPA. The delivered point source and nonpoint source loads were reduced
by the amount delivered from New York State (10.75 million pounds of nitrogen and
0.302 million pounds of phosphorus), since they are uncontrollable by Pennsylvania programs.
The original Potomac River Basin loads have been adjusted by EPA in an attempt to discount
the atypical loads resulting from an extreme flood event included in the original calculated
loads. This was only an estimation technique and is subject to revision as normal annual
nutrient load data become available from the ongoing fall line monitoring program and
proposed tributary monitoring. Allocation of loads to various nonpoint source categories
was accomplished in a manner similar to that described for the Susquehanna River subbasins.
The loads delivered from point sources and controllable nonpoint sources to the Bay were
then summed from all subbasins. The 40% reduction goals are based on these loads of
60.860 million pounds of nitrogen and 3.254 million pounds of phosphorus.
The reduction goals for Pennsylvania are 24.344 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.302 million
pounds of phosphorus. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the nutrient budgets for Pennsylvania.
The load partitioning process revealed two aspects of the nutrient problems that are
instrumental in formulating the strategy to achieve the 40% reduction. The first is that
animal waste is a dominant source of nutrients. Manure is the source of more than one-half
of all the controllable nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus. A successful nutrient
reduction program must therefore place emphasis on manure nutrient management. The
other aspect is that the nutrient load contributions originate throughout the Pennsylvania
portion of the basin. Subbasin A (Lower Susquehanna) is the major contributor of nitrogen
and phosphorus on both a per acre and total load basis. This is due to its proximity to the
Bay and its relatively high contribution from animal waste, cropland erosion, and urban
- 6 -
-------
sources. Subbasin B (Middle Susquehanna) is the second highest contributor of nitrogen and
phosphorus per acre. Subbasin F (Potomac) contributes the third highest amount of nitrogen
per acre. Subbasin E (North Branch of Susquehanna), despite its distance from the Bay,
contributes significant amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus.
The contribution of nutrients from throughout the basin is also evidenced by the preliminary
results of the water quality monitoring program being conducted by the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission on the river and its tributaries as part of the CBP. The instream nutrient
loads calculated as described above agree reasonably well with the monitoring data. This
adds credence to the calculated load data and, more importantly, supports the conclusion
that the nonpoint source nutrient problem is widespread throughout the basin.
To adequately and efficiently address the problem, the nutrient reduction program has and
will continue to place emphasis on the high priority watersheds throughout the basin.
- 7 -
-------
TABLE 1
BENCHMARK NITROGEN LOADS FOR PENNSYLVANIA
(MILLIONS OF POUNDS PER TEAR)
a.
SOURCE
CATEGORY
POINT SOURCES
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
) SUB-TOTAL
SUSQUEHANNA
6.745
0.120
6.66s
EASTERN SHORE
0.000
0.000
0.000
WBST CHESAPEAKE
0.000
0.000
6.666
POTOMAC
0.180
0.015
6.1»
TOTAL
6.925
0.135
7.6<6
CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCES
b.
c.
d.
• .
I .
ANIMAL
HASTE
CROPLAND
NEEDING
TREATMENT
URBAN C
INDUSTRIAL
ANTHROPOGENIC
FLOW
25.172
20.173
2.965
0.875
CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCES
) SUB-TOTAL 49.185
) TOTAL (a.+ b.)
) REDUCTION
GOAL
(0.4 * C.)
) NATURAL
t
OTHER
SOURCES
1985
) TOTAL LOAD
(C.+ e. )
2000
TOTAL LOAD
(£-- d.)
56.050
-22.420
64.740
120.790
96.370
0.100
0.090
0.025
0.0100
0.225
0.225
-0.090
0.4050
0.6300
0.540
0.180
0.210
0.0120
0.0130
0.415
0.415
-0.166
0.610
1.025
0.859
2.515
1.276
0.135
0.049
3.975
4.170
-1.668
3.380
7.550
5.882
27.967
21.749
3.137
0.947
53.800
60.860
-24.344
69.135
129.995
105.651
NOTEi All values are average annual loads or load reductions,
represent annual incremental changes.
-8-
-------
TABLE 2
BENCHMARK PHOSPHORUS LOADS FOR PENNSYLVANIA
(MILLIONS OF POUNDS PER TEAR)
SOURCE
CATEGORY
POINT SOURCES
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
a.) SUB-TOTAL
SUSQUEHANHA
0.907
0.158
l.OiS
EASTERN SHORE
0.000
0.000
0.000
WEST CHESAPEAKE
0.000
0.000
0.000
POTOMAC
0.020
0.001
0.021
TOTAL
0.927
0.159
1.086
CONTROLLABLE NQHPOINT SOURCES
ANIMAL
WASTE
CROPLAND
NEEDING
TREATMENT
URBAN t
INDUSTRIAL
ANTHROPOGENIC
PLOW
0.865
0.279
0.079
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.003
0.001
CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCES
b. ) SUB-TOTAL
C.) TOTAL («.+ b.)
d . ) REDUCTION
GOAL
(0.4 • c.)
e.) NATURAL
t
OTHER
SOURCES
1985
f.) TOTAL LOAD
-------
PHASE I - PROGRESS TO DATE
Point Source Programs
A point source nutrient control program for the Lower Susquehanna River was adopted into
regulation in 1970. This regulation required 80% phosphorus removal (i.e., effluent limits of
2.0 mg/1) for all new and modified dischargers to the Susquehanna and its tributaries from
the mouth of the Juniata River to the Pennsylvania-Mary land border. That regulation was
replaced in 1983 with a statewide nutrient control regulation which provides for imposition
of phosphorus controls where they have been determined to be needed to achieve the
designated uses. The Susquehanna River has been determined to be a water body on which
phosphorus controls are required due to documented nutrient-related problems in the lower
river impoundments. Thus, the controls which were implemented under the old regulation
will continue to be in effect, and additional or more stringent controls will be imposed in the
future if the Department determines that current levels are not effective in preventing
impairment of designated uses in the river. The beneficial effects of such nutrient controls
to protect waters will, of course, extend to the Bay.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in the lower portion of
the Susquehanna Basin in Pennsylvania have included phosphorus limits based on the
regulations adopted in 1970. This has resulted in a 34% reduction in point source phosphorus
load delivered to the Bay. Compliance statistics and actions under the National Municipal
Policy for municipal discharges in the lower portion of the Susquehanna Basin reflect
violations of phosphorus limits as well as conventional pollutant limits.
In 1985, there were 107 municipal dischargers in the Pennsylvania portion of the Chesapeake
Bay Basin in violation of their NPDES permits. Many of these discharges are small and
many are a long distance from the Bay. Only 13 of these are major dischargers required to
have phosphorus limits based on water quality standards. Of the 13, eight have come into
compliance and the remaining five will achieve compliance prior to 1991.
Since not all of the 107 cases have provided costs for achieving compliance, the total cost of
upgrading these treatment facilities is unknown at this time. The actual or projected costs
where they are known total more than $250,000,000. An additional $100,000,000 may be
necessary to achieve compliance by all municipal dischargers in Pennsylvania's portion of
- 10 -
-------
the Bay basin. Since compliance with permit limitations is required regardless of the
availability of grant assistance, a large portion of the construction cost is paid through local
funds.
Nonpoint Source Programs
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Program consists of four components: 1. the Financial
Assistance Funding Program; 2. the Technical Assistance Funding Program; 3. the
Educational Assistance Funding Program; and 4. the Planning Assistance Funding Program.
Financial Assistance Funding Program
The focus of the nonpoint source nutrient reduction efforts has been the agricultural
Chesapeake Bay Financial Assistance Funding Program. Six conservation districts in
Subbasin A have actively participated in the program since 1985. Seven additional districts
in Subbasins A, B, D, and E are now involved. Program eligibility is established by
conducting a watershed assessment through the Planning Assistance Funding Program to
identify nonpoint nutrient sources and prioritize subwatershed areas for the Financial
Assistance Funding Program. The watersheds to be assessed are selected on the basis of a
four-phase priority system, which uses the watershed priority rankings from the
1979 agricultural nonpoint source 208 study.
The baseline conditions for the nonpoint source nutrient budget were calculated as of 1985.
More than two years of Chesapeake Bay Program financial assistance have been provided
since then. A total of $1,210,053.90 in financial assistance has been provided for installed
best management practices (BMP's) through this program as of September 30, 1987. That
expenditure has been matched with $621,910.91 by landowners. The combined construction
expenditures have achieved an estimated reduction of 186,000 pounds of nitrogen per year
and 13,500 pounds of phosphorus per year delivered to the Bay from agricultural sources.
This effort was focused entirely within Subbasin A (Lower Susquehanna).
The Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission has approved the use of 15 BMP's to
reduce nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake Bay. The combination of BMP's to be used on an
individual farm is based on site-specific needs to develop a complete resource management
system. The emphasis of the BMP's is on nutrient management. About 75% of the financial
- 11 -
-------
assistance provided in Phase I has been for BMP's which focus directly on nutrient
management. These BMP's are animal waste management, soil and manure analysis, and
fertilizer management. A recently adopted BMP, transportation of excess manure, will be
used to address situations where manure cannot be utilized in an environmentally safe
manner on the farm where it is produced. The remaining BMP's are used to prevent erosion
or trap sediment which is laden with nutrients. Installation of BMP's is facilitated through
the Technical Assistance Funding Program. The emphasis of Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
Program has been and will continue to be on nutrient management.
Other agricultural programs also have contributed to nutrient reduction. USDA programs
including the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), Public Law 566 (PL-566) Watershed
Protection Projects, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and the Rural Clean Water
Project (RCWP) have assisted in the treatment of 102,000 acres, with an estimated
reduction of 1.17 million pounds of nitrogen per year and 0.016 million pounds of phosphorus
per year. The ACP and CRP programs are dispersed throughout the basin. PL-566 projects
are being installed within Subbasins C (Juniata River), D (West Branch of Susquehanna), and
F (Potomac). The RCWP is located in Subbasin A.
Participation in CRP is being encouraged within the Chesapeake Basin through the
establishment of a special bid pool for nine priority counties. Participating farmers in those
counties receive higher rental rates than elsewhere in the state. There are now about
35,000 acres protected under CRP in the Chesapeake Basin.
Educational Assistance Funding Program
The Chesapeake Bay Education Assistance Funding Program has been an important part of
Pennsylvania's total nutrient reduction effort. The goal of the Education Program is to
provide information to landowners and the public to foster the need for nutrient
management, erosion control, and water quality management. The purpose of the Education
Program is to accelerate the adoption of and demonstrate the use of soil and water
conservation and nutrient management techniques. Financial assistance is provided to
conservation districts and other cooperating organizations to conduct education activities.
The Education Program is a cooperative effort among the Pennsylvania Association of
Conservation Districts (PACD), the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Pennsylvania State
- 12 -
-------
University, the Pennsylvania Departments of Agriculture and Environmental Resources, the
State Conservation Commission, and local conservation districts. Projects include
newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, conference exhibits, audio-visual presentations,
television and radio spots, meetings, and support of an interstate information center. Also,
nutrient management has been incorporated in several environmental education curriculums,
environmental education training programs, and workshops at state park environmental
education centers. Soil chemistry and plant tissue nutrient analysis, nutrient management
programming, and alternative manure utilization methods have been developed and
disseminated. Demonstration projects are being used to promote the use of state-of-the-art
procedures to control excess nutrients from cropland and livestock.
While it is difficult to quantify the results in terms of nutrient reduction, these educational
programs are believed to be important and necessary to achieve the 40% nutrient reduction
goal, especially since Pennsylvania must rely so heavily on agricultural nonpoint source
programs to meet that goal.
Regulatory Programs
The nutrient reduction program also has a regulatory component. The Chesapeake Bay
Program funded the revision of the state's Manure Management Manual. Use of manure
management practices and procedures specified in this manual is required in lieu of a permit
for animal manure storage facilities and land application of animal manure. As such it is a
regulatory publication. The Bureau of Water Quality Management enforcement program has
taken 19 actions for violations of the Clean Streams Law resulting in total penalties of
$33,400.
During Phase I, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) and county conservation
districts have collected $79,400 in penalties from 20 violators of the Chapter 102 Erosion
and Sediment Pollution Control regulations within the Chesapeake Basin. Proposed revisions
to Chapter 102 will: 1. close loopholes which are currently used to circumvent the
requirement for an earth disturbance permit; 2. require permits for all agricultural plowing
and tillage operations on more than 25 acres (these are currently exempted from the permit
requirement); 3. require more strict erosion and sediment controls in special protection
watersheds (those with exceptional value and high quality streams); and 4. require 75 foot
- 13 -
-------
wide buffer strips in special protection watersheds unless there is a permit for earthmoving
activity.
Improvements in the administration of the Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E <5c SPC)
Program have included: 1. development of an administrative manual for the program in
1988; 2. revision of the procedures for delegation of E & SPC Program authority to county
conservation districts; and 3. revison of the guidelines used by the state to provide financial
incentives and rewards to conservation districts that are involved in the E <5c SPC Program —
particularly for those who assume enforcement responsibilities.
The technical capabilites of conservation districts in administering the E & SPC Program
have been enhanced through the establishment of five new engineering positions funded
through the Chesapeake Bay Program. An engineer has been assigned under an
intergovernmental personnel agreement with the Soil Conservation Service to supervise and
train the conservation district engineers.
DER has taken other regulatory initiatives to deal with nutrient problems. The
Environmental Quality Board took action at its December 15, 1987 meeting to review waste
management regulations to require nutrient management plans for all sites where sewage
sludge will be applied. These regulations, published in the April 9, 1988 issue of the
Pennsylvania Bulletin, require the consideration of all nutrients (fertilizer, manure, and
sludge) being applied to the land in determining the allowable sludge application rate. DER
has established a Nitrate Ground Water Task Force in Lancaster County. The task force's
efforts have resulted in a moratorium on the issuance of permits for on-lot septic systems or
land application of sewage sludge in areas with high nitrate levels in ground water. DER has
also developed streamlined enforcement procedures.
On the local level, the Lancaster Conservation District and the Lancaster County Planning
Commission have prepared a model ordinance for municipalities' use in requiring permits for
expansion of livestock operations. The basis for a permit is a nutrient management plan
which provides for the use or disposal of manure in an environmentally safe manner.
- 14 -
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGY FOR PHASES II AND HI
Consideration of Alternatives
Pennsylvania is committed to achieving the 40% nutrient reductions from point sources and
controllable nonpoint sources by the year 2000. In fact, phosphorus reductions totaling 44%
will exceed the goal. Nutrient reduction estimates were developed for a three phase
program from 1985 to 2000. During Phase I (1985-87) nitrogen loads were reduced by 2.2%
and phosphorus by 0.9%. Therefore, the bulk of the reductions are planned for Phase II
(1988-91) and Phase III (1992-99). Based on current data, it appears that the most cost
effective means of meeting the nutrient reduction goal is the Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Control Program. This program consists of two sub-programs: 1. the Agricultural Nutrient
Management Program; and 2. the Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E & SPC)
Program.
The Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Program must be an essential part of
Pennsylvania's nutrient reduction strategy since nitrogen and phosphorus from animal
manure and cropland needing treatment comprise more than 90% of the total controllable
nonpoint source nutrient loads. Agricultural nonpoint sources contribute 82% of the total
controllable nitrogen load and 63% of the controllable phosphorus load. A strong
agricultural program is necessary to achieve the 40% nutrient reduction goal, because so
many of the nutrients have agricultural sources. The strategy for meeting the nutrient
reduction commitment was developed based on the results of the nutrient allocation
procedure and the progress to date in the Agricultural Nutrient Management Program. The
strategy, therefore, is premised on the assumptions and limitations already described.
The determination that the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Program is more cost
effective than additional point source control programs was made by comparing the cost per
pound of nutrient reduction for that program with the lowest cost per pound for additional
point source controls. Total cost, including staff, technical, administrative, and financial
assistance, and landowners' costs divided by estimated nutrient reductions yields a unit cost
of about $6.00 per pound of nutrient reduction for the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control
Program. This calculation is based on CBP records and future projections for manure and
fertilizer management BMP's.
- 15 -
-------
The unit cost for additional point source controls is based on the tightening of phosphorus
removal requirements in the lower Susquehanna basin. This would consist of changing the
2.0 mg/1 phosphorus limit to 1.0 mg/1, and would cost at least $7.60 per pound of additional
reduction. This cost includes changes in plant operation and chemicals, but does not include
the cost of increased sludge disposal. This would be the least costly point source control,
since it would use existing facilities. To extend the phosphorus removal program area
upstream into sub-basins D and E would cost at least $10.80 per pound of phosphorus
removed from the discharge. This would include capital costs as well as the items listed
above.
No cost analysis was done for urban nonpoint source controls, since their effectiveness is not
well documented. Due to urban land values and the reliance on structural BMP's in most
cases, urban controls are expected to be at least as costly as agricultural BMP's.
Short-term and long-term nutrient reductions were estimated based on projections of USDA
and Chesapeake Bay program accomplishments. The Soil Conservation Service provided
estimates of cropland which will receive conservation treatment before 2000. That acreage
was then used, with basin-wide soil loss data, to estimate reductions in sediment entering
Chesapeake Basin streams. Nutrient reductions were then calculated based on those
sediment reductions.
The projected impacts of nutrient management BMP's were based upon calculated reductions
accomplished to date. Nutrient management reductions are the difference between nutrient
levels before and after a nutrient management plan is implemented. The goal of the
nutrient management plan is to reduce or eliminate the application of excess nutrients
beyond those needed to maintain crop yields. A nutrient tracking system is maintained to
measure the progress of BMP implementation. Data from that system was used to project
future accomplishments.
An undetermined level of nutrient reduction is taking place as landowners install BMP's on
their own. The effects of these private efforts are not factored into the strategy
development, since they cannot be quantified. At least some of these BMP's are
undoubtedly the result of the Chesapeake Bay education programs, which will continue to be
an important part of the total Chesapeake Bay Program. The impact of educational
- 16 -
-------
programs is recognized in the Bay-wide Communications Plan completed in May, 1988. The
educational programs will be guided by the direction given in that plan.
In some areas with high concentrations of animals, conventional on-farm solutions are not
adequate to solve nutrient problems. Excessive quantities of manure produced on some
farms cannot be addressed through typical nutrient management plans. Innovative and
alternative agricultural nutrient control programs are being investigated, demonstrated, and
encouraged. Chesapeake Bay Program funds have been used to explore manure composting,
fermentation, and the use of manure for the fertilization of reclaimed strip mines. Also,
biogas generation and incineration of manure to generate electricity have been promoted in
cooperation with the Governor's Energy Council. DER will explore the establishment of a
policy for the utilization of excessive quantities of animal manure in cooperation with the
Governor's Energy Council and other interested parties. A new BMP for the transport of
manure from farms with excess amounts is now available under the Financial Assistance
Program. Since these options are new, affected by economic conditions and require large
capital investments, their impacts on basin-wide nutrient reductions are difficult to
quantify. The strategy to accomplish the 40% nutrient reductions is founded on the more
conventional BMP's which have widespread applicability. This is our best basis for
projecting nutrient reductions in Phases II and III until more specific plans develop for
utilizing large quantities of manure.
The Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E&SPC) Program will continue to be an integral
part of the nutrient reduction strategy. The activities described under Phase I will be
continued and improved to provide the regulatory component needed to meet the nutrient
reduction goal. Specific E&SPC Program enhancements are described under Phase II.
Resource Needs
As shown in Table 3, most of the reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus will be accomplished
during Phases II and III of the program. It is important to note that Phases II and III of the
program depend heavily on federal conservation programs to achieve the reduction goals.
For instance, during Phase II federal programs account for nearly two-thirds of the overall
nitrogen reduction. Therefore, the total resources needed to accomplish the nutrient
reductions go far beyond those shown in Table 4.
- 17 -
-------
Table 3
Chesapeake Bay Program
Projected Nutrient Reductions1
Phase
I
II
III
Totals
Nitrogen Reductions
Agricultural
Nutrient
Management
Program
0.3%
3.9%
16.2%
Other
Programs^
1.9%
6.6%
11.1%
Total
2.2%
10.5%
27.3%
Phosphorus Reductions
Agricultural
Nutrient
Management Other
Program Programs^ Total
20.4%
19.6% 40.0%
0.4%
5.4%
24.2%
30.0%
0.5% 0.9%
10.7%3 16.1%
2.8% 27.0%
14.0% 44.0%
1 Based on funding and staffing levels identified in the strategy.
2 Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E&SPC) Program, Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP), Food Security Act (FSA), PL-566 Watershed Protection Projects, and
Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP)
3 Includes 5.0% reduction due to point source phosphorus controls, and 4.0% reduction due
to the phosphate detergent ban.
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Program implementation is currently being hindered
by an imbalance of staff and financial assistance funds. To meet the 40% reduction goal,
the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) will need 25 new staff positions between
Fiscal Years 1988-89 and 1991-92 to provide technical and administrative support for this
program. Six of the needed positions will be added to the BSWC staff for the Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Control Program in fiscal year 1988-89. (See Table 4)
Nutrient reductions will undoubtedly be more difficult to achieve in the future than they
have been during Phase I. It is expected that regulatory programs will be needed in Phases II
and III to achieve the nutrient reduction goals. (See Phase II Nonpoint Source Programs for
discussion of additional regulatory initiatives.) As shown in Table 4, additional personnel are
needed in the Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E&SPC) Program to achieve the
phosphorus reduction goal.
- 18 -
-------
Table 4
Additional Staff Requirements
to
Achieve Projected Nutrient Reductions
Erosion & Sediment
Agricultural Nutrient Pollution
Phase Fiscal Year Management Program Control Program
II 1988-89 6 0
1989-90 5 6
1990-91 0 4
III 1991-92 4 0
TOTALS 15 10
The success of the nutrient reduction strategy is premised on the continued availability of
Chesapeake Bay Program funds from EPA. While those funds will be targeted specifically to
the Chesapeake Basin, the nutrient reduction effort would also benefit from other programs.
For instance, providing funds for the Nonpoint Source Management Program authorized by
Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 would result in additional BMP installation in
the Chesapeake Basin, and thereby help to achieve the 40% nutrient reduction. DER
Secretary Arthur Davis has encouraged the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation to
support $100 million in the federal Fiscal Year 1988 budget for this program.
The strategy is dynamic, and will change between now and the 1991 revaluation. Revisions
will be based on increased knowledge that will be gained through monitoring, modeling, and
technical investigations as described under Short-Term Programs. Technical advancements
and program changes will be addressed in the annual work plan, which will be prepared as
part of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement commitments.
The reductions that can be expected with the described resource commitments are displayed
in Figure 2 for point source controls and in Figure 3 for nonpoint source controls. The total
nutrient reductions will be 40% of the nitrogen load and 44% of the phosphorus load, with an
emphasis on nonpoint source controls. The Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Program
and related USDA programs will reduce nonpoint source loads by more than 40% to achieve
the overall nutrient reduction goal. The following sections describe the strategy in greater
detail.
- 19-
-------
FIGURE t
PENNSYLVANIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
NUTRIENT CONTROL STRATEGY
POINT SOURCES
i
o
7.06
6.0
HI
4.24
4.0
*l2.0t
I
0.0
-__. ftt
^ c
Tr^ • _
40% Rtduction Cool
_ j - . _. ^ _ .. . i _ _
~~ ^~ ^^ T^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^ ~* ^~~ *~~ ^~ — — — -
0%
20% 0
P
u
40% o
j^
K
o
1/63 10/67 1/92 1/2000
-20-
-------
FIGURE
PENNSYLVANIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCES
60
Ml
HI
i
O
g
Hi
40
32.3
uil 20
52.4
•Current Progrom Unchanged
LS--^ fM
0%
39.0
40% Reduction Goal
Fully Implemented
Program •
29.5
I/M
10/87
l/tt
20%
8
I PhoMl | Phong 1 P*xmg
H M* H* "
1/2000
-J
I
Current Program Unchanged *
U7
2JO
I
ft. g
S;
j I
ss
i
1.30
1.0
0.0
2 14 -^—Current program uncnangea w
*—^£ ,„
ST\ «
Fully Implemented
Progrom »
J.03
4-
0%
20%
40%
|/a9 10/87 I/W 1/2000
'include! ottumption of USOA program* in addition to Cheiopeokt Bay Program
-21-
-------
PHASE H - SHORT TERM PROGRAMS (1988-1991)
Point Source Programs
Pennsylvania has set a goal of achieving compliance with 107 municipal dischargers in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin by 1991. Full compliance by these treatment plants represents a 20%
reduction in point source phosphorus loads and a 5% reduction in total phosphorus loads at
the fall line from Pennsylvania.
Achieving one hundred percent (100%) compliance at all treatment plants may seem
optimistic. However, once the facilities are in place, even if some dischargers are not in
full compliance, others will be discharging lower levels of phosphorus than their permit
limits. This is because actual flows are often less than design and because some treatment
facilities remove nutrients to a greater extent than is required by their permits. With
nutrient removal facilities in place for all point sources where they are required, the net
loads should be close to the equivalent 100% compliance levels. In 1985, of those plants
meeting the phosphorus limit of 2.0 mg/1 actual effluent concentrations ranged as low as
0.81 mg/1. Because significant phosphorus limitations have already been imposed on point
source discharges, Pennsylvania has no plans at this time to impose sidditional phosphorus
limits in its point source discharge permits.
On March 1, 1988, Governor Casey signed into law an Environment Infrastructure
Investment Program (PENNVEST) designed to fund the repair, rehabilitation, improvement,
and construction of drinking water and sewer systems in Pennsylvania. This 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. 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 interes>t on issued loans. The
Authority will issue loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance, including loan
guarantees. PENNVEST funded infrastructure improvements will reduce point source
nutrient loads from those plants needing to reach compliance by 1991.
- 22 -
-------
The Pennsylvania General Assembly is now considering House Bill 2567, which would ban the
use of high phosphate detergents in the state. Passage of this bill, which has the support of
the Administration, is anticipated. The Chesapeake Bay Commission has funded a
Pennsylvania State University study of the water quality impacts of such a ban. The study
concluded that a phosphate detergent ban will reduce the controllable phosphorus load by
4.0%. The phosphate ban will reduce treatment costs. The actual treatment cost savings as
the result of a ban will depend on how much less phosphorus will have to be removed to meet
discharge limits. The effects of the phosphate detergent ban are included in the total
phosphorus reduction of 44%, as shown in Table 3.
For the most part nitrogen limits have not been placed in Pennsylvania point source
discharge permits. Pennsylvania presently has no plans to impose nitrogen limits on its
municipal discharges because of technical limitations and expenses of removing nitrogen
from sewage. Some point sources have provided and will provide nitrogen removal as a
result of increased treatment to meet other discharge requirements. It is assumed that the
increases in nitrogen loads as a result of population growth between 1985 and 2000 (4%) will
be offset by construction of facilities between 1985 and 1991.
Nonpoint Source Programs
During Phase II, the Chesapeake Bay Financial Assistance Funding Program will gradually
increase as technical investigations funding decreases. For fiscal year 1988-89, a net
increase of $600,000 in Chesapeake Bay funds has been targeted to increased technical and
financial assistance. Average annual program funds for financial assistance to farmers now
exceed $2,000,000. That level of funding is expected to continue through 1991. Program
emphasis will continue to be on nutrient management, with erosion control being used where
necessary to install a complete nutrient management system. Nutrient management BMP's
address the manure and fertilizer nutrient problems directly and are more cost effective in
achieving nutrient reduction than erosion control BMP's and point source controls, as
described earlier.
In light of the indications that nutrient loads originate throughout the Basin, expansion of
the Financial Assistance Funding Program is necessary to achieve the nutrient reduction
goals. Another seven conservation districts is Subbasins A, B, C, and E will complete
watershed assessments in 1988, and six more in Subbasins C, E, and F will be completed in
- 23 -
-------
the following year. These last six districts, which will comprise the last phase of the four-
phase priority system, have been selected on the basis of the original priority system
modified by the nutrient load contributions generated in developing this strategy. The most
significant impact of this modification will be the inclusion of two watersheds from
Subbasin F (Potomac River). In addition to the priority watersheds selected through this
process, other watersheds in the Chesapeake Basin may rank high on a statewide basis. This
will be determined through a statewide agricultural nonpoint source watersheds assessment,
which will be funded by an EPA 205(j)(5) grant.
As more conservation districts become eligible for the Financial Assistance Funding
Program, cost share funds will be allocated to them where possible. While counties may
qualify for the program, and adequate funds may be available, additional state staff is
essential to administer the program and conduct mandated compliance checks, over an
expanded program area. To meet increasing program needs and achieve the nutrient
reductions goal, five new Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation staff positions are proposed
for Fiscal Year 1989-90.
It is anticipated that over the four-year period, the annual nitrogen load will be reduced by
6.411 million pounds and the annual phosphorus load will be reduced by 0.229 million pounds
by nonpoint source efforts. Of these reductions, 2.387 million pounds of nitrogen and
0.174 million pounds of phosphorus will be accomplished through the implementation of
nutrient management BMP's. The conservation treatment of 352,000 acres of cropland
through USDA programs will achieve an estimated annual reduction of 4.024 million pounds
of nitrogen and 0.055 million pounds of phosphorus. Much of this will occur starting in 1990,
when the Soil Conservation Service will switch its Food Security Act (FSA) emphasis from
planning to field application. This is premised on the assumption that federal funding levels
are at least maintained and other priorities do not take precedence. The main objective of
FSA is to control erosion on highly credible land. This will have the indirect benefit of
reducing nutrients. FSA emphasis on erosion control practices will complement the CBP
emphasis on nutrient control practices.
Further enhancements of the Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E&SPC) Program will
be needed in the near future to meet the 40% nutrient reduction goal. Six BSWC positions
are proposed for Fiscal Year 1989-90 to strengthen this program. These positions will be
used to process earth disturbance permit applications, initiate enforcement actions, audit
- 24 -
-------
the performance of conservation districts in administering the program locally, provide
training to the conservation districts to improve their performance of delegated
responsibilities in this program, and provide technical expertise to conservation districts.
The technical capabilities of the conservation districts will also be supported through the
continued funding of five conservation district engineers and an engineering supervisor.
Four additional BSWC staff positions will be requested for Fiscal Year 1990-91 to provide
additional technical expertise in the E & SPC Program and address other program
deficiencies.
In addition to staff increases, the E & SPC Program will benefit from the development of a
design manual which will be undertaken in Fiscal Year 1988-89 and the development of a
reporting system to track the number of erosion and sediment control plan reviews, site
inspections and other aspects of the program. Also, the BSWC will insure that the proposed
enforcement procedures developed in Phase I are applied to the E
-------
undertaken outside the Chesapeake Basin, current and future plans for watersheds within the
basin may incorporate water quality components. Through funding of storm water
management plans, the BDWM plans to evaluate water quality associated with storm water
runoff in several counties in the Chesapeake Basin.
Typical tasks to address water quality within a storm water management plan may include:
a. identification of critical nonpoint source sub-watersheds based on annual loadings;
b. estimation of annual pollutant loadings under existing and future land use conditions;
c. identification of BMP's applicable to the watershed; and d. evaluation of the
effectiveness of BMP's.
The Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management anticipates use of an EPA grant to fund a
research effort by Penn State University concerning identification and evaluation of
nonpoint source pollutants from storm water in developing watersheds. This research effort
will include identification and prioritization of pollutants and modification of the existing
Penn State Runoff Model to accept urban pollutant load parameters. The effectiveness of
the BMP's will also be evaluated through monitoring of NPS pollution control structures. It
is expected that by December, 1991, urban BMP's will be available through an Urban
Nonpoint Source Control Program.
Water quality monitoring and technical investigations will continue to be funded to expand
and refine our knowledge of nonpoint source nutrient problems and solutions. The
Pennsylvania water quality monitoring program will be coordinated with the fall line
monitoring program through the Fall Line Monitoring Ad Hoc Work Group. The monitoring
program will be extended to the Potomac River basin. Both monitoring and technical
investigations will be used to identify spatial and seasonal trends in nutrient movement. The
results of these efforts will be used to improve nutrient management programs and be
incorporated into the enhanced watershed and bay computer models being developed by
EPA. The need for the watershed model to provide nutrient load output data at
intermediate points above the fall line will continue to be coordinated through the Modeling
Subcommittee. The models will also address the issue of atmospheric deposition of
nutrients.
The existing agricultural nonpoint source nutrient tracking system will be revised to be
compatible with the methodologies in this strategy. The effectiveness of BMP's in reducing
- 26 -
-------
nutrient loads will be incorporated into the tracking system as more data become available.
The data will come from ongoing BMP monitoring being conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey on two small watersheds and by DER on a third watershed, as well as from computer
modeling being conducted by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and the
University of Maryland. Additional modeling will be done through planned contractual
technical investigations in the 198.8-89 fiscal year. The need for research on the
effectiveness of BMP's has also been identified in the Comprehensive Research Plan being
prepared concurrently with this document. The tracking system will be used to monitor
progress, prepare EPA grant applications, and manage funding allocations to conservation
districts for the Financial Assistance Program.
PROGRAM REEVALUATION
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains a commitment to reevaluate the 40%
reduction target by December, 1991. This will be done based on the results of the computer
modeling, research, and monitoring programs discussed above. Issues to be resolved in the
reevaluation process include the total fall line loads, allocations to subbasins above the fall
line and to source categories within the subbasins, fate and transport (delivery ratios) of
nutrients from their sources to the Bay, and equitable reduction goals for each of the point
and nonpoint source categories. The levels of nutrient contributions from forested land will
be reevaluated, based on preliminary monitoring results which indicate much higher nutrient
loads than are currently assigned to this uncontrollable source. These refinements will help
fine tune the nutrient reduction strategy and possibly result in adjustments to the areas of
emphasis between 1992 and 2000.
As Geographic Information System (GIS) data become available, they will be used to more
closely represent the land use distributions throughout the basin in calculating nutrient loads
and integrate that data with hydrologic boundaries, soils, geology, and human and annual
population data. Also, the effects of land use changes through 1999 on the delivery of
nutrients to the Bay will be evaluated.
Similarly, projections of animal populations will be considered. An attempt was made to
project animal populations in developing this strategy, but no statistically significant
conclusions could be drawn due to the high variability of population data.
- 27 -
-------
Urban BMP's and additional point source controls will be evaluated and incorporated as
necessary in the program revisions.
It is expected that compliance with current point source permits will be achieved with
present technical and legal resources. If the 1991 reevaluation indicates that additional
point source controls are required or that nonpoint source enforcement efforts must be
expanded, additional technical and legal resources will be required. The strategy will be
revised to include additional staff as required at that time.
PHASE III - LONG TERM PROGRAM (1991-1999)
Point Source Programs
Depending on the success of nonpoint source control strategies it may be necessary at some
time in the future to reconsider point source nutrient controls. Possible options for
phosphorus include extending the phosphorus limitation to point source dischargers in the
upper Susquehanna and Potomac subbasins, reducing limits in the lower Susquehanna basin to
1 mg/1, and applying the 1 mg/1 to the entire Bay basin. Nitrogen limits could also be
established for point source discharges based on the demonstrated effectiveness of
biological nutrient treatment. Each of these options represents a considerable expense to
the residents of Pennsylvania and would only be considered if nonpoint source control
options proved more costly or ineffective. Consideration of new point source discharge
limitations will also include the necessary additional resources to implement the new
requirements. It will also be necessary to develop better tools to predict the benefits of the
various nutrient control options so that relative costs can be compared within Pennsylvania
and with options in other states. This will help to address equity concerns.
Nonpoint Source Programs
Based on current knowledge, nonpoint source program projections beyond 1991 are difficult.
Estimates of the financial and personnel resource needs to achieve the nutrient reduction
goal have been made using the best available information.
To achieve the 40% reduction goals, the Chesapeake Bay Financial Assistance Program will
have to be expanded to provide sufficient funds for agricultural BMP's. The BSWC will also
- 28 -
-------
need four more technical staff to implement the program expansion. Nonpoint source
control options could include alternative agricultural nonpoint source programs and an urban
nonpoint BMP program. The merits of these options will be assessed in the 1991 program
revaluation on the basis of program accomplishments and monitoring, modelling, and
technical investigation in Phase II.
A major component of the Phase III agricultural nonpoint source nutrient reduction effort
will be the implementation of conservation plans prepared under the USDA Food Security
Act program. Installation of BMP's under that program is to be completed by 1995.
The need for additional funds and staff resources for the Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control Program will be identified and requested as needed to support the continuation of
Phase I and II initiatives.
-29 -
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A. Estimates of Nutrient Loads
The commitment to achieve at least a 40% reduction in the amount
of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay by the year 2000 is based on agreed upon 1985 point source loads
and on nonpoint loads in an average year.
Tables 1 and 2 present the base loads for phosphorus and
nitrogen that the Commonwealth proposes to use to measure progress
towards the 40% target. These loads represent the best information
presently available.
These tables also contain the 40% reduction target for the year
2000. In developing this strategy it was assumed that both the point
and nonpoint sources would be reduced by 40%. This assumption may
change in the future as a result of information from monitoring,
modeling, and research programs.
The river basin point source data represents either 1985
measured values, or estimated values based on the type of discharge.
For point sources above the fall line, the delivery ratios that were
used in the 1983 EPA report, Framework For Action, were used to
deliver the discharge loads to the fall line. These delivered fall
line loads were added to the total load from point sources below the
fall line to arrive at a total river basin point source load. When
revisions to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model are completed it is
anticipated that the delivery ratios used in this analysis may be
revised.
The year 2000 projected flows for the municipal wastewater
plants assume they are operating at their projected plant design flow
(except for the Upper James River estuary facilities where projected
actual year 2000 flows have been used). Therefore, total actual flow
in the year 2000 is expected to be less than the flow used in this
analysis. Correspondingly, the projected year 2000 point source
nitrogen and phosphorus loads are also anticipated to be less than
the loads shown.
Total basin nonpoint load?- were estimated using the following
procedure. A total fall line load for each river basin was estimated
from available monitoring data for periods without major storm
events. Delivered loads from point sources above the fall line were
subtracted from the total fall line load estimates to provide a
nonpoint source fall line load. The nonpoint source load below the
fall line was estimated by multiplying the fall line load by ratios
calculated from river basin loads contained in the EPA report,
Framework For Action.
-------
Average year controllable nonpoint source loads were calculated
by partitioning the total nonpoint source basin loads according to
benchmark nutrient budget percentages determined by EPA. River basin
NFS loads attributed to animal waste, cropland needing treatment and
uncontrollable sources were calculated.
B. Background
Point Sources
In the past point source nutrient control programs in Virginia
have been established to address localized nutrient enrichment
problems. During the 1970s nutrient controls were imposed on
discharges into several lakes and river basins, such as the Occoquan
Reservoir in Fairfax and Prince William Counties; Smith Mountain Lake
in Franklin, Bedford, and Pittsylvania Counties; the Potomac River
embayments below Washington, B.C., and the Chickahominy river which
is a tributary to the James River estuary. With the publication of
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program findings in 1983, the concern over
nutrient enrichment has broadened to encompass the entire Bay and its
tributaries, especially east of the fall line.
In 1986 the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) authorized the
development of water quality standards to protect the Chesapeake Bay,
its tributaries, and the remaining waters of the Commonwealth from
nutrient enrichment problems. Water quality standards provide the
legal basis for establishing permit requirements for point sources.
The VWCB recently adopted water quality standards for nutrient
enriched waters along with a point source policy. Details on these
significant actions are described later in this strategy.
Nonpoint Sources
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a
comprehensive list of "Major Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution
Categories and Subcategories" in the 1988 State Water Quality
Assessment Guidance (April 1, 1987, p. 19). This list has been
evaluated in detail by the Nonpoint Source Subcommittee of the
Implementation Committee in terms of potential impact and
availability of water quality data. Although many of these sources
could provide a significant nonpoint source pollution impact, an
evaluation of both impact and required improvements is not presently
possible for all sources. Limited evaluation data regarding nonpoint
source impacts overall is summarized in the Virginia Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report available as of April 1, 1988. This document is a
useful reference to inventory the numerous nonpoint sources which
impact water quality. To address nonpoint problems found in the
assessment the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources,
2.
-------
Division of Soil and Water Conservation is completing a nonpoint
source management plan to identify statewide management programs
designed to quantify, control and limit the effects of nonpoint
source pollution on the state's waters. This report will be
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by August 4, 1988.
Activities in the Chesapeake Bay Program are consistent with
statewide programs but are presently funded at an accelerated level.
The Division intends to continue to work toward quantifying the
impacts associated with those nonpoint sources and to improve our
control strategies accordingly.
The Chesapeake Bay Research study published in 1983 determined
that as much as 39% of the phosphorus and 67% of the nitrogen in an
average rainfall year is contributed by agricultural sources,
primarily cropland and animal manures. Urban sources contribute only
6-8% of the nutrient load. The Division of Soil and Water
Conservation operates programs for pollution abatement in each of
these source areas, but research shows that the most significant
impacts will result from agricultural strategies. As a result, the
calculation of the baseload attributable to nonpoint sources is based
upon nutrient losses from cropland, pastureland and animal waste
management. Sufficient data do not exist to calculate nutrient loads
or reductions for other sources at this time.
EPA has previously provided estimates on nonpoint source fall
line and estuary mouth loads for all jurisdictions within the
Chesapeake basin through an approach that estimates a total load,
subtracts a point source load and labels the "remaining load" as the
nonpoint source load. The "remaining load" includes a "background
load" and the impacts of other nonpoint sources. For the purpose of
this report, pollutant baseload calculations have been developed
similar to point source calculations. By the use of a variety of
existing cropland and pastureland treatment data, a non-delivered
baseload for detached sediment and its nutrient characteristics has
been developed. The method utilized to calculate reductions from
this load evaluates the result of BMP installations funded within the
state-wide cost-share program, the USDA-ASCS ACP program and the
conservation reserve program. The load is non-delivered because,
other than the Virginia cost-share program, the geographical
location, stream location and runoff slope length for other installed
practices is not available. However, county-wide aggregation of
results is possible and thus county-based reductions due to BMP
installations have been developed.
Calculation of nutrient baseload was based upon an estimation of
the annual sediment loss in the drainage basin and the nutrient load
associated with that soil loss. By counting the 1984 USDA-SCS
Workload Analysis figures for agricultural acres eroding at different
rates with ranges of rates by Major Land Resource Areas (Virginia
Natural Resources Index, 1982, p. 70), baseload sediment loss
conditions were approximated for all counties in the Bay drainage.
3.
-------
Basin erosion rates were computed by summarizing the county estimates
according to individual basin distributions for the five major
drainage basins (Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James and Coastal).
Sediment loads were derived from these erosion rates and segregated
by counties. These calculations also recognized practice lives for
all programs analyzed. The impact of overlapping programs under the
Farm Bill is also accommodated. Nutrient calculations are derived
from sediment loads by the use of an "enrichment factor" of 5.44
pounds of nitrogen and 0.68 to 1.88 pounds of phosphorous per ton of
soil.
Nutrient reductions attributable to the nutrient management
program have also been estimated. There is data for tons of waste
treated and estimates of nitrogen and phosphorous value of that
waste, but a baseload can not be developed further as has been done
with cropland. For this report, progress in animal waste reductions
is calculated based upon the number of systems needed by 1984
workload analysis figures versus the number of systems installed in
each target year. Nutrients saved are deducted from the portion of
the nonpoint load attributable to animal waste in Technical Appendix
2 of the 1985 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Benchmark Nutrient Budget.
Estimated reductions for all three categories of practices are
reported in percent improvement rather than pounds;. Data provided by
the Virginia Water Control Board on fall line loads, full river basin
loads and point source loads has been used to convert these figures
to nonpoint source basin loads for the purpose of reporting
state-wide progress. These load figures cannot be interpreted
literally.
Significant efforts are underway to improve Virginia's fall line
monitoring and nutrient load characterization. The EPA-HSPF
watershed model is also being improved and will serve to better
characterize delivered nonpoint loads. The Division of Soil and
Water Conservation data collection and retrieval system continues to
improve for both agricultural and other source data. For instance,
site data from the intensively-monitored demonstraition watersheds is
only now becoming useful, but could not be included in this report.
Extensive research is underway to better define nutrient
composition/soluble or particulate, transport mechanisms and the long
term efficiencies related to nutrient management. It is anticipated
that by 1991 each of the jurisdictions involved in this program will
be developing and reporting more uniform and accurate information.
With additional monitoring data and the use of the 3-D and
watershed models, we will be able to better evaluate separate
components of this program and their sub-basin impacts, and make
management decisions to most effectively meet program goals. At
present, this analysis serves only to indicate trends in program
impact. These trends and associated programs need to be continuously
evaluated and refined as we move toward 1991 and beyond.
4.
-------
C. Nutrient Reduction Activities - Phase I (1985 Through June 1988)
Point Sources
The 1987 Virginia General Assembly adopted a phosphate
detergent ban which became effective on January 1, 1988.
Based upon experience in other states it is estimated that
the phosphorus discharged from municipal facilities will be
reduced by 25 to 30% due to the ban. Treatment plant data
analyzed through February 1988 confirm a significant level
of reduction in the phosphorus discharged due to the ban.
A complete evaluation of the impact of the Virginia ban
will be conducted in early 1989 when a year's worth of data
will be available.
As preparation for implementing a nutrient management
strategy in Virginia $360,000 in funding was provided for
nutrient removal demonstration projects at the following
three wastewater treatment plants:
PLANT
HRSD-YORK
RIVER
TREATMENT TYPE
BIOLOGICAL
NUTRIENT REMOVAL
(BNR)
RESULTS
Phosphorus removal of
50-70%; effluent
concentration: 3 to 4
mg/1.
Nitrogen removal of
60-80%; effluent
concentration below 10
mg/1 during warm weather,
TOWN OF
KILMARNOCK
CITY OF
FREDERICKSBURG
BIOLOGICAL
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
(BPR)
SIMULTANEOUS
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION FOR
BOD REMOVAL
Phosphorus removal of 55
to 60%; effluent
concentration of 3 mg/1.
Incidental nitrogen
removal of 50%
Phosphorus removal of
63%; effluent
concentration of 2.5
mg/1.
In addition, the Hampton Roads Sanitation District has
conducted a year long pilot study of a new version of
biological nutrient removal, which has been named the VIP
process. The existing Lamberts Point plant in Norfolk is
currently being upgraded and expanded with federal grant
funds provided through the VWCB to incorporate this new
5.
-------
method of removing phosphorus and nitrogen. The projected
cost to construct and operate this facility is essentially
equivalent to the cost of secondary treatment.
Each of these technologies should provide municipal and
industrial dischargers with cost effective alternatives for
meeting nutrient removal requirements.
In order to obtain more complete data on the actual
discharge of nutrients from Virginia's municipal and
industrial facilities a Voluntary Nutrient Monitoring
Program began in July 1987. At present 32 municipalities
and 16 industries are participating by analyzing their
wastewater discharges for phosphorus and nitrogen.
In order to address nutrient enrichment problems in the
waters of the Commonwealth, the Virginia Water Control
Board has developed new Water Quality Standards. These
Standards, which designate certain waters as 'nutrient
enriched waters' were approved by the VWCB in March 1988.
Within the Bay watershed nine embaymentsj or tributaries to
the Potomac River are now designated as nutrient enriched
waters. The new designation also includes the entire
Chesapeake Bay and it tributaries to a point five miles
above their respective fall lines with the exception of the
tidal fresh portions of the Mattaponi arid Pamunkey rivers.
The VWCB also approved a Point Source Policy for Nutrient
Enriched Waters which provides for the control of point
source discharges of nutrients to the nutrient enriched
waters. A summary of the Policy requirements are as
follows:
1. Existing discharges authorized to discharge 1 MGD or
more (and new discharges greater than 0.05 MGD) must
meet a monthly average total phosphorus effluent
limitation of 2 mg/1. Existing facilities will have
three years after their permits are amended to meet
this requirement.
2. Those dischargers who voluntarily accept a permit to
meet a monthly average total nitrogen limit of 10 mg/1
during the months of April through October will be
allowed an additional year to meet the Policy
requirements.
6.
-------
o The VWCB and the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources' Division of Soil and Water Conservation have
developed a comprehensive nutrient management strategy to
ensure that management programs for point and nonpoint
sources are conducted in a coordinated fashion.
o Ten major wastewater treatment plants in the Potomac River
basin incorporated various types of nutrient removal during
the 1970s in order to meet state water quality standards.
The cost to upgrade these facilities to advanced treatment
levels exceeded $300 million. Since 1985 several of these
facilities have improved their operations in order to
comply with an effluent phosphorus permit limit of 0.18
mg/1 for discharges to the Potomac Embayments. One
facility, operated by the Upper Occoquan Sanitation
Authority, must meet a weekly average effluent phosphorus
concentration of 0.10 mg/1.
o The most important change included in the June 1988
amendments to the VWCB's Regulation No. 6 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). This action
will strengthen an ongoing program to prevent the discharge
of nutrients and other pollutants from these animal feeding
operations.
Nonpoint Sources
The basic nonpoint pollution control strategy includes the
following components:
1. Pollutant source identification i.e. cropland, urban areas,
forested area, etc.
2. Development of appropriate management strategies or best
management practices (BMPs).
3. Targeted implementation of these practices.
4. Evaluation of the program including load reductions and
cost/benefits and refinement as necessary.
7.
-------
Implementation of this voluntary program is achieved through the
appropriate combination of education and research, technical
assistance and financial incentives. This requires the cooperation
of a number of public and private agencies at the federal, state and
local level. Basic program information in these categories is
summarized below and in further detail in the Conventional Pollutant
Strategy for Agriculture.
Education
Education extends the direct benefit of financial incentives to
landowners beyond the reach of the cost-share program. Unassisted
voluntary installation of BMPs is the only way to substantially
reduce water quality impacts within an annual cost-share budget of
$1,200,000. In an effort to reach audiences in all age groups,
education initiatives developed between 1985-88 include the
categories of media exposure, special events/items and awards
programs. Examples of each are:
New releases, articles, public service announcements, radio
programs, and presentations
Slide shows
Brochures, bumper stickers, etc.
Virginia Natural Resources Conservation Week
Rotating tabletop display
Rainfall simulator
Conservation tours of farms
Youth Conservation Camp
Governor's Model Clean Water Farm Awards Program
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance refers to the human resources involved in
the design, inspection and installation of both structural and
management BMPs. To date 5 additional SCS personnel and 27 Division
of Soil and Water Conservation funded personnel are in the 25 Soil
and Water Conservation Districts within the Bay to assist in the
implementation of this program. Additional support technical staff
are in the headquarters office of SCS and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation.
8.
-------
Financial Incentives
Land-use programs traditionally offer financial incentives to
encourage participation in a program at low or no cost. Thereafter,
eligibility may be curtailed and the landowner installs and maintains
that practice without assistance. It was estimated that in 1984 $170
million in BMPs was needed in Virginia's Chesapeake basin. The
expenditure of $1.2 million per year doesn't "buy" soil conservation,
but hopefully installs sufficient BMPs in a water quality targeted
fashion to allow the technical assistance and education elements of
our program to promote far wider acceptance of selected BMPs. The
voluntary expansion of this program is presently impossible to track,
but estimates are that as many as 60% of all BMPs are installed
without financial assistance.
Research
Education, technical assistance and financial incentives are
focused and implemented most efficiently through a dynamic and state
of the art research program. Through the use of geographic
information systems (VirGIS) and modeling techniques, geographical
regions are being assessed and ranked according to the pollution
potential. This capability provides the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation with the ability to distinguish potentially
high-priority farms from low-priority farms. Outreach resources such
as education and active recruitment are then targeted to
high-priority areas. Individual cost-share requests are ranked on
the basis of cost and pollution reduction algorithms developed in the
research program. This type of ranking promotes overall BMP
efficiency with regard to limited cost-share resources.
Our calculations confirm that the major pollutant reduction
impact during this phase is due to the 6 Conservation Reserve Program
sign-ups between 1986 and 1988.
Installations as a result of these sign-ups will convert
approximately 24,448 acres of highly erodible cropland in the
Chesapeake drainage basin to grass or trees. This is the major
measurable impact during this time period.
TABLES 1 AND 2 PRESENT THE ESTIMATED NUTRIENT LOADS FOR POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCES AT THE END OF PHASE I.
9.
-------
D. Nutrient Reduction Activities - Phase II (July 1988 through
December 1991)
Point Sources
o The major activity in the area of point source nutrient
removal during this period will focus on implementing the
Point Source Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters. Under
the Policy 19 municipalities and at least 5 industries will
be impacted by the phosphorus removal requirements. Since
the Policy allows up to 3 years for the dischargers to
upgrade their facilities, most of these dischargers should
be in compliance with their phosphorus requirements by 1991
or shortly thereafter.
o The Point Source Policy contains the option of extending
compliance with the requirements of the Policy for up to
one year if an owner agrees to meet a seasonal total
nitrogen limit of 10 mg/1. It is not known at this time
how many dischargers may elect to include nitrogen removal
as outlined in the Policy.
A recent study sponsored by 12 owners of 22 major
wastewater treatment facilities indicated the most cost
effective approach to meeting the requirements of the Point
Source Policy was biological phosphorus removal (BPR)
followed by chemical polishing. For the 16 facilities in
the study that need to upgrade to meet the Policy
requirements, the estimated capital cost is approximately
$21 million. Twelve of the facilities were identified as
possible candidates for using the BPR approach. A
significant finding of Virginia's Nutrient Removal
Demonstration Program indicates that using BNR, even if
just designed and operated primarily for phosphorus
removal, may also result in significant nitrogen removal
during warmer weather.
Thus, whether a discharger volunteers to install biological
nitrogen removal (BNR) to meet seasonal nitrogen limits or
uses BPR for phosphorus removal a significant reduction in
nitrogen from point sources is anticipated.
o Effluent requirements for ammonia-nitrogen should become
effective during this period for a number of point source
dischargers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed based upon
ammonia toxicity or nitrogenous oxygen demand
considerations:
1. The Upper James River Estuary Plan proposes that
major municipal and industrial dischargers between
10.
-------
Richmond and Hopewell provide varying degrees of
nitrification.
2. The Rappahannock Water Quality Management Plan
contains the requirement that any new discharge or
expansion of an existing major discharge in the
Fredericksburg area must provide nitrification.
3. The ongoing reevaluation of the Potomac Embayment
Standards may require certain dischargers to provide
nitrification.
Identification of treatment facilities upgrading for
nitrification is an important consideration in planning to
meet the 40% reduction target for nitrogen. In general, a
facility that upgrades to provide for seasonal or year
round nitrification will invest a major portion of the
capital cost needed to achieve seasonal or year round
nitrogen removal - if BNR technology is used. In addition,
providing BNR for nitrogen removal may save on operating
costs since aeration requirements are usually reduced with
the BNR process when compared to operation of a standard
nitrification process. Thus, treatment facilities that are
planning upgrades to meet nitrification requirements will
be encouraged to consider the possible need for nitrogen
removal in the future.
Construction of the Virginia Initiative Plant should be
completed toward the end of the period. Operation of the
VIP process will provide for the cost effective removal of
phosphorus and nitrogen at this 40 MGD facility. In
addition, the 15 MGD HRSD-York River plant demonstration
project for BNR should continue operation during this
period.
The VWCB will amend NPDES permits to require monitoring for
phosphorus and nitrogen in accordance with the Point Source
Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters. This data will
improve the VWCB's ability to track progress toward the 40%
reduction target, and aid in establishing future nutrient
control measures.
The VWCB administers the Revolving Loan Fund program in
Virginia for wastewater treatment facilities. In order to
assist municipalities in meeting nutrient removal
requirements the rating system used to prioritize projects
for funding can incorporate additional rating points for
projects proposing to use either phosphorus or nitrogen
removal.
11.
-------
o Any nitrogen control program at Virginia's point sources
will require a significant expenditure of capital funds.
Cost estimates for some facilities range from $20 to 40
million to provide seasonal nitrogen removal. Providing
nitrogen removal for the entire year would add
significantly to these cost estimates. Given the impact
such an expenditure of resources would have on local
communities, the Commonwealth will evaluate the
establishment of a cost share program to assist
municipalities in financing these improvements.
o The 1988-90 biennium budget includes funding for a number
of programs that will directly benefit Virginia's nutrient
management strategy:
1. Virginia's program of full scale demonstration
projects for biological nutrient removal (BNR) will
continue. This program will evaluate the impact of
the phosphate detergent ban on the operation of BNR
technology. Also, the operational capability of BNR
technology to provide for seasonal, and possibly year
round, nitrogen removal will be demonstrated.
2. Funding has also been provided for engineering studies
to identify where cost effective nutrient removal can
be implemented at Virginia wastewater plants.
3. In order to improve upon estimates of nutrient
loadings to the Bay an enhanced fall line monitoring
program will be initiated to supplement ongoing
monitoring activities. The program, which will focus
on the James and Rappahannock river basins, is
scheduled to begin early in FY89.
Nonpoint Sources
New initiatives to take place during this time period for
nonpoint source control include:
1. The addition of 15 new personnel dedicated to nutrient
management of animal wastes and commercial fertilizer. The
additional personnel will complement and increase the
coordination of existing programs with the Cooperative
Extension Service and Soil Conservation Service. This will
lead to reductions of nutrients to the Bay, through better
utilization of animal manures and commercial fertilizer,
during phase II and beyond.
2. Improved targeting of cost-share and ACP program funding by
12.
-------
VirGIS
3. Potential increase in Chesapeake Bay funding or separate
funding under Section 319 of P.L. 100-1
4. A revised agreement with the Cooperative Extension Service
which includes education and technical assistance to
homeowners regarding lawn fertilizer and chemical use
5. The addition of 13 new personnel to better implement and
enforce the Erosion and Sediment Control Law
6. Implementation of Section 405 of P.L. 100-1 which
establishes a permit requirement for stormwater discharges
from systems serving populations in excess of 100,000
(1991) and 250,000 (1990). This potentially impacts 10
cities or counties in excess of 100,000 and 3 cities or
counties in excess of 250,000 population in the Bay
drainage. The number of industrial discharges affected is
presently unknown.
7. Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Sec.
10-313 et seq., Code of Virginia) through the Chesapeake
Bay Local Assistance Department. This newly created agency
must "promulgate regulations which establish criteria for
use by local governments in Tidewater Virginia (as defined
in the law) to determine the ecological and geographic
extent of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas..." and "...in
granting, denying or modifying requests to rezone,
subdivide or to use and develop land in these areas."
These criteria are to promote the following:
1. Protection of existing high quality state waters and
restoration of all other state waters to a condition
or quality that will permit all reasonable public uses
and will support the propagation and growth of all
aquatic life, including game fish, which might
reasonably be expected to inhabit them.
2. Safeguarding the clean waters of the Commonwealth from
pollution.
3. Prevention of any increase in pollution.
4. Reduction of existing pollution.
5. Promotion of water resource conservation in order to
provide for the health, safety and welfare of the
present and future citizens of the Commonwealth.
These regulations must be promulgated by July 1, 1989, and
13.
-------
localities must use them to designate Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas within their jurisdictions not later
than July 1, 1990. In addition, the act requires that the
Board shall, upon request by a locality, review any
application for the use or development of land in that
locality for consistency with the provisions of the Act and
regulations within 90 days of such a request.
8. A Flood Control Policies Study was requested by HJR 114 for
preparation by joint legislative committee. This study will
inventory and analyze existing flood control policies in
the Commonwealth and make recommendations if necessary for
improvements. It is expected that a large part of this
report will relate to stormwater management controls for
both quantity and quality. This report will be available
in January 1989.
9. Due to recent efforts by the Commonwealth and others, the
bid pool designations in Virginia have been changed to
carve out the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. This area now
has a bid cap approximately 20 dollars per acre higher than
the remainder of the State. This is expected to increase
CRP sign-ups in the future.
10. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Section
10.1-560, et. seq., Code of Virginia) was modified under
two separate bills (S.B. 152 and S.B. 326) during the 1988
session of the General Assembly to improve the enforcement
and administration of the overall E&S program.
11. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation will implement
a program utilizing state funds to encourage the conversion
of additional acres from cropland to trees or grass through
the USDA Conservation Reserve Program. Incentive payments
will be offered to landowners for the conversion of
cropland identified as having high pollution potential.
First priority will be given to those areas located in the
coastal plain. A bonus payment will be offered for
conversion to trees. A minimum of $40,000 per year will be
diverted to this program through 1991.
It is not possible to project the direct watejr quality
improvement impact of these new initiatives at this time. Data will
be collected to assist in a look-back evaluation in 1991, at the end
of this phase. Projections for this phase are based only upon level
funding of existing programs and the results of the 6 CRP sign-ups
from phase I. The continuation of Farm Bill planning activities
during this time period is critical to the assumptions for
improvements projected for Phase III of this program.
14.
-------
TABLES 1 AND 2 PRESENT THE PROJECTED NUTRIENT LOADS FOR POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCES AT THE END OF PHASE II. A review of these projected
loads leads to the following findings:
1. The 40% reduction target for phosphorus from point sources
is expected to be achieved based upon projected reductions
in phosphorus due to the phosphate detergent ban and the
Point Source Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters.
2. A significant amount of the point source nitrogen load will
be reduced by the activities described above. However,
there are too many unknown factors to predict the extent of
these nitrogen reductions with any degree of certainty at
this time. It is anticipated that additional point source
nitrogen reductions will be needed during Phase III.
3. The reduction in total controllable nonpoint source loads
is projected to be approximately 7.6% for both phosphorus
and nitrogen. However, the percent reductions in the
portion of the nonpoint source load from agriculture (crop
and pasture) and animal waste that are currently targeted
by Virginia's nonpoint source management programs is much
greater. Crop and pasture loads will be reduced by 15% to
20% in most river basins for both nutrients. Under the
animal waste program the percent reductions exceed 30% in
the Rappahannock basin and 13% to 15% in the York and
Potomac.
15.
-------
E. Nutrient Reduction Activities - Phase III (1992 Through 2000)
Point Sources
o A nitrogen regulation necessary to meet the Virginia target
will be adopted and implemented during this phase. The
adoption of this regulation will follow the procedures of
the Virginia Administrative Process Act.
o In order to achieve a 40% reduction of nitrogen from point
sources all of Virginia's major municipal treatment plants
below the fall line would have to install nitrogen removal
facilities to be operated throughout the entire year.
Effluent monitoring conducted during Phase II will indicate
which industrial facilities would also need to remove
nitrogen.
Removing nitrogen throughout the entire year is much more
costly than seasonal nitrogen removal during warmer
weather. Such a large scale wastewater treatment program
would require several hundred million dollars in capital
investment.
Given the impact such an expenditure of resources would
have on local communities, the VWCB will support various
means to assist dischargers through establishing
appropriate standards, setting reasonable permit
requirements, and providing financial aid for
municipalities.
o As the VWCB continues to administer the Revolving Loan Fund
program for wastewater treatment facilities, projects will
be subject to a priority rating system for funding that can
incorporate additional rating points for projects proposing
to use either phosphorus or nitrogen removal.
o Under the Point Source Policy adopted in 1988 dischargers
who voluntarily accept permit limits for seasonal nitrogen
removal have up to four years from their permit amendment
date to meet the phosphorus and nitrogen requirements ofthe
Policy. Those dischargers accepting these limits would be
expected to complete their upgrades during this period.
o Effluent requirements for nitrogen may become effective
during this period at additional point source dischargers
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed baseid upon results of
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations for ammonia toxicity or
because of nitrogenous oxygen demand considerations.
16.
-------
Nonpoint Sources
Following a re-evaluation of the overall program in 1991, new
programs to address additional sources of nonpoint pollution as
refinements of existing programs may occur. It is not possible to
predict these conditions at the present time. One major initiative
that is predictable is the impact of the 1985 Food Security Act (Farm
Bill). Approximately 1,257,658 acres of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay
cropland have been identified as highly erodible land and have been
located by county by the SCS. Conservation plans must be developed
and approved by local Soil and Water Conservation Districts for all
highly erodible land by January 1, 1990. These plans must be
implemented no later than January 1, 1995 in order to maintain
eligibility for USDA benefits such as farm loans and commodity price
supports. We have assumed that a major portion of the highly
erodible cropland will be controlled as a result of farmer dependence
on USDA program income. Beginning with the 1991 adjusted baseload,
it was assumed that 25% of the needed practices would be installed on
this land each year through 1995. County based load reductions
incorporating soil erosion severity ("T" values) were calculated and
carried forward through the year 2000. Data developed in the
construction of Tables 1 and 2 show that implementation of the
conservation compliance provisions of the Farm Bill will determine
the overall success of the cropland program. Theoretically, nutrient
reductions at the edge of the field in 1991 will range from 5 to
21%. By the year 2000, this range will be from 55 to 97%. Due to
the adjustment of cropland as a component of the total nonpoint
source controllable load, even this degree of control only results in
reductions ranging from 7.7 to 33%. The total nonpoint source
reduction in Virginia due to agricultural programs is predicted to be
a minimum of 25.1% for nitrogen and 25.1% for phosphorous in the year
2000. Additional strategies needed to make the full 40% target are
reviewed in the "Discussion of Results" section.
TABLES 1 AND 2 PRESENT THE PROJECTED NUTRIENT LOADS RESULTING FROM
THE ADDITIONAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL ACTIVITIES FOR POINT AND NONPOINT
SOURCES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED DURING THIS PHASE.
17.
-------
Discussion of Point Source Results
Table 3 presents the specific point source nutrient reduction
plan for implementing this strategy.
Phase I lists the plants that have already implemented some form
of nutrient removal.
Plants listed under Phase II are those impacted by the Point
Source Nutrient Policy. Plants intending to use chemical addition
will only provide phosphorus removal. Those plants where biological
nutrient removal will be used have the option of providing both
phosphorus and nitrogen removal.
Under Phase III all major treatment facilities will have to
provide year round nitrogen removal to achieve the 40% reduction
target for point sources in Virginia.
Discussion of Nonpoint Source Results
It is apparent that Virginia is making significant progress
toward the 40% nutrient nonpoint source reduction target, and will
even exceed the target for both nutrients in the Rappahannock basin.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the total data analyzed to date
regarding cropland, pastureland and animal waste controls. First,
cropland/pastureland components of the nonpoint load in the 5 river
basins range from 14% in the Potomac to 48% in the Rappahannock.
Similarly, animal waste contributions range from 24% in the James to
47% in the Potomac. Present program targeting emphasizes
cropland/pastureland practices in the Rappahannock, York and lower
Potomac and animal wastes practices in the upper Potomac. Higher
success rates in the Rappahannock results are due principally to
projected installations of animal waste controls. The progress in
the Potomac can only be evaluated by summing the results of all 4
jurisdictions, however this analysis reconfirms the existing
targeting strategy for Virginia. For further success to be derived
from installation of these practices, it appears that additional
funds will have to be provided in the James and Coastal basins for
all three practice categories.
With the high degree of nonpoint impact as a result of
agriculture it is important to understand that the approximately 25%
nutrient savings calculated does not account for impacts as a result
of the majority of the Phase II activities or for unreported
voluntary practice installations. Increasingly accurate accounting
procedures for these activities will certainly increase this figure.
Beyond these traditional agricultural controls, it appears that
new emphasis needs to be placed upon better identification and
18.
-------
characterization of the full range of loads in the designated
nonpoint source component of each river basin. Loads not subject to
agricultural BMP controls (including urban and natural background)
range from 12% in the Rappahannock to 53% in the Coastal basin.
Future grant applications will identify a variety of work in
non-agricultural sources.
Other programs already exist to reduce other nonpoint sources,
but have not received credit in this analysis. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Program and its stormwater management provision
provide mitigation of nutrient inputs as a result of new construction
as an example.
Significant programs are in place or will be implemented as
detailed in the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan,
which will be available in August 1988. Some examples of these
programs and commitments are:
1. Forestry
a. 40% reduction of nutrients and sediment to the Bay
by the year 2000 to include 10% by 1991 and 30% by
1995 or mandatory BMPs will be recommended by the
Department of Forestry.
2. Urban and Construction
a. Develop or expand education and certification
programs.
b. Establish a citizen complaint "hot line".
c. Improve load estimation procedures.
d. Review all 171 local programs on a minimum 3 year
cycle.
3. Mining
a. Include water quality goals in prioritization of
areas for reclamation activities.
b. Reclaim 25 abandoned sites each year.
4. Land Treatment and Disposal
a. Issue new or revised regulations for application of
sludge and disposal of solid waste by mid-1989.
19.
-------
5. Hvdrologic Modifications
a. Goal to have permitted hydrologic modification work
performed utilizing effective BMPs to reduce water
quality impacts.
6. Other Sources
a. Program to identify and quantify other sources of
nutrients will be initiated on an interagency basis.
As stated in the introductory material in Phase I, the strategy
to approach nonpoint source pollution requires that source
identification continue. This requires a better characterization of
the impacts of urban runoff, forestal practices, land fill and septic
tank drainfield siting and operation and shoreline erosion, as
examples. Management strategies and improved BMPs need to be
designed and the entire program implemented in a cost-effective,
targeted fashion. Research and data collection are planned for each
of these sources during Phase II.
Upgraded fall line and ambient monitoring is underway and will
provide useful information for decision making in 1991. Targeting
and tracking of all of these programs will be continuously improved
by the use of our geographic information system, or VirGIS. By July
1988, 38 of the 62 counties in the Bay drainage will have been taken
into the system with incremental addition in each year thereafter.
This system will potentially be useful in combination with the
revised watershed model to greatly improve our decision make
capabilities in 1991 on a river basin basis.
Conclusions
Virginia is committed to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the
goal of 40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous by the year 2000.
Significant progress is being made toward reducing nonpoint source
impacts by agricultural controls, but other nonpoint sources remain
to be better characterized and evaluated for their potential impacts
upon the Bay. Better evaluation of program success is expected to be
possible in 1991 once the 3-D and watershed models are available in
combination with on-going improvements in data as discussed
previously.
The data presented herein are useful for developing program
management and targeting strategies and for providing a relative
indicator of progress achieved.
We will continue to diligently work toward the collection of
more accurate and comprehensive data and to improve the estimates on
a continuing basis.
20.
-------
t
b
E
e
3 '
£
•3
L
;
»
2
i
*
c
5
rj
i f
5 E
3 1
g
=
X
y
fc
i
5
*J
^
I
5
n
i
A
8 ;
Q '
1
i
II
S3
^ 8
j ?
1 jj
1
a
s
1*4
-
||
1 a
a g
us
q
*tf
a
s
2 C
0 <
p £
U>
H C
4 g
5 r-
1
I-
a
0
s
r-
s
*"*
r>
5
d
0
^S
CM
rH
CM
rH
0
n
0
in
CM
VO
r>
CM
r.
rH
d
s
rH
O
to
in
o
0
00
o
d
§
CM
0
in
a
d
in
o
^i
CM
0
in
n
H
O
a
rH
d
CM
Ot
O
rH
a
o
rH
d
r-
rH
n
O
a
d
vo
0
CM
in
0
m
00
rH
O
CM
f
n
d
in
CM
,,
VO
0
n
o
rH
oo
£
"
o
in
Ot
d
00
r>
to
H
s
oo
r>
in
vo
Ol
o
s
Ot
M
0
rH
0
rH
8
o
Ol
a
d
o
H
0
rH
8
d
o>
a
0
00
r>
o
rH
00
0
o
Ot
d
n
VO
CO
•»
Ot
CM
^
rH
in
CM
in
t-
in
in
VO
CM
CM
rH
CM
CM
in
t>!
s
r^
o
vo
r^
n
n
s
in
to
co
CM
^
oo
to
CM
rv
i
g
a
I
p
g
9
e
c
1
l-ll
8!
11 g
3
3 ^
§ *
J 1 »«
12 uj
R S
p 2
N
3
SOW! i
Hvnoa:
82
Sw
sl
rt\ ^
OtrH-
rH
to
to
CM
CM
rH
in
CM
5
rH
O
Ot
CM
O
to
m
rH
o
a
o
fs»
rH
VO
O
rH
O
CM
O
VO
rH
O
in
rH
in
**
g
rH
rH
Ot
*T
O
f
GO
0
i
0
8
o
VO
in
*r
co
o>
o
Ot
•*
rH
M
M
8
£
r»*
r \
S
Q
1
00
CO
Ot
rH
^
a
H
M
8
g
O
O
Q
CM
1
CM
Ot
Ot
rH
§
3
a
M
M
M
H
g
g
-------
ID
vo
in
o
o
rH
VO
in
co
r-
in
r>
CO O
OX CO
r> ci
tr> •*
vo r>
CM o
O r-t
O)
o
r>
8
•
in
en
co
in
r-
01
vo
co
r-
o
co
o
01
a
o
to
r>
vo
CO
O
n
in
co
en
in
r> r> 01
VO
co
vo
H SI
co
CO
a
vo
in
o
en
o
co
vo
in
in
o
ri
n
in
en
01
vo
CO
in
co
o H
o
in
in
01
OJ
•*r
o
01
01
en
en
vo
CO
*»
01
01
n
r>
0
r>
in
en
n
i-t
d
CO
0
r>
•-(
r4
n
en
o
en
r-t
H
CO
r-
H
r>
a
en
r-
0
01
r>
01
r»
in
in
0
in
en
o
in
TC
01
2?
VO
vo
CO
r>
01
VO
n
01
01
a
r»
r>
co
r-
o
en
en
in
r- in
en o
§
o en
en vo
r> in
en
co
en
in
01
vo
a
CO
en
IT)
8
VO
01
O)
-------
TABLE 3
IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY
VIRGINIA'S POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT REDUCTION MAN
PHASE I
IMPLEMENTATION
PHASE II
IMPLEMENTATION
PHASE III
IMPLEMENTATION
* Phosphate detergent
ban (all STPs)
* P removal at:
Arlington
Alexandria
Fairfax- L Hht. Cr.
Fairfax- L. Pot.
UOSA
Pr. Wm.- Mboney
Dale City #1
Dale City #2
Quantico
Staff.- Aquia
Kilmarnock (demo)
Fredericksburg
(demo)
* P & N removal at:
HRSD- York River
(demo)
All Phase I actions
plus:
- P & N removal with
BNR at:
HRSD- VIP
HRSD- York River
Staff.- Falls Run
Staff.- Aquia
Spots.- FMC
Fredericksburg
Massaponax
Ches.- Proctors Cr.
Petersburg
HRSD- Williamsburg
HRSD- James River
HRSD- Boat Harbor
HRSD- Nansemond
HRSD- Army Base
HRSD- Ches./Eliz.
Ft. Eustis
- P removal at:
Richmond
Henrico
Ches.- Falling Cr.
Phillip Morris
American Tobacco
Smithf ield Foods
Smithf ield Packing
Holly Farms
Ches. Corp.
- P removal possible
at 15 additional
industries depending
upon monitoring
results
Phase I & II
actions plus
year round
nitrogen removal
with BNR at all
remaining 19
plants below the
fall line with
flows greater
than 1.0 M3D
(identified
sources of N).
N removal
possible at 15
additional
industries
depending upon
monitoring
results.
-------
District of Columbia
Nutrient Strategy
1985 Nutrient Loading*
Point Sources
Blue Plains
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Urban Runoff
Nitrogen Phosphorus
(pounds/year) (pounds/years)
14,099,950
148,400
290,000
114,610
36,800
70,000
* Estimates based upon D.C.R.A. and DPW Calculations.
-------
Base Year
Point Source Loadings
The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant has provided nitrification
and phosphorus removal to a high degree since 1981. This has
resulted in a total nitrogen removal of 44% and a total phosphorus
removal of 98% prior to the 1985 base year. These levels of removal
are only achieved at one other treatment plant in the Chesapeake Bay
drainage basin.
The loadings for Blue Plains were calculated from the discharge
monitoring reports for 1985. They represent a flow of 300.6 MGD at
15.4 mg/1 nitrogen and 0.12 mg/1 phosphorus. Blue Plains is a
regional treatment facility serving the District and portions of
Maryland and Virginia.
Combined Sewer Overflows
The District began in 1978 a study of the combined sewer system to
determine remedial measures which could be implemented. Thus the
base year, 1985, represents a period prior to Phase I construction
but after enormous improvements had been already obtained.
The loadings for the CSO category were calculated from overflow
volumes and average concentrations of the volumes. No attempt was
made to account for the first flush concentrations in either the 1985
loadings or the removals achieved by the CSO abatement program. The
abatement program will capture almost all of the first flush,
therefore, the calculation likely under predicts removal percentages
slightly.
Urban Runoff
Prior to 1985, the District had in place a program to control runoff
during construction projects, with about 1,500 erosion control
permits issued each year.
The urban runoff was calculated from the 1985 rainfall, estimated
runoff coefficients for non CSO areas, and average concentrations
previously measured in the District. Nitrogen loads are 10.6 pounds
per acre per year and phosphorus loads are 2.2 pounds per acre per
year. No attempt was made to subtract the uncontrollable load nor to
break the load down into land uses. Additionally, the calculation on
effectiveness of BMP's does not account for changes in land use.
2.
-------
Post 1985 to July 1988
Point Sources
The District enacted a Phosphate Detergent Ban which reduced influent
concentrations to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant by about
20%. This has resulted in reduced chemical addition and some
operating cost savings.
Combined Sewer Overflow
Since 1985 construction has been initiated on Phase I of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement Project. Phase I will be completed during
1988 with the reductions projected to be 25% (35,600 pounds) for
nitrogen and 55% (20,000 pounds) for phosphorus.
Total District costs for Phase I are $9.35 million.
Urban Runoff
In January 1988, the District promulgated regulations requiring BMP's
for all new development and redevelopment. Between 1985 and January
1988, seven development projects voluntarily installed BMP's.
3.
-------
July 1988 to December 1991
Point Sources
The District of Columbia will conduct a feasibility study of
alternative nitrogen removal systems. The proposed study will
specifically examine the effectiveness of various nitrogen removal
systems in achieving benefits in Chesapeake Bay water quality.
Combined Sewer Overflows
The District will determine by additional studies if the conventional
pollutant loads warrant further reductions.
Non-point sources
The stormwater regulations are projected to affect 1,400 projects
resulting in 525 acres brought under BMP controls. The assumed
removal efficiency of 40% will result in 2,220 pounds of nitrogen and
535 pounds of phosphorus removed from the annual loadings. Two
demonstration BMPs will have been constructed: Watts Branch bank
stabilization and River Terrace housing development stormwater
treatment. Approximately 400 pounds of nitrogen and 100 pound of
phosphorus may be removed from the annual loadings at a projected
cost of $650,000.
4.
-------
Goal Achievement
Point Sources
With the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant having an average
flow of 300 MGD in 1985, the before treatment nitrogen load was about
25 million pounds. The CSO and urban runoff loads of nitrogen were
about 438 thousand pounds or about 2 percent of the total. After
treatment at Blue Plains, 44% of the nitrogen was removed leaving a
total load within the District of 14.1 million pounds. The District
of Columbia will further study the economics and feasibility of
implementing additional nitrogen removal at Blue Plains. The
District is committed to implementation of a Basinwide Strategy to
equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40% reduction of
nitrogen entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay.
No further reduction of phosphorus is deemed feasible at Blue Plains
beyond the 98% present removal. This half of the goal is
unequivocally achieved.
Combined Sewer Overflows
The Phase I CSO program will result in achieving a 25% reduction in
nitrogen loads and a 55% reduction in phosphorus load. These
reductions are based on the degree of removal of flows rerouted to
Blue Plains for treatment. Phase II, if it is needed for
conventional pollutants, will result in about an additional 6%
nitrogen and 14% phosphorus removal.
Urban Runoff
At the projected rate of 150 acres per year of land with BMP's
applied and the assumed 40% reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus, it
is apparent that by the year 2000 the regulatory program will at the
most only achieve a 5% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loads
from urban runoff in the District. The Anacostia Restoration Funds,
implementation grants and Section 319 program funds may achieve an
additional 5% reduction.
5.
-------
Summary of Goal Achievement Needs
Achieving the goal of 40% reduction of phosphorus from point sources
has been met based upon the "equity" interpretation of the Bay
Agreement. In regards to a 40% reduction of nitrogen from point
sources in the District, a final decision will be made after the 1991
reevaluation based upon cost effectiveness and water quality
benefits. The District is proceeding to investigate the different
nitrogen removal technologies so that this information will be
available for this evaluation. The time period between 1991 and the
year 2000 is adequate for design and construction of nitrogen removal
facilities. The District is committed to implementation of a
Basinwide Strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a
40% reduction of nitrogen entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay.
For the CSO loadings, the meeting of the goal is basically dependent
upon the degree of treatment provided at Blue Plains. This is
because the program reroutes flows to Blue Plains. At the existing
levels of treatment, the phosphorus reduction will be easily
achieved; however, there will be about a 9 to 15% short fall of
nitrogen. This short fall will be investigated during the evaluation
of the need for Phase II of the CSO abatement program.
Achieving a 40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus from urban
runoff in the District will require modifications or additions to the
existing program. One modification being explored is to monitor the
per acre loadings from different land uses such as residential and
commercial and to concentrate discretionary funds from the
implementation grants, D.C. Anacostia Restoration Funds and Section
319 funds on BMP's for those land uses with the highest per acre
loading. A second option under evaluation is end of pipe treatment
for major storm sewers. Several demonstration projects are presently
being planned. A third option is to reestablish aquatic vegetation
in the Anacostia and Potomac to provide instream assimilation and
buffering of nutrient loads. Pilot projects are expected to be
implemented by 1991. Based upon the results of the existing programs
and the pilot projects, modifications will be made to the urban
runoff nutrient control program in order to meet the 40% reduction
goal.
6.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000
Introduction
On December 14, 1987, Governor Schaefer, Governor Baliles of Virginia,
Governor Casey of Pennsylvania and Mayor Barry of the District of Columbia
signed the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which committed their jurisdictions
to the ambitious goal of reducing nutrient loads entering the Chesapeake Bay
by 40% by the year 2000. Water quality investigations and resource
assessments conducted by EPA and the states since 1970 have revealed that the
"health" of the Chesapeake Bay is deteriorating and that one of the principal
causes of this deterioration is the excessive contribution of nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen) to the Bay from point sources and nonpoint sources.
A recently-completed water quality modeling analysis of the Bay conducted
by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) indicates that a significant
improvement in the Bay's water quality could be achieved if overall nutrient
inputs could be reduced by 40%. According to the model results, a 40%
reduction in the nitrogen and phosphorus load, from both point sources and
nonpoint sources, would result in a reduction in the levels of algae in the
Bay (one measure of the degree of nutrient enrichment) and in an increase in
the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the Bay's bottom waters. Hence, the
40% load reduction goal set forth in the 1987 Bay Agreement is derived
directly from the CBP's two-dimensional model of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay,
a model which will be superseded by a more sophisticated three-dimensional
model in the early 1990's.
The purpose of this report is to set forth a strategy toward point and
nonpoint source control measures that Maryland will pursue (in cooperation
with local governments and private landowners) to achieve these load reduction
goals for both nitrogen and phosphorus by the year 2000.
Background: Dealing With Uncertainty
Maryland's efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay from pollution go back
literally for decades. However, only in recent times (since 1975) have the
importance of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Bay's current deterioration been
recognized and addressed through sewage discharge policies and permit
actions. Even today, uncertainty remains among scientists and managers over
the relative importance of nitrogen vs. phosphorus in causing the Bay's
problems. Furthermore, the Bay's response (in terms of algae and D.O.) to
specific nutrient load reductions can be estimated only with imprecision.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 2
Because of the complexity of the physical, biological and chemical
processes affecting the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, mathematical
models, such as the one recently developed by EPA, must be understood to be
gross simplifications, subject to significant error. Modeling analysis of
this type for estuaries is in its infancy. Recognizing this fact, EPA has
already begun work on developing a "second generation" model of the Chesapeake
Bay. Completion of this three-dimensional, time-variable model is scheduled
for 1991. It is conceivable that projections made with that model could
subsequently result in redirection of the State's nutrient control program.
Separate from the uncertainties about Bay nutrient processes, we also lack
a strong data base about the relative cost-effectiveness and reliability of
some of the alternative approaches to nutrient management and control, and we
cannot be certain how some of the proposed new programs will be received by
the public.
Despite the uncertainties involved in the modeling results and in proposed
new techniques, there is a need to get on with the process of nitrogen and
phosphorus reduction for the Bay. The 2-D model of the Bay does show the
direction we need to go—and that some significant reductions in nutrients
will be necessary to bring about the improvements in water quality needed to
enhance the status of living resources populations.
A Phased Approach
In light of the uncertainties discussed above, Maryland proposes a
"phased" approach to nutrient load reduction that involves progressively more
comprehensive policies and actions as our understanding of these issues
improves. As indicated in the 1987 Bay Agreement, the states and EPA will
reconsider the load reduction goals at the end of 1991. Maryland plans to
reevaluate this program in detail at that time. Therefore, Maryland and the
other states have agreed on three "phases" that reflect both the scheduled
1991 reevaluation and the initiation of the agreement at the end of 1987: 1985
through 1987, 1988 through 1991, and 1992 through 1999.
Phase I includes all nutrient-reduction actions, both point and nonpoint,
either completed or funded between 1985-1987. Phase I essentially consists of
all of the nutrient reduction measures required and promoted by the State
policies and regulatory actions already in place. On the point source side,
this would include our longstanding Upper Bay Phosphorus Policy, the Patuxent
River Nutrient Strategy, the statewide Phosphate Detergent Ban, the Potomac
River Strategy, etc., as well as upgrades at sewage treatment plants (STPs)
and industries not explicitly intended for nutrient load reduction. Load
reductions are estimated based on actual measurements of discharged effluent
or on reasonable estimates of effluent quality at plants where direct data are
lacking. On the nonpoint source side, it includes the estimated reductions
resulting from agricultural "best management practices" (BMPs), retirement of
some highly-erodible cropland from production through the Federal Conservation
Reserve Program, and urban BMPs installed under Maryland's modest urban
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 3
stormwater "retrofit" grant program. Phase I also includes a variety of
outreach and information dissemination activities in the agricultural arena,
such as education, demonstration and technical assistance efforts, which take
place independently of cost-share programs.
Phase II of Maryland's proposed strategy (1986-1991) incorporates four
principal components:
1. The continuation of existing (pre-agreement) policies, controls and
management activities for point and nonpoint sources. These are
equivalent to Phase I activities, and are believed to be essential
elements of our overall approach to controlling nutrients.
2. Implementation of an array of promising new control activities,
specifically intended to work toward nutrient load reduction.
3. Continuation of research, and initiation of new investigations to
provide information necessary for evaluating and effectively
implementing management alternatives.
4. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and socio-economic viability of
alternative control activities, in conjunction with the overall re-
evaluation of the 40% goal and progress toward that goal, in 1991.
Not only will Phase II actions result in significant reductions in both
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay from Maryland sources, but they also
will provide badly needed information to facilitate modifications in Baywide
nutrient reduction strategies following the 1991 reevaluation. No attempt is
made during Phase II to "trade off" point source controls vs. nonpoint source
controls, because there now exists too little accurate information about the
relative benefits, costs and feasibility of many prospective control
mechanisms. Maryland is fully committed to working toward interstate
consensus on these and other technical issues identified in Chapter 4 of the
Baywide Nutrient Plan (see main report), and will participate in all of the
aspects of this process, including the data compilation and analytical efforts
required.
An early milestone established for Phase II is the production of a
detailed implementation plan for Mary! and1s nutrient reduction strategy. The
description of Phases II and III presented subsequently in this document
provides information on the new initiatives and activities needed to achieve
the nutrient goal. Implementation approaches are outlined in concept, but
could not be developed in detail in time for inclusion in the present plan.
Therefore, Maryland intends to complete a detailed nutrient reduction
implementation plan by mid-1989. The implementation plan will specify in
detail the actions needed, the agency responsibilities and the funding
arrangements for each of the Phase II activities and initiatives outlined in
the following pages.
Phase III will consist of actions and programs which Maryland expects to
carry out between 1992-2000. In general, Phase III efforts will involve a
mixture of the kinds of activities outlined for Phase I and II, as needed to
achieve the balance of the reduction goal in a cost-effective manner. Phase
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 4
III will involve two components. Following the 1991 re-evaluation by the
States and EPA, alternative strategies for Phase III will be assessed. This
would include a more rigorous examination of alternative control mechanisms,
both within and between the major source categories of point and nonpoint
sources, and the subsequent development of more specific implementation plans
for each major river basin. This assessment and planning period would then be
followed by the implementation of selected control and management
activities. Details of Phase III of Maryland's nutrient control strategy
cannot be specified with certainty at this time, because they are highly
dependent upon the insights and results of the 1991 reevaluation. What is
presented here is one scenario which appears to be both feasible and
technically promising, in view of our limited ability to predict the benefits,
costs and socio-economic viability of prospective alternatives.
Estimation of 1985 Loadings
Precise estimation of nutrient loads, at the scale of the entire Bay, is
not technically possible at the present time. While nutrient loads from some
point sources can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, the necessary data do
not exist for most dischargers. Confidence limits cannot be placed on
estimates for nonpoint sources without intensive, site-specific monitoring.
Consequently, estimates of nutrient loads to the Bay from the major "source
categories" (i.e., STPs, industry, agriculture, development, and natural cover
types) can only be made by summing numerous values which are of widely varying
precision.
Because of these limitations in accuracy, it is important to clarify the
purpose(s) for which loadings are estimated, and thus characterize the context
in which they can be appropriately used. Maryland recognizes that nutrient
loads to its aquatic systems, including the Bay, have increased through man's
activity, and are adversely affecting desirable attributes of these systems.
Maryland intends to meet its obligations under the 1987 Bay Agreement by
setting load reduction goals for both point sources and nonpoint sources. The
estimates presented in this document are intended to provide a numerical basis
for setting these goals and for establishing a rational accounting procedure
through which progress toward the goals may be measured. These estimates are
based on limited data and represent only the relative loads and reductions
calculable from those data. Their real value and purpose is in suggesting
appropriate control strategies for the present, which can then be studied,
evaluated and refined during Phases II and III. This intention is made
explicit in components 3 and 4, listed in the general description of Phase II
in the preceeding section, "A Phased Approach".
Point source nutrient loads for 1985 and 1987 are summations of observed
average loads from individual dischargers. The best discharge monitoring data
immediately available for these years were used. The quality and quantity of
these data for each discharge ranged from "good" for some dischargers to
essentially nonexistent for others. The data for some large sewage treatment
plants were sufficient to adequately quantify their nutrient loads. However,
loads from most small sewage treatment plants were characterized using assumed
levels of nutrients in their effluent. Direct measurements of nutrient loads
from most industries are generally unavailable; for some industries,
estimates from discharge permit applications provided the only data. A
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 5
Technical Supplement (see below) describes in greater detail the load
estimation process used for point sources.
Nonpoint source (NPS) loads were estimated for all Maryland areas draining
to the Bay. Total loads delivered to estuarine waters in three monitored
tributaries (the Potomac, the Patuxent and the Choptank) were calculated from
Maryland's actual Chesapeake Bay Program monitoring data. Since 1985 was a
relatively "dry" rainfall year for many Maryland tributaries, river inputs
from 1984 (a wet year), 1986 (a dry year for the Potomac), and 1985 were used
to estimate annual input rates more representative of an "average rainfall
year" for the State's land area as a whole. These loads were "partitioned"
among contributing source categories using land use data, associated nutrient
load coefficients, data on animal waste production, and data on point source
discharges within the monitored watersheds. The "river input" monitoring data
were then used to adjust the loading coefficients for each contributing land
use category, by watershed. The adjusted coefficients were subsequently used,
in conjunction with 1985 land use data, to estimate NPS loads from watersheds
for which in-stream monitoring data were not available. (See Technical
Supplement for a more detailed description.)
The approach for estimating NPS nutrient loads used for this plan focuses
on land use/land cover types which fall into the categories of forested,
agricultural and developed land. NPS loads were partitioned among these land
uses. On-site sewage disposal systems, streambank/shoreline erosion, and
other source categories may contribute significant nutrient loads in some
areas. Nutrient loads from on-site disposal systems may be particularly large
in watersheds where they are used extensively, especially where local
conditions result in a high frequency of poorly functioning or failed
systems. Unfortunately, the magnitude of these contributions could not be
estimated for this plan in a manner which is consistent with the estimates for
other sources. During Phase II, Maryland will perform the necessary analyses
to determine the relative importance of these sources. This plan will be
reviewed and modified as new information becomes available that would allow a
sharper focus for targeting nutrient control emphasis and expenditures.
Estimated total nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay from Maryland's point
sources and nonpoint sources for the "baseline year" (1985) are presented in
Figures 1 and 2, for nitrogen and phosphorus respectively. During the
"average rainfall year" depicted by these data, point sources and nonpoint
sources are equally significant contributors of nutrients, on the statewide
level. (The point source:nonpoint source ratio varies greatly among dry,
average and wet years.) In an "average" rainfall year with 1985 land cover,
point sources contributed about 51% of the total N and 43% of total P loads.
As the figures depict, agricultural areas in Maryland contribute about 66% of
the total NPS nitrogen and about 76% of the total NPS phosphorus.
EPA's two-dimensional model of the Bay estimated that a 40% reduction in
"controllable" nonpoint source inputs was sufficient, together with the point
source reduction, to effect Bay improvements. Consistent with EPA's approach,
the non-controllable fraction of nonpoint source loads was taken to be the
estimated nutrient load exported from a Maryland landscape consisting entirely
of "pristine" forest. Nonpoint source loads in excess of these pristine
forest estimates represent the controllable (man-induced, or anthropogenic)
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 6
portion of total NPS loads. Pristine forest loads, calculated for the acreage
associated with each land use, were subtracted from the loads estimated
through the procedure described above, with the difference being defined as
the "controllable" fraction for each NPS category. Maryland interpreted
"controllable" to mean all nonpoint source loads originating in the landscape
due to man's activities, which includes contributions from all agricultural
and developed land. Future enhancement of our NPS estimating procedures may
facilitate inclusion of estimates for other categories (eg., managed forest).
Finally, Maryland's loading goals to be achieved by the year 2000 (to
fulfill the commitment in the Bay Agreement) were calculated as being 60% of
the 1985 N and P inputs estimated for point sources as described above, and
60% of the estimated "1985" N and P inputs from "controllable" nonpoint
sources. (See Table 1; Figures 3 and 4.)
NOTE: Technical Supplement Available
As the discussion of nutrient load estimation suggests, many of the
procedures and calculations that contribute to the nutrient reduction plan are
complicated and technical. Though these details are important in gaining a
thorough understanding of the plan, they could not be included here.
Therefore, the Maryland Department of the Environment (M'DE) has prepared a
Technical Supplement which presents greater detail on the estimation and
projection of loads and the considerations used in applying control programs
to meet the 40% nutrient reduction goal. The Technical Supplement is
available from the MDE Water Management Administration, 201 West Preston
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, or telephone (301) 225-6306.
Atmospheric Deposition of Nutrients
Nutrient inputs to the Chesapeake Bay from atmospheric deposition are an
important consideration for purposes of this plan. These inputs occur both
through deposition on the terrestrial/freshwater portions of the basin and
through direct deposition onto the estuary. Both pathways must be considered
to reasonably evaluate the significance of atmospheric deposition, relative to
the other major sources of total nutrients to the Bay.
As discussed previously in the introduction, the nutrient load reduction
goal for the Bay was derived from the results of EPA's water quality modeling
efforts, which showed a significant improvement in the water quality of the
Bay when point and nonpoint source nutrient loads were reduced by 40%. Direct
deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere to the estuary was estimated in the
2-D model, and load reductions from this "source" (pathway) were not
identified by EPA as essential to the reduction strategy. Future increases in
atmospheric loads were not addressed by the modeling.
The methodology used here to estimate NPS loads to the estuary from the
Maryland landscape inherently accounts for atmospheric inputs of nitrogen to
the terrestrial portion of the landscape and to freshwater surfaces. This is
true because the fall line monitoring data used to "calibrate" the NPS loading
estimates reflect all nutrient inputs to upstream portions of the watershed,
including those nutrients deposited from the atmosphere.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 7
The influence of atmospheric deposition on nutrient export from nonpoint
sources, relative to the effects of other factors (eg., fertilizer and waste
inputs, land use, associated export flow pathways and cover type
distributions, and extent of management through BMPs), is extremely uncertain
at present, and is probably quite small over much of the landscape. If direct
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides to the estuary increases
significantly in the future, as is predicted in several recent studies, the
improvements resulting from the 40% load reductions could be affected.
However, the exact impact on the Bay cannot be determined with any certainty,
given the existing data. Atmospheric nitrogen transmitted via the landscape
pathway will be controlled by most of the planned nonpoint source control
measures. Many of the practices used to reduce nonpoint source pollution
involve the retention of water, soil and nutrients on the land surface, while
other practices "filter" released surface and subsurface flows through various
types of "buffer zones". As a result, planned nonpoint source controls will
reduce the amount of all nutrients, including those of atmospheric origin,
entering the Bay from the landscape. On the other hand, the atmospheric
nitrogen falling directly on the Bay will not be controlled unless there are
major air quality improvements in the Bay area.
Prior to the 1991 re-evaluation of the baywide nutrient control program,
MDE intends to more rigorously assess the importance of atmospheric deposition
as a nutrient source, relative to both other sources and factors which affect
nutrient export from the landscape. This assessment will consider the sources
of nutrients to the atmosphere, land and water treatment processes as a means
of addressing atmospheric inputs moving through the landscape, and projected
increases in atmospheric inputs to the estuary.
Estimated and Projected Reductions
This section outlines the specific nutrient management and control
measures in use and proposed by Maryland in order to meet the 40% load
reduction goal, and provides estimates of the load reductions achieved or
projected for each. As described previously, Phase I (1985 through 1987)
achievements consist of all the efforts in place or substantially committed to
before the end of 1987 for both point and nonpoint sources. Because the
comparative costs, benefits and socio-economic practicality of the potential
controls for each source category are so uncertain at present, Maryland's
reduction efforts will be distributed among all categories during Phase II,
focusing on those measures which appear most likely to achieve significant
load reductions. Knowledge and experience acquired during Phase II (in
coordination with EPA and the other states) may reduce some of these
uncertainties, permitting more selectivity during Phase III among control
alternatives, both within and among source categories. At present, our Phase
III projections simply present one scenario which, at this stage of analysis,
appears to be an effective and viable course to follow toward achieving the
balance of the desired reduction expected to remain at the end of Phase II.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 8
A. Point Source Initiatives and Projected Load Reductions
In Phase I (including 1985 through 1987), total phosphorus and total
nitrogen load reductions, as measured by effluent sampling, were achieved via
three mechanisms:
-- upgrading specific point sources explicitly to control nutrient discharge,
as required by State nutrient control policies predating the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
implementation of Maryland's phosphate detergent ban, which has reduced
total phosphorus loads from all sewage treatment plants that were not
already controlling phosphorus in their effluent; and
— upgrading point sources to meet discharge permit requirements (e.g.,
suspended solids) other than for nutrients, which coincidentally reduced
nutrient loads.
As presented in Table 1, nutrient control projects carried out in Phase I
have already achieved a 33% reduction for total phosphorus. This early
progress is the result of Maryland's aggressive phosphorus control program,
established well before the signing of the 1987 Agreement. On the other hand,
total nitrogen loads show about a 5% change, because nitrogen control occurred
at only two or three industrial dischargers, as shown (cumulatively) in Table
1. Point source nitrogen control projects at Western Branch and Dorsey Run
sewage treatment plants were not yet in operation at the end of 1987. They
are expected to be operational in 1990 and 1988, respectively.
In Phase II, which includes 1988 through 1991, the same policies and
permits in operation during Phase I are expected to continue to provide load
reductions. Maryland will also pursue nutrient controls at additional point
sources beyond those committed to in Phase I. A principal focus of this
effort will be on nitrogen control at the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant,
which is expected to provide a substantial reduction in Maryland's overall
point source nitrogen load. Figure 3 also lists other large sewage treatment
plants that are slated to begin biological nutrient control (BNR) during Phase
II. To allow this work to begin, $5.5 million was authorized during the 1988
Maryland legislative session for fiscal year 1989. It is anticipated that
additional authorizations will follow to allow continued progress.
As projected in Figure 3, Maryland will first meet the 40% reduction goal
for point source phosphorus sometime in 1990-91. Significant progress toward
the nitrogen goal is also projected, as a result of the implementation of
biological nutrient control (BNR) technology at selected sewage treatment
plants.
Maryland will also explore further opportunities for Phase II and Phase
III point source implementation in two other ways. First, the potential to
integrate nutrient controls into upgrades that are already scheduled to meet
other (non-nutrient) discharge permit requirements during Phase II will be
explored.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 9
Secondly, additional opportunities to custom-fit nutrient controls to the
unique requirements of significant sewage treatment plants and industrial
facilities will be explored. The Maryland Department of the Environment will
work cooperatively with the owners and operators to ensure that the most
beneficial approach to nutrient control is employed. In this plan, the
retrofitting of BNR technology at existing sewage treatment plants is the most
important component of Maryland's Phase II and Phase III efforts to reduce
point source nutrient loads. However, other technologies may be employed at
selected facilities. For example, land treatment of treated effluent or other
technologies may be cost-effective alternatives, if local conditions and
opportunities are favorable. In all cases, the State will work to facilitate
the use of the most appropriate upgrades and technologies.
As these nutrient control upgrades are implemented, it will be important
to track progress toward the 40% reduction goal. Therefore, the NPDES permits
for all point sources contributing significant phosphorus or nitrogen loads to
the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland will require effluent monitoring for these
loads, beginning no later than July 1, 1989. This requirement applies to all
sewage treatment plants with an average effluent volume of 0.5 million gallons
per day or greater and to all industries discharging an average nutrient load
equal to or greater than 25 pounds per day for total phosphorus or 75 pounds
per day for total nitrogen. This monitoring will be of sufficient quality and
frequency to allow confident characterization of total nutrient loads (and
appropriate nutrient species) on an annual basis, using monthly averages.
During Phase III, starting in 1992, Maryland will carry out a series of
additional point source upgrades in order to meet the year 2000 nutrient
reduction goals. Following the improved understanding expected to arise from
the Phase II monitoring and modeling to be completed in 1991, Maryland will be
able to focus its Baywide nutrient control program where the greatest benefit
can be expected. The exact nature and location of these improvements will be
determined during the 1991 re-evaluation, which will integrate point and
nonpoint source strategies into a unified plan designed to achieve the balance
of the overall reduction goals in a cost-effective manner. One potential
scenario for achieving a 40% nutrient reduction by the year 2000 for point
sources is presented in Figure 3. The graphs indicate that the nutrient load
reduction goals for point sources will be approximately met by the year
2000. (This projection is based on the assumption that biological nutrient
removal technology can achieve an average effluent concentration of 8 mg/1 for
total nitrogen. However, sufficient operative experience to verify this
assumption in the temperate climate of the Chesapeake Bay region has yet to be
accumulated.)
B. Nonpoint Source Initiatives and Projected Load Reductions
The primary purpose of this section is to outline a set of implementation
and control activities that will allow Maryland to achieve the NPS portion of
the reduction goal. Analysis shows that Maryland programs are making some
progress toward this goal. However, projections indicate that significant
enhancements of existing programs, as well as the establishment of selected
new approaches, are necessary to attain this goal.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 10
The implementation scenario presented here is an assembly of activities
that are collectively projected to meet the nonpoint source nutrient reduction
goal by the year 2000. Though this scenario is one of many that might be
devised to achieve this goal, it represents the most technically defensible
and cost-effective approach available, based on currently compiled
information. Because current understanding and analysis are limited, however,
some portions of Maryland's NPS strategy remain uncertain. Consequently, this
prospective long-term strategy will be adjusted over time, as new information
becomes available. This revision process will ensure that the nutrient
reduction goal for NPS is attained in the most effective way possible.
Five considerations were emphasized in developing this nonpoint source
strategy:
1. the effectiveness of each management/control practice in reducing
nitrogen and phosphorus export;
2. the ability of each practice to address deficiencies in existing
management and control approaches;
3. the costs associated with implementation;
4. the potential for implementation of the various practices in
Maryland's portion of the Bay watershed; and
5. the existing and proposed basis for implementing individual
practices, i.e., voluntary or mandatory implementation.
Currently compiled information on the costs and effectiveness of various
practices were used to estimate potential reductions attributable to each.
For the scenario presented here, it was assumed that no new regulatory
requirements would come into existence for agriculture. For development, it
was assumed that a number of modifications to existing regulations for
stormwater management, as well as new policies and guidelines for site design
characteristics which affect nutrient export, would be realized during Phase
II. Significant changes in Maryland's NPS strategy following the 1991 re-
evaluation may include new management and control practices, a different
distribution of emphasis among practices, and more or fewer regulatory
requirements than are assumed for these projections. Maryland will work to
ensure that the 40% nutrient reduction goal is met by the year 2000 by
selecting the most effective program alternatives.
Information on proposed NPS management and control efforts for which
reductions have been estimated is summarized in Table 2. The table projects
reductions in controllable loads, and associated implementation costs, for
each phase in Maryland's strategy. (The fact that nitrogen tends to move
primarily in water-soluble form, while phosphorus is more associated with soil
particles, is considered in projecting the effects of the various control
practices.) The table addresses only the "controllable" portion of Maryland's
nonpoint source nutrient loads, as defined in an earlier section.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 11
Phase I - Agriculture (1985-87)
Historically, a variety of soil conservation and educational services,
technical assistance, and financial assistance have been available to farmers
in Maryland through the local Soil Conservation Districts. Maryland's
Agricultural 208 Plan, first published in 1979, defined the roles and
responsibilities of a number of federal, State and local organizations in
carrying out the agenda for sediment and animal waste control outlined in that
plan. When the importance of agriculture as a source of nutrients to the
Chesapeake Bay became clearer in the early 1980's, the focus of those
organizations expanded to place a greater emphasis on the management of
nutrients. The Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Management Program,
published in 1987 as the State's revised 208 plan for agriculture, explicitly
identified agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction as the State's
overall goal for that program.
Elements of the Maryland agricultural water quality program of importance
to this plan include outreach and technical assistance to farmers, information
and education, provision of cost-share funding for BMPs, research, and
enforcement of water pollution laws. These elements are administered by the
24 Soil Conservation Districts in the state; the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), both
of U.S.D.A.; the Maryland Departments of Agriculture (MDA) and the Environment
(MDE); the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC); and the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) and Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) of the
University of Maryland. The functions of these organizations in addressing
the State's goal of reducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution is
described in the State 208 plan. All of the program elements contribute to
nutrient load reductions, but for a variety of reasons, numerical reductions
can not be estimated in relation to each. The importance of these agencies
and their roles are emphasized here, because the success of the strategy for
agricultural nutrient load reduction outlined in the present plan depends on
its integration into the ongoing work of these various agencies and
organizations.
As can be seen in Table 2, reductions in agricultural loads during Phase I
are attributed to the implementation of agricultural best management practices
(BMPs) on cropland, particulary soil conservation practices, and at facilities
which generate animal waste. The funds used to share (with the farmer or
facility owner) the cost of implementation include State funds available
through the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share (MACS) Program, as well as
federal funds from the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants and the U.S.D.A.
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP).
Phase I reductions attributed to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are associated with the
removal of highly erodible cropland from production. This results in reduced
nutrient export from that acreage, particularly through erosion control and
also because of the reduced use of fertilizers on the retired land.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 12
Information which could be used to estimate reductions from practices
implemented by farmers independently of cost-share programs since January 1985
could not be compiled in time for this plan, but should become available in
the future, as tracking of implementation improves. In particular, various
tillage and cropping practices are used independently by many Maryland
farmers, and will probably represent significant reductions, when their
contributions can be estimated with confidence. This may be true for a
variety of other management practices, as well.
Phase I - Development (1985-87)
Management of stormwater runoff from development in Maryland began, from a
water quality perspective, with the inception of State stormwater regulations
in 1983. Counties and municipalities were required to enact ordinances which
would require that post-development runoff rates and volumes meet specific
criteria related to pre-development characteristics. Existing State
regulations also require that the stormwater BMPs used in managing runoff are
selected from a prioritized sequence of BMP options, with the first option
representing the most effective pollutant-control alternative. Subsequent
options are to be selected only if those higher on the list of prioritized
BMPs are not suitable for the development site in question.
Control of loads from existing development was very limited during Phase I
(Table 2). Reductions counted in this plan consider only the installation of
stormwater BMPs for existing development (a process called "retrofitting").
As discussed under Phase II, loads from new development were projected for the
period 1985 - 2000, assuming the implementation of several improvements in
stormwater and development management. These improvements, while essential to
the achievement of the load reduction goals, do not reduce existing loads, as
retrofitting existing development does; consequently, they do not appear as a
reduction mechanism in Table 2. Retrofitting currently takes place on a small
scale through the State's Stormwater Cost-Share Program, intended primarily
for demonstration purposes, which financially assists local jurisdictions with
selected retrofit projects. In addition, a few jurisdictions have performed
retrofits independently, to a limited degree.
Under existing State and local law, stormwater management structures have
been installed at an unknown number of new development sites--probably several
thousand. However, under present practices, designs with strong pollution
control benefits are not usually selected, so MDE "credited" only 20% of new
development acres with any load-reduction benefits. (See also Note 2 on Table
2.)
Phase II (1988-91)
Phase II nonpoint source projections consider all of the same control
mechanisms listed for Phase I, supplemented by several new components or new
programs. The planned initiation of these new controls is intended to address
the deficiencies in the ability of the current NPS programs to reduce the
export of nutrients from agricultural and developed land at rates sufficient
to meet the 40% reduction goals by the year 2000.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 13
In summary, the initiatives proposed for Phase II include the following:
Agriculture
-- Improve coordination among the agencies involved in the various aspects
of water quality protection, as it relates to agricultural sources of
nutrients;
-- Initiate a program for developing and implementing farm-specific
management plans for all nutrient inputs to farmland, including
fertilizers, animal wastes, sewage sludge, and other nutrient sources;
-- Develop a coordinated implementation strategy among involved agencies
and a long-term funding strategy for the establishment of forested
buffer strips along surface water channels in or adjacent to cropland;
-- Improve targeting and planning for BMP implementation, to result in the
use of practices which can best manage nutrient export on a farm-
specific or watershed basis;
-- Develop more effective mechanisms to encourage implementation and
maintenance by farmers of the BMPs which are optimal for NPS pollution
control, and formally evaluate the adequacy of existing incentives to
achieve satisfactory participation; and
-- Enhance outreach, education and training mechanisms to facilitate
understanding, cooperation and implementation.
Development
-- Expand activities to "retrofit" existing development with BMPs designed
to provide nutrient control for storm runoff;
-- Establish and enforce universal requirements for maintenance of
stormwater management BMPs;
-- Modify stormwater management regulations to minimize nutrient load
increases from future development, and to work in concert with
development guidelines toward this end;
-- Develop and adopt (by the State and local governments) complementary
regulations and guidelines to ensure proper constraints upon and
management of development site characteristics which determine the
quantity and quality of discharge from each site;
-- Identify other deficiencies in existing mechanisms for stormwater
management and sediment/erosion control, and implement effective
solutions; and
-- Expand education and training efforts as needed to ensure effective
implementation of control efforts.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 14
The estimates of load reductions from existing sources and of projected
load increases from future development, which were used to predict loads
between now and the year 2000, were made under the assumption that all of the
mechanisms proposed for Phase II will be realized, or that alternative
approaches with equivalent technical capability will be identified and
initiated. It is important to note that only those elements to which load
reduction estimates can be directly attributed, on the basis of implementation
data, are included in Table 2; the remaining mechanisms or elements either
function to minimize load increases, or to facilitate realization of the
accomplishments projected for reductions in existing and/or control of future
loads.
For Phases II and III, the estimates of implementation costs, and their
distribution among the "State/Federal" and "Private/Local" categories used in
Table 2, reflect the "implementation scenario" discussed previously (in the
introduction to Section B.). These estimates are not discussed here in any
detail, and are provided only as a general index to the projected costs of
reaching the 40% goal under the assumptions and constraints described earlier
for this scenario. Considerable care was taken to ensure that reductions
associated with a given level of activity were not overestimated; hence, the
cost estimates in Table 2 are believed to be generous, rather than
conservative, with respect to direct implementation cost.
Because the cost estimates in Table 2 apply only to mechanisms which
function directly to implement reduction-oriented practices, it should be
recognized that costs associated with the other "supporting" mechanisms are
not portrayed here. These include, for example, improved targeting, tracking
and evaluation of NPS management and effectiveness; costs associated with
enhanced maintenance of stormwater BMPs; the realization of more effective
enforcement of stormwater and sediment control regulations; and expanded
educational efforts in nonpoint source nutrient control. These costs have not
been estimated at present.
The magnitude of these expenses, and the means through which they are to
be funded, will be addressed as a part of Maryland's implementation plan for
the Bay nutrient reduction strategy. Maryland intends to develop this plan,
which will address each component of the strategy, within one year. The plan
will describe the organizational responsibilities and the programmatic
mechanisms needed to fully implement the strategy for Phase II, and the
associated costs of administering and executing each component. For each of
the key elements in the nonpoint source control program, as outlined in the
implementation plan, the State will develop and carry out procedures for
tracking and evaluating local programs, in terms of their ability to effect
the level of control projected in this plan. Existing mechanisms (such as the
State's triennial review of stormwater management programs), or new
mechanisms, where necessary, will be used to organize the process of
evaluation, to identify changes needed in the local programs, and to pursue
implementation of viable solutions.
One of the supporting mechanisms most critical to containing nonpoint
source nutrient pollution is the involvement of the public and local
governmental jurisdictions. This need is addressed in part through a set of
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 15
objectives and commitments in the Bay Agreement which focus on education,
understanding and participation. Perhaps the most relevant of these is the
commitment to conduct coordinated education and information programs to
characterize the roles and responsibilities of the general public, local
governments, businesses, students, and community associations in the Bay
restoration and protection effort. For the purpose of achieving the desired
levels of nutrient control from nonpoint sources, this commitment has special
significance.
In Maryland, substantial responsibility for the realization of effective
nonpoint source nutrient control rests with local jurisdictions. County
agencies, municipal governments and soil conservation districts have the
primary responsibility to ensure nonpoint source control efforts through local
ordinances and regulations, outreach efforts, and planning activities; and to
oversee the process of implementation by other organizations, businesses,
farmers, and participants in the development process. Consequently, it is
important that Maryland provide local leaders and staff with a clear
understanding of the following facts:
Individual local implementation efforts are essential elements for
success of the overall Chesapeake bay nutrient control program.
State requirements and guidelines, as well as other sources of
technical guidance, are important aspects of local programs.
The ability of local personnel to properly plan, design, install,
manage, and maintain nutrient control practices, and to disseminate
this knowledge as appropriate, is essential to the long-term success
of the nutrient control effort for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
The State, in turn, must provide the coordinated training and education
needed for these purposes, and assist the local jurisdictions in providing
guidance and understanding to the organizations and individuals whose
activities affect nutrient loadings. Maryland has already performed some of
this educational work for specific purposes, such as holding workshops for the
Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program, sponsoring annual conferences on
stormwater management, and preparing technical papers and documents. During
Phase II, the State will assess the adequacy of its education and training
efforts to support the realization of its nutrient reduction goals, and will
enhance these educational processes where possible.
Phase II - Agriculture (1988-91)
For agriculture, the practices emphasized on cropland through the existing
control programs are reasonably efficient mechanisms for controlling soil loss
and most of the associated phosphorus load. Their continuation is essential
for these purposes. However, the "soil conservation" approach is notably
deficient in its ability to control nitrogen and soluble phosphorus. The
practices promoted by Maryland to control animal waste nutrients originating
from concentrated production facilities have emphasized management by proper
containment of wastes during their generation and subsequent storage before
their application to cropland. These are necessary elements for controlling
manure nutrients, but they fall short in addressing losses following
application to cropland, from which most waste nutrients enter waterways.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 16
To address these limitations of the control techniques promoted by the
existing Maryland agriculture programs, two new initiatives are scheduled for
Phase II. These are programs to encourage the widespread use of farm specific
"nutrient management plans" and the establishment of forested buffer strips
along stream channels adjoining cropland. A nutrient management program will
facilitate the control of inputs to cropland from both animal wastes and
commercial fertilizers, as well as from other sources, such as sewage sludge,
cover crops and legumes. These inputs of nutrients, which can be managed in
many cases, will be considered in conjunction with uncontrollable inputs, such
as atmospheric deposition, to determine appropriate rates and frequencies of
application for manageable inputs.
If properly planned and executed, reduced nutrient inputs to croplands
and pastures will result in reduced nutrient export, with minimal or even
positive economic impact on the farmer, and at a relatively modest cost to the
State. Startup funding for this initiative was approved by the Maryland
legislature in the 1988 General Assembly. Seven newly created nutrient
management specialist positions, to be assigned to targeted areas, will be
filled during State fiscal year 1989. These specialists will be part of the
University of Maryland's Cooperative Extension Service (CES), and will
complement the broader soil conservation and water quality planning activities
of the local Soil Conservation District planners. The University of Maryland
operates both soil and manure testing programs, which will perform the
analyses necessary for farm-specific nutrient plan development.
Establishment of forested buffer strips along freshwater streams adjacent
to cropland will result in very cost-effective reductions to NPS nitrogen
(relative to other prospective control mechanisms for cropland), provided the
buffer strips are implemented and maintained according to the appropriate
criteria. Farmers will be reimbursed for removing land from production and
will receive financial assistance in establishing forested cover on the land.
Both of these implementation costs (i.e., compensation or easement payments,
and site preparation/tree planting) are projected collectively in Table 2.
The funding required for most of Phase II will be available through USDA's CRP
program, the State's MACS program, the State's Green Shores Program (see
below) and the State's supplemental CRP program, enacted by the 1988 General
Assembly.
The State's Green Shores Program, administered by the Department of
Natural Resources, will complement State and federal CRPs and the State MACS
Program in facilitating buffer strip establishment. This program focuses on
public lands, while providing outreach and technical assistance to private
landowners for buffer establishment. The implementation rates projected for
buffers during Phase II of the present plan include the estimated
contributions of all of these programs. For Phase III, it was assumed that
the State will develop a long-term implementation and funding strategy, which
will integrate all of these related programs to accomplish the relatively
extensive establishment of forest buffers required to meet the year 2000 load
reduction goal.
Following 1990, it is expected that the federal CRP program will end. If
the rate of implementation realized during Phase II (prior to 1991) can be
accelerated beyond that now projected, then federal CRP funds which would
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 17
later be unavailable can be used to facilitate buffer establishment. Maryland
will pursue this possibility, examining ways to encourage higher rates of
participation in the short term than we now predict. Should the federal
program end as anticipated, Maryland will have to assume the full funding
responsibility for the remainder of Phase II and all of Phase III for forest
buffer strip establishment. This was assumed in projecting the load savings
and implementation costs for Phase III (as shown in Table 2), resulting in
estimated lower total payments to the participating farmers, relative to those
currently possible under the combined federal/State programs. (Under these
assumptions, a potentially valuable tool is the use of tax credits to enhance
the incentives for participation by farmers. This approach has been
successfully used in other states to encourage participation in conservation
activities, and may be useful in Maryland as part of an incentives package.)
In addition to these two new programs (i.e., farm nutrient management and
forest buffer establishment), three actions to enhance existing agricultural
programs are needed to ensure that our expectations about load reductions can
be realized. These include more effective targeting of the various control
techniques; provision of better incentives to comply with management plans;
and improved coordination among the agencies through which the agricultural
nutrient load reductions must be achieved.
Realization of these three enhancement efforts is assumed in estimating
the nutrient load reductions achieved and sustained for agricultural
sources. Hence, the load reductions projected for Phase II cost-shared
activities on cropland result not only from greater expected expenditures
(Table 2) and implementation, but also include an estimated increase in
"effectiveness", as a consequence of improved targeting of BMPs to specific
geographic areas and conditions. Targeting is already an ongoing activity in
Maryland. Current efforts by SCS, MDA and the University of Maryland should
lead to more effective targeting, and to the identification of the additional
research and data required for this purpose.
It is assumed for all of the agricultural controls that a fairly high
degree of maintenance and longevity is realized for the implemented
practices. "Conservation Compliance," as currently embodied in USDA
agricultural programs, provides an economic incentive to farmers to implement
and maintain the practices prescribed by the Soil Conservation districts for
highly erodible lands in farm management plans. To ensure a high probability
of implementation for a wider range of recommended controls, Maryland must
explore potential approaches to improving the Conservation Compliance
mechanism, in relation to both an expanded array of control techniques, and in
recognition of the fact that less erodible land is also a significant nutrient
source. One promising approach which should be explored lies in changing the
federal requirements for compliance to include implementation of practices
recommended from a more comprehensive "resource management" perspective in the
farm conservation plans. This approach, which would require U.S.D.A.
cooperation, could complement any similar requirements instituted for receipt
of benefits from State programs.
In addition to investigating enhanced Conservation Compliance
requirements, Maryland will also examine during Phase II the potential long-
term effectiveness of its present voluntary approach to controlling nutrients
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 18
from agricultural sources. The levels of implementation for all of the
agricultural management and control activities projected in this plan must, at
present, be achieved entirely through voluntary participation. During Phase
II, it is essential that the State carry out an assessment of the adequacy of
existing incentives for participation. This assessment will include, at a
minimum, a comparison of projected vs. realized levels of implementation for
all management practices; estimation of the number and type of practices
implemented by farmers independently of technical and financial assistance
programs; a focus on increasing participation at facilities producing animal
wastes; and exploration of alternative means of providing more effective
incentives, including both increased financial assistance and mandatory
requirements for selected agricultural activities. This assessment will
contribute significantly to our ability to evaluate our NPS control efforts at
the end of Phase II, and to modify our incentive mechanisms as needed to
achieve the water quality goals of the Bay Agreement.
Functions which are part of the agricultural NPS management effort at a
broad scale (i.e., targeting, tracking, evaluation and compliance) will take
on a greater level of complexity, resulting from the need to better integrate
these functions and to ensure that implementation efforts by the various
agencies are coordinated, in terms of objectives and technical criteria. The
State will establish an interagency mechanism to coordinate data requirements,
compilation, and use; to establish enhanced guidelines for targeting, tracking
and implementation; and to identify a common basis for evaluating progress in
reducing nutrient pollution from nonpoint sources. This level of coordination
is necessary to facilitate truly effective progress towards the nutrient load
reduction goals from agriculture.
Phase II - Development (1988-91)
The Phase II accomplishments for developed areas include load reductions
attributed to a modified State cost-share program, in addition to new
stormwater management requirements for redevelopment projects (see Table 2);
more effective maintenance of stormwater management BMPs, to prevent load
increases over time; modified stormwater management regulations and adoption
of guidelines for new development, to contain the load increases expected from
that source; and enhanced education, training, and enforcement.
"Stormwater retrofitting", as used in this plan, represents an expansion
and modification of the cost-share effort, intended to reduce loads from the
extensive development (approximately 700,000 acres) which has occurred in
Maryland prior to 1985 without stormwater quality management. As indicated in
Table 2, Maryland intends to continue the practice of sharing the cost of
retrofitting activities during Phase II at an accelerated rate compared to
Phase I. To fund the level of activity necessary to achieve significant
reductions from this source category, increased financial responsibility is
also anticipated for local juridictions.
One means of funding the the increased local share needed to accomplish
the expanded retrofitting activity projected in this plan is the establishment
of stormwater utilities programs, or of mechanisms which will provide
equivalent funds. Many approaches to funding these activities are possible,
but the "utilities" approach would direct funding responsibility toward the
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 19
most extensively developed areas of the state, and would also minimize or
eliminate inequitable distribution of financial responsibility among "user
categories" (i.e..commercial.industrial and residential users), which is a
potential problem under a dedicated property-tax-financed system. In
addition, the utilities approach can also address several other deficiencies
in the existing control program, specifically by providing the funds required
to maintain the water quality performance of BMPs, for the effective
enforcement of both stormwater and sediment control regulations (see the
discussion at the end of this section) and for planning and administration of
these activities at the local level.
Realization of enhanced retrofitting and maintenance activities during
the latter half of Phase II is assumed in the estimation of load reduction
accomplishments. The significance of this assumption is that actual loads
from development will be significantly larger than those projected (for the
purpose of measuring progress towards the reduction goals), if widespread
retrofitting and new maintenance requirements do not take effect. Maryland
will expand the scope of its existing triennial review of local stormwater
management programs, as a means of ensuring that local programs are satisfying
the new, more rigorous requirements for maintenance. These requirements will
apply to all BMPs, including those implemented with State contributions,
existing structural facilities, and BMPs installed for new development.
In addition to loads from existing development, loads from new development
were factored into the estimates of total load reductions for Phase II. Land
use changes, specifically those involving the conversion of forested and (to a
lesser extent) agricultural land to developed land uses, were projected to
increase NPS nutrient loads over the period 1985 through 1999. These loads
were projected under the assumption that two specific improvements in the
control of pollution from new development come into being during Phase II:
modification to the existing stormwater management regulations, and
the establishment and incorporation of new development guidelines for
site design.
Existing State regulations and local programs for new development attempt
to encourage water quality management in the course of providing quantity
management for flood control purposes. However, they provide little assurance
in most cases that the most effective nutrient control practices are
implemented. Characteristics of developments, such as the extent of
impervious cover and its distribution relative to naturally vegetated areas,
have a large effect on the quantity and quality of discharge from a site.
This, in turn, can strongly influence the ability of structural management
practices to intercept the exported load. Nutrient export can be greatly
reduced through site planning and design. However, guidelines and constraints
for site design for this purpose are absent or very limited in local zoning
and development regulations, and an education program concerning these
considerations does not exist at the State level.
Modified State stormwater regulations are recognized as a means of
significantly reducing loads from future development, while incorporating the
full costs of stormwater quality control into the cost of development. The
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 20
need for retrofitting, which is often impossible or very expensive following
development, can be avoided for a large percentage of new development.
Regulation changes are now being developed by MDE.
The establishment of development guidelines and policies to minimize
future water quality impacts from new developments is an explicit "commitment"
in the 1987 Bay Agreement, which is being addressed by a special interstate
committee. MDE intends to develop guideline criteria specifically aimed at
reducing nutrient export from developed sites, to function in unison with the
State stormwater management regulations. These guidelines will be provided to
the interstate committee for its consideration. They will be designed to
complement the new stormwater management regulations, and will be incorporated
into the State's education/training program for stormwater management. If
broadly implemented, the new guidelines will significantly reduce increases in
loadings from new development in conjunction with structural BMPs. The
nutrient loads from new development, which were subtracted from the reduction
accomplishments in Phases II and III (Table 2), were estimated under the
assumption that these improved controls will be in place for most of that
period of time. (i.e. 1990-2000).
Because large amounts of soil and associated nutrients can be mobilized by
construction activities, loads from construction sites were estimated as one
of the sources contributing to development loads. Loads from construction
sites are significant, relative to those from other developed land uses.
Current law and regulations in Maryland require that an approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan be obtained and implemented for most construction
sites. Inspection and enforcement of the plans is essential to prevention of
unnecessarily large discharges of sediment and nutrients. Inspection programs
at the local and State levels are continually challenged to meet the steady
rise in development statewide. The number of active construction sites
routinely exceeds the ability of inspection staffs to visit sites with the
frequency needed to be truly effective. State records show that between 80
and 95 percent of sites inspected are not complying with the implementation or
maintenance required by their approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
During Phase II, Maryland will identify the deficiencies which exist in
State and local mechanisms for ensuring effective sediment and erosion
control, and will pursue the appropriate changes in relevant regulations
and/or policies. One clear requirement for success is larger staffs at the
State level, as well as for many local jurisdictions.
Phase III (1992-99)
The levels of implementation of the pre-agreement mechanisms and the new
control mechanisms (introduced in Phase II) which are projected for Phase III
of the strategy are based on current estimates of the costs and effectiveness
of these various practices, while recognizing that the extent to which any
practice can be implemented is limited by a variety of physical and socio-
economic factors. New information gathered on these factors during Phase II
will be reviewed as part of the 1991-92 re-evaluation of the 40% goal and of
the states' progress towards successful nutrient control. The NPS control
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 21
program outlined for Phase III (Table 2) is therefore open to considerable
modification at that time. Basically, Phase III assumes that the agricultural
and development initiatives begun under Phase II are expanded after 1991.
Figure 4 presents projected loads, through the year 1999, for NPS nitrogen
and phosphorus. As indicated in the figure, the top line in each graph
depicts the projected loads that would result if only the existing (pre-
agreement) NPS controls are continued at current (1987) levels through Phase
III. The middle line in each graph portrays expected results if the "new"
agricultural initiatives (but no new development controls), described under
the preceding discussion of Phase II, were pursued at high levels during Phase
III. The bottom line on each graph depicts the estimated "controllable" NPS
loads that would be achieved if all of the enhancements for both agriculture
and development were carried out during Phases II and III at the levels shown
in Table 2 and in this text.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that the 40% phosphorus reduction goal for
NPS is reached under the "middle" scenario, but that the nitrogen reduction
from that scenario still falls far short of this goal. The bottom line
scenarios in Figure 4 depict accomplishment of both load reduction goals
through the additional incorporation of enhanced controls for existing and
future development (i.e., through those controls described previously). The
implication of our calculations is that the full range of control efforts
described under Phase II, for both agriculture and development, must be
realized in order to reach the year 2000 goals for nutrient reduction.
A number of management concepts, which have not been adequately explored
for inclusion as reduction mechanisms at this time, provide potentially
valuable alternatives to supplement the practices which are the focus of this
strategy. These include:
development and expanded use of both different crops (and crop
varieties) which use and conserve soil nutrients more effectively
than those currently emphasized in Maryland;
increased use of cover crops (which are currently emphasized for
erosion control) for nutrient retention;
a variety of new approaches emphasizing better use of animal manures
(including distribution to cropland based on need, rather than
proximity to the source area), and attempts to market manure products
for energy generation, lawn and garden fertilizers, and animal feeds;
exploration of alternative or regenerative agricultural systems,
which rely less on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and shift
emphasis toward organic materials and more broadly integrated
management/cropping systems;
a more coordinated approach to sewage sludge disposal, which will
balance disposal needs with cropland nutrient requirements, within
the context of the State's new nutrient management program;
enhanced efforts to control shoreline erosion, which expand upon
those currently in place in Maryland; and
expanded use of land treatment programs (PL566) in small watersheds,
to facilitate establishment of BMP's to control nutrients and
sediment.
-------
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Plan
1985 - 2000/ page 22
Maryland will explore these alternatives, with an eye toward incorporating
them into our strategy for nonpoint sources by 1992.
Conclusion
Maryland is committed to minimizing pollution loads entering the Bay and
its tributaries in order to provide for their health and the protection of
their living resources. At this time, it is certain that substantially
improved controls for nutrients from point and nonpoint sources are essential
to achieving that goal.
Education will play an important continuing role in almost all aspects of
Maryland's efforts to meet the 40% nutrient reduction goals for the Chesapeake
Bay. The State must continue to inform and involve the general public, sewage
treatment plant operators, property owners, farmers, operators of industrial
facilities, and many others. Without the necessary understanding which leads
to informed action and full commitment, the new treatment technologies, best
management practices, and nutrient management plans will not fulfill their
potential to benefit the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries and the living
resources that depend on them. Maryland is committed to sustaining the
educational process as a means of ensuring that our nutrient load reduction
goals for the year 2000 can be met.
The strategy outlined in this plan represents Maryland's initial detailed
response to the nutrient load reduction provisions of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. Following the 1991 re-evaluation period, the State intends to
follow through with the additional actions required to achieve its load
reduction goals. At this time, the year 2000 loading goals, derived from the
"40% reduction" of 1985 loads, provide an important gauge against which to
measure our progress toward the greater goal of aquatic resource protection
and restoration. In this light, we are committed to achieving the 40% load
reduction goals by the kinds of efforts described in this plan.
-------
FIGURE 1
TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FOR MARYLAND IN 1985
TOTAL LOAD = 64,800,000 POUNDS PER YEAR
INDUSTRY (9.7%)
DEVELOPMENT (8.8%)
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
(41.0%)
—-AGRICULTURE (32.4%)
FOREST (8.2%)
Note: The relative nitrogen loads presented here reflect estimates of the
total Maryland load to the Chesapeake Bay in 1985. For point sources,
this means calendar year 1985. For nonpoint sources, this means an
average rainfall/runoff year for 1985 land cover. Though point sources
may be considered 100% controllable, only a large fraction of the
total nonpoint source load can be controlled. Consequently, Maryland's
nutrient reduction strategy addresses the controlable nonpoint source
fraction only.
-------
FIGURE 2
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FOR MARYLAND IN 1985
TOTAL LOAD = 7,615,000 POUNDS PER YEAR
INDUSTRY (0.7%)
DEVELOPMENT (9.2%)
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
(42.4%)
AGRICULTURE (43.3%)
FOREST (4.3%)
Note: The relative phosphorus loads presented here reflect estimates of the
total Maryland load to the Chesapeake Bay in 1985. For point sources,
this means calendar year 1985. For nonpoint sources, this means an
average rainfall/runoff year for 1985 land cover. Though point sources
may be considered 100% controllable, only a large fraction of the
total nonpoint source load can be controlled. Consequently, Maryland's
nutrient reduction strategy addresses the controllable nonpoint source
fraction only.
-------
TABLE 1
POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY IN MARYLAND
SUMMARIZED BY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE IN POUNDS PER DAY
'985 PHASE I (1587) PHASE II (1991) PHASE III (2000)
TP "N TP TN TP TN TO TN
*AJOR STPs EASTERN SHORE
W, CHESAPEAKE
PATUXEST
POTOMAC
viINOR STPs
INDUSTRIES
'0*41 OOUNUS/OAY
TOTAL POUNDS/YEAR 3
10% REDUCTION °OUNDS/OAY
(TOTAL X 0.*) POUNDS/YEAR 1
VEAR 2:00 GOAL BOUNDS/DAY
(TOTAL X 0.6) POUNDS/DAY 1
SCO
4,720
800
1,730
1,000
150
9,000
,285,000
3,500
,314,000
5,400
,971,000
1,850 360 2,300
42,000 3,720 42,230
5,450 270 5,220
20,500 1,000 21,850
3,000 500 3,000
17,200 150 10,400
90,000 6,000 85,000
32,850,000 2,190,000 31,025,000
36,000
13,140,000
54,000
19,710,000
ESTIMATED TQTA.L C»P!TAL COMMITMENT BY PHASE $77 MILLION
(TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES
DETAILS)
400 2,700 400 1,900
2,300 27,500 2,450 20,300
300 2,700 450 3,300
1,000 22,700 9?C 15,100
550 3,300 650 3,700
150 'MOO 150 10,430
4,700 69,300 5,000 54,700
1,715,500 25,294,500 1,825,000 19,965,500
$42 MILLION $89 MILLION
Notes: This table projects the level of commitment necessary to acheive a
40% reduction in point source nutrients by the year 2000. The projected
approach is retrofitting biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology at
all Maryland sewage treatment plants larger than 0.5 MGD. (See the
Technical Suppliment for important details.) 1985 and 1987 load estimates
are based on the best effluent monitoring data immediately available for
nutrients. Projected loads for 1991 and 2000 anticipate that BNR can
generally meet 2 mg/1 TP and 8 mg/1 TN levels (assuming year-round
capabilities at this leyel or seasonal control requirements.)
7/88
-------
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS
AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS BY PHASE
Page 1 of 2
1985 LOADS
Agriculture
Development
Tctal NFS
NITROGEN
(lbs/yr)
15,790,000
4,270,000
20,060,000
PHOSPHORUS
Obs/yr)
3,000,000
610,000
3,610,000
Control Mechanism
"HASE I Soil Conservation BMPs
Aninal teste BMPs
Federal Conservation Reserve
Storwater BMPs (Retrofits)
Total PHASE I
PHASE 11 Soil Conservation BMPs
Animal Waste BMPs
Nutrient Management
Forest Buffer Strips
Federal Conservation Reserve
Stonwater BMPs (Retrofits)
Redevelopment BMPs
Totals PHASE II
Nitrogen
Reduction
Obs/yr)
158,000
518,000
9,000
20,000
440,000
348,000
1,039,000
130,000
149,000
14,000
101,000
5,000
1,495,000
Phosphorus
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
121,000
34,000
3,000
4,000
103,000
268,000
69,000
73.000
26,000
5,000
19,000
1,000
374,000
Implementation
/•innr me
{ ISoj'ISe
State/Federal
$3,324,000
$3,624,000
$241,000
$3,200,000
$11,644,000
$11,644,000
$1,200,000
$1,600,000
$390,000
$8,000,000
—
Costs, By Phase
1 IVn^rr^
I uoi iars/ — —
PrivateAocal
$906,000
$906,000
N.A.
$500,000
$2,900,000
$2,900,000
undetermined
$64,000
N.A.
$8,000,000
$1,120,000
NOTES: 1. This table projects the load reductions needed to realize the 4u* goal, and the estimated costs
associated with implementation. The cost estimates provide an index to the distribution of effort
among contributing control mechanisms for ths scenario presented in the text. The table does not
include information on several essential elements of the strategy outlined in the plan, specifically
those for which reductions in existing loads, and in some cases associated costs, cannot be calcula-
ed at this time. Please see the text ("Nonpoint Source Initiatives and Projected Load Reductions")
for more infCroatian on these points.
2. Total load reductions for each phase reflect tre sure of the individual control mechanisms,
adjusted for the impemanence of some management practices and additional loads from ne*1
develoorent. A 251 loss of all soil conservation and nutrient management controls implemented
is assured, and losses are subtracted from total accomoHshments in each phase.
Similarly, additional loads from anticipated new development were also subtracted from
total accomplishments in each phase. It 1s Important to note that the loads estimated fcr
this purpose assume that the range of new development controls (i.e., regulation changes,
uMversal adoption of BMP Maintenance, and widespread use of sound development guidelines), as
discussed 1n the plan become standard practice. Without realization of these controls, 7/33
anticiwted lo?ds would be significantly larger.
-------
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN CONTROLLABLE NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS
AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS BY PHASE
Page 2 of 2
1985 LQtOS
Agriculture
Development
Total its
NITROGEN
(lfcs/yr)
15,790,000
4,270,000
20,060,000
PHOSPHORUS
(Ibs/yr)
3,000,000
510,000
3,610,000
Control Mechanism Nitrogen
Reduction
(Ibs/yr)
PHASE III Soil Conservation BMPs
Animal Waste 81%
Nutrient Management
forest Buffer Strips
Federel Conservation Reserve
Stonnwater BM?s (Retrofits)
Redevelo'Drer't
Totals W5E III
515,000
1,754,000
1,652,000
2,491,000
—
1, -212,000
19,000
6,955,000
Phosphorus Implementation Costs, By °hase
Reduction (1985-1987 Dollars)
(-Ibs/yr) State/Federal Private/Loca
396,000 $16,340,000
116,000 $19,160,000
919,000 $19,000,000
428,000 $36,000,000
_ _
234,000 $23,000,000
4,000
1.792,000
$4,090,000
$4,790.000
undetermined
$1,736, COG
—
$23,000,000
$4,«80.00C
NOTES: 1. This table projects the load reductions needed to realize the 40% goal, ar,d the estimated cost
asfcciarar nr'th 'iwlanentaticn. The cost estates orovide an index to the distribution of ef
among contributing control mechanisms for the scenario presented in the text. The table does
include information on several essential elements of the strategy outlined in the olan, srecif
those for which reductions in existing loads, and in sore cases associated costs, cannot be c?
ed at this time. Please see the text ('Nonooint Source Initiatives and Projected Load Reducti
for rare information on these points.
2.
Total lead reductions for each ohase reflect the sums of the individual control
adjusted for the imoernanence of sane naragerent practices and additional lo?ds from new
development. A 25% loss of all soil conservation and nutrient management controls imolsrsnted
is assumed, and losses are subtracted from tola! accomolistaents in each ohase.
Similarly, additional loads fron anticioated new development were also subtracted from
total accompMsifnents in each phase. It is imoortant to note that the loads estimated fcr
this curnoss assure that the range of new develoorent controls (i.e., regulation changes,
un^ve^sal adoption of BMP maintenance, and widespread use of sound development guidelines), as
discussed in the plan become standard oractice. Without realization of these controls,
anticiwted loads would be significantly larger.
7/88
-------
FIGURE 3
CHESAPEAKE BAY NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTION PLAN:
MARYLAND POINT SOURCES
700 ^
s
r—
~g 600-
o*"*
*~ 500-
10,000
•g
8,000
0- -O
«J8 6,000
o—•
1,000-
•O
O-
100,000-
80,000
5;S 60,000-
O *•—•
10,000-
Incceased flows result from
anticipated population growth
in Maryland
- Phase I
9000
90,000
F
10%
I
1/85 1/86
Phase II
Phase III
with no addHlpnal .control*.
Total _P_
Loading Goal: 5100 Ibs/day
85,000
610
7900
1700 Total P with all proposed controls 5000
Total N Wlth_nojiddjtjo_n_a1_controjs_
- — - ~ 97,
000
69,3000
Loading Goal: 51,000 Ibs/day
51,700
1/88
1/92
1/2000
Phase I
Implementation
Phosphorus detergent
ban (all STPs)
P removal at:
Back River
Patapsco
Western Branch
Havre de Grace
Elkton
Bowie
•Dorsey Run
N removal at three
industries
Phase II
Implementation
All Phase I actions
plus BNR at:
Back River
Little Patuxent
Piscataway
Annapolis
Sod Run
Parkway
Patuxent
Maryland City
N removal for Dorsey
Run and Western Branch
Phase III
Implementation
Phase I & II actions
plus BNR added at all
remaining Maryland STPs
with 1985 flows greater
than 0.5 MGD.
Cumulative effect of
depicted program is to
reduce both N and P
loads by 40%, even with
expected growth.
7/88
-------
FIGURE 4
CHESAPEAKE BAY NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTION PLAN:
"CONTROLLABLE" MARYLAND NONPOINT SOURCES
3.8
10
IB (rt
*J C
O O
1.4-
IB in
O J3
re in
•M C
O O
Tola? P with current controls
maintained at 1987 level of effort
Loading Goal: 2.17 m.lb/year
3.61
40"<
reduction
3.11
Intensified efforts projected
for agriculture but not for urban
22
20 i
18
16-
14-
12
Phase I
20.06
Phase II
19.62
All proposed NPS
actions projected
Phase III
Total N with current controls
maintained at 1987 level of effort
1.84
1.34
17.89
reduction
-Intensified efforts projected
for agriculture but not urban
Loading Goal: 12.04 m.lb/year
All proposed NPS
actions projected
13.81
11.17
1/85 1/86
1/88
1/92
1/2000
Phase I
Implementation
Agriculture:
- Emphasis on Soil
Conservation (SC) and
Manure Handling/
Storage (MH/S)
- Removing highly erodible
land from production (CRP)
Development:
- Existing Stormwater Management
(SWM) Regs for new development
- Retrofit Cost-Share for
existing development
- Existing sediment control
programs
Phase II and Phase III
Implementation
Agriculture:
- Continue/enhance SL and MH/S
- Fed CRP signup ends 1991, benefits
continue through most Phase III
- Begin nutrient management and
forest buffer programs
- Better coordination and targeting
- Enhance outreach and education
Development:
- Enhance SWM regulations
- Expand retrofit activities
- Establish site guidelines
- Improve effectiveness of sediment
control programs
- Expand education and training
7/88
------- |