Implementation Committee
903R88114
•> v.,j, * *^ w**^1* .j. &^, #?•*.,
NdEpoint
Chesapeake
TD
225
.C54
U539
copy 2
January 1988
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Stieet
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Annapolis, Maryland
January 1988
-------
This report was a cooperative effort by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office and
Viking Systems International, Inc., with significant contributions
from Roy F. Weston, Inc. under subcontract, and many others.
Chapter 1 was authored by Anne C. Weinberg of the U.S. EPA
Nonpoint Sources Branch. Chapters 2 and 5 were written by Amy
L. Marasco, Vivian M. Daub, Claire M. Gesalman, Anthony G.
Neville, and Glenn Farber of Weston. Chapter 3 (Agriculture) was
the principal responsibility of Dave Sood and Richard Reed of Vik-
ing Systems and Chapter 3 (Urban) was prepared by Ms. Gesalman.
Chapter 4 was drafted by Lynn R. Shuyler and Ed Stigall of the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, James Hannawald of the Soil Con-
servation Service, and Ms. Gesalman. Marsha Elliott of Weston
provided senior editorial support for the entire report. Numerous
individuals from the Bay jurisdictions of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and other members of the
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, provided valuable
information and comments on drafts. The Implementation Com-
mittee accepted this document for distribution by the Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office. The effort was funded under EPA Contract
#68-01-7268, Task Number 11; the Work Assignment Manager was
Anne Weinberg.
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE ix
CHAPTER 1:
NONPOINT SOURCE STRATEGY FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION . . 1
Introduction 1
What's Wrong in the Chesapeake Bay? 1
Bay Cleanup is Guided by a Cooperative Structure 8
Funding Reflects Priority for NFS Abatement 8
The Water Act Gives the Bay Effort New Impetus 10
Bay Program Data Reveal Progress 10
State Approaches Differ But Share Basic Similarities 11
EPA and Other Federal Agencies Support State NPS Initiatives 14
Recommendations for the Future Identify Institutional,
Technical and Implementation Needs 14
References 17
CHAPTER 2:
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS 19
The Chesapeake Bay Program Jurisdictions 19
Roadmap to State Program Descriptions 21
Virginia 22
Balancing Incentives and Assistance 22
Agricultural NPS Control Program 24
Urban NPS Control Program 33
Other NPS Control Programs 37
Pennsylvania 39
Introduction 39
Agricultural NPS Control Program 41
Urban NPS Control Program 50
Other NPS Control Programs 51
Maryland 53
A Complex Network of Cooperation 53
Agricultural NPS Control Program 55
Urban NPS Control Program 60
Many Other NPS Programs Exist in Maryland 62
District of Columbia 66
The Urban Challenge 66
The District has Focused CBP Funds on NPS in
the Anacostia River 66
References 72
in
-------
CHAPTER 3:
EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 75
Introduction 75
Agricultural BMP Effectiveness 75
Agricultural BMPs at Work Around the Chesapeake Bay 78
Optimizing BMP Systems 84
Agricultural BMPs and Socioeconomic Considerations 85
Urban BMP Effectiveness: An Overview 86
Urban BMPs at Work Around the Chesapeake Bay 87
Conclusions and Recommendations 91
References 93
CHAPTER 4:
THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL BMPS ON POLLUTANT
LOADS REACHING THE BAY 95
How Can Progress Be Measured? 95
What Data Were Analyzed? 95
How Was the Base Year Chosen? 95
How Are the Data Arrayed? 96
Highly Erodible Cropland: Progress Report 97
Concentrated Animal Wastes: Progress Report 101
Nutrient Reduction: Progress Report 107
Findings and Conclusions 109
Ideas for Improving Future Analysis 109
CHAPTER 5:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY NFS PROGRAM 113
Introduction 113
NPS Program Recommendations 114
Recommendations for Moving Beyond Traditional NPS Efforts 118
Emerging Issues 122
IV
-------
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
PAGE
Table 1.1 Nutrient Loads Reaching the Chesapeake Bay:
NFS Portion by Land Use Type 3
Table 1.2 Nutrient Loads from Point and Nonpoint Sources:
Nitrogen and Phosphorus by Basin 4
Table 2.1 Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant Funds:
Combined Federal and State Monies 21
Table 2.2 Combined State and Federal Funding for Virginia's
Bay Program 23
Table 2.3 Virginia's River Basin Characteristics and
Nonpoint Source Contributions 24
Table 2.4 Combined State and Federal Funding for Virginia's
Agricultural NPS Program 25
Table 2.5 Eligible State Cost Shared BMPs in Virginia 28
Table 2.6 Cropland BMPs in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Basin 29
Table 2.7 Cost Sharing of Animal Waste BMPs in Virginia 29
Table 2.8 Innovative BMPs Sponsored in Virginia 31
Table 2.9 Combined State and Federal Funding for the Urban
and Other NPS Programs in Virginia 33
Table 2.10 Federal Expenditures to Date for Urban BMP
Demonstration Projects in Virginia 36
Table 2.11 Combined State and Federal Funding for
Pennsylvania's Bay Program 40
Table 2,12 BMPs Qualifying for Cost Sharing in Pennsylvania 44
Table 2.13 Combined State and Federal Funding for
Maryland's Bay Program 54
Table 2.14 Conservation Practices Completed under MACS
Program between July 1983 and June 1986 58
Table 2.15 Combined District and Federal Funding for the
District's Bay Program 68
Table 3.1 BMP Effects on Factors Affecting Pollutant Movement 76
Table 3.2 Loadings of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in
Occoquan/Four Mile Run Watershed in Virginia 78
Table 3.3 BMPs Applied to Agricultural Land in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed 79
Table 3.4 Comparison of Detention Basin Removal Efficiencies 88
Table 4.1 BMP Implementation on High-Erosion Cropland
in Virginia in 1985 98
-------
Table 4.2 BMP Implementation on High-Erosion Cropland
in Maryland in 1985 99
Table 4.3 BMP Implementation on High-Erosion Cropland
in Pennsylvania in 1985 100
Table 4.4 Chesapeake Bay Basin High-Erosion Cropland
Needing BMP Correction 103
Table 4.5 1985 BMP Implementation for Concentrated
Animal Wastes in Virginia 104
Table 4.6 1985 BMP Implementation for Concentrated
Animal Wastes in Maryland 105
Table 4.7 1985 BMP Implementation for Concentrated
Animal Wastes in Pennsylvania 106
Table 4.8 Reduction in Nutrient Discharge from Cropland
and Animal Waste 108
FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1.1 The Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin 2
Figure 1.2 Relative Importance of Point and Nonpoint
Sources of Nutrients within Major Basins 5
Figure 1.3 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Structure 9
Figure 2.1 Areas Targeted for Agricultural BMP Cost-Share
Funds in Virginia 27
Figure 2.2 Pennsylvania's Priority Watersheds for Agricultural
BMP Implementation Under the Chesapeake Bay Program 43
Figure 2.3 Maryland's Agricultural Cost-Share (MACS)
Program Priority Areas 56
Figure 2.4 Highly Erosive Soils of the District of Columbia 67
VI
-------
PREFACE
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 established the framework for a cooperative effort
among Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to address all sources of pollution in the Bay basin. In response to this,
the participating jurisdictions have developed new and expanded existing programs to ad-
dress both point and nonpoint sources of pollution to the Bay and its tributaries.
This report describes the current programs to amelioriate nonpoint sources of pollution to
the Bay that have been developed by the four jurisdictions in cooperation with other agen-
cies; the achievements to date in terms of pollutant removal; and recommendations for future
directions of the Bay program over the next several years. The report is organized into five
chapters:
• Chapter 1, Nonpoint Source Strategy for Chesapeake Bay
Restoration, provides an overview of Bay nonpoint source (NFS)
problems and discusses the overall strategy for NFS control.
• Chapter 2, State Nonpoint Source Programs, describes the ap-
proaches that Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District
of Columbia are using to mitigate their NPS problems. The
chapter describes the programs of these jurisdictions and
cooperating agencies, with an emphasis on those aspects that
are funded with EPA Chesapeake Bay Program grants.
• Chapter 3, Effectiveness of Best Management Practices, briefly
summarizes the types of practices that are being used or studied
by the Bay participants to manage or control nonpoint sources.
• Chapter 4, The Effect of Agricultural BMPs on Pollutant Loads
Reaching the Bay, analyzes the available information on best
management practices (BMPs) that have been implemented in
1985 and 1986.
• Chapter 5, Recommendations for Future Directions of the
Chesapeake Bay NPS Program, presents recommendations and
raises several issues for the Bay program over the next several
years.
Much has been accomplished to date by the Bay program, yet much remains to be done. It
is only with the continued support and cooperation of all agencies involved that the goal
of Bay cleanup can be realized.
vn
-------
Chapter 1
NONPOINT SOURCE STRATEGY
FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1983 study of the Chesapeake Bay found
that nonpoint sources of pollution were among the chief causes of the Bay's decline.1 Conse-
quently, in December 1983, the Governors of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; the Mayor
of the District of Columbia; and the Administrator of EPA pledged to address nonpoint as
well as other sources of pollution to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. This commit-
ment, known as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983, established the Chesapeake Executive
Council to coordinate Bay cleanup efforts undertaken by the signatories to the Agreement.
EPA provides funding to support this effort, as well as technical and administrative assistance.
Implementing programs to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is one of the most signifi-
cant elements of the cooperative cleanup effort.
Since the signing of the Agreement, substantial progress has been made by the four Ches-
apeake Bay jurisdictions and by cooperating Federal agencies to strengthen existing NPS pro-
grams and establish new ones. Effective interagency networks have been developed. States
have built many new programs that deliver educational, technical, and financial assistance.
Since Bay programs are constantly evolving, any description of them can be at best a
"snapshot" of current conditions. Thus, this strategy provides an overview of NPS problems
in the Bay, the cooperative structure developed to implement the Chesapeake Bay Program
(CBP), the current approaches to implementing NPS controls, and the future directions for
NPS control in the Chesapeake Bay.
WHAT'S WRONG IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY?
EPA's 1983 study found that the Chesapeake Bay is an ecosystem in decline.2 The study
was initiated because of the disturbing trends observed in Bay resources. Submerged aquatic
vegetation was disappearing; fishermen were landing fewer of certain freshwater spawning
fish; and oyster harvests were declining. In very simplified terms, these problems were traced
to excess levels of nutrients and toxic pollutants in the Bay system. The study concluded that
these contaminants were also causing —among other phenomena —depressed oxygen concen-
trations in the water column, algal blooms, increased turbidity, and high concentrations of
heavy metals in sediments.3 The sections that follow highlight the NPS aspects of nutrients
and toxic pollutants as reported in the CBP study.
NUTRIENTS ARE CLEARLY A SERIOUS NPS PROBLEM
Excessive nutrients appeared to account for much of the decline in living resources as
well as many of the trends in water quality identified in the 1983 study. To identify the sources
of the nutrients, the CBP developed a comprehensive data base and a model of the entire
-------
FIGURE 1.1 The Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basis
1. Susquehanna
2. Eastern Shore
3. West Chesapeake
4. Patuxent
5. Potomac
6. Rappahannock
7. York
8. James
DEL.
SOURCE: C/iesapea/te Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, September 1983, p.5.
-------
Chesapeake Bay watershed to simulate the behavior of all point and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion and the delivery of the resulting pollutant loads to the Bay.4 A map of the river basins
draining into the Chesapeake Bay is shown in Figure 1.1.
This watershed model estimated 1980 point and nonpoint source nutrient loadings to
the Bay. The input data for the watershed model used direct measurements of effluent quality
from major point sources. NFS loading estimates were derived from field measurements of
runoff composition from urban/suburban, agricultural, and forested areas coupled with basin-
wide land-use, soil, and hydrologic data. The model estimated the relative importance of dif-
ferent nutrient sources and land-use patterns in particular river basins and their importance
for the Bay as a whole.
These watershed model calculations indicated that in a year of average rainfall, nonpoint
sources contribute 67% of the nitrogen and 39% of the phosphorus entering the Bay; point
sources contribute the difference in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads, 33% and 61%, respec-
tively.5 Most of the nitrogen entering Chesapeake Bay waters is transported from nonpoint
sources throughout the Bay basin, while phosphorus loadings originate mostly from point
sources adjacent to the Bay (below the fall line*).6
A survey of 1985 point source loads below the fall line showed a 33% reduction of
phosphorus loads due to point source controls between 1980 and 1985.8 In addition, NFS
phosphorus loads below the fall line were reduced by an estimated 10% between 1980 and
1985 due to NFS controls.
NFS runoff from cropland was estimated to contribute the largest share of the NFS
nutrient load to the Bay (see Table 1.1). Although urban runoff is a relatively minor con-
tributor to the Bay-wide nutrient load, it does cause localized water quality problems. Unless
properly controlled, urban runoff will increase along with burgeoning development.
The watershed model, along with other information, has provided the basis for under-
standing the relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources by major river basins, and
TABLE 1.1
NUTRIENT LOADS REACHING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NFS PORTION BY LAND USE TYPE
TOTAL NITROGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
LAND USE TYPE FROM NFS FROM NPS
Cropland 45-70% 60-85%
Pasture 4-13% 3-8%
Forest 9-30% 4-8%
Urban/Surburban 2-12% 4-12%
Subtotal for Agriculture 49-83% 63-93%
(Cropland + Pasture)
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., September 1982, p. 18.
The fall line forms the boundary between the coastal plain and the piedmont plateau. Waterfalls and rapids
clearly mark this line, where the elevation sharply increases to approximately 1,100 feet, due to the erosion of
the soft sediments of the coastal plain. Cities such as Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Richmond, and Fredericksburg
have developed along this fall line.7
-------
for linking nutrient loadings with specific areas where nutrient and dissolved oxygen concen-
trations potentially limit aquatic resources (see Table 1.2 and Figure 1.2). For example, the
watershed model demonstrated that point source loads of phosphorus exceed the NFS loads
from the James River basin in almost all rainfall conditions.9 In contrast, nonpoint sources
contribute most of the phosphorus from the Susquehanna River basin under all conditions.
These findings reflect the fact that while the James River basin contain major population
centers contributing large point source loadings to tidal waters, the Susquehanna basin is more
rural. Correspondingly, it is not surprising that in the urbanized Patuxent and West Chesa-
peake basins, the phosphorus loadings from point sources exceed those from nonpoint sources,
and in the largely rural Eastern Shore, Rappahannock, and York River basins, nonpoint sources
of phosphorus dominate.10 Since 1980 there have been major point source upgrades throughout
the Chesapeake Bay basin, and the watershed model does not reflect these improvements.
For example, since 1980 major point source improvements have been implemented at the Blue
Plains sewage treatment plant serving the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area. As a result,
phosphorus removal levels at this facility are now at or near the limits of technology. With
these improvements, it would be more accurate to characterize the Potomac River basin as
nonpoint source dominated as opposed to point source dominated for phosphorus.
TABLE 1.2
NUTRIENT LOADS FROM POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES:
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS BY BASIN*
TOTAL LOAD
% OF TOTAL LOAD (Millions of Pounds)
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS
Point Nonpoint Point Nonpoint Point Nonpoint Point Nonpoint
BASIN Source Source Source Source Source Source Source Source
West Chesapeake 72% 28% 85% 15% 11.50 4.48 2.03 0.36
James 62% 38% 81% 20% 12.70 7.79 3.07 0.76
Patuxent 49% 51% 83% 17% 1.22 1.27 0.40 0.08
Potomac 44% 56% 59% 41% 15.40 19.60 1.69 1.18
Rappahannock 13% 87% 39% 61% 0.38 2.56 0.11 0.17
York 39% 61% 35% 65% 0.91 1.42 0.08 0.14
Eastern Shore 10% 90% 40% 60% 0.87 7.87 0.33 0.50
Susquehanna 10% 90% 23% 77% 5.82 52.40 0.67 2.23
These data are based on watershed model estimates of 1980 point and nonpoint source
nutrient loads delivered to the Bay between March and October.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA., September 1983 (dala com-
piled from Basin profiles).
These estimates of nutrient loadings provide a basis for targeting management and con-
trol strategies. The Bay states have used this and other information as a basis for targeting
their NFS programs. For example:
• Pennsylvania is focusing its efforts on the high nutrient loads
associated with agricultural lands in the lower Susquehanna River
basin, which were identified by the watershed model.
-------
FIGURE 1.2 Relative Importance of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Nutrients Within
Major Basins
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Nonpoint Source Dominated
Point Source Dominated
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA, September 1983, p. 44,
and updated information from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
-------
• Virginia is focusing its agricultural cost-share program on the more
rural sub-basins identified by the watershed model and is develop-
ing a geographic information system to further refine its targeting
strategy.
• Maryland has developed a more detailed statewide ranking of its
watersheds using information other than the watershed model.
• The District of Columbia, one of the largest urban areas in the
basin, is focusing its efforts on the urban NFS problems within
its boundaries and is giving special emphasis to restoring the
Anacostia River.
THE TOXICS PROBLEM IS NOT FULLY DEFINED
While the nutrient loads from nonpoint sources have prompted greater NFS control ac-
tivity, toxic materials from diffuse nonpoint sources are also of concern. Toxic compounds
of concern in the Bay include heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, and lead; organic
chemicals such as pesticides and PCBs; and other chemicals like chlorine.11 These toxic materials
enter the Bay from a variety of sources including: industrial and municipal sources; con-
taminated dredge spoil; the atmosphere; and runoff from urban, agricultural, and shoreline
areas.
The 1983 CBP study found that toxic compounds are affecting the Bay's resources, es-
pecially in urbanized areas.12 While low concentrations of toxic compounds may have little
effect on organisms, high concentrations can reduce hatching and survival, cause gross ef-
fects such as lesions or fin erosion in fish, and eventually destroy an entire population. Toxic
pollutants can affect the ecosystem by eliminating sensitive species. The result is a biotic com-
munity dominated by a few pollution-tolerant forms. The 1983 study found evidence of such
toxic stress in localized areas of the Bay.13
Research showed a relationship between the levels of toxic compounds found in the sedi-
ment in certain areas and the survival of individual organisms. For example, those areas of
the Patapsco River that have highly toxic sediments support only a few types of organisms,
primarily worms. Uncontaminated areas support many different organisms, including crabs,
clams, and oysters.14 These findings reinforce the need for control of toxic compounds.
The CBP study estimated the metal loadings delivered to the Bay from the entire drainage
basin, and also sampled organic compounds in the water and sediments of the Bay. In general,
the CBP found the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers to be the major sources of
toxics from urban and agricultural land to the Bay.15 Toxic discharges from point sources and
urban runoff appear to be most significant in urbanized/industrialized areas such as Baltimore,
Norfolk, and Washington, D.C.16
HERBICIDES ARE NOT PRIMARY CULPRITS
The CBP study also intensively evaluated the question of whether herbicides were respon-
sible for the recent decline of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) observed in the Bay. In
the study, two of the commonly used herbicides in the Bay basin, atrazine and linuron, were
selected for detailed monitoring. CBP-sponsored research found ambient atrazine concentra-
tions in the main Bay rarely exceed 1.0 to 5.0 ppb; linuron concentrations were between 2.0
and 3.0 ppb. High concentrations of both herbicides were found in near-field waters (up to
140 ppb); such levels would have significant impacts on SAV in these areas. But with half-
-------
lives of 2 to 26 weeks, the levels of these herbicides in the main estuary and the sediments
remain relatively low.17
It was concluded that herbicides were not the the primary culprit in the decline of the
SAV; the study concluded that light was the limiting factor for the Bay grasses. The CBP
study was not totally conclusive, however, in excluding pesticides as a problem. Pesticides are
just one of many pollutants that, when combined with each other, can cause problems in
specific areas.
Over the past several years there has been increasing concern about the impact of pesti-
cides on ground-water quality. Previously, pesticide leaching was considered insignificant. Today,
more and more pesticides are being found in ground water, albeit at low levels.18 Nonetheless,
there remains a great deal of uncertainty as to the amount of pesticides entering surface and
ground water and the effect these pesticides have on the environment and human health.
TRIBUTYLTIN: TOXIC NPS PROBLEM BRINGS QUICK RESPONSE
Tributyltin (TBT) is an anti-fouling chemical used in boat-bottom paints. TBT is
toxic to aquatic organisms at extremely low concentrations — at the parts per trillion
level.19 And yet there is an unusually optimistic aspect to this particular NPS prob-
lem. State and Federal agencies and universities are closing in on TBT, quickly
developing techniques to study its impacts, devising strategies, and taking actions
to restrict its use:
• Maryland and Virginia and the U.S. Navy have all supported
separate monitoring programs in the Chesapeake Bay to measure
concentrations of TBT in selected harbors and rivers.
• Researchers in Maryland and Virginia have continued to conduct
toxicity tests on marine organisms to better understand how toxic
TBT may be to Bay organisms.
• At the request of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, the EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program Office carried out a sampling study of
selected harbors in northern Bay waters during the 1986 boating
• As part of its special review of the pesticide registration of TBT
for use in anti-fouling paints, the Office of Pesticide Programs
will incorporate the monitoring and research findings from Bay
scientists to determine whether a restriction on the use of TBT
is necessary.
• In addition, separate efforts have been pursued by participants
in the Bay Program. For example, the Chesapeake Executive Coun-
cil urged the U.S. Navy not to use TBT-based paints on its fleet
until it developed an environmental impact statement or until EPA
completed its special review of TBT. Since then, Maryland and
Virginia have passed similar legislative actions restricting the
distribution and application of TBT in the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
NFS TOXICS AND NUTRIENTS NEED CONTROLS
While various steps have been taken to understand the impact of toxics on the Bay and
to address the problems, there is a need for a better understanding of the toxics problem and
increased program emphasis. Managers are recognizing this need: they are focusing on
eliminating point sources of toxicity and closely examining the use of pesticides like TBT.
In summary, the CBP study found that nutrient and, to a lesser degree, toxic pollutant
loadings from nonpoint sources were among the major causes in the decline of the Chesa-
peake Bay. The study concluded that action was needed to strengthen existing NFS programs
and establish new ones. Following is a discussion of the cooperative structure developed to
address the point as well as nonpoint source problems in the Bay.
BAY CLEANUP IS GUIDED BY A COOPERATIVE STRUCTURE
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement established the framework for cooperative efforts among
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and EPA to address all pollu-
tant sources in the Bay basin. An Executive Council, representing the signatories to the Agree-
ment, was established in 1984, along with an Implementation Committee, five subcommit-
tees (including a Nonpoint Source Subcommittee), and two advisory boards (see Figure 1.3).
The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office was set up in Annapolis, Maryland to coordinate
and support the activities of the various groups. Also in 1984, several Federal agencies joined
the Bay states and the District to expand the partnership to clean up the Bay. To enhance
interagency cooperation and coordination, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) were
negotiated and signed between EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS), the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the US. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). EPA and
the Department of Defense signed a Joint Resolution on Pollution Abatement in the Chesa-
peake Bay.
FUNDING REFLECTS PRIORITY FOR NFS ABATEMENT
This Federal support and cooperation was spurred by President Reagan's reference to
the Chesapeake Bay as a "special national resource" in his January 1984 State of the Union
message and his pledge of $10 million a year for 4 years —beginning in FY 1985 —to enhance
cleanup efforts.21 In FYs 1985 through 1987, EPA has provided approximately $7 million of
CBP implementation grant funds each year to the Bay jurisdictions for implementing pro-
grams to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The remaining funds are used to support
the operations of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Among its activities are a variety
of monitoring and modeling projects, management of data on Chesapeake Bay cleanup ef-
forts, coordination with the participants in the Bay agreement, and support for the Chesa-
peake Bay Executive Council and its committees and subcommittees.
Each state has received 30°7o of the CBP implementation funds, and the District has been
granted 10%. The four jurisdictions are required to match the Federal grants dollar for dollar.
In 1984, the Executive Council adopted a policy requiring that not less than 75% of the CBP
implementation grant funds must support NPS pollution control efforts, a policy that was
affirmed in 1986. The rationale for this decision was twofold: the documented but largely
uncontrolled nutrient and toxic loadings to the Bay from nonpoint sources, and the recogni-
tion that Federal, state, and local agencies had already done much to control point sources
of nutrients (wastewater treatment plants) in the Bay basin.
-------
FIGURE 1.3 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Structure
Executive Council
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Implementation
Committee
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Subcommittees
Living
Resources
Monitoring
Modeling
and Research
Planning
Nonpoint Source Data Management
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
-------
For example, between 1972 and 1983, the Federal government and state/local jurisdic-
tions spent nearly $3.3 billion to improve wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake
Bay basin.22 These efforts resulted in dramatic reductions in phosphorus loadings from point
sources in many areas of the Bay and are reflected in the point source load reductions estimated
for the Bay. Nonpoint sources have traditionally not received the same level of recognition,
emphasis, or funding as have point sources. The Executive Council recognized the need to
use the new CBP implementation grant funds to strengthen existing state NFS control pro-
grams and to develop new ones.
THE WATER ACT GIVES THE BAY EFFORT NEW IMPETUS
The Federal commitment to the Bay was reinforced by the new statutory recognition of
the Chesapeake Bay Program in the recently enacted Water Quality Act of 1987. A new sec-
tion of the Act (Section 117) directs EPA to continue the CBP, to maintain an office to coordi-
nate Federal and state cleanup efforts, and to continue to assess and report on the problems
of the Bay. Section 117 authorizes $3 million for FY 1987 through 1990 for these support
activities and also provides $10 million per year in grants to the states. These grants support
continuing implementation of portions of the management programs identified in the Ches-
apeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. (This plan, developed in 1985, contains the agreed-
upon goals for Bay cleanup and a summary of programs being implemented to achieve those
goals.)23
The Water Quality Act of 1987 also established a new section requiring all states to develop
programs to manage nonpoint sources of pollution (Section 319). Section 319 specifically re-
quires states to prepare, within 18 months of enactment, an assessment report of their NPS
problems and a management program for addressing NPS problems in the next 4 fiscal years.
The Act authorizes $400 million over the next 4 years for grants to states for implementation
of approved management programs. Thus, given this new mandate in the Act, the Bay states
and the District will have additional support for NPS management efforts both within and
outside the Bay basin.
BAY PROGRAM DATA REVEAL PROGRESS
Since 1984, the four Bay jurisdictions have intensified their existing NPS programs and
have developed new ones. Each has made major strides in its NPS programs. As noted above,
among the major accomplishments since 1984 has been the development of the institutional
structure to address the NPS challenges in the Bay. Programs have been developed to address
agricultural, urban, and other nonpoint sources of pollution and have resulted in a signifi-
cant increase in the number of conservation practices being put on the ground.
After nearly two years of BMP implementation, funds leveraged with CBP grants enabled
the three Bay states to install agricultural BMPs on approximately 203,640 acres, and reduced
erosion on those acres by about 1,446,900 tons. BMPs reduced phosphorus losses from cropland
and animal waste by more than 23 million pounds within the Bay basin, while nitrogen losses
were cut by about 11.5 million pounds from those sources. In the same timeframe, 544,000
tons of animal waste were managed. ASCS funds contributed very significantly to these totals.
In general, the three Bay states have placed greater emphasis on controlling agricultural
nonpoint sources than other nonpoint sources due to the documented nutrient loads associated
with cropland and the relatively well understood transport of these nutrients to the Bay. In
contrast, the nutrient loadings from urban areas in the Bay basin are much smaller, and the
10
-------
impact of toxics in urban runoff is not nearly as widespread as the nutrients from other non-
point sources.
STATE APPROACHES DIFFER BUT SHARE BASIC SIMILARITIES
The Bay states and the District have developed a variety of approaches to address the
NFS problems in the Bay. Their programs reflect the diverse problems and priorities in each
of the jurisdictions. Furthermore, each jurisdiction began with a different base of laws and
regulations for its NFS programs and a varying, but finite, amount of resources. Given these
differences, direct comparisons between the NFS budgets and programs of the Bay states are
inappropriate.
Nonetheless, there are commonalities among approaches in the agricultural and urban
NFS programs, as well as programs for other nonpoint sources, some of which are highlighted
in the following sections.
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS INVOLVE VITAL SUPPORT FROM USDA
The Chesapeake Bay states are relying primarily on voluntary cost-sharing programs to
carry out their NFS objectives for agriculture. Cost-share programs are helping farmers
throughout the region to reduce soil loss and associated nutrient loads to the Bay. Farmers
are also learning how to save money by implementing management practices designed to reduce
fertilizer use, which also helps decrease nutrient loss in runoff. Program components com-
mon to all the agricultural NFS programs include: education, technical assistance, financial
assistance, targeting strategies, limited regulatory/enforcement backup, monitoring, and
demonstration projects. In all the states, the conservation districts play an important role
in program activities. In cooperation with staff supported by states, local governments, and
the USDA, district personnel help disseminate information, demonstrate BMPs, provide tech-
nical assistance, and administer funds.
State NFS programs for agriculture all build upon the soil erosion control programs begun
in the 1930s with the establishment of the network of soil and water conservation districts.
State programs are also founded upon the NFS work initiated in the 1970s under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500), which encouraged, among other things, a greater
emphasis on water quality in agricultural programs. The administrative structures of the new,
intensified agricultural NFS programs in the three Bay states, however, were developed very
recently to address the water quality problems of the Chesapeake Bay. These relatively new
state agricultural NFS programs are still in a period of evolution and refinement.
Several USDA agencies, including the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES),
have provided substantial support to the states and individual conservation districts in carry-
ing out the objectives of the new state agricultural NFS programs. For example, in an MOU
with EPA, the SCS promised to help train state and Federal agency personnel to apply best
management practices, provide technical supervision, and provide technical standards and
specifications for the cost-share programs.24 ASCS has provided support in carrying out the
administrative aspects of some state agricultural NFS programs. CES assists with the educa-
tional component of the programs, including the dissemination of information to farmers
on nutrient management, for example manure and fertilizer application.
These programs involve direct contacts with land managers and are a key to NFS control
in agriculture, as well as other nonpoint activities such as forestry. USDA's new Conservation
11
-------
Reserve Program (CRP), for example, will help address the NFS problems in the Chesapeake
Bay basin by removing highly erodible land from production. During the four sign-ups of
the CRP completed by March 1987, about 45,000 acres of highly erodible land in the Chesa-
peake Bay Basin were retired and will be converted to grass or trees.25 Other USDA programs
such as the Dairy Termination Program, the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), and
the Rural Clean Water Program help address the agricultural NPS problems of the Bay.
ALL STATES PRACTICE MULTI-LEVEL TARGETING
Although each of the Bay states has developed a different approach to targeting its agri-
cultural NPS program, all of them conduct targeting at several levels:
• First, each of the states has targeted general geographic areas where
it will emphasize implementation of agricultural NPS controls.
• Second, once a general area has been identified, all the states have
procedures to target the critical areas and management needs
within the area.
• Third, state and local staff identify cost-effective, site-specific
management practices for individual landowners and users.
In addition, each CBP state has identified demonstration/research watersheds where
agricultural NPS controls are being implemented, and is assessing the impact of these con-
trols on surface and ground water and fishery habitat. States will use the results of these
monitoring efforts to refine their tar- geting strategies. Educational programs are also being
targeted to the agricultural community. Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania recognize the
need for basinwide educational efforts, since the agricultural NPS problems in the Bay are
not limited to a few small watersheds, but are Bay-wide.
In 1985, the Executive Council reinforced the need for targeting of NPS implementation
efforts. Specifically, it refined the CBP state implementation grant funding criteria to em-
phasize that "NPS implementation efforts should be concentrated in targeted hydrologic units
or targeted to types of sources for which solutions are not known."26
Examples of types of sources for which innovative approaches are being developed in-
clude urban runoff controls and approaches for managing excessive quantities of animal waste.
The criteria were also revised in 1985 to emphasize that a project funded with CBP implemen-
tation grant funds should represent "an incremental step in a phased, long-term commitment
to determine effective new programs or [be] part of a comprehensive abatement program in
a specific hydrologic unit or watershed."27
URBAN PROGRAMS LEAN MORE TOWARD REGULATION
There are similarities in the urban NPS control programs as well. First, the urban pro-
grams in each of the four jurisdictions tend to be more regulatory than the agricultural pro-
grams. For example, all the Bay states and the District have enacted regulatory programs to
control erosion and sedimentation from construction activities in developing areas. Typically,
builders must submit plans to conservation districts or other local government agencies for
certain land-disturbing activities, showing how they will minimize erosion and sedimentation.
If the plans are approved, permits are then issued and follow-up inspection/enforcement is
done as necessary.
In addition, the CBP jurisdictions either have or are considering new programs to ad-
dress stormwater management from developing urban areas. While these programs differ in
12
-------
scope and authority, they generally involve review, approval, implementation, and enforce-
ment of stormwater management plans. Historically, stormwater management has focused
on water quantity, but state and local staff are increasingly emphasizing consideration of water
quality.
The urban sediment control programs in the CBP states and the District have existed
since the 1970s, but the stormwater management programs for developing areas are much
newer. Several of the Bay jurisdictions participated in EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Pro-
gram (NURP), which was among the first attempts to assess the impact of stormwater runoff
on receiving waters and the effectiveness of urban control measures in reducing such impacts.
There is a continuing effort in the basin, with the support of CBP funds, to demonstrate
the effectiveness of innovative urban stormwater management practices. These include porous
pavement, infiltration trenches, dry and extended-detention basins, and grassed waterways.
Such practices are being demonstrated in urban developments and are being used to "retrofit"
existing urban areas.
Urban NPS programs also rely upon the support and assistance of state, conservation
district, and USDA agency staff. In addition, staff in local public works departments are often
involved in carrying out the sediment control and stormwater management programs. All the
jurisdictions face the challenge of having simultaneously to develop and implement new prac-
tices to control urban runoff. Various innovative approaches to urban NPS control are being
tested for the first time in the region.
Urban NPS controls have been targeted within the urban areas in each of the jurisdic-
tions in the Bay. To date, the efforts have generally not been concentrated in any particular
watershed areas. The first attempt at developing a watershed-wide approach to urban NPS
problems will likely be in the Anacostia River basin.
ALL PROGRAMS ALSO ADDRESS OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
The CBP states and the District also have various programs to address other nonpoint
sources such as forestry and mining activities, shoreline erosion, and highway runoff. Their
components are similar to those in agricultural and urban programs and include education,
technical assistance, financial assistance, demonstration projects, and regulatory aspects.
Each of the Bay states has a well-developed forestry program that encourages proper
forestry management and provides incentives like tax benefits for tree planting. Keeping land
in forest land use or reestablishing trees on marginal land is an important management prac-
tice. Studies in the Bay basin and elsewhere indicate that NPS pollutant loadings are lower
from forests than from other land uses.
The Bay states also have mining programs to address existing as well as abandoned mines.
New mining activities in the Bay basin must have permits that contain reclamation requirements.
The Bay states also have programs for reclaiming abandoned mines; reclamation activities
for an abandoned sand and gravel pit in the Anacostia basin have been supported with CBP
implementation grant funds.
Maryland and Virginia have programs to assist landowners in installing both structural
and non-structural practices for shoreline erosion control. These programs involve providing
advice to landowners on approaches to shoreline protection and also include projects to
demonstrate effective shoreline protection measures; CBP implementation grant funds have
supported several shoreline erosion control demonstration projects.
13
-------
The Bay state highway departments require management of runoff from highway con-
struction projects. Highway departments typically have standards and specifications for erosion/
sediment and runoff control for highways, and these standards must be met in highway
construction.
EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES SUPPORT
STATE NPS INITIATIVES
While the four CBP jurisdictions actually carry out the various NPS control programs
in the Bay watershed, EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office provides administrative support
and analytical services that knit their efforts together. These functions include overall coor-
dination, public information and participation, data management and analysis, grant and
contract administration, committee support, and provision of technical advice.
In the NPS area, EPA's role in funding state and District NPS initiatives for the Bay
has been significant. The NPS Subcommittee, established in 1985, has provided an impor-
tant mechanism for information transfer regarding NPS programs in the Bay. To date, this
Subcommittee has emphasized discussion of the new agricultural NPS initiatives for the Bay.
Recently, an urban work group has been established under the Subcommittee to address ap-
proaches to this nonpoint source. The NPS Subcommittee was also integrally involved in pro-
ducing this report.
Other Federal agencies have given special geographic focus to the Chesapeake Bay and
provide important support for addressing the various NPS problems discussed above. The
Bay states particularly rely on the USDA agencies for personnel and expertise to help deliver
the agricultural NPS programs in the Bay. Other agencies such as USGS, F&WS, COE, and
NOAA also provide important information for problem assessment.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE IDENTIFY AREAS
OF CONSENSUS AND EMERGING ISSUES
Issues and recommendations regarding the future directions for the Chesapeake Bay non-
point source programs over the next four years were developed through a series of discus-
sions with the Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Subcommittee in 1987. The consensus reached
by the NPS Subcommittee was then reviewed by the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Com-
mittee and others. Chapter 5 presents these recommendations in full, along with the action
plans supporting each. The sections that follow here highlight the main features.
NPS PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations represent a clear consensus among Bay jurisdictions on the nature
of the problem and how to address it, often expanding on current program efforts.
• RECOMMENDATION i: ASSURE PROGRAM CONTINUITY BY ENHANC-
ING LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES. Recommended actions
include developing staffing plans and assessing the existing in-
stitutional structure for the various elements of the program such
as the institutional capability in the urban area.
• RECOMMENDATION 2: EXPAND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES AND
COOPERATION NEEDED TO SOLVE BAY PROBLEMS. Actions include
developing interdisciplinary teams at the state level to manage NPS
14
-------
programs, developing a NFS information clearinghouse, and ex-
panding training opportunities.
• RECOMMENDATION 3: BRING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL AGENCIES INTO
THE PROGRAM. Establishing MOUs with such agencies as USDA's
Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, and Forest Service, and DOI's National Park
Service will formalize and help augment their involvement in
achieving program goals. Actions include establishing MOUs be-
tween EPA and those agencies having land management or pro-
gram responsibilities in the Bay, and providing guidance to EPA
Regional Offices on development of such agreements.
• RECOMMENDATION 4: INCREASE ANALYSESASSESSMENTS OF BMP
EFFECTS ON GROUND WATER. Recommended actions include ac-
celerating the rate of research activities in this area, modifying
programs based on research results, and developing long-term
monitoring strategies to determine program effects.
• RECOMMENDATION 5: DEVELOP WAYS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM EFFI-
CIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS. Recommended actions include
developing incentives to increase the life of cost-effective BMPs,
increasing the water quality emphasis of stormwater management
programs, and assessing options in all programs (e.g., structural
vs. nonstructural BMPs).
• RECOMMENDATION 6: EXPAND PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS TO
ENHANCE VOLUNTARY BMP IMPLEMENTATION. Recommended ac-
tions include using models to target critical land areas for outreach,
adjusting incentives, developing educational materials, and con-
ducting award programs.
MOVING BEYOND TRADITIONAL NPS EFFORTS
These recommendations are supported by at least some Bay program participants, but
agreement has not yet been reached on the best ways to implement them.
• RECOMMENDATION 7: INTEGRATE BAY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES INTO
COMPREHENSIVE STATE NPS PROGRAMS. Action items include having
Bay states review all available funding sources and maximize NPS
efforts related to the Bay, and encouraging Delaware, New York,
and West Virginia to address Bay-related problems as part of their
NPS programs.
• RECOMMENDATION 8: NUTRIENT REDUCTION GOALS SHOULD BE SET
FOR THE PROGRAM. Some states are currently involved in this type
of effort. A Bay-wide effort would provide direction and assist
the states in this undertaking. Action items recommend that
nutrient reduction goals be set for agricultural lands within each
major basin.
• RECOMMENDATION 9: ADD SEDIMENT CRITERIA TO EXISTING TOOLS
FOR ACHIEVING PROGRAM GOALS. Sediment criteria are needed; cur-
rent research and modeling results show that sediment is a key
factor in undermining Bay water quality. Action items include
15
-------
research to develop sampling and analysis techniques for sediment
in fresh and marine waters, and development of sediment criteria.
• RECOMMENDATION 10: INTEGRATE APPROPRIATE TOXICS CONTROL
INTO NFS PROGRAMS. To date, no Bay-wide effort has been made
to address toxic pollutants. The impact of toxics on Bay resources
needs to be better understood and appropriate actions taken to
address problem areas. Action items include establishing a
workgroup and conducting additional monitoring to investigate
and better define the problem.
• RECOMMENDATION 11: ENHANCE LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
FOR AREAS ADJACENT TO THE BAY. These lands contribute pollu-
tants directly to waterways. There is little or no opportunity for
removal or settling. Both intensely developed areas and more rural
ones should be addressed. Action items include encouraging
localities to develop land management techniques that protect
water quality, providing the technical support that will aid that
effort, identifying critical areas and enlisting landowners coopera-
tion, and conducting an educational effort to heighten public
awareness.
EMERGING ISSUES
As the Bay program continues to develop, issues arise that may affect its future direc-
tion. These issues will be subject to discussion among participants and will need resolution.
Background on these issues is provided in Chapter 5. Some current issues facing the program
include:
• ISSUE i: IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF REMAINING PROBLEMS MAY SUGGEST
REVISED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AMONG STATES AND WATERSHEDS. The rate of
progress in cleaning up the Bay may be increased if funding allocation is more
closely tied to the relative impact of individual jurisdictions and watersheds
on water quality and living resources. Improved targeting for decision-making
and resource allocation will result as better data on living resource impacts
become available.
• ISSUE 2: COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES MAY AFFECT BMP DECISIONS. Some BMPs
are more cost effective than others. To what extent should program decisions
be based solely on this factor? Currently there appears to be no clear rationale
for dividing cost-share funds between cropland treatment and animal waste
management.
• ISSUE 3: REGULATORY CONTROL OF ANIMAL WASTE MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND
EFFECTIVE. It has been suggested that permit programs already in place could
be used as the main method to gain control of animal waste, with cost-sharing
limited to technical assistance for nutrient management.
Given that each jurisdiction in the Bay program is at a different point in its efforts, the
recommendations discussed above will not apply equally to each. The Bay states, the District,
and other participants should review these recommendations and assess what they can do
better in relation to each. Further discussion among program participants to resolve remain-
ing issues and new issues as they develop will ensure continued progress. The success of the
Bay effort clearly relies on the continued cooperative efforts of all agencies involved at the
Federal, state, and local levels.
16
-------
CHAPTER 1: REFERENCES
1. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, Region III, Philadelphia, PA,
September 1983.
2. Ibid, p. xv.
3. Ibid, p. xvi.
4. John P. Hartigan, et. al., Chesapeake Bay Basin Model Final Report, Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission, Annandale, VA, 1983, 204 pp. and Appendices.
5. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, op. cit., p. 41.
6. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings and Recommendations, U.S. EPA, Region III,
Philadelphia, PA, September 1983, p. 30.
7. Ibid, p. 8.
8. Unpublished U.S. EPA data, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
9. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings and Recommentations, op. cit., p. 30.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid, p. 31.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. ibid.
15. Ibid, p. 33.
16. Ibid.
17. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC,
September 1982, pp. 503-567.
18. Pesticides in Ground Water: Background Document, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water
Protection, May 1986.
19. Interview with Rich Batiuk, EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD, March
1987.
20. Second Annual Report of the Chesapeake Executive Council Under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, Chesapeake Executive Council, U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD, February 1987.
21. First Annual Progress Report Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Ex-
ecutive Council, U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD, December
1985, p. 4.
22. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, op. cit., p. 50.
23. Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan, Chesapeake Executive Council, U.S.
EPA, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD, July 1985.
24. First Annual Progress Report Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, op. cit., p. 21.
25. USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service County Records on Conser-
vation Reserve Program data, March 1987.
26. Chesapeake Bay Program 1985 Grant Guidelines, Chesapeake Executive Council, U.S.
EPA, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD, 1985.
27. Ibid.
17
-------
Chapter 2
STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM JURISDICTIONS
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a voluntary, cooperative effort among the three
Bay states, the District of Columbia, EPA, and other Federal agencies. CBP initiatives may
address both point and nonpoint source (NPS) problems as part of a comprehensive effort
to clean up the Bay. However, EPA funds are primarily directed toward nonpoint source controls.
The four jurisdictions that are part of the Chesapeake Bay Program are working on a
common problem, each seeking to reduce its share of that problem and thus achieve a joint
solution. The balance of this chapter must likewise respect state lines and describe the discrete
efforts of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Each has a dif-
ferent nonpoint source 'profile" in its mix of problem sources, level of available resources,
and organizational and programmatic structure.
Following are four sections that provide a very brief overview of NPS programs, ap-
proaches, resources, and problems in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia.
VIRGINIA
Approximately two-thirds of Virginia's land area is drained by Bay tributaries, and Virginia
comprises about one-third of the Bay's drainage area. Nonpoint sources are significant con-
tributors to the pollution problem in most of Virginia's river basins, accounting for as much
as 80% of the phosphorus and 86% of the nitrogen load to the rivers and the Bay.
Virginia has received a total of $5.13 million from EPA in Bay program grants from 1984
to 1986. The program has focused on agricultural problems, but includes management of
urban and other nonpoint sources as well. The State has built its program around a combina-
tion of research and education, technical assistance, and financial incentives. Program activi-
ties are managed overall by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation in the Department
of Conservation and Historic Resources and involve a significant degree of cooperation with
Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as citizen groups.
PENNSYLVANIA
About 35% of the Chesapeake Bay basin is located in Pennsylvania, and the basin drains
about 50% of the State. The Susquehanna River is the only major river basin in Pennsylva-
nia draining to the Bay and has been identified as the largest riverine source of nitrogen and
phosphorus to the Bay. EPA has noted that runoff from agricultural lands is responsible for
the largest fraction of these nutrients: 60% of the phosphorus and 85% of the nitrogen entering
the Bay from this basin comes from cropland runoff. Forty-one percent of the Susquehanna's
NPS load to the Bay comes from the lower Susquehanna basin (below Sunbury).
19
-------
Pennsylvania has chosen to pursue a non-regulatory approach to its Bay program, with
voluntary cooperation solicited from landowners. However, the State is prepared to expand
regulatory measures and increase enforcement of existing regulations if the voluntary pro-
grams do not achieve expected results.
To date, EPA implementation grants totalling $5,256,475 between 1984 and 1986 have
gone to support Pennsylvania's NPS Bay program effort. These funds have been used to con-
duct watershed assessments, monitoring, and educational activities; support technical assistance
to conservation districts and landowners; and provide financial support to landowners through
the cost-sharing program.
MARYLAND
More than 96% of Maryland's territory —which includes both highly agricultural and
intensely urbanized areas —drains into the Chesapeake Bay. The State makes up around 15%
of the entire basin. Among the Bay Program jurisdictions, Maryland is second only to the
District of Columbia in the portion of its urban land use (18%) within the Bay drainage.1
Consequently, Maryland has focused a great deal of attention on both agricultural and ur-
ban nonpoint sources. In addressing problems related to agriculture, the State is emphasizing
voluntary compliance supported by education, technical assistance, and research, although
State enforcement authority is an avenue when voluntary compliance fails. The program's
approach for urban erosion control and stormwater management combines technical assistance
to localities and regulatory controls.
Maryland's long history of management attention to water quality and other vital resources
was enhanced by the 34 Bay-wide initiatives it developed in 1984. Many of these initiatives
are directly related to NPS pollution control. These new and expanded programs have helped
sharpen the focus on NPS pollution in the Bay. The State has received $5 million in EPA
grants since 1984 to support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The entire District of Columbia drains to the Chesapeake Bay, but its land area is small
compared to the other jurisdictions: less than 1% of the Bay drainage. Urban runoff is the
sole nonpoint source, although management efforts must be applied to diverse urban pollu-
tion problems like soil erosion and oil from vehicle repair facilities.
The District has received a total of $1,418,825 in Bay program implementation grants.
These funds are split between two agencies —the Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs and the Department of Public Works —that work on different aspects of the problem.
Table 2.1 summarizes the EPA implementation grants awarded for Bay cleanup. The 50%
state match is included in these figures.
20
-------
TABLE 2.1
CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDS:
COMBINED FEDERAL AND STATE MONIES
FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Maryland
District of Columbia
$1,750,000
2,000,000
1 ,750,000
454,546
$4,350,000
4,350,000
4,350,000
1,450,000
$4,162,950
4,162,950
4,402,550
1,387,640
ROAD MAP TO STATE PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
The remainder of Chapter 2 provides the details of each jurisdiction's NPS pro-
grams. The material has been written primarily from the states' perspective, with
an emphasis on those parts of the program that have been funded with EPA Ches-
apeake Bay Program grants. The state program descriptions were based upon in-
terviews with state staff and review of program documentation.
Because each jurisdiction's program is unique, the descriptions that follow were
not tractable to a wholly consistent format. However, each description has a basic
structure:
• An introduction, including the organization of the agencies that
administer the NPS program
• The Agricultural NPS Control Program (except for DC)
• The Urban NPS Control Programs
• Other NPS Control Programs
Descriptions of the agricultural and urban NPS programs contain the
following elements:
• Introductory material on program goals, history, approach, NPS
problems, etc.
• Targeting Approach
• Implementation: BMPs and Technical Assistance
• Research and Demonstration Projects
• Education
• Enforcement
21
-------
VIRGINIA
BALANCING INCENTIVES AND ASSISTANCE
Virginia's philosophy about nonpoint source management is that an effective program
must carefully support three basic components: research and education, technical assistance,
and financial incentives. The program's effectiveness would be seriously impaired if any one
component were eliminated. The voluntary nature of the program increases the importance
of the three-part approach.
Several agencies are involved in managing NFS pollution in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
as described in the sections that follow. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation in the
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources serves as the lead agency for both
agricultural and urban programs and coordinates overall program efforts. The Division's
Technical Services staff manages both programs, while District Operations implements the
cost-share and technical assistance programs.
Virginia has received a total of $5.13 million in Bay Program grants from 1984 to 1986.
The program has focused on agricultural problems, but includes management of other non-
point sources as well. The allocation of State and Federal funds for the Bay Program is sum-
marized in Table 2.2.
Although primary emphasis of the State program is on control of agricultural nonpoint
sources, the State is addressing all forms of NPS pollution. State programs have been de-
signed to dovetail with existing programs to augment both the agricultural and other NPS
control efforts. For example, USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) takes applications for State cost-share assistance along with applications for its own
Agricultural Conservation Program. Advice, technical assistance, and education are provided
by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Cooperative Extension Service. Other participating
State programs are discussed later (see "Other NPS Programs," below). One of the highlights
of this program has been the degree of cooperation achieved among the wide spectrum of
Federal, State, and local agencies and citizen groups involved.
The contribution of nonpoint sources to the Bay's pollution from any state is difficult
to quantify because monitoring is incomplete and models are imprecise. The Chesapeake Bay
watershed model indicates that 67% of nitrogen and 39% of phosphorus come from non-
point sources Bay-wide. Agriculture is estimated to contribute 45-70% of the nonpoint nitrogen
load and 60-85% of nonpoint phosphorus Bay-wide. Some of Virginia's river basins drain-
ing into the Bay vary considerably from these figures, however. As Table 2.3 shows, the NPS
contribution of nitrogen ranges from 42% in the James basin to 86% in the Rappahannock
basin (based on 1985 data). NPS phosphorus contributes 20% of the load in the James basin
and 80% in the Potomac watershed.2
The overall contribution of urban and other sources appears to be small compared to
agricultural sources, as most of the land in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area is rural. The
Potomac basin has the highest percentage of urban area (7%) and also the largest amount
of urban land, since it is the largest watershed. Highway construction, forestry operations,
shoreline erosion, and other sources such as mining and on-site waste disposal systems con-
tribute to NPS pollution, but their effects have not been quantified.
CBP Funds Have Leveraged Virginia's NPS Programs
The Bay program has had the effect of organizing and focusing State efforts on NPS
problems. In the 1970s, the State NPS program only consisted of water quality management
22
-------
TABLE 2.2
COMBINED STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR VIRGINIA'S BAY PROGRAM*
FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86 FY 1986-87
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING FUNDING FUNDING
BMP Cost Share $730,000 $1,671,500 $1,260,000
Program Management $80,000 $156,000 $177,400
Technical Assistance $390,000 $450,000 $585,000
Agricultural Education $120,000 $131,850 $143,700
Nutrient Management $0 $0 $70,000
Research/Demonstration $160,000 $270,922 $367,800
Data Base $85,000 $252,839 $358,600
Urban BMP Demonstrations $185,000 $422,889 $174,400
Urban Education Programs $0 $72,500 $29,775
Other NPS Programs $0 $171,500 $339,800
Chlorine Discharge Control $0 $750,000 $0
(in-kind match)
Land Management Program $0 $0 $656,475
(in-kind match)
TOTAL (Federal + State) $1,750,000 $4,350,000 $4,162,950
State Funds $875,000 $2,175,000 $2,081,475
* Includes Chesapeake Bay Program implementation grants only (EPA funds and State
match).
SOURCES: Agricultural Pollution Control Plan for the Chesapeake Bay and Chowan River Drainage Basins (FY 1984
Application for Federal Assistance from the Chesapeake Bay Program), Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 1984.
Chesapeake Bay NPS Pollution Control Program Implementation Plan for FY 1985-86 (FY 1985 Application
for Federal Assistance from the Bay Program), Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, 1985.
Chesapeake Bay NPS Pollution Control Program Implementation Plan for FY 1986-88, Department of Con-
servation and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 1986.
plans under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. While Virginia has had an erosion and sedi-
ment control law since 1973, the urban demonstration projects are entirely the result of the
Bay program. Local governments have provided partial funding for the projects implemented
in most cases. Local governments have also funded 25 % of the cost of the staff positions
provided to conservation districts for erosion and sedimentation plan review and technical
assistance for agricultural and urban efforts through Bay program funding.
Virginia's agricultural cost-share program was initiated in response to the Chesapeake
Bay program. The Bay program has accelerated the cropland BMP program and has greatly
increased the installation of animal waste facilities beyond what USDA programs could fund.
Farmers must contribute part of the cost, but they could not afford the whole cost, particularly
of the expensive animal waste facilities.
23
-------
TABLE 2.3
VIRGINIA'S RIVER BASIN CHARACTERISTICS AND
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS (1985)
EASTERN
POTOMAC RAPPAHANNOCK YORK JAMES SHORE
Nonpoint
Nitrogen
Contribution
(°7o of Total)
Nonpoint
Phosphorus
Contribution
(% of Total)
Land use
Percentages:
• Cropland
• Pasture Land
• Urban
• Forest
59
80
11
26
7
56
86
60
15
20
1
64
74
42
16.8
13
0.2
70
42
20
10
14
3
73
63
36
40
8.5
1.5
50
Basin Size 14,669* 2,631
(Square Miles)
*42°7o in Virginia.
2,986 10,495
< 1,000
SOURCE: Progress Report of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program, Council on the Environment, February 1987.
VIRGINIA'S AGRICULTURAL NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
History and Approach: A Three-Pronged Assault on Agricultural Pollution
Virginia's agricultural NPS control program, as described in the following sections, is
based on a three-part approach of education, technical assistance, and incentives for implement-
ing BMPs. It places considerable emphasis on education and demonstration projects as ways
to gain program participation and otherwise improve farm conservation practices. Table 2.4
shows how Federal and State funds have been used to support these activities.
Virginia's agricultural erosion control program began in the 1930s with the establishment
of the network of soil and water conservation districts. In 1983, the program began to focus
on particular water quality problems. The Chowan River received early attention because of
water quality problems identified by North Carolina, and the State established a limited cost-
share program to begin to address these problems. A full-scale State cost-share program was
established in 1984 by the General Assembly to address NPS problems in the Chesapeake
Bay basin of Virginia as well as in other areas of the State. The General Assembly appropriated
$1.75 million for a 2-year period, which was supplemented by $843,655 in EPA funding from
the Bay program. This cost-share program is designed to encourage voluntary application
of BMPs by farmers.
24
-------
Staffing for the agricultural program includes both State-level staff and support staff
for the conservation districts. Currently, one State staff position in the Technical Services
group is assigned to the agricultural program. He is assisted by three individuals on assign-
ment from federal programs (USDA's SCS and Cooperative Extension Service), through Inter-
governmental Personnel Act transfer. The six District Operations staff provide field support
and technical assistance to the agriculture program and are shared with the urban program.
Originally, the erosion control program's home was under the Secretary of Commerce
and Resources as the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. In 1984, the Commission
became a division of the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources — the Division
of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). A committee assembled by the Commission helped
develop a comprehensive agricultural pollution abatement program with emphasis on the Ches-
apeake Bay, expanding upon past efforts.
Targeting Approach: Choose Problem Cropland and Animal Concentrations
The Virginia agricultural NFS program is designed to improve water quality through a
cost-share program to encourage farmers to implement BMPs. Conservation districts distribute
the funds. They receive Bay funds on the basis of an analysis of agricultural factors that af-
fect water quality within their jurisdiction, such as cropland cultivation, intensity of use, soil
erosiveness, and numbers of animals.
Since the funds available to pay for BMPs cannot possibly match the existing need, State
staff developed a multi-level approach to allocating funds. The general areas of the State that
contribute to Bay pollution were established as described in the results of the Chesapeake
Bay study published in 1983.
TABLE 2.4
COMBINED STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
VIRGINIA'S AGRICULTURAL NFS PROGRAM
FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING FUNDING
Agricultural BMP Cost Sharing $817,466 $1,495,603
Agricultural Program Management $90,675 $143,123
Technical/Administrative
Assistance $415,883 $705,237
Agricultural Education $140,104 $174,188
Agricultural Research/
Demonstration $152,020 $283,268
Data Base $68,678 $248,141
TOTAL (Federal + State) $1,684,826 $3,049,560
State Funds $838,653 $1,184,763
SOURCES: Chesapeake Bay Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program First Annual Report, July 1, 1984-June 30,
1985, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1985,
p. 23
Chesapeake Bay Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program Annual Report, July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986, p. 25.
25
-------
The dominant problems are cropland in some areas and animal waste in others. Thus,
the State established priority areas to focus on different problems based on the 1983 study's
modeling results, which showed that the largest agricultural nutrient loads came from the
York and Rappahannock River basins and the Eastern Shore. This area was designated as
the Cropland Priority Area and receives 50% of the available Bay program cost-share fund-
ing. The Shenandoah Valley contains many intensive animal-waste producing facilities, and
was chosen to receive 30% of the cost-share funds. The remaining 20% of the program's cost-
share funds have been allocated to the remaining portion of the Bay drainage area. It should
be noted that BMP funding for this area comes entirely from State sources; EPA funds are
targeted to the higher priority areas. The priority areas are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
The use of funds in each area is restricted to certain BPMs:
• LEVEL I, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM AREA—Includes 13 local con-
servation districts covering 31 counties in addition to those in-
cluded in Levels II-A and II-C. Districts were funded at base level
and allowed to choose from 14 BMPs offered. A maximum of
30% of the district allocation could be utilized for animal waste
control facility BMPs.
• LEVEL II-A, ANIMAL WASTE PRIORITY AREA—Includes three
districts covering seven counties. Districts were funded at an ac-
celerated rate due to high animal waste production. A minimum
of 85% of the district allocation must be spent for animal waste
control. Up to 15% could be allocated for other BMPs.
• LEVEL II-C, CROPLAND PRIORITY AREA —Includes nine districts
covering 24 counties. Districts were funded at an accelerated rate
due to the high percentages of cultivated land and the resulting
water problems in the York and Rappahannock River basins and
the Eastern Shore. A minimum of 70% of the district allocation
must be spent on soil erosion BMPs. Up to 30% can be utilized
for animal waste control.
• LEVEL III, DEMONSTRATION WATERSHEDS—The Bay program in-
cludes two demonstration watersheds indicated on Figure 2.1.
• LEVEL III, SHELLFISH ENHANCEMENT AREA —Funds are available
for BMP cost sharing for identified sources of pollution, typically
animal waste, contributing to closure of shellfish harvesting areas
in the Bay.
In each area where applications for assistance exceed available funds, the applications
are ranked on the basis of cost effectiveness. A cost-effectiveness factor is developed using
the estimated cost of the BMP, the life 6f the practice, the gross erosion rate, and the delivery
ratio (pollution reduction potential to the nearest stream divided by distance to the nearest
stream). The result is the relative cost of keeping one ton of sediment out of the nearest stream
over the life of the practice.
The current program has shifted to try to target problem lands within each area (i.e.,
Levels I, II-A, and II-C) with outreach efforts focused on those lands. This targeting effort
is based on the information in VirGIS, the Virginia Geographic Information System. The
data base is complete for the York and Rappahannock watersheds, and the Shenandoah Valley
area counties will be ready for analysis by July 1987. VirGIS provides a water quality basis
for conservation districts to use in deciding which application to fund. EPA Chesapeake Bay
program funds supported development of this targeting tool.
26
-------
FIGURE 2.1 Areas Targeted for Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Funds in Virginia
*
D
Chesapeake Bay Program Area (Level I) (68 Counties)
Animal Waste Priority Area (Level II-A) (7 Counties)
Cropland Priority Area (Level II-C) (23 Counties)
Demonstration Watersheds (Level III)
Portion of Virginia not draining to the Bay (includes Virginia Program Area [29 Counties] and Chowan
River Program Area [6 Counties])
SOURCE: 1987 Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program, Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, July 1986, p. 1.
27
-------
Implementation: Eligible BMPs are Updated Yearly and Technical Assistance Is Available
BMP implementation is based on a handbook entitled "1987 Virginia Agricultural BMP
Cost-Share Program," which lays out the eligible practices, cost-share rates, signup procedures,
and other program elements. Table 2.5 shows the practices and cost-share rates. The program
is evaluated each year, and practices are added or dropped as needed to adequately address
problems. In addition, there is a limit of $3,500 per landowner per year for cropland/pastureland
BMPs and $7,500 per year for animal waste BMPs.
TABLE 2.5
ELIGIBLE STATE COST-SHARED BMPS IN VIRGINIA (1987)
BMP UNIT STATE RATE
Animal Waste Control Facilities No. of Systems 75% (ACP* +State)
($7500 maximum)
Diversions Feet 65%
Grass Filter Strips Linear Feet $0.10
Grazing Land Protection Acre 65%
No-Till Cropland Acre $15
No-Till Pastureland Acre $15
Permanent Vegetative Cover on Acre 75%
Critical Areas
Protective Cover for Vegetable Acre 50%
Cropland
Reforestation of Erodible Crop Acre $75
and Pastureland
Sediment Retention, Erosion or No. of Systems 75%
Water Control Structure
Sod Waterways Acre 75%
Stream Protection AC/FT 65%
Stripcropping Systems Acre $30 + 65% of eligible
component cost
Terrace Systems Feet 65%
*USDA's Agricultural Conservation Program.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay Nonpoml Source Pollution Control Program: Annual Report, July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986.
Landowners who receive less than $7,500 for an animal waste system are eligible to receive
up to $3,500 in cropland/pastureland funds, as long as the total payment to a landowner does
not exceed $7,500 per year. Table 2.6 shows the number of farmers who have implemented
cropland BMPs and the acres benefited, plus the amount of money spent (total BMP cost
and cost-share amounts). The table also includes the estimated reduction in sediment and
phosphorus, based on a BMP tracking system developed by the State using Bay funds. Table
2.7 presents data on animal waste cost-share results.
28
-------
TABLE 2.6
CROPLAND BMPS IN VIRGINIA'S CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN
1984 1985 1986* TOTAL
Farmers Participating 118 1,326 436 1,880
Acres Benefitted 2,471 56,123 16,504 75,098
Phosphorus Reduction (Ibs) 837 32,922 85,258 119,017
Sediment Reduction (tons) 888 30,371 77,768 109,027
Total BMP Cost $158,654 $1,078,728 $456,459 $1,693,841
State EPA Cost Share ($) $44,393 $793,451 $351,740 $1,189,584
ACP** Cost Share $70,304 $184,470 $23,116 $277,890
*Data for 1986 are incomplete.
**USDA Agricultural Conservation Program.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program: Annual Report, July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986.
Program assistance comes from three sources. The Field Operations section of DSWC
has six staff, one located in each region of the State. They support the conservation district
programs, providing financial management assistance and various types of training, conduct-
ing spot checks for compliance with program specifications, and serving as an information
source and coordination point related to other program components. Conservation districts
also provide technical assistance, as do USDA staff through SCS and Cooperative Extension
Service programs.
TABLE 2.7
COST SHARING OF ANIMAL WASTE BMPS IN VIRGINIA
MEASURE 1984 1985 1986* TOTAL
Participating Farmers 21 27 13 61
Tons Animal Waste Treated 57,274 53,766 23,403 134,443
Total BMP Cost $390,820 $479,477 $193,791 $1,064,088
State/EPA Cost-Share Amount $137,313 $186,177 $65,634 $389,124
ACP** Cost-Share Amount $67,700 $79,345 $28,435 $175,480
*1986 data are incomplete.
**USDA's Agricultural Conservation Program.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program Annual Report, July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986
29
-------
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM:
A TOOL FOR TARGETING OUTREACH AND COST SHARING
Realizing the importance of concentrating program efforts on areas with the
greatest effect on water quality, Virginia has developed a sophisticated tool to identify
potential problem areas. DSWC contracted with the Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to
develop a computerized geographic information system and data base to calculate
sediment loading potential from discrete land areas.
The Virginia Geographic Information System, called VirGIS, consists of the
integration of soil, watershed, and elevation information from topographic and soil
maps, with factors for rainfall, cover, and land uses. The Universal Soil Loss Equa-
tion (USLE) is used with a delivery ratio function to predict how much soil could
reach a body of water. Using this information, it is possible to calculate potential
sediment loading rates into receiving waters for 1-hectare cells (2.47 acres). Overall,
the system identifies critical acreages within a watershed. The small size of the cells
gives the system the capability of identifying areas within a farm that may need
BMPs.
State personnel will visit farms in the identified areas to determine whether
high erosion rates are actually occurring and to see if erosion control measures are
needed. The intent is not to suggest that the farmer is the problem, but to be able
to move from simply setting priorities among applicants (who already know about
the program) to targeting outreach efforts to areas where problems are most likely
to exist.
The program began with a pilot project in the Northern Neck Soil and Water
Conservation District in 1984/85. Then, the program was expanded to the Rappa-
hannock and York basins (Level II-C, cropland priority area). Current efforts in-
clude use of the system in conjunction with the 1987 program sign-up to evaluate
methods for using the system to greatest advantage in the future. The data base
is currently being expanded to include the Level II-A animal waste priority area
(Shenandoah Valley).
The system has the potential for assisting with priority setting and critical area
determination for other programs. Among these are the Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram, forestry management efforts, and assessment of site suitability for on-site
waste treatment.
Research and Demonstration Projects: A Wide Variety
Virginia's philosophy has been to minimize program administrative costs and spend as
much money in the field as possible. Still, the value of agriculturally oriented research and
demonstration projects is well recognized. Several have been implemented under the Bay
program:
• A RAINFALL SIMULATOR—The simulator was designed to demon-
strate the difference in runoff and pollution load from tilled and
no-till cropland. It has also been used to demonstrate the effect
of grass filter strips and non-agricultural BMPs such as porous
pavement.
30
-------
• INNOVATIVE BMP IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION — Soil and
water conservation districts and the State helped sponsor inno-
vative BMP projects, which were evaluated for their effectiveness,
efficiency, and feasibility. Some practices may be incorporated into
the 1988 cost-share program. Table 2.8 lists the practices that were
included in this program, which ended in 1986.
• CHIPPOKES MODEL FARM—Various BMPs are demonstrated at this
farm, including conservation tillage and several structural prac-
tices. Shoreline erosion will be a focal point of future program
efforts.
• NOMINI CREEK PROJECT—This project was undertaken to answer
questions on downstream water quality improvements from BMP
application. The DSWC has contracted with Virginia Tech to
monitor a 3,700-acre watershed in Westmoreland County. Monitor-
ing includes continuous hydrologic data, sediment and nutrient
analysis (weekly and at discrete intervals or stages during storm
runoff), and in-stream biological monitoring. A 10-year project
period is planned. Groundwater sampling has been added to study
TABLE 2.8
INNOVATIVE BMPS SPONSORED IN VIRGINIA
YEAR PRACTICE
1984 Aerial seeding of rye into F.S. soybean
1984 Pasture demonstration with no-till annuals
1984 Aerial seeding of clover into soybeans under
irrigation
1984 Aerial seeding of clover into drilled soybeans
1984 Aerial seeding of rye into D.C. soybeans
1984 Tile Outlet Terrace
1984 Rock Check Dam
1985 Parallel grassed field strips with subsurface drains
1985 No-till seeding of turnips for fall grazing
1985 Three no-till methods of cover crop established
1985 Aerial seeding of Austrian winter pea soybean
1985 Aerial seeding of Austrian winter pea reduced
N application
1985 Voisin rational grazing on dairy loafing lot
1985 Water control structure
1985 Voisin pasture management system
1986 Split application on no-till wheat
1986 Austrian winter pea cover
1986 Streambank erosion control
1986 Voisin pasture management system
1986 Voisin pasture management system
1986 Nutrient management —manure application rates
LOCATION
Middlesex Co.
King William Co.
Essex Co.
King & Queen Co.
Richmond Co.
Prince George Co.
King William Co.
Prince George Co.
Highland Co.
Loudoun Co.
King & Queen Co.
Prince George Co.
Augusta Co.
Isle of Wight Co.
Fauquier Co.
Piedmont SWCD
Piedmont SWCD
Nelson Co.
Spotsylvania Co.
Orange Co.
Rockingham Co.
SOURCE: Chesapeake Bay Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program: Annual Report, July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986.
31
-------
the movement of pesticides and fertilizers. Conservation plans are
under development for all farms in the watershed, and an incen-
tive program and concentrated educational efforts will be im-
plemented as well. Monitoring results from this project will be
used in modeling efforts to extend the project's application to other
parts of the State.
• LIVESTOCK DEMONSTRATION WATERSHED —The Owl Run watershed
in Fauquier County has been selected to demonstrate and monitor
animal waste BMP installation. This area has many livestock
operations and few BMPs installed to date. Baseline monitoring
is already underway at four sites, with BMP installation to begin
in 1987. The watershed contains five large feeding operations, none
of which have animal waste storage (all waste is applied daily).
Initial readings in the watershed showed high levels of fecal col-
iforms and nutrients. Ten years of monitoring are planned.
Education: Outreach Motivates Participation
Both the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service and the DSWC are active in NFS educa-
tional efforts. Bay program funds have contributed to increased activities and the availability
of grants to conservation districts in 1985 to help improve participation in the cost-share pro-
gram and to educate the public about NFS problems, solutions, and activities. District ac-
tivities supported by these funds include teacher seminars, BMP tours and field days, exhibits,
and development of a soil and water conservation resource center offering educational materials
for use by citizens. (A complete list of projects is available in Virginia's 1984-85 Annual Report.)
The DSWC had two contracts with the Cooperative Extension Service in 1984/85. One
of these, which continued in 1985/86, involved funding a full-time position to coordinate educa-
tional activities of extension agents and other agencies working on CBP educational efforts.
DSWC also paid for a secretarial position and for some travel costs for extension agents. These
agents made numerous farm visits to explain BMPs and available assistance programs, con-
ducted meetings for farmers, wrote news releases, and presented radio programs. The first
and second annual reports include the total numbers of these activities.
The second contract in 1985 led to development of an educational strategy to promote
the nutrient management program. Both meetings and mailings have been used to get infor-
mation out to farmers. The nutrient education program focuses on fertilizer management
in the coastal plain region, while animal waste nutrient management is concentrated in the
Shenandoah Valley. In the fertilizer program, efforts are based on an existing program
(Emergency Nutrient Management Program), which will be modified to undertake longer term
management practices. The program related to animal waste focuses on correct implementa-
tion of management plans for proper use of animal waste as fertilizer. Both programs are
directed to operators who apply large volumes of fertilizers or waste. Services include soil
testing, analysis of expected crop rotations, etc. The program is currently a pilot project, designed
to field test a complex analytical process; it will be expanded as results and resources justify.
To recognize farmers who have made great progress in reducing pollution potential from
their farms, DSWC developed an award program —the Governor's Model Clean Water Farm
Award. Besides rewarding cooperating farmers, the program helps show other farmers what
needs to be done and can be done to reduce the pollution potential on their farms. In 1986,
six regional winners were chosen from among 176 district-level awardees. The district-level
winners receive an 18"xl8" reflective sign and a certificate from the governor. The six regional
32
-------
winners receive additional awards: a plaque, a luncheon banquet, and attendance at a signing
ceremony with the governor. Other educational efforts have included development of posters,
brochures, newsletters, news releases, bumper stickers, displays, etc.
Enforcement: Keeping BMPs Operational
Cost-shared BMPs are subject to inspection for program compliance during the lifespan
of the practice. Every BMP is inspected by a forestry, conservation district, or SCS technician
before cost-share funds are released to the landowner. Additional spot checks are made to
ensure inspection quality. Field staff are beginning to look back to practices implemented
in previous years: spot-check inspections in the past have focused on the current year. Staff
plan to inspect a random sample of 5% of each type of practice for the current year, plus
5% of the total number of practices from previous years.
The State has guidelines published in the "1987 Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share
Program" handbook for punitive action if the practice has not been maintained or has been
removed. Participants have 6 months from the date of notification to bring the practice into
compliance. Repayment of State cost-share funds is required if a re-inspection finds that the
practice is still out of compliance. If funds are not repaid within 60 days, the district will
take legal action.
VIRGINIA'S URBAN NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
Virginia's urban nonpoint source efforts are split between regulatory activities related
to construction erosion control and demonstration project/education efforts. Table 2.9 shows
the funds available for these programs. A total of $339,029 in Federal funds has been spent
for urban programs.
TABLE 2.9
COMBINED STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE URBAN
AND OTHER* NFS PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA
FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING FUNDING
Urban BMP Demonstrations $163,343 $435,864
Urban Program Management $0 $29,629
Other NFS Programs $0 $90,077**
TOTAL (Federal + State) $163,343 $555,570
State Funds $134,517 $245,367
*"Other" category does not include agricultural NPS.
**Chippokes Shore Erosion Design, Forestry, Conservation Easements.
SOURCES: Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program First Annual Report, July 1, 1984-June 30,
1985, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1985,
p. 23.
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Annual Report, July I, 1985-June 30, 1986,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, 1986, p. 25.
33
-------
History and Overview: Support to Localities
The State has had an erosion and sediment control law since 1973, with the first techni-
cal standards established in 1974. These standards were revised in 1980 in the second edition
of the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The program as it relates to new construc-
tion is managed by the DSWC, with 172 independent local programs generally housed in the
planning department or county administrator's office handling plan review and compliance.
(About 110 of these are in the Bay drainage area.)
State roles include establishing minimum Statewide conservation standards, approving
local ordinances, responding to citizen complaints, and providing technical assistance and
training to local agencies. Local governments pass ordinances, approve erosion and sedimen-
tation conservation plans for new construction projects, inspect projects to see that the ap-
proved plan is carried out in compliance with the ordinance, and take enforcement action
when needed. Soil and water conservation districts assist with plan review, public education,
and advisory programs. The DSWC directly administers the State agency erosion and sedimen-
tation programs, including plan review and enforcement.
A stormwater management program has been in place since 1980, based on the Erosion
and Sediment Control Law. Stormwater management is primarily oriented toward water quan-
tity, but State and local staff have often found ways to increase consideration of water quality.
The urban program received an initial State appropriation of $750,000 for the 1984-86
biennium; the 1984-85 budget was later reduced by $100,000 and, although the grant from
EPA made up for part of the reduction, some projects had to be delayed. The program operates
with limited staffing at the State level; only two positions in the Technical Services group
are allocated to urban NFS efforts. Six District Operations staff provide technical assistance
for both the urban and agricultural programs. Thus, urban program efforts are carried out
mainly by the staff of the 172 local agencies referred to above.
Program Goals and Approach: Focus on Education
Because of the small portion of the problem attributed to urban sources, the funding
available for the urban program is relatively limited. DSWC believed that the available funds
would be best used by supporting demonstration projects to promote BMP installation and
to assist conservation districts in hiring staff for the erosion and sediment control program.
An important focal point of both aspects of the program is to educate developers and the
public about the problem and potential solutions. The erosion and sediment control program
is currently undergoing a complete evaluation, including the legislation, local implementa-
tion effectiveness, and other funding sources. Recommendations are due in June 1987.
The stormwater management criterion under the Erosion and Sediment Control Law is
intended to prevent off-site stream channel erosion. Developers must evaluate discharge before
and after the project, and take action if effects are projected. Localities can institute stronger
requirements: Fairfax County has done this in the Occoquan watershed where stormwater
management practices related to water quality are required for new developments.
Targeting Approach: Priority Areas Under Development
The erosion and sediment control program has targeted its efforts based on priority areas
of the State and on BMP effectiveness. The program started by considering the areas of overall
Bay program priority and, within those areas, focused on the more developed or rapidly growing
areas. Then, staff reviewed proposals and selected BMPs for funding that seemed to hold
the most promise for water quality benefits and applicability to other situations.
34
-------
Implementation: Technical Assistance Provided to Local Agencies
The initial program effort in the urban arena was to identify priority areas as possible
sites for the urban BMP demonstration projects described below and for technical assistance.
Because the erosion and sediment control programs are managed at the local level through
172 independent agencies, staffing for 13 local conservation districts has been provided to
increase their ability to provide technical and administrative assistance on urban BMP pro-
jects and programs. DSWC Technical Services staff located in each of the six regions of the
State provide technical assistance to local staff in the form of training, technical backup, and
program review.
Research and Demonstration Projects: Clean Water Through Innovation
Demonstration projects promoting urban BMPs have been implemented in various areas.
Proposals from local officials, land developers, and engineering consultants were reviewed
based on innovativeness, water quality improvement potential, and participation by local project
sponsors. Projects under this program include the following:
• A water quality monitoring project of porous asphalt pavement
and an infiltration trench in Prince William County (Davis Ford
Park) is in the second year of monitoring.
• A computer model is being developed to compare alternative
stormwater management strategies. Field evaluations of the model
are in progress.
• Monitoring of a wet pond and level spreader in Charlottesville
is currently underway. The level spreader project consists of allow-
ing water from a pipe to level out in a ditch and converting it to
sheet flow to allow infiltration.
• A porous pavement parking lot at Riverfront City Park in Fred-
ericksburg has been built.
• A porous pavement project has been completed on a new motel
parking lot in James City County.
• Construction of a porous pavement at the Henrico County Park
is complete.
• A dry, long-term detention basin is being monitored in Fairfax
County. The outfall has been modified for the second year of the
project.
• Sites in Fairfax County have been selected for streambank stabiliza-
tion with biotechnical measures. Installation is scheduled for winter
1987-88. These measures consist of building bundles of dormant
woody plant shoots such as willow trees into the bank where root
growth will bind the soil and remove water through plant uptake.
Sprouting vegetation also provides surface stabilization.
• A commuter parking lot (porous pavement) is under construc-
tion in Fauquier County.
35
-------
• An urban marsh project will be constructed and monitored in Fair-
fax County during the spring of 1987.
Program staff work closely with their counterparts in Maryland and other states to en-
sure that they are not duplicating efforts. Table 2.10 shows the Federal funding for these proj-
ects and their projected completion dates, where available.
TABLE 2.10
FEDERAL EXPENDITURES TO DATE
FOR URBAN BMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN VIRGINIA
FEDERAL* DATE OF
NAME FUNDING COMPLETION
Davis Ford Park Porous Pavement
Monitoring $33,700 6/85
Four Porous Pavement Projects $103,000
• Fredericksburg 9/01/86
• Henrico County 9/31/86
• James City County 8/01/85
• Warrenton 1987
Fairfax Extended Detention Dry Pond $29,800 1/15/86
Four Seasons Pond and Level Spreader Site
in Charlottesville (Infiltration Practice) $94,800 2/06/86
Fairfax Urban Marsh $42,000 1987
TOTAL $303,300
*FY 1986 Funds.
SOURCE: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
Education: From Conferences to Videos
An important purpose of the urban demonstration projects implemented under the Bay
program has been to educate developers and local officials about the benefits, effectiveness,
and other characteristics of urban stormwater BMPs. This educational effort included initia-
tion of an urban BMP conference, held in 1985 with several co-sponsors (Virginia Homebuilders
Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia Municipal League, and the North-
ern Virginia and Prince William Soil and Water Conservation Districts). In 1986, educational
activities included development of a BMP brochure ("Land Development for Water Qual-
ity") and review of the technical standards in the 'Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook."
36
-------
In addition, slide/tape and video training modules are planned related to erosion con-
trol and stormwater management. Stormwater management and erosion control seminars to
inform developers and consultants have been held quarterly in many areas of the State. State
staff prepare a quarterly newsletter focusing on erosion and sediment control issues and BMPs.
Enforcement Via Inspection and Penalties
Local governments inspect construction sites for compliance with the Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Law and the applicable site plans. A limited stop-work authority was added
in 1986. Penalties for noncompliance include fines of up to $1,000 or 30 days imprisonment,
or both, for each violation.
OTHER NFS PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA
Highway construction activities are monitored by the DEPARTMENT OF "TRANSPORTATION
after approval of standards and specifications annually by the DSWC, plus a monthly review
of plans by the environmental agencies. Among Department of Transportation activities are
seminars in each highway district about environmental issues and requirements.
Mining is regulated by the DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS, AND ENERGY. Permits and
reclamation are required for the sand and gravel operations and other types of mining in the
Bay drainage basin.
The DSWC initiated a program in 1985 in cooperation with the DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
to expand the scope of the Chesapeake Bay NFS pollution control program beyond agricultural
and urban sources. A grant of $61,500 per year pays for education and information projects
and forest hydrology studies to assess BMP effectiveness. Forestry staff have undertaken a
project to identify eroding cropland and pastureland areas that should be converted to forest,
as well as forest sites needing stabilization of logging roads and skid trails. Part of the fund-
ing paid for a U.S. Forest Service hydrologist (on interagency personnel assignment) and two
interns to conduct these projects. Outreach efforts included contacts with landowners to ex-
plain the availability of cost-share funds to correct problems. Although forestry is exempt
from the Erosion and Sediment Control Law, voluntary BMP guidelines emphasize soil pro-
tection. The Department policy is to inspect every tract to be harvested and contact the land-
owner/operator about BMPs. For sites implementing an alternate management plan under
the Seed Tree Law (all trees are cut and the site is revegetated artificially), the owner/operator
must maintain BMPs to be eligible for assistance.
THE SHORELINE EROSION ADVISORY SERVICE, part of the DSWC, was established in
September 1980. Its purpose is to provide nonbinding advice to private property owners on
how to control shoreline erosion. Its efforts are limited to tidal areas. The Service encom-
passes more than 5,000 miles of shoreline in 27 counties and 19 cities. While there are no
requirements for implementing shoreline erosion controls, the Service has issued nearly 2,000
advisories since its inception.
The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH has conducted surveys of drainfields and other waste disposal
systems in an effort to reduce the contribution of pollutants to waterways and to reopen shellfish
areas that have been closed because of pollution. THE SHELLFISH ENHANCEMENT TASK FORCE
advises the DSWC of areas with problems from agricultural sources. Special funds within
the cost-share program are available to pay for solutions at a higher-than-normal cost-share
rate. Other task force participants include DSWC, Virginia Marine Resources Commission,
and Virginia Water Control Board, Department of Housing and Community Development,
Council on the Environment, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
37
-------
A program to seek donation of conservation easements is managed by the CHESAPEAKE
BAY FOUNDATION, using a staff person from the U.S. Forest Service (on an interagency per-
sonnel assignment). The program is designed to establish perpetual natural buffers along the
banks of Bay tributaries to reduce future NFS pollution potential from changes in land use.
The VIRGINIA OUTDOOR FOUNDATION is the recipient of the easements. In some cases, the dona-
tion may include the land itself, not just an easement. The program is now in its second year.
Next year the program may be expanded to include a cooperative program with local govern-
ments for planning growth in waterfront areas.
The COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT uses Bay funds to provide staff support for eight
RIVER BASIN COMMITTEES, which are citizen advisory committees established in 1985 and ap-
pointed by the governor. The 200 members are required to review and comment on Bay-related
programs, suggest new projects, and facilitate outreach to groups and individuals in the river
basins.
The DIVISION OF PARKS uses State funds for a youth conservation employment program
related to the Bay. It provides job opportunities for disadvantaged youth and addresses prob-
lems such as erosion and streambank stabilization that can be abated through short-term,
labor-intensive projects.
38
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
INTRODUCTION
Pennsylvania Stresses Cooperative Environmental Goals
The overall goal of Pennsylvania's Bay program is to reduce pollutants entering the Ches-
apeake Bay—especially nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment —by focusing on management
of nutrients from agricultural sources. The following elements are central to the State's
approach:
• WATER QUALITY—To improve and protect water quality and the
living resources of the Bay, focusing on nutrient reduction, manure
management, conservation tillage, and regenerative farming.*
• ECOLOGY—To accommodate growth in an environmentally sound
manner through land use management.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION—To foster public awareness.
• REGIONAL COOPERATION —To address areawide needs where they
cross political boundaries and jurisdictions.
Agriculture Is the Chief NFS Problem for the Bay
According to State staff, acid mine drainage is the worst nonpoint source pollution prob-
lem Statewide, and agriculture is the second largest. Construction and urban/suburban runoff
have also been identified as NPS problems in Pennsylvania. However, agriculture is by far
the most significant source of nonpoint source pollution to the Bay.**
The Susquehanna River has been identified as the largest riverine source of nitrogen and
phosphorus to the Chesapeake Bay. EPA has noted that runoff from agricultural lands is
responsible for the largest fraction of these nutrients —60% of the phosphorus and 85% of
the nitrogen entering the Bay from this basin comes from cropland runoff. Forty-one percent
of the Susquehanna's NPS load to the Bay comes from the lower Susquehanna Basin (below
Sunbury).3
Animal wastes have constituted a growing problem, due to rapid expansion of the livestock
and poultry industries in the 1970s. In Lancaster County, where the problem is particularly
acute, enough animal waste is produced annually to cover every acre of cropland in the county
with 13.5 tons of manure. Farmers have traditionally either stored the waste in pits, lagoons,
or slurries, or spread it over fields as fertilizer. The excess nutrients that cannot be absorbed
by crops or other vegetation travel into ground water and nearby streams and rivers. This
has been a major cause of the excess nutrient load in the Susquehanna.
Sediment in the waters has also been identified as a problem. Annual soil loss from un-
treated cropland in the lower Susquehanna basin may be as high as 17.7 tons per acre, com-
pared to a basin average of 7.4 tons per acre.4
* Regenerative farming involves the use of farming methods that reduce fertilizer and pesticide inputs and rely
more on natural restorative properties of the soil.
*Mining does not constitute a significant problem for the Bay. First, much of the mining throughout the State
is not located within the Susquehanna drainage area. Second, mining activities within the Susquehanna River
basin are located in the upper reaches, allowing the natural buffering capacity of the river to neutralize the
acid conditions as the waters flow downstream.
39
-------
Pennsylvania's NPS Program: The Bay is the Focal Point
Pennsylvania's NPS program as a whole is administered by the Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation (BSWC) within the Department of Environmental Resources. BSWC serves as
staff to the State Conservation Commission (SCC), which is responsible for policy decisions
governing the NPS program. BSWC is divided into two divisions and one branch:
• The Division of Conservation Districts oversees $1 million in funds
for the 66 soil conservation districts in the State. The Division
provides a consultation and liaison function for the districts, and
employs seven field representatives to assist the conservation
districts Statewide.
• The Soil Resources and Erosion Control Division administers the
erosion and sedimentation control program, and supports soils
engineers in the field throughout the State.
• The Watershed Branch operates Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
program and other special NPS projects.
With respect to point sources and toxics, the SCC plays a minor coordination role with
other State agencies. The Chesapeake Bay effort and the erosion and sedimentation control
program comprise the bulk of Pennsylvania's NPS program.
Pennsylvania strives to maintain citizen involvement in development and implementa-
tion of the program. The Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee (formerly the Nonpoint Steering
TABLE 2.11
COMBINED STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
PENNSYLVANIA'S BAY PROGRAM*
FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86 FY 1986-87
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING FUNDING FUNDING
Watershed Assessments
and Monitoring $115,000 $455,215 $458,405
Education (including
Demonstration Projects) $635,000 $908,500 $1,114,784
Technical Assistance $150,000 $576,500 $489,761
Financial Assistance $1,050,000 $2,409,785 $2,000,000
Other $50,000 $0 $100,000
TOTAL (Federal + State) $2,000,000 $4,350,000 $4,162,950
State Funds $1,000,000 $2,175,000 $2,081,475
*Includes Chesapeake Bay Program implementation grants only (EPA funds and State
match).
SOURCE: Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Program Annual Grant Applications. FY 1984-85, FY 1985-86, and
FY 1986-87
40
-------
Committee to the SCC) advises the program. A coalition of State and Federal agricultural
agencies and farm organizations, the Advisory Committee gives the agricultural community—as
well as legislative, environmental, and civic interests — input into the process of remediating
NFS pollution.
To date, EPA implementation grants totalling $5,256,475 between 1984 and 1986 have
helped support Pennsylvania's NFS program for the Bay, with an equivalent match by the
State. These funds have been used to provide financial assistance to landowners through the
cost-sharing program; support technical assistance to conservation districts and landowners;
and conduct watershed assessments, monitoring, and educational activities. Table 2.11 sum-
marizes the Bay program funding levels for FY 1984-86 by program area.
The CBP Has Focused Attention on Nutrient Management and Supported Cost-sharing
Since the Chesapeake Bay Program was initiated, the essential change has been the new
awareness of water quality and nutrient management as a goal —not only within the tradi-
tional environmental agencies, but by other government agencies, private organizations, and
individuals, as well. For example, the recently completed attitude survey of Pennsylvania farmers
found that 47°7o of those surveyed recognized nutrients as a problem, and 98% acknowledged
that farmers should pay a share of the cost to prevent further pollution of the waters. In ad-
dition, the conservation districts, traditionally farm-oriented entities, are expanding beyond
their strictly agricultural focus and becoming multi-purpose conservation organizations ad-
dressing water quality and other environmental issues.
The Bay program has made the cost-share program possible in Pennsylvania, has reoriented
the local infrastructure related to soil and water conservation plans, has increased technical
field staff support throughout the Susquehanna River basin, and has increased the emphasis
on nutrient management throughout the State. The Chesapeake Bay Program has grown in
Pennsylvania to the point where it now constitutes a major activity of the BSWC.
PENNSYLVANIA'S AGRICULTURAL NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
Program Goals and Approach: Keep Soil and Nutrients at Home
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay program focuses on agriculture. It is based on the premise
that a benefit to the farmer is a benefit to the Bay. BMPs can keep soil and nutrients on
farm land, maintaining soil productivity and reducing operating expenses. Pennsylvania also
stresses the benefit of protecting the ground-water resources used for drinking-water supplies.
(Unlike Maryland and Virginia, Pennsylvania does not border the Bay and therefore does
not receive the direct benefits of water quality improvements to the Bay.) The agricultural
program is implemented through the cooperation of numerous agencies and organizations,
including DER, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service
(Pennsylvania State University), Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, conservation districts, farm organizations, and volunteer groups.
History: An Evolution From Soil Conservation
The Conservation District Law of 1945 established soil conservation districts throughout
Pennsylvania, and made them responsible for soil and water conservation. The SCC was created
simultaneously as the policy-making body for the districts. The focus of the districts" pro-
gram was agricultural soil erosion, which has since been expanded to include reduction of
water pollution by sediment, as discussed in more detail under "Urban NPS Control Pro-
gram," below.
41
-------
Pennsylvania signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1983, initiating its agricultural
NFS pollution control program for the Bay in 1984 under the authority of the Conservation
District Law. Procedures for the program were established through a Statement of Policy (25
PA Code Chapter 83, Sections 101-148), adopted in April 1985 and revised in January 1986.
The first contracts for cost-sharing assistance for BMPs were signed in November 1985, with
the first monies going to farmers in December 1985.
Targeting Approach: Decentralized Decisionmaking Based on Priority Watersheds
Pennsylvania's Bay program targets its efforts and funds on the basis of several past plan-
ning efforts and ongoing evaluations, as well as on the 1983 EPA study identifying the lower
Susquehanna as a significant problem area for nutrients.5
Priority Watersheds
The initial planning effort supporting priority watershed selection predates the formal
Bay program. The planning effort began as part of the agriculture component to the State's
water quality management plan. All sub-basins within the major river basins of the State
were analyzed for their potential to contribute agricultural NFS pollution; factors such as
slope erodibility, soil type, agricultural acreage, and animal density were used. Staff devised
a formula for comparing these factors among basins, resulting in a final ranking of areas
for potential agricultural pollution problems Statewide. A total of 20 sub-basins and 104 water-
sheds were studied and ranked.6
BSWC, the conservation districts, and the Soil Conservation Service then conducted a
more detailed assessment of the ten highest priority watersheds. In-depth agricultural
assessments must be conducted as a prerequisite for financial assistance in Pennsylvania. These
assessments resulted in the targeting of 5 priority watersheds for BMP financial assistance.
On the basis of additional detailed assessments, the project area has been expanded to in-
clude an additional nine watersheds, three of which exhibited high phosphorus loadings. The
target area, therefore, includes a total of 14 watersheds spanning 13 counties (see Figure 2.2).
In addition, the DER, through the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, continues
to monitor watersheds to track existing problems and identify new ones as they appear. The
Department maintains 13 monitoring stations at selected watersheds in the Susquehanna River
basin to collect base flow data and samples for chemical analysis.
Selection of Projects for Cost-Share Funding
The SCC allocates EPA implementation funds for the Chesapeake Bay to the conserva-
tion districts containing priority watersheds in the Susquehanna River basin. Thus, decisions
about the ultimate distribution of cost-share funds for implementing BMPs are decentralized
to the individual conservation districts. The conservation district and the SCC sign a con-
tract requiring the conservation district to comply with SCC policy in distributing the cost-
share funds and approving BMPs. The SCC has developed a list of acceptable BMPs (see
Table 2.12), which is updated as new information becomes available, and the individual con-
servation districts select those they will approve for their districts. Policy guidance for the
districts is contained in the "SCC Chesapeake Bay NFS Pollution Abatement Program —
Statement of Policy" (25 PA Code Chapter 83).
BSWC allocates other funds on the basis of how well proposed projects satisfy program
requirements. When financial assistance is requested, projects are assessed for their contribution
to the final goal of reducing nutrients in the Susquehanna basin.
42
-------
FIGURE 2.2 Pennsylvania's Priority Watersheds for Agricultural BMP Implementation
Under the Chesapeake Bay Program
Initial Watersheds Selected for Implementation
Additional Watersheds Selected for Implementation
NOTE: Areas on map without watershed details do not drain to the Bay.
SOURCE: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation.
43
-------
TABLE 2.12
BMPS QUALIFYING FOR COST SHARING IN PENNSYLVANIA
BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
COMPONENT
MAINTENANCE
LIFE (YEARS)
PERMANENT
VEGETATIVE COVER
Pasture/Hayland Management
Pasture/Hayland Planning
ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Waste Management System
Waste Storage Structure
Waste Treatment Lagoon
Fencing
Filter Strips
Waste Storage Pond
Subsurface Drain
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
STRIPCROPPING AND
CONTOUR FARMING
SYSTEMS
Obstruction Removal
Stripcropping, Contour
Stripcropping, Field
Contour Farming
Subsurface Drain
10
5
5
5
10
TERRACE SYSTEM
Obstruction Removal
Terrace
Subsurface Drain
Underground Outlet
10
10
10
10
DIVERSION SYSTEM
Diversion
Obstruction Removal
Subsurface Drain
10
10
10
GRAZING LAND
PROTECTION SYSTEM
Pond
Fencing
Pipeline
Pond Sealing or Lining
Spring Development
Trough or Tank
Well
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
WATERWAY SYSTEMS
Grassed Waterway or Outlet
Lined Waterway or Outlet
Subsurface Drain
10
10
10
CROPLAND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
SOURCE: Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Program Handbook, Section V, March 1986.
44
-------
TABLE 2.12 (Continued)
BMPS QUALIFYING FOR COST SHARING IN PENNSYLVANIA
BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
COMPONENT
MAINTENANCE
LIFE (YEARS)
CONSERVATION
TILLAGE SYSTEM
Conservation Cropping System
Conservation Tillage System
(no-till)
Contour Farming
Crop Residue Use
Stubble Mulching
STREAM PROTECTION
SYSTEM
Channel Vegetation
Fencing
Filter Strip
Streambank Protection
Tree Planting
10
10
10
10
10
PERMANENT
VEGETATION COVER
ON CRITICAL AREAS
Critical Area Planting
Fencing
Filter Strip
Livestock Exclusion
Mulching
Spoilbank Spreading
Field Borders
Tree Planting
Subsurface Drain
Roof Runoff Management
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
SEDIMENT RETENTION,
EROSION, OR WATER
CONTROL STRUCTURES
Sediment Basin
Fencing
Grade Stabilization Structure
Structure for Water Control
Water and Sediment Control Basin
Roof Runoff Management
10
10
10
10
10
10
SOIL AND MANURE
ANALYSIS
Soil Analysis
Manure Analysis
Recommendations of Commercial
Fertilizer and/or Manure
Application
EXCESS MANURE
TRANSPORTATION
Excess Manure Agitation and
Loading
Excess Manure Transportation
Excess Manure Application
and/or Incorporation
FERTILIZER
MANAGEMENT
Fertilizer Management
45
-------
Implementation: Cost-shared BMPs Supported by Planning and Engineering Help
BMP Financing
A cost-sharing program provides incentives to landowners to install BMPs. Eligibility
for the cost-share funds is limited to the designated priority watersheds. To obtain cost-share
monies, a landowner signs a contract with the conservation district to develop and imple-
ment a nutrient management program, for the life of the BMPs installed (up to 10 years).
In this contract, the conservation district and the landowner also agree on the BMPs needed,
the length of time they must be maintained, and the cost-share rates for them. The specific
BMPs and cost-share rates to be used are left to the discretion of the conservation district,
with a ceiling of 80% of the total cost for each practice, or a combined total of $30,000 for
assistance to any one landowner. Monies are paid out on a reimbursement basis.
Regulations governing financial assistance were adopted in April 1985, and by November
1985 the first contracts were signed. As of February 1987, there were 368 signups and 110
contracts signed, committing approximately 38% of the money (or $2,092,172) for the first
3 years.7
Technical Assistance
Provision of technical assistance is a primary responsibility of the conservation districts.
The nutrient management program required of a cost-share farmer must include an annual
manure and waste summary, soil testing, manure testing, a recommended nutrient applica-
tion summary, and provisions for documentation to verify nutrient and pollution reductions.
Technical assistance in developing nutrient management plans is provided by conservation
districts with Chesapeake Bay funds. DER's nutrient management specialists monitor the design
and implementation of BMPs in priority watersheds.
The BSWC has also helped fund several engineer positions in the conservation districts
to help farmers with specific conservation BMPs and to assist district staff with sediment
control activities. In addition, the State's conservation district engineer program provides tech-
nical assistance to support 32 conservation districts within the Susquehannna River basin.
Research and Demonstration Projects: Innovation, Education, and Self-help
Numerous research-related efforts are underway in the State, including the following:
• The planning assistance program provides funds to conservation
districts, agencies, and other cooperating organizations to iden-
tify NPS problem areas, develop strategies, monitor water qual-
ity runoff, and evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. The Phase I
evaluation of high-priority watersheds under the planning
assistance program evaluated over half of the acreage in the lower
Susquehanna drainage area qualified for cost-sharing funds. Phase
II will assess the remainder of those high-priority watersheds.
Phases III and IV will continue and finish the assessment pro-
cess by surveying the medium-priority watersheds. Information
obtained from these studies will be used in BSWC planning
activities.
•
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the U.S.
Geological Survey are currently involved in a 5-year program to
46
-------
MOBILE NUTRIENT LABORATORY:
HELPING FARMERS TO HELP THEMSELVES
Some Pennsylvania farmers apply more nutrients to their crops than needed,
often without realizing it. Soil and water tests have indicated that excess applica-
tions of animal manure and commercial fertilizer can cause water quality prob-
lems. This means that nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus get into ground
and surface waters, and can affect local water supplies. In addition to water qual-
ity problems, these fertilizers cost farmers money.
Pennsylvania DER and Pennsylvania State University have developed a mobile
nutrient laboratory to provide rapid analyses of soils, water, and animal wastes.
The laboratory travels throughout the lower Susquehanna River basin to conduct
tests on local farms and help improve farm nutrient management. Results tell the
nutrient values of a farm's soil and manure so that the farmer can apply only the
precise amounts of commercial fertilizer or manure needed to obtain desired crop
yields.
Equipment on the mobile laboratory include standard tools for soil, water, and
manure analysis, as well as a computer to interpret results. Computer software
developed by Penn State's Cooperative Extension Service calculates proper applica-
tion rates for manure and commercial fertilizer. Soil samples are tested for water-
soluble phosphate, potassium, and nitrate-nitrogen; farm water is examined for
nitrates; and manure is analyzed for organic and ammonium nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium.
Proper farm nutrient management can mean a significant cost savings for
farmers for fertilizers, protection of local water supplies, and benefits to Chesa-
peake Bay waters downstream.
assess nutrient sources and loadings from the main stem of the
Susquehanna and selected watersheds, and to evaluate agricultural
BMPs.
• A Pesticide Use Profile Survey in high-priority watersheds was
completed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service under
contract to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in
September 1986, as the first part of a program to reduce runoff
of toxics from agricultural lands. This involved the quantifica-
tion of pesticide usage in the Chesapeake Bay priority watersheds.
An education program will then be developed by the Cooperative
Extension Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,
and representatives of pesticide manufacturers. This educational
program will be oriented toward instructing users on how to use
pesticides in a manner that is more efficient for the farmer and
less hazardous to ground water and the Bay.
47
-------
Pennsylvania is developing a wide variety of demonstration projects. These projects ad-
vance research in nutrient management, test and encourage innovative conservation techniques,
and educate farmers and the general public on issues of conservation.
A major project funded through the educational assistance program is the mobile nutrient
laboratory. The laboratory travels throughout the Susquehanna basin, stopping to provide
demonstrations to farmers of the value and application of soil, water, and manure testing.
Other demonstration projects, funded as educational assistance projects, have stimulated
interest in continuing innovative approaches. For example, a demonstration project in Lebanon
County entailed the development of a truck-mounted machine that uses computers and lasers
to spread manure in accordance with fertilizer needs on an individual section of cropland.
This machine is the only one of its kind in the country. The project, developed by the John
Deere Corporation, is an example of the kind of public/private sector cooperation the Penn-
sylvania program has been working to foster.
Other cooperative efforts with the private sector include: (1) the Pennfield-Weaver Cor-
poration feasibility study of cogeneration of electricity and steam from chicken manure; and
(2) development of digestion processes to create methane gas from animal waste. Educational
tourist stops are being established for demonstrating these latter processes.
Some "demonstration projects" are oriented toward self-help for farmers. The BSWC
is funding the initiation of crop management associations (CMAs). These non-profit groups
hire technical specialists for recommendations on manure management, fertilizer and pesti-
cide usage, crop selection, etc. CMAs have been set up in Chester and Lebanon Counties.
A project in Lancaster County encourages farmers to develop on-farm analytical skills by
demonstrating the use of simple testing devices. Nitrogen meters and hydrometers can give
farmers a rough analysis of manure, and obviate the need to send a sample to a laboratory.
Education: Multi-Media Approaches
The educational assistance funding program provides information to landowners and
the general public on the need for nutrient management and water quality programs. It funds
numerous "mini-demonstration projects" with EPA funds through the Pennsylvania Association
of Conservation Districts (under $500 per project, for a total of $9,000) as well as projects
in conjunction with other agencies and organizations to demonstrate conservation manage-
ment techniques. Some of these projects are described below:
• The Bureau of State Parks provides information to the general
public and to educators. It has developed a series of seminars and
workshops for secondary students, which was introduced at the
Chesapeake Bay Conference at Gettysburg College in February
1987. The program also sponsors contests for elementary and
secondary students, and programs geared toward visitors to State
parks.
• The Pennsylvania Department of Education established an En-
vironmental Education Office which works closely with the Ches-
apeake Bay Program.
• The Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts has pro-
duced and distributed television programs, newsletters, fact sheets,
brochures, and other information on the Bay Program.
48
-------
• Various educational projects have been developed by the Penn-
sylvania State University, including demonstrations of soil and
tissue tests, educational materials and programs for farmers, and
water quality education materials for the general public.
• Numerous other education projects are organized by the local con-
servation districts.
Enforcement: Maintain or Repay
The field staff specialists in the Watershed Branch of BSWC evaluate the contracts be-
tween the conservation districts and the landowners. These specialists ensure that the districts
are carrying out SCC policy in the financial assistance program. Conservation districts are
urged to conduct annual reviews of farms in the cost-share program to make certain that BMPs
are being implemented and maintained. Where BMPs are not properly maintained, the lan-
downer must return State cost-share monies to the district.
The financial assistance program currently applies to a small geographical area, making
oversight relatively simple and informal. As the program expands, more formal procedures
may be necessary to ensure that the conservation districts and landowners are implementing
SCC policy.
In general, farmers who use the State's manure management manual are not required
to obtain a DER permit for either animal manure storage facilities or land application of
animal manure. However, if manure is stored in an impoundment having either a maximum
storage elevation greater than 15 feet or storage capacity greater than 50 acre-feet, a DER
permit is required. Regardless of whether a permit is required, farmers are responsible for
any pollution of surface or ground water caused by their farming operation.
Other Agriculture-Related Projects in Pennsylvania
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Project
This project of the Soil Conservation Service is still in the development stage. Fourteen
counties in Pennsylvania and eight counties in Maryland will receive special treatment to reduce
soil erosion. Currently, the annual soil erosion rate in these untreated areas is estimated to
be as high as 17.7 tons per acre.
RCWP Conestoga River Project
The Conestoga River Basin in Lancaster County was found to have excessive NPS
discharges of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus associated with agriculture. A project to
install BMPs in this area has been funded by the Rural Clean Water Program and administered
by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in cooperation with other agen-
cies. As part of this project, BMPs will be implemented on up to 300 farms to assess the
transport of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides in the Upper Conestoga River basin; the move-
ment of nitrate into ground water aquifers from fertilizer and manure applications; the transport
of water-soluble pesticides to ground water; the effectiveness of specific BMPs in controlling
the movement of nitrates and other contaminants into ground water; and the cost and effec-
tiveness of individual agricultural BMPs. The results of this study (scheduled for completion
in 1992) will provide useful input to the Chesapeake Bay Program.
49
-------
PENNSYLVANIA'S URBAN NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
History: Ten Years of Erosion and Sediment Control
The erosion and sedimentation control program has been in place for more than 10 years
and is the basis for Pennsylvania's urban NFS program. The Clean Streams Law was revised
by the State legislature in 1972 to require DER to develop an erosion and sedimentation con-
trol program to reduce water pollution by sediment. The program is implemented by DER,
and the conservation districts implement it at the local level. The thrust of this program is
contained in two major provisions of the erosion control regulations:
• Any landowner, person, or municipality engaged in earthmoving
activities must "develop, implement, and maintain erosion and
sedimentation control measures which effectively minimize ac-
celerated erosion and sedimentation."
• In addition, a DER permit is required if an earthmoving activity
involves 25 or more continguous acres. (Agricultural plowing and
tilling are exempted from the permit requirement.)
While the erosion and sedimentation control program applies to all earthmoving activities,
most conservation district efforts under the program are related to urban sources. Approx-
imately 14.5 million tons of soil are eroded from construction sites in Pennsylvania each year.8
Stormwater management plans are required under a 1978 Stormwater Act (Act 178) es-
tablishing a Statewide planning process by county governments. However, Stormwater plans
are designed only to reduce flooding problems, and have no water quality orientation beyond
reducing flow velocity.
Implementation: Technical Assistance in Plan Development
Control measures to minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation must be specified
in a plan and must be implemented and maintained according to the schedule specified in
the plan. The plan must also be prepared by a person experienced in control methods and
techniques. It should consider erosion and sedimentation control both before and after the
earthmoving activity has been completed. The regulations further require a DER earth distur-
bance permit if 25 or more contiguous acres are disturbed, with the exception of agricultural
plowing and tilling activities; activities affecting less than 25 contiguous acres are exempt from
the permit requirement.
The districts process applications for earth disturbance permits and review erosion con-
trol plans. The conservation district coordinates the review of the plan, usually through the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) district office, the Fish Commission, and a BSWC soils
engineer. The soils engineer evaluates the submitted plan and permit application, including
all comments from the district and SCS offices, and submits recommendations to the BSWC's
central office. This office issues the actual earth disturbance permits. When a proposed ac-
tivity requires other permits from DER, the erosion and sedimentation control plan will either
be coordinated with, or become a part of, these other permits. Generally, no separate earth
disturbance permit is issued by DER when other permits are required.
Plans are often submitted for sites that do not require a permit. The districts review these
plans and ensure that adequate erosion control facilities are provided. Some local govern-
ments require such a review before they will issue a building permit,
50
-------
Education Through Training
BSWC has conducted training sessions for the districts to explain program requirements.
Conservation districts have always promoted conservation education and are currently active
in conducting training related to soil erosion control, program requirements, and the benefits
of conservation measures. Education is important in obtaining voluntary compliance.
Enforcement: When Voluntary Compliance Fails
Inspection and surveillance activities are conducted primarily by the conservation districts.
Voluntary compliance is encouraged, but, in cases of noncompliance, enforcement actions
may be taken. Extensive court actions have been avoided to date through use of consent orders
and agreements that establish penalties and requirements for correcting erosion problems.
BSWC places a great deal of emphasis on helping districts obtain voluntary compliance,
often in response to complaints. In addition to complaint response, district staff inspect per-
mitted sites and non-permitted activities and document violations. Inspection reports form
the basis of enforcement actions when needed.
Enforcement penalties are paid into the State's Clean Water Fund, which is used to address
various environmental problems such as spill cleanup. Between September 1981 and June 1987,
payments totalled $374,154 from 249 administrative enforcement actions.
OTHER NPS CONTROL PROGRAMS IN PENNSYLVANIA: A DIVERSE MIX
A number of other NFS-related programs and activities are being conducted in Pennsyl-
vania. Some of these are listed below:
• Act 319, the "Clean and Green Act," provides for tax incentives
to owners of agricultural and forest lands if they meet certain
eligibility criteria, agree to preserve the agricultural or woodland
use of the property into perpetuity, and have a land management
plan. These plans are developed either by the Bureau of Forestry
or a State-approved independent private forester on a consultant
basis. The local tax assessor has the authority to ensure plan im-
plementation and determine the amount of the tax reduction.
• Under the erosion and sedimentation program, soils engineers in
the Soil Resources and Erosion Control Division conduct erosion
and sedimentation permitting and inspection activities for earth
disturbance projects, including land development, timber harvest-
ing, and solid waste disposal facilities.
Earthmoving disturbance permits are required for forestry opera-
tions when the activity exceeds 250 acres, compared with 25 acres
for other activities. Federal activities are subject to the permit re-
quirements, although agricultural plowing and tilling activities are
exempt.
• With funding from the Department of the Interior's Office of Sur-
face Mining, soils engineers are also working to reduce nonpoint
source damage from acid mine drainage by monitoring erosion
plans and assisting with the development of mine restoration plans.
51
-------
Although this is a severe problem in the State overall, it is not
significant within the target watersheds draining to the Chesapeake
Bay.
• To receive a solid waste permit under the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Act of 1980, operators of landfills must have erosion and
sedimentation controls, which are reviewed by BSWC engineers.
• The Dam Safety and Encroachments Act of 1978 requires a per-
mit from DER for any obstructions or encroachments upon
streams or waterways in the State. The Bureau of Dams and Water-
ways Management issued over 1,000 permits and waiver letters
in 1983 alone.
• Some educational assistance funding program activities are ad-
dressing non-agricultural problems. For example, the State's Bay
program has presented workshops demonstrating conservation and
nutrient/toxic management programs for homeowners. Such
workshops have included identification and disposal of household
hazardous materials, and the discussion of the role of the
homeowner in soil and water conservation.
52
-------
MARYLAND
A COMPLEX NETWORK OF COOPERATION
Rather than residing in one centralized program office, Maryland's NFS program in-
volves a complex network of participants in several agencies and offices. The three that share
the primary responsibility for various aspects of NFS management are:
• MARYLAND'S DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MDE)* takes
the lead in administering EPA implementation grant funds and
is responsible for Statewide water quality management planning
to address all nonpoint sources. This department also coordinates
management approaches for point and nonpoint sources, and is
responsible for regulation of urban stormwater and construction
erosion and for managing urban stormwater demonstration pro-
jects in established urban areas. MDE initiates enforcement ac-
tions when needed in agricultural pollution situations.
• THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (MDA) directs a
multi-faceted conservation program based on a complex network
of cooperation. Maryland's agricultural program delivery system
synthesizes components involving USDA (Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service, and the
Cooperative Extension Service); the University of Maryland's
Agricultural Experiment Station; other Maryland State agencies
(e.g., MDE, Department of Natural Resources); local county agen-
cies; and local soil conservation districts. MDA's Soil Conserva-
tion Administration funds and coordinates technical and finan-
cial assistance, outreach, education, and research. The agricultural
nonpoint source program is implemented primarily through con-
servation districts.
• MARYLAND'S DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)
regulates a variety of nonpoint sources of pollution, including
forestry (Forest, Park, and Wildlife Service), and silvicultural sedi-
ment (Water Resources Administration). This department also
oversees surface mine reclamation and shoreline protection pro-
grams. Local conservation districts and local government provide
technical assistance to carry out many of the programs ad-
ministered by DNR.
In addition to the efforts of these three departments, the CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA
COMMISSION was established to control growth within a critical area surrounding the Bay. The
Commission oversees and reviews locally prepared protection programs.
Table 2.13 summarizes State and Federal funding for Bay programs in Maryland.
CBP Funds are Enhancing Programs and Promoting Innovation
Federal funds have been instrumental both in providing needed enhancements of existing
State NFS programs and in supporting cleanup efforts of a more innovative nature. EPA funds,
for example, supplement state funding for its agricultural cost-share program.
*Effective July 1, 1987, the Office of Environmental Programs from within the Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene and the stormwater, sediment, and oil pollution control programs from within Maryland's
Department of Natural Resources were consolidated into a new cabinet-level department (MDE).
53
-------
TABLE 2.13
COMBINED STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
MARYLAND'S BAY PROGRAM*
FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86 FY 1986-87
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING FUNDING FUNDING
Maryland Agricultural
Cost-Share Program - $3,175,000 $3,201,275
Non-structural Shore
Erosion Control Projects $225,000 $450,000 $500,000
Susquehanna Forestry Project - $82,250 $82,250
Anacostia Surface Mine
Reclamation - - $200,000
Point Source Nutrient
Reduction - - $419,025
Shallow Marsh Stormwater
Project - $200,000 -
Patuxent River Basin
Project - $107,000 -
Stormwater Projects in
Urban Areas $1,075,000 $335,750
Towser's Branch Projects $160,000 - -
Marine Pumpout Projects $90,000 - -
Rtes. 2 and 50 Stormwater
Retrofit Projects $200,000 - -
TOTAL (Federal + State) $1,750,000 $4,350,000 $4,402,550
State Funds $875,000 $2,175,000 $2,201,275
*Includes Chesapeake Bay Program implementation grants only (EPA funds and State
match); additional State monies are used for the NPS program.
SOURCE: Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Annual Grant Applications, FY 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87, Office
of Environmental Programs.
A large portion of EPA's implementation grant monies has been requested for innovative
projects in non-structural shoreline erosion control, forestry, and Stormwater mnagement. Many
of these projects are solely or largely dependent upon EPA grant monies for their initiation.
For example, the Susquehanna River basin is the focus of a proactive forest management project
that encourages landowners on highy erodible soils to plant trees as buffers along streams.
EPA grant funding has helped develop nine urban Stormwater BMP projects. One is com-
plete and one is under construction, while others are in various design phases. EPA grant
funds also supported the Patuxent River model watershed project to help realize the integrated
point/nonpoint source nutrient reduction goal through innovative design, construction, and
operation of sewage treatment facilities.
54
-------
MARYLAND'S AGRICULTURAL NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
Program Goals and Approach: Comprehensive Solutions Within a Short Time
Maryland has committed major funding and program effort to installing BMPs on farms,
since agricultural sources contribute significantly to Bay pollution. The goal of one of the
State's 34 Chesapeake Bay initiatives is to have conservation plans in place on all farms in
priority watersheds within 5 years and on all Maryland farms within 10 years.
The lead agency for agricultural activities in the State, MDA administers funding and
develops programs in support of agriculture and water quality. Maryland's agricultural con-
servation program is based on five key elements:
• TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE—The State, through provision of support
for conservation districts, helps farmers to plan, design, and in-
stall BMPs.
• FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH GRANTS —Individuals receive a
portion of the cost of BMP installation through the Maryland
Agricultural Cost-Share (MACS) Program, EPA implementation
grant monies, and other Federal funding sources.
• EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO FARMERS — Current ideas are spread
about agricultural NFS control related to agricultural productivity
and water quality.
• CONTINUING RESEARCH ON AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES—The
University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station studies
the effects of agricultural practices on resources and their relative
cost-effectiveness. USDA's Agriculture Research Service assists
these investigations.
• INCENTIVES AND ENFORCEMENT—Federal and State grant assistance
and technical support provide incentives for voluntary corrective
actions by farmers. MDE holds authority for formal enforcement
action.
Targeting Approach: Focus on High-Nutrient Watersheds
State resources for agricultural cleanup activities are allocated to the priority watersheds
with the greatest potential for NFS loading. The State Conservation Committee appoints a
technical team that identifies the priority watersheds. Ranking is based on the potential for
NPS nutrient pollution, which is, in turn, derived from factors such as soil and land charac-
teristics and management, general cropping patterns, and animal waste load.
Conservation districts are the implementing agencies for the agricultural NPS program,
which includes the agricultural cost-share program. Conservation district efforts are concen-
trated on Statewide priority watersheds and the identification of critical local conditions, in-
cluding providing assistance to farms with confirmed water quality violations. The MACS
Program directs funds to 25 priority watersheds on the basis of their potential to release
phosphorus. In addition, State funds are targeted to three subwatersheds in the Patuxent River
basin and five subwatersheds in reservoir watersheds for a total of 33. These priority water-
sheds are shown in Figure 2.3. EPA grant funds in the cost-share program are directed only
to the top 24 priority watersheds.9
55
-------
FIGURE 2.3 Maryland's Agricultural Cost-Share (MACS) Program Priority Areas
Top 24 Watershed (EPA Grant Funds are Targeted Here)
Other MACS Priority Watersheds (Funded with State and Non-EPA Monies)
SOURCE: Maryland Department of Agriculture.
56
-------
Implementation: Cost-shared BMPs for Critical Areas Plus Technical Assistance
in Planning and Analysis
Through the soil conservation district outreach program, staff work with landowners
to develop conservation plans. In 1985 and 1986, more than 2,000 conservation plans were
developed, resulting in the installation of over 5,000 BMPs and reduced erosion on 179,222
acres of cropland. In addition, 165 animal waste control facilities were constructed.10
District staff also encourage farmers whose lands contain "critical conditions" (sites presen-
ting high potential for water pollution) to apply for funds as part of the MACS Program.
The program provides up to 87.5% cost sharing, which is supplemented by private funds.
One million dollars in EPA implementation grants was applied to MACS in FY 1985 and
again in 1986, with an additional $1 million requested for 1987. In addition, the Maryland
General Assembly appropriated $22 million between 1984 and 1987 to support the MACS
program through use of State bond funds. State-funded projects may also use cost-share funds
from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). ASCS provides up to
$3,500 per project as part of its cost-share program. The cost-share ratio varies from 50%
to 75%. ASCS paid out a total of $1,694,017 in Federal FYs 1985 and 1986 for BMPs.11
Table 2.14 provides a summary of the 1,978 BMPs installed Statewide under the MACS
program during the 3-year period ending June 30, 1986. Cost-share funding was provided
for 18 types of BMPs and has been refined to include 14 BMPs. Maximum cost-share available
is $10,000 per project and $25,000 per farm. A pooling agreement for mutual problems on
adjoining farms allows $20,000 maximum per project.
The Cooperative Extension Service's Soil Testing Lab is offering a 2-year program of
free manure analysis for farms. This technical assistance is being sponsored with MDA funds
to encourage proper use and management of animal waste. Soil conservation district staff,
together with extension agents, work to inform farmers of the availability of these services.
Research and Demonstration Projects: Showcase Tours, Monitoring, Modeling, and Research
The Chesapeake Bay initiatives provided funding for a study of the effect of BMPs on
water quality. This study is being conducted at Indian Town Farm along the Chester River
in Queen Anne's County. This demonstration project is designed to determine costs of in-
stalling BMPs and effects on farm income, as well as determining the extent to which BMPs
protect water quality. This 'showcase" project is intended to educate the agricultural com-
munity on the reduction of agriculturally related NFS pollution. Between October 1985 and
November 1986, local extension agents gave 11 tours for 295 people.12 USDA's Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS) and the local conservation district cooperate with the University of
Maryland and MDA in this effort.
MDA has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the University of
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station for activities
that include evaluating demonstration farm results and other research findings and incor-
porating them into the State's agricultural NPS program. State funding for this program has
totalled $943,000 from 1985 to 1987.
Maryland has funded additional research through a separate MOU with the University
of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. State funding for these programs has exceed-
ed $400,000 from 1985 to 1987. Research activities include:
• Small plot evaluations of nutrient movement under varying fer-
tilization and management schemes in Clarkesville, MD;
57
-------
• Investigation on coastal plain research watersheds at Wye Research
and Education Center, measuring runoff from no-till and con-
ventionally tilled cropland;
• Ground-water monitoring of nitrates; and
• Economic analysis of selected BMPs.
TABLE 2.14
CONSERVATION PRACTICES COMPLETED UNDER MACS
PROGRAM BETWEEN JULY 1983 AND JUNE 1986
TYPE OF BMP NUMBER INSTALLED
Cropland Protection
No-till/minimum till 94
Contour farming 1
Cover crop 63
Diversion 85
Strip-cropping 28
Terrace 45
Permanent Vegetation Cover
Critical areas planting 139
Filter strip 5
Windbreak 3
Grazing Land Protection
Spring development and troughs 199
Water Protection Grade Stabilization
Structure 315
Grassed waterway 674
Lined waterway 18
Sediment basin 17
Water Control
Pond 171
Animal Waste
Waste storage pond 27
Waste storage structure 87
Waste treatment lagoon 7
TOTAL 1,978
SOURCE: Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share Program, Program Summary, Maryland Department of
Agriculture, December 31, 1986.
58
-------
MDA and the Agricultural Experiment Station recently agreed to study the effectiveness
of controlling nitrogen discharge from agricultural land by managing riparian vegetation. The
FY 1987 budget for this effort is $64,000.
MDE gathers and compiles data on ambient water quality for the Bay and its tributaries.
In August 1982, the then Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) began to develop a major
monitoring and modeling program that will identify critical NFS regions in the Patuxent River
basin. This effort will also allow evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs in minimizing water
quality impacts and permit forecasting of the water quality impacts of various land-use policies.
The principal objective is to develop a water quality management tool that will permit MDE
to address a broad range of point and nonpoint source pollution assessment goals for the
Patuxent River basin. After an extensive evaluation of alternatives, MDE now proposes to
undertake a 7-year program in cooperation with the Maryland office of the U. S. Geological
Survey. MDE will participate in the development of certain components of the system, in-
cluding a compatible data base for the Patuxent watershed monitoring and modeling study.
MDE also conducts a number of special studies, which, for instance, test the relation-
ships among BMPs, land use, and NFS loads. MDE is currently monitoring three agricultural
sites in the Chester River basin to determine potential contributions from various land uses.
Another monitoring effort, sponsored by EPA and the USDA Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram, was conducted at ten sites over 2!/2 years in the Monocacy River basin to characterize
NFS discharges from various land uses.
Education: Plans, Brochures, and Outreach
Maryland has expanded its information and education programs at the State and local
levels and has directed them toward promoting water quality BMPs and developing conserva-
tion plans. MDA and the University of Maryland education and outreach program for the
agricultural community focus on conservation and farm management planning for the con-
trol of soil erosion and agricultural NFS pollution. MDA, the Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, and conservation districts together have published and disseminated brochures on main-
taining agriculture productivity and water quality. These brochures describe the assistance
available, report research results, and describe BMP strategies to deal with problems.
In addition, MDA, the Cooperative Extension Service, and conservation districts have
offered a series of workshops on animal waste management.
The NFS issue is a major part of nearly all the funded projects of the environmental
education initiative. Many of the school systems work directly with conservation districts,
and districts sponsor two regional environmental education camps.
A subcommittee of the State Soil Conservation Committee has put together a comprehen-
sive education program. Conservation districts, assisted by the SCS, also provide education
to landowners and include outreach as part of their annual plans. The various demonstration
projects described in the previous section are also effective in educating farmers.
Enforcement: Fostering Voluntary Compliance
Maryland law authorizes the MDE to take enforcement action against all known polluters
of Maryland waters. The 1979 agricultural water quality plan spelled out basic procedures
to be followed when water pollution incidents from farm activities were suspected. These pro-
cedures, evolved over the last 7 years, resulted in the MOU signed in December 1986 by
Maryland's Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Health and Mental Hygiene.
59
-------
This MOU formalized roles and responsibilities, and defined a multi-step process for coor-
dination and cooperation among agency staff in attaining compliance by farmers. The pro-
cedures provide for immediate "formal" enforcement actions in cases of deliberate water pollu-
tion, and a graduated "voluntary compliance" approach for all other cases of farm-based
pollution.
Of the 56 complaint cases received by OEP since 1984, 18 farmers reached compliance
voluntarily, three were referred to the Waste Management Administration of OEP after volun-
tary compliance failed, four were immediately referred to the Waste Management Administra-
tion, and eight are pending. No action was required in 23 cases.13
MDA also has a procedure for spot-checking BMPs cost shared under the MACS pro-
gram to assure that they are properly maintained during their lifespan. Each year, staff in-
spect 10% of the projects completed to date to assure their maintenance and continued
compliance.
MARYLAND'S URBAN NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
Program Approach: Firm Standards Demanded
The laws Maryland has passed since 1970 have resulted in programs that control storm-
water runoff and erosion and sediment. Revisions to these laws and regulations have led to
improved legal tools and alternative system designs that address NPS pollution and water
quality concerns.
The 1970 Erosion and Sediment Control Law directed local governments to adopt and
implement sediment control ordinances. This law involves the review and approval of sedi-
ment and erosion control plans by local governments including conservation districts. In 1984,
long-standing concerns over enforcement caused the State to assume jurisdiction over all local
programs. Delegation of enforcement authority was offered to localities whose enforcement
program was comparable to the State's. In 1985, the Water Resources Administration within
Maryland's DNR developed new regulations requiring submission of erosion and sediment
control plans and stabilization of graded land within 14 days of disturbance. Training seminars
and additional staff have resulted in 11 counties receiving renewed responsibility for program
management.14
The 1982 Maryland Stormwater Management Act required counties to adopt stormwater
management ordinances for new development. By July 1984, all localities had adopted or-
dinances. The State hired staff and formed the Sediment and Stormwater Division within
DNR to oversee programs Statewide.
The regulation of urban nonpoint sources is now centered in MDE. MDE also leads the
State's "demonstration grant" program on stormwater management for existing urban areas.
Targeting Approach: Various Factors are Analyzed
Urban BMPs are concentrated on growth areas and on redesigning stormwater manage-
ment systems in developed areas. No targeting procedure is followed per se, but factors like
site suitability for demonstration design, local NPS problems, availability of land, and local
participation and cooperation are part of the process of project selection.
60
-------
Implementation: Technical Assistance for New Developments and
BMPs Cost-shared in Established Areas
The costs of BMP implementation are not shared for new developments. However, MDE's
program does provide a cost-sharing program at the local level for retrofitting established
urban areas with stormwater management practices. The program has a 75%/25% State/local
split. Projects may be located on public or private lands. As of April 1986, six projects were
underway with more than $1 million in FY 1984 State funds, and now a further $1 million
has been made available.15 This funding has been enhanced by implementation grants from
EPA totalling $560,000 in 1984 and $642,750 in 1985. In addition, a 1984 Bay initiative resulted
in installation of stormwater management systems on State lands at two locations at a total
cost of $500,000 in State funds.
In FY 1986, DNR awarded more than $1.46 million in State general funds for local govern-
ment staff positions in stormwater management through 100% grants-in-aid to 17 counties
and 6 municipalities.16 State general funds now total $1.7 million for local staff to review plans
and inspect projects. The Sediment and Stormwater Division has prepared a series of manuals,
guidelines, and technical papers addressing minimum water quality objectives for infiltration
practices, maintenance of stormwater management structures, and design of wet ponds. State
staff advise developers and practitioners on the design and review of projects.
Research and Demonstration Projects: Practices Tested in Many Locations
The EPA funds that OEP has provided to DNR and several local jurisdictions have resulted
in a series of urban demonstration projects. Nine urban stormwater demonstration projects
have been funded via the EPA implementation grants between 1984 and 1986.17 By the end
of 1986, five of the nine EPA-funded demonstration projects were in the final design stage,
and four projects were either ready to start or had begun construction. These projects are
managed by MDE and demonstrate a cross-section of BMPs, including infiltration, artificial
wetlands, first flush interceptors, and redesign of existing detention basins. Among the EPA-
funded projects underway are:
• A project to demonstrate the effectiveness of infiltration BMPs
for stormwater control along Maryland Routes 2 and 50.
• An infiltration BMP with water quality monitoring at Towser's
Branch.
• A regional stormwater project at Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission's Hanover Parkway, including the creation of a
shallow marsh.
• Three separate stormwater management retrofit projects in
Baltimore City.
• Shallow marsh stormwater projects at two locations to demonstrate
effectiveness in controlling stormwater pollutants;
• An infiltration BMP at a county school and park near Town Point,
St. Mary's County, Maryland; and
• A first flush interceptor installed upstream from a wet pond as
part of the Foxhill Pond project.
61
-------
Many of the urban NFS projects under design or construction have an experimental com-
ponent. The State plans to fund continued monitoring of selected projects so that long-term
effectiveness for controlling water quality can be assessed. These results will reinforce the
technical assistance and education elements of the demonstration projects.
In addition, MDE's Sediment and Stormwater Division is involved in several ongoing
research activities selected to improve program effectiveness including: working cooperatively
with the U.S. Geological Survey on a 5-year project to investigate the impact of infiltration
practices on ground water; development of criteria and investigation of water quality im-
provements from placement of marshes and shallow swales in urban areas; a study of the
maximum discharge rate from stormwater outfalls for prevention of channel erosion; and
revision of the standards and specifications for sediment control practices.
Education: Training Engineers, Planners, Developers, and Teachers
An important component of the educational program related to urban NFS is
demonstrating the feasibility of new and innovative systems to engineers, planners, and
developers. Many of these systems are designed to place major emphasis on water quality
considerations. Educational opportunities are considered in developing each project. In one
instance, the selection of a site for an artificial wetland adjacent to a school parking lot has
provided students with an opportunity for field instruction. Several of the demonstration proj-
ects described previously also entail educational opportunities.
Training and conferences also enhance education. A day-long training session for inspectors
and developers was organized in February 1987. The meeting attracted 157 participants and
provided a forum for discussion of BMPs as part of the development process. Future annual
winter meetings are planned. In addition, an annual State conference has been organized since
1985 on urban NFS control.
NFS issues are an integral part of certain special training programs. Teacher training cur-
ricula and special field-based programs comprise the Maryland environmental education in-
itiative. This initiative is an aggressive effort by the State's educational community to enhance
and expand environmental education programs for students. In addition to classroom work,
students are encouraged to become actively involved in solving environmental problems.
Whether planting trees to improve buffers, reviewing stormwater management at construc-
tion sites, or simply sharing their knowledge with adults, students are contributing to solving
NFS problems.
Enforcement: Control at State and Local Levels
DNR has established rules and regulations that local programs must follow in managing
urban runoff. A series of standards and specifications describes the techniques that localities
must use to comply with MDE requirements. The State has the authority to require necessary
corrective actions where local stormwater management programs are inadequate. In addition,
the State must approve all local ordinances, guidelines, and practices. In this way, Maryland
maintains control over both local and State-run programs. State inspection staff were recently
expanded to approximately 30; Statewide there are a total of approximately 100 State and
local inspectors for sediment control.18
MANY OTHER NFS PROGRAMS EXIST IN MARYLAND
The CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM seeks to control growth and protect resources around the
tidal waters of the Bay and its tributaries. A 1,000-foot wide strip of land bordering these
62
-------
CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM:
A SPECIAL APPROACH FOR A SPECIAL AREA
Maryland's Critical Area Program seeks to control growth in a 1,000-foot-wide
strip of land around the tidal waters of the Bay and its tributaries. The program
involves adoption of locally prepared protection programs based on criteria estab-
lished by the Critical Area Commission. The Maryland General Assembly enacted
a law in 1984 establishing the Commission and providing for its staff. Since its in-
ception, the program has undertaken an intensive planning process, held hearings,
and established criteria approved by the Maryland General Assembly in 1986 for
local program plans. Local jurisdictions are now developing their implementation
plans. Approximately $2.5 million is available to local governments for program
plan development.
The criteria require local jurisdictions to classify their lands into one of three
categories based on existing land use. In intensely developed areas, special atten-
tion is given to improving the quality of runoff from existing and proposed develop-
ment. Retrofitting to solve stormwater problems is encouraged for local programs,
and evidence of corrective measures must be provided. Also, an assessment must
be made of the extent of adverse water quality impacts from existing developments
in intensely developed areas and a strategy prepared for reducing these effects. In
limited development and resource conservation areas, forests, non-tidal wetlands,
and other habitat areas are to be protected by a variety of provisions (such as buf-
fers) when the local jurisdiction reviews new development proposals. Another
prescribed technique is to limit the density of future development (e.g., one dwell-
ing per 20 acres in resource conservation areas).
For agricultural areas, soil conservation and water quality plans and BMPs
are required for all farms inside the critical area within 5 years. Local programs
must incorporate agricultural components of Maryland's water quality manage-
ment plan. Local program regulations are to be established limiting the alteration
of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
The criteria also require local jurisdictions to adopt limitations addressing other
nonpoint sources, such as future mining operations and shoreline erosion. Non-
structural shoreline measures are to be used instead of structural measures, where
possible. Habitat protection buffers will be required: 100-foot buffers for stream
and tidal wetlands, a 25-foot setback for non-tidal wetlands, and protection of fish
spawning streams. Local jurisdictions are also to provide for the protection of the
watersheds of non-tidal wetlands when land disturbance activities are proposed.
Technical assistance under the Critical Area Program is designed to provide
an understanding to local planners of how to interpret and work within the criteria
for local critical area programs. With this in mind, the Critical Area Commission
published a guide that provides a detailed description of the criteria and the pro-
cess for development, approval, and adoption of local critical area protection pro-
grams. Local protection programs are to be submitted to the Commission in 1987
and must be implemented by June of 1988.
63
-------
waters has been established as a "critical area." Within it, local jurisdictions seek NFS-related
controls on (1) intensely developed areas, (2) limited development areas, and (3) resource con-
servation areas. Planned and existing developments, as well as farms, must assess adverse water
quality impacts and strategize improvements. Localities must also consider future mining opera-
tions, combat shoreline erosion, and protect wetland habitat. Now in the planning stage, all
local programs must be implemented by June 1988. Critical Area Program staff are focusing
technical outreach attention on local planners.
NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION FROM FORESTRY are controlled by various means. These
include tax breaks for owners who maintain long-term BMPs, laws requiring a sediment con-
trol plan for activities affecting more than 5,000 square feet of forest, and several initiatives
for controlling NFS in forested land inside the critical area, including a cost-share program
for sediment and erosion control measures. In an effort to retain existing forest land within
the 1,000-foot critical area, the Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service has set a goal
of preparing 1,500-2000 forest management plans for 40,000-60,000 acres over the next five
years. Targets for implementing sediment control plans and reforestation have also been deter-
mined. Forestry operations are inspected for compliance with regulation and law. Staff of
the Forest, Park, and Wildlife Service and the Water Resources Administration of DNR im-
plement these programs.
The Susquehanna River Forestry Project is a special 10-year effort that targets property
owners within an area of 4,300 acres of highly erodible land in the Maryland portion of the
Susquehanna basin. EPA implementation grants provided $82,250 a year for this project over
the past 2 years. Owners of property with highly erodible soils were identified and encourag-
ed to participate in the program via a letter offering technical assistance in plan development.
A forest management plan that outlines rehabilitation measures is prepared by the Service
for landowners. Tree planting will be used to establish buffers along streams. As part of this
project, several demonstration plots will be established to educate the public about good forestry
practices designed to reduce erosion.
THE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROGRAM seeks to reduce sediment loading from shoreline
erosion. Both structural and nonstructural means are deployed. DNR implements these
measures under the Shore Erosion Control Law, which was passed in 1968 and amended in
1971 and 1981. Program goals include educating the public about shore and bank erosion,
assisting in formation of shore erosion control districts, and providing technical assistance
to landowners and local governments.
Since 1985, EPA has provided implementation grants for numerous demonstration pro-
jects for non-structural shoreline protection in Bay counties. In FY 1986, EPA funded pro-
jects totaling $450,000. These monies are being used to develop projects at Jefferson Patter-
son Park Museum and in the upper reaches of the Choptank River. At the Jefferson Patter-
son Park Museum, innovative breakwater structures are being installed, and landward fill
areas are being planted to accumulate sand and reduce future erosion. In the upper Chop-
tank, properties are being selected that meet suitability criteria for non-structural shoreline
protection measures and that have landowners who are willing to share the cost of implemen-
ting the measures. These projects will result in the creation of additional marsh land as well
as reduction of sediment pollution in striped bass spawning grounds.
THE SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION LOAN FUND supports the Shoreline Pro-
tection Program approach. Over its 19 years of operation, this revolving loan program has
funded structural projects that have checked sediment loading from 25 miles of shoreline.
The nonstructural approach uses cost sharing and implementation grants to establish inter-
tidal marsh vegetation, build innovative breakwater structures, plant landward fill to retard
erosion, and emplace BMPs on private land. CBP funding is used in this program.
64
-------
SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION is one of the strategies for improving water quality in
Maryland river basins. Maryland seeks to abate sediment derived from abandoned sand and
gravel pits that contribute a large fraction of the sediment load. DNR's Water Resources Ad-
ministration is currently carrying out an abandoned mine project to halt erosion and to plan
reclamation activities in the Anacostia River basin. EPA grant funds of $200,000 were made
available to cover the construction costs of this project in FY 1986. The total project cost
is $739,000, with the balance of funds to be provided by the State Surface Mined Land Reclama-
tion Fund.
OTHER PROJECTS SUPPORTED WITH EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM FUNDS
MARINE PUMPOUT FACILITIES are being planned and built with EPA implementation grants
where boating effects are severe and in shellfish harvesting areas. Three of six planned facilities
will be installed in 1987: at Crisfield, Annapolis, and Kent Island.
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING NUTRIENTS are being applied at some point sources.
The Patuxent River watershed is a model watershed for testing the State's integrated point/non-
point source nutrient reduction strategy, and is being funded with $229,225 in EPA grant monies
in FY 1986, and a projected $500,000 in FY 1987. Bay grant funds will be used by OEP primarily
to develop and install demonstration processes, i.e., alternative treatment plant systems for
small- and medium-sized plants (1 to 10 mgd). An additional $119,800 in EPA implementa-
tion grants was given to Maryland in 1986, to be applied to improvements of wastewater treat-
ment plants located on confined embayments in the Eastern Shore. Inadequate flushing of
embayments was resulting in water quality problems.
65
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE URBAN CHALLENGE
The District of Columbia's nonpoint source controls focus strictly on urban approaches,
since the District has no agricultural land. Two agencies share responsibilities for managing
nonpoint sources of pollution in the District. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs (DCRA) plays the lead role in developing regulations, approving construction plans,
and conducting inspections of building sites. The Department of Public Works (DPW) in-
stalls stormwater management facilities and demonstration projects in the City, and carries
out program planning activities.
Grant funding began in 1984 with a grant of $227,273 to DCRA. Most of 1985's $725,000
grant was transferred to DPW to assist its Bay efforts ($626,000); DCRA thus retained $99,000
for its program efforts. In 1986, each agency received a grant — DCRA received $250,000, while
DPW's share was $443,825.
Urban runoff from the District of Columbia has been estimated by DCRA staff to con-
tribute 40,000 pounds of phosphorus; 40,000 pounds of metal (copper, mercury, lead, and
cadmium); and 40 million pounds of suspended solids. These amounts are in addition to com-
bined sewer overflows. Certain specific problems typical of urban situations have specific solu-
tions. For example, modifications to the yard of a public transportation repair shop and training
of its employees are expected to help ameliorate the oil pollution it generates.
About 28% of the land area in the District is controlled by the Federal government. [19]
These Federal lands are currently exempt from the erosion and sediment control law. In addi-
tion, most of the shoreline is under Federal control.
The most erosive soils in the District —a Christiana-Sunnyside soil association — are found
mainly in the northeast and southeast quadrants (see Figure 2.4). Such soil is generally underlain
by kaolinite and montmorilonite clays. These clay soils also cause problems with building
foundations, since they are likely to shift and cause the foundations to slide.
The District has two river systems that drain into the Bay—the Anacostia and the Potomac.
Each has several tributaries over which the District has jurisdiction. A major portion of the
Anacostia watershed is in Maryland, so control efforts must be coordinated among the ap-
propriate jurisdictions, i.e., the State of Maryland, Montgomery County, Prince Georges
County, and the District. Most streams in the District have long been covered or piped, which
further influences the program direction.
THE DISTRICT HAS FOCUSED CBP FUNDS ON NFS IN THE ANACOSTIA RIVER
EPA funds have allowed the District to begin to address the Anacostia River's problems
through monitoring (DCRA) and demonstration projects (DPW). With these funds, DCRA
has also been able to develop stormwater regulations and hire additional staff for reviews
and inspection. DPW actively tries to tie Bay and existing activities together, to gain max-
imum benefit and effectiveness from both. DPW conducts a spring cleanup program involv-
ing collection of large items and used chemicals, and advertises its benefits to the Bay. DPW
is working with the D.C. Energy Office on programs to increase recycling of oil. The spring
meeting of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) is focusing on
the Anacostia, providing an opportunity for the District to inform the public of its cleanup
activities.
66
-------
FIGURE 2.4 Highly Erosive Soils of the District of Columbia
Christiana-Sunnyside association: urban land and deep, nearly level to steep, well drained soils that are
underlain by unstable clayey sediment; on uplands
SOURCE: General Soil Map District of Columbia, USDA Soil Conservation Service, US DO1, National Park Service,
National Capital Press, 1975.
67
-------
THE DISTRICT'S URBAN NFS CONTROL PROGRAM
Overview and History: Controlling Runoff from Intensive Development
Control of nonpoint sources in the District of Columbia is focused entirely on manage-
ment of urban runoff. DCRA reviews erosion control and stormwater management plans,
conducts inspections, and develops regulations, while DPW focuses on developing ways to
remove pollutants from collected runoff before it reaches the river systems. These programs
are described in the following sections. Table 2.15 describes how the program funds for fiscal
years 1984 to 1986 were to be spent.
TABLE 2.15
COMBINED DISTRICT AND FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR THE DISTRICT'S BAY PROGRAM*
FY 1984-86
PROGRAM AREA FUNDING
Program Development and $1,490,000
Administration
Educational Program 160,000
Implementation Projects 1,640,000
TOTAL $3,290,000
District Funds $1,645,000
* Includes Chesapeake Bay Program implementation grant funds only (EPA and District
match).
SOURCE- Data summary from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland.
The goals of the stormwater management program are to control NPS pollution by
establishing regulations that ensure developers will use the appropriate measures to control
stormwater runoff from their projects, and by educating citizens about measures they can
take to reduce pollution from runoff. The erosion control program operates with the goal
of regulating land disturbing activities to prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation of
the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and their tributaries.
The District of Columbia has had an erosion and sediment control law in place since
1977 (D.C. Law 2-23). DCRA staff use guidelines and criteria established under that law to
regulate erosion from construction. More recently, the City has undertaken to regulate post-
construction stormwater runoff, again using the authority of the 1977 law. Stormwater manage-
ment regulations were developed by DCRA starting in 1985 and are currently awaiting final
review by Corporation Counsel, with publication tentatively set for September 1987.
DCRA's Bay program efforts started in 1984; DPW's involvement in the Bay program
began in 1985. Both agencies have focused on planning projects and developing important
68
-------
contractual relationships, as well as on hiring staff to implement the program. DCRA reached
full staff strength in February 1986.
An important tool in carrying out the District's program is cooperation with the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). Cooperative efforts include con-
tracting with COG to develop and install a sediment control project on the Anacostia River.
COG is assisting with the monitoring project soon to be started by DCRA. These efforts allow
a unified approach to solving the problems on the Anacostia, since most of the river is in
Maryland.
Targeting Approach: Project Size, Timing, and Citizen Complaints Drive Inspections
The water that runs off District land surfaces very quickly enters a stream or sewer system
whose ultimate destination is the Bay. In an overall sense, then, formal targeting is not a high
priority. Because urban construction problems tend to be very localized in nature and because
many more inspections are needed than can be performed by the three assigned inspectors,
staff emphasize inspection of major construction sites, visiting them more frequently than
smaller sites. However, inspection staff realize that it is important to visit sites at certain critical
times, particularly early in the development process. In general, staff goals are to inspect ma-
jor sites daily and single home sites weekly. Citizen complaints receive top priority.
Because of the attention given to the Potomac and its tributary Rock Creek by various
programs in the past, their water quality has improved significantly. Thus, the District is focusing
current efforts on the Anacostia River, which still requires a major cleanup effort. DPW is
working on a project to reduce sediment loading to the Anacostia particularly in the River
Terrace area. The lessons learned from this project will be transferred to other sites where
retrofitting for stormwater management is needed. DCRA is also focusing on the Anacostia
through a comprehensive program, described below.
Implementation: Guidance on BMPs and Technical Assistance through Inspection and
Education
DCRA Soil Resources Branch activities related to the erosion control program include
the following:
• Review and approval of construction erosion control plans;
• Inspections to ensure implementation of erosion control plans;
• Investigating and correcting sedimentation from land disturbing
activities;
• Updating of erosion and sediment control standards and
specifications;
• Conducting educational activities and developing informational
materials; and
• Developing a monitoring program to assess effectiveness of ero-
sion and stormwater management programs.
DCRA reviews between 1,000 and 1,600 construction plans each year.20 In addition, the
staff annually review about 200 stormwater management plans from developers who are com-
plying voluntarily with the proposed regulations.21 In addition to developing the stormwater
69
-------
management regulations, program activities include development of a guidebook for developers
and homeowners contining criteria and guidelines for stormwater management, which will
serve as a companion to the regulations. DCRA provides ataff support to the soil and water
conservation district through a full-time acting district manager.
The conservation district is managing two special projects: streambank rehabilitation on
Watts Branch and stabilization of a large hillside that is eroding at the Phelps School. In
addition, the conservation district is working with the District's fisheries management pro-
gram to construct an outdoor education and conservation facility in 1987.
The construction erosion control program is paid for with District funds. Other pro-
gram activities are funded jointly by the Bay program and the District. DCRA plans to cross-
train staff to conduct both stormwater and erosion plan reviews and inspections. Currently,
DCRA staff review voluntarily submitted stormwater plans. Much of the District's storm-
water management effort has been in the demonstration project described below.
DPW also conducts a vigorous program of cleaning 27,000 catch basins to prevent
discharge of sediment and debris into waterways.22 This program is used as part of the District's
matching funds.
Research and Demonstration Projects: Monitoring and Controlling Stormwater
DCRA is beginning a monitoring program in conjunction with COG to assess nonpoint
source pollution by collecting data during precipitation events in tributaries and at storm sewer
outfalls to identify and quantify NFS pollutants. Approximately $250,000 of FY 1986 DPA
Chesapeake Bay funds have been allocated to this monitoring effort.
DPW is developing plans for a demonstration sediment control facility to relieve silta-
tion and sedimentation problems from stormwater runoff reaching the Anacostia River in
the River Terrace area. DPW obtained $626,000 of FY 1985 EPA Chesapeake Bay funds to
study the problem and determine the best solution. Many constraints, such as National Park
Service control of most of the shoreline, will shape the ultimate project. DPW obtained an
additional $443,000 from EPA in FY 1986 to implement the findings of this project in other
parts of the District.
Education: Publications and Outreach to Local Residents
DPW's public information efforts include developing publications such as "From the
Waters of the District to the Chesapeake Bay." DPW also participates in outreach activities
such as the annual "Riverfest" celebration, which includes educational booths on the District's
environmental programs as well as other festivities. Informational materials focus on water
quality issues to educate District citizens about how they can contribute to the Bay restora-
tion effort. In addition, DCRA has developed a homeowner BMP brochure, "You Can Im-
prove Your Natural Environment," to provide information about practices that individuals
can implement to help improve Bay water quality through correct use of fertilizers, proper
waste disposal, etc. While these outreach efforts have been successful, shortage of staff means
that outreach activities are often given a lower priority than other program activities. Chesa-
peake Bay Program funds for 1984 to 1986 have supported development of these educational
materials.
Another publication, "Homeowner's Urban Guide on Ground Maintenance for
Washington, D.C." presents information on preventing soil erosion as well as a wide range
of advice on planning and maintaining urban property. The conservation district prepared
it with a grant from the Department of Housing and Community Development.
70
-------
Enforcement: Cumulative Penalties
DCRA has three inspectors who monitor construction sites for compliance with site plans
and erosion control standards. Violators are subject to a maximum fine of $300 per viola-
tion, or imprisonment for a maximum of 10 days. Once a notice of violation is issued, if
the site does not come into compliance as ordered, each day out of compliance counts as
additional violation. The District can also seek an injunction to force violators to halt ac-
tivities until the problem is mitigated. The D.C. police have authority to issue citations for
noncompliance, also, and this authority is used to augment the inspection capability of DCRA.
71
-------
CHAPTER 2: REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
1. Data provided by U. S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.
VIRGINIA
2. Progress Report of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program, Council on the Environment,
February 1987.
PENNSYLVANIA
3. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, U.S. EPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, September
1983, p. 131.
4. Mason Dixon Erosion Control Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Harrisburg, PA and College Park, MD, 1983.
5. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, op. cit., p. 41, 131.
6. "Statewide Plan for Agriculture and Earthmoving Activities", Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol.
9, No. 38, September 22, 1979.
7. Interview with staff of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau
of Soil and Water Conservation, February 27, 1987.
8. An Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program, Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion, Watershed Branch, August 1984, p. 11.
MARYLAND
9. Interview with Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture, February 4, 1987.
10. State Agricultural Soil and Water Conservation Programs, Maryland Department of
Agriculture, December 1986.
11. Interview with David Mason, Maryland Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Ser-
vice, February 20, 1987.
12. Interview with Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture, February 4, 1987.
13. Correspondence with Marie Halka, Chief, Water Quality Branch, Division of Planning,
Maryland Office of Environmental Programs, January 27, 1987.
14. Interview with staff of Maryland Department of Natural Resources, February 1987.
15. Maryland's Stormwater Management Program, Maryland Office of Environmental Pro-
grams, April 1986.
16. Programs to Bring Back the Bay, Draft Annual Report, U.S. EPA, 1986, p. 21.
17. Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation of Urban Stormwater BMP Projects, U.S.
EPA, December 9, 1986.
18. Interview with staff of Erosion and Stormwater Management Division, Maryland Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, February 1987.
72
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
19. Summary Report on Real Property Owned by the United States throughout the World
as of September 30, 1985, General Services Administration, 1985, Table 4, p. 34.
20. Interview with Tim Karikari, D.C, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,
February 5, 1987.
21. Ibid.
22. From the Waters of the District of Columbia to the Chesapeake Bay, District of Colum-
bia Government, July 1986, p. 8.
73
-------
Chapter 3
EFFECTIVENESS OF
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices that prevent or
reduce water pollution. They include, but are not limited to, structural and non-structural
controls and operation and maintenance procedures. While BMP selection is based on tech-
nical feasibility, site-specific conditions are also determinants. Environmental, topographical,
political, social, and economic factors can all come into play.1
Remedial control measures are needed for agriculture because acreages under monoculture
and row cropping have steadily increased; also, conventional management practices expose
the soil to the erosive forces of wind and rain. The use of pesticides and fertilizer without
proper management practices increases the potential for water quality degradation. In develop-
ing and urban areas, control measures are needed to reduce the amount of runoff from imper-
vious surfaces and from areas where soil is disturbed through construction activity; these control
measures are designed to control both quantity and quality of runoff.
BMPs yield varying degrees of effectiveness. Success depends upon:
• PROPER TARGETING—The land areas and specific sites chosen must
be those contributing pollution to the Chesapeake Bay.
• SKILLFUL PLANNING—The farmer or developer must play a part
in selecting BMPs that are not only effective, but compatible with
the enterprise being conducted.
• GOOD IMPLEMENTATION —The plan must be carried out in a timely
and high-quality way.
• MAINTENANCE —BMPs must be kept up in ensuing years.
This chapter discusses specific BMPs being used by the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions
to control NFS pollution. The effectiveness of various agricultural and urban BMPs is presented.
The chapter is separated into these two categories, although some of the BMPs can be used
to control runoff from more than one type of nonpoint source.
AGRICULTURAL BMP EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness Hinges on the Nature of Pollutants
How effective is a BMP or a mix of BMPs at limiting the movement of pollutants into
waterways? This determination depends on four characteristics of the pollutants themselves.
Successful BMPs attack:
75
-------
• THE AVAILABILITY OF POLLUTANTS—This factor can be influenced
by reducing the amount of fertilizer or pesticide applied, or by
changing the timing or method of its application. Nutrient and
pesticide management are frequently used as BMPs that influence
availability.
• THE DETACHABILITY OF POLLUTANTS —The soil surface can be pro-
tected from raindrop energy that detaches soil particles and
facilitates their transport in runoff. The important element of
BMPs intended to reduce detachability (see Table 3.1) is the ex-
tent to which the land surface is protected by crop residue or live
plants. The percentage of vegetative cover during a rainstorm event
actually determines the effectiveness, regardless of which BMP
is used.
• THE SOLUBILITY OF POLLUTANTS — Potential pollutants like fertilizer
can be influenced by using a less soluble or "slow release" form,
which releases N or P over a period of time.
• THE TRANSPORTABILITY OF POLLUTANTS — can be influenced by
controlling the RATE AND PATH of runoff waters in such a way
that the pollutants are "captured" in transit before reaching the
receiving waters. Transportability of pollutants can also be in-
fluenced by reducing the VOLUME of runoff water during a
rainstorm. This can be accomplished by increasing the infiltra-
tion rate of the soil with land cover. Another way to reduce the
volume of runoff water during a rainstorm is to create SURFACE
TABLE 3.1
BMP EFFECTS ON
FACTORS AFFECTING POLLUTANT MOVEMENT
TRANSPORTABILITY
Surface Rate
BMP DETACHABILITY Storage and Path Volume
Cover Cropping X X
Conservation Crop Sequence X X
Conservation Tillage X X
Diversions/Terraces X
Crop Residue Utilization X
Pasture Management/Planting X X
Contour Strip Cropping X X
Contour Farming X X
Grass Filter Strips X
Sediment Detention Ponds X
Grassed Waterways X
Soil Surface Roughness X
76
-------
STORAGE at the point of raindrop impact. This strategy is very ef-
fective until the capacity of created storage is reached, then runoff
occurs as if the storage did not exist. Table 3.1 shows how various
BMPs affect these three transportability factors.
Effectiveness Depends on the Way BMPs are Combined
Understanding the way BMPs work together is essential to the effective control of pollu-
tants in agricultural runoff. When a BMP "system" —more than one BMP, in other words —
is applied to the same land, effectiveness is cumulative, but it is not additive. Here is an exam-
ple. Assume that conservation tillage is applied to a field that has had an annual erosion
rate of 45 tons per acre. If at least 80% of the ground is under cover at all times, the effec-
tiveness of this BMP is 90%, and will yield a reduction in erosion of 40.5 tons per acre, leav-
ing an annual erosion rate, then, of 4.5 tons/acre. If contour strip cropping with an assumed
effectiveness of 50% is added to conservation tillage, the additional erosion reduction would
be 2.25 tons per acre (one-half of 4.5 tons), resulting in an average annual predicted erosion
rate of 2.25 tons per acre.
Soils, Topography, and Land Use Affect BMP Needs
Topography and soil texture determine the level of BMPs needed to provide adequate
NPS pollution control. On steeper and longer soil slopes, the erosion potential is greater and
so is the need for more effective BMPs.
As regards soil texture, pollutants often attach to tiny clay particles because these col-
loidal particles are electrically charged. Table 3.2 shows monitored loadings of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the Occoquan/Four Mile Run watershed by soil type, land use, and manage-
ment type.
The data in Table 3.2 indicate that: (1) loadings of N and P are greater from finer tex-
tured soils than from coarser textured (sandy) soils, (2) conservation tillage cropland pro-
duces less N and P in runoff waters on all soil types than conventional tillage, (3) pasture
land yielded N loadings similar to conservation tillage but significantly less P loadings than
conservation tillage, and (4) forest land yields the lowest pollutant loadings of all agricultural
land uses.
Structural and Non-Structural BMPs
Non-structural BMPs are an integral part of the crop production system and must be
reapplied each year as components of the crop production process. Each farmer's style of
farming is based on personal preferences. Equipment and other resources are available to sup-
port a particular style of farming. Also, the farmer has developed confidence in following
relatively standard procedures, which, for that farmer, have historically produced satisfac-
tory results.
Structural BMPs are generally applied with off-farm resources such as a skilled contrac-
tor who has special equipment for installation. Structural BMPs usually require less of the
farmer in terms of learning new skills.
The application of BMPs may require a significant change in the farmer's style of opera-
tion, and a period of readjustment may be needed to provide opportunity for the farmer to
gain confidence in the revised crop production system. Various forms of technical assistance
are essential to "sell" the farmer on the short- and long-term advantages of BMPs. Continu-
ing technical assistance is essential to provide encouragement and troubleshooting when the
farmer has problems and is tempted to return to more familiar methods. Economics and the
77
-------
TABLE 3.2
LOADINGS OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS IN
OCCOQUAN/FOUR MILE RUN WATERSHED IN VIRGINIA
(Lbs./Acre/Year)
LAND USE SILT LOAM LOAM SANDY LOAM
MANAGEMENT TYPE SOILS SOILS SOILS
Conventional Tillage
Cropland
N 17.0 11.1 3.8
P 3.71 2.42 0.83
Conservation Tillage
Cropland
N 5.2 3.2 1.1
P 2.32 1.52 0.52
Pasture Land
N 5.7 3.7 1.3
P 0.91 0.59 0.20
Forest Land
N 1.67 1.09 0.37
P 0.19 0.12 0.04
SOURCE: Occoquan/Four Mile Run Nonpomt Source Correlation Study, Prepared for Metropolitan Washington Water
Resources Planning Board by Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Falls Church, VA and Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA, 1978, p 43-44.
return on investment are major selling points to be communicated to the land user. Accep-
tance and long-term management are often dependent on the BMP being able to "pay its
way" with on-farm benefits. Farm income and market conditions play a major role in BMP
implementation.
AGRICULTURAL BMPs AT WORK AROUND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Several BMPs, singly or in combination, have been successfully used in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. Some of the more important BMPs currently being used, along with their
applicability and the primary pollutant(s) controlled, are shown in Table 3.3. These BMPs
are discussed in the following sections. Each BMP is described, and its effectiveness is discussed.
Animal Waste Management
Management of animal waste usually involves both storage and proper use of waste as
fertilizer on agricultural land in order to improve crop production and reduce transport of
pollutants by runoff waters.
78
-------
Q
S
NN
as
H
^^
^
>,
as
S
•^
tjj
a.
1
O
S
^Z
WQ
ttZ
t-r Tj5
P" W
—
PS
P
H
S
y
5
\*
^
8
Q
U
»•*
-i
M
&
fc
3-
3
aa
H
"j
to
U
I]
a.
0.
"^
1
Q
Z
4J
_
Q
_
-
0
DS
H
2^
S
[_
Z
H
_J
-J
o
Pu
e
i 3
C H
0 3
^ W
51
15
B«
-«--
c
I
^J
S.
f_
^
^ ^
3 *
O ^
cs o
H Z
1
Z
C.
m
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
cj
3
•C £3
0 ^J
CQ C
0
Z
Animal Waste Mgmt.
Conservation Crop
XXXXXXX XX
X X
XXX
XX X
X X XXX XX X
X X XX XXXX
XXXX XXXXXX X
XXXXX X X
XXXXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXX X XXXXX
XXXX X XXXXX
cjcjcjcjcj':3'ricj cjcjcjcj"3cj
3333322s 333323
is-Stfci: 3 => is J= is i: i: £ a is
CCCCcSpclCQCCCCSC
oooooi3i;o ooootiO
Z Z Z Z Z co co Z Z Z Z Z to Z
00
Iliiilllilflillsi
uuuuuQOoa^zSSco^
79
-------
Waste is usually stored in steel, concrete, or earthen structures large enough to hold at
least 6 months of waste production. This allows for flexibility in timing and use of the waste.
Waste is held for as much as several years in some cases. Also, diversion of outside runoff
water is an important component if animal loafing areas receive outside runoff water from
surrounding land or roof tops. Runoff water from animal loafing areas is diverted through
a filter strip and allowed to infiltrate or is stored for application on the land.
Effectiveness is highly dependent upon the design of each system and its efficient opera-
tion. Diverting outside water to a safe path around contaminated areas prevents clean water
from becoming polluted by flowing through contaminated areas. Containment of animal wastes
and land spreading at the proper time can reduce phosphorus runoff by 50 to 70%.2 Timing,
method, and rate of application are controllable management factors that influence both the
effectiveness of the material as a fertilizer and the degree to which pollution of runoff water
is prevented.
Vegetative filter strips are effective for removal of sediment and other suspended solids
from surface runoff from loafing areas or feedlots, provided that the flow is shallow and
uniform and the vegetative filter strips have not been previously filled with sediment. See
the "Grass Filter Strip" section for further discussion of this BMP's effectiveness.
Barnyard runoff controls in Wisconsin that met all Soil Conservation Service (SCS) stan-
dards reduced total phosphorus loadings by 80 to 99%. SCS standards included upslope diver-
sions, gutters and downspouts, filter strips, and grassed waterways.3
Conservation Crop Sequence
Different crops are grown in recurring succession on the same land, instead of continuous
culture of one crop. Rotations that include a sod crop can reduce erosion losses from 40 to
90%, increase organic matter and infiltration, and improve yields of the cash crop.4 The
economic loss in years when a cash crop is not grown reduces the acceptability of this prac-
tice. Effectiveness is dependent upon the crops rotated and the way crop residues are man-
aged. Increased amounts of crop residue on the soil surface throughout the year will increase
effectiveness.
Conservation Tillage
This practice includes any tillage and planting system that maintains at least 30% of
the soil surface covered by residues of the previous crop after planting. Different types of
conservation tillage are:
• NO-TILL—The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting. Planting
is done in a narrow seedbed approximately 1-3 inches wide. Weed
control is accomplished primarily with herbicides.
• RIDGE-TILL—The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting. Approx-
imately one-third of the soil surface is tilled at planting with sweeps
or a row cleaner. Planting is completed on ridges that are usually
4-6 inches higher than the row middles. Weed control is ac-
complished with a combination of herbicides and cultivation.
Cultivation is used to rebuild the ridges.
• STRIP-TILL—The soil is left undisturbed before planting. Approx-
imately one-third of the soil surface is tilled at planting time.
80
-------
Tillage in the row may consist of a rototiller, in-row chisel, etc.
Weed control is accomplished with a combination of herbicides
and cultivation.
• MULCH-TILL—The total soil surface is disturbed by tilling prior to
planting. Tillage tools such as chisels, field cultivators, discs,
sweeps, or blades are used. Weed control is accomplished with
a combination of herbicides and cultivation.
• REDUCED-TILL—Any tillage and planting system that meets the
30% residue requirement.
Conservation tillage has been found to reduce edge-of-field soil losses from 60 to 98%,
depending on tillage method, soil cover, soil type, slope, and crop grown. No-till studies have
generally found soil loss decreases of 80 to 98% compared to conventional tillage.5 Conser-
vation tillage systems reduce surface losses of phosphorus and nitrogen less than the loss of
sediment, and may increase the amount of nitrogen in subsurface waters. The effect of con-
servation tillage on pesticide loss varies. Intensity of rainfall and time after application may
affect pesticide loss. There are no conclusive results yet on the effect of tillage systems on
ground-water quality.6 However, research has shown that, while conservation tillage implies
more reliance on pesticide usage than conventional tillage because reduced tillage may allow
increased weed and insect populations, it does not necessarily require more pesticide usage.
Of all conservation tillage practices, no-till appears to have more potential environmental prob-
lems associated with it than the others, e.g., it may require greater herbicide and insecticide
use, it is difficult to incorporate N fertilizer and manure, and infiltration is greater. On the
other hand, no-till clearly provides the most effective way of preventing erosion and move-
ment of sediment-adsorbed chemicals.7
Conservation tillage systems will generally give higher crop yields relative to conventional
tillage systems on well-drained soils or in dry years. This trend is reversed for poorly drained
soils or during excessively wet years. Conservation tillage is considered by many scientists
to be the single most effective and most cost-effective BMP; however, degree of effectiveness
is related to the percent land cover at the time a runoff-producing storm event occurs.
Contour Farming
With contour farming, tillage operations follow the contour of the field perpendicular
to the slope of the land. Crops are planted along these tilled contours.
Contouring can reduce soil loss by 50% on moderate slopes of 8% or less. Effectiveness
decreases as the steepness of the slope increases. This BMP loses its effectiveness when the
surface storage created by contour tillage reaches capacity or if the tillage marks begin to
break down. Diversions or terraces are needed for contour farming to be effective on long
slopes.8
Crop yields with contour farming may be higher under dry conditions, and lower when
the soil is very wet or poorly drained.
Contour Strip Cropping System
Under this system, farming operations are performed on the contour with alternate strips
of close-grown crops (such as grasses or legumes) and tilled row crops. This BMP reduces
the velocity of water as it leaves the tilled area. Runoff water is absorbed in the close-grown
crop strips to reduce the loss of nutrients and pesticides.
81
-------
One study found that row crops and hay in alternate 50- to 100-foot strips reduced soil
loss by about 50% compared with contour farming without strips.9
Cover Cropping
This BMP involves planting close-growing crops of small grain, grasses, or legumes,
primarily for the purpose of soil protection outside the normal growing season. The usual
alternative is to leave the land bare.
Erosion reduction depends upon when the cover crop is planted and the growth stage
of the cover crop during the non-growing season. Erosion reduction rates are high (compared
with continuous, conventional-till corn) when a dense rye cover is present until the time of
planting. Effectiveness of cover crops may be lower when planted late, because fall growth
is limited. Effectiveness is related to the amount of vegetation produced for soil cover. There
is recent evidence that non-legume cover crops may reduce nitrogen leaching to ground water
as a result of plant uptake.10
Critical Area Stabilization
This BMP is needed on areas where erosion has caused severe damage or where poten-
tial for erosion is high and the eroded soil can readily enter a body of water. Treatment
sometimes consists of "land reclamation." Typical erosion control measures include: (1) sod-
ding, (2) mulching, (3) seeding, and (4) excluding traffic.
Effectiveness varies with the site and its proximity to receiving waters.
Diversion and Terrace Systems
A diversion is an individually designed channel across a slope to divert surface runoff
water for a specific conservation purpose. A diversion may be used to reduce the length of
slope for erosion control or may be used to route runoff water around contaminated areas
such as feedlots. An effective use of a diversion is to divert the path of runoff water around
contaminated areas (such as loafing corrals for dairy cattle or potentially high-erosion sites),
thus preventing clean water from becoming polluted with animal wastes or causing erosion.
A terrace system is a series of earthen ridges designed to control rill and gully erosion
by reducing the length of the slope. Terraces also trap soil that was eroded from areas above
them. Systems of terraces are best suited to land with relatively uniform topography and slopes
ranging from 3 to 7%. One study reported that a terrace with a vegetative outlet will trap
60 to 80% of the sediment moving into the terrace channel.11 Terraces have been shown to
reduce soil loss by 50 to 98% as compared to conventional tillage without terracing. Again,
reduction of the loss of nutrients in surface runoff is not as great as for sediment, and sub-
surface nitrogen losses may increase.
Grade Stabilization Structures
These structures are intended to stabilize the grade of a gully or other watercourse, prevent-
ing further head-cutting or lowering of the channel grade.
Many complex factors influence effectiveness, including soil erodibility, climate, nature
of the site involved, and flow characteristics. It is difficult to assign an effectiveness value
that would be accurate across many sites.12
82
-------
Grass Filter Strips
These practices are permanent strips of vegetation, which can be located near a stream
or near a source of pollution, such as an animal feedlot, to filter pollutants from runoff water.
Filter strips are recognized as effective BMPs for control of silvicultural, urban, con-
struction, and agricultural nonpoint sources of sediment, phosphorus, bacteria, and some
pesticides. Parameters determining their effectiveness include: filter width, slope, type of vegeta-
tion, sediment size distribution, degree of filter submergence, flow rate, initial pollutant con-
centration, and uniformity of flow along the length of the filter.'3 Effectiveness diminishes
as the filter strip accumulates sediment, however, and maintenance is difficult.
Grassed Waterways
This BMP consists of a natural or constructed waterway (usually broad and shallow)
with an established cover of erosion-resistant grasses. It is used to conduct surface runoff
down a slope. Grassed waterways are used primarily to prevent formation of a gully, to cor-
rect and stabilize an existing gully, or to guide flow of runoff in a prescribed path.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management (IPM) employs techniques designed to control diseases and
insects while reducing the potential for chemical pollution of runoff. Techniques include: (1)
selection of a pesticide with least persistence and low volatility, (2) timing of application to
optimize performance, (3) choice of optimum method of application, and (4) use of resistant
crop varieties, resulting in less need for chemical applications for pest control. Other changes
in cultural practices may be employed under various circumstances. An effective IPM pro-
gram should reduce pollutant loadings by at least 20 to 40%. Higher reductions have been
reported.
Nutrient Management
Nutrient management involves controlling the rate, timing, and method of application
of nutrients to minimize the potential of applied nutrients becoming pollutants in runoff and
ground water.
Nutrient management systems that include soil and manure testing for available nutrients,
splitting N applications, elimination of fall N applications, storage of animal waste, and nutrient
application rates based on plant requirements, appear to be the most effective and cost-effective
means of reducing N export to both surface and ground water. This BMP is recognized as
the most important practice in controlling pollution of water by nutrients from agricultural
lands.14
Pasture Management
This BMP involves manipulating the rate of of animal grazing, preventing overgrazing,
and maintaining proper fertility so that forage crops provide adequate soil cover to prevent
erosion and increase infiltration of water into the soil.
Effectiveness of pasture management in reducing nonpoint source pollution depends on
the level of management practiced by the farmer to maintain good vegetative cover on the
land. As such management and resulting cover increase, polluted runoff decreases.
83
-------
Pasture Planting
This BMP entails establishing grasses and/or legumes for the purpose of forage for
livestock grazing and hay production enterprise. It usually applies to land that is being con-
verted from cropland; however, it can apply to re-establishment of permanent vegetation on
pasture land that has been seriously degraded.
This BMP is most effective on poor cropland that is eroding at a high rate. Successful
establishment of well adapted species will reduce erosion to a negligible rate. Establishment
may be difficult on severely eroded land with little or no topsoil remaining. Effectiveness in
reducing erosion is directly related to the density of the vegetation providing protective soil cover.
Sediment Detention Ponds
A sediment detention pond is a structure individually designed for the site to detain runoff
water and trap sediment. Structures can be designed as wet basins (ponds), which are the
most effective, or as dry basins for ease of maintenance.
Many complex factors influence effectiveness, including soil erodibility, detention time,
physical characteristics of sediment, and flow characteristics. Sediment basins are discussed
further in the urban BMP section of this chapter.
Tree Planting and Forest Buffer Strip
Tree planting provides excellent soil protection from erosion and improves soil condi-
tion, thereby increasing infiltration. An additional benefit is the wildlife habitat that a forest
buffer strip can provide. A forest buffer strip is an established area of woody species adja-
cent to a stream.
Tree planting is most effective on marginal cropland with a high erosion rate. Successful
establishment will reduce erosion to a negligible rate. Trees take a few years to reach full ef-
fectiveness. Establishment may be difficult on severely eroded land with little or no topsoil
remaining.
A forest buffer strip is effective in removing nutrients from subsurface flow by uptake
for plant growth.15 Woody vegetation as a buffer strip along both sides of a stream provides
an ideal environment for maximum reduction of nutrients in ground water moving toward
the stream. Additional benefits are bank stabilization, reduced summer temperature of water,
and some filtering of overland flow.16 Effectiveness has varied considerably in studies of this
practice.
OPTIMIZING BMP SYSTEMS
Any evaluation of BMPs for controlling nutrients (specifically N and P) from agricultural
land must explore many questions. What is the impact of the BMPs on both surface and
ground water? How do they affect the transport or loss of both sediment and nutrients? Are
they technically feasible? Economically viable? Will the farmer accept them? Too often in
the past, the larger picture has been overlooked in favor of the practice's absolute effectiveness
in controlling a single pollutant (or even a single form of pollutant) being discharged to a
single water source.
84
-------
The following examples illustrate the complexity of systems evaluation:
• The use of no-till on permeable soils to reduce runoff and loss
of P to surface water can result in greater infiltration and poten-
tial contamination of ground water by nitrate if nutrient manage-
ment for nitrogen is not also considered. Expenditures of public
cost-sharing funds for construction of manure storage facilities
will have little environmental benefit and may even result in adverse
effects if farmers have inadequate land for utilization or if the
manure is improperly applied.
• Farmers using no-till on grain land to control sediment and P
pollution of surface water may actually increase P levels in runoff
water if manure or fertilizer is improperly applied to the land.
Clearly, a systems approach must be used for BMP selection and implementation for
greatest benefits.
AGRICULTURAL BMPS AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Technical determinations regarding BMPs are certainly very important. Of equal impor-
tance, however, are socioeconomic factors related to the decision-maker who manages the land.
Some of the significant factors are:
• SIZE OF FARM AND FARM INCOME — Research results have consis-
tently demonstrated that conservation is more likely to be applied
to larger farms. There also is a consistent, positive relationship
between farm income and the use of conservation practices.17 The
need for investment in management, education, and machinery
probably causes the lower rate of adoption of conservation tillage
by small farmers, not lack of stewardship values. 18 Another study
reported that 75% of the farmers (92% of the larger farmers)
thought BMPs were cost effective.19
• FARM TENURE—The relationship between farm tenure (ownership)
and use of conservation methods is less clear. Many studies have
found a strong relationship between ownership and adoption of
conservation measures, while others have found none.20 Tenure,
however, is a significant factor since absentee landowners may not
take an interest in conservation; therefore, the renter is neither
encouraged nor required to make use of conservation methods.
In addition, many landlords are less inclined to give long-term
leases, resulting in a shorter planning horizon for the decision-
maker on the land.
• DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS —High debt service requirement is
considered to be a negative factor in the adoption of conserva-
tion practices. Research indicated that high debt level would
negatively affect conservation behavior in two ways: (1) more
85
-------
erosion-prone row crops must be planted to satisfy cash flow re-
quirements, and (2) financing for conservation measures is more
difficult since these do not provide immediate cash flow benefit.21
• PERCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM—A farmer may have a serious con-
servation problem, but action is unlikely unless the farmer
perceives it as a problem.22
• PERCEPTION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY—An economically and ob-
jectively feasible conservation system may not be perceived as feasi-
ble by the farmer, who may therefore choose not to adopt it. Con-
versely, a conservation practice that appears to be economically
infeasible on the basis of objective criteria may, nevertheless, be
adopted.23 Experience in Rural Clean Water Program projects
where recommended BMPs were consistent with farmers'
preferences showed that adoption rates of BMPs were high. Con-
versely, BMPs not preferred by farmers have relatively low rates
of adoption.24
Thus, a NFS pollution control program or project with the goal of extensive participa-
tion cannot ignore the farmer. An understanding of the land characteristics shares equal im-
portance with an understanding of the human resource. Many projects with conservation goals
have failed to meet their objectives simply because the social characteristics of the landowners
or managers were not adequately considered in developing the "marketing" strategy.
URBAN BMP EFFECTIVENESS: AN OVERVIEW
The Bay states and the District are using Chesapeake Bay implementation grant funds
to help advance the understanding and use of various BMPs in urban settings. Control of
erosion and sediment from construction is an important focus of the Bay program efforts
in all Bay jurisdictions. Various BMPs are commonly used —in fact, are often required —for
controlling erosion and sediment from areas under construction, e.g., filter fences, straw bales,
etc. These practices are not discussed here, since for the most part they are not the subject
of research or other funding under the Bay Program. Furthermore, they are generally tem-
porary, being removed once construction is complete. Maryland and Virginia have developed
manuals that describe construction erosion control practices recommended for use in those
states.
Practices are used to control stormwater from newly developing areas as well as for retrofit-
ting to reduce runoff in established areas. Much of the available data on the effectiveness
of the BMPs comes from previous research efforts such as the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP). State efforts to develop data on BMPs include comparison monitoring
of porous and conventional pavement side-by-side in Prince William County, Virginia, monitor-
ing of an extended detention dry pond in Fairfax County, Virginia, and studies of effectiveness
of infiltration and other BMPs in various settings in Maryland. This section includes sum-
maries of the available data on the following BMPs:
• Extended detention dry ponds;
• Wet ponds;
• Urban marshes;
• Porous pavement;
• Streambank stabilization; and
• Infiltration practices.
-------
Each section that follows briefly describes one of these BMPs and then discusses its ef-
fectiveness and the cost of constructing it, when data are available. Where applicable, possi-
ble variations and any factors affecting its potential use are also mentioned. For example,
maintenance is an important factor in BMP effectiveness. Maryland's Department of Natural
Resources found that stormwater management structures are not very well maintained. Up
to 70% of wet and dry ponds are not operating as designed.25 Lack of maintenance can even
result in BMP failure. Adequate planning and funding are essential to a successful maintenance
program.
BMP costs vary widely, depending on the size of the area to be protected, but the rela-
tionship of costs to drainage area is not linear. The cost per acre generally is lower as the
size of the protected area increases. Cost effectiveness varies, too. A recent study concluded
that extended detention dry ponds offer a cost-effective method for control of nutrients and
suggested that increasing detention time in existing dry ponds would be worthwhile.26 More
costly practices such as wet ponds are appropriate for larger sites, especially for "off-site"
BMPs to control several developments.
Although infiltration practices in general were cost effective, infiltration trenches and
porous pavement with runoff storage capability did not fare well in this analysis because of
their higher cost. The authors suggested that small versions for water quality control along
with dry ponds to reduce peak runoff might be an option for some situations.27
URBAN BMPs AT WORK AROUND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
EXTENDED DETENTION DRY PONDS
A detention basin is a pond designed to catch runoff from storms and thus control potential
flooding and water quality problems. Conventional dry detention ponds are designed to briefly
attenuate peak runoff rates, and thus, are normally dry except during brief periods after large
storms.
Extended detention dry ponds are similar to the conventional dry ponds but have modified
outlet structures which significantly extend detention time. The size of the outlet controls
the release of water from the pond. One method to obtain extended detention is to install
a perforated riser enclosed in a gravel jacket instead of an overflow pipe or bottom outlet.
Many existing conventional dry detention ponds have been modified to extend the detention
time.
Detention basins or dry ponds have been found to perform poorly at controlling pollu-
tion from stormwater runoff.28 To correct some of the factors that limit the effectiveness of
this practice, designers modified the basin outlet to slow the release of water from 1-2 hours
to up to 24 hours. The additional time provided improved removal of some pollutants, similar
to wet ponds for particulate pollutants. Table 3.4 shows that these basins can remove 64%
of sediment, 30% of particulate organic nitrogen, 30% of chemical oxygen demand (COD),
57% of particulate zinc, and 84% of particulate lead. Soluble pollutant removal remained
poor (less than 15% of total incoming dissolved nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus) because
of the absence of a permanent pool within which biological reactions have an opportunity
to occur in addition to sedimentation.29
Detention pond performance suffers when maintenance is neglected. Common problems
include blocked outlets, bared soil, standing water in "dry" areas, pond area being too wet
to mow, and excessive sedimentation (filling in).30 Establishment of vegetation in the pond
87
-------
-*"V
£
C*3
a
0
Z
w
y
E
r-r ,
MM,
w
1
0
S
w
^*
m Z
W on
J -<
OQ CO
TA
ETENTION
Q
u,
O
Z
o
C/2
S
2
S
o
o
(/}
5
JO
3 2
s s
X Cu
2*
Ho
S
Cw
i^ O
— i ^o
C/J
UJ H
MM L
N-! Z
CO W
HD *^
3 ^
°S
*g
0 *
rsi O
i
\f J^
G
mm
C
'W
Ml
O
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
i-H
-*— *
'S
O O v-t *j
(N m -H 03
v £
c
Cl
0
H
Z
U
S
MM
Q
W
cc
tfl
C3
c/)
3
•* ** "* fc
^H VO 1/1 O
CX
C/5
o
a
i
o
(d
O
MM
H
O
<
tf
CM
js
-4— i
Ui
0
^4-H
0
c 13
.2 fe
\n o
= S
S
S C
Q "S PI
, hH C .,-. C
^^^^ s
« 4> PM S *i
£•§ >,£ i)
5^ W /-v *-> S
C t? U " 1
QW ^ ^
C
ra
"o
o.
o
OJ
S
"H
P3
O
CO
bfl
C
C
C
S
oi
aj
^3
f-
\
I
a,
i>
^
3
a;
1
J5
S
S
c
T
u
Ci
c"
g
0^
g
-5
1
^ 2
|7
a- ^
"3 ^
g -i
^ ,
. rn
ts oo
gj a\
^ "Z
r- D
If
o 8
CL ~
•S S!
•S 0
1°
t °
•s^
s: 3
C °
^U
il
a; M
sr c
Q J3
^- tSI
Si
u
U
B:
3
0
(/3
-------
reduces the likelihood of scour or resuspension of pollutants. The amount of time water re-
mains in the pond affects the removal of sediment. The cost of modifying a dry pond to
achieve extended detention is about 10-12% of the cost for a dry basin.31 This practice generally
costs less than any other urban BMP designed to control water quality and quantity.
Maintenance costs are about $300-500 per maintained acre per year."
Extended detention dry ponds are a particularly promising practice because of their ability
to combine flood control and water quality benefits, plus the potential for conversion of ex-
isting conventional stormwater management ponds."
WET PONDS
Wet ponds are similar to extended detention dry ponds, but are designed to maintain
a permanent pool of water. The volume required to receive expected stormwater runoff must
be calculated. A riser and overflow pipe control the rate of discharge of water. Rooted aquatic
vegetation is generally present.
Wet ponds can be highly effective for pollutant removal, according to data from several
NURP projects. Besides sedimentation, researchers believe that the permanent water pool's
biological processes remove dissolved nutrients. Removal efficiency varies based on the size
of the basin relative to the size of the area draining into it, along with local storm charac-
teristics.34 This basin size relationship controls the overflow rate. Where the overflow rate
is low in relation to the settling velocity of the particles entering the basin, the removal effi-
ciency is high. A design ensuring that only a small amount of water is forced out with each
storm also boosts removal efficiency, since the bulk of the water resides in the pond for a
long time.35 For several wet ponds studied in the Washington, D.C. area NURP project, 54%
of the sediment, 30% of the COD, 15% of the organic nitrogen, and 60% of the total
phosphorus, along with 51% of zinc and 65% of lead were removed.16
Maryland is testing the use of a device upstream of a wet pond to intercept the first flush
of sediment and other pollutants during a storm. State staff expect this device to increase
the efficiency of removal.
The cost of constructing wet ponds may be as much as 40% higher than the cost for
dry ponds due to the greater volume required to accommodate the permanent pool and the
more complex outfall. NURP data suggest an annualized construction cost per acre of urban
area of $60-$175 for on-site control or $10-$25 for off-site control.37 The low figure in each
case represents 50% removal of total suspended solids, while the higher figure represents 90%
removal. The off-site application benefits from economy of scale, since it serves a much larger
area (640-1,000 acres, as compared to 20-40 acres for the on-site application). Maintenance
costs are similar to those for extended detention dry ponds ($300-500/year for routine
maintenance, plus 1-2% of cost of construction for nonroutine maintenance).38
URBAN MARSHES
An urban marsh can be a natural or a constructed area that remains wet throughout
the year and where marsh plants are available to increase sediment trapping and prevent sedi-
ment resuspension. Water channeled into it will be trapped for a period of time to allow for
pollutant removal by natural processes. Marshes can be installed separately or as part of an
extended detention pond. Wetland plants may also be established around the fringes of wet
ponds.
Wetland and marsh areas have been used in treatment of municipal wastewater. They
appear to work best with dilute nutrient loads.39 Data related to their ability to remove sedi-
ment, nutrients, and rnetals from runoff are not available yet. At issue is whether or not the
89
-------
flow can be slowed enough to retain runoff in the marsh area for the period of time necessary
to affect removal. Studies in Maryland and Virginia have begun, supported by the Chesa-
peake Bay Program. The construction cost of adding a marsh when building an extended
detention pond is minimal, and a lessened need for mowing will reduce maintenance costs.
Grading and vegetation generally cost less than $5,000.40
POROUS PAVEMENT
Normal pavement on roads, parking lots, and other paved areas can be replaced with
a porous asphalt paving material underlain by a high-void aggregate base. Such pavement
allows for infiltration of rain and runoff and temporarily stores the water. The four layers
that typically make up a porous pavement installation include a sub-base of undisturbed ex-
isting soil; a layer of i- to 2-inch diameter stone, underlain by filter fabric; 2 inches of Yi-inch
aggregate as a stabilizer; and a surface of porous asphalt 2!/2 to 4 inches thick.41 Typically,
porous pavement is made from asphalt from which the fine particles are missing. Drainage
systems can be used to solve problems with permeability of the underlying soil or where the
pavement must be installed over an impervious base.42
Data from a NURP study in the Washington, D.C. area show high removal rates for sedi-
ment, COD, trace metals, and total nitrogen (greater than 80%), plus 60°7b removal for dissolved
phosphorus and nitrogen. This study's results are based on calculated removal rates, however.43
Other studies are underway, including a side-by-side monitoring project to compare conven-
tional and porous pavement in Prince William County, Virginia. Porous pavement must be
maintained to ensure long-term effectiveness. Periodic vacuum sweeping followed by high-
pressure hosing seems to be the best cleaning technique. Once the pavement is significantly
clogged, it may not be possible to fully restore it. Protection of the pavement from oil, grease,
and dirt from contractor vehicles during the early life of the paved area is important, and
installation of curbing to prevent surrounding soils from washing onto the paved surface is
also recommended.44 The lifetime performance of porous installations has not been tested.
Pollutant removal occurs through rapid and complete infiltration into the soil profile, with
adsorption, trapping, and chemical decay of pollutants in the soil.45 Construction costs for
porous pavement are higher than conventional pavement due to the higher cost of porous
over conventional asphalt, the need for extra stones, filter cloth and test wells, and probably
higher contingency costs. The annual maintenance cost has been estimated to be $0.032/square
meter ($0.003/square foot).46
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
Vegetation is a common method of non-structural streambank stabilization. Virginia is
carrying the use of vegetation a step further by studying a technique used in the southeastern
U.S. and other areas called "biotechnical" streambank stabilization. This technique involves
dormant woody plant cuttings, which are built into the streambank in bundles or layers. The
cuttings sprout and provide both surface vegetative stabilization and deep root growth that
stabilizes the soil and removes moisture from the soil to reduce sliding of the bank.
The effectiveness of biotechnical streambank stabilization has not been thoroughly studied.
However, vegetation is generally an effective method of controlling soil erosion; grass plant-
ings along shorelines have been found to be 90-95% effective in reducing soil loss due to
erosion compared to bare surfaces.47 Some biotechnical installations in the southeastern U.S.
seem to be working well. Maintenance of such practices is critical to their long-term
effectiveness.
The first examples of biotechnical stabilization installed in this area may cost as much
90
-------
as structural practices (bulkheads). However, with experience, later installations of biotech-
nical stabilization should be less costly.
INFILTRATION PRACTICES
Increased infiltration is the goal of many BMPs, such as infiltration basins and trenches,
dry wells, porous pavement (discussed above), and vegetative swales and filters. The design
of these practices is discussed in detail in publications by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Generally, they involve
catching water in an area designed to hold the water long enough for it to move through the
soil and be retained as ground water rather than to run off the site. A vegetative or grassed
swale is a depression used in place of normal curb and guttering to convey water. It allows
a portion of the flow to infiltrate. Infiltration trenches provide a coarse gravel filter or other
area for temporary storage of stormwater while physical, chemical, and biological processes
remove pollutants.48 Sediment must be prevented from entering and clogging the stone void
spaces. This calls for a vegetative strip surrounding the trench, plus filter fabric at the inlet.49
To be effective, infiltration systems should be designed to retain stormwater within ihe
structure longer than is generally expected for ponds. Infiltration trenches can remove 50%
of sediment and trace metals and 37% of COD, but provide little nutrient removal according
to one study.50 However, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments reports that
higher removal efficiencies are possible —75-90% for sediment, 50-70% for total phosphorus,
45-60% for total nitrogen, and 75-90% for trace metals —if the capture of the "first flush"
is high. This water contains the most pollutants. Grassed swales did not perform well in the
NURP study, providing little pollutant removal. In the Washington D.C. area NURP effort,
the lack of underlying soil porosity, limited retention time compared to soil infiltration rate,
the high degree of slope of the swales, and frequent mowing of grass all served to limit the
ability of the sites to filter pollutants, suggesting that effectiveness could be increased. The
final nationwide NURP report also concluded that additional study of design considerations
could improve performance of swales.51 Maryland and Virginia currently have several studies
of infiltration systems underway.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing NFS control programs often have been based on use of a "system" of BMPs
to reduce erosion. In recent efforts, the emphasis on solving specific problems in a cost-effective
manner within the systems framework has increased. However, the effects of even large-scale
adoption of BMPs will not be seen in the receiving waters in periods of less than 5 to 10
years. Data from some of the Rural Clean Water Program projects, Model Implementation
Program, and other similar NFS activities will allow a more refined evaluation of the feasibility
and cost effectiveness of the BMPs, though much work remains.
Findings on the effectiveness of BMPs give rise to several conclusions:
• Erosion reduction on cropland is generally proportional to the
reduction in the amount of tillage performed.
• Since 48 to 98% of nitrogen and 87 to 99.6% of P in surface runoff
is bound to sediment, sediment control practices can reduce the
input of N and P from nonpoint sources.52
91
-------
• A linear relationship between pesticide application rates and sur-
face runoff losses is suggested by numerous studies. The implica-
tion is that improved spraying and integrated pest management
techniques will reduce pesticide inputs to aquatic systems to the
extent that they reduce the quantities applied.
• SYSTEMS of BMPs should be emphasized rather than individual
BMPs.
• For maximum effectiveness, BMPs should be focused on lands
that are producing the highest volume of pollution delivered to
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
• The socioeconomic characteristics of the decision-makers (i.e.,
landowners and land managers) on targeted lands should be
understood and a marketing strategy planned to gain a high par-
ticipation rate.
• Technical assistance is essential to effective implementation and
maintenance.
While the technology obviously exists for reducing sediment and nutrients in runoff,
development of implementation programs will require consideration of socioeconomic realities,
production concerns, and technical and institutional limitations — most of which are site-specific.
Failure to analyze situations in a comprehensive way, ranking these factors appropriately, can
lead to real or perceived situations of substituting one environmental problem for another.
92
-------
CHAPTER 3: REFERENCES
1. Final Report on the Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Task Force and Recommended Na-
tional Nonpoint Source Policy, Prepared by U.S. EPA for the Nonpoint Source Task Force,
1985, p. 17.
2. Decision-makers Guide on Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Draft Report, Prepared
for U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C., Prepared by Battelle/Columbus Division, January 28,
1987. Chapter 3, p. 24.
3. D. Connell, M. Friedman, and B. Lewis, Effectiveness of Animal Waste Management
Techniques for Protecting Water Quality, Prepared for Water Resources Management
Workshop, August 1985, p. 32.
4. Best Management Practices For Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control HI. Sediment,
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Dept., N.C. State University, Raliegh, N.C., August 1982, p. iv.
5. R. P. Maas, M. D. Smolen, C. A. Jamieson, and A. C. Weinberg, Targeting: The Key
to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Draft Report, prepared for U. S. EPA by North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, Water Quality Group, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina,
1987, pp. 37.
6. Ibid.
7. Myers, Carl F., "Pesticides in Ground Water from Agricultural Use," memorandum to
William A. Whittington, Director, EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, July
9, 1986.
8. Decision-makers Guide on Nonpoint Pollution Control, op. cit., Chapter 3, p. 6.
9. Ibid, p. 8.
10. Targeting: The Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, op. cit., p. 2-6.
11. R. E. Highfill, "Modern Terracing Systems," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
1983, Volume 38, Number 4, p. 336-338.
12. Decision-makers Guide on Nonpoint Pollution Control, op. cit., Chapter 3, p. 2.
13. Effectiveness of Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Pollution Control, U. S. EPA,
1979, p. 8.
14. Water Quality Field Guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 1983, SCS-TP-160, September 1983, p. 33.
15. R. Lowrance, R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan. "Managing Riparian Ecosystems to Control
Nonpoint Pollution," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1985, Volume 40, Number
1, p. 89.
16. Ibid.
17. A. Basu, B. T. Osgood, and J. D. Diggs. "Background Paper on Adoption and Diffusion
of Soil and Water Conservation Practices for the 1985 RCA Process," 1982, p. 22.
18. F. M. Epplin and T. F. Trice. "Influence of Crop and Farm Size on Adoption of Conser-
vation Tillage," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1986, Volume 41, Number 6,
p. 426.
19. W. R. Kerns, Managing Nonpoint Pollution—Progress in Chesapeake Bay. Paper prepared
for conference on Economics of Chesapeake Bay Management II. Annapolis, MD, May
28-29, 1986, p. 7.
20. Basu, et al., op. cit., p. 4.
21. F. Clearfield, and B. T. Osgood. "Sociological Aspects of the Adoption of Conservation
Practices," Soil Conservation Service staff paper, Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 10.
22. A. Basu, et. al., op. cit., p. 22
23. Ibid.
24. Rural Clean Water Program Status Report on the CM&E Projects. Prepared for U. S.
Department of Agriculture and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency by the National
93
-------
Water Quality Evaluation Project, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, N. C.
State University, Raliegh, NC, F. J. Humenik, Project Director; M. D. Smolen, Principal
Investigator, 1985, p. 5.
25. Maintenance of Stormwater Management Structures, A Departmental Survey, Sediment
and Stormwater Division, Water Resources Administration, Department of Natural
Resources, July 1986.
26. Wiegand, Cameron, Thomas Schueler, Wendy Chittenden, and Debra Jellick, "Cost of
Urban Runoff Controls", Urban Runoff Quality — Proceedings of an Engineering Foun-
dation Conference, Urban Water Resources, ASCE, Henniker, NH, June 23-27, 1986.
27. Ibid.
28. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, D.C. Area
Urban Runoff Project, Water Resources Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, December 1983, p. 2.17.
29. Ibid.
30. Maintenance of Stormwater Management Structures, A Departmental Survey, op. cit.
31. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1, Final Report, U.S. EPA,
PB 84-185552, December, 1983, p. 8-11.
32. Urban Best Management Practices: A Practical Manual for Planning and Design,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (1987).
33. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Executive Summary, U.S. EPA, PB
84-185545, p. 14.
34. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, op. cit., p. 8-3.
35. Ibid., p. 8-4.
36. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, D.C. Area
Urban Runoff Project, op. cit., p. 2.19.
37. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1, Final Report, op. cit., p. 8-14.
38. Urban Best Management Practices: A Practical Manual for Planning and Design, op. cit.
39. D.S. Nichols, "Capacity of Natural Wetlands to Remove Nutrients from Wastewater Ef-
fluent", JWPCF 55(5): 495-505, 1983.
40. Urban Best Management Practices: A Practical Manual for Planning and Design, op. cit.
41. Diniz, E.V., Porous Pavement: Phase I—Design and Operational Criteria, U.S. EPA,
EPA-600/2-80-135, Cincinnati, August 1980.
42. Decision-makers Guide on Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, op. cit.
43. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, D.C. Area
Urban Runoff Project, op. cit., p. 2.24.
44. Standards and Specifications for Infiltration Practices, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Water Resources Administration, Sedimeni and Stormwater Division, February
1984, p. 3-36.
45. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, DC. Area
Urban Runoff Project, op. cit., p. 2.24.
46. Wiegand, et.al., 'Cost of Urban Runoff Controls", op. cit.
47. Decision-makers Guide on Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, op. cit., p. 35.
48. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, D.C. Area
Urban Runoff Project, op. cit., p, 2.3.
49. Standards and Specifications for Infiltration Practices, op. cit., p. 4-17.
50. Urban Runoff in the Washington Metropolitan Area: Final Report, Washington, D.C. Area
Urban Runoff Project, op. cit., pp. 2.23-2.24.
51. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Executive Summary, op. cit., p. 18.
52. T. J. Logan, Professor of Soil Chemistry, Ohio State Universilty, Columbus, Ohio, Per-
sonal Communication, 1987.
94
-------
Chapter 4
THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL BMPs
ON POLLUTANT LOADS REACHING THE BAY
HOW CAN PROGRESS BE MEASURED?
Agricultural BMPs are steadily being put into place as various agencies have increased
efforts to mitigate pollution effects from nonpoint sources through the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram and other programs. But what effect are these BMPs having on pollutant loads? That
is the real test of progress. This chapter seeks the answer in an analysis of the available data.
This analysis is necessarily preliminary because of the limited data; it will be refined as more
and better data become available.
WHAT DATA WERE ANALYZED?
This analysis was based on the data contained in EPA's BMP Tracking System: states
receiving implementation grants under the Chesapeake Bay Program must report data on BMP
implementation into this system. States report the number of BMPs installed along with their
location by county and watershed, number of acres served, tons of erosion saved, animal units
served or manure stored, and —if possible —some indication of the nutrients saved as a result
of BMP application. The tracking system also includes cost-share information such as total
cost of the BMP, farmer cost, and amount from each funding source (e.g., state, EPA, and
USDA). The importance and usefulness of this data base will increase as these programs mature
and more contracts are completed.
USDA collects similar information for the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP),
which provides cost-share funds to farmers for implementation of conservation measures.
Their data have also been used in this analysis.
To evaluate progress in controlling agricultural NFS pollution within the basin, EPA also
obtained background county-by-county data on cropland erosion rates from USDA's National
Resource Inventory (NRI) and on animal populations from the Agricultural Census. This
information —reported county-by-county for administrative reasons —may not be strictly ac-
curate on that basis, but becomes more useful when aggregated into larger units like watersheds.
HOW WAS THE BASE YEAR CHOSEN?
No Bay implementation funds were used by the states until 1985, even though they became
available in 1984. Thus, the environmental situation at the start of 1985 was chosen as the
baseline against which to measure progress during 1985 and beyond. Throughout this chapter,
this point in time will be referred to as the "base year."
95
-------
To reconcile EPA and USDA data and sharpen the accuracy of the base year, some ad-
justments had to be made. The NRI data were for 1982, so EPA adjusted the data to account
for BMPs that were installed by USDA and the state programs in 1983 and 1984.
Thus, the first year of progress is 1985. Unfortunately, not a great deal of information
is available for 1985 and beyond, so the data must be analyzed with caution. The 1985 data
include Virginia, a small amount of data for Pennsylvania, and only state-funded BMPs for
Maryland. Maryland did not put any Chesapeake Bay Program grant money into agricultural
BMPs during the first year. (Maryland already had a strong state-funded program.) Pennsyl-
vania, just starting a new program, did not have the administrative authority at the State level
to enter into cost-share contracts with farmers until late in 1985 and signed its first contract
in November 1985.
Therefore, much of the effort reported here occurred in 1986. Even the 1986 data may
still be incomplete. A BMP is defined as installed and is counted by the states only when
it is completed, inspected, certified, and paid for, causing considerable time to elapse between
EPA grant award and the appearance of the installed BMP in EPA's tracking system. This
delay also affects the USDA programs.
HOW ARE THE DATA ARRAYED?
The tables in this chapter present erosion and pollutant removal estimates for the three
jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay Program with agricultural NFS problems. The tables cluster
into the following categories:
1. Highly Erodible Cropland
• TABLES 4.1, 4.2 AND 4.3 show the characteristics of these agricultural
lands in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania (by watershed
basin), and indicate the extent of sediment reduction by BMP ap-
plication. Table 4.4 summarizes the data in the first three tables.
2. Concentrated Animal Wastes
• TABLES 4.5, 4.6, AND 4.7 show the characteristics and progress in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia in addressing NPS prob-
lems resulting from animal wastes.
3. Nutrient Reduction
• TABLE 4.8 presents the reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus at-
tributable to cropland and animal waste BMP installation.
96
-------
HIGHLY ERODIBLE CROPLAND: PROGRESS REPORT
Before presenting and analyzing the data in Tables 4.1 through 4.3, let us define the in-
formation elements quantified in their columns.
Column Item
(1) BASIN —Describes the river basin or area covered by the data; portions of some
basins are distinguished as being above or below the fall line. The fall line is the
boundary between the coastal plain and the piedmont plateau where the elevation
sharply increases to about 1,100 feet.
(2) ERODIBLE ACRES — Land experiencing high rates of erosion* and therefore needing
treatment. This number is derived by adjusting the 1982 NRI data to account for
BMPs installed in 1983 and 1984.
(3) TONS/YEAR OF SOIL Loss—The amount of sediment originating from highly erodi-
ble cropland estimated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
(4) TONS OF SOIL Loss ACRE/YEAR—Derived by dividing tons/year of soil loss by erodible
acres Col. (3) divided by Col. (2).
(5) ACRES BENEFITTED (ASCS)—The area of land protected by BMPs installed using
cost-share funding from ASCS.
(6) TONS REMOVED (ASCS) —The amount of soil that no longer erodes from the acres
stabilized through ASCS cost-shared projects (using USLE).
(7) ACRES BENEFITTED (CBP)—The area of land protected by BMPs installed using
EPA and state cost-share funding under the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(8) TONS REMOVED (CBP) —The amount of soil that no longer erodes from the acres
stabilized through EPA and state cost-share funding under the Chesapeake Bay
Program (using USLE).
(9) PERCENT OF ACRES TREATED —Shows how much of the high-erosion cropland is
likely to be protected for the first time by newly installed BMPs.
* Defined as eroding at a rate such that soil productivity cannot be maintained.
The data in these tables describe the cropland in need of sediment control BMPs at the beginning
of the Chesapeake Bay Program's efforts to abate agricultural nonpoint sources. This baseline
will be used throughout the program's lifespan in determining progress and effectiveness.
97
-------
O\
SL>
U
fi
Z
D-
O
Pi
U
z
o
>««
t/J
NO
C/3
U
C/3
Z Z
Z&. ^
•*< *—•
z
fa
S
fa
fa
S-
S
NM
0.
S
09
C« Q
w 3
•< w
^H
oo
ON
VI
Q
fa
25®
Hw~
w w w g
8
1/5
zS§
gfa-S
fa
o
w
O W W
P OH a,
C/3
fa Z fa «
5° o
^ H vi
fa
*£.V)^
£2 W £
oil
en'ffNOOONON^fNOO
r^oooovii-HOOen-—ifN
OfNooONfSONr--oov>
•—'OOONOfN^ioO
oovir^—^ONNOOfNi"*
O'OONON—ir^fNNO"^
t~-fNfN—*NOOOVirslfN
oo^fNoo^Ttm^ON
Ti* r^ NO O NO en r^ ^* oo
—< fN) NO NO O ON >O -H
r~-oor^|oen»— ts OO —i —<
04
r~^ NO fN t— NO ON ^J ^i" fN
V)—«OOOOOOOv-lt~-
O vi
ON
<0
^NOfNNO—
S
o.
(U
[H.
-t—>
3
S
1> t™ uo ^j cO
CJ _f-« PH tlO ^J o>
40 "2 5 o e >»
it * ^H rfC^ ^ J-^ I
pu, -d
03 c
•o °
C --
CO 4>
CD *-•
c G
5 -H - S 3 'S
4^1 Tt CO • -—, 4±
—, 45 ON
u
43
w S
o >>S
>> c
42 CO
U. £
ro14) u JS cO
^ to "O 3 .,
3 Ox U
-*•• .^ t/^ i C
r-< l^"1 —i n^ C
H £CBU
oc
BASIN
U-
£ S
cO CO
^4
O
o
c
c
PQ
ffl
"^
O £-U UH rl
g
-------
«3 o
u. H
U n
03
4—1
03
TD
O
C
OJ
1)
Q
Z
s.
O
U
z
o
O 90
Z
w
s
u
&
S
aa
99
O
u
C/3
Q
W ^
oi
cc
z
Q
^«^
?0§
2ss
ifi • Q ^^
LiJ — LjJ JC'
SzS|
^ k. ^^
-J
O
C/2
Z
a. a.
OS t«
w \ 2^
W Z h-l o
^goc
09 ^
-i
09
NH
§y =
0
in
O
" NO m
O f) ON
ON NO
ON
NO if) t— *n NO
rn oo ON r-- r-
—' r-i ^H° (N O
oo in o
ON NO OO
in ON -*-j
^ .S ^ o
a> '5b o d
i_< ^
D, «
S J3 ^
t3 5 o
• -( <« l_
^ CQ a
E-OM
03 e u
•o
03 Hi
(]J U,
.s 3
1)
o
fe
D.
m
oo
C/3
T3
C
C VD
Rj 00
> Q. o <
o^S
03 ^ ^3 Q
u 03 OJ
11 42 t^ T3
L^ Ji-3 ^
I-H J3 r
•i_» £: >
o3 03 J
53 U
Z
09
J
03
6 S
o o
O 03
PH (X
3 C
g g c -g
§^ S o-
rt 4? 03 3
W 00
Sll
b 3 *
O o "o
Z U U
c
S
"o
U
2-
c
S
"o
U
99
-------
Q
Z
OO
D.
CQ
U
f Q
w 3 ^o
r^ IT* i-» |
H
H
oc
Sss
GB
Z Ho
W H 2
« — ON '"O
o
c
1/3
C
00
C
O
CD
S
OJ
"ex
0.
O
O
z
o ~
o 3
Q£ 00
^S^
«ls
CQZ|
< ® ?
*r* 7 if)
I*
H U
^^
^2
u -
u
CM
O,
ca
c«
VI
Ssi
w ~
r-
oo NO -^t
rf ON oo
ON
ON
O OO —
r- O ON SO
in r^ o ^ o r^ r— ^^ NO
SO Tf ro /-)
ON ,
.i2 3
3 5 c
J3 S -, u
o -is >—< S:
c § U-. o
o
NO
o
ON
ON
NO*
a°,2'5"£°Sh ^
-^ -Tl rrj ^H fl> y-v K -^
Q^ QJ ~~£ ^-J O "*"* p-H
^^^ fl> /-S
00
TO
2«)
CQ|
03 v-
rt-S a
C
oo G
- CQ
U
^
^ h^jr
go
&S
-w O
cj p,
!L> OJ
•51 ^
IX)
g"
CJ
aj
Is
-------
EROSION RATES
Comparison of Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 shows that Virginia's Rappahannock River above
the fall line at 19 tons/acre/year has the highest cropland erosion rate of any watershed in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. Other high-erosion Bay tributaries include the Patuxent
River in Maryland (approximately 18 tons/acre/year), the Potomac River in Maryland below
the fall line (about 17 tons/acre/year), the Potomac River in Virginia above the fall line (nearly
17 tons/acre/year), and the Potomac River below the fall line in Virginia (more than 13
tons/acre/year). Virginia has the highest average rate, at 13.68 tons/acre/year. Pennsylvania's
average erosion rate is 9.05 tons/acre/year, followed closely by Maryland's average of 9.01
tons/acre/year.
PROGRESS ON SEDIMENT REMOVAL
The percentage of highly credible cropland on which BMPs are installed each year is
one means of expressing progress. Making this determination, however, requires several assump-
tions, the foremost being the assumption that the BMP systems are maintained at their design
capability and eventually are replaced or repaired to original condition when necessary. To
help ensure that this assumption is correct, all three states are being requested to investigate
this aspect of the program by reinspection of a sampling of older projects.
Other key assumptions include: (1) that the current rate of implementation can continue,
using USDA cost-share funding, EPA implementation funds, and state program funds; (2)
that USDA technical assistance will help design BMPs for all programs; (3) that conservation
districts will continue to assist with the technical assistance role as well as with the administrative
role; and (4) that funding for all current programs will remain stable until 1990.
As shown in Table 4.4, this rate of progress varies for the three states: from 2 to 12.5%
of highly erodible cropland on which BMPs have been installed in 1985 and 1986. The Penn-
sylvania program is only working in the lower Susquehanna (below Harrisburg), which com-
prises approximately 36% of the total basin and only began implementation efforts at the
very end of 1985. Once the Pennsylvania program has completed more projects, the progress
rate for high-erosion cropland in the lower Susquehanna River basin probably will increase.
The Maryland figure for high erosion acres with BMPs installed in 1985-86 also appears low
because many farmers participating in the State cost sharing program chose to proceed first
with the installation of animal waste storage BMPs (see discussion of this practice later in
this chapter).
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL WASTES: PROGRESS REPORT
The base year for BMP activity involving animal waste production consists of figures
from the 1982 Agricultural Census, Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce. No ad-
justments to reflect progress between 1982 and 1985 could be made because information was
not available from USDA or the states. The current program assumes that up to 75% of the
total manure produced could be addressed by animal waste BMPs. The remaining 25%
represents the manure found on the pastures and the less than 100% efficiency in collecting
manure from the yard. The analysis also includes the assumption that once the storage facility
is installed, it is utilized to the extent intended, with manure collection and storage a day-to-
day activity.
101
-------
The columns in the animal waste tables (Tables 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7) are defined as follows:
Column Item
(1) BASIN — Defined as in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, above.
(2) BASE YEAR MANURE PRODUCTION —Tons of manure produced per year. These figures
are based on the 1982 Agricultural Census. The different types of animal wastes
have been normalized to equivalent animal units to obtain the animal waste pro-
duction figures.
(3) BASE YEAR MANURE STORABLE BY BMPs —It is assumed that 75% of the base year
total manure can be collected and stored by BMP installation (expressed in
tons/year).
(4) MANURE REMOVED BY BMPs IN 1985 AND 1986 —Manure collected and stored by
BMP installation, taken from the state progress reports on animal waste storage
BMPs.
(5) PERCENT REMOVED—The ratio of the tons removed in 1985 and 1986 to the tons
that are storable.
(6) STORABLE MANURE REMAINING—This figure represents the animal manure prob-
lem that remains, as reported by the states in 1986. ASCS efforts are not included.
102
-------
t/3
O O
fN
H
O
*sai
03
O
U
a.
£2
c/2 CO
O W
pa
en
O IAI O\
>O OO fN
fN m
o
Z
o
Sc
o
a
N-H
EG
I
- W
03
^ W
Is
53 •<
§Q
w z
£o
as
-H —< <^i
-H (Sj *-*
CO •-< —J
vo r- oo
03
.2
'5
Qi
Z
c
o
B
Cfi
BJ
QQ
*
103
-------
H °
- a z
a
S|gs£
^( ^ ^-< ^^ *—<
Q£
g
x
os ®
r- ON (N
"^' ON ^^
O
^ of, CL
pa
oo
^" "sf r~-~ i^ r-~ »—• ON
rn •—i ~^ (N fN oo J^-
rr, O
O O
O ON
^ ^
o
S J
—• !u
c^3 ^O
g -5
00 ^
—r o
CO
CD"
vo —;
r- ~£
BASIN
1 1
UH £
< pa
O O i-J i-J £>
0 0 PH tL, Q
hJ _] C C
-------
j W Z >•
PN A> ^-j V.
ga 05 5 ^
i!p
PSS§
f MO
"™ 1-H
-H (N r-~
vo vo O
rn -H i o
g c^ OS Z o
^H l/^ T^- f^J ^^ T^J-
m oo — oo m o
' — i ro f^ ' — i rn ON
JO
03
o
i/"> E/:
fN 73
oo c
ro c^
^~" -2
"5
"o
o
« * as
3 a w « >,
/^ jg hj CH \
S§5SZ
w^^SS
^sg^§
MH ^J ^^
eg r- — i vo CN i-i
ON -^- (N oo ir-, vo
oo ^f in r- (N eg
s ^
m "O
-H O
* &
3
^H
'^•^ ^H
cfl
B
"oS
•*->
o
Z 21
2?w|g
w « H^
>. 3 U Z
£-, fcPg
^^Q o
03 BS o
o, c
vo ^D ^" ^vj" og c~ ]
l/~^ ^\ ^\ ^^ f^i fN)
vo m vo u~i vd vo
^ ON O VD O vo
OO — c fN P- ON —
— J ^<
(N ^
00 ^
oo ^
in' t--
4-<
•£
•o
OJ
e
3
Z
QC
<
03
i-J ._! w OJ t§
^ b o £ g c
-
o
JO
03
II
p)
<
NOTE:
105
-------
ON oc v> rn r<-> o v
r- m «n oo 04 oo
03
£>
00
I
"53
CQ
Juniata
.c
3
CQ
C/}
Above Sunbui
Potomac AFL
Western Shore
TOTAL
c
OJ
_C
106
-------
Pennsylvania generates approximately 13.5 million tons per year of manure in the Ches-
apeake Bay Basin, followed by Virginia at 11.8 million tons and Maryland at 5.1 million tons
per year. However, Pennsylvania is only working in one basin —the lower Susquehanna —and
Virginia is focusing its efforts primarily on the Potomac above the fall line. The animal waste
produced in each of these two targeted basins is greater than Maryland's total production.
Virginia removed 79,490 tons of animal waste in 1985 and 1986 in the Potomac River
basin above the fall line. In the same period, Maryland installed animal waste storage BMPs
in all its highest priority animal waste watersheds, which resulted in proper storage facilities
for 382,530 tons of animal waste, or 10% of the Statewide amount considered collectable
and storable. This illustrates the high level of interest being shown by farmers in animal waste
management practices in Maryland. The Pennsylvania program began installing animal waste
storage BMPs late in 1985 in the lower Susquehanna River basin, removing 50,540 tons of
animal waste in 1985 and 1986. Pennsylvania and Virginia have achieved lower percentages
of manure stored than Maryland (1.3 and 2.0%, respectively), due to factors such as differing
program priorities and time needed to begin program efforts.
NUTRIENT REDUCTION: PROGRESS REPORT
The nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are associated with both animal waste and sedi-
ment erosion from cropland. Agricultural BMPs and proper management of animal waste
can reduce these pollutants, and the extent of that reduction can be estimated. Data from
Virginia's BMP tracking system suggested that an average of 1.1 pounds of phosphorus is
prevented from reaching waterways for each ton of soil kept from eroding. Data from Penn-
sylvania showed that each ton of soil averages 5.4 pounds of nitrogen content. For animal
waste, an average of 1.3 pounds of phosphorus and 7.0 pounds of nitrogen are kept out of
waterways for each ton of manure stored. These are estimates. Differing soil or manure testing
methods, as well as soil type and site conditions, can all result in varying figures.
Table 4.8 shows the pollutant reduction attributed to cropland and animal waste BMPs
installed in these basins based on the data shown above. Columns (1) and (2) show the poten-
tial discharge of particulate-associated nitrogen and phosphorus, calculated from the cropland
acres and tons of manure shown as needing treatment in 1985. Columns (3) and (4) show
the percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus discharge achieved by measures installed
in 1985 and 1986, while columns (5) and (6) project the reduction possible by 1990 if current
funding levels and priorities continue.
In considering this table, it is important to realize that it does not reflect the total nutrient
load from cropland or animal waste. Some cropland does not need BMP application because
erosion rates are low (but some eiosion still occurs), and some manure is already controlled
in other ways. Soluble nutrients also are not included, which has more of an effect related
to nitrogen than phosphorus, since phosphorus is more tightly bound to particles. Thus, when
the appropriate factors arc applied to account for nutrients that will continue to enter the
Bay regardless of program efforts, the potential reduction Bay-wide by 1990 drops from 12.4%
to 10.5% for phosphorus and from 12.1% to 8.9% for nitrogen.
Maryland shows the highest expected reduction by 1990 in nutrient discharge (nearly 20%
for both nitrogen and phosphorus). The figures for Virginia and Pennsylvania (14.5 and 15.2%
and 7.5 and 7.7%, respectively) are lower for several reasons, including differences in targeting
strategies, amount of funding available for cost sharing, and program maturity. Pennsylva-
nia and Virginia are concentrating their program efforts in limited areas, which therefore show
much higher rates of nutrient reduction than the basin-wide average. In addition, the total
107
-------
TABLE 4.8
REDUCTION IN NUTRIENT DISCHARGE FROM
CROPLAND AND ANIMAL WASTE
POTENTIAL
PHOSPHORUS
DISCHARGE
IN POUNDS
(1985)
(xlOOO)
6,729.9
877.4
1,688.9
658.3
3,387.8
848.9
9,645.5
934.8
139.2
24,910.8
4,233.0
1,512.8
1,473.1
2,543.2
3,821.6
475.5
14,059.1
13,153.1
5,429.9
4,368.7
4,937.3
4,884.7
2,684.9
161.8
35,620.5
POTENTIAL
NITROGEN
DISCHARGE
IN POUNDS
(1985)
( x 1000)
35,185.7
4,441.8
8,684.5
3,339.2
17,508.2
4,280.8
50,574.4
4,852.7
718.2
129,585.4
21,921.5
7,546.2
7,359.3
12,957.7
19,938.8
2,437.1
72,160.5
67,809.3
27,759.2
22,564.0
25,213.4
25,153.1
13,912.3
815.6
183,226.9
POTENTIAL REDUCTION
BY FY 1990
VIRGINIA
James AFL
James BFL
York AFL
York BFL
Rappahannock AFL
Rappahannock BFL
Potomac AFL
Potomac BFL
Eastern Shore
TOTAL
MARYLAND
Potomac AFL
Potomac BFL
Patuxent
Western Shore
Eastern Shore
Susquehanna
TOTAL
PENNSYLVANIA
Susquehanna
Below Harris.
Below Sunbury
Juniata
West Branch
Above Sunbury
Potomac AFL
Western Shore
TOTAL
BAY-WIDE TOTAL 74,590.3 384,972.8
5.1%
6.9%
3.5%
5.0%
4.0%
14.1%
2.6%
44.8%
27.5%
4.3%
6.6%
1.2%
2.0%
3.2%
8.9%
6.2%
5.6%
1.4%
0.8%
0.8%
1.3%
1.6%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
3.1%
4.8%
6.7%
3.4%
4.8%
3.8%
13.7%
2.6%
42.5%
26.2%
4.1%
6.7%
1.2%
2.1%
3.3%
8.9%
6.4%
5.6%
1.4%
0.8%
0.7%
1.2%
1.5%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
3.0%
PHOSPHORUS
17.7%
24.0%
12.3%
17.5%
13.9%
49.3%
9.2%
15.7%
80.0%
15.2%
23.1%
4.3%
7.1%
11.3%
31.2%
21.6%
19.4%
11.8%
8.3%
2.6%
4.4%
5.6%
4.2%
4.1%
7.7%
NITROGEN
16.6%
23.3%
11.9%
16.9%
13.3%
48.1%
8.9%
14.9%
80.0%
14.5%
23.3%
4.3%
7.3%
11.6%
31.1%
22.4%
19.7%
11.7%
8.0%
2.5%
4.2%
5.3%
4.0%
4.0%
7.5%
12.4%
12.1%
ADJUSTED TOTAL 87,753.3 526,638.6 2.6%
NOTE: AFL = above the fall line; BFL = below the fall line.
SOURCE Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
2.2%
10.5%
8.9%
108
-------
problem is much larger in those two states than in Maryland, but Maryland has more fund-
ing (EPA, State, and USDA funding sources taken together).
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The data discussed in the foregoing sections lead to four findings:
• First, it is evident that targeting as described in Chapter 2 is leading
to significant progress in critical areas in each state. Pennsylva-
nia is targeting all of its CBP efforts in the lower Susquehanna
where the cropland is experiencing an extremely high erosion
volume (5.76 million tons/year) and manure production rates are
the highest in the Bay drainage area. Virginia has focused much
of its CBP activity in the Rappahannock basin, where 37% of
the State's 1985-86 sediment removal occurred (see Table 4.1).
• Second, the USDA cost-share conservation programs are a vital
part of the effort to reduce NFS pollution into the Bay, exceeding
CBP efforts in 1985-86 for Pennsylvania and nearly equaling CBP
efforts in Virginia, as shown in Tables 4.1-4.3.
• Third, the ACP (ASCS) program is not targeted by location, and,
therefore, is providing some reduction in every county and water-
shed in the basin, as demonstrated in Tables 4.1-4.3.
• Fourth, in some sub-watersheds there has been enough targeted
effort to allow projections of accomplishments in these areas
within several years. Examples include the Rappahannock,
Potomac, and York watersheds below the fall line in Virginia, where
nearly 20% of the land needing treatment was reached in 1985-86,
and Virginia's Eastern Shore, with 55%.
Accomplishments may fall short of projections, however, because the first BMPs in an
area are usually cheaper and easier to get under contract than those that will be needed to
make the projections hold true in the years to come. Projections made in the future may be
more accurate because tracking efforts will allow improved problem assessment and updating
of the basic data set; the data base will be adjusted by removing some acres that, although
highly credible, do not have water quality impacts, making the analysis more closely track
water quality rather than just erosion.
IDEAS FOR IMPROVING FUTURE ANALYSIS
In the course of the analysis presented here, certain deficiencies became apparent. Cer-
tain activities can be undertaken to improve the accuracy and completeness of future data
and to provide a clear perspective on their context. For example:
• DATA INCONSISTENCIES MUST BE RESOLVED — States need to be
made aware of the type of analysis that will be done using their
progress reports. Inconsistencies in reporting formats and data
interpretation need to be eliminated to the extent possible to avoid
biasing the results of such analysis.
109
-------
• USE CONVERSION FACTORS —EPA needs to develop conversion fac-
tors for all pollutants abated (and the resulting load reduction)
by control of sediment erosion from cropland; conversion fac-
tors needed include total inorganic nitrogen, total suspended solids,
and organic carbon as either chemical oxygen demand or total
organic carbon. Conversion factors should be developed based
on local conditions and parameters specific to the region.
• FACTOR IN DATA FROM OTHER PROGRAMS—The NPS impacts of
other programs need to be accounted for in this analysis in the
future, such as the 45,000 acres (as of March 1987) taken out of
production for 10 years i n the Bay drainage area under USDA's
Conservation Reserve Program and the effect of the Dairy Ter-
mination Program.
• CLEANUP PROGRESS CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED AS DATA
ACCUMULATE —This will provide estimates of the agricultural NPS
contribution remaining in, say, 1990 and how much more could
be accomplished by continued funding of the state implementa-
tion grants. Projections of program status and pollutant removal
will become more reliable as data covering more years of com-
pleted BMP projects become available and many of the underly-
ing assumptions can be dealt with quantitatively. However, the
decision of how much pollutant reduction is needed to achieve
Bay cleanup will require use of various models to move from this
source-based pollutant volume estimate for 1990 to the resulting
water quality and living resource conditions in the Bay.
• DATA ARE NEEDED ON ECONOMICS AND MAINTENANCE OF
BMPs —Once the tons per year of sediment and animal waste have
been converted to pollutant loads, the relative cost effectiveness
of different BMP efforts can be determined. Such an economic
analysis can also be used as the basis for demonstrating the value
of maintaining the BMPs once they are installed. The extent to
which BMPs, once installed, are maintained and eventually
repaired back to original design specifications must be determined
and factored into future analyses.
• INCORPORATE MANAGEMENT BMPs —Management BMPs such as
pesticide management and nutrient management have not yet been
incorporated into the data presented in this analysis.
• CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF ALL NPS
POLLUTANTS — Other nonpoint source pollutants or categories of
concern should also be examined. The portion deemed abatable
can be compiled and analyzed as has been done here with the high-
erosion cropland and animal waste sources to provide a better idea
of the load reductions needed in various areas to ensure success
of Bay cleanup efforts.
• ACCOUNT FOR ALL BMPs INSTALLED —Data presented in the tables
represent only those BMPs that are cost shared by ASCS, EPA
(CBP), and the states. SCS data indicate that this is only part of
the story. Many cultural or management BMPs are being installed
110
-------
by landowners without cost sharing. One state's data indicate that
cost-shared practices may account for only about 40-60% of the
progress currently taking place. If this is also true for the other
states, it would mean that the progress rate may be twice the level
shown in Table 4.8. Efforts are underway to obtain similar infor-
mation from the other Bay states.
ill
-------
Chapter 5
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DIRECTIONS
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY NFS PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents recommendations and issues on future directions for the Chesa-
peake Bay Program over the next 4 years from a Bay-wide perspective, aimed primarily at
NFS-related problems. They spring from the foregoing chapters, which provided a decision-
making context by discussing current activities, progress, and an assessment of the remaining
problems from the perspective of the individual jurisdictions.
The issues and recommendations identified are related to the institutional, technical, and
implementation problems facing the Bay program. Many of these issues and recommenda-
tions are interdependent, and many have implications regarding the availability and use of
resources, in terms of both staffing and funding. Some of the issues for future directions
of the Bay NFS program are well defined, and consensus exists among the jurisdictions on
how to address them. In other cases, the direction is not so clear. The recommendations
presented in this chapter have been grouped into three categories to reflect the degree of
consensus:
• NFS FROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS—These recommendations
represent a clear consensus among the Bay jurisdictions as to the
nature of the problem and how to best address it. In many cases,
these recommendations are for continuing existing efforts while
increasing the focus on a particular aspect of the problem.
• RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING BEYOND TRADITIONAL NFS
EFFORTS—The recommendations in this category are based on a
consensus on the nature of the problem, but program participants
do not necessarily agree on the best way to resolve or address them.
• EMERGING ISSUES—This category of issues does not represent a
firm consensus among Bay jurisdictions, but includes issues that
have been raised and need resolution.
Specific action items accompany each recommendation in the first two categories, and
a suggested lead governmental level or agency is identified for each action item. Implementa-
tion agencies include EPA, other Federal agencies, states (including the District of Colum-
bia), and local governments. The recommendations discussed below will not apply equally
to each jurisdiction in the Bay Program. Every participant is at a different point in its efforts
to address the NFS problem. Furthermore, the nature of the problem and the most appropriate
institutional structure for managing nonpoint sources also differ among jurisdictions. Thus,
these recommendations and action items serve Bay program participants as guidelines for
future improvements.
The emerging issues presented at the end of this chapter need to be discussed further
113
-------
among program participants to define additional recommendations for future actions. A brief
background discussion is presented on each of these issues. The success of the Bay effort
relies on the continued cooperative efforts of all agencies involved at the Federal, state, and
local levels.
NFS PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1:
ASSURE PROGRAM CONTINUITY BY ENHANCING
LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.
Participants at all levels of government must work diligently to assure and enhance pro-
gram continuity. While state, Federal, and local partners will clearly do all they can to create
a continuing sense of priority as well as adequate funding, these benefits are vulnerable to
change. The most practical mechanism for stabilizing the NFS program in the Chesapeake
Bay region is to broaden the base of technical expertise in this area. NFS management agen-
cies must be able to address emerging technical and policy issues in all NFS areas. More staff
with improved skills are needed, particularly at the state and local levels.
Conservation districts and agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service have provided
an excellent network for delivering technical assistance related to agricultural pollution and
have begun to fill that role for urban and other programs in some areas. Additional attention
to urban issues is needed, and the expertise of the agencies should be expanded.
The Food and Security Act of 1985 ("The Farm Bill") raises issues of competing demands
and priorities for resources, staffing, and program attention. Yet the assistance of USDA agen-
cies is important to program success. State and local agencies must begin building staff resources
to replace any potential losses in the traditional delivery mechanism. Local understanding
of the importance of such assistance will help guarantee funding at that level in case of a
reduction in Federal funding in the future.
Action Plan
Given the new emphasis on NFS pollution in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and the
current understanding of the long-term need for NFS efforts:
• Federal and state agencies should work together to develop staff-
ing plans. These plans should be long-range, stress combined ef-
forts, and result in a dependable staffing strategy that will get the
job done. Staffing plans ought to concentrate effort at the state
level, while identifying commitments needed from the Federal and
local levels. Thus, states should conscientiously assess existing staf-
fing levels and institutional structures and then define needs and
devise plans to meet them.
• Federal and state agencies should assist local agencies (such as
conservation districts and public works departments) in develop-
ing and enhancing technical capability and assuming a more ac-
tive role in program implementation.
114
-------
RECOMMENDATION 2:
EXPAND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES AND COOPERATION NEEDED
TO SOLVE BAY PROBLEMS.
The NFS problem related to the Chesapeake Bay is much more complex than was originally
believed. Effective solutions require a multi-disciplinary approach to both problem identification
and management. Research is showing that different kinds of tools and expertise are needed
to mitigate remaining problems. In addition, there is a need to increase the availability and
broaden the skills of technical staff to address these problems, and to enhance technical in-
formation exchange at all levels.
Action Plan
In search of the improved technical ability to manage NFS pollution, it is recommended
that:
• States develop interdisciplinary teams for implementing NFS pro-
gram efforts. Federal agencies can assist through IPAs (In-
tergovernmental Personnel Act assignments). These teams might
include soil scientists, biologists, civil engineers, agricultural
engineers, management specialists, and others.
• EPA develops an NFS clearinghouse to facilitate information
exchange.
• States expand on current training efforts and maximize use of
available resources by providing cross-training through conferences
and workshops.
• EPA examines the use of universities or Federal institutes as
vehicles for providing in-depth training for NFS management
personnel.
• Federal agencies document the capabilities of existing models and
facilitate their use by state and local NFS managers.
• Federal and state agencies should encourage increased use of
models and data bases at the local level to improve targeting and
other program efforts.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
BRING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL AGENCIES INTO THE PROGRAM.
Agencies that have not formalized their cooperation with the Bay Program partnership
are nonetheless engaged in activities that affect it. Some are responsible for land with erosion
problems and have responsibilities related to management of that land. The National Park
Service, for example, owns much of the shoreline of the District of Columbia but yet is not
subject to the District's land management laws. Others —such as the USDA's Forest Service,
Cooperative Extension Service, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service —
are already providing significant assistance to the Bay program but are not included in MOUs
with EPA. This slate of affairs admits the possibility that their assistance might be reduced
or eliminated due to competing program priorities. It also undermines EPA's ability to enlist
the efforts of these agencies in support of water quality issues. Active, formal participation
by additional Federal agencies will help improve coordination and decision-making.
115
-------
Action Plan
• EPA establishes MOUs with Federal agencies having land manage-
ment or program activity responsibilities related to the Bay
Program.
• EPA gives guidance to its Regional Offices on developing work-
ing relationships, task forces, and formal agreements as needed
with regional offices of other agencies.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
INCREASE ANALYSES/ASSESSMENTS OF BMP EFFECTS
ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY.
Many nonpoint source BMPs promote increased infiltration. Program managers are con-
cerned about their potential effects on ground-water quality, not wanting to obtain surface
water quality at the expense of ground-water. Runoff from developed urban areas and
agricultural lands may contribute significantly to nitrates, toxics, pesticides, and similar pol-
lutants in ground water. Federal and state agencies have begun research and monitoring proj-
ects to define the extent of the problem.
Action Plan
• Accelerate the rate of Federal/state investigation and research ac-
tivities to answer unresolved issues.
• Federal agencies and the states should review implementation of
BMPs to assess ground-water impacts based on research results,
and develop recommendations for state and local programs to use
in revising BMP specifications and determining cost-share
eligibility.
• Federal, state, and local agencies should reassess the BMPs that
are being funded or promoted through their NPS programs in light
of information obtained on ground-water impacts.
• Federal agencies should assess design of BMPs to minimize poten-
tial ground-water impacts and provide recommendations to state
and local agencies.
• States should develop a monitoring strategy leading to applica-
tion of appropriate monitoring techniques over a long period of
time to determine program effects.
RECOMMENDATION 5:
DEVELOP WAYS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS.
Program efficiency depends on maintenance of cost-effective BMPs as well as a clear
focus on overall water quality improvement strategies. Both preventive and remedial BMPs
need to be considered when addressing NPS-related water quality problems.
Many cost-share contracts for agricultural BMPs in the Bay area will expire. In many-
situations, maintaining existing BMPs beyond contract expiration will be more cost effective
than funding new ones on the same acreage. Mechanisms and incentives should be devised
116
-------
to increase the lifetime of particularly cost-effective BMPs beyond the contract period. The
nature of these inducements must obviously take into account whether the farmer benefits
directly from the BMP—BMPs providing direct financial benefits to the farmer through reduced
operating costs may not require additional incentives, while BMPs providing only off-site
benefits will require some inducement.
Improving the effectiveness of NPS programs requires heightening their water quality
focus. Stormwater management practices have increasingly moved from solely flood control
to more of a water quality emphasis. This trend must be encouraged. The techniques for water
quality BMPs for stormwater need to be standardized so local governments can readily im-
plement them. Proper maintenance and inspection of BMPs are essential if these goals are
to be achieved over the life of a development.
To date, relatively little program attention has focused on sediment problems resulting
from shoreline erosion. Increased application of structural and non-structural BMPs may help
ameliorate this problem, and additional program efforts may be needed.
Action Plan
• CBLO and the states review existing cost-share files to determine
how long agricultural BMPs are being retained by farmers, con-
duct an economic analysis of financial incentives, and disseminate
results to Federal, state, and local agencies to use in revising
guidance and program specifications.
• Federal, state, and local agencies incorporate additional incentives
into their programs where beneficial. For long-term BMPs, con-
sideration could be given to requiring longer contract agreement
periods, incorporating discount funding programs (i.e., higher cost-
share rates or other incentives), providing tax incentives, or re-
quiring BMP maintenance through deed restrictions or other
mechanisms.
• Counties or local governments should encourage local ordinances
related to preventive maintenance, local agency inspections, and
enforcement procedures.
• States should, where necessary, strengthen stormwater manage-
ment program criteria to address water quality as well as water
quantity and provide technical assistance, for example model pro-
grams and BMP design documents.
• States could consider a variety of program strategies such as sup-
porting loan, grant, or cost-sharing programs for landowners for
shoreline erosion control projects; providing educational materials
and technical assistance; or instituting demonstration projects.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
EXPAND PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS TO ENHANCE VOLUNTARY
BMP IMPLEMENTATION.
One of the best ways to successfully promote a voluntary BMP program is to demonstrate
clear benefits to the potential participant. Active outreach efforts should be intensified in
watersheds targeted as critical problem areas. At the same time, careful thought must be given
117
-------
to efficient use of staff resources, so staff should pinpoint those critical areas and BMPs for
which benefits can be demonstrated readily.
Action Plan
• Using models to target, state and local agencies should identify
non-participating landowners— especially the large landowners —
on critical land areas. Agency staff should educate them directly
and encourage their participation in cost-share and other manage-
ment improvement programs.
• Federal, state, and local agencies review the economic costs and
benefits of various BMPs and consider adjusting BMP cost-share
rates to reflect current needs and priorities. New rates may be par-
ticularly appropriate if program managers want to encourage prac-
tices that may not directly benefit the landowner.
• Federal, state, and local agencies document on-site and off-site
benefits of individual BMPs through development of case studies
for use in flyers, brochures, and other educational materials.
• Agencies distribute materials through mailings to local agencies,
conservation districts, crop management associations, members
of farm organizations, etc.
• In targeted areas, state and local agencies conduct educational
activities such as seminars, presentations at meetings of local farm
organizations, etc. to reach non-participating farmers.
• States should develop a NPS award program similar to existing
model farm award programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING BEYOND TRADITIONAL
NPS EFFORTS
RECOMMENDATION 7:
INTEGRATE BAY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES INTO COMPREHENSIVE STATE
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) has increased the visibility of the nonpoint
source program with a new requirement (Section 319) that states assess their NPS problems,
develop a management program, and submit both for EPA review and approval. The amend-
ments provide an opportunity to integrate separate programs and thus increase overall effec-
tiveness. Funding aspects of the new law also strengthen the program. Federal Section 319
monies must be matched by states, and a level of program effort maintained. The Section
319 requirements will clearly affect overall program planning. For example, the fact that Sec-
tion 319 funds cannot be used to provide direct assistance to individual landowners has im-
plications for the way program activities are funded.
To the extent that Section 319 funds are available for program development, technical
assistance, and education, this support may release some Bay funds for cost sharing. To en-
sure long-term ability to manage nonpoint sources of pollution, states could use funding under
118
-------
Section 319 to develop plans for long-range state and local funding of additional staff posi-
tions. If states have limitations on staffing, this Federal funding and the required state match
may provide the needed backing and impetus to obtain the staffing authorization. Because
they have Bay funds, the Bay states have a unique opportunity to use Section 319 funds to
support development and enhancement of outreach, technical assistance, fertilizer and pesti-
cide management, and other NFS programs.
Action Plan
• Bay states should review all available funding sources, including
Section 319, and maximize NFS efforts related to the Bay.
• EPA (Regions 2 and 3) should encourage Delaware, New York,
and West Virginia to address Bay-related nonpoint source prob-
lems as part of the grant workplan review process.
RECOMMENDATION 8:
NUTRIENT REDUCTION GOALS SHOULD BE SET FOR THE PROGRAM.
EPA's FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION report published in 1983 identified excessive nutrient
enrichment as the Bay's primary pollution problem. As a result, the focus of state program
efforts to date has been on reducing nutrient loadings. A comprehensive, coordinated effort
is needed Bay-wide to develop nutrient reduction goals for each major river basin to build
to goals for the Chesapeake Bay Program overall and for individual state program efforts.
Some states are developing these goals now, along with nutrient management programs to
implement them. A Bay-wide effort would provide direction and assist the states in this
undertaking.
Movement in this direction is often movement toward the setting of limits, and tradi-
tionally this has been attended by a regulatory attitude. If voluntary programs are not ade-
quate to achieve program goals, regulatory/enforcement efforts may need to be increased or
regulatory components may need to be added to existing programs that currently do not have
such authority.
Action Plan
• Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) and the NFS Subcom-
mittee develop preliminary nutrient reduction goals (in terms of
percent reduction) for agricultural land in each major basin on
the basis of the revised National Resource Inventory and other
data sources. (These will serve as interim goals until Bay water
quality criteria can be related to actual load reductions.)
• The Chesapeake Executive Council should use these preliminary
nutrient reduction goals as guidelines in revising the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement and develop an appropriate implementation plan.
RECOMMENDATION 9:
ADD SEDIMENT CRITERIA TO EXISTING TOOLS FOR ACHIEVING
PROGRAM GOALS
A great deal has been learned, and remains to be discovered, about the specific effects
of sediment pollution on living resources and water quality. Current results from research
and modeling show that sediment is a key force in determining the Chesapeake Bay's water
119
-------
quality. Bottom sediment releases nutrients and other pollutants into the water column, but
the magnitude of this source has not been quantified. Currently, there is not enough known
about the problem, and available tools are inadequate to analyze it and develop solutions.
To protect the living resources of the Bay from impacts on habitat and reproduction,
the Bay states need to develop sediment criteria. Criteria that currently exist focus on turbid-
ity, nutrients, and toxics. They do not address the direct impacts of sediment upon Bay flora
and fauna, the most obvious of which is the covering and disruption of food sources and
spawning grounds. In addition, the less obvious but very important problem that needs to
be addressed is the continuing sediment flux and release of nutrients and other pollutants
into the water column from bottom sediment. Separate criteria are needed for fresh and marine
waters because of the vast differences between them.
Action Plan
• Federal and state agencies fund research to develop tools for sam-
pling and analysis of sediment in fresh and marine waters.
• Federal and state agencies should gather information on indepen-
dent state efforts to develop sediment criteria.
• Federal and state agencies develop methods to predict pollutant
release rates from sediment.
• EPA accelerates efforts now underway to develop sediment criteria.
RECOMMENDATION 10:
INTEGRATE APPROPRIATE TOXICS CONTROL INTO NFS PROGRAMS.
To date, no Bay-wide effort has been undertaken to address toxic pollutants. Toxics from
agricultural and urban sources reach Bay waters, tributaries, and sediment, and local "hot
spot" problems have been identified. In addition, pesticides are being found more often in
ground water, just as they are throughout the country. Nonpoint sources of toxic pollutants
need to be better understood so that they can be integrated into NFS programs and more
effectively addressed.
Potential sources to be examined include industrial and municipal sources; runoff from
urban, agricultural, and shoreline areas; contaminated dredge spoil; atmospheric inputs; and
other sources. Programs should consider: integrating pesticide management into ongoing
agricultural and urban programs; water quality in stormwater controls; prevention of ground-
water impacts from infiltration and waste disposal; and monitoring to evaluate effectiveness
of controls.
Action Plan
• The Chesapeake Bay Executive Council should establish a
workgroup on toxics to better define the NPS toxics problem.
• CBLO and the states conduct additional monitoring for toxics
geared toward nonpoint sources, with guidance provided by the
toxics workgroup.
120
-------
The toxics workgroup develops recommendations on NFS toxics
management and reports to the Executive Council.
States use these recommendations to evaluate and modify existing
programs for agricultural, urban, and other sources, and incor-
porate them into assistance programs as appropriate.
If deemed appropriate by the toxics workgroup, States develop
pilot programs for a pesticide management BMP on agricultural
lands. Evaluate success of the BMP and incorporate into assistance
programs as appropriate.
States and local jurisdictions develop or modify education and
outreach programs to foster management of pesticides and other
toxics. Separate education/ outreach efforts should be developed
for homeowners and farmers to tailor materials as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 11:
ENHANCE LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR AREAS ADJACENT TO
THE BAY
Proper management of lands adjacent to the Bay and its tributaries is a critical aspect
of Bay cleanup efforts due entirely to the proximity of these areas to water courses. Pollutants
that run off these lands enter the Bay directly, with little or no opportunity to settle out or
to be removed. Land management techniques need to address intensely developed areas as
well as less developed areas to minimize water quality impacts.
States are in the process of considering or implementing a variety of land management
techniques. For example, local land use policies to control growth are in place in some states.
Other programs include forgiving landowners' Federal indebtedness when conservation
easements are established.
Action Plan
• States should encourage local governments to develop land
management and/or regulatory techniques for the protection of
shoreline areas.
• States should support local agencies with technical assistance and
model ordinances and conduct information exchange activities
related to successful local efforts. This could be made available
through a clearinghouse, seminars, etc.
• Through targeting efforts, state and local agency staff should iden-
tify critical land areas, contact landowners, and directly encourage
their participation in improved land management activities.
• States should conduct a public awareness effort to educate citizens
on the need for proper land use management.
121
-------
EMERGING ISSUES
ISSUE 1:
IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF REMAINING PROBLEMS MAY SUGGEST
REVISED ALLOCATIONS OF FUNDS AMONG STATES AND WATERSHEDS.
Allocation of funds to Bay jurisdictions is not based on the relative impact of the jurisdic-
tion on Bay resources. Within each jurisdiction, funding decisions are only partly driven by
their effect on the Bay. As the level of knowledge increases about the sources of pollution
and their impacts on living resources, it will be necessary to consider whether funds should
be shifted among jurisdictions to increase the rate of progress. Similarly, each jurisdiction
may need to focus more effort on smaller areas that offer the greatest payoff in pollutant
removal. Improved multi-level targeting for decision-making and resource allocation will result
as better data on living resource impacts become available. There are considerable political
forces affecting the ability to make changes to existing allocation methods, however.
ISSUE 2:
COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES MAY AFFECT BMP DECISIONS.
Some currently used BMPs such as animal waste storage may not be strictly cost-effective
because of the large capital investment required for implementation. There is question as to
whether or not cost-effectiveness studies alone should be used to make funding decisions.
Also, no clear rationale currently exists for dividing cost-share funds between animal waste
treatment and cropland treatment. The basis for future funding decisions needs to be more
fully explored by Bay program participants. In addition, nutrient management is the primary
interest behind animal waste storage BMPs; storage without nutrient management is clearly
not cost-effective. Cost-share funds should perhaps only be made available for storage facilities
if follow-up nutrient management is practiced on an ongoing basis.
ISSUE 3:
REGULATORY CONTROL OF ANIMAL WASTE MAY BE APPROPRIATE
AND EFFECTIVE.
Runoff from confined animal feedlots is currently subject to regulatory control under
a permit program. It has been suggested that implementation under this program should be
expanded and that cost-share funds should only be used to supplement this program by pro-
viding technical assistance for nutrient management. This also would focus funding on the
more cost-effective aspects of the animal waste problem and make more cost-share funds
available for implementing other BMPs. Past difficulties in implementation of the permit
program and its effectiveness should be evaluated and addressed if this approach is considered.
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1988-516-002/80044
122
------- |