903R89100
Chesapeake
Executive
Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
The First
Progress
Report
under
the 1987
Chesapeake
Bay
Agreement
TD
225
.C54
P764
1988
copy 2
January 1989
-------
Jporeword
To the People of the Chesapeake Bay Region:
We have accomplished much these past two years in our common enterprise to
restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries to their rich productivity of earlier
times.
In 1987, we drafted a new Bay Agreement to extend and expand upon the 1983
compact that originally launched this ambitious State-Federal regional restoration
effort. The public was consulted at roundtable forums held throughout the Bay
basin, and the final Agreement signed in December was a much stronger document as
a result.
In 1988, hundreds of people—Federal, State and local government employees and
other citizens as well—devoted thousands of hours to crafting the strategies, policies and guidelines that had to
be developed during the year to meet specific provisions of the Bay Agreement.
Strategies to reduce by 40% the levels of nutrients reaching the Bay, to control toxic and conventional pollutants,
and to more effectively deal with population growth and development were among the implementation
documents developed. Like the Agreement itself, all drafts were offered for public review and comment before
their adoption by the Executive Council. For that participation, we are grateful.
I am proud to report that we met the deadlines laid down for 1988. It sets the stage to stay on schedule in the
months and years ahead as we move, step by step, to transform into reality the aspirations embodied in the 1987
compact. As productive as these past two years have been, however, we know we arc barely beyond the starting
line in this crucial race to rescue the Bay from the pressures of population growth and development. Each of the
implementation plans we develop becomes, in effect, an extension of the Agreement itself, setting down
additional commitments whose fulfillment must challenge all of us—not just State and Federal agencies, but local
governments throughout the watershed, scientists, educational institutions, the business community, civic groups
and each and every individual citizen.
' -
The 1987 Agreement specifically recognizes the need to disseminate timely information on the progress of the
restoration program to encourage the broad public participation so essential to the program's future success. I
hope this report helps/ meet this objective.
I thank the other signatories of the 1987 Agreement—my colleagues on the Chesapeake Executive Council-for
their efforts throughout these past two years. Governors Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania and William Donald
Schaefer of Maryland; Mayor Marion Barry of the District of Columbia; Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Kenneth J. Cole of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission in 1987, and his successor in 1988, W. Tayloe Murphy Jr. of Virginia, have been steadfast in their
commitment to the restoration program.
And my thanks, as well, to the many others who contributed to the restoration effort in 1987 and 1988. Keep up
the good work and we shall "save the Bay."
Gerald L. Baliles, Governor of Virginia
Chairman, Chesapeake Executive Council
-------
_[ he First Progress Report under the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
± he Wetlands
C
ontents
As the marsh grasses of a Chesapeake Bay wetland undulate in the
familiar northwesterly breeze, a birdwatcher patiently waits. Poised at
the edge of the sedge and rush vegetation, a great blue heron stands
motionless. Its senses are focused on a small killifish, similarly foraging
in the shallows for a meal. The link binding these three is the wetland
environment. Each one - humans, fish, and wildlife—are threatened by
wetland destruction.
Even to those who consider themselves informed Bay area citizens,
the realm of wetlands and wetlands terminology is often a mystery.
Perhaps some misconceptions arise from the variety of environments
encompassed by the term "wetlands;" tidal marshes, inland bogs, coastal
mudflats, shrub swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, and wet meadows
are some types of wetlands encountered in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Wetlands are generally semi-aquatic lands, either flooded or satu-
rated by water for varying periods of time during the growing season.
These low-lying lands form a transition zone between dry land and deeper,
permanent bodies of water.
Like a golden nugget hidden in the silt, wetlands are highly valuable,
fertile lands in humble guise. They nourish and shelter an astonishing
array of animals—from finfish, shellfish, waterfowl and wildlife down to
microscopic aquatic species. In addition to vital habitat, wetlands also
provide a wide spectrum of other benefits.
Wetlands comprise the primary spawning and/or nursery sites for
many species, such as striped bass, shad, river herring, menhaden, spot
and croaker, as well as blue crabs, oysters, and clams. Large flocks of
migratory ducks, geese and swans spend their winters using marshes and
ponds for feeding and cover, while resident bird species rely year-round on
the Bay's wetland habitat. Wetland vegetation lessens shoreline erosion
as its roots hold soil in place, helping to reduce sedimentation problems.
As upland runoff and drainage waters pass through the wetlands, they are
essentially "cleansed." This water quality improvement is due to the
wetland's ability to process excess nutrients and intercept other pollutants,
trap sediment, and reduce suspended solids in the overlying water.
Controlling flood- and stormwaters is another important function of
wetlands. Potentially damaging volumes of fast-moving water are
temporarily stored in wetland areas. Subsequent gradual release of the
water minimizes erosion and urban/suburban property damage.
The wetlands of the Bay states have an intrinsic natural beauty,
providing opportunities for boating, fishing, crabbing, waterfowl hunting,
hiking, birdwatching, and canoeing. One would think these richly
productive areas would be highly regarded by all. Yet, for years they
were destroyed without thought. We must ensure that the remaining
wetlands are protected—for they are fundamental to the restoration of
our Chesapeake Bay.
Summary i
1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement 1
Bay Program
Activities 12
State and Federal
Agency Activities 18
Technical Report Series
Publications 28
Bay Agreement
Reports 29
Bay Program
Organization 30
!)! Protection Agency
''.•on ill information Resource
••mer
,U Chastnut Street
,'niladdphia, PA 19107
-------
ummary
Integrated State and Federal ef-
forts achieved substantial progress
in 1987-88 toward the goals of the
Chesapeake Bay restoration and
protection program, including the
signing of a new Bay Agreement in
December 1987 that promised ac-
celerated advances in the years
ahead. This report reviews
program accomplishments in these
two years and summarizes major
implementation actions taken in
1988 to carry out provisions of the
Bay Agreement.
The 1987 Agreement—signed by the
Governors of Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania and Virginia, the Mayor of
the District of Columbia, the
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Administra-
tor of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on behalf
of the Federal Government—is a
significant departure from the
brief declaration of purpose signed
in 1983 to initiate the joint State-
Federal cleanup program. In addi-
tion to outlining broad goals and
objectives, the pact includes 29
specific commitments and, in
almost every case, deadlines for
meeting them.
Along with development of the
more comprehensive Agreement,
there has been continued progress
in the implementation of restora-
tion activites throughout the
watershed since the start of 1987.
In addition to ongoing improve-
ments in wastewater treatment
facilities in the Bay basin, Penn-
sylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
with funding help from EPA and
the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, expanded efforts to reduce
levels of nutrients and sediment
reaching the Bay. USDA's Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) report-
ed that conservation practices in
the watershed reduced the amount
of nitrogen entering the Bay by
7,679 tons in fiscal 1987. Reductions
of phosphorus amounted to 1,564
tons. Some 39,000 farmers received
technical help during the year.
The District, in turn, is implement-
ing urban stormwater management
regulations.
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring
Subcommittee produced its second
annual "State of the Chesapeake
Bay" report summarizing data
collected at 167 stations Baywide
from June 1984 through September
1985. The monitoring program,
over time, will help to distinguish
between natural variations in
water quality of the Bay and those
induced by human activities. The
data already are being used in the
design of models to project the
effects of restoration programs.
Development of the Steady-State
Water Quality Model of the Bay
and major tributaries was complet-
ed in March 1987, enabling Bay
managers to evaluate the effects of
various nutrient levels and project
the results of control options. Work
began in October 1987 on develop-
ment of a three-dimensional,
time-variable model, the second
phase of the Chesapeake Bay
Modeling Strategy.
The Bay Program gained another
powerful analytic tool with
acquisition of the ARC/INFO
geographic information system
(CIS) in autumn 1987. CIS provides
the capability to display spatial
data in a variety of ways showing
the complex relationships among
various environmental elements.
The District of Columbia, Mary-
land and Virginia have passed
legislation to protect striped bass.
Maryland and Virginia continued
working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) to rebuild
striped bass populations. Over one
million fingerlings have been
released since 1985. Both States
also pressed forward with pro-
grams to improve oyster habitat
and transplanted nearly 800,000
bushels of oyster seed. Pennsylva-
nia expanded efforts to promote
the restoration of shad in the
Susquehanna River, once a prime
spawning ground for the species.
Virginia enacted the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act to help pro-
mote land use practices intended to
protect Bay water quality. Effec-
tive July 1, 1988, the law calls for
development of criteria for use by
local governments in designating
preservation areas, such as wet-
lands and sensitive shorelines,
that merit special protection.
Maryland continued implementa-
tion of its Critical Areas Program
to control shoreline development.
All 60 local jurisdictions included
in the program were expected to
have approved plans in place by
the end of January 1989.
Other restoration activities and
options for future action to protect
the living resources and water
quality of the Bay were described
in the report, "A Commitment
Renewed," published by the Bay
Program Implementation Commit-
tee in February 1988.
-------
jhe 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement
The signing of the second Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement on December
15,1987, was a giant step forward
in a restoration program that began
as a Federal research study more
than a decade ago.
Meeting to put their names to the
new compact at ceremonies in
Baltimore were Virginia Governor
Gerald L. Baliles; Pennsylvania
Governor Robert P. Casey; Mary-
land Governor William Donald
Schaefer; District of Columbia
Mayor Marion Barry; Kenneth J.
Cole, Chairman of the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission, and, for
the Federal Government, Lee M.
Thomas, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Formal approval of the Agreement
was the culmination of a year-long
effort that began in January 1987
when Governor Baliles, Chairman
of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, proposed a review to
evaluate the adequacy of the
original Bay Agreement of 1983.
In May, a committee of Council
members was formed to develop a
broader pact addressing key issues
and defining specific goals and
milestones which would facilitate
public accountability and further
public participation in the Bay
Program.
Draft language was approved for
public review at a meeting of the
Executive Council in August 1987.
The Council's Citizens Advisory
Committee sponsored a series of
nine roundtable meetings in the
fall to elicit public views on the
draft, and subsequently proposed a
number of changes to strengthen
the Agreement. The text signed in
December included many modifi-
cations as a result of the review
process.
The 1987 Agreement is a signifi-
cant departure from the three-
point declaration signed in 1983,
although the initial Agreement
was itself a milestone event,
committing the signatories to a
"cooperative approach...to fully
address the extent, complexity,
and sources of pollution entering
the Bay."
The 1983 Agreement called for
three organizational actions to
provide a Basin-wide approach to
the restoration program:
1. Formation of the Chesapeake
Executive Council to assess and
oversee the implementation of
coordinated plans to improve
1
and protect water quality and
living resources of the Bay;
2. Appointment by the Executive
Council of an Implementation
Committee to coordinate
technical matters and the
development and evaluation of
management plans; and
3. Establishment of an EPA
Liaison Office to support the
restoration program.
The 1987 Agreement goes well
beyond that original pact, listing
specific goals, objectives and
commitments in six categories:
Living Resources; Water Quality;
Population Growth and Develop-
ment; Public Information, Educa-
tion and Participation; Public
Access, and Governance.
Among the commitments is the
challenging assignment of reducing
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus
reaching the Bay by 40 percent by
the year 2000. A basin-wide
strategy to reach that target was
adopted in July 1988. More than a
dozen other commitment plans,
policies or strategies were
developed in 1988 and subsequently
approved by the Chesapeake
Executive Council. These included
strategies to control or reduce toxic
and conventional pollutants, a
wetlands protection policy, and
development policies and
guidelines.
The full text of the new Agreement
follows. Additional information
concerning some of the Agreement
provisions is in the narrow column.
-------
amble
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a resource of worldwide
significance. Its ecological, economic, and cultural importance are felt far
beyond its waters and the communities that line its shores. Man's use and
abuse of its bounty, however, together with the continued growth and
development of population in its watershed, have taken a toll on the Bay
system. In recent decades, the Bay has suffered serious declines in quality
and productivity.
Representing the Federal government and the States which surround the
Chesapeake Bay, we acknowledge our stake in the resources of the Bay
and accept our share of responsibility for its current condition. We are
determined that this decline will be reversed. In response, all of our
jurisdictions have embarked on ambitious programs to protect our shared
resource and restore it to a more productive state.
In 1980, the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland established the
Chesapeake Bay Commission to coordinate interstate planning and
programs from a legislative perspective. In 1985, Pennsylvania joined the
Commission. And, in 1983, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission formally agreed to a cooperative approach
to this undertaking and established specific mechanisms for its
coordination. Since 1983, our joint commitment has carried us to new levels
of governmental cooperation and scientific understanding. It has formed a
firm base for the future success of this long-term program. The extent and
complexity of our task now call for an expanded and refined agreement to
guide our efforts toward the twenty-first century.
Recognizing that the Chesapeake Bay's importance transcends regional
boundaries, we commit to managing the Chesapeake Bay as an integrated
ecosystem and pledge our best efforts to achieve the goals in this Agree-
ment. We propose a series of objectives that will establish a policy and
institutional framework for continued cooperative efforts to restore and
protect the Chesapeake Bay. We further commit to specific actions to
achieve those objectives. The implementation of these commitments will
be reviewed annually and additional commitments developed as needed.
and Priority Commitments
In addition to EPA, seven other
Federal agencies participate
directly In the Bay Program, and the
Federal Government as a whole is
pledged to support the restoration
effort. EPA's participation became
a statutory responsibility under 1987
amendments to the Clean Water
Act. That legislation also provided
for the continuation of Federal grants
to the States for Bay activities.
This new Agreement contains Goals and Priority Commitments for Living
Resources; Water Quality; Population Growth and Development; Public
Information, Education and Participation; Public Access; and Governance.
The parties to this 1987 Agreement are the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, representing the Federal Government, the District of Columbia,
the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and
Virginia (hereinafter the "States"), and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission. This Agreement may be amended and attachments added in
the future by unanimous action of the Chesapeake Executive Council.
-------
Resources
Goal: Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources,
their habitats, and ecological relationships. The productivity, diversity
and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate measures of the
Chesapeake Bay's condition. These living resources are the main focus of
the restoration and protection effort. Some species of shellfish and
finfish are of immense commercial and recreational value to man. Others
are valuable because they are part of the vast array of plant and animal
life that makes up the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem on which all species
depend. We recognize that the entire natural system must be healthy and
productive. We will determine the essential elements of habitat and
environmental quality necessary to support living resources and will see
that these conditions are attained and maintained. We will also manage
the harvest of and monitor populations of commercially, recreationally
and ecologically valuable species to ensure sustained, viable stocks. We
recognize that to be successful, these actions must be carried out in an
integrated and coordinated manner across the whole Bay system.
Objectives:
• Restore, enhance, protect and manage submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, coastal sand dunes, forest
buffers and other shoreline and riverine systems, important to water
quality and habitat.
• Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation to protect
Bay habitat.
• Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain estuarine
habitats, including, where appropriate, establishing minimum
instream flows.
• Develop compatible Bay-wide stock assessment programs.
• Develop Bay-wide fisheries management strategies and develop
complementary state programs and plans to protect and restore the
finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay, especially the freshwater and
estuarine spawners.
• Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay, especially
the abundance of commercially important species.
• Restore, enhance and protect waterfowl and wildlife.
Commitment: To achieve this goal we agree:
• By January 1988, to develop and adopt guidelines for the protection of
water quality and habitat conditions necessary to support the living
resources found in the Chesapeake Bay system, and to use these
guidelines in the implementation of water quality and habitat
protection programs.
• By July 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin to implement a Baywide
3
The first "due date" in the new
Agreement was fulfilled in January
1988 with the adoption of the docu-
ment, "Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources."
The habitat guidelines were
developed by the Chesapeake
Bay Program Living Resources Task
Force over the previous two years.
Two additional commitments were
met in July 1988 with adoption of a
schedule for developing Baywide
resource management strategies
and a plan for Baywide stock (fish)
assessment. Maryland, Virginia, and
the District of Columbia, with the
support of NOAA and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, have tradition-
ally conducted individual stock
assessments. However, there has
never been a comprehensive
program to provide long-term data
for finfish and shellfish throughout the
Bay system. Data needs include
better Information on catches and
fishing effort, and biological statistics
on length, age, weight and sex of
Bay species. In addition to these
data from commercial and
recreational fisheries, plans are to be
completed in spring 1989 for a
Baywide trawl survey to obtain
Independent estimates of
abundance and distribution.
-------
A comprehensive wetlands policy
approved by the Executive Council
outlines a wide range of actions to
protect existing wetlands and to
acquire lands suitable for wetland
creation projects. A goal of the
wetlands plan is "no net loss" of
wetlands in the Bay region. Imple-
mentation plans in eight categories
ranging from research to education
are to be completed by July 1990.
A report on the removal of impedi-
ments to fish migration was submitted
to the Executive Council by a Fish
Passage Workgroup. Among other
recommendations, the panel called
for a comprehensive inventory of
obstructions to fish migration and
offered a multi-faceted approach
to bring about their removal.
plan for the assessment of commercially, recreationally, and selected
ecologically valuable species.
• By July 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of Bay wide
resource management strategies for commercially, recreationally and
selected ecologically valuable species.
• By July 1989, to develop, adopt and begin to implement Baywide
management plans for oysters, blue crabs and American shad. Plans for
other major commercially, recreationally and ecologically valuable
species should be initiated by 1990.
• By December 1988, to develop, and begin to implement a Baywide policy
for the protection of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
• To provide for fish passage at dams, and to remove stream blockages
wherever necessary to restore passage for migratory fish.
ater Quality
The pledge to achieve a 40 percent
reduction by the year 2000 in
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus
reaching the Bay is the most
specific~and one of the most
challenging~of all the commitments
included in the 1987 Agreement.
The strategy adopted to meet the
reduction goal lists actions in three
phases: 1985 (base year for figuring
reductions from point sources) to
July 1988; July 1988 to the end of
1991, and 1991 to the year 2000. The
strategy describes reduction
programs that would be undertaken
by the four jurisdictions.
The plan calls for annual progress
reports to keep the public informed
and to outline modifications in the
strategy that may be adopted.
The three-dimensional, time-variable
model now in development Is to be
completed in March 1991, with
scenario runs scheduled to begin six
months earlier. Those modeling
results will be an important element in
the revaluation of the nutrient
reduction goal required in 1991.
Goal: Reduce and control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to attain
the water quality condition necessary to support the living resources of the
Bay.
The improvement and maintenance of water quality are the single most
critical elements in the overall restoration and protection of the Chesa-
peake Bay. Water is the medium in which all living resources of the Bay
live, and their ability to survive and flourish is directly dependent on it.
To ensure the productivity of the living resources of the Bay, we must clearly
establish the water quality conditions they require and must then attain
and maintain these conditions. Foremost, we must improve or maintain
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Bay and its tributaries through a
continued and expanded commitment to the reduction of nutrients from both
point and nonpoint sources. We must do the same for toxics and conventional
pollutants. To be effective, we will develop basin-wide implementation
plans for the control and reduction of pollutants which are based on our best
understanding (including that derived from modeling) of the Bay and its
tributaries as an integrated system.
Objectives:
• Provide timely construction and maintenance of public and private
sewerage facilities to assure control of pollutant discharges.
• Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into
Bay waters from such sources as combined sewer overflows, leaking
sewage systems, and failing septic systems.
• Evaluate and institute, where appropriate, alternative technologies for
point source pollution control, such as biological nutrient removal and
land application of effluent to reduce pollution loads in a cost-effective
manner.
-------
• Establish and enforce pollutant limitations to ensure compliance with
water quality laws.
• Reduce the levels of nonpoint sources of pollution.
• Reduce sedimentation by strengthening enforcement of existing
sediment control regulations.
• Eliminate pollutant discharges from recreational boats.
• Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system, including
metals and toxic organics, to protect water quality, aquatic resources
and human health through implementation and enforcement of the
states' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Discharge System
permit programs and other programs.
• Reduce chlorine discharges in critical finfish and shellfish areas.
• Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate response to
pollutant spills.
• Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to protect
the Bay system.
• Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay.
• Quantify the impacts and identify the sources of atmospheric inputs to
the Bay system.
Commitment: To achieve this goal we agree:
• By July 1988 to develop, adopt, and begin implementation of a basin-
wide strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40 per-
cent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the main stem of the
Chesapeake Bay. The strategy should be based on agreed-upon 1985
point source loads and on nonpoint loads in an average rainfall year.
• By December 1991, to re-evaluate the 40 percent reduction target based
on the results of modeling, research, monitoring and other information
available at that time.
• By December 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin implementation of a
basin-wide strategy to achieve a reduction of toxics consistent with the
Water Quality Act of 1987 which will ensure protection of human
health and living resources. The strategy will cover both point and
nonpoint sources, monitoring protocols, enforcement of pretreatment reg-
ulations and methods for dealing with in-place toxic sediments where
necessary.
• By July 1988, to develop and adopt a basin-wide implementation
strategy for the management and control of conventional pollutants as
required by the Water Quality Act of 1987, entering the Chesapeake
Bay system from point and nonpoint sources.
• By July 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting for the
Federal Government, will develop, adopt, and begin implementation of
a strategy for the control and reduction of point and nonpoint sources of
nutrient, toxic, and conventional pollution from all federal facilities.
5
A Bay basin toxics reduction
strategy accepted by the Executive
Council sets forth a phased ap-
proach to identify and control toxics
from point and nonpoint sources
and to design and implement a
monitoring program tfiat will define
the threat from contaminated sedi-
ments. Strategy milestones include
the implementation of a broader
pesticide monitoring program in
December 1990 and the inclusion of
monitoring requirements in all major
point source discharge permits by
July 1991.
The strategy for managing conven-
tional pollutants (BOD, suspended
solids, pH, temperature, bacterial
contamination, and sediment) calls
for aggressive action to improve
and enforce current control pro-
grams. An annual conference is
called for to exchange information
on program developments to aid all
jurisdictions in achieving Bay
restoration objectives.
Seven Federal agencies with
facilities in the Bay basin Joined in
formulating the strategy to control
and reduce pollution from their
facilities. They were the Department
of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Soil
Conservation Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, Rsh and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the
Federal Highway Administration.
Each of the agencies has Its own
Implementation schedule, but all are
to have programs fully under way
by April 30.1989. The Federal
Highway Administration Is a new
participant In the Bay Program.
-------
J^opulation Growth and
Maryland's Anne Arundel County
earned an environmental award
from EPA's Region III for its innovative
technique to alert the public against
misuse of storm sewers. The
county's park and planning agency
provided stencils and community
volunteers gave their time to paint
the slogan, "DON'T DUMP ...
Chesapeake Bay Drainage," on
curbside storm drains.
The Year 2020 Panel, whose
membership includes developers,
university faculty members, business
people, and local government
officials, presented its report to the
Chesapeake Executive Council at
the Council's annual meeting. Panel
deliberations over a nine-month
period included open meetings in
each State and the District of
Columbia to hear citizen views. This
Panel report details the conse-
quences of unmanaged growth
and development, given the
population increase of 2.6 million
people anticipated within the Bay
basin by the year 2020, and
suggests actions to protect the
future of the Bay region.
Development
Goal: Plan for and manage the adverse environmental effects of human
population growth and land development in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
There is a clear correlation between population growth and associated
development and environmental degradation in the Chesapeake Bay
system. Enhancing, or even maintaining, the quality of the Bay while
accommodating growth will frequently involve difficult decisions and
restrictions and will require continued and enhanced commitment to proper
development standards. The States and the Federal government will
assert the full measure of their authority to mitigate the potential
adverse effects of continued growth.
Local jurisdictions have been delegated authority over many decisions
regarding growth and development which have both direct and indirect
effects on the Chesapeake Bay system and its living resources. The role of
local governments in the restoration and protection effort will be given
proper recognition and support through State and Federal resources.
States will engage in an active partnership with local governments to
establish policy guidelines to manage growth and development.
Objectives:
• Designate a State-level office responsible for ensuring consistency with
this Agreement among the agencies responsible for comprehensive
oversight of development activity, including infrastructure planning,
capital budgets, land preservation and waste management.
• Provide local governments with financial and technical assistance to
continue and expand their management efforts.
• Consult with local government representatives in the development of
Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection plans and programs.
• Identify and give public recognition to innovative and otherwise
noteworthy examples of local government restoration and
protection-related programs.
• Assure that government development projects meet all environmental
requirements.
• Promote, among local, State, and federal governments, and the private
sector, the use of innovative techniques to avoid and, where necessary,
mitigate the adverse impacts of growth.
Commitment: To achieve this goal, we agree:
• To commission a panel of experts to report, by December 1988, on
anticipated population growth and land development patterns in the
Bay region through the year 2020, the infrastructure requirements
-------
necessary to serve growth and development, environmental programs
needed to improve Bay resources while accommodating growth,
alternative means of managing and directing growth, and alternative
mechanisms for financing governmental services and environmental
controls. The panel of experts will consist of twelve members: three
each from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and one each from
the District of Columbia, Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
By January 1989, to adopt development policies and guidelines
designed to reduce adverse impacts on the water quality and living
resources of the Bay, including minimum best management practices for
development and to cooperatively assist local governments in
evaluating land-use and development decisions within their purview,
consistent with the policies and guidelines.
To evaluate state and federal development projects in light of their
potential impacts on the water quality and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay, and design and carry out each State and Federal
development project so as to serve as a model for the private sector in
terms of land-use practices.
By December 1988, to develop a strategy to provide incentives,
technical assistance and guidance to local governments to actively
encourage them to incorporate protection of tidal and non-tidal
wetlands and fragile natural areas in their land-use planning, water
and sewer planning, construction, and other growth-related
management processes.
Bay watershed development
policies and guidelines adopted by
the Executive Council provide a
perspective for judging whether
land is developed in a manner that
protects the quality of the Bay. The
report Includes a series of follow-up
actions and plans to be completed
in 1989 and beyond. Reviews of
State and Federal adherence to
these policies/guidelines are to be
completed by July 1990.
The strategy on technical assistance
and incentives, adopted by the
Executive Council, includes a matrix
showing incentives and technical
assistance now available to local
governments. Including program
name, geographic area covered,
program description, and contact
person. It also outlines a process for
Integrating educational, technical
assistance, and incentive elements
developed under the 1987 Agree-
ment and proposes a continuing
role for the Local Government
Advisory Committee as part of this
process.
public Information, Education and
Participation
Goal: Promote greater understanding among citizens about the
Chesapeake Bay system, the problems facing it, the policies and programs
designed to help it, and to foster individual responsibility and
stewardship of the Bay's resources.
Goal: Provide increased opportunities for citizens to participate in
decisions and programs affecting the Bay.
The understanding and support of the general public and interests groups
are essential to sustaining the long-term commitment to the restoration and
protection of the Chesapeake Bay system and its living resources. Citizens
must have opportunities to learn about that system and associated
management policies and programs and must be given opportunities to
contribute ideas about how best to manage that natural system.
Objectives:
• Provide timely information on the progress of the restoration program.
Assure a continuing process of public input and participation in policy
decisions affecting the Bay.
-------
State and Federal agencies com-
pleted communication plans in early
spring. A unified, Baywide plan,
completed in May 1988, includes
comprehensive procedures to
encourage public review and
comment on plans and strategies as
they are developed to meet
Agreement commitments.
The first Governors Cup Fishing
Tournament, which is to be one of a
series of annual Baywide Watershed
Awareness events to promote
restoration efforts, was held July
30-31,1988.
• Enhance Bay-oriented education opportunities to increase public
awareness and understanding of the Bay system.
• Provide curricula and field experiences for students.
• Promote opportunities to involve citizens directly in Bay restoration
efforts.
• Coordinate the production and distribution of Bay information and
education materials.
Commitment: To achieve these goals, we agree:
• To conduct coordinated education and information programs to inform
the general public, local governments, business, students, community
associations, and others of their roles, responsibilities, and
opportunities in the restoration and protection effort, and to promote
public involvement in the management and decision-making process.
• To provide for public review and comment on all implementation plans
developed pursuant to this agreement.
• By March 1988, to develop state and federal communication plans for
public information, education, and participation, and by May 1988, o
develop a unified, Bay-wide communication plan.
• To promote Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts by establishing an
annual Bay-wide series of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Awareness
events, to include a Governors' Cup Fishing Tournament.
Access
Goal: Promote increased opportunities for public appreciation and
enjoyment of the Bay and its tributaries.
Interest in and commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are
greatly affected by personal contact with that natural system.
Consequently, improved opportunities for access to the shores and waters
of the system are essential if public awareness and support are to be
maintained and increased.
Objectives:
• Improve and maintain access to the Bay including public beaches,
parks and forested lands.
• Improve opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing.
• Secure shoreline acreage to maintain open space and provide
opportunities for passive recreation.
• Secure necessary acreage to protect unique habitat and environmentally
sensitive areas.
-------
Commitment: To achieve this goal we agree:
• To intensify our efforts to improve and expand public access
opportunities being made available by the Federal government, the
States, and local governments, by developing a strategy, which includes
an inventory of current access opportunities by July 1988, which targets
state and federal actions to secure additional tidal shorefront acres by
December 1990 along the Bay and it tributaries.
• By December 1988, to prepare a comprehensive guide to access facilities
and the natural resource system for the tidal Chesapeake Bay.
G
overnance
Goal: Support and enhance the present comprehensive, cooperative, and
coordinated approach toward management of the Chesapeake Bay system.
Goal: Provide for continuity of management efforts and perpetuation of
commitments necessary to ensure long-term results.
The cooperation necessary to sustain an effective Chesapeake Bay
restoration and protection effort requires a formal working arrangement
involving the States and the Federal government. That institutional
arrangement must allow for and promote voluntary individual actions
coordinated within a well-defined context of the individual
responsibilities and authorities of each State and the Federal government.
It must also ensure that actions which require a concerted, Bay-wide
approach be addressed in common and without duplication. One of the
principal functions of the coordinating institution is to develop strategic
plans and oversee their implementation, based on advice from the public,
from the scientific community, and from user groups.
In addition, the coordinating body must exert leadership to marshall
public support, and it must be accountable for progress made under the terms
of this agreement. The coordinating body will continue to be the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Chesapeake Executive Council shall
be comprised of the Governors, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chairman
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The chairmanship of the Council
shall rotate annually as determined by the Council. The term of the
chairman shall be one year. The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall represent the federal government, and the
chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission shall represent all
Commission members.
Objectives:
• Continue to demonstrate strong, regional leadership by convening an
annual public meeting of the Chesapeake Executive Council.
• Continue to support the Chesapeake Executive Council and provide for
technical and public policy advice by maintaining strong advisory
committees.
A State-Federal task group
completed an Inventory of public
access facilities in the Bay
watershed In mid-1988. A
comprehensive guide to the many
public access sites around the
Chesapeake Bay and In the
Susquehanna River basin will
become available early in 1989.
The attractive guidebook will Include
more that a score of regional maps
along with descriptions of
recreational and historic attractions
in the watershed and an
easy-to-use master matrix providing
specific information on each site.
The guide also will Introduce readers
to the history and ecology of the
Bay. For information about the
availability of the book, call Karen
Meyer at (301) 974-7231 or Derral
Jones at (804) 786-9042.
Since the first Bay Agreement was
signed in 1983, State and Federal
staff members from many agencies
have worked together on
committees to develop and
implement comprehensive
cooperative programs, trade ideas
and exchange technical
information. The 1987 Agreement
recognizes the need for institutional
arrangements that will assure
continuation of these interactions.
-------
Under the 1987 Agreement, the
signatories themselves (the three
Governors, Mayor of DC, EPA
Administrator, and Chesapeake
Bay Commission Chairman) make
up the Executive Council. Formerly,
its members were State department
heads and their Federal
counterparts.
A living resources monitoring plan
adopted in July 1988 provides a
framework for sustained monitoring
of major "ecosystem components'
- finfish; shellfish; wildlife; and plant,
benthic faunal, and planktonic
communities.
The first annual Chesapeake Bay
work plan is now in development,
with completion anticipated in
early 1989.
The comprehensive research plan
developed in response to the
Agreement establishes a
mechanism for an annual
assessment of Chesapeake Bay
Program research activities and the
identification of priority research
needs. A research Implementation
group has been established to
review funding sources and to
evaluate and recommend
additional financial options.
A 20-member Local Government
Advisory Committee named In
response to the Agreement
commitment Is chaired by Gerald W.
Hyland, Fairfax County (Virginia)
Board of Supervisors. The
committee sponsored a three-day
conference in November 1988 to
stimulate participation by local
officials in the Bay Program.
• Coordinate Bay management activities and develop and maintain
effective mechanisms for accountability.
• The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office shall provide staff support to the
Chesapeake Executive Council by providing analyses and data
management, and by generating reports related to the overall program.
The Implementation Committee shall provide guidance to the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office Director in all matters relating to
support for the Council and its supporting committees, subcommittees,
and work groups, including the development of all plans and documents
associated with the Council.
• Examine the feasibility of joint funding support of the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office.
• Track and evaluate activities which may affect estuarine water
quality and resources and report at least annually.
• Develop and maintain a coordinated Chesapeake Bay data
management system.
• Continue to implement a coordinated Bay-wide monitoring system and
develop a Bay-wide living resource monitoring system.
• Develop and implement a coordinated Bay-wide research program.
Commitment: To achieve these goals we agree:
• To develop an annual Chesapeake Bay work plan endorsed by the
Chesapeake Executive Council.
• To continue to support Baywide environmental monitoring and research
to provide the technical and scientific information necessary to support
management decisions.
• To strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office by assigning, as
appropriate, staff persons from each jurisdiction and from
participating federal agencies to assist with the technical support
functions of that office.
• By July 1988, to develop and adopt a comprehensive research plan to
address the technical needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program, to be
evaluated and updated annually.
• By July 1988, to develop a Baywide monitoring plan for selected
commercially, recreationally, and ecologically valuable species.
• By March 1988, to establish a local government advisory committee to
the Chesapeake Executive Council and charge that committee to de-
velop a strategy for local government participation in the Bay
program.
• To consider and review the feasibility of establishing an independent
Chesapeake Bay Executive Board.
• By July 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting for the
federal government, will develop a coordinated, federal agency
10
-------
workplan which identifies specific federal programs to be integrated
into a coordinated federal effort to support the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay.
By this Agreement, we reaffirm our commitment to restore and protect the
ecological integrity, productivity, and beneficial uses of the Chesapeake
Bay system. We agree to report in January 1989 on progress made in
fulfilling the commitments in this agreement, and to consider at that time
additional commitments. The implementation strategies which will be
developed pursuant to this agreement will be appended as annexes, and
annual reports will include an accounting of progress made on each
strategy.
-------
B
ay Program Activities
The signing of the 1987 Agreement
was an important milestone in the
evolution of the Chesapeake Bay
restoration and protection program,
but it did not represent a change in
direction. The program's focus on
living resources and water quality
in 1987 and earlier provided a
solid foundation for major
commitments spelled out in the new
compact. Continued progress of
State and Federal agencies in other
areas as well as the work of Bay
Program committees and subcom-
mittees also contributed to the
development of the compact signed
in December.
The State of
trie Bay
"The State of the Chesapeake
Bay," the second annual report of
the Monitoring Subcommittee, was
published in March 1987. The
report summarized data collected
at 167 stations from June 1984
through September 1985, laying
the groundwork for a store of
coordinated information that in
time will enable Bay managers to
determine long-term trends in the
character of the estuary and the
driving forces behind them.
Eventually, the monitoring
program is expected to establish
the link between water quality and
the health of the Bay's living
resources and help to distinguish
the effects of natural events from
the changes induced by human
activities.
Part of the report deals with the
physical-chemical characteristics
of the Bay: flows, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a,
nutrients, sediments and toxicants.
Another section deals with living
resources, ranging from plankton,
the first link in the food chain, to
submerged aquatic vegetation,
finfish and shellfish.
The monitoring period included
two distinctly different years,
with 1984 characterized as "wet"
and 1985 as "dry." Higher
streamflows in 1984 brought large
pulses of nutrients, which triggered
heavy plankton growth and larger
areas of oxygen-poor waters. Dry
1985 brought higher salinities
with less clearly defined surface-
to-bottom salinity differences and
some improvement in deep-water
oxygen conditions. The monitoring
results also underscored the
uniqueness of patterns within each
Bay sub-basin as well as the
importance of Baywide
relationships.
The monitoring program has not
yet collected sufficient data to
document the effects of control
programs, but the Subcommittee
said the 1984-85 observations
represented "a solid start toward
establishing a base-line
characterization."
A comprehensive technical com-
pendium was issued as a companion
publication to the summary report.
Projecting the
State of the Bay
Development of the Steady-State
Water Quality Model of the Bay
and major tributaries was com-
pleted in March 1987, providing a
valuable tool for Bay managers. It
was used in conjunction with the
watershed model—which simu-
lated the production and delivery
of nutrients to the Bay—to demon-
strate the effects of different
nutrient levels as well as results
that could be expected from various
control options.
Numerous scenarios were run to
evaluate the impact of various
strategies for the control of nutri-
ents from both point and nonpoint
sources. Model projections became
the basis for the 40 percent nutrient
reduction goal eventually adopted
as part of the Bay Agreement.
Modeling data showed that reduc-
tions at that level could achieve
many of the habitat goals esta-
blished to protect living resources
of the Bay.
Work was initiated in October 1987
on the development of a three-
dimensional, time-variable
eutrophication model of
Chesapeake Bay, the second phase
of the Bay Program Modeling
Strategy. The time-variable
model will address issues beyond
the capabilities of the steady-
state model and produce results
which will merit a higher degree
of confidence than those obtained
previously.
The time-variable model will be
capable of assessing:
• the impact of controls on Bay
bottom sediment processes,
which control Bay water
quality;
• the impact of the spring non-
point source load;
12
-------
SUSQUEHANNA
BALTIMORE
POTOMAC
JAMES
NAHT1COKE
POCOMOKE
ATLANTIC
• lateral water quality varia-
tions in the Bay;
• the water quality response of
area-specific controls (sub-
basin or zone);
• time required for Bay to
respond to controls;
• the increase and causes of
anoxia since 1950.
Information developed through
this project will provide a scien-
tific basis for the 1991 reassessment
of the 40 percent nutrient reduction
target required under the 1987
Agreement.
^-variable modeling
"< be accomplished by the
'->eers' Waterways
n under a joint
t with EPA
orandum of
Understanding approved in August
1987. In addition to Corps tech-
nical personnel, consultants with
specialized expertise in modeling
and water quality evaluations are
contributing significantly to the
project. The Chesapeake Bay
Program's Modeling Subcommittee
along with an expert panel, the
Model Evaluation Group, are
responsible for overseeing and mon-
itoring progress of the modeling
project.
Four technical workshops were
held to develop recommendations
which have been incorporated
into a work plan for development
of the model. Work on the project
is scheduled for completion in
March 1991, with the last six
months of the study devoted to
use of the model in assessing
various management scenarios.
Geographic
Information
System
The Bay Program gained another
powerful analytic tool with the
acquisition of the ARC/INFO
geographic information system
(CIS) in the fall of 1987. CIS
provides a capability to display
spatial data in multiple ways that
show the complex relationships
among various elements of the
environment. The system can be
used to map changes from year to
year in distributions of the Bay's
living resources such as oysters and
submerged aquatic vegetation.
Water quality data can be mapped
over these distributions to graphi-
cally demonstrate the relationship
between one and the other. The
proximity of such resources to dif-
ferent land uses can be shown, and
natural factors such as salinity and
temperature can be illustrated to
show potential sources of impact.
After acquisition of the system, the
first priority was to build a map
data base to support the needs of
the Bay Program. Information on
land use, streams and rivers, Bay
shorelines, watershed boundaries,
political boundaries, distribution
of living resources, and agricultural
activities is now part of the
system-more than 5000 data files
overall covering the entire Bay
basin.
GIS data are organized as "points"
(e.g., monitoring stations), "lines"
(e.g., streams), or "polygons"
(e.g., oyster beds). Various
attributes-water temperature, the
depth of a stream, etc.-can be
ascribed to these features. All
features are geo-referenced so they
can be analyzed in spatial rela-
tionship to one another.
One of the first uses of the system
was to create simple maps showing
interchanges on the Baltimore
13
-------
Former US.
Senator Charles
McC. Mathias of
Maryland speaks at
signing ceremony.
Breakfast gathering f.
Press photographer
meets Governors
Schaefer and
Baliles as they
enter room for
signing ceremony.
There had to be
oysters! Donald
Murray, director of
District of Colum-
bia Department of
Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs,
EPA Administrator
Thomas and Gover-
nor Schaefer chat
over succulent
snack during
reception.
It's official! Signing new Agreement, from left, Kenneth J. Cole of
Marion Barry of the District of Columbia; Governors Robert P. Ca.
L. Baliles of Virginia; and Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the U,
Panel fields quet
-------
Maryland, 1987 Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission: Mayor
\y of Pennsylvania: William Donald Schaefer of Maryland, and Gerald
Environmental Protection Agency.
I
The tirru
project is i.
Corps of Engi
Experiment Static?
funding arrangemer
spelled out in a Mem
Edwina H. Coder
and Maurice Lynch
receive awards in
recognition of their
services as chair-
men, respectively,
of Citizens Advisory
Committee and
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Barry adds
his signature to
display, "A Com-
mitment to the
Chesapeake Bay."
greement signing.
Bay Commission
Chairman Cole and
Governors Baliles
and Schaefer com-
pare notes during
tour of Bay exhibits
on display at Balti-
more Convention
Center.
-------
Beltway where wetlands could be
created to control urban runoff. In a
second study, oyster habitat was
mapped in conjunction with water
quality monitoring data to identify
locations where improvements in
quality would do the most good.
GIS also is being used to sort agri-
cultural county data into tributary
basins for use in the Bay Program
watershed model.
In addition to making possible
more in-depth analyses of the
interactions of water quality and
living resources, GIS also will be
used to map results of model runs,
providing pictorial displays to
facilitate understanding of
scenario results.
Publications
A comprehensive report on the
status and future directions of the
Bay Program was prepared in 1987
under the direction of the Imple-
mentation Committee and pub-
lished early in 1988 following the
signing of the Bay Agreement.
Entitled "A Commitment Renewed:
Restoration Progress and the
Course Ahead Under the 1987 Bay
Agreement," the 88-page publica-
tion explores in some depth issues
related to living resources goals,
the control of nutrients, managing
toxic pollutants, and program
research needs. Technical
appendices were published in a
separate volume.
A two-year study by an ad hoc
Living Resources Task Force culmi-
nated in August 1987 with accep-
tance of its report by the Imple-
mentation Committee. "Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources" subsequently was
adopted by the Executive Council
in January 1988, the first commit-
ment met under the 1987 Agree-
ment. The habitat requirements
report will be used in conjunction
with EPA water quality criteria,
State water quality standards, and
other information to refine data on
the conditions necessary to protect
the Bay's living resources. The
Imple-mentation Committee has
established a Living Resources
Subcommittee as a permanent
panel to carry on the work of the
task force.
Also published in 1988 was
"Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source
Programs," a 122- page report de-
scribing current programs to control
nonpoint pollution, achievements
in removing pollutants, and
recommendations for future actions.
Twenty-three new publications in
the Chesapeake Bay Technical
Report Series went to press in
1987-88. They are listed at the end
of this report.
Scientific and
Technical
Advisory
Committee
The Chesapeake Bay Program's
Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC) played an
active role in shaping the 1987 Bay
Agreement.
Formed in 1984, the 20-member
advisory panel includes represen-
tation from major university and
research institutions in Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, Virginia and the
District of Columbia. Its work
includes the review of program
documents and scientific activities,
participation in technical subcom-
mittees, sponsorship of workshops,
and the dissemination of scientific
information relevant to the Bay.
In discussions that preceded the
drafting of the Agreement, STAC
recommended that the new pact
provide for:
• measurable goals to be at-
tained through Bay restoration
efforts
• more emphasis on establishing
the linkage between water
quality and the health of key
species
• a duel nutrient control strategy
involving biological
removal of both phosphorus
and nitrogen by wastewater
treatment plants in the
watershed
• a basin-wide toxics control
strategy
• expanded biological
monitoring and the use of new
monitoring techniques in Bay
waters
• timely identification of
research needs
STAC also participated in the
review of the draft Agreement
that was approved in August 1987,
urging a stronger commitment to the
control of toxic materials and
endorsing the draft's focus on
population growth and develop-
ment. Subsequent to the signing of
the Agreement, STAC spear-
headed development of the
comprehensive research plan
which was accepted by the
Chesapeake Executive Council in
July 1988.
STAC gave major attention in 1987
to the review of modeling projects,
including scenarios run on the
steady-state model, revision of the
Chesapeake Basin Model, and
plans for collecting sediment data
to be utilized in the time-variable
model now being developed for the
Bay program.
STAC's work in the area of commu-
nicating scientific information
included production of the report,
"Available Technology for the
Control of Nutrient Pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay." The 113-page
publication consolidates in one
volume up-to-date information on
technologies available to reduce
pollution from combined sewer
overflows, nonpoint sources (both
urban and rural), and point sources.
16
-------
Sections on efficiency, economics,
and advantages and disadvantages
of each technology can help ease
the task of matching an appro-
priate technology to a given
situation.
In March 1988, STAC co-sponsored
a Baywide research conference to
help disseminate the newest scien-
tific information about the Bay.
More than 300 research scientists,
resource managers and other
interested individuals attended
the Baltimore conference.
Under the 1987 Agreement, STAC
will have a continuing role in
implementation of the research
plan in addition to providing
scientific and technical oversight
and guidance for the Bay Program
as a whole and serving as a
communications link between the
Program and the scientific research
community.
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment became a major focus for
Citizen Advisory Committee
activities after its preliminary
approval in draft form in August
1987.
The Committee sponsored a series
of nine public meetings to solicit
comments on the Agreement draft,
and subsequently proposed
additional commitments and other
changes to strengthen the new
cleanup pact. The Agreement
signed in December 1987 included
many modifications as a result of
the review process.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay (formerly the Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay),
which conducts public outreach
under grants from EPA, organized
the public meetings on the
Agreement and provided other
staff support to CAC during the
year.
Alliance staff members conducted
some 40 briefings throughout the
Bay basin to business organiza-
tions, watermen's associations,
farm groups and other interested
organizations. A series of nine
public "roundtable" meetings in
October 1987 was attended by more
than 500 persons. At the round-
table sessions, citizens had the op-
portunity to meet with State and
Federal legislators and
administrators to discuss key issues
central to the new compact.
Sessions were held in Richmond,
Norfolk, Fairfax, Annapolis,
Baltimore, Easton, Harrisburg,
Lewisburg and the District of
Columbia.
The Alliance sponsored a two-day
conference, "The Chesapeake at
Risk: Towards a Toxics Strategy,"
in Richmond on October 20-21,1988,
coinciding with public considera-
tion of the proposed toxics reduc-
tion strategy. At the meeting,
speakers representing the scientific
community, government, agricul-
ture, major corporations and public
interest groups addressed the
complex issues posed by toxic
contaminants in the Bay basin.
Local
Government
Advisory
Committee
The 1987 Bay Agreement called for
the creation of a Local Government
Advisory Committee to be charged
with the task of developing a
strategy for local government
participation in the Bay Program.
This new panel was established in
the spring of 1988 with appoint-
ment of 20 members representing
varied levels of local government
in Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Maryland and the District of
Columbia. Gerald W. Hyland, a
member of the Fairfax County
(Virginia) Board of Supervisors,
was chosen by the group as its first
chairman.
The Committee has the chal-
lenging assignment of representing
the diverse interests of some 2,000
governments within the 64,000
square mile Bay watershed and
seeking to enlist those jurisdictions
into active participation in
restoration.
"Saving the Bay," a three-day
conference for local officials, was
sponsored by the Committee in
November 1988 as a first step
toward aquainting elected and
appointed officials with major
elements of the Bay Program and
the role cities, towns, and counties
can play in the restoration. Discus-
sions from the conference will
contribute to formulation of the
local government participation
strategy in 1989.
The Committee will play a
continuing role in disseminating
information on development
guidelines, wetlands protection
policies, and other Bay Agreement
implementation activities that
directly involve local government
decision-making. In addition to
other communication activities,
the Committee plans to distribute
a quarterly newsletter to local
officials to keep them abreast of
Bay Program developments. The
Committee also will serve as a
channel to bring the concerns of
local government jurisdictions to
the Executive Council and Bay
Program committees.
17
-------
tate & Federal Agency
Activities
Living Resources
State and Federal agencies have a
variety of programs under way to
aid in restoration of Chesapeake
Bay living resources and habitats.
Fisheries Restoration. Vir-
ginia and Maryland are working
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) in a striped bass
restoration program that involves
catching brood fish and raising
fingerlings for later release. More
than one million fingerlings have
been released since 1985. Specially
tagged for later identification, the
hatchery-raised fingerlings are
expected to help improve wild
breeding stocks.
Maryland has had a moratorium
on taking rockfish in effect since
1985 as a key element of its striped
bass conservation program. The
State has released more than
800,000 striped bass six to nine
inches in length and 300,00 to
400,000 fingerlings. These fish
were raised in a cooperative pro-
gram with the business community,
including the Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company and the Potomac
Electric Power Company.
Virginia has budgeted more than
$400,000 over the current biennium
for equipment, personnel, and oper-
ating costs of programs to improve
striped bass populations. In
addition, the state has allocated
$390,000 to expand hatchery
facilities, including the acquisition
of additional hatching/holding
tanks.
The District of Columbia has
promulgated regulations for the
protection of striped bass, and
allocated additional resources for
enforcement in 1988.
Pennsylvania and Maryland con-
tinue to cooperate in expanding
programs to promote restoration of
the American shad in the
Susquehanna River, once a prime
spawning ground for the species. In
1988,4,500 prespawn adult shad
were trapped below the Cono-
wingo Dam and released to con-
tinue their migration to upstream
spawning areas. Since 1980, a
total of 50,000 shad have been
released above the dam; of these,
33,000 were brought in from other
river basins. The Pennsylvania
Fish Commission rears shad to
send to the ocean at its Juniata
River hatchery; some 74 million
fry and 900,000 fingerlings have
been released over the past 13
years.
Maryland completed plans for the
management of American shad,
Hickory shad, Blueback herring
and Alewife herring—all migra-
tory species that use the Bay and
its tributaries as spawning and
nursery grounds.
Virginia's Fisheries Management
Division is responsible for
improving and maintaining
critical finfish and shellfish
stocks. It develops methods to re-
duce fish mortality, gather
biological data and catch statis-
tics, and rebuild and maintain
spawning stocks.
The Commonwealth also continued
to expand artificial fishing reefs
off Wachapreague Inlet, east of
the Chesapeake Bay Light Tower,
and east of Cape Charles. Forty
concrete "igloos" were added to the
artificial reef off Ocean View.
With funding provided under a
$900,000 state grant and $300,000
from the city of Richmond, fish-
ways are to be constructed at the
first two dams on the James River
to allow anadromous fish to mi-
grate to traditional spawning
areas. The District of Columbia is
studying barriers to fish migration
18
-------
and plans to undertake appro-
priate remedies.
Shellfish Restoration. Both
Maryland and Virginia continued
programs to improve oyster
habitat and transplant seed
oysters in 1987.
Maryland planted nearly 5.8
million bushels of oyster shell in
1987 and transplanted more than
640,000 bushels of oyster seed over
an area of 2,269 acres. Virginia put
down nearly 1.9 million bushels of
clean shell and transplanted about
130,000 bushels of oyster seed. The
state produced 440 million eyed
oyster larvae in 1987 for industry
and research. Maryland's Deal
Island Oyster Hatchery became
fully operational, producing
larvae and spat for management
and research projects, including
efforts to develop disease-resistant
oysters.
Freshwater Flows. Projects un-
dertaken in 1987 are a start toward
the Bay Agreement objective of
maintaining freshwater flow re-
gimes to sustain estuarine habitats.
The Army Corps of Engineers
initiated the Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries Reallocation Study to
examine the potential of reservoir
storage shifts and the development
of new multipurpose reservoirs
within the Bay basin as a means of
meeting environmental as well as
water resource needs.
Maryland conducted a comprehen-
sive hydrological analysis of
Octoraro Creek, a Susquehanna
tributary, and evaluated Octoraro
Reservoir operations as a prelude
toward making recommendations to
the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission regarding freshwater
flow from the creek to the Bay.
Work also was initiated on a
computer model to provide data on
controlling salinity in the upper
Bay through regulation of
discharges from Conowingo Dam.
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation. SAV provides
habitat and food for Bay species as
well as acting as a nutrient buffer
and sediment trap.
Virginia has a $150,000 program in
progress to re-establish SAV by
transplanting or seeding eelgrass.
Thirty acres were planted from
1984 through 1986, and follow-up
studies indicated a survival rate of
70 to 90 percent. In some areas, the
program produced a 100-fold
increase in SAV growth. Nearly
4.3 million viable seeds were har-
vested in the fall of 1987 for use in
further plantings. The project is
drawing attention from New York,
New England and European
nations.
Maryland completed 26 SAV
transplanting projects in the Elk
and Sassafras rivers and the
Susquehanna Flats. The State
collected 78 sediment cores from
seven tributaries for analysis of
SAV seeds, sediment types, and
sedimentation rates.
Virginia, Maryland and the Dis-
trict funded mechanical harvesting
of Hydrilla by the CoE in the
Potomac River in the summer of
1987 and 1988. Virginia reported
cutting hydrilla at 10 sites
covering 18.5 acres in 1987. The
previous year, hydrilla was
cleared from channels to provide
access to marinas at six locations.
Hydrilla was cleared from eight
sites in the Maryland/CoE
program.
SAV populations continue to be
monitored Baywide through aerial
reconnaissance. Maryland,
Virginia, EPA, CoE, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
cooperate in carrying out the aerial
surveys, which help to gauge the
health of SAV in the Bay and its
tributaries. Ground truthing to
verify the aerial photography is
carried out by FWS, the Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay, the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and
the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources Watermen
Compensation Program.
Shoreline Systems. The
protection, enhancement and
restoration of wetlands, coastal
sand dunes, forest buffers and other
shoreline and riverine systems is a
specific objective of the 1987 Bay
Agreement and has been an inte-
gral part of ongoing efforts to
sustain the living resources of the
Bay.
Maryland, Virginia and CoE
entered into a cost-sharing agree-
ment in May 1987 to carry out a $3
million feasibility study as an
extension of the Chesapeake Bay
Shoreline Erosion Study initiated
in 1983. Some 135 miles of criti-
cally eroding shoreline were
identified during the reconnais-
sance phase of the project. Seven
field modeling demonstration
projects are in design or have been
constructed in Maryland and
Virginia to evaluate their cost and
effectiveness to control erosion of
the Chesapeake shoreline. Site-
specific erosion control projects now
under study would extend to
another 15 reaches covering 9.3
miles of shoreline. The overall
feasibility study, scheduled for
completion in November 1990, is
expected to produce recommenda-
tions for Federal construction of
erosion control projects.
19
-------
The Shoreline Study also includes
plans for four demonstration pro-
jects employing vegetation control
to be carried out in 1988 under joint
funding by Maryland and CoE.
Another $500,000 in EPA grant
funds will be used in 1988 to employ
shoreline vegetative techniques in
Talbot, Dorchester, Queen Anne's
and Wicomico counties on Mary-
land's Eastern Shore.
In other work on the Maryland
Eastern Shore, private property
owners, with the help of $442,000
in Federal matching funds,
completed 17 vegetative projects to
stabilize more than a mile and a
half of eroding shoreline along the
Chester, Miles and Wye rivers.
The Maryland Conservation
Corps also used vegetative
techniques to repair over two miles
of eroding Bay and tidal
shorelines.
Maryland established forest
buffers on 11 miles of shoreline and
expanded its programs for the
review of woodland site develop-
ment plans and the provision of
technical assistance to landowners
preparing sediment control plans
for timber harvesting.
Maryland's non-tidal wetlands
staff completed the first phase of a
project to develop a technique for
assessing the value and importance
of the state's non-tidal wetlands.
Virginia budgeted $237,000 for
research, training, and technical
assistance as needed to protect
tidal shorelines and preserve
valuable ecosystems.
In 1988, the District of Columbia,
the State of Maryland, and
Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties signed the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Agreement
to strengthen cooperation in
carrying out improvement projects
along the Anacostia and its
tributaries. The District also is
looking into the creation of
artificial wetlands at Oxon Cove
near the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
To support the varied Bay basin
projects, the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) is continuing to
evaluate grasses and providing
stock for demonstrations of
shoreline erosion control, dune
stabilization, and other plantings
in critical areas.
The Department of Defense (DoD)
completed installation of an
experimental shoreline erosion
control project at Camp Peary,
Virginia, and built three storm-
water detention basins at Andrews
Air Force Base. SCS completed soil
surveys and developed soil conser-
vation plans for several DoD in-
stallations in the Bay watershed.
Water Quality
Control of conventional and toxic
pollutants in wastewater dis-
charges is still an essential ele-
ment in the cleanup of the Chesa-
peake Bay, but the reduction of
nutrients is getting increasing
attention as a means of main-
taining or improving dissolved
oxygen levels in the Bay and its
tributaries.
A strategy to achieve a 40 percent
reduction by the year 2000 in
nutrients entering the Bay—a Bay
Agreement commitment—was
approved by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in July 1988.
Wastewater Treatment.
Two new facilities controlling both
phosphorus and nitrogen came
on-line during 1988 in Maryland's
Patuxent River basin. The new
Dorsey Run Advanced Wastewater
Plant, was completed with $13
million in State funding and the
$21.5 million Patuxent Sewage
Treatment plant was completed
under the Federal construction
grants program.
Four other Maryland facilities
added nutrient control capabilities
in 1988. Cox Creek, Salisbury and
Delmar plants are now able to re-
duce total phosphorus discharges.
Easton opened a new overland flow
land treatment facility that will
reduce both phosphorus and
nitrogen reaching the Bay.
Maryland initiated a new effort in
1988 to accelerate awards under
the Federal construction grants
program, with the Department of
the Environment assuming an
active role in project management
starting with the early stages of
planning. With this approach in
place, 22 grants were awarded to
14 jurisdictions. Projects with an
estimated cost of $100.9 million
will receive more than $65 million
in Federal grant money and nearly
$22.2 million in State grants.
The upgrade of the Western
Branch facility on the Patuxent to
add nitrogen control to its existing
phosphorus control capability was
accelerated in 1988 with the
State's commitment to provide
nearly $30 million in funding. EPA
subsequently agreed to share the
cost by providing $10 million.
20
-------
The Maryland Environmental
Service has developed a State
Facilities Capital Improvement
Program to facilitate upgrading of
all state-owned wastewater
facilities. The program will
enable these facilities to meet
EPA's 1988 water quality dis-
charge standards.
The Maryland Department of the
Environment is working with
operators of several wastewater
treatment facilities to study the
feasibility of biological nutrient
removal (BNR), and implement it
where possible. The State will
provide up to 50 percent of the
funding necessary to complete each
project. Facilities currently in-
volved in some phase of the
feasibility study are Parkway,
Little Patuxent, Annapolis, Piscat-
away, and Sod Run. Chesapeake
Beach is initiating construction of a
new facility under this program.
The program has been allocated
$7.2 million in State funding up to
now, with a like amount or more
expected to be available in fiscal
1990. Maryland will extend its
commitment to fund BNR at other
facilities in future years.
Virginia established a revolving
loan fund in 1986 to provide low
interest loans for wastewater
treatment improvements and has
authorized loans of $30 million in
State funds and about $75 million
in Federal funds to date.
The Commonwealth has initiated
a computerized enforcement pro-
gram to ensure that timely and
appropriate remedial actions are
taken for violation of discharge
permits.
Virginia's phosphate detergent
ban, which became effective
January 1,1988, has reduced concen-
tration of phosphorus discharged
from secondary treatment plants by
about 50 percent. In addition,
water quality standards and a
point source policy for nutrients
were approved in 1988 to continue
the Commonwealth's efforts in
nutrient reduction.
Virginia funded three local pilot
projects to gain information on the
reliability, operation, and costs of
alternative technologies for the
removal of nitrogen and phos-
phorus during wastewater treat-
ment.
The District of Columbia plans to
explore biological treatment
options at the Blue Plains plant by
1991.
Since the signing of the 1987 Agree-
ment, Pennsylvania has instituted
a new program for financing sewage
treatment and drinking water
facilities. Known as PENNVEST,
the program will combine approxi-
mately $700 million in state funds
and $320 million in federal
sewerage funds to create revolving
and non-revolving low interest
loans. With loan repayments and
interest, over $2.5 billion of new
projects will be financed over a
25-year period. Program criteria
give priority to projects which re-
duce pollution in the Chesapeake
Bay drainage basin.
The Department of Defense com-
pleted a $6.1 million upgrade of its
sewage treatment plant at Indian
Head and a $500,000 project to
repair storm drains at Langley.
DoD carried out a pilot Operator
Maintenance Training and Assis-
tance Program with the goal of
improving operations at all of its
treatment facilities. The pilot
project included detailed analysis
of operations at Edgewood and
Quantico. A report on the program
was completed in October 1987 and
distributed to the services for
implementation. A guidance
manual for conducting operator
training assistance at DoD treat-
ment plants was completed, and
training programs were carried out
at five Chesapeake Bay
installations in 1987.
Untreated Sewage. Virginia
continued its program of cost-share
grants to localities to rehabilitate
deteriorated sewer lines and reduce
the amount of untreated sewage
entering waterways. Four projects
started in prior years were com-
pleted; ten new projects were
funded and four were completed
during the last biennium.
Grants also were continued to
enable low-income shoreline resi-
dents to improve or install sanitary
facilities. These improvements
enabled the Commonwealth to
reopen more than 4,800 acres of
productive shellfish beds which
had been closed because of contami-
nation from sewage. More than
3,000 acres had been reopened
previously. Additional shoreline
cleanup work is under way.
The District of Columbia continued
construction work in its combine
sewer overflow abatement pro-
gram. Completion is scheduled for
1988. The District also established
a stormwater management program
in 1987.
Nonpoint Source Controls.
As outlined in the nutrient reduc-
tion plan of each State, Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland and Virginia are
expanding their efforts to reduce
levels of nutrients and sediments
reaching the Bay from farms.
Maryland also has initiated new
steps to reduce loads from existing
urban areas, and to minimize loads
from new development.
SCS reported that conservation
practices in the watershed reduced
the amount of nitrogen entering the
Bay by 7,679 tons in the past fiscal
year. The reduction in phosphorus
amounted to 1,564 tons. Soil saved
through these practices added up
to more than 2.9 million tons. SCS
provided technical help to some
39,000 farmers in the Bay
watershed and conservation plans
covering more than 470,000 acres
were prepared during the year.
21
-------
In Pennsylvania, 20 Conservation
Districts were designated as eli-
gible for funding assistance under
the Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Project at the end of 1988.
The districts perform watershed
assessments to determine priorities
for financial assistance to farmers
who initiate "best management
practices" (BMPs) to keep nutrients
from entering waterways or ground
water. The Pennsylvania Bureau
of Soil and Water Conservation
completed and distributed the
Manure Management Manual, an
eight-part guide telling farmers
how they can use various livestock
manures to reduce their own oper-
ating costs and at the same time
benefit the environment. The
manual was developed by tech-
nical specialists of SCS and the
Cooperative Extension Service of
Perm State University, with input
from members of Conservation
Districts, State farm organiza-
tions, legislators and staff of the
Department of Environmental
Resources.
The Conestoga Headwaters Project
under USDA's Rural Clean Water
Program offered farmers soil and
manure testing, nutrient planning
services, and help in implementing
best management practices through
its nutrient management office,
which will be operated through
1989.
The Maryland Agricultural Cost-
Share (MACS) Program in fiscal
1987 approved 566 new projects to
receive nearly $3.6 million in State
funds during fiscal 1988. There
were 751 projects completed with
$43.7 million in State funds.
Another 207 projects in Maryland
were approved for $1.2 million in
EPA grants. Maryland farmers
who receive cost-share assistance
in fiscal 1988 added nearly
$700,000 of their own money to
install these BMPs.
Maryland Soil Conservation Dis-
trict (SCD) outreach programs re-
sulted in the development of some
1200 soil conservation and water
quality plans tailored to the needs
of individual farms. Nearly 6000
BMPs were installed with tech-
nical assistance from SCD staff.
Maryland is expanding its out-
reach, education, and service
efforts to encourage comprehensive
management of nutrient applica-
tions to cropland, including
fertilizers, manures and sewage
sludge. The Cooperative Extension
Service of the University of Mary-
land provides soil and manure
testing for farmers. Under the
State's enhanced nutrient
management program, this will be
accompanied by site-specific man-
agement and application recom-
mendations developed through
state-of-the-art, computerized
analyses.
As an added incentive to supple-
ment the Federal Conservation
Reserve Program, Maryland offers
farmers $20 an acre for the
enrollment of highly erodible land
located in the 1,000 foot critical
area zone or in wetlands or vege-
tated filter strips along water-
ways. About 75 farms enrolled in
the State program during the
latest sign-up period.
Maryland's Agriculture Water
Quality Program, which specifi-
cally addresses nutrient movement
from agricultural lands as a non-
point source of pollution, was
approved by EPA as meeting
requirements of section 208 of the
Clean Water Act.
Virginia continued development
and implementation of its nutrient
management program to provide
technical assistance and education
to farmers on the efficient use of
manure and agricultural chemicals.
The legislature provided funding
in 1988 to hire eight additional
nutrient management specialists to
provide direct technical assistance
in the field.
Cost-share programs in Virginia
helped 1,001 farmers install BMPs
on nearly 40,000 acres during the
1986-1988 biennium. Soil loss was
reduced by 273,800 tons and 178,900
pounds of phosphorus were re-
tained on cost-shared acreage.
Sixty-eight animal waste systems
were installed, resulting in the
treatment of more than 755 tons of
nitrogen and 174 tons of
phosphorus.
22
-------
Research continues in Virginia on
two demonstration watersheds to
monitor the effectiveness of in-
stalled BMPs on ground and surface
water quality. One watershed is
primarily an animal waste
priority area; while the other is a
cropland-dominated watershed.
The State continues to sponsor at
least four rainfall simulation
demonstrations annually to show
first-hand the effectiveness of
various tillage practices in
reducing sediment and associated
pollutant runoff.
Funding was continued for the
Virginia Geographic Information
System, VirGIS. The CIS system
includes data layers showing
animal waste sites, soils, land use,
water bodies, elevations, wa-
tershed and potential boundaries.
Mylar overlays that target agri-
cultural areas with the highest
nonpoint source pollution potential
will be distributed to 17 soil and
water conservation districts within
the Bay drainage area. These
maps will increase the efficient use
of BMP cost-share funds for 38
counties covering approximately 8
million acres. The computerized
data base has also been used by
local governments, planning dis-
tricts and university personnel in
Virginia to promote Bay conserva-
tion efforts. Efforts are underway
to link the data base with
computer modeling capabilities
that will improve pollutant
reduction estimates for Virginia's
40 percent nutrient reduction goal.
Virginia also funded 11 demonstra-
tion projects in seven localities to
test the effectiveness of various
techniques in stemming erosion as
well as controlling sediment and
toxic runoff in urban areas. Tech-
niques evaluated included the use
of porous pavement, infiltration
trench, grassed waterway, storm-
water management, streambank
stabilization, an "urban marsh"
and "wet pond." The "wet pond"
was shown to remove 87 percent of
silt, 80 percent of the phosphorus,
and 65 percent of lead and zinc from
runoff water. Many of the projects
are completed and reports are in
preparation.
Enforcing Sediment Con-
trols. The Pennsylvania Environ-
mental Quality Board in No-
vember approved for final rule-
making nine substantive changes in
the Commonwealth's erosion
control regulations. The revisions
are intended to remedy adminis-
trative problems and provide an
updated, comprehensive regula-
tory framework that fully reflects
current technical information.
The Virginia legislature adopted
significant revisions to the Erosion
and Sediment Control Law to
remove exemptions, tighten
enforcement and penalty provisions
and to provide for greater State
oversight of local erosion and
sediment control programs. In
addition, the legislature provided
funding for an additional 15 State
personnel to manage the statewide
program more effectively.
In Maryland, Soil Conservation
Districts continue to review and
approve sediment and erosion
control plans. Development pres-
sures in urban areas have made the
technical integrity of the review
process increasingly valuable. The
State Department of the Environ-
ment is adding 10 or more positions
to its sediment and erosion control
enforcement program.
The District of Columbia plans new
legislation and regulation to
strengthen its erosion control
program.
Marina Pollution. The Vir-
ginia Water Resources Research
Center of the Virginia Technical
Institute is carrying out a study of
the inhibitory effects sewage from
boat holding tanks may have on
septic systems and small packaged
treatment facilities.
In addition, the Commonwealth
has contracted with the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science to
develop a model of flushing factors
as they relate to condemnation
zones around marinas.
Toxic Pollutants. Virginia
initiated an Elizabeth River
restoration program which will
include monitoring of toxic pollu-
tants, evaluation of channel
dredging, and enhancing standards
and permits.
The Commonwealth also ear-
marked $1.3 million to study the
impact of toxic pollutants on
aquatic life in the Bay. Data from
the study will help in evaluating
the consequences of toxic contami-
nation and assist in the develop-
ment of management strategies.
The Virginia State Water Control
Board approved toxic management
regulations and surface water
quality standards for tributyltin.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is
continuing a study of wastewater
discharges at nine locations to
document contaminant impacts.
The study utilizes tissue analysis
and bioassay and histopathology
techniques.
Dechlorination. The District of
Columbia continued work on a
dechlorination facility at the Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant. When fully operational,
the system is expected to reduce
chlorine discharges by 95 percent.
Virginia provides cost-share
grants to help localities add
dechlorination technologies or
apply alternative disinfection
methods such as ultraviolet light.
Five additional projects were
funded, and a supplemental award
was made for one of 10 projects
approved earlier. The program,
when completed, is expected to
23
-------
achieve a 42 percent reduction in
the State's chlorine discharges to
the Bay.
Maryland has virtually met it
commitment for chlorine removal
at wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Chlorine removal is now
on-line at 140 facilities. State
bond issues have provided $1.6
million for dechlorination, in-
cluding grants to the towns of
Cumberland, Ridgely, Sudlers-
ville, Hancock, Sharptown,
Pocomoke City and Trappe. Two of
these projects are on-line and four
are under construction. Dechlorina-
tion design work is under way at
Cambridge, Smith Island and
White Rock.
Spoil/Sludge Disposal. The
Corps of Engineers Baltimore
District sponsored a regional
workshop for Federal, State and
local officials on beneficial uses of
dredged material. Demonstrations
of such beneficial uses were carried
out by the Corps at Twitch Cove
and Slaughter Creek with the
cooperation of the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
The Navy began implementation
of sludge disposal programs at
seven of its wastewater treatment
plants in the Bay watershed.
Sludge application to forest lands
was initiated at several locations
to reduce landfill requirements.
Ground Water. Several Penn-
sylvania communities have
enacted ordinances regulating
construction of manure storage
facilities to prevent pollution of
ground water. (Such facilities
generally are built to SCS specifi-
cations.) Other ordinances bar the
construction of on-lot septic systems
if ground water nitrates are over 10
parts per million.
Acid Rain. Maryland installed
liming devices in two tidal
tributaries to neutralize acidity
thought to be responsible for de-
clining populations of stream-
spawning fish.
Virginia initiated an assessment of
acid rain at headwaters of Bay
tributaries to determine whether
there is a threat to spawning
grounds.
Population
Growth and
Development
Governments in the Chesapeake
Bay basin have a number of initia-
tives under way to cope with ad-
verse effects of population growth
and land development, one of the
environmental problem areas
singled out in the new Bay
Agreement approved in December.
Critical Areas Program.
Fifty-five of the 60 local jurisdic-
tions included in the program had
received approval of their plans
by the State's Critical Areas
Commission by the end of 1988, and
the five plans still under review
were expected to win Commission
approval by the end of January
1989.
The Commission issued separate
sets of draft regulations applicable
to (1) the review of State agency
projects, and (2) local projects
which would be subject to notifica-
tion requirements. Guidelines for
protecting non-tidal wetlands in
critical areas also were published
by the Commission to assist local
governments in implementing
regulations.
While the Critical Areas Commis-
sion is considered to be the key
factor in ensuring local government
participation in the difficult task
of regulating shoreline devel-
opment in Maryland, the local
jurisdictions also are playing a
major role in the Bay restor-
ation program through enforce-
ment of regulations to control
sedimentation and stormwater
runoff.
Many local governments in the
State have modified erosion and
sediment control programs in recent
years to improve their effective-
ness. Harford County completed a
comprehensive evaluation of these
programs in 1987 and is amending
applicable regulations on the basis
of the results.
The Maryland Environmental
Trust accepted 10 conservation
easements on 689 acres of land in
counties bordering the Bay.
Vegetation buffer requirements
24
-------
included in easement agreements
will protect more than two miles of
shoreline along Bay tributaries.
Informational and educational
activities were stepped up to
increase public awareness of the
value of forests in the Bay restora-
tion program. A lecture series on
the Bay and its problems was
initiated at Harford Community
College.
Technical Assistance.
Virginia has established a Local
Assistance Program in the Council
on the Environment to aid
localities in determining the
environmental consequences of
large-scale developments or other
activities that are being proposed
within their boundaries. This
program is directed towards those
localities lacking the environ-
mental expertise to provide a
timely analysis.
In 1988, the Virginia legislature
passed the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act establishing a
new department and board for the
purpose of protecting the Chesa-
peake Bay and its tributaries from
inappropriate development. The
Act, which is in effect throughout
Tidewater Virginia, directs the
Board to establish criteria to be
used by local governments to delin-
eate Chesapeke Bay Preservation
Areas. The Board is also to deter-
mine criteria to be used by local
governments in "granting, denying,
or modifying requests to rezone,
subdivide, or to use and develop
land in these areas." The first set
of criteria is to be established by
July 1989.
The Fish and Wildlife Service
also is providing technical
assistance to local governments to
help encourage the protection of
wetlands and other valuable
habitat. FWS also is evaluating
land use changes as a factor
affecting living resources, habitats
and water quality.
Public
Information,
Education and
Participation
The Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (CPCB),
which has managed the public
participation component of the
Bay Program for 10 years, marked
the start of its second decade in the
restoration effort with several new
projects and initiatives—including
a change in name. CPCB became
the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay early in 1988. The Alliance is
a private, non-profit federation of
citizen organizations, business
enterprises and scientists who
have as a common goal the restora-
tion of the Bay. It is funded by
grants from EPA.
The Alliance furthered the devel-
opment of grassroots citizen
programs, launching a new wa-
tershed association in Maryland's
Gunpowder River basin. The
association brings together commu-
nity and farm groups, boating clubs,
and other citizens to monitor water
quality and participate in other
activities related to the Bay
Program. The Alliance also sup-
ported similar citizen efforts in
Pennsylvania's Conestoga River
watershed and on the middle
James River in Richmond.
Other public participation projects
sponsored by the Alliance in-
cluded:
• Three field trips to the Bay for
State and local government
decision-makers, combining
"hands-on" Bay activities
with evening discussion
sessions to help participants
better understand their role in
the cleanup effort.
• Speaking appearances before
more than 150 organizations.
• Production of a model quality
assurance project plan and a
monitoring handbook for
citizen monitoring programs in
the Chesapeake watershed
and elsewhere.
• Initiation of a series of
Chesapeake White Papers to
provide in-depth reports on
policy issues and program
needs.
The Alliance's quarterly news-
letter, "Citizen Report," continued
to circulate to 15,000 readers, and
the popular handbook, "Baybook:
A Guide to Reducing Water Pollu-
tion at Home," went into a third
printing, sending the number of
copies in circulation past 100,000.
The Alliance citizen monitoring
project on the Conestoga River in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
completed its first year of
operation in October 1987. The
Conestoga project parallels the
Alliance monitoring programs
initiated in 1985 on the James
River in Virginia and the Patuxent
River in Maryland. The sampling
by citizen volunteers helps to build
a long-term data base needed to
measure changes in water quality
in Bay tributaries.
Other citizen participation activi-
ties included Pennsylvania's
conference on the Chesapeake at
Gettysburg attended by more than
1,000 people. Awards were
presented to students who were
winners in a Bay essay and poster
contest. Four Susquehanna River
Basin farmers received Clean
Water Awards.
Maryland continued its annual Bay
Bridge Walk/Fest, which draws
some 65,000 participants. In
addition to the hike across the
Bay and other activities, the event
offers environmental exhibits that
demonstrate what Federal, State
and local agencies and volunteer
groups are doing to restore the Bay.
Maryland Governor Schaefer
kicked off a campaign to enlist one
25
-------
million Marylanders in the pro-
gram to clean up the Bay. A leaf-
let listing 10 actions individual
citizens can undertake to support
the restoration was given wide cir-
culation, and the State initiated a
quarterly newsletter, "Chesa-
peack," which is available Basin-
wide to keep people informed of
Bay Program developments.
Maryland's Department of Nat-
ural Resources initiated a "Plant
the Bay Way" project with a
landscape-garden firm in which
homeowners are encouraged to put
in plants that provide wildlife
habitat and prevent erosion. The
State's Soil Conservation Service
Earth Team enlisted individuals to
volunteer time to assist in soil
conservation district activities.
The Maryland SCS gave special
recognition to 22 individuals who
contributed a total of 2300 hours to
conservation and water quality
activities.
More than 465 Maryland youths
participated in 54 projects spon-
sored by the State's Conservation
Corps to rehabilitate the shoreline
through clean-up programs and the
re-vegetation of barren areas.
Virginia continued its Chesapeake
Bay Youth Conservation Grants in
1987, employing 156 teenagers to
work on 15 projects designed to
reduce erosion and nonpoint source
pollution of rivers and streams.
Seven projects were completed; the
others were still active at the
year's end.
School Programs. Pennsyl-
vania's Bay Education Subcom-
mittee conducted an environmental
education seminar which attracted
more than 250 teachers. The Sub-
committee also sponsored an envi-
ronmental education workshop at
Penn State University for some 300
pre-service teachers (seniors who
have done student teaching).
Traveling "Bay Team Teachers"
gave presentations on the Chesa-
peake to about 20,000 Virginia
students in a program funded by the
State and NOAA. The State also
funded the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation's on-the-water educa-
tion program, which provided
field trips for nearly 5,400 students
during the 1986-87 school year and
another 974 youngsters during the
summer.
The District of Columbia has
developed an aquatic resources
education program which provides
training in ecology and promotes
youth fishing during the summer.
A poster contest sponsored by the
Virginia Forestry Association
under a contract from the
State—"Two Renewables: Trees
and the Bay"~drew the participa-
tion of more than 41,000 children in
360 schools.
Maryland's school program in-
cludes funding support that helps
selected outdoor education pro-
grams take children out on the Bay
for a first-hand environmental
experience.
Maryland's Dorchester Soil Con-
servation District took the lead in
staging a one-week outdoor
education camp at Horn Point.
Several other Soil Conservation
26
-------
Districts sponsored attendees.
Southern Maryland Soil Conserva-
tion Districts continued sponsor-
ship on the Elms Conservation
Camp.
Public Awareness. The Na-
tional Park Service, in cooperation
with the District of Columbia, has
developed a comprehensive
package of public awareness mate-
rials, including a portable display,
fact sheets, a poster-brochure, and
a prize-winning coloring book.
"Working Together To Save the
Bay" was the theme of a Chesa-
peake Bay exhibit at the 1987
Pennsylvania Farm Show, which
drew about one million visitors.
Displays by Penn State, the Ches-
apeake Bay Foundation, the Citi-
zens Program for the Chesapeake
Bay, the Pennsylvania Association
of Conservation District Directors,
and the State Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources were included
in the exhibit. DER's Mobile Nu-
trient Lab was on display in August
during Penn State's Agricultural
Progress Days, which attracted
about 30,000 visitors interested in
farm technology.
A commercial corn and soybean
farm in Maryland's Queen Anne
County continued to serve as a
showcase of Best Management
Practices which are being moni-
tored to determine their economic
benefits and effects on water
quality. Public officials, agricul-
tural groups, and other organiza-
tions visited the demonstration/
research site. New educational
exhibits demonstrating agricul-
tural efforts to improve water
quality were displayed at events
such as the Maryland State Fair,
Wye Field Days, and Chesapeake
Bay Appreciation Days.
Public Access
Several projects were under way
around the Bay basin to improve
public access and expand recrea-
tional opportunities on the Bay
and its tributaries.
Pennsylvania added two streams in
the Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin to its Scenic Rivers Program
in 1988. With the addition of
LeTort Spring Run (Cumberland
County) and Tucquan Creek-Clarks
Run (Lancaster County), a total of
90 miles of streams are designated
for special management in the
basin. The Scenic Rivers Program
is a conservation planning program.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commis-
sion developed a new public access
facility, Appletree Road, on the
North Branch of the Susquehanna.
The District of Columbia is work-
ing with the National Park
Service to provide a boat ramp on
the Anacostia River, and also is
planning an artificial reef in the
Washington Channel. Construction
of public fishing piers and access
for the handicapped is under
study.
Virginia scheduled improvements
at 13 public boat landing sites.
Governance
State and Federal initiatives to
forge stronger interagency ties
were reinforced by the formal
commitments for joint Baywide
efforts included in the new
Agreement.
EPA, Maryland, Virginia and the
District of Columbia continued
monitoring water and sediment
quality in the mainstem of the
Bay, major tributaries, and at fall
lines. Monitoring data was
published in the biennial State of
the Bay report and accompanying
technical appendices. The
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission continued base flow
and storm sample monitoring in
Pennsylvania in conjunction with
the U.S. Geological Survey.
Maryland monitored habitat
quality and striped bass egg and
larval abundance and condition in
the upper Bay, Choptank, Nanti-
coke, and Potomac Rivers. Refine-
ments were introduced to establish
better linkages between larval
abundance and water quality.
Oyster habitat monitoring in the
Choptank focused on the relation-
ship of low dissolved oxygen levels
and disease-induced mortality.
Monitoring of Kepone levels in
finfish, shellfish and sediment
continued at several sites along the
James River in Virginia. Concen-
trations in fish samples continued
to decline except in the vicinity of
Hopewell, site of the original
contamination of the river.
27
-------
(Chesapeake Bay Program Technical
Report Series - 1987/1988
Estimates of Sediment Denitrifica-
tion and Its Influence on the Fate of
Nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay,
August 1987 - CBP/TRS 1/87
Vegetated Filter Strips for
Agricultural Runoff Treatment,
August 1987 - CBP/TRS 2/87
Nutrient-Dissolved Oxygen
Dynamics in Chesapeake Bay:
The Roles of Phytoplankton and
Micro-Heterotrophs Under Summer
Conditions, 1985, August 1987 -
CBP/TRS 3/87
Evaluating Nutrient and Sediment
Losses from Agriculture Lands:
Vegetative Filter Strips, August
1987 - CBP/TRS 4/87
A Comparison of Preservation
Techniques for Estuarine Water
Samples for Analysis of Organic
Carbon Fractions, August 1987 -
CBP/TRS 5/87
Results of Comparative Studies of
Preservation Techniques for Nutri-
ent Analysis on Water Samples,
August 1987 - CBP/TRS 6/87
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Determi-
nations in Estuarine Waters: A
Comparison of Methods Used in
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring,
August 1987 - CBP/TRS 7/87
Report of the Workshop on
Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring, July
1987-CBP/TRS 8/87
Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Chesapeake
Bay and Tributaries -1985, August
1987-CBP/TRS 9/87
Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Chesapeake
Bay and Tributaries and Chinco-
teague Bay -1986, September 1987 -
CBP/TRS 10/87
Distribution of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Chesapeake
Bay and Tributaries -1984, August
1987-CBP/TRS 11/87
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem Moni-
toring Program Statistical and
Analytical Support Contract: Final
Report -Volume I, September 1987 -
CBP/TRS 12/87
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Monitoring Program Statistical
and Analytical Support Contract:
Final Report -Volume II,
September 1987 - CBP/TRS 13/87
Survey of Tributyltin and Dibutyl-
tin Concentrations at Selected
Harbors in Chesapeake Bay - Final
Report, September 1987 - CBP/TRS
14/87
Effect of pH on the Release of
Phosphorus from Potomac River
Sediment, November 1987 - CBP/
TRS 15/87
Perspectives on Chesapeake Bay:
Recent Advances in Estuarine
Science, December 1987 - CBP/TRS
16/87
Arsenic Transport and Impact in
Chesapeake Bay Food Webs,
March 1988 - CBP/TRS 18/88
EPA Staff Papers Presented at the
Chesapeake Bay Research
Conference, March 1988, June 1988 -
CBP/TRS 19/88
Review of Technical Literature and
Characterization of Aquatic
Surface Microlayer Samples, May
1988-CBP/TRS20/88
Technical Appendix: A
Commitment Renewed, June 1988 -
CBP/TRS 21/88
Point Source Atlas, August 1988 -
CBP/TRS 22/88
Pesticide Use in the Chesapeake
Bay Basin, August 1988 - CBP/TRS
23/88
Understanding the Estuary:
Advances in Chesapeake Bay
Research, Proceedings of a
Conference, March 29-31,1988,
August 1988 - CBP/TRS 24/88
28
-------
(Chesapeake Bay Agreement Reports
Commitment Documents
Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources,
January 1988
Chesapeake Bay: Stock
Assessment Plan, July 1988
Chesapeake Bay: Resource
Management Strategy Schedules,
July 1988
Chesapeake Bay: Wetlands Policy
December 1988
Chesapeake Bay Strategy for
Removing Impediments to
Migratory Fishes in the Chesa-
peake Bay Watershed, December
1988
Baywide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy, July 1988
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy, Decem-
ber 1988
Baywide Conventional Pollutants
Control Strategy, July 1988
Baywide Conventional Pollutants
Control Strategy, July 1988
Federal Facilities Strategy, July
1988
2020 Panel Report; January 1989
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Development Policies and Guide-
lines, January 1989
Technical Assistance and Incen-
tives to Local Governments,
December 1988
Baywide Communication Plan,
May 1988
Public Access Strategy, July 1988
Comprehensive Research Plan,
July 1988
Living Resources Monitoring Plan,
July 1988
Federal Workplan, July 1988
Implementation
Committee Reports
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source
Programs, January 1988
A Commitment Renewed: Restora-
tion Progress and the Course Ahead
Under the 1987 Bay Agreement,
June 1988
Photo Credits
Photographs of Bay Agreement
signing events (pages 14 and 15) by
Steve Delaney, EPA. Other
photographs provided by the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
Anne Arundel County Office of
Planning and Zoning, Virginia
Council on the Environment, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office.
29
-------
(Chesapeake Bay Program 1988
Chesapeake
Executive Council
Gerald L. Baliles, Chairman
Governor of Virginia
William Donald Schaefer
Governor of Maryland
Robert P. Casey
Governor of Pennsylvania
Marion Barry
Mayor of Washington, D.C.
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator of the U.S. EPA
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Principals
Staff Committee
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
James M. Self, Chairman
Regional Administrator Region III
District of Columbia
Donald Murray
Director, Dept. of Consumer &
Regulatory Affairs
Maryland
Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Secretary, Dept. of Natural Resources
David A. C. Carroll
Governor's Chesapeake Bay Coordinator
Wayne A. Cawley, Jr.
Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture
Martin W. Walsh, Jr.
Secretary, Dept. of Environment
Pennsylvania
Roy Newsome
Governor's Office of Policy Development
Virginia
Hon. John Daniel (Chairman)
Secretary of Natural Resources
Implementation
Committee
District of Columbia
James Collier
Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Kenneth Laden
Dept. of Public Works
Anantha Padmanabha
Program Manager, Environmental Control
Division
Maryland
David A.C. Carroll
Governor's Chesapeake Bay Coordinator
Verna E. Harrison
Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Natural
Resources
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Environment
Rosemary Roswell
Administrator, Soil Conservation
Administration
Pennsylvania
Louis W. Bercheni
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Roy Newsome
Governor's Office of Policy Develpoment
Walter Peechatka
Director, Bureau Plant Industry
Paul Swartz
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Virginia
Richard Burton
Executive Director, State Water Control
Board
Keith Buttleman
Administrator, Virginia Council on the
Environment
Roland Geddes
Director, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
William A. Pruitt
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Robert Stroube
Virginia Dept. of Health
Federal
William Ashe
Associate Regional Director, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
Peter Boice
U.S. Dept. of Defense
John B. Currier
Assistant Director, Forest Management
Utilization, USDA Forest Service
Robert Lippson
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Alvin R. Morris (Chairman)
Director, Water Management Division,
EPA Region III
Pearle Reed
State Conservationist, USDA/Soil
Conservation Service
Stanley Sauer
U.S. Geological Survey
Bernard E. Stalmann
District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Regional
Ann Swanson
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Robert Bielo
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Lee Zeni
Executive Director, Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin
Citizens
Advisory Committee
District of Columbia
Robert Andretta
Marguerite Foster
Dianne Dale
Maryland
Clifford Falkenau
Levi B. Miller, Jr.
Larry Simns
Mary Walkup
Pennsylvania
David Brubaker
Edwina H. Coder (Chairman 1986,1987)
Walter L. Pomeroy
William Eberhart
Virginia
Kirkland Clarkson
Joseph Maroon
Gerald McCarthy (Chairman 1988)
Thomas Winstead
At Large Members
Elizabeth Bauereis (Chairman 1985)
Davidson Gill
Cranston Morgan
Mitchell Nathanson
Ann Powers
Gerald R. Prout
Wayne L. Sullivan
Donald Spickler
30
-------
(Chesapeake Bay Program 1988 (cont.)
Local Government
Advisory Committee
District of Columbia
Wallace White
Alvin McNeil
Warren Graves
Maryland
Sidney Kramer
Anna Long
]. Maguire Mattmgly
George P. Murphy
J Anita Stup
Philip L. Tilghman
Pennsylvania
Ronald Fitzkce
John Garner
Robert Gerhard
13 Kenneth Greider
Russell Pettyjohn
Virginia
R. Keith Bull
C F. 1 licks
Gerald W. Hyland (Chairman)
Nancy K Parker
Stephen K. Whiteway
Clay Wirt
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
William Dunstan (Carvel Blair -
alternate), Old Dominion University
Dr. James Ebert, Chesapeake Bay Institute
James Hannaham, University of the
District of Columbia
Walmar Klassen, (Allen Isensee & Jack
Plimmer-alternates), U.S Dept. of
Agriculture
Richard Jachowski, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
A. Jose Jones, (alternate - Harriet Phelps),
University of the District of Columbia
Dr. Billy Lessiey (alternate - Dr. Alan
Taylor), University of Maryland
Robert Lippson/Aaron Rosenfield,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Maurice Lynch, Chesapeake Research
Consortium (chairman), (alternate Joseph
Mihursky, University of Maryland)
Archie McDonnell, Pennsylvania State
University
Ian Morris (deceased), 1987, (alternates -
Wayne Bell and Thomas Malonc),
University of Maryland
Frank Perkins, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science
Clifford Randall, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, SU
William Rickards, University of Virginia
Louis E Sage, Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia
Martha Sager, American University
Gordon Smith (alternate - Charles
Schemm), Johns Hopkins University
Wilbert Wilson, 1 loward University
John Woodson, retired
Subcommittee Chairman
Data Management
Charles Spooner, EPA
Living Resources
Verna I larnson, Maryland
Modeling and Research
James Collier, District of Columbia
Monitoring
Robert Perciasepe, Maryland
NonpontSource
Roland Geddes, Virginia
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Chesapeake Bay
Agreement Commitment
Teams
Scientific/Technical
Advisory Committee
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Members: Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland;
Mayor of the District of Columbia; Administrator of the U.S. EPA;
and Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission
Principals Staff Committee
Representing Executive Council
(Policy Advisors)
LT
Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office
Implementation Committee
Members: Representatives of State, Regional and Federal Agencies ,
and the Chesapeake Bay Commission
------- |