The Chesapeake Bay
        *"
    .. .A Progress Report
        !.    1990 - 1991
    903R91005
      V \Y
TD
225
.C54
P763
1990-1
copy 1
*1  I
                    August 1991

-------
 The  Chesapeake Bay
   A Progress Report
       1990 - 1991
        Prepared for the
   Chesapeake Executive Council
by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
       US EPA Region III
   410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
   Annapolis, Maryland  21403
        (301) 267-0061

-------
                                 FOREWORD
William K. Reilly
To the People of the Chesapeake Bay Region:

The Chesapeake Bay Program has made great progress over the past few years...but even greater tasks
still lie ahead. It is time to redouble our efforts, to capitalize on years of pioneering research by moving
into a new action phase.

A few indicators of our success suggest how far we have come:
•  Phosphorus levels in the Bay have dropped by 20% over the past six years.
•  Underwater grasses, vital to many animal species, are starting to return along Bay shorelines.
•  Striped bass (or "rockfish") are once again increasing in the Bay -1990 was the first rockfish season in
   five years.
•  In 1990, we achieved our bay wide goal of a 50% reduction in the percentage of municipal and
   industrial facilities that were in significant non-compliance at the beginning of the year.
•  We achieved a 94% compliance rate for federal facilities located in the Bay basin.
•  The Department of Defense has committed $50 million and its considerable management talents to
   improving the compliance of its facilities in the watershed.

All of the above are promising signs and a basis for optimism about the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
But they certainly are not cause for declaring victory.

In order to move forward in the 1990s, we must develop more specific program objectives. We must
remain vigorous in enforcing pollution control laws. We must focus on preventing pollution before it
becomes a problem. We must continue to improve wastewater treatment. We must upgrade livestock
management to slow the pollution caused by animal wastes. We also must foster new agricultural
practices, especially methods to curb the excess use of chemical fertilizers. We must encourage best
management practices that keep toxic chemicals out of the Bay. And finally, we must protect and restore
forest buffers and take other steps to protect the shorelines of the Bay and its tributaries.

We all agree that toxic chemicals must be controlled to protect the animal and plant life of the Bay. While
phosphorus in the Bay is declining dramatically, there is a slight increase in nitrogen. To help correct
this, a growing number of wastewater treatment plants are moving toward nitrogen removal. By some
estimates, air pollutants account for 25% of the nitrogen that enters the Bay. The Clean Air Act of 1990
will benefit the Bay by curbing dangerous emissions from cars as well as other air-borne pollution,
including nitrogen oxides.  Moreover, EPA has launched a voluntary toxics reduction — the 33/50
Program — to reduce emissions of 17 targeted chemicals nationally by 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995.  In
the Chesapeake Bay region, we also are asking companies to consider the same reductions for the 14
chemicals on the Bay's Toxics of Concern List, many of which are not on the list of 17 pollutants.

-------
The message is clear: we can do more.. .and we will do more.

In an effort to target our resources better, I would like to take this opportunity to outline areas that the
Chesapeake Executive Council identified for increased emphasis in the coming year:
•   accelerating nutrient reduction
•   preventing pollution
•   restoring living resources and their habitats
•   broadening public participation to include all groups, especially under-represented ones.

Over the coming months we will be Devaluating our 1987 Chesapeake Bay Program commitment to a
40% reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the Bay by the Year 2000. Additionally, we must
focus our resource management energies on those areas where risks are highest and resources most
vulnerable.

State and local governments are working to address the ever increasing stresses on the Bay as growth and
development in the watershed continue. Maryland's Commission on Growth has put forward
recommendations aimed at alleviating the environmental consequences of development. Virginia's
implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is stimulating communities to protect the waters
of the Bay system. Pennsylvania is encouraging nutrient management on farmlands in a program that
may be a model for the nation. The District of Columbia has introduced innovations in stormwater
management. The Chesapeake Bay Commission has shown leadership in developing legislative
initiatives designed to protect and improve the Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a growing, dynamic entity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
alone contributes almost $15 million in direct funding as well as $110 million in other Clean Water Act
funding. Program funding has grown 33% since 1989. In addition, the other Bay partners make
enormous financial commitments to the Bay cleanup effort. In April of 1990, Secretary of Defense
Richard B. Cheney and I signed a Memorandum of Understanding between our agencies to demonstrate
our joint commitment to the Chesapeake Bay Program. One example of the Defense Department's
commitment is a pledge of an additional $100 million to  Bay-related activities.

I want to express  particular thanks to my Council colleagues, Governors Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania,
William Donald Schaefer of Maryland and Lawrence Douglas Wilder of Virginia; Mayor Sharon Pratt
Dixon of the District of Columbia; and Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Virginia, Chairman of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. Their leadership is vital to the restoration of the Bay. So, too, are the
members of the Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia congressional delegations.  Their concern, their
commitment and  their support have remained steadfast  and were underscored for me early in my tenure
by a conversation with Maryland's Senator Mikulski, one of the Bay's foremost champions, who has
urged us on time  and again.  I would also like to thank our advisory committees who  are so tireless in
their efforts on behalf of the Bay, and to recognize the good efforts of the organizations they represent.
Many groups help solve problems, keep Bay issues before elected officials and the public — in short, they
are an essential grassroots constituency without which progress would not be possible.

In the end, the welfare of the Bay will depend on the will and determination of all the citizens of the
region. Working together, sharing a common commitment to the future health and productivity of the
Chesapeake Bay,  we can succeed. We will succeed.  We must remain vigilant, we must remain vigorous
as we pursue our environmental goals.  Only in this way can we improve the quality of life for ourselves
and future generations.


William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chairman, Chesapeake Executive Council
                                              11

-------
                                Table of Contents

Foreword	i

The Beginnings of a Model Program	1

A Framework for Action	2


Paying the Bills	4

Recent Progress	5

Life on the Bay	7

Impacts of Growth	9


Acknowledging Challenges	12

Sources of Pollution	14


Preventing Pollution	15

A Priority Listing	16

                                       o»
Reducing Polluted Runoff	17

Tributaries to the Bay	19

An Informed Public	20

On the Horizon	21

Acknowledgments	23

-------

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
     The  Beginnings of a Model  Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program has been in existence since the mid 1970s.
This progress report is intended to give you a quick overview of the
program's many accomplishments, as well as a look at the challenges we
face in the near future. After reading this document we hope you will
share our sense of pride in what has been accomplished and our sense of
urgency for what remains to be done. Remember.. .the Chesapeake Bay
belongs to all of us.

The Chesapeake Bay is estimated to be over 10,000 years old with a surface
area of over 2,200 square miles and a water volume of 18 trillion gallons.
The Bay estuary is the largest in the nation. It is fed by over 150 tributary
rivers and streams and supports over 2,500 species of plants and animals
as well  as 13 million people.

Knowledge about the impact of man's modern day life-style on the
environment has greatly advanced in the past two decades.  In 1972, the
Chesapeake Bay was the first estuary to be targeted for restoration and
preservation. At that time, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to
launch a major study to
investigate the causes of the Bay's
environmental decline. The
findings and recommendations,
produced by that $27 million
research program, formed the
foundation for the first
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signed in 1983. In that agreement
the Environmental Protection
Agency, in partnership with the
governments of Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, the
District of Columbia and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission (an
interstate legislative coordinating
body), agreed to develop and
implement coordinated plans to
improve and protect the water
quality  and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay estuarine system.

The 1983 Agreement moved the
program out of the research phase
The Chesapeake Bay supports over
2£00 species of plants and animals as
well as 13 million people.

-------
     THE  CHESAPEAKE BAY
                   ACTION TIMELINE
 PROBLEMS
 IDENTIFIED
  • High nutrient loads & growth

  • Low dissolved oxygen

  • Loss of submerged vegetation

  • Toxics in large harbors
POLLUTION
CONTROL
INITIATIVES

• Bay monitoring

• New non-point source
 programs

* Computer simulations

• New Chesapeake
 Executive Council
EXPANDED
PROGRAM
CONCERNS

•Added,
 - Living resources
 • Population growth

* Quantified Goals
 - 40% nutrient reduction

• 29 commitments
1977
                  1983
                                     1987
                                                    1991
                                 and into an action phase by defining
                                 water quality and related issues.

                                 The Second Bay Agreement was
                                 signed in December 1987.  This 1987
                                 agreement expanded the scope of the
                                 1983 agreement in the form of 29
                                 commitments for action. These
                                 commitments outlined steps to be
                                 taken in six areas:

                                 •  living resources
                                 •  water quality
                                 •  population growth
                                    & development
                                 •  public information,
                                    education & participation
                                 •  public access
                                 •  governance
The agreement clearly established that the productivity, diversity and
abundance of the estuary's plants and animals (referred to as living
resources) would be used as the ultimate measurement of the Chesapeake
Bay's condition. In this way, the program  translated Chesapeake Bay
research results into action plans.

In addition lo dealing with the vital issues of Bay restoration, the 1987 Bay
Agreement also committed to improving public access to the Bay and its
tributaries. It was determined that less than one percent of the Bay and
tributary shoreline was in public ownership. Strategies have been
developed to improve access on existing public  lands, including:
•  development of a signage plan which will make it easier for the public
   to locate existing sites
•  a proposed "trail blazer" logo to direct people to access areas
•  identification of publicly held lands for future development as
   access sites
•  completion of the Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Plan.


     A  Framework for Action
                           To provide leadership and promote mutual cooperation within the
                           Chesapeake Bay Program, the program is directed by the Chesapeake
                           Executive Council, comprised of:

                           •   The Governor of Maryland

                           •   The Governor of Pennsylvania

                           •   The Governor of Virginia

-------
                                                        ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
•   The Mayor of the District of Columbia
•   The Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission
•   The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

A Principals' Staff Committee (comprised of cabinet level officials)
provides support for the Executive Council.

Supervising day-to-day program direction, a 28-member Implementation
Committee (with representatives from federal and state agencies, regional
and legislative commissions, and advisory committees) has primary
responsibility for planning and overseeing the activities initiated by the
Executive Council. This work is divided among eight subcommittees:
•   Nonpoint Sources
•   Toxics
•   Monitoring
•   Modeling
•   Living Resources
•   Public Access
•   Population Growth & Development
•   Public Information & Education
                                               Citizens
                                           Advisory Committee |
Providing advisory support to the Executive Council, three committees
play key roles in broadening participation and maintaining contacts with
the research community, other levels of government, citizen organizations,
and business and trade groups.  These functions are carried out by the
following committees:

•   Citizens Advisory Committee

•   Scientific and Technical Advisory
    Committee

•   Local Government Advisory
    Committee

In support of the program are three
additional committees geared to address
specific areas or needs:
•   Federal Agencies Committee
•   Budget & Workplan Steering
    Committee

•   1991 Nutrient Reevaluation
    Workgroup

The Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program Office provides
administrative and technical support.
                                             Major Committees In The Chesapeake Bay Program
                                           Local Government
                                           Advisory Committee |
                                          Scientific & Technical!
                                           Advisory Committee |
                                                                 Chesapeake
                                                               Executive Council
Principal's Staff
  Committee
Implementation
  Committee
                    Federal Agencies
                      Committee
                   Budget & Workplan
                   Steering Committee |
                                                                                     '91 Nutrient
                                                                                   Reevalualion Workgroup I
                                                                 Subcommittees
Nonpoint
Source

Toxics
Monitoring

Modeling
Living
Resources

Public
Access
Growths
Development
Public
Information
& Education
                                                'ater Quality Subcommittees

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
                             EPA maintains two offices; one in the regional office in
                             Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the other in Annapolis,
                             Maryland. Both offices help coordinate the work of the Bay
                             Program  and, through grants, help support many state efforts as
                             well as organizations that are active in the Bay restoration effort.

                             In addition to the formal Chesapeake Bay Program structure,
                             many public and private agencies as well as thousands of
                             individuals are participants in a full range of scientific,
                             regulatory, educational, administrative and other related
                             activities that contribute toward the objective of a cleaner
                             Chesapeake Bay.
                                  Paying  the  Bills
                             Funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program comes from a variety
                             of sources. Federal and state budgets, as well as many other
                             sources, including the District of Columbia and the Chesapeake
                             Bay Commission, allocate money to support the Bay Program.

                             EPA provides a baseline of support under the  Clean Water Act.
                             As the figure below shows, this baseline has grown steadily. The
                             President's budget for FY 1992 contains $16.3 million for this
                             effort. Other important funding is contributed by many sources.
                             Other EPA programs, for instance, account for $110 million
                             annually. The states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland as
                             well as the District of Columbia contribute over $200 million to
                             the Bay effort. Federal agencies (other than EPA) are spending
                             an additional $142 million in 1991 for Bay-related activities.

                                       EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
                                                FUNDING HISTORY
                                        1989       1990      1991
                                                     Fiscal Years
1992

-------
       ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
The federal participants include:

•  Department of Agriculture
   —  Agricultural Stabilization and
       Conservation Service
   —  Soil Conservation Service
   —  U.S. Forest Service

•  Department of Commerce
   —  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
       Administration

•  Department of the Interior
   —  United States Fish and Wildlife Service
   —  United States Geological Survey
   —  National Park Service

•  Department of Defense

•  United States Coast Guard
•  Smithsonian Institution

Local governments also advocate and
implement many activities that directly and
indirectly contribute to the objectives of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.


     Recent  Progress

Recent years have brought significant progress:

•  There is a continuing fall in levels of
   phosphorus
   —  total phosphorus down 20% since 1985
   —  dissolved inorganic phosphorus (one
       form of phosphorus) dowTi 41 % since
       1985
   —  this allows a greater supply of oxygen to
       support plant and animal life

•   Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV or
    underwater grasses) implementation plan
    was completed
    —  defines survival needs and restoration
       goals
   —  SAV coverage is up 57% since 1984 in
       the mid-Bay region
    —  providing habitat for animal life

•   Striped bass (or "rockfish") are increasing,
    again allowing sport and commercial
    fishing for this popular fish
    —  five year fishing moratorium caused by
       reduced numbers was lifted in 1990
4500
              Total Phosphorus
            Dropped Significantly
    Oct.'84
              Oct. '86
                           Oct.'88
                                      Oct.'90
         Chesapeake Bay Industrial &
       Municipal Facilities in Significant
    Non-Compliance Dramatically Reduced
 20.
 15-
               Natlonal SNC
             s
   1986
         1987
                 1988
                                   1990
                                         1991
        Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
              Increasing Mid-Bay
     1978
            1984
                  1985
                        1986
                               1987
                                     1989

-------
       THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator William K. Reilly
and Department of Defense
Secretary Richard B. Cheney sign
an historic Chesapeake Bay
Program memorandum of
understanding outlining
compliance initiatives, as well as
other restoration actions, to be
undertaken at Chesapeake Bay
defense facilities (April 1990).
                             •  Family fishing programs were
                                held to provide recreational
                                opportunity as well as increased
                                awareness of environmental
                                issues
                             •  Fishery management plans were
                                completed in 1990 for other
                                species:
                                — bluefish
                                — weakfish/spotted seatrout
                             •  Chesapeake Bay Program has
                                begun an annual strategic
                                planning process to:
                                — reassess priorities for budget
                                    and committee work
                                — set themes for new directions
                                    for the program
                             •  A significant project was
                                completed in public access with
                                the development of the
"Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Plan."  For the first time, a
complete picture of the Bay's public access system has been compiled
and areas of need identified.
— In addition, a Technical Assistance Report detailing how to plan
   and develop different types of public access areas was produced as
   a companion to the Access Plan.
Implementation plan for wetlands was completed
— a federal permit tracking  system will determine what types of
   activities will be allowed  in wetlands areas
— a baseline inventory will show where the wetlands are and a
   monitoring program will show the functions and values they
   provide
An independent panel, appointed by the Executive Council, completed
an evaluation of the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls and
offered recommendations ("nonpoint source" is runoff from pastures,
cropland, lawns, urban areas, etc.)
— one recommendation was to develop standardized nutrient
   management plans
The compliance goal to reduce significant noncompliance by major
wastewater dischargers by 50% was exceeded
— currently, 3.1 % of the 327 major facilities in the Bay basin are in
   significant noncompliance of wastewater discharge permit levels
   (compared to a 13% national non-compliance rate)
The goal to bring the 50 federal facilities in the watershed into
compliance with all major environmental requirements  showed a 94%
improvement during 1990
— 47 of the 50 facilities were in compliance or covered by enforceable
   compliance schedules by the end of 1990

-------
                                                     ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
    A Toxics of Concern List was completed
    — 14 toxic substances which adversely affect or have the
       potential to cause damage to the Bay system were
       identified
    — will help target program resources
    Recreational boats, another source of pollution in the
    Bay, were targeted for special attention
    — Chesapeake Bay Program accepted boat pollution
       report
    — designation of "no-discharge" zones was
       recommended

    Local Government Advisory Committee
    accomplishments
    — Chesapeake Bay local government innovative
       method manual was  created and distributed
    — held workshop on household hazardous wastes to
       assist local governments with disposal options
    Scientific accomplishments
    — extensive research into causes of submerged aquatic
       vegetation decline which has spurred management
       action resulting in abatement and monitoring
       strategies
    — determined living resource and human implications
       concerning chemical contaminants

    Citizens Advisory Committee accomplishments
    — recommendations on growth and development
       policy

    Developed a working model of the Chesapeake Bay
    — allows development of cause and effect data through
       computer models
          Environmental Indicators:
     Life on the Bay
Over the last few years some Chesapeake Bay plants and
animals (living resources) have shown signs of recovery.
Proof of their increase in numbers can be demonstrated
through a variety of indicators, for example, the partial lifting
of the fishing ban on rockfish.  Bay grasses continued to
increase mid-Bay. Over the past year, fish that live in
saltwater areas of the Bay but move to freshwater for
spawning have been helped by the removal of barriers to
their migration.  Bald eagle nests along the Bay's shoreline
have shown steady increase. To encourage preservation of
Bay wildlife and their habitat, the Bay Program has
developed extensive management plans which are designed
to promote a coordinated approach to the restoration and
preservation of regional living resources.
 £
 T>
   1954  1959 1964  1969 1974  1979 1984  1989
               Striped Bass
 100.
c
3
o
a eo
"o
If
c
.2 40.
  20-
  1928   1938
1948   1958   1968
   Blue Crab
                               1978  1988
                                                          50
  40-
  20
  10-
   1928  1938
              1948   1958   1968
                  Oyster
                               1978  1988

-------
    THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Fish Passage Progress
                                            Suiquehuiu Rii
  hiblut
New York
•    Spawning Habitat Opened Sim
    1987 Agreement

    Projects Underway by 1994

BB Future Priorities for Passage
Additional living resource
accomplishments:

•  Bluefish Management Plan
   —  implement ten fish limit

•  Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout
   Management Plan
   —  propose 12 inch minimum size
       limit for seatrout

•  Waterfowl Management Plan
   —  improve water quality and
       wetlands habitat

•  Wetlands Policy Implementation
   Plan
   —  monitor mapping, status and
       trends, permit tracking

•  Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
   Policy Implementation Plan
   —  establish restoration goals

•  Alosid (Shad and Herring)
   Management Plan
   —  transplant species to enhance
       restoration

•  Blue Crab Management Plan
   —  contain harvest at present levels
                           •  Oyster Management Plan
                              — assess stock and identify diseases

                           •  Striped Bass (Rockfish) Management Plan
                              — maintain limited harvest season

                           •  Conowingo fish passage facility completed
                              — projected record 30,000 American Shad will pass through facility in
                                 1991 (as compared to 1,500 in 1985)
                              — an additional 25 miles of streams were reopened

                           •  Baywide Resource Management Strategy Annual Report

                           •  Preparation of Fish Passage Annual Report

                           While we have accomplished much in the area of living resources, there is
                           much that can still be done. Living resources and their habitats will
                           continue to be a prime focus for the future of the program.

-------
                                                   ...PROGRESS  AND  PROGNOSIS
     Impacts  of Growth
Population growth and development have long been recognized as issues
that need to be addressed by the Bay community.  Population growth
from today's estimated 13 million people to a projected 17 million  people
by the year 2020 must prompt us toward greater implementation of
responsible management practices. As regional population increases, so
will the demands on the Bay's environmental resources. We must prepare
to meet these demands.

The Bay jurisdictions took different paths over the past year to address the
recommendations of the Year 2020 Panel Report on population growth
and development in the Chesapeake Bay basin.

•  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began developing the
   capabilities to provide data on growth issues and technical assistance
   to state and  local governments.

•  In Maryland, the Governor's Commission on Growth in the
   Chesapeake Bay Region recommended a stronger state role in
   coordinating future growth and channeling resources to areas that can
   best accommodate new development. County and municipal
   governments would retain responsibility for specific land use planning
   and regulation.

•  In Virginia, the Commission on Population Growth and Development
   was transformed from a legislative study group to a full-fledged
   legislative commission and given an extended mandate to develop
   recommendations for dealing with development issues.

•  Pennsylvania worked directly
   with local governments to
   educate them on available tools
   to plan for population growth
   and development. Activities
   included development of the
   slide/video  presentation "Good
   Neighbors"  and a growth
   management conference based
   on the new handbook for local
   officials, Guiding Growth:
   Building Better Communities
   and Protecting our Countryside.

•  The District  of Columbia,
   challenged with a different set of
   growth and  development issues,
   is implementing innovative
   methods for growth
   management.
                                Overabundance of phosphorus and nitrogen causes many species to compete for a
                                depleted oxygen supply.

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
                            10

-------
fc  ^||^ '^&e&f'
                                ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS

-------
   THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
              Dissolved Oxygen
           is Essentially Unchanged

0)
E
3
>
>.

|
C
'(5
S


9000-

8000-


6000-
5000-
4000-
3000-

2000-
1000-
0-

o
0 °

o
0







    1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989 1990
             Sources of Nitrogen
               Animal Waste
                  4%
   Point Sources
       23%
Atmospheric
Ammonium
   14%
                                 Atmospheric
                                   Nitrate
                                    25%
          Fertilizers
            34%
               Nitrogen Removal
           is an On-going Challenge
1000-
                        Acknowledging
                        Challenges
The Chesapeake Bay's living resources — its fish,
shellfish, waterfowl, underwater vegetation, and
the many other plants and animals whose survival
is linked to the Bay system — are a major concern
of the Bay Program. It was their declining
numbers that first called attention to the
degradation of the Bay. And it is the re-birth of
their abundance that signals the success of the
restoration effort.

The measurement of our success is not an easy one.
A comprehensive monitoring system tracks
changes in the Bay, but short-term fluctuations are
not readily related to specific pollution control
activities.

The unpredictable weather — wet years, dry years,
and the subtle climatic changes that take place over
a span of many years — has a tremendous impact
on all forms of life in the Bay. Diseases, such as the
oyster-devastating MSX and Dermo, may or may
not be related to changes in habitat and other
conditions altered by human activity.

In short, it is difficult to separate natural changes
from those brought about by the growing numbers
of people who populate the Bay basin and the
environmental impacts that come with
development. One of the great challenges we face
is maintaining the delicate balance between the
inevitable growth and development of the
watershed and the living resources of the Bay.
                                           200
                                                  The environmental indicators shown
                                                  throughout this publication give us a
                                                  general view of the state of the Bay.  Many
                                                  species are fully capable of maintaining and
                                                  increasing their population in their present
                                                  environment, yet overfishing and the
                                                  destruction of habitats has caused decline.
   1950
        1960
              1965
                   1970
                         1980
                              1985
                                    1988
                                         1989
                                            12

-------
                                             ...PROGRESS  AND PROGNOSIS
     IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS FOR TARGET SPECIES
                  IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
                           LU
                         O  P  t"   iff  -v  £
                       S £  £ /  / /


                                                               ^  S
                                                              UJ  *e      Uj

                                                             i I     £
                                                            o   £     /
                                                        g  tf  g   $   f?
                                                           &   
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
                           Sources of   Pollution
                      An overabundance of the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen is the
                      fundamental cause of the explosive growth of algae in the Bay. The algae
                      feed on the nutrients, increase coverage in the Bay, block out sunlight that
                      Bay grasses need to survive and deplete oxygen levels. Oxygen is
                      essential to all life in the Bay. This overabundance of nutrients triggers a
                      downward spiral of plants and animals competing for the depleted
                      oxygen.

                      Despite the uncertainties about environmental cause and effect, there is a
                      clear consensus that excessive nutrient enrichment is hazardous to the
                      health of the Bay's living resources.

                      Phosphorus and nitrogen enter the Bay from point sources (municipal
                      wastewater treatment plants and industrial plants) and nonpoint sources
                      (runoff from pastures, cropland, lawns and urban areas).

                      Monitoring data show a 20% decrease in mainstem Bay water column
                      phosphorus levels from 1985 to 1990. This trend is attributed primarily to
                      point source reductions. Phosphate detergent bans that have been
                      implemented basinwide over the last few years also play an important role
                      in the phosphorus reduction. More efficient phosphorus removal in
                      treatment plants contributed to  the reductions despite a significant growth
                      in wastewater flows related to population increases.

                      The adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on Bay water quality were
                      documented during the research study of the Chesapeake Bay. In the case
                      of toxic contaminants, the study pinpointed "hot spots"  (principally
                      Baltimore Harbor in Maryland and the Elizabeth River in Virginia), but
                      there was no clear picture of the extent or seriousness of the problem for
                      the Bay as a whole. Integrated research and monitoring is improving our
                      understanding. In addition to broadly applied controls, the Chesapeake
                      Bay Program has developed information through research and evaluations
                      to pinpoint toxic problems specific to the Chesapeake system.

                      Nitrogen removal has not been as successful to date. 1990 Bay levels are
                      essentially unchanged since 1985. In an effort to improve nitrogen
                      reduction, seven wastewater treatment plants initiated nitrogen removal
                      since 1987. Similar improvements are now in the works at more than 40
                      other plants in the watershed.
                                          14

-------
                                                   ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
     Preventing  Pollution
In 1990, the Executive Council created an independent panel to assess the
nonpoint sources of pollution within the Bay watershed. An increased
emphasis on the management of nutrients from animal waste and
fertilizers was strongly recommended by the panel, whose membership
included farming, forestry and environmental interests. The panel
concluded that program improvements are essential to achieve a 40%
reduction in nutrients. Its recommendations included:

•  improved program targeting

•  more aggressive state programs to manage animal wastes

•  increased state emphasis on controlling urban nutrient sources

•  improved education programs

•  improved land management

•  development of a "mass balance system" to more accurately measure
   all nutrients entering, moving through, and leaving the Bay system.
More efficient phosphorus removal in treatment
plants contributed to a reduction in phosphorus
entering the Bay.
                                             14,000 acres in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia
                                             are covered by nutrient management plans, which
                                             have succeeded in preventing 1,797 tons of nitrogen
                                             and 2,006 tons of phosphorus from reaching the Bay.
                                         15

-------
       THE CHESAPEAKE  BAY
Our living resources —fish, shellfish, waterfowl,
underwater vegetation, and many other plants and
animals whose welfare and even survival are linked to the
Bay system — are a major concern of the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
                                              In addition, the Bay Agreement signatories committed
                                              to undertake a comprehensive approach to the Bay
                                              cleanup by eliminating the discharge of toxic
                                              substances (chemical contaminants) from all
                                              controllable sources. The toxics issue presents a totally
                                              different kind of challenge than nutrient
                                              overabundance.

                                              A Toxics of Concern List (TOCL), completed in January
                                              1991, identified 14 substances that are adversely
                                              affecting the Bay system now or have the potential to
                                              do so in the future. The listing is to be updated every
                                              two years.

                                              One major toxic pollution issue demonstrates a Bay
                                              success.  The toxic effects of tributyltin (TBT) in anti-
                                              foulant boat paints were first recognized in the U.S. in
                                              the Chesapeake Bay. The research carried out in the
                                              Bay led to the tightly drawn restrictions on the use of
                                              TBT paint that are now in effect nationally.


                                                   A  Priority  Listing


                                              The TOCL workgroup recommended the following
                                              toxic substances have priority in any toxics research
                                              sponsored by the Bay Program. They should receive
                                              priority attention in new water quality criteria adopted
                                              under state regulatory programs and other water
                                              pollution control efforts.

                                              The first TOCL includes:

                                              •  TBT (tributyltin)

                                              •  Heavy Metals:   Cadmium  Chromium  Mercury
                                                                Copper    Lead
                                                 Pesticides:
               Atrazine   Chlordane
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

Fluoranthrene

Naphthalene
                                                  16

-------
                                                    ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
Development of a basinwide toxics loading
inventory is being completed. It will provide a
comprehensive estimate of the levels of specific
contaminants reaching the Bay from both point and
nonpoint sources throughout the Bay region. In this
way we can best target resources for program
development, especially in pollution prevention
activities.

Another method of controlling toxic contaminants
was developed in 1990, when the first basinwide
survey of pesticide use was completed. A major
element of the basinwide toxics reduction program
is Integrated Pest Management (IPM).  Under IPM,
for example, toxic chemicals are used to control
pests only when they directly threaten crops. IPM
not only helps save the environment, it saves money
for farmers employing these methods as well. A
number of IPM demonstrations are underway in the
watershed.  There is an increased interest in
bringing IPM to urban areas, thereby limiting the
use of chemicals on residential lawns as well as
croplands.


      Reducing Polluted
     Runoff
Controlling nutrients from nonpoint sources
continues to be a challenge because of the diversity
of nonpoint sources.  One promising development
in controlling nutrients is the increasing use of
nutrient management programs on farms in the Chesapeake basin. This
technique, pioneered in Pennsylvania, balances fertilizer applications with
actual crop needs, helping ensure that there is no excess fertilizer
transported to the Bay through erosion or groundwater flows.

Pennsylvania recently established a special committee to recommend
improvements to its existing nutrient management program.  As a result
of recommendations of the Governor's Select Committee on Nonpoint
Source Nutrient Management, legislation was introduced to establish a
statewide program to manage nutrient runoff.

To date, 114,000 acres in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are covered
by nutrient management plans.  Nutrient management plans have
succeeded in:

•  preventing 1,797 tons of nitrogen and 2,006 tons of phosphorus from
   reaching  the Bay
A major element of the basinwide toxics reduction program
is Integrated Pest Management. IPM not only helps save
the environment, it saves money for farmers employing
these methods as well.
                                          17

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE  BAY
                       •  decreasing fertilizer sales by 24% in the three Bay states, while national
                          sale of fertilizers have dropped by only 16% (data based over a ten
                          year period).

                       Nationally, the Chesapeake Bay Program has been a leader in implement-
                       ing nonpoint source controls. Since 1985, the Bay Program has provided
                       nearly $44 million in federal grants to fund nonpoint programs.  The states
                       and the District of Columbia matched these funds dollar for dollar.

                       In agricultural areas, these outlays assisted farmers in the application of
                       "Best Management Practices" such as nutrient management plans, animal
                       waste storage facilities, and sediment erosion controls. Through mid-1990,
                       the program has helped farmers:

                       •  install more than 11,000 individual control measures

                       •  treat more than 268,436 acres to reduce sediment loss

                       •  install 1,300 systems to manage 2.7 million tons of manure

                       •  prepare over 600 nutrient management plans

                       •  evaluate the effectiveness, cost and feasibility of using biological
                          nutrient removal at wastewater treatment plants throughout the
                          watershed.
Over the last few years Chesapeake Bay plants and animals (living resources) have shown signs of recovery.
                                            18

-------
                                                  ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
     Tributaries to the  Bay
The restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay has long been a
model for the protection of other vulnerable estuaries throughout our
nation. We have learned that it is important to apply this same energy and
approach to other parts of our own watershed.

The Bay has six major and 140 minor tributaries that must be improved
before the Bay is indeed returned to health. Programs patterned after the
Bay Program are now active on the Anacostia River and will soon be
developed on the Patuxent River.

Concentrated studies are underway on many more sites including
Maryland's targeted watersheds, Owl Run and Nomini Creek in Virginia,
and the Conestoga River in Pennsylvania. These studies and protection
efforts are strong evidence that our commitment to the Bay's cleanup is
sustained by growing local interest and success.
                                        19

-------
      THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Keeping the public informed about programs,
policies and progress is essential to maintain
citizen interest and involvement in the
Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort.
                                             An  Informed  Public
Keeping the public informed about programs, policies and
progress is essential to maintain citizen interest and involve-
ment in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. Information and
education on Bay efforts comes from many sources:

•  The United States Environmental Protection Agency
   coordinates many baywide publications and publishes a
   monthly newsletter, the Bay Barometer.

•  Virginia hosts an annual conference on environmental
   literacy. This conference is open to a variety of private
   and public sector officials throughout the commonwealth.
   —  Additionally, Bay Team Teachers in Virginia reach
       thousands of students every year.

•  Maryland's extensive outreach and information efforts
   begin with its new Environmental Education By-law,
   which mandates instruction in environmental decision
   making in all grades and across all curriculums. This
   outreach program extends to a coordinated, statewide
   volunteer program, which planted over 1,400,000 trees
   last April and includes its "One Million Marylanders for
   the Bay" program.
   —  Marylanders have purchased over 150,000 special
       'Treasure the Chesapeake" license tags to raise over
       $1,600,000 for its Bay Trust.

•  Pennsylvania's Bay Education Office promotes water
   quality initiatives through a year-round series of
   information, education and outreach projects, many
   aimed specifically at farmers.

•  The District of Columbia and  the Interstate Commission
   on the Potomac River sponsor a variety of projects and
   events to attract citizen involvement in the Potomac and
   Anacostia River restorations.

•  The Chesapeake Bay Commission has developed many
   educational and informational programs.

•  The Bay Journal, published by the Alliance for the
   Chesapeake Bay to provide timely information on
   program activities and other Bay-related news, is
   distributed monthly to 16,000 people.

•  A score of newsletters from citizen groups, research
   institutions and watershed protection programs provide a
   wide array of specialized information important to the
   Bay's cleanup.
                                                 20

-------
                                                      ...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
      On  the  Horizon
The Chesapeake Bay Program will reach major milestones in the
coming months as we look on the horizon.

One milestone will be the comprehensive reevaluation of the 40%
nutrient reduction goal. The Bay Program will draw upon
monitoring and modeling research findings and assessment of
technologies and practices to address the four objectives of the
1991 reevaluation:

•   Reevaluate the 40% nutrient reduction commitment based on
    available monitoring, modeling and research information.

•   Refine nutrient reduction commitments as appropriate, based
    upon a careful evaluation of the cost effectiveness,
    implementation considerations, and living resources benefits.

•   Provide a refined overall baywide nutrient reduction
    commitment including basin-specific nutrient reduction
    targets.

•   Based on completed work and analysis, provide guidance to
    the signatories with regard to living resources, water quality
    and nutrient load characterization to revise the basin
    strategies most effectively.

An updated watershed model will add to our understanding of
the Bay by simulating the discharge of pollutants throughout the
watershed and their transport to the Bay. The model also will
estimate the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Bay through
atmospheric deposition (air pollution).

A new time-variable water quality model will provide estimates
of how these pollutant discharges affect life-sustaining oxygen
levels in the Bay. The water quality model will be linked to air
program models to determine the effects of atmospheric nitrogen
reductions that are anticipated by passage of the new Clean Air
Act. The Bay Program is focusing on air monitoring as a full
component of an integrated estuary program.

Beyond the studies, findings and research, we must continue to
focus our energies on specific  goals for the program. The living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay need to remain a vital focus of
our efforts. The following are actions that are underway or
planned:
In the final analysis, the welfare of the Bay and its living resources depend on
the will and determination of all the citizens of the region. Working together,
sharing a common commitment to the future health and productivity of the
Bay, we can succeed.
                                           21

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
   Determine underwater grasses and
   dissolved oxygen goals

   Create a task force to manage exotic species
   such as Zebra Mussel

   Implement wetlands education

   Continue to develop ecologically valuable
   species management plans

   Set numeric goals for species restoration

   Improve living resource strategic planning
   —  goal setting
   —  public education

   Finalize Fishery Management Plans for
   —  spot/croaker
   —  summer flounder
   —  americaneels
Alosid Fishery
—  evaluate results of studies

Striped Bass Fishery
—  assess limited 1990 fishery

Crab
—  implement measures to eliminate or
    minimize wasteful harvest practices

Fish Passage
—  continue to provide access through the
    thousands  of man-made obstructions to
    migrating fish

Characterize the status of living resources in
Bay tributaries
Define necessary water quality conditions for
survival of Bay resources
During 1992 we will reevaluate our toxics reduction strategies thereby adding to our information
base for action. We must continue our efforts in pollution prevention. Statements of policy, creative
ideas and methods of implementation must be developed as we move forward. As we have seen,
the Bay belongs to all of us. One of our program goals is to expand participation among all groups
of people in the Bay region, in order to increase awareness of environmental issues in local
communities. We need to commit programs to recruit, educate and assimilate more people into the
Bay partnership.  Working together, we will all benefit.

As the years pass the Chesapeake Bay Program must continue to adapt and grow. Issues and
challenges must be anticipated, and changes in policy need to reflect those issues and challenges. By
making the Chesapeake Bay Program a dynamic, evolving program, we can best attain the original
goals of the program — to view the Chesapeake Bay as one ecosystem and pledge our best efforts
for its survival and restoration.
                                           22

-------
                                                      ...PROGRESS AND  PROGNOSIS
     Acknowledgments
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

   William K. Reilly, Chairman
   Administrator of the U.S. EPA

   William Donald Schaefer
   Governor of Maryland

   Robert P. Casey
   Governor of Pennsylvania

   Lawrence Douglas Wilder
   Governor of Virginia

   Sharon Pratt Dixon
   Mayor of Washington D.C.

   W. Tayloe Murphy
   Chesapeake Bay Commission

PRINCIPALS STAFF COMMITTEE

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Edwin B. Erickson, Chairman
   Administrator, Region III

   Jon Capacasa, Acting Director
   Chesapeake Bay Program Office

   Virginia
   The Honorable Elizabeth H. Haskell
   Secretary of Natural Resources

   Richard N. Burton, Executive Director
   State Water Control Board

   Keith Buttleman, Administrator
   Council of the Environment

   Pennsylvania
   The Honorable Helen  D. Wise
   Chief of Staff for Programs
   Secretary to the Cabinet

   Patricia Buckley
   Governor's Policy Office

   Caren E. Glotfelty, Deputy Secretary
   Water Management Department

   Maryland
   David Carroll, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator
   Office of the Governor

   The Honorable Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
   Secretary, MD Dept. of Natural Resources
   Verna E. Harrison, Assistant Secretary
   MD. Dept. of Natural Resources

   The Honorable Robert Pertiasepe
   Secretary of the Environment

   Chesapeake Bay Commission
   Ann Perisi Swanson
   Executive Director

   District of Columbia
   Ferial Bishop, Administrator
   Dept. of Housing & Environmental Regulation

   Aubrey Edwards, Director
   Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

   District of Columbia

   James Collier
   Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

   Kenneth Laden
   Dept. of Public Works

   Ferial Bishop
   Dept. of Housing & Environmental Regulation

   Maryland

   Vema E. Harrison, Assistant Secretary
   MD. Dept. of Natural Resources

   The Honorable Robert Perciasepe
   Secretary of the Environment

   Rosemary Roswell
   Dept. of Agriculture

   Michael Haire
   Dept. of the Environment

   David Carroll
   Office of the Governor

   Pennsylvania

   Patricia A. Buckley
   Governor's Policy Office

   Walter Peechatka
   Dept. of Agriculture

   Louis W. Berchini
   Dept. of Environmental Resources
                                            23

-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
    Keith R. Gentzler
    Dept. of Environmental Resources

    Paul O. Swartz
    Dept. of Environmental Resources

    Virginia

    Richard N. Burton
    State Water Control Board

    Keith Buttleman
    Council of the Environment

    Roland Geddes
    Division of Soil & Water Conservation

    William A. Pruitt
    Virginia Marine Resources Commission

    Jack Raybourne
    Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries

    Federal

    Jon Capacasa, Chairman
    Environmental Protection Agency Region III

    Glenn Kinser
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    Kathy Bangert
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    Edmund Miller
    U.S. Department of Defense

    Jerry Stokes
    USDA Forest Service

    Dr. Robert Lippson
    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm.

    Robert Klumpe
    USDA Conservation Service

    Stanley Sauer
    U.S. Geological Survey

    Larry Lower
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    Col. Frank Finch
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Regional

    Robert Bielo
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission

    Lee Zeni
    Interstate Commission on the Potomac

    Ex Officio

    Anna Long
    Local Government Advisory Committee

    Joseph A. Mihursky
    Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

    Mary Roe Walkup
    Citizen Advisory Committee

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

    Photographs

    Chesapeake Bay Foundation

    Rick Brady

    S. C. Delaney

    Kent Mountford

    Milton Tiemey, Jr.

    Cover Photo

    Courtesy of Chesapeake Bay Program

    Target Species Graphic

    Lamar Platt
    Maryland Department of Natural Resources

    Layout & Design
    Maggie Moulton

    Editor

    C. Thomas McCully

    I wish to express my appreciation to all who took
    the time to offer information, comments and
    review of this document. I would especially like
    to thank Paul Schuette for his efforts. This
    progress report represents the best spirit of the
    Chesapeake Bay Program — working together for
    a common goal.
                                              24

-------
                            .> ,i;^/:K:«;.^^^?'Ki»'^:*t^-s'^'''-'fj;:1|:V;        -'&!-#£•  ' • . ^^  -. '=••'.--.
" The Bay.
 other  body of

 estuary.  Its waters are
 our first settlements.                           "**'

-------
This document was printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

-------