.4
...A Progress Report
!. 1990 - 1991
August 1991
-------
The Chesapeake Bay
A Progress Report
1990 - 1991
U.S. Envi:o;n?"k! IVi: lien/ -enr.v
Ration I;! \r,\c:.r.^.i Kesource
Center ([>?,« 52)
8-1! Cft8c:r!u-{ S!.-eet
Pftocdctphia, PA 19107
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 baywide 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 reevaluating 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
ll
-------
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
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 to 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 I
Reevaluation Workgroup I
Subcommittees
Nonpoint
Source
Toxics
Monitoring
Modeling
Living
Resources
Public
Access
Growth &
Development
Pubftc
Information
& Educabon
'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 FY1992 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 5
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: .8
There is a continuing fall in levels of
phosphorus
total phosphorus down 20% since 1985
dissolved inorganic phosphorus (one
form of phosphorus) down 41 % since
1985
this allows a greater supply of oxygen to
support plant and animal life
4500
Total Phosphorus
Dropped Significantly
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
Oct.'84
Oct. '86
Oct.'88
Oct.'90
Chesapeake Bay Industrial &
Municipal Facilities in Significant
Non-Compliance Dramatically Reduced
0. 0
iii
1986 1987
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 sea trout
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.
1954 19S9 1964 1969 1974 1979 19B4 1989
Striped Bass
100.
in
o
c
3
o
0. BO-
'S
in
c
.2 40.
1928 1938
1948 1958 1968
Blue Crab
1978 1988
50
40-
30-
10-
1928 1938
1948 1958 1968
Oyster
1978 1988
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Fish Passage Progress
Spawning Habitat Opened Since
1987 Agreement
Projects Underway by 1994
Future Priorities for Passage
Susquehanna River habitat
continues into New York
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
-------
...PROGRESS AND PROGNOSIS
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Dissolved Oxygen
is Essentially Unchanged
10000
9000-
0)
£ 8000-
3
O 7000
>, 6000-1
00 5000-
0) 4000-
M
_C 3000-
ra
5 2000-
1000-
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
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.
1000-
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 ^
C/3 ^^
Uj Q Uj
^ ^ co g £ 4>
& P 5 £ ° -r
/ / 8 i t § / * /
^ O ^ S UJ CO Aj ^ ^
jfUgjUgisjftggggH
~j Uj "^m-'S^rtcof^^ O -2" or
/ / / / / / / / / / i § / /
o^^jcoaoa Q o to 3 ~j J: O
SAV (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation)
OYSTER
SOFT-SHELL CLAM
HARD CUM
BLUE CRAB
MENHADEN
BAY ANCHOVY
SHAD
HERRING
SPOT
WHITE PERCH
STRIPED BASS
YELLOW PERCH
WOOD DUCK
BLACK DUCK
CANVASBACK
REDHEAD
COLONIAL WATERBIRDS
OSPREY
BALD EAGLE
O
O
O
£\
^\
o
o
£!
^
4^
o
o
o
o
o
w
9
w
o
o
o
o
o
Q
Q
o
o
w
o
^
^\
o
o
o
o
o
o
w
Q
w
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A
^>
w
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
e
^^
£~\
w
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
^
^
o
o
6
o
Adapted from Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources, Second Edition, 1991.
LEGEND
Known to have major impact on species or habitat
Known to have local impacts on species or habitat
Potential problem or uncertain impact
13
-------
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 basin wide 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 bay wide 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 bay wide 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 Perciasepe
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
-------
-v- ^TTT ''^S.-.'Sj
'* The Bay.
other body of
^m * B » "« ' W"A; ": ;"' '''-';-^^^^i%^-^ft'"'-'^|^'^^^ ;,--\i;':vvo«;«.'%i-.;.--;:.,.. - .'-;<>!,.*.'-:;--. '' -<:- -^~.
description. It is,
estuary. Its waters are
our first settlements. It^te^ihe'^^itfip^'''''**^
------- |