903R93008
Til
225
.C54
P7647
copy 2
ograni
CBP/A
B
Ches
iyPr
911
-------
-------
Annual Progress Report
Table of Contents
Restoring the Chesapeake 3
Restoring the Nutrient Balance 4
Meeting the Nutrient Reduction Goal 7
Point Source Nutrient Reductions 7
Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions 7
Living Resources of the Bay 9
Another Look at Toxics 11
A Vision for the Future 13
Appendix 14
1992 Agreement Amendments 14
Organization of the Chesapeake Bay Program 16
Who to Call 16
Progress in 1992 and 1993
The Chesapeake Bay Program's first decade was ushered to completion with
larger schools of rockfish and more acres of vital underwater grasses in the Bay.
The amount of phosphorus flowing into the Bay has decreased significantly in the
past 10 years, primarily because of a basinwide ban on phosphate-containing
detergents begun in the early 1980s, but also because of better technological
upgrades on wastewater treatment plants. The steady rise of nitrogen flowing into
the Bay was brought to a virtual standstill, in part through the control of runoff
from agricultural land, as well as expanded technology for nitrogen removal in
wastewater treatment plants.
The final two years of the restoration partnership's first decade also brought
with them a much more comprehensive understanding of how the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem lives and breathes. The knowledge of how many of the Bay's species
react to different impacts—pollutants and otherwise; understanding the depth of
the Bay's response to nutrient inputs from a multitude of sources; and gaining a
more comprehensive knowledge of toxic loadings and impacts all were vital to the
continuing effort to restore and protect the Chesapeake.
This knowledge, bolstered by the "in the water" progress of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's first 10 years, will guide the restoration effort as the Chesapeake Bay
Program embarks on its second decade.
'92 and '93
J.y. EPA Region III
•:=-:/ioaal Center for Environmental
infbrraation
. :>50 Arch Street (3PM52)
•'}madelphia,PA
5281 .CBP14A 8/93
1
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
2
Dear friend of the Chesapeake Bay:
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the nation's most valuable and treasured
natural resources. The challenge of cleaning up this productive estuary is
spearheaded by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a unique public-private
endeavor comprised of citizens, businesses, and governments in Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia working together
with the federal government to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Both 1992 and 1993 mark years of achievement for the Bay Program. In,
1992, we pledged to increase the recovery of submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, or Bay grasses, as an essential measure of living resources in the Bay;
the Bay Program's revolutionary 3-D model was completed and now
allows scientists for the first time to predict the effects of pollution on the
Bay; and more citizens than ever before became stewards of the Chesa-
peake and participated in hands-on community cleanup efforts. This year
we are conducting an important Baywide toxics reduction reevaluation to
prevent future sources of toxics from impacting the Chesapeake.
As Chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, I joined fellow
council members last August and signed new amendments to the historic
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Governor Casey, Governor Wilder,
Mayor Kelly, then EPA Administrator Reilly, and Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission Chairman Fowler pledged to intensify the Bay restoration by
moving our cleanup efforts upstream into the Bay's tributaries. We estab-
lished specific nutrient reduction goals in ten of these tributaries to help us
reaffirm the need to reduce nutrients by 40%, and more importantly,
establish a new commitment to maintain that 40% reduction level into the
future.
Read this progress report and see for yourself why the Bay Program is a
national model, both for its Bay research and policy development, and its
abilities to involve a diverse audience in outreach efforts to restore the
Chesapeake. I encourage you to join our efforts and learn more about how
you can help protect the Chesapeake Bay for future generations.
Sincerely,
William Donald Schaefcfr/
Governor of Maryland
Chariman, Chesapeake
Executive Council
Progress:
5281 .CBP14A. 8/93
-------
Annual Progress Report
Restoring the Chesapeake
The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and the first to be
targeted for restoration as a single ecosystem. The Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram—the cooperative compact forged to spearhead the cleanup—has
become a model for other estuary recovery efforts across the country.
The Chesapeake estuary was created 10,000 years ago as the Atlantic
Ocean crept up the Susquehanna River valley in the wake of retreating
ice-age glaciers. Its waters and wetlands teemed with shellfish, finfish, and
waterfowl when human settlements first appeared along its shores. But
unrestrained harvests and decades of degradation had sharply unpaired
the Chesapeake's health and productivity by the mid-1970s, when Con-
gress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to launch a
major study of the Bay's decline.
Findings and recommendations from the $27 million research program
laid the foundation for the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed in
1983. In that compact, the governments of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land and the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to develop and imple-
ment coordinated plans "to improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system."
That basic declaration of intent was expanded to a series of 29 commit-
ments in the second Chesapeake Bay Agreement signed in December 1987.
The commitments spelled out steps to be taken in six areas: living re-
sources; water quality; population growth and development; public
information, education and participation; public access; and governance.
At the core of this milestone regional compact was the firm declaration
that the "productivity, diversity and abundance" of the estuary's living
resources — shellfish, finfish, other aquatic creatures and vegetation — are
"the best ultimate measures of the Chesapeake Bay's condition."
With the Chesapeake Bay Agreement as a basic charter, the Chesapeake
Bay Program has become a unique regional institution, guiding and
coordinating Bay-related activities of literally hundreds of federal, state,
and local government agencies, and working as well with dozens of non-
government business, civic, and environmental organizations.
The evolution of the Chesapeake Bay Program also provided a pattern
for the National Estuary Program, which was established by Congress to
stimulate the restoration of other coastal water bodies deemed to be of
national significance. Twenty-one estuaries are now part of the National
Estuary Program.
'92 and '93
The Chesapeake Executive
Council at its annual meeting
in August 1992 renewed the
commitment to a 40 percent
reduction in nutrients
entering the Bay and pledged
to maintain those lower levels
into the next century.
5281.CBP14A.8/93
3
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Restoring the Nutrient Balance
The arithmetic of the Chesapeake's restoration and protection is at least,
in part, a simple matter of addition and subtraction: too much of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus added to the Bay subtracts oxygen and,
at times, life itself from the estuarine waters.
Both nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements of the
Chesapeake's life-support system. But an excess of these nutrients also
fosters dense populations of algae which degrade other Bay life such as its
finfish, shellfish, and vegetation. When the algae are alive, they blanket
the surface of the Bay's waters, cutting off sunlight necessary for the
survival of the vital underwater vegetation that serves as habitat and food
for many Bay species. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom where
their decomposition uses up dissolved oxygen, diminishing the capacity of
the water to support aquatic life.
1
"a? 0.8-
f /-\ /-~
S 0-6-
01
o
.« 0.4-
2
1 °'2"
8
A A A
, f\ A J\ A A J\ a
VH V U" ^M " ' '^ V^^
Nitrogen
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Year
0.05
92
4
Progress:
5281 .CBP14A 8/93
-------
The need to break up this destructive cycle prompted the adoption of
the 40% nutrient reduction goal as the linchpin commitment of the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement—signed by Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission—called for the
achievement of the nutrient reduction goal by the year 2000, but it also
provided for an interim reevaluation of the 40% target in 1992, when
better science and new information from modeling, monitoring, and
research studies since 1987 could be incorporated.
This reevaluation was carried out over a two-year period and com-
pleted by a Chesapeake Bay Program workgroup in 1992. It involved the
development of a first-of-its kind, time-variable, three-dimensional water
quality computer model of the Bay that enabled the Chesapeake Bay
Program to develop a range of "what-if" scenarios to evaluate the poten-
tial of alternate nutrient pollution control strategies. By the culmination of
the reevaluation, the Chesapeake Bay Program had developed a better
understanding of the impacts of nutrient pollution on the Bay and the
ability to better manage nutrient reductions. This led to:
• Reaffirming the 40% goal by the Chesapeake Executive Council
in 1992 in the form of the 1992 Amendments to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement;
• Establishing the initial overall nutrient reduction target for the
Bay of 74.1 million pounds a year for nitrogen and 8.43 million
pounds a year for phosphorus; and
• Focusing the nutrient reduction program at the source of the
nutrients—upstream in the watersheds of the Bay's tributaries.
The Chesapeake Bay Program subsequently designated specific nutrient
reduction targets for the major river basins within three broad geographic
regions. Targets have been established to further refine the overall 40%
Baywide nutrient reduction goal. The reductions to be achieved annually
by the four jurisdictions are:
Pennsylvania: For the Susquehanna River basin and that part of the
Potomac River watershed within the state;
+ 19.8 million pounds of nitrogen, and
+ 2.46 million pounds of phosphorus.
Maryland: For the state's major tributaries, Eastern Shore streams, and
the state's share of the Potomac basin;
4- 22.7 million pounds of nitrogen, and
+ 2.11 million pounds of phosphorus.
Virginia: For Virginia's portion of the Potomac River basin;
+ 7.7 million pounds of nitrogen, and
+ 790,000 pounds of phosphorus.
Baywide modeling has shown that Virginia's rivers south of the
Potomac have less effect on the Bay than the rivers to the north. Nutrient
reductions there will improve local conditions, however, so Virginia and
the Bay Program are developing reduction targets for these rivers based
'92 and '93
Annual Progress Report
5281 CBP14A8/93
5
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
on additional tributary-specific modeling. Between now and 1997, when
this special study is completed, Virginia will implement an interim 40%
reduction strategy.
District of Columbia: For its share of the Potomac basin;
4 3.5 million pounds of nitrogen, and
4 500,000 pounds of phosphorus.
Limiting or reducing nutrients touches almost every facet of everyday
life in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Nutrients are found in
fertilizer and manure, wastewater treatment plant discharges, runoff from
highways, streets, and driveways, in car exhausts, from coal burning
power plants, and more.
For 1993, the three states and the District specifically targeted this
immense problem through the development of tributary-specific strategies
designed to achieve the targeted reductions and to attain the water quality
requirements necessary to support aquatic species and other wildlife.
These tributary-specific strategies will be the tools by which the jurisdic-
tions will meet the Baywide 40% nutrient reduction goal.
To develop these strategies, each of the jurisdictions conducted a series
of "town meetings" throughout the year to gather ideas from the public
about how to reduce nutrients at their source. General public meetings as
well as targeted meetings for groups such as local government officials,
farmers, wastewater treatment plant operators, local planning officials, and
local watershed restoration groups were all part of the "town meeting"
concept. Relative cost effectiveness, environmental considerations, equity,
and many other factors were included in the development of these strate-
gies which are expected to be completed and implementation begun later
this year or early next year.
Keeping Watch on the Bay
Monitoring data collected continuously since 1984 provided essential data
to set up the Chesapeake Bay Program's sophisticated modeling system—
and served as a necessary "reality check" once the model was up and
running.
The sampling program that began nearly a decade ago now produces data
on 19 chemical and physical water quality characteristics including salinity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and nutrient concentrations. Samples
are taken biweekly or monthly at various depths at 49 stations in the
mainstem of the Bay and 110 stations in tributary streams.
This extensive sampling system has been supplemented over the years with other techniques for keeping current with
the state of the Bay. Regular aerial overflights provide information on the distribution of grasses in the Bay. The EPA's
national Electronic and Assessment Program (EMAP) provides data on Chesapeake watershed land use and land cover,
key indicators of the kinds and quantities of pollutants that reach the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is at the leading edge of technology in collecting and measuring inorganic and organic
constituents in rainfall. It is the first estuarine system with a fully operational network analyzing atmospheric deposition
of toxics and nutrients.
All of these sources contribute to a steadily expanding data base that is the benchmark for measuring progress and the
effectiveness of cleanup actions as the restoration program continues.
6
. Progress:
5281.CBP14A. 8/93
-------
Annual Progress Report
Meeting the Nutrient Reduction Goal
Parallel to the development of the tributary-specific strategies, ongoing
efforts by the Chesapeake Bay Program and the jurisdictions to reduce
nutrients continued. These efforts have already brought about progress—
both in terms of actual reductions as well as in significantly reducing
increases. This has brought about, according to a progress report of the
nutrient reduction reevaluation, "positive trends in water quality and the
return of underwater grasses to some of the Bay's shorelines." Overall:
• A 16% drop in phosphorus concentrations from 1984 through
1992 was realized in the Bay's mainstem.
• Nitrogen levels remained essentially unchanged during the
same time period.
The challenge ahead will be to continue working toward the 40%
reduction goal and, once that is achieved, to maintain these reduction
levels into the next century despite the pressures of population growth
and development. This challenge is reinforced by the Chesapeake Execu-
tive Council, which stipulated in the 1992 Amendments to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement that the nutrient reduction target levels must be main-
tained beyond the year 2000. The levels are 229.9 million pounds for
nitrogen and 15.44 million pounds for phosphorus. Reaching and main-
taining these levels will be achieved through reductions in both point and
nonpoint sources of both nutrients.
Point Source Reductions
Point sources—primarily municipal wastewater treatment plant dis-
charges—account for 34% of the phosphorus and 23% of the nitrogen
entering the Bay.
• Point source discharges for phosphorus have already met the
40% reduction goal.
• This reduction has been achieved through;
• A ban on phosphate-containing detergents in effect
regionwide since 1990.
• Technology upgrades for wastewater treatment plants
and stricter compliance with limits set in discharge
permits.
• Point source discharges for nitrogen continue to rise as popula-
tion growth swells and wastewater flows increase, however;
• Curbs on nitrogen are now beginning to keep pace as
nitrogen removal upgrades to wastewater treatment
plants are implemented.
• Such upgrades include the expanded use of the innova-
tive biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology.
• Thirty-nine municipalities have planned upgrades that will
further reduce nitrogen discharges.
'92 and '93
; the Chesapeake Bay fi ggmrtfs ;
' pace-setting modeling program !
scored another breakthrough with
docnptetbrt of a $3.5-miiofi %D.
model, vastly expanding; opporuaii-
ties for mathematical exploration, of
the Bay, The jsophikicatied model
l^layed a ittaj^r rofe In the <50mpjfe-
hemive reeviuat&ii of the j ;
program's 40 percent nutrient ; \
reduction goaf. : ••=
ft enables policy makers to ryn a ;
,,fa«ge,sf "wttat- if scenarios to ;
evaluate the poteriiiaf of alternate "1
pollution control sirategiesC ensur- j
ing that alway$4irt!>ited funds are
allocated to actions pfvmitfng the =
biggest iiang for the buck. It is a j
valuable diagnostic : tool as well, '
helping scientists fa beaef «rtdei- ;
istand the Diologkal and chemical i'
processes octurrifig irv the Bay. ; I
The new model is mar^ottsiy . .';
xomptex: it runs dn a Crayr the ; :
: ,. at j '
the U,$J Army
' ^Experiment Statfqn-in Vicksbung,
Mississippi, artel 4e EPA facility aJ
; Research Triangle; Park, tferUi
:Carolina< Even with this advanced
hardware, it can take 30 hours. Jto
; run through ia sing;ie scenario :
j given set of assumptions might: \
: produce over a l|3*ye?ir period- Such
i a ryrt emails abo^it i S bite . .. \ ;
; caltulattens. The model has been ! i
' acdalmed as the most soprasticate^-
: of its HM anyv4*efe in H%& world', i
tandern: w«thtne: previously devel-
oped watershed podel, wrHch :
churns out data ion nitrogen and
pliosphorus loa
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Susque/ianna
Total: 116.8 N; 5.95 P
Reduction: 18.3 N; 2.22 P
Western Shore (MD)
Total: 26.5 N; P
Reduction: 9.7 N; 0.67 P
Patuxent
Total: 4.9 N; 0.53 P
Reduction: 1.4 N: 0.20
Eastern Shore (MD)
Total: 22.8 N; 1.81 P
Reduction: 5.6 N; 0.62 P
Potomac
Total: 68.7N; 5.32 P
Reduction: 18.7 N; 1.71 P
Eastern Shore (VA)
: ctevsfepecf, VfrgMa wimpkment
8
Progress:
5281.CBP14A.8/93
-------
Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions
Most of the nutrients entering the Bay—77% of the nitrogen and 66% of
the phosphorus—originate from nonpoint sources. Rather than discharg-
ing from a single point or pipe, nonpoint sources are dispersed. They
include such sources as runoff from feedlots, pastures, croplands, high-
ways, streets, parking lots, lawns, and driveways.
The Chesapeake Bay Program control strategy extends to all these
sources, but the primary focus is farmland, the largest contributor of
nonpoint phosphorus and nitrogen. The original reliance on soil erosion
controls to contain nutrient runoff from farm fields has been augmented
with other measures in the Bay basin to build one of the nation's most
sophisticated nonpoint source pollution prevention programs.
A key agricultural innovation is nutrient management, a systematic
approach that limits fertilizer applications to carefully calculated crop
needs, leaving no excess nutrients to wash off into streams or seep into
groundwater flows. Despite the progress in containing nonpoint source
nutrients, the reevaluation workgroup concluded that existing technolo-
gies will control a smaller proportion of nitrogen than originally expected,
A significant acceleration in nutrient reductions will be needed to attain
the 40% goal by the year 2000, underlining the need for continuing devel-
opment of pollution prevention and control technologies.
Living Resources of the Bay
Oysters. Blue crabs. Rockfish. Shad. These species come quickly to mind
as "living resources" of the Bay.
But the term also includes creatures such as the worms in the mud of
Baltimore Harbor, whose welfare may be of particular interest only to
scientists tracking cleanup progress in the heavily traveled waters of this
busy port.
It includes the eelgrass, widgeon grass, and other submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) so important as food, nursery, and habitat to many
species of fish and fowl. And it includes the many other plants and
animals whose health and survival contribute to a balanced ecosystem,
motivating the continuing efforts to curb nutrients and toxics and improve
the water quality of the estuary.
Accomplishments in restoring and protecting the Bay's living resources
have manifested themselves in two ways:
• A resurgence in certain species and/or their habitats; and
• A better understanding of the interrelationships between
species' survival and the impacts of water quality, pollutants,
loss of habitat, and harvesting.
Resurgences in species and habitat include the following:
• Baywide, SAV covering approximately 70,000 acres is thriving.
This coverage represents more than a 75% increase since 1984,
significantly reversing the dramatic declines of the mid-1970s.
'92 and '93
Annual Progress Report
5281 .CBP14A 8/93
9
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
• The continuing resurgence of rockfish reproduction following a
fishing moratorium imposed on Bay and tributary waters after
the bass population plunged in the 1980s. In 1992, the juvenile
index for the popular rockfish rose significantly in both Mary-
land and Virginia waters.
• Shad, which virtually disappeared from the Bay in the early
1980s, may be on the comeback. An estimated 105,000 shad
reached the upper Chesapeake Bay in the spring of 1992, sub-
stantially less than the vast multitudes that came home to
spawn in Bay waters in past decades but still a healthy increase
from a population low of about 3000 in 1980.
• A second attempt to reintroduce shad, a one-time prosperous
fishery in the Bay, above the dams on the James River in Vir-
ginia met with success in June 1992. About 50,000 fry, hatched
from eggs taken from the James, were released at Richmond
after being reared for 20 days in a Pennsylvania hatchery.
• Since 1989, the construction of fish passages in the form of fish
ladders, elevators, dam breeches, and others has re-opened
nearly 175 miles of tributary waters as spawning grounds and
nursery habitat for migratory fish.
Increased understanding of interrelationships include:
• Wildlife specialists and Bay scientists developed Habitat Re-
quirements for Chesapeake Bay Species, pinpointing the essen-
tial needs of 31 key "target" species of vegetation, finfish,
shellfish, and birds.
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration
Targets: A Technical Synthesis established the water quality
requirements for SAV. These plants provide vital habitat and a
valuable food resource for many Bay species.
• The development of management plans to protect and foster
important species of shellfish, finfish, and waterfowl and the
habitat on which they depend have been developed. These
plans are modified as continuing research generates new infor-
mation about the specific conditions necessary to sustain healthy
populations of Bay species.
• The creation of a strategy to comprehensively map wetlands
and estimate recent losses, as well as assess the reasons for loss
of this valuable habitat resource.
• Other projects under way include the development of guidelines
for restoring and creating wetlands and the preparation of a
handbook on wetlands protection for use by farmers, develop-
ers, and local governments.
Efforts to improve or protect other Bay living resources have yet to be
realized. Oysters are still a much threatened resource, with recent harvests
10
Progress.
5281.CBP14A.S/93
-------
Annual Progress Report
only a fraction of annual hauls in peak years of the past. The decline is
attributed to overharvesting, pollution, and the devastating parasitic
diseases MSX and Dermo.
• The federal government earmarked research on the lethal
parasites for 1992 and 1993. Seeding programs and the construc-
tion of artificial oyster reefs also are under way to foster the
restoration of these valued shellfish.
The artificial reefs vary in design but a common combination
utilizes old tires and concrete of a specific density—heavy
enough to stay in place but light enough not to sink into soft
bottom sediments. Some reefs are already in place and others
are planned.
Maryland plans to construct reefs off Tilghman Island and
further south off Calvert County's Plum Point. Virginia's
Marine Resources Commission has endorsed construction of a
six-foot high reef of oyster shell in the Piankatank River to
analyze whether larvae attaching to the elevated structure are
less prone to disease than those on the river bottom.
• Blue crabs were harder to find in the Chesapeake in 1992,
though catches generally have been on the rise in recent years
and in 1993, crabs were more abundant. Still, with ever increas-
ing numbers of crabbers on the estuary, the Chesapeake Bay
Program crab management plan calls for catch limits in both
Maryland and Virginia to prevent the decimation of this valu-
able species.
Another Look at Toxics
Toxic pollutants come in many guises: chemical wastes from
industry...pesticide residues washed from agricultural crop lands and
suburban lawns...old batteries or oil improperly discarded by the do-it-
yourself car mechanic. All of these substances can be deadly to fish,
shellfish, and other life in the Bay or tributary streams.
Protecting the Chesapeake from these types of toxic pollutants through
prevention and toxic reductions was the basis of the Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy of 1988. In 1992, the Chesapeake Bay Program laid the
groundwork for a comprehensive review of its toxics reduction strategy
comparable to the reevaluation of the nutrient reduction commitment
completed that same year. The Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
reevaluation was completed in 1993, and spotlights areas of emphasis:
• A recognition of pollution prevention as the preferred approach to
reducing toxic risk to human health and living resources.
• A reduction effort consistent with the regulatory program cen-
tered on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
• A regional focus directing reduction and prevention actions
toward regional areas with known or potential toxic
problems.
'92 and '93
5281.CBP14A.B/93
11
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
12
• Continued assessment of potential toxic impacts to develop
more effective management efforts to reduce these impacts on
the Chesapeake Bay.
Preliminary findings from reevaluation studies have provided some
information on sources and amounts of toxic substances reaching the Bay,
though the picture is still far from complete.
No evidence was found of severe, systemwide responses similar in
magnitude to the effects seen throughout the Bay because of excessive
levels of nutrients. Low levels of toxic substances have been observed, but
they are below thresholds associated with adverse impacts.
Industrial facilities are still a major source of toxic substance releases in
the Bay watershed, but the actual fates of these substances and their
contribution to toxic contamination of tidal waters is uncertain. (The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reported in 1992 that industrial toxic
releases in the watershed declined by 43% from 1987 to 1990—a calcula-
tion drawn from Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports to the agency by
more than 500 facilities. More than 300 chemicals are tracked in the TRI
program.)
Atmospheric deposition of metals and organic toxics to tidal surface
waters is believed to be within an order of magnitude of quantities con-
tributed by land-based discharges.
Pesticides are a potential source of toxic substances in the watershed.
Results from a recent basinwide survey of pesticide use point to heavy
applications of many herbicides, but a transfer of effects has not been
observed. Applications of insecticides and herbicides have been much
lower, however. With funding assistance from the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
have all expanded Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) activities in the
past year to prevent or reduce pesticide runoff that eventually reaches the
Bay. Under IPM, pesticides are used against pests or to control weeds only
when they directly threaten crops. Broad preventive applications are
taboo; non-chemical control techniques are used whenever possible.
The Maryland Cooperative Extension Service reported that farmers who
adopted IPM in that state paid some $400,000 for pest monitoring ser-
vices—and saved $2 to $7 in pesticide costs for every dollar spent on
monitoring. The Extension Service is taking lessons learned in agricultural
IPM into cities and suburbs, too. Homeowners practicing IPM have
reduced their pesticide use by 22%, the service reported.
Virginia reported economic benefits of $19 an acre for alfalfa growers
using IPM. The state's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service
and Cooperative Extension Service initiated a pesticide use survey for nine
major crops to obtain data which will help in developing a state pesticides
and groundwater management plan and provide a baseline for measuring
subsequent progress in reducing pesticide use.
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is sponsoring a compre-
hensive education program to encourage adoption of IPM and comple-
mentary techniques by farmers. The York County Conservation District
Progress:
5281 CBP14A.S/93
-------
Annual Progress Report
carried out a three-year pilot program to demonstrate the application of
IPM in raising corn, soybeans, small grains, alfalfa, and grass hay.
In the District of Columbia, IPM use is encouraged primarily as a water
pollution prevention practice for homeowners and urban gardeners. The
District's Environmental Regulation Administration has conducted a
survey of registered pesticide applicators and a survey of residential
pesticides is ready for distribution. Results of the surveys will be used to
estimate pesticide loadings to DC water bodies and guide a public educa-
tion strategy. Currently, the District's IPM information and education
activities include urban garden demonstration plots, displays, pamphlets,
and presentations.
A Vision for the Future
As the Chesapeake Bay Program enters its second decade, it continues
to move forward, developing cutting edge science, implementing new
management techniques, enacting pollution prevention measures, and
identifying valuable environmental indicators to gauge progress. The
coming decade brings with it a Chesapeake under more stress than ever
before as more and more people call the watershed home. Like the ever-
changing Chesapeake itself, the Chesapeake Bay Program remains a
dynamic partnership, constantly developing new scientific understanding
and new management tools to meet the restoration and protection chal-
lenges of the decades ahead.
'92 and '93
5281.CBP14A.8/93
13
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
~_/n 1987, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency formally agreed to reduce and control point and nonpoint sources
of pollution to attain the water quality conditions necessary to support the
living resources of the Bay. To achieve this, we agreed to develop, adopt
and begin to implement a strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 a
40 percent reduction target based on the results of modeling, monitoring
and other information available to us.
Based upon the 1991 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluanon, we have found
that:
A We have achieved significant improvements in water quality and
living resources habitat conditions in the mainstem of Chesapeake
Bay.
A There is a clear need to expand our program efforts in the tributar-
ies, since most of the spawning grounds and essential habitat are in
the tributaries.
A Intensified efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution, includ-
ing agriculture and developed areas, will be needed if we are to
meet our 40% nutrient goal.
A We are now able to demonstrate the link between water quality
conditions and the survival and health of critically important
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
A Implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments will provide
additional opportunities to achieve nitrogen reductions.
A Achieving a 40 percent nutrient reduction goal, in at least some
cases, challenges the limits of current point and nonpoint source
control technologies.
14
Progress:
5281.CBP14A.8/93
-------
Annual Progress Report
1992 Amendments
Therefore, to further our commitments made in the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, we agree:
A To reaffirm our commitment to achieve an overall 40 percent
reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the mainstem
Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000 and to maintain at least this level
of reduction thereafter.
A To amend the water quality goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to reflect the critical importance of the tributaries in the
ultimate restoration of Chesapeake Bay:
"Reduce and control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to attain the
water quality condition necessary to support the living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries."
A To develop and begin implementation of tributary-specific strategies
by August 1993. These strategies will be designed to:
1. Meet the mainstem nutrient reduction goals.
2. Achieve the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in both the mainstem and the tributaries.
3. Incorporate public participation in the development, review
and implementation of the strategies, ensuring the broadest
possible public involvement.
4. Advance both cost-effectiveness and equity.
A To use the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in
the Bay and its tidal tributaries, as documented by Baywide and
other aerial surveys conducted since 1970, as an initial measure of
progress in the restoration of living resources and water quality.
A To incorporate into the Nutrient Reduction Strategies an air deposi-
tion component which builds upon the 1990 Amendments to the
federal Clean Air Act and explores additional implementation
opportunities to further reduce airborne sources of nitrogen entering
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
A To continue to explore improved technologies that may be cost-
effective in attaining further nutrient reductions.
A To explore cooperative working relationships with the other three
basin states (New York/West Virginia/Delaware) in the develop-
ment of tributary-specific strategies for nutrient reduction.
'92 and '93
5281.CBPUA.B/93
15
-------
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Major Committees in the Chesapeake Bay Program
Citizens
Advisory Committee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Chesapeake
Executive Council
Principals' Staff
Committee
Implementation
Committee
Federal Agencies
Committee
Budget & Workplan
Steering Committee
'91 Nutrient
Reevaluation Workgroup
Subcommittees
Nonpoint
Source
Toxics
Modeling
Monitoring
Living
Resources
Public
Access
I
Growth &
Develop-
ment
Communi-
cations
Who to Call
Learn about the problems facing the Bay and what is being done to help
solve them. Better still, learn about how you personally can be part of the
solution. One of the easiest ways to get information is to call CRIS, the
Chesapeake Regional Information Service at 1-800-662-CRIS. Free informa-
tion is also available from the states and jurisdictions where you live and
work.
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Communications Office
Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Education Office
District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation Admin.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Chesapeake Bay Commission MD Hdqtrs.
PA
VA
16
(804) 786-4500
(410) 974-5300
(717) 236-1006
(202) 404-1136
(410) 267-0061
(410) 263-3420
(717) 232-8199
(804) 786-4500
Progress:
5281.CBP14A.B/93
-------
-------
'! I "T 'Ml
T|,,!'"
------- |