EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region III
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Program
Nutrient Reduction Progress
Future Directions
Nutrient Reduction
Reevaluation
Summary Report
EPA 903-R-97-030
-------
J.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
ItfcGArcL Street -3PM52)
Vhihiudphv. T'A. 10103
1997 '
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. Executive Summary 3
III. Defining the Goal 5
IV. A Little Bay Program History 7
V. The Reevaluation Questions & Answers 9
• Will We Meet the 40% Nutrient Reduction Goal by the Year 2000? 9
• Are the Nutrient Reductions Being Achieved Through the Tributary Strategies? ... 9
• Are We Achieving the Water Quality Necessary to Support Living Resources? 10
VI. Findings from the 1997 Reevaluation 11
• Baywide Progress 11
• Progress on Tributary Strategies 12
• Point Source Progress 13
• Nonpoint Source Progress 15
• Water Quality Trends 16
VII. Framework for the Future 27
• Closing the Gap by the Year 2000 27
• Challenges: Maintaining the Reductions Will Be Challenging 32
• Areas of Opportunity Beyond 2000 34
VIII. Conclusion 37
-------
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
PA RT
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and one of the most productive
in the world. It is also one of this country's premier natural treasures. But its productivity has
declined this century due to manmade pollution problems, the overharvesting of its valuable
living resources and the forces of Mother Nature.
Since 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has been working in cooperation with local govern-
ments, industry, farmers, environmentalists, conservation associations, citizen groups and others
throughout the Bay region to restore the water quality in the Bay and its rivers by reducing pollution
through management efforts. To help guide these efforts and mark progress toward a cleaner,
healthier Chesapeake, the Bay Program set a series of challenging goals to achieve its top priority —
the restoration of the living resources including finfish, shellfish, underwater grasses and other
aquatic life and wildlife. The most important water quality goal set by the Bay Program was the 1987
goal of a 40% reduction of the controllable loads of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus enter-
ing the Bay between!985 and the year 2000. In 1992 the Bay Program agreed to maintain the
reduced nutrient loading levels beyond 2000 a huge challenge in the face of population growth in
the region.
As we approach 2000, it's fair to say that the Bay Program has made impressive progress toward the
nutrient goals set 10 years ago. Adoption and implementation of tributary strategies has been a key to
this progress, along with strong citizen support. It's also fair to say that the Bay and rivers would be in
much worse shape today if no action had been taken. For instance, many of the rivers are running
cleaner than they did a decade ago. This is a result of the farmers and others working to control non-
point source pollution. It also is the result of investments made on the local and regional levels to
upgrade sewage treatment plants across the region and to develop better nutrient reduction technol-
ogy for these plants. The good news is that, in some places, the living resources are beginning to
respond, especially in areas where management actions have been concentrated.
However, that good news is tempered by the lack of a water quality response in other areas of the
Bay and rivers, and the recent fish kills that are being linked to a Pfiesteria-like organism in some of
the Bay's rivers. The lack of an overall living resource response and the challenges we face in trying
to deal with Pfiesteria-like toxic dinoflagellates tells us that we need to do more if we want to achieve
our living resource and habitat restoration goals and, ultimately, a healthier and more productive
Bay system.
-------
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
PA RT
II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A s part of our effort to set and meet challenging goals, the Bay Program periodically mea-
/\ sures—or reevaluates—the progress that has been made to date, and measures how close we
A. jLare to attaining our goals. The following report is a summary of the 1997 Nutrient Reduction
Reevaluation findings. The numbers and findings are preliminary. A more detailed final report will
be available in early 1998.
The 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation was designed to answer the following questions:
• Will we meet the 40% reductions by 2000?
• Are the nutrient reductions being achieved through the tributary strategies?
• Are we achieving the water quality necessary to support living resources?
In the case of our 40% nutrient goals, we have evaluated our progress and concluded that the
Baywide goal for phosphorus reduction will be met by the year 2000. The 1997Reevaluation also con-
cluded that unless current efforts are accelerated—and some "gap closers" put in place—the
Baywide nitrogen reduction goal will not be met by the year 2000. We are currently exploring our
options for closing the gap on the year 2000 goal and for maintaining the reductions after our goals
are achieved.
Where we have tributary strategies in place—on the Potomac River and north we project that
we will achieve our nutrient goals when the strategies are fully implemented. However, if we do not
speed up implementation of these strategies, some planned improvements will not be completed
until after 2000. Where strategies are not yet in place, there is an ongoing process to establish appro-
priate nutrient reduction goals and to develop final strategies in accordance with statutory deadlines.
While we recognize the need to accelerate our efforts in order to achieve the reduction goals set
in 1987 by the Chesapeake Executive Council, meeting these goals may still not be enough to assure
the Bay's restoration. A great deal has been learned in the past decade about how storm events,
groundwater releases and other natural and manmade challenges affect the pace of recovery for the
Bay and its rivers. Throughout the region, the rivers are running cleaner as a result of pollution con-
trol measures taken on the land. However, the lack of a water quality response in some areas of the
Bay, and recent evidence of possible effects of high loadings of nutrients on living resources and
human health, are pointing us in the direction of more area-specific goals as new information
becomes available. We also recognize the necessity of having the right programs and institutions in
place to maintain the levels of nutrient reduction required into the future.
The findings of the 1997 Reevaluation also will help us better understand how the Chesapeake sys-
tem is likely to recover as we accelerate our efforts to reduce nutrient loads. In the next several years,
-------
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
as we apply our refined computer models, we will look at refining our nutrient goals to assure the
health of the Bay ecosystem.
The ongoing work to further refine the computer modeling and water quality monitoring pro-
grams will be used in 1998 to help set nutrient goals for the Virginia tributaries south of the Potomac.
Modeling and monitoring refinements will also be used in 1998 to analyze and prepare a protocol—
which will include a public participation component—to determine whether nutrient goals or reduc-
tion efforts can further target areas of persistent high loadings, especially where evidence indicates
a linkage to critical living resources or human health concerns.
As directed by the Executive Council, the Bay Program will prepare preliminary recommenda-
tions, in consultation with local governments and others, by the!999 Executive Meeting for adjust-
ments to nutrient goals to assure the water quality that will support the Bay's living resources. By the
Executive Council meeting in 2000, the Bay Program will provide final recommendations for any
adjustments to the nutrient goals. By the 2001 meeting, the Bay Program will complete adjustments
to the tributary strategies to achieve any revised goals.
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
PA RT
III
DEFINING THE GOAL
Before we move on to specific results of the 1997Reevaluation, it is important to first answer
the question, what is the year 2000 goal? Since 1987, as the computer models and water and
air quality monitoring have become more sophisticated, the estimates of nutrient loads—con-
trollable and uncontrollable—have been refined. This means that the goal numbers have also been
refined.
In 1992, the Bay Program used the Bay Watershed Model to calculate the baseline nutrient loads
for each of the 10 major tributary basins in the region. These nutrient loads were further divided into
controllable and uncontrollable portions. Uncontrollable loads included natural background load
from the forests, air pollution sources and nutrient loads from West Virginia, New York and
Delaware—the Bay basin states that are not signatories to the Bay Agreement. Then, the 40% goal
was applied to this controllable load to calculate a target nutrient loading cap for each tributary. The
target cap is the load that remains after the reductions have been achieved. At that point, the juris-
dictions began to develop "tributary strategies". These are specific nutrient reduction strategies for
the 10 major tributary basins—the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, York and
James rivers, the Western and Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Western and Eastern Shore of
Virginia.
The new 1997 version of the Bay Watershed Model —called the Phase IV Model— refines many
of the 1992 numbers, including the baseline nutrient loads for the 10 tributary basins. If the 40%
reduction was applied to the new 1997 numbers, the target loads for the tributary basins would
change. However, since the 1992 target loads were based on projected water quality and living
resource responses in the Bay, the Bay Program decided to maintain these target loads as its goals
until more information is available to support goal revisions. So, throughout this document, the
goals or targets we refer to are the original 1992 target nutrient loads.
In the near future, the Bay Program will use the latest science, computer modeling and water
quality monitoring results to refine our goals to better reflect the nutrient loadings that will result in
water quality conditions necessary to restore and sustain the living resources of the Bay and its rivers.
-------
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT o,.5,p,~,y
PA RT
IV
A LITTLE BAY PROGRAM HISTORY
-w-n the late 1970s the Chesapeake Bay became this nation's first estuary targeted for restoration
I and protection. Government-sponsored scientific research on the Bay pinpointed four areas
JLrequiring immediate attention: an overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus in
the water; dwindling underwater Bay grasses; toxic pollution; and the overharvesting of living
resources—fish, shellfish and other aquatic creatures and wildlife.
>• In 1983, under the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Program was
established as the means to restore this valuable estuary. The six Bay Program partners—signatories
to the Bay Agreement—are Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, representing the federal government. The Bay Program goals and direction are set by the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Executive Council members are the governors of Maryland,
Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Since
1983, the Bay Program's highest priority has been the restoration of the Bay's living resources.
X In 1987, in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement the Chesapeake Bay Program partners set a goal
to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In set-
ting that goal, the Bay Program partners committed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to
the Bay from controllable sources within the participating states and use 1985 as the base year. The
Bay Program determined that nutrient loads from the non-signatory states of West Virginia, New
York and Delaware would not be included since the signatory jurisdictions had no control over them.
This goal was selected because the best science at the time suggested a 40% reduction would
improve oxygen levels in Bay waters and benefit aquatic life.
>-In 1992, Chesapeake Bay Program partners also agreed to maintain nutrient loadings at the 40%
goal level beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source—upstream in the Bay's trib-
utaries. With the aid of water quality monitoring data and computer modeling, the amount of con-
trollable nutrients was determined and specific nutrient loading targets were assigned to the 10
major tributary basins. As a result, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
began developing specific nutrient reduction strategies "tributary strategies"—to achieve the nutri-
ent reduction targets. At that point the Chesapeake Executive Council also acknowledged that the
goal would challenge the Bay Program partners since, "... achieving a 40 % nutrient reduction goal,
-------
8 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
in at least some cases, challenges the limits of current point and nonpoint source control
technologies."
>• In 1993, the Bay Program acknowledged that because each tributary is different in its geography,
hydrography, and ecology, each of the tributaries would require different solutions; and that flexi-
bility was needed in allocating nutrient reduction loads to individual tributaries. In Maryland,
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and northern Virginia, a 40 % reduction in loadings would
not only improve water quality in the tributaries, but would improve conditions for living resources
in the mainstem of the Bay. In Virginia's Bay tributaries south of the Potomac River, however, nutri-
ent reductions were shown to have little influence on the Bay's mainstem, but would still improve
local water quality conditions. For this reason, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners and Virginia
undertook enhanced water quality monitoring of these tributaries and initiated development of an
enhanced Bay Water Quality Model to determine the level of reduction necessary to improve living
resource conditions. In the meantime, Virginia adopted interim 40% reduction goals for these trib-
utary basins.
>• 1994-1995, the jurisdictions developed and continued to implement tributary strategies for the
river basins from the Potomac River north. The Bay Program also continued refining the Bay
Watershed Model and developing the enhanced Bay Water Quality Model.
>-1996 through 1997: The Bay Program conducted an extensive reevaluation of its progress toward
the 40% goal—the 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation.
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
PA RT
V
THE REEVALUATION
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement established the goal to attain the water quality necessary
to support the living resources of the Bay. As part of that historic agreement, we committed
to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the Bay from controllable sources by 40% by
the year 2000, using 1985 as a base year. In 1992, we reaffirmed this goal and committed to attain it
through the use of individual tributary strategies to meet nutrient reduction loading levels estab-
lished for all major tributary basins. We also committed to maintaining these reduced loading levels
beyond 2000.
This year, an extensive reevaluation of our efforts found that we have made impressive progress
toward the nutrient goals we set 10 years ago. The reevaluation also tried to gauge the condition of
the Bay if we had taken no action, and there is clear evidence that conditions in the Bay and its rivers
would have worsened had we not taken the steps we have.
Because it is difficult to evaluate progress on such a broad scale, the 7997 Nutrient Reduction
Reevaluation focused on answering the following questions:
> Will we meet the 40% reduction by 2000?
Yes, but we will need to accelerate the current rate of implementation of nutrient reduction mea-
sures to do this. The 1997 Reevaluation has shown that we are on track to meet the Baywide goal for
phosphorus by 2000. For nitrogen, where we have tributary strategies in place, we are achieving our
Baywide nitrogen goal, although at present levels of implementation some of the planned improve-
ments will occur after 2000. If the rate of implementation remains the same, the nitrogen goal would
be attained after 2000.
> Are the nutrient reductions being achieved
through the tributary strategies?
Yes, for the regions where we have tributary strategies in place—from the Potomac River north—
we will achieve the overall reduction goals. However, if we do not speed up implementation of our
strategies, some planned improvements will not be in place until after 2000. According to estimates
from the 1997 Reevaluation, the Bay Program partners have installed—through the end of 1996—
the nutrient reduction technologies and practices necessary to achieve a reduction of 22 million
pounds of nitrogen and three million pounds of phosphorus. This represents nearly half of the 1985-
2000 reduction goal for nitrogen and four-fifths of the goal for phosphorus in those parts of
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District where tributary strategies are in place. We are
-------
I 0 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
optimistic that we will have the momentum, through the continued implementation of the tributary
strategies, to accelerate the pace of reductions and make progress more quickly as we close in on
2000.
Where strategies are not yet in place, there are statutory deadlines- to complete them and to set
appropriate goals. According to estimates from the 7997 Reevaluation, in the river basins south of
the Potomac and on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, where tributary strategies are not yet in place,
ongoing federal, state, local and private sector efforts have resulted in the installation of the nutri-
ent reduction technologies and practices necessary to achieve reductions representing about one-
quarter of the interim 40% goal established for nitrogen and about fourth-fifths of the interim
reduction goal for phosphorus established for the lower Virginia tributaries.
X Are we achieving the water quality necessary to support living resources?
In some areas yes, but not Bay-wide yet. Although some river systems are responding, we are not
seeing the Baywide response we're looking for. However, there are some bright spots. For instance,
in some areas where monitoring shows that water quality is improving, underwater Bay grasses are
rebounding and shad, rockfish and crabs are plentiful. But, in other areas, water quality and other
conditions are still preventing the restoration of living resources.
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
Chesapeake Bay Progr;
PART
VI
FINDINGS
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
FINDINGS
Baywide Progress
We're Making Progress Toward
Our Baywide Nutrient Goal
> For phosphorus, the latest computer model esti-
mates—which adjust for flow—show that between
1985 and 1996, loads delivered to the Bay from all its
tributaries declined six million pounds per year.
>• For nitrogen, the latest computer model esti-
mates—which adjust for flow—show that between
1985 and 1996, loads delivered to the Bay from all its
tributaries declined 29 million pounds per year.
£*£?
West Virginia/ ,;'•?-•
Virginia/ ,->-' DC* )•*> 1K
I/-? xl^^-
' Virainia l""Cv-t 'f'"—l
,' Virginia
< "t (iy*''«'
>• Maintaining reduced nutrient levels after the year
2000 will be a challenge due to expected population growth in the region.
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from All Basin Tributaries (MD, VA, PA, DC)
350
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
1985
1996 2000
Estimate
1985
Source. Chesapeake Bay Program Phase IV Watershed Model Data include total nitrogen and
phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay, from point and nonpoint sources, from Chesapeake Bay
Agreement jurisdictions (MD, PA, VA, DC)
II
-------
12
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
FINDINGS
Progress on Tributary Strategies
Chesapeake Bay Watershed:
Areas with Tributary Strategies
In 1992, the Chesapeake Bay
Program partners agreed to
attack nutrients at their source—
upstream in the Bay's tributaries.
As a result, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, Virginia and the District of
Columbia began developing trib-
utary strategies for the 10 major
tributary basins to achieve spe-
cific nutrient reduction targets.
As part of the 7997 Reevaluation
effort, the Bay Program calcu-
lated the nutrient reduction
progress in areas where tributary
strategies are in place from the
Potomac River north. Where
strategies are not yet in place,
there are statutory deadlines to
complete them and to set appro-
priate goals.
>- For phosphorus, the latest
computer model estimates show
we will achieve by 2000 the 10
million pound nutrient goal iden-
tified by the Chesapeake Bay
Program for basins where tribu-
tary strategies are in place.
>• For nitrogen, the latest model
estimates show we will be within
four million pounds of the 186
million pound goal identified by
the Chesapeake Bay Program for
basins where there are tributary strategies in place by 2000. These strategies are projected to achieve
the goal when fully implemented. The challenge is to identify opportunities to accelerate our actions
to further reduce nitrogen by 2000.
I I Areas with Tributary Strategies
Areas with no Tributary Strategies (yet)
Non-Sianatorv States (No Tributary Strateaies)
Western
Shore,
VA
-------
FINDINGS: Point Source Progress
13
> In tributaries south of the Potomac, where the 40% goal is interim, work is underway with local
stakeholders to determine methods and approaches to achieve further reductions in these rivers basins
and to achieve the nutrient goals once they are established. The setting of refined nutrient goals awaits
the completion of computer modeling to evaluate water quality benefits within each of these tribu-
taries. In the meantime, progress also is being made in these river basins, with overall reductions of 10
million pounds of nitrogen and three million pounds of phosphorus anticipated by 2000.
Total Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from Tributary Basins with Strategies in Place (Potomac and North)
Nitrogen
350
->-300
«
Nitrogen Goal
(for tributaries with
strategies in place)
25-
Phosphorus
£20-
o
u>
c
o
Phosphorus Goal
(for tributaries with
strategies in place)
I
1985
1996
2000 Tributary
Estimate Strategy
1985
1996
2000 Tributary
Estimate Strategy
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Phase IV Watershed Model. Data include total nitrogen and
phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay, from point and nonpomt sources, from Chesapeake Bay
Agreement jurisdictions (MD, PA, VA, DC) where Tributary Strategies have been implemented
(Susquehanna, Patuxent, Potomac, Western Shore-MD and Eastern Shore-MD).
FINDINGS
Point Source Progress
Nutrient loadings to the Bay and rivers are being reduced through upgrades at sewage treatment
plants, including the implementation of biological nutrient removal —BNR—at some facilities. A
relatively new technology, BNR has proved to be extremely effective in reducing nutrients. However,
BNR has only been implemented at 33 of the 315 major municipal wastewater treatment plants in
the Bay region. About 90 facilities are expected to be on line by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter.
Among the federal wastewater treatment facilities in the Bay region, only one of the seven major
facilities has implemented BNR. By 2000, four additional facilities are expected to have imple-
mented BNR, with another expected to come on line shortly after 2000.
Nutrient Loads from Point Sources Decrease
> Phosphorus Progress to Date —Between 1985 and 1996, phosphorus point source loads to the
Bay from participating states have been reduced by 51%. This five million pound reduction was due
to the implementation of phosphate detergent bans that went into effect in each of the states
between 1985 and 1990 and the implementation of effluent standards for phosphorus and concur-
rent wastewater treatment upgrades in each of the jurisdictions.
-------
14
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
Total Point Source Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from All Basin Tributaries (MD, PA, VA, DC)
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
1985
1985
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Phase IV Watershed Model. Data include total point source
nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay from Chesapeake Bay Agreement jurisdictions
(MD, PA, VA, DC).
>• Nitrogen Progress to Date— Between 1985 and 1996, nitrogen loads from point sources in the
participating states have been reduced by 15% or 12.6 million pounds. Since 1985, 33 of 315 major
municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed have upgraded to BNR technologies.
This advanced technology reduced effluent concentrations from 18 milligrams per liter to eight mil-
ligrams per liter and kept the municipal loads in check, in spite of an 11% population increase over
the last decade. The diversion of industrial effluent to plants with BNR—where it can be treated
more effectively—combined with reductions achieved through industrial wastewater treatment
upgrades, in-process manufacturing changes and facilities going off-line has played a key role in
achieving this level of reduction. In the future, as more municipal plants upgrade, the proportion of
reductions from these plants will increase.
>• Phosphorus Progress By the Year 2000—By 2000, point source phosphorus loads are estimated
to be 58% lower than 1985 loads delivered to the Bay. The additional reductions beyond those
observed through 1996 are due primarily to industrial facilities sending their wastewater for treat-
ment at municipal facilities operating BNR. While phosphorus discharge concentrations from
municipal facilities should remain steady in response to specific regulatory discharge limits,
increases in flow due to population growth will cause an increase in phosphorus loads from munici-
pal facilities shortly beyond 2000.
X Nitrogen Progress By the Year 2000—By 2000, a total of 71 major municipal wastewater treatment
facilities will be operating BNR, resulting in an estimated 10 million pounds or a 28% reduction in
municipal point source nitrogen loads delivered to the Bay since 1985. Upon full implementation of
the tributary strategies, an additional 19 municipal facilities will be operating BNR resulting in a fur-
ther five million pound reduction since 1985. Implementation of BNR at six of the seven major fed-
eral facilities will further decrease loadings by 220,000 pounds. After full tributary strategy
implementation, point source nitrogen loads from municipal, industrial and federal facilities will be
reduced by 29 million pounds a 34% decrease since 1985.
-------
FINDINGS: Nonpoint Source Progress
15
FINDINGS
Nonpoint Source Progress
Total Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads Delivered to the Bay
from All Basin Tributaries (MD, PA, VA, DC)
Nitrogen
250
Phosphorus
Nutrient loadings to the Bay and
rivers are also being reduced and
prevented through implementation
of a range of nonpoint source man-
agement practices and control tech-
niques.
Nonpoint Source Management
Practices Have Reduced
Nutrient Loads
As a result of nutrient reduction
management practices put in place
through 1996, nitrogen loadings
delivered to the Bay from nonpoint
sources within the participating
states are estimated to have
decreased by 16 million pounds, or 7%, and phosphorus loadings are estimated to have decreased
more than one million pounds, or 9%, over the past decade. By 2000, nitrogen loadings from non-
point sources are estimated to be reduced by 34 million pounds or 15%. Phosphorus loadings from
nonpoint sources are estimated to be reduced by three million pounds or 19% since 1985.
The majority of the nonpoint source loading reductions for nitrogen 30 million pounds and
phosphorus two million pounds anticipated by 2000, will come from those Bay basins with tributary
strategies in place.
Source Chesapeake Bay Program Phase IV Watershed Model Data include total nonpoint source
nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay from Chesapeake Bay Agreement jurisdictions
(MD, PA, VA, DC)
Highlights on Best Management Practices
The tributary strategies each contain specific commitments for
implementation of a wide array of best management practices designed
to reduce or prevent nonpoint source runoff of nutrients. Several
examples of the more widely applied practices are described below.
Agricultural Practices: Substantial progress is forecasted by
farmers implementing best management practices (BMPs) contained
in farm plans and nutrient management plans. These BMPs include a
range of different practices that reduce or eliminate soil loss and pro-
vide for the proper application rates of nutrients to cropland.
Practices include vegetated buffer strips at the edge of crop fields,
conservation tillage, strip cropping, diversion and waterways, nutri-
ent management and stream bank fencing.
Animal Waste Management Practices: Substantial benefits in
reductions of nutrients and improved water quality, in both surface
and groundwater, can be achieved by 2000 through the adoption of
state of the art animal waste management systems, including manure
storage structures, runoff controls for barnyards, guttering and nutri-
ent management. These systems address the handling, storage, trans-
port, and utilization of animal waste as fertilizer on cropland.
Riparian Forest Buffers and Other Buffers: Forested and
other vegetated buffers serve as a trap for nutrients and sediment
from upland sites. Each jurisdiction—including the Federal facilities—
is implementing a program to achieve the implementation targets
established in their tributary strategies or Riparian Forest Buffer
Implementation plans.
Stream Protection Practices: Implementation of stream pro-
tection practices, including stream fencing and alterative watering
sites, has the potential to provide substantial reductions of sediment
loadings in areas where livestock access to the stream is restricted.
Urban Practices: Urban best management practices have the
potential to reduce erosion and sediment losses as well as nutrients
that are applied in the urban/suburban areas. Practices include storm
water management for quality and quantity, erosion and sediment
controls on areas under development and storm water controls in
developed areas. These practices are applied across a broad spec-
trum from industrial, commercial and residential facility construction
•sites to the management of lawns and open spaces.
-------
I 6 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
FINDINGS
Water Quality Trends
The question we hear most often about our Baywide nutrient pollution reduction efforts is: "Are
the Bay and its rivers getting better?" The complex answer lies in the long-term water quality mon-
itoring data collected since 1985.
The Bay is not just one body of water but rather a large mainstem with many ecologically impor-
tant tributaries consisting of both tidal and non-tidal regions. A doctor could no more give a single
diagnosis of the Bay than to a waiting room full of patients. And, we should remember, while the
Bay and its tributaries have clearly been degraded by human activities, they are also subject to many
natural processes. These processes can confound our efforts to link the Bay's health to our efforts
to restore it. Fortunately, our understanding of the Bay has increased greatly over the past decade
and we are in a better position than ever to interpret the complexities we observe—the Bay's vital
signs as they relate to nutrients.
For instance, our non-tidal tributary status and trends information is based on flow adjusted data.
One of the advances we have made in our understanding of the Bay is the relationship between
nutrients in the tributaries and freshwater flows. The quantification of this relationship allows us to
remove the effects that both drought and flood have had on the nutrient levels from 1985 to 1996.
When we account for these variations in flow, or flow adjust the data, we can more directly see how
effective our land-based nutrient reduction efforts have been.
In measuring the response of the Bay and its tidal tributaries, using water quality monitoring data,
we also evaluate two key sets of the Bay's vital signs the more recent observed water quality condi-
tions, or status, and the long-term changes, or trends.
Status is a relative measure that allows us to compare current water quality conditions—1994
to!996—on a low to high scale across regions of the Bay with similar salinity levels. It is important
to note that when we discuss status, an area with a "low" measurement is considered in good health.
An area with a "high" measurement is considered in poor health. Trends in observed water quality
are evaluated over a longer period of time. In this case, from 1985 to 1996.
Before we move into the specific status and trends for the Bay and its tributaries, there are two
other findings from the 1997 Reevaluation that are important to understand. They are lag time and
high flow (see opposite page).
Non-Tidal Tributaries and Fall Line: Many of Our Rivers are Running Cleaner
Many of our rivers, from the upper reaches of the Susquehanna River across the region to the
James River, are running cleaner. These lower concentrations of nutrients and sediment—compared
to concentrations observed a decade ago are fully revealed once the effects of variations in river flow
are taken into account. Flow adjusted data show that for all major tributaries to the Bay where they
meet tidal waters, and for key monitoring stations in the Susquehanna watershed, there are no sta-
tions at which concentrations of nutrients are increasing. At most of the non-tidal stations, data show
declining concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus.
The Susquehanna is the largest tributary in the Bay system, providing over 50% of the freshwater
to the Bay annually. The nutrient trends in the river are declining, as demonstrated by the following
water quality monitoring data.
> Phosphorus and Nitrogen Status Nutrient concentrations at key water quality stations along
the Susquehanna River and its major tributaries are among the lowest compared with other non-
tidal rivers in the region, indicating good water quality. The exception is the .station that measures
-------
FINDINGS: Water Quality Trends I 7
Factors That Influence Bay and River Response to Reduction Measures
Understanding Lag Time
Our nutrient reduction progress can be masked or slowed
down by natural lag times between actions taken on the land and
delivery of resulting reductions to the Bay.
For example, nutrients are transported in the watershed in
several ways. Nutrients, dissolved in either water, mostly nitrogen,
or attached to sediment, mostly phosphorus, are washed off the
land into streams as runoff during rain events. Once in the stream,
the nutrients associated with water move along the surface and
flow to a nearby stream or river and eventually the Bay.
>• Groundwater Lag Time—Nitrogen-rich runoff also can
infiltrate into the ground before reaching a stream, move with
groundwater and eventually seep back into streams, rivers and the
Bay. But, this can take from 10 to 20 years.
>• Sediment Movement Lag Time—Lag times associated
with sediment movement are not well understood but could also
be on the order of several decades. What we do know is that a
reduction in phosphorus runoff from upper watershed lands may
take years to result in improved Bay water quality because the
phosphorus attached to sediment remains stored in the local
streams and rivers until it is washed downstream to the Bay, usu-
ally by major storm events. Large dams in the Bay region can have
a similar and, in some cases, more pronounced effect. In the case
of the Susquehanna River dams, which have been in place since the
1920s, the dams reduce loadings by literally trapping the sediment
behind the dam. Some of this sediment is usually scoured out from
behind the dams and flushed downstream during major storm
events. In the absence of any major storms, these dams may fill in
and lose their sediment-trapping capacity in another 15 to 20
years. This would cause the amount of sediment and phosphorus
entering the Bay to increase substantially.
X Living Resource Recovery Lag Time—There are also lag
times in the Bay system associated with the time it takes for living
resources to recover once water quality and habitat conditions
have improved. For example, once water quality conditions suit-
able for underwater grasses are attained, it still may be years
before enough seeds or vegetative plant material are transported
into the restored habitat to support revegetation.
>• Internal Nutrient Memory of the Bay—Not all of the
new information on lag times is negative. Scientific studies now
show us that the internal nutrient memory of the Bay—the
amount of time required to use up excess nutrients contained
within the Bay's sediments—is on the order of one to three years.
This is compared to a decade as once thought.
Understanding High Flows
Unusually high river flows, caused by storm events in three of
the last four years, resulted in higher loadings of nutrients coming
into the Bay from its rivers. These increases, however, were due
to the high flows — not increases in pollution. These high flows
have masked a stronger Bay water quality response to manage-
ment actions.
Total Freshwater River Flow into Chesapeake Bay
140000-
•D
o 120000-
r
**
<_
.j
\
^
n
?'
H
?•
3
•-i
I
5^
*
•«
7j
1
1
^
1
$
->•>
1
1
$
d
-«
p1
f
P1
i
i
3
c"
I
•s
1
:c
^'
/••
Annual
Average
Flow
1951-1996
5 100000-
CL
J> 80000-
o
tj 60000-
c
01 40000-
ro
.c
« 20000-
O
0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Source Chesapeake Bay Program
>• Flows Have Been Increasing — One of the most impor-
tant influences on the Chesapeake system is rainfall and the result-
ing freshwater flows that reach the Bay. Records kept since the
early 1 950s show that total freshwater flows into the Bay during
high flow years were over two-and-a-half times greater than low
flow years. Since 1 985 we have witnessed a trend of increasing
flows, with early years ( 1 985-88) tending to be below the long-
term average and recent years ( 1 993, 94 and 96) tending to be
well above average.
> More Runoff Means More Nutrients— Higher flows
produce more runoff of nutrients from various types of land uses
and transports them more efficiently to the tidal waters of the Bay
and its tributaries. So, even if we were to hold the line on
increases in nutrient concentrations in the rivers through manage-
ment efforts, the Bay would receive higher amounts of nutrients
during high flow years compared to average or low flow years.
>• Flow Adjusted Data Helps Reveal Progress— An
examination of the monitoring data collected at the points where
the rivers enter the Bay show that nutrient loadings from our
rivers have generally increased over the 1 985 to 1 996 period due
to the pattern of increasing freshwater flows — not increased pol-
lution. When these variations in flows are accounted for by flow
adjusting data, we see that nutrient reduction management
actions taken to date have been effective.
-------
18
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
nutrient loads from the Conestoga watershed, a highly agricultural region where nutrient concen-
trations still indicate poor water quality conditions.
>• Phosphorus Trends 1985-96 Total phosphorus concentrations have decreased at four of the six
stations monitored in the Susquehanna River basin. These four stations represent the central and
lower parts of the basin and 48% of its 27,000-square-mile drainage area. At the fall line station at
Conowingo, where the river flows into the tidal Bay, concentrations of phosphorus decreased 53%
since 1985 when adjusted for flow.
>• Nitrogen Trends 1985-96 Total nitrogen concentrations have decreased at all key water qual-
ity stations monitored along the Susquehanna River and its major non-tidal tributaries. At the fall
line station at Conowingo concentrations of nitrogen have decreased 18% since 1985 when adjusted
for flow.
The findings from the Bay's major non-tidal rivers have the following implications. First, since the
predominant nutrient loading source to most of these monitored sites is nonpoint, they suggest that
nonpoint source control measures are beginning to yield results. Second, they suggest that some
reductions are due to the drop in phosphorus from point sources, such as wastewater treatment
plants. Third, the increasing loadings of nutrients to the Bay due to natural increases in flow would
have been far worse if our pollution control measures had not been put into place over the last
decade.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentration Trends
in Non-Tidal Portions of Rivers
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
V Decreasing
B Not Significant
A Increasing
Flow-adjusted concentration trends of nitrogen and phosphorus for major tributaries where they
meet tidal waters and for key stations in the Susquehanna River watershed. Results are shown
for trend analyses using the earliest complete data set collected since 1985 through 1996.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
-------
FINDINGS: Water Quality Trends I 9
Nitrogen Concentration Status and Trends
in Susquehanna Basin Stations
Trend Status
(1985-1996) (1994-1996)
V Decreasing ("} Good
(Good) ^
ED Not
Significant
A Increasing
Fair
Poor
(Bad)
All trends are flow-adjusted data
Trend for Towanda 1989-1996
\
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
20
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
Phosphorus Concentration Status and Trends
in Susquehanna Basin Stations
Trend Status
(1985-1996) (1994-1996)
V Decreasing C~\ Good
(Good)
D Not
Significant
A Increasing
(Bad)
All trends are flow-adjusted data
Trend forTowanda 1989-1996
Fair
Poor
\
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
FINDINGS: Water Quality Trends 2 I
Tidal Tributaries: Some Tributaries are Responding to Reduction Measures
In general, the Bay and its tidal tributaries are responding to management actions to varying
degrees even in the face of natural delays, including lag times and high flows. Regions with recent
significant reductions in point source nutrient loads are showing clear signs of recovery. In contrast,
many areas of the Bay and tidal tributaries dominated by nonpoint source loads show fewer signs of
improvement and, in some cases, show evidence of increasing nutrient levels.
The following status and trends data are not flow adjusted:
>• Phosphorus Status—Regions of the Patuxent, Rappahannock, York and James Rivers and a few of
Maryland's Eastern and Western Shore tributaries have higher phosphorus concentrations than elsewhere.
>• Nitrogen Status—Many of Maryland's smaller Western and Eastern Shore tributaries, the Potomac
and portions of the Bay's mainstem in Maryland have higher concentrations of nitrogen than elsewhere.
>• Phosphorus Trends 1985-96—Trends for phosphorus show declines in several of Maryland's
Western Shore tributaries including the Patuxent, where significant declines have occurred in phos-
phorus loadings from wastewater treatment plants. Prior to 1985, similar declines were noted in the
Potomac River. In the Virginia tributaries, phosphorus concentrations are increasing in many areas
with increases particularly widespread in the Rappahannock, due in part to recent high flow events.
Phosphorus concentrations declined in a small area of the upper James River near the Richmond
Wastewater Treatment Plant where the phosphorus detergent ban has significantly reduced the
phosphorus discharges. Phosphorus concentrations are also declining near the mouth of the Bay.
There were no trends in the mainstem York River.
> Nitrogen Trends 1985-96—Some of the largest decreases in concentration occurred in the Back
and Patuxent rivers where historically high contributions of nitrogen from wastewater treatment plants
have been substantially reduced in recent years. Nitrogen concentrations throughout the length of the
tidal James River have decreased since 1985. Several segments of the Maryland Eastern Shore show
increases in concentrations. Since these are nonpoint source dominated regions, at least some of these
increases are probably due to recent increases in freshwater flows as explained earlier.
-------
22
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
Nitrogen Concentration Status and Trends
in Surface Waters of Tidal Tributary and Mainstem Chesapeake Bay Segments
Bush
Middle
BackV
Patapsco
Potomac V
Rappahannockv
Appomattox James
ANanticoke
Manokin
North Tangier Sound
Pocomoke
SouthTangier Sound
Corrotoman
Piankatank
Mobjack Bay
Trend Status
(1985-1996) (1994-1996)
V Decreasing G
(Good) •
A Increasing •
(Bad) ™
Segments with
unchanged trends
have no symbol
Good
Fair
Poor
Not
Available
All trends are observed data
(not flow adjusted)
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
FINDINGS: Water Quality Trends 23
Phosphorus Concentration Status and Trends
in Surface Waters of Tidal Tributary and Mainstem Chesapeake Bay Segments
BushA-
Middle
Back-
PatapscoV—
PotomacA-
ishing # Nanticoke
Southv
RhodeV
West V
North Tangier Sound
Manokin
Rappahannock
Pocomoke
South Tangier Sound
Corrotoman
Piankatank
Mobjack Bay
Trend Status
(1985-1996) (1994-1996)
James
Appomattox
V Decreasing
(Good)
A Increasing
(Bad)
D
Good
Fair
Poor
Not
Available
Segments with
unchanged trends
have no symbol
All trends are observed data
(not flow adjusted) _
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
24
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
600-
Potential HaBitat 600,000 acres
£ 114--
o
o
o
en
o>
CO
CO
ro
CO
CD
95-
76-
57-
38-
19-
Interim Goal 1 1 4,000 acres
Acreage has increased about
70% since the 1984 low point.
No surveys .
t
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Source Chesapeake Bay Program
The Living Resource Response
The impacts of nutrient-enriched waters on the growth and survival of underwater Bay grasses, or
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), are well known. Because of the high amounts of nutrients flow-
ing into the Bay and its tidal tributaries, many of the grasses that used to fringe the shores are now
gone. As we have made progress in improving water quality, the Bay grasses have started to rebound.
>• Bay Grasses There has been an increase in Bay Grasses Recovering
Bay grass acreage of about 70% between 1984
and 1996. In the recent period of high freshwater
flows, however, the pace of the recovery has
slowed. In fact, many of the large Bay grass beds
in the mid-Bay and in the vicinity of Tangier
Sound have been in decline since 1993. These are
also areas of the Bay that have experienced some
declining water quality trends since 1985. Other
areas, while not as significant in terms of areal
coverage, are showing some strong upward trends
despite the recent high flows. These include
Eastern Bay and the outer Choptank embayment
on the Eastern Shore and the Gunpowder,
Magothy, Severn, upper Patuxent and lower
Potomac rivers on the Western Shore. Recently,
small grass beds have reestablished in the lower
James River in areas that have not been vegetated
in decades.
>• Plankton Communities—In rivers like the James where declining trends in nutrient concen-
trations have been observed, there are signs of improvements in the health and diversity of plankton
communities. This has positive implications for the many Bay fish species which feed on these micro-
scopic plants and animals during their early life stages.
>• Bottom-Dwelling Organisms—Another key biological community are those organisms that live
on the bottom of the Bay including worms, clams and crustaceans. These organisms are a very
important food source for fish and crabs and they can also serve as biological indicators of water
quality in a given location since these organisms generally stay in one place. Dissolved oxygen con-
centration is important in determining whether a region of the Bay can support a healthy bottom-
dwelling community. If concentrations drop below five parts per million on a long-term average or
below two parts per million periodically, the bottom-dwelling community can be severely impacted.
There is a close link between the frequency of low dissolved oxygen events and the health of benthic
communities in the Bay. This can be seen when the areas that experience low dissolved oxygen
events are compared to the areas where benthic communities are degraded. There are also some
areas where habitat conditions other than low oxygen are impacting the benthic community. Overall,
since 1985, there has been no clear trend in benthic community condition.
>• Bay Bottom Habitat —Since low oxygen conditions in the Bay are significantly determined by
nutrient impacts, the reduction of nutrients is expected to raise oxygen levels and improve habitat
for the bottom-dwelling community as well as other organisms which otherwise do not currently use
this habitat. Since 1985, there has been no clear trend in oxygen levels. Additional nutrient reduc-
tions and a return to more normal flows are expected to raise oxygen levels and lead to improve-
ments in the Bay's bottom-dwelling communities. This improvement also should expand the forage
range for several key fish species, including striped bass.
-------
FINDINGS: Water Quality Trends 25
Condition of Benthic Community in Bottom Waters
of Tidal Tributary and Mainstem Chesapeake Bay Segments
Potomac
Bush
Middle
Back
Patapsco
Appomattox
Fishing /fjvianticoke
Rappahannock
^
Mataponi
Manokin
North Tangier Sound
Pocomoke
>SouthTangier Sound
Corrotoman
Piankatank
Mobjack Bay
Benthic Condition (1996)
D Healthy
Stressed
Severely Stressed
D Not Determined/
No Data Available
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
26 '997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
Bottom Waters with Low Summer Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
in Tidal Tributaries and Mainstem Chesapeake Bay
Bush
Middle
Back
Patapsco
Sassaf rass
Potomac n
~ A Eastern Bay
\ 'u4n =
Choptank
Fishing ft Nanticoke
Bay
RappahannockV
Mataponi^
Manokin
North Tangier Sound
Pocomoke
T^SouthTangier Sound
Corrotoman
-" 7 Piankatank
;/ Mobjack Bay
Appomattox
Dissolved Oxygen Status
(1994-1996)
>2mg/L
<2mg/L (stressful)
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program.
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
PA RT
VII
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000
The 1997 Reevaluatlon taught us a number of new things about how quickly an ecosystem as large
and complicated as the Chesapeake responds to actions taken to restore its health. We now know
that we must accelerate current efforts and consider additional actions to reduce nitrogen to meet
the year 2000 goal.
As a result of the reevaluation, we have outlined a number of specific options to "close the gap"
on nitrogen and maintain the reductions after 2000. These potential gap closers are the additional
actions that the Bay Program partners have agreed are the most feasible, equitable and cost effec-
tive means of gaining the extra pound reductions needed to meet the goal. The Bay Program will
pursue the gap closers that can be implemented quickly and prove to be the most cost effective. In
many cases, further point source reductions must be added to the already substantial progress made
by local governments to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities.
Some of the options for closing the gap and maintaining the reduced levels after 2000 are pre-
sented in a framework for action signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council as part of the!997
Executive Council Directive 97-1, Baywide Nutrient Reduction Progress and Future Directions. In the
pages that follow, the initial framework for these options is fleshed out, beginning with the oppor-
tunities to close the gap to meet the year 2000 goal. We also explore the reality of the challenges we
face in maintaining the goal levels. Many of the challenges center on the expected increases in pop-
ulation in the Bay region in the coming years which will result in more point source, nonpoint source
and airborne nutrients.
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
Point Source Reduction Opportunities In Areas
Where Tributary Strategies are in Place
>• The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to build on the substantial
progress already made by local governments to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities by accelerat-
ing improvements scheduled for after 2000.
For example, eight facilities identified for treatment upgrades in Maryland's tributary
strategies will not have BNR in place by 2000. Almost half of this' potential reduction
could be achieved through a trading program the Maryland Department of the
27
-------
28
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
Environment is considering in partnership with local municipalities between the largest of
these eight facilities, Patapsco and Maryland's Back River facility. Rather than operating
BNR at Patapsco, which is experiencing technical problems in their BNR pilot studies,
additional reductions on the order of 700,000 pounds per year nitrogen delivered to the
Bay could occur through methanol addition at Back River which will already be operating
a BNR process by 2000.
Municipal Waste water Treatment Facilities
Using Biological Nutrient Removal
0-
Total Major Facilities: 315
Federal
DC
VA
PA
MD
1985 1996
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
2000
After 2000
> The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to implement low cost modi-
fications where such accelerated installation is not feasible, in order to obtain short-term partial
nutrient reductions.
For example, 10 facilities in Virginia's Potomac Basin tributary strategy will not have BNR
in place by 2000. Implementing BNR at these 10 facilities would result in the removal of
four million pounds of nitrogen delivered every year to the Bay. While acceleration of
BNR installation may not be feasible at these facilities, certain low cost modifications may
be possible while the upgrades are being implemented, thereby achieving some nutrient
reductions. Further investigation is warranted into recent recommendations which suggest
that two of these facilities could employ low-cost modifications to achieve removals of
approximately 500,000 pounds per year of nitrogen delivered to the Bay.
-------
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE: Closing the Gap by the Year 2000 29
>• The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to encourage voluntary efforts
to achieve additional interim reductions from major wastewater treatment plants where nutrient
reduction technologies are in place or will be by 2000, but where still higher levels of removal can
be obtained from process changes or year-round operation, and support those efforts through inno-
vative federal, state, and local cost sharing arrangements.
For example, the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, a regional facility located in the
District of Columbia and the largest sewage treatment plant in the Bay region, is explor-
ing the applicability of a three-stage BNR process under a pilot project involving half the
flow entering the facility. Following an evaluation of the results of the pilot project, if it is
concluded that the process modifications being studied are feasible, full-scale plant mod-
ifications will be implemented. The process being tested shows potential for reducing the
effluent concentrations of nitrogen below the planned 7.5 milligrams per liter. Other tech-
nologies for further reduction of nitrogen also will be tested. However, innovative federal,
state and local cost-sharing methods will have to be identified, and issues of permit limit
and equity will have to be resolved before the final BNR plan for Blue Plains is developed
and implemented.
V The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to encourage commitments
for additional nutrient reductions from private sector facilities with high loading rates.
For example, many industrial facilities have already made significant nutrient reductions,
largely on a voluntary basis, through in-process changes, end-of-pipe treatment upgrades,
or hook-ups to municipalities with BNR. Implementation of nitrogen removal technolo-
gies at 15 of the highest nutrient-discharging facilities with no known nutrient removal
practices shows the potential for further reducing nitrogen loads to the Bay by at least 1.7
million pounds per year. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners plan to work with these
facilities, either through a pollution prevention program, such as Businesses for the Bay, or
other means to seek additional nutrient reductions.
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
Point Source Reduction Opportunities with Non-Signatory States
It is estimated that the other Bay basin states—New York, West Virginia and Delaware—con-
tribute over 12% of the total nitrogen and 9% of the total phosphorus loadings delivered to the Bay.
Targeted nutrient reduction actions taken in cooperation with these jurisdictions can result in fur-
ther reduced nutrient loadings to the Bay.
>• The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to initiate cooperative efforts
with Delaware, New York and West Virginia, with emphasis on New York wastewater treatment
plants.
From a point source perspective, New York's point source nutrient contributions to the
Bay far outweigh those from either Delaware or West Virginia. Current estimates are that
reductions on the order of 1.4 million pounds of nitrogen delivered to the Bay annually
could be obtained by the implementation of nitrogen removal at New York's six largest
-------
30 '997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
plants discharging into the Bay watershed. The Bay Program partners will be working with
New York state and municipal agencies in jointly evaluating nitrogen reduction possibili-
ties from the largest of these, the Binghamton-Johnson City facility—an estimated
600,000 pound nitrogen loading reduction.
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
Nonpoint Source Reduction Opportunities in Areas
Where Tributary Strategies Are Already in Place
There are a number of opportunities not identified in the published tributary strategies for fur-
ther reducing nutrient loadings from nonpoint sources as well. Together these identified actions
could further reduce total delivered loads to the Bay by an estimated 1.6 million pounds.
• Reduction of the use of urea as deicer at commercial airports could reduce nitrogen loadings
by at least 266,000 pounds by the year 2000; this estimate could increase with concurrent reduc-
tions at military facility airfields.
• Implementation of urban nutrient management by homeowners, commercial applicators, and
building maintenance personnel—adjusting fertilizer application rates to account for available
soil nitrogen, plant needs, and timing—could yield nitrogen load reductions on the order of
45,000 pounds through a targeted education program.
• Testing the soil for available nitrogen could reduce the fall fertilizer requirements for small
grains, resulting in nitrogen loading reductions up to at least 150,000 pounds.
• Composting of dead poultry into safe and useful products could yield nitrogen reductions on
the order of 150,000 pounds.
• Providing for additional marine pumpout stations will provide a yet unquantified additional
reduction in nutrient loadings to the Bay.
• Providing for additional reductions due to the new Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
recently announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Maryland will pro-
vide a yet unquantified additional reduction in nutrient loadings to the Bay.
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
Nonpoint Source Reduction Opportunities with Non-Signatory States
>• The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to initiate cooperative efforts
with the other Bay basin states with emphasis on agricultural nonpoint source management in
Delaware and West Virginia.
These efforts could result in even higher nutrient reductions beyond the 700,000- and
100,000-pound reductions in the delivered nitrogen and phosphorus nonpoint source
loadings, respectively, anticipated from these states by 2000.
-------
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE: Closing the Gap by the Year 2000 3 I
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
Reductions Through Innovative Technologies
> The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1 tp encourage development and
use of innovative point source control technologies and new approaches to nonpoint source reduc-
tions.
Innovative technologies to remove nutrients at wastewater treatment plants will continue
to be evaluated and demonstrated on a full scale basis where applicable, to provide oper-
ators with a full range of economically attractive and technologically feasible options.
Studies employing technologies such as algal scrubbers, automatic biological monitors and
wetland nutrient uptake should continue to be evaluated.
New technologies currently being developed—for example changes in animal feed and
processing manure into commercially available fertilizers—can be utilized for reducing
and preventing nonpoint source agricultural nutrient pollution.
CLOSING THE GAP BY THE YEAR 2000:
More Partnerships
The Executive Council called on the Bay Program in another directive Directive 97-3, the Community
Watershed Initiative—to develop new partnerships at the community level to engage increasing numbers of cit-
izens of the Chesapeake watershed in the clean-up effort.
-------
32
1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
CHALLENGES: MAINTAINING THE REDUCTIONS WILL BE CHALLENGING
Regardless of our success in speeding up and expanding efforts under our tributary strategies, we
face many new challenges to maintain these reduced loading levels into the new century. They
include:
>• The Region's Population is
Growing—Anticipated population
growth and continued urbanization of
the watershed will require new pollu-
tion prevention and reduction actions
just to hold the line on nutrients.
18
16-
c
.o. 12-
IicH
c
O O
J5
g. 6'
O
0. 4-
2-
Basinwide Population Trends
oiD
coto
cocooo
§m o in o
o ••- >- oj
o o o o
CM C\J C\J CvJ C\J
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
>• Population Growth Cuts into Point
Source Reductions—Maintaining re-
duced phosphorus loadings are particu-
larly challenging because increased
population and wastewater flows are
already cutting into earlier gains from
such actions as the ban on phosphate in
detergents.
Phosphorus Discharge Load
from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
through 2020 vs. Watershed Population
Municipal Phosphorus Discharge
Municipal Phosphorus Discharge - projected
Population
Source Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE: Challenges 33
>• Vehicle Miles Traveled Increasing—
Between 1995 and 2010, the population is
expected to increase 12%, while the vehi-
cle miles traveled is projected to increase
39% in the Bay region. Without technolog-
ical advances, more miles traveled means
more pollution in the air. To date, how-
ever, emissions controls on vehicles have
buffered the impact of increased travel
with nitrogen oxide emissions decreasing
7% from 1985 to 1995, when vehicle miles
traveled increased 34%. In the face of
sharply increasing vehicle miles traveled
trends we may start to lose the ground
gained through increased vehicle emission
controls. These trends include fleet
turnover, changes in fleet composition—
such as the popularity of large sport utility
vehicles—and the deterioration of emis-
sion control equipment over time.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Outpace Population Increases
Vehicle Miles Traveled
_200-
£180-
o
i 16°~
| 120-
S 100-
8 8°-
S 60-
^ 40-
I 20-
0-
Population
105%
increase
(1970-
1994)
39%
projected
increase
(1995-
2010)
18-
16-
•w 14-
| 12-
I 8-
Q. 4-
2-
26%
increase
(1970-
1994)
12%
projected
increase
(1995-
2010)
o in o
Source Chesapeake Bay Program
>• Number of Septic Systems Increas-
ing— Septic systems are a rapidly increas-
ing source of loadings of nutrients in the
watershed, and will increase in importance
if current trends in land development con-
tinue.
>• Number of Poultry & Livestock Op-
erations Increasing—Localized and reg-
ional increases in the number and density
of poultry and livestock will place pressure
on government and agriculture to adopt
new management practices to control the
potential nutrient loadings from these
operations.
Basinwide Nitrogen Loadings from Septic Tanks
1985 1996 2000 2020
Source Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
34 1997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY BEYOND 2000
There are many areas of opportunity to be explored as we seek to meet and maintain our nutri-
ent goals. They include point source opportunities Baywide and further reductions from air.
AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY BEYOND 2000:
Other Point Source Reduction Opportunities
Expanded biological nutrient removal (BNR) and other nutrient reduction technologies can be
implemented at a wider range of wastewater treatment facilities due to declining costs, experience
with operations, and recognition by facility owners and operators that benefits often include opera-
tional cost savings.
Pennsylvania's Tributary Strategy focuses on nitrogen reductions through nonpoint sources
because this is the dominant source of nitrogen loadings for this state. However, Pennsylvania's trib-
utary strategy also includes a point source nitrogen reduction component, including studying the fea-
sibility of treatment upgrades at their larger municipal plants and evaluating innovative nutrient
removal technologies. The Bay Program partners have assisted in the feasibility study of BNR imple-
mentation at 16 Pennsylvania municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Reductions at all 16
Pennsylvania facilities could result in a 2.8 million pound reduction in nitrogen loadings delivered to
the Bay. The results of these evaluations—together with recent studies on innovative technologies
and the experience Pennsylvania has obtained in the past several years regarding BNR operation at
four of their facilities—are currently being evaluated. The Chesapeake Bay Program .partners will
continue to explore other targeted point source reduction opportunities based on cost effectiveness
and feasibility of implementation.
AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY BEYOND 2000:
Further Reductions from Air
To address this opportunity, the Executive Council called on the Bay Program in Directive 97-1, to
work toward additional reductions of airborne nitrogen delivered to the Bay and its watershed from
all sources including states outside the watershed, and seek improved understanding of how airborne
nitrogen affects the Bay and its tributaries.
• For example, a continuing concern, especially for the northern half of the Bay watershed, New
York and Pennsylvania, is the high level of nitrogen oxide emissions from sources in the Ohio
Valley and other areas of the Midwest. Atmospheric deposition contributes about 26% of the
total nitrogen loadings delivered to the Bay from the Susquehanna watershed. The Bay pro-
gram partners will continue to work toward reductions of these sources located outside the
watershed.
• Over the next 10 years, implementation of the Clean Air Act will result in nitrogen oxide emis-
sion reductions from both stationary and mobile sources. Many of these will occur during and
after the year 2000.
• By 1996, the coal-fired electric utilities affected by Phase I of the Acid Rain Program under the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments had reduced their national emissions by 680 million pounds,
a 33% reduction from 1990 levels.
• Total national nitrogen oxide emissions from all sources in 1990 were about 46 billion pounds.
With implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments, total emissions of nitrogen oxides in
2007 are projected to decrease by about 10%. However, the electric utility emissions limits are
-------
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE: Areas of Opportunity Beyond 2000 35
based on burn rate (Ibs/MMBtu); there is no national emissions cap for nitrogen oxides as
there is for sulfur dioxide emissions.
Under Title I of the Clean Air Act , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing
additional nitrogen oxide controls on electric utility, other stationary and mobile sources in the
eastern states which if implemented, are projected to decrease total nitrogen oxide emissions
by about 35% more. An initial estimate is that implementing these controls and meeting the
new ozone and paniculate matter standards could reduce the amount of airborne nitrogen
impacting the Bay by nearly 17 million pounds a year—or about 23%.
Other forms of nitrogen which enter the Bay through air deposition are not currently regulated
or controlled through the Clean Air Act. Ammonia, for example, is a form of nitrogen that has
both natural and anthropogenic sources to atmospheric loadings. Current estimates are that
20% to 40% of the annual atmospheric nitrogen load comes from ammonia-related com-
pounds. The Bay Program is working towards quantifying ammonia emissions and characteriz-
ing its deposition in the watershed in advance of determining what options are available to
reduce ammonia emissions to the air.
-------
36 '997 Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation Summary Report
-------
1997
NUTRIENT REDUCTION
REEVALUTION SUMMARY REPORT
Chesapeake Bay Prograrr
PART
VIII CONCLUSION
As we approach 2000, it's fair to say that the Bay Program has made impressive progress toward the
nutrient goals set 10 years ago. However, we must accelerate our efforts to close the gap on the year
2000 goal, maintain those reduced loading levels into the future and if necessary adjust the nutrient
goals to help us achieve the water quality improvements needed to sustain living resources in the Bay. The
framework included in Directive 97-1 commits the Bay Program to these efforts.
Since 1983, our highest priority has been the restoration of the Bay's living resources and we are commit-
ted to achieving the water quality and other conditions necessary to support and maintain the living resources
of the Bay. We believe we must begin planning now to assure we have the structure and capacity in place to
take our efforts to restore the Chesapeake into the next century and meet the challenges that population
growth will bring to this commitment. We have confidence that our ability to work together, along with our
continued reliance on sound science and technology advancement, can make this commitment a reality.
37
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program is the cooperative partnership among Maryland;
Pennsylvania; Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission, a tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection agency,
representing the federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups.
The Chesapeake Bay Program was established in 1983 under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 • Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
------- |