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

-------