EPA
903/
1991.4
C.I
Chesapeake Bay Program
Status and Workplan
1991 Report to the United States
Congress
Environmental Protection Agency
Region m Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue - Suite 110
Annapolis, MD 21403
Requested by:
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
Chair: Barbara A. Mikulski
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
March 1991
-------
-------
;- /
»
Chesapeake Bay Program
Status and Workplan
1991 Report to the United States Congress
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IQ Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue - Suite 110
Annapolis, MD 21403
(V
Requested by:
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
Chair: Barbara A. Mikulski
cr>
CO
March 1991
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Executive Summary
This report, prepared for the United States Congress at the request of the Honorable
Barbara Mikulski, provides a snapshot view of the current Chesapeake Bay Program.
Many of the management efforts under the auspices of the Bay Program have been in place
for several years while others are still in development or in the early stages of
implementation. This report assesses the current status of these efforts and their
achievements to date while also providing a blueprint for future Bay Program planning. It
also gives a platform on which to base the requisite 1991 revaluation of the Bay
Agreement goals.
As the Chesapeake Bay Program moves into its sixteenth year, significant strides have
been made towards the goals laid out in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement In each of
the agreement categories — living resources, water quality, population growth and
development, public access, public information, education and participation, and program
management and governance — managers and scientists have pinpointed the strategies
required to meet the ambitious objectives. Many programs and policies are now in place to
achieve these goals.
lii the area of living resources, managers have emphasized the need for establishing
habitat requirements for a variety of important Bay species. As habitat criteria evolve,
through die collation and analysis of scientific data, a more precise relationship between the
Bay's animak and plants and its water quality aiy» unfolds. As we lessen the harvesting
pressures on many commercial species, remove blockages to historic spawning grounds,
an
-------
Public access to the Bay is essential to the long-term support of its restoration and
protection. To this end, the Executive Council developed a Public Access Strategy to
achieve several goals providing the public with increased opportunities for public
appreciation and enjoyment of the Bay. Wise development of Bay access areas will include
provisions for the protection of the Bay's resources, particularly in sensitive areas, and the
control of boat-generated wastes from recreation vessels.
One of the Bay's most immediate problems is the stream of people'who are continually
moving into the Bay region to work, live and take advantage of the Bay's natural
resources. Pollution control programs will quickly be rendered ineffective unless
population growth is addressed simultaneously. To mitigate the effects of continued
population expansion, state and local agencies are being provided with the technical tools to
channel growth to environmentally acceptable areas where development controls can be
applied.
Under the public information section of the Bay Agreement, die Executive Council
recognizes the need to educate citizens on the importance and sensitivities of the Bay and its
resources. Many public information and education programs have started up or continued
to expand, reaching an ever-widening audience. With citizen education, presumably, comes
wiser and more informed use of the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office has traditionally provided program management for
the Bay Program; in recent years, the ****** and the Chesapeake Bay Commission have
taken over some of this role. Program management supplies the administrative and
institutional structure to coordinate the tfchnj^! tayic elements outlined in the workplan.
The Chesapeake Bay Program, with federal, state and private participaiion* has prospered
as a multi-state pollution control and resource management effort
With continued cooperation both within and amongst each of the programmatic areas,
the Chesapeake Bay Program should continue to rJhrive and move towaids its ultimate
objective of restoring and revitalizing the waters, plants, *nd annual^ of the Chesapeake
Bay.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Status and Workplan
1991
INTRODUCTION
In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a five-year, $27
million program to determine the causes of declining Chesapeake Bay productivity,
representing the first step in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. The goals of the project
were to assess the damage done to the Bay, identify the major problems, and propose
alternative strategies to begin their correction. "A Framework for Action,"1 the main
report from this effort, targeted several areas of concern including: nutrient enrichment,
toxic materials, substantially increased areas of low dissolved oxygen, declines in living
resources, substantial population growth, and changes in land uses. These general areas
of concern form the basis of the planning and implementation program described in this
document.
Though numerous federal and state pollution control and resource restoration programs
were already in operation in 1983, there was no baywide institutional structure in existence
that could respond to "A Framework for Action." The Chesapeake Bay Agreement,2
signed by Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, and the EPA in late 1983, provided the structure for this joint response.
Augmenting the original agreement, 8 other federal agencies have since signed memoranda
of understanding with the EPA: the Soil Conservation Service, Corps of Engineers,
Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Extension Service, and Forest Service.
Early phases of the cleanup are documented in the "1985 Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan."3 The plan includes descriptions of established state and federal
programs designed to improve habitat, restore fish and shellfish populations, and reduce
nutrient and toxic substance inputs from industrial and municipal point sources and from
agricultural and urban nonpoint sources. The significance of these programs is recorded in
the Chesapeake Executive Council's annual progress reports.4-5
Based on the progress in these areas, the Executive Council expanded the scope of the
program and set specific goals for the future in the "1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement."6
During 1988, many of the commitments for technical studies and organizational
refinements were undertaken, and many are nearing completion.
-------
Figure 1 shows the commitments made in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement in the
following categories:
• Living Resources;
• Water Quality;
- Nutrient and Conventional Pollutant Controls;
- Basinwide Toxics Reduction; •- "
- Water Quality Monitoring;
• Population Growth and Development;
• Public Access;
• Public Information, Education, and Participation; and,
• Program Management and Governance.
Figure 2 illustrates how the major elements of the workplan fit together, connecting
aspects of various program activities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation
Committee oversees aU the program's technical work. Major subcommittees are delegated
specific aspects of die program.
-------
-------
-------
LIVING RESOURCES
Background:
The living resources of the Bay are what make it"famous. The first explorers and
colonists were attracted to this area by their wealth and abundance which later became the
basis of a renowned seafood industry. Declines in productivity, diversity and abundance,
however, have now made living resources a principal concern of the Bay Program.
Monitoring living resources has proved the best barometer for evaluating the Bay's
restoration and protection program. While they act as barometer, the Bay's living
resources are also subject to uncertainties in measurement of their response and to
pressures that are independent of a degraded environment. Climatic changes, which have
a tremendous influence on resource stocks, are largely beyond control. Disease, although
sometimes connected to poor habitat quality, can cause widespread declines—witness the
Bay's oyster populations. Natural population dynamics on scales of years to decades
combined with fishing pressure are probably the most significant factors influencing
stocks of commercially and recreanonally important species. All these factors complicate
the integration of the program's pollution control activities with planning for the
restoration and protection of resources.
Objectives:
The long-term goal of the living resources workplan is to develop an array of activities
that will attain the goals set forth by the 1987 Bay Agreement. Objectives chosen to meet
the goals of the agreement focus on three areas. The first is habitat restoration including
die removal of impediments to migratory fish, die restoration and protection of wetlands,
and the restoration of the Bay's submerged aquatic grasses. Restoration efforts along with
habitat protection programs are implimented by providing benchmarks for use by water
quality planners. The third element of the program focuses on the coordinated
management of the Bay's living resource stocks. A strong monitoring and data
management program ensures that the information is available to meet the analytic needs cf
all aspects of the program.
Accomplishments and Milestones:
The Living Resources Subcommittee met the first commitment of the "1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement" when its report, "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources,"7 was accepted by die Chesapeake Executive Council. This report,
now being revised and updated, established the program's guidelines for restoring and
protecting suitable habitats for representative species of commercial, recreational, and
ecological importance.
The first studies of living resource management requirements stressed, the collection of
data and the preparation of benchmarks useful to pollution control planners and to future
living resource management efforts.7-10 A second set of studies began to define some of
the basic requirements of programs to protect the most threatened Chesapeake Bay
habitats.11*15 A third series of studies defined the specific actions needed to coordinate the
management of selected species that are of economic importance,16-25
-------
One bay wide plan, the "Striped Bass Management Plan,"19 guided the opening of
limited commercial and recreational fishery in 1990 (Figure 3). The "Blue Crab
Management Plan"21 was the first baywide effort to plan for the management of an
important fishery' before declines in the resource forced more dramatic action (Figure 4).
Other plans are targeted towards stabilizing and restoring populations which have
historically declined (Figure 5). ..
Approach and Future Workplan:
Because a majority of the living resources commitments in the 1987 Bay Agreement
have been met, the living resources component of the program will focus on
implementation in the following areas:
• Continuing the development and implementation of baywide resource management
plans;
• Setting living resources restoration goals for Chesapeake Bay and examining the
wider use of surrogate measures to define goals where precise biological endpoints
remain elusive;
* Establishing regional living resources habitat quality goals through the 1991 Baywide
Nutrient Reduction Strategy reevaluation and targeting habitat restoration;
• Exploring opportunities for living resource habitat creation; and,
• Quantifying relationships and interactions between components of the ecosystem so
that the Bay can be managed as an integrated ecosystem.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
In working towards the long-term goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program, it is critically
important to ensure that water quality improvements focus on the needs of the Bay's
species, that ecological values be a vital concern in all aspects of planning for future
population growth and development, and that the public be informed of progress towards
meeting living resource goals. Just as living resource concerns influence other concerns
of die Bay restoration effort, there is a growing recognition that more needs to be done to
understand the relationship between living resources and their habitats. Future
management will evolve beyond simple habitat restoration and preservation to include
repair of broken and weak linkages imbedded deep within the food chain.
The need to repair food chain linkages has long been masked by overwhelming
pollution and overharvesting pressures but is becoming more apparent as restoration
efforts prove effective and diminish these stresses. Beyond the Bay's restoration, this
knowledge of linkages will enable Bay managers to predict and prevent future stresses on
the Bay's health. A systematic method needs to be developed to better understand and
quantify: (1) the relationships between the lower and higher forms of living resources; (2)
whether meaningful links can be made with the Bay water quality model between water
quality and higher forms of living resources; and, (3) the interplay between living
resources and water quality.
-------
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990
Figures. Striped Eass: Responding to Protection
100
90.
80.
70-
60.
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
•28 '34 '40 '46 '52 '58 '64 70 76 '82 '88
Blue Crabs: Maintain Harvests
Over Time
-------
so
40_
30-
•5
J20:
I 10-
Oy«l«r
40
WMkftsh
WhlMPweti
1928 1938 1948 19S8 196* 197* 1688 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 19
1988
Figures. Other Species Continue Their Decline
8
-------
WATER QUALITY
Nutrient and Conventional Pollution Controls
Background:
Nutrient "and selected conventional pollution control measures receive the greatest
emphasis among the activities in the Bay Program. Two programs form the backbone of
this area of Bay restoration. The "Nutrient Reduction Strategy"26 charts the
implementation of a 40% baywide reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus discharges by the
year 2000. These ambitious reductions will be accomplished through additional treatment
measures at municipal and industrial treatment plants and focused implementation of
nonpoint source control programs. The second program, the "Conventional Pollutants
Control Strategy,"27 outlines ongoing efforts to reduce point and nonpoint source
pollutants baywide.
Implementation of the "Nutrient Reduction Strategy" through 1990 involved clarifying
assumptions used to estimate point and nonpoint source loads thereby obtaining more
refined, reliable information. By the end of 1990. the development of the Chesapeake Bay
Water Quality Model by the Corps of Engineers was ncaring completion. This model and
supplementary statistical analyses relate the load reduction goals to the Bay's future water
quality. The model's simulations will be used extensively in the upcoming reevaluation of
40% nutrient reduction goal.
Objectives:
The objective of the nutrient control program is to reduce inputs of these pollutants to
levels that will deter algae growth. Excessive algae threatens submerged aquatic
vegetation and depletes dissolved oxygen upon which living resources depend.
Accomplishments and Milestones:
Progress in nutrient reduction efforts was first seen in reduced discharges from point
sources and can now be seen in improvements to the Bay's water quality.
* Phosphorus levels are dropping in the Bay; and,
• Submerged grasses are slowly recovering—most effectively in the mid-Bay where
stringent point source controls have existed the longest.
There are other signs of progress; nitrogen controls are beginning to work and fertilizer
use is down 30% in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is fortunately able to measure and-document
improvements to water quality due to its heavy investment in water quality monitoring and
data management These techniques are combined with the more common methods of
tracking control actions and construction progress as surrogates for environmental
progress. These activities are discussed in a later section of this report
-------
Figure 6 shows a 16% decrease in the Bay's phosphorus between 1985 and 1990.
This drop is attributed to extensive point source and nonpoint source control efforts as
well as a ban on phosphate, detergents in all three agreement states and the District of
Columbia. These reductions were achieved despite a significant growth in wastewater
flows during the same period (Figure 7).
One of the most sensitive indicators of overall water'quality in the Bay arc the acres of
submerged aquatic vegetation. The Bay Program has inventoried these grasses and
researched the relationship between the health of the grasses and water quality. Since
1985, their coverage has increased in the mid-Bay 130% (Figure 8).
While there are signs of improvement, there are still several areas that require additional
work. Nitrogen levels have not gone down in the past few years (Figure 9) because the
control of nitrogen has not kept pace with the growth in wastewater flows. Although
seven Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) have complied with important sections
of the "Nutrient Reduction Strategy" by installing nitrogen treatment systems, nitrogen
load reduction has fallen behind nitrogen load increases caused by population growth.
Nitrogen loads will be reduced when an additional 45 POTWs scheduled for nitrogen
treatment systems are upgraded Eighteen of these upgrades are currently in the planning
stages.
Progress in reducing nitrogen is not confined to point source controls. Across the
watershed, a major emphasis is being placed on nutrient management.28 Technical and
financial assistance programs are being established to implement this technique which
utilizes nutrients already on the farm to meet crop requirements. Fertilizer is regarded as a
supplement under this system and its use is prescribed sparingly. Utilizing this procedure,
fertilizer usage has dropped 30% in the three Bay Program states during a period in which
its use has decreased only 1 % nationwide. Figure 10 illustrates this decline.
Because nitrogen is a major focus of nutrient management, extensive results are
anticipated. Results will take some time, however, because nitrogen travels from field to
Bay predominantly through groundwater, a process that takes several years. Even though
fertilizer use has recently decreased therefore, reduced levels of nitrogen in the Bay will
not appear in the near future.
The tables presented in Appendix A show the results of the Chesapeake Bay's unique
nonpoint source nutrient control and abatement efforts. This information is supplied by
the sate grantees to EPA-Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (EPA-CBLO) quarterly as a
deliverable under the programs implementation grants. The purpose is to track the use of
grant funds that financially assist farmers and local jurisdictions to install best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source nutrient loads.
Appendix A also shows the distribution of funds expended by the state grantees. These
data illustrate that slightly less than half of the funds actually go into BMP construction. A
significant portion of funds are allocated to technical assistance and education programs.
This is an important expenditure not only because it supports a largely voluntary program
to achieve the 40% reduction goal, but because this assistance also leads to BMP
construction without government financial assistance.
The Chesapeake Bay program has provided grants to the states and the District of
Columbia to implement nonpoint source abatement and control programs beginning in
early 1985. Through FY90, $43.73 million in federal funds (Appendix A, Table J-) was
granted to the states, which they matched dollar for dollar, bringing the total to $87.46
10
-------
million. The majority of these funds ($48.17 million—Table 2) assist farmers in
installation of agricultural BMPs that comprise a combination of nutrient (fertilizer and
manure) management, animal waste storage, and sediment erosion control devices which,
together, control nonpoint source pollution.
From 1985 through the first half of 1990, the Chesapeake Bay nqqpoim source
pollution control program has helped farmers (Appendix A):
• Install over 11,900 individual BMPs;
• Treat over 268,436 acres of farm land, 8% of the basin identified by the USDA as
high erosion cropland, reducing sediment loss by over 1 million tons per year,
* Install 1300 systems to store and manage 2.7 million tons of animal wastes or 9% of
the waste produced in the basin; and,
• Prepare over 600 nutrient management plans for 66,000 acres of cropland.
Approach and Future Workplan:
The point and nonpoint source control programs are supported by an intense program
of management and planning. Program management consists of such activities as
targeting areas needing controls, educating landowners, contracting for designs,
installation, inspection and reporting. Program planning consists of a series of
investigations outlined in the original "Nutrient Reduction Strategy."29*30 The most
significant of these was the report of the independent NFS Evaluation Panel,31
commissioned to evaluate the adequacy of current programs to achieve the 40% nutrient
reduction goal by the year 2000. The panel's report concluded that although current
programs are effective, they are insufficient to meet the year 2000 goal and proposed
several refinements including:
• Improvement of targeting systems;
* More effective education programs;
• States adopting a common conceptual framework for nutrient management;
* States more aggressively ensuring the effective management of animal wastes;
• States continuing to increase their emphasis on controlling urban sources of nutrients;
• A greater effort be made to ensure that information requested and gathered supports
policy and program decisions; and,
• A program management framework be adopted which accounts for the full range
of nutrient inputs and outputs within the basin.
While the panel's report will guide the refinement of these already impressive pro-
grams, studies are underway to confirm the goal toward which they are working.
1 1
-------
Overall planning for the nutrient reduction program will examine whether the 40% reduction
is still the target and how it or a new goal can best be met. This effort is guided by two
computerized models:
• The Watershed Model to simulate the discharge and transport of pollution from
sources across the watershed to the Bay, including estimates of the contributions
from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen; and, - -
• The Time-Variable Water Quality Model to predict what projected loads will mean in
terms of future Bay water quality.
The latter will be linked with air program models and utilized to determine the water quality
benefits which will result from reductions in atmospheric nitrogen deposition through the
implementation of the new Clean Air Act A joint air/water strategy to abate atmospheric
nitrogen deposition is in the initial stages of development
Joining the numerous assessments of the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls, additional
technical information32'36 has been developed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost and feasibility
of biological nutrient removal at sewage treatment plants throughout the basin.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
Work under this heading is associated with the control of conventional pollutants because
controls implemented for nutrients often control conventional pollutants as well. Monitoring
programs are essential to refine and guide nutrient reduction programs; therefore, Modeling and
Nonpoint Source subcommittees work closely with the control program. Control programs for
nutrient and conventional pollutants are intended to improve water quality to protect and
revitalize the Bay's living resources. The Living Resource Subcommittee is establishing water
quality objectives for the protection of living resources as the central focus of the pollution
reduction program.
Oct'84 Oct.'85 Oct'86 Oct'87 Oct.'88 Oct'89 Oct.'90
Figure e. Phosphorus in the Bay is Going Down
12
-------
1000
Total Phosphorus
Loads
1950
1960 1965
1970
1980
1985
1988
Figure?. Municipal Flows and Total Phosphorus
Loads Originating Below the Fall Line
1950-1988
36000-
27000-j
<
O 18000-
tf>
9000-j
Figure 8.
78 79 '80 '81 "82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
Submerged Grasses are Slowly
Recovering in the Mid-Bay
13
-------
rogen Mass(kg103)
> 8 1
*. P *
13
o
0-
O
0 ,0
^ f*\"^ ^^ ^'"t
^^ ^\ XS5 ^j '^"'^Cj
o '5%> 0 ^b o
•^o ^ J oo o° ^ o.-T o:>
o
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 19J
Figure 9. Nitrogen in the Bay is Still Rising
500
400-
£ 200-\
tn
100-
•80 '81 '82 *83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89
Figure 10. Nitrogen Controls Have Begun to Work
Fertilizer Use is Down 30%
14
-------
WATER QUALITY
Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Background:
The 1988 "Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy"37 builds on toxic
control activities originating from federal laws and programs undertaken in the 1970s and
pursued by the states with increasing intensity through the 1980s. The strategy commits
the signatories to take a comprehensive approach in working "towards a toxics-free Bay
by eliminating the discharge of toxic substances from all controllable sources."37
Toxic reduction programs recognized by the "Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy"
include state and federal programs under the Clean Water Act, related media-specific
pollution control legislation, and special initiatives under the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Controls on toxic discharges to the Bay include regulation of industrial point sources
under NPDES permits, pretreatment requirements for industrial discharges flowing into
municipal treatment plants, storm water controls, state and federal regulation of specific
pesticides, and an increasing number of pollution prevention programs. Under the new
dean Air Act, additional controls will be imposed.
Research needed to more accurately characterize sources, exposures, and effects of
toxics is noted in the Toxics Research Strategy, part of the "Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy Appendices"38 adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council, This research
strategy will be updated periodically over the next several years.
Objectives:
In addition to the long-term goal stated above, ifac "Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy" includes an interim goab
"By the year 2000, the input of toxic substances from all
controllable sources to the Chesapeake Bay win be reduced
to levels mat result in no toxic or bioaccumularive impact
on the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.
The strategy contains a number of commitments and mflestones to assess progress
toward the Ions—term coal. TnT^r^y^jrsi ^* coals include t^^ phased ffn^nnft^on of ^^utc and
chronic toxic discharges from major municipal and industrial point sources by 1996. The
point source toxics reduction goals mandated through the Clean Water Act wfll be achieved
through the Individual Control Strategies at specific discharges identified under section
304(1) of the Act Achievement of the point source goals will also be pursued through
application of consistent criteria for defining toxic discharges and initiation of toxitity
reduction evaluations.
*
Defining sources and loads will be the first step in reducing nonpoint sources of toxics.
Regulation of stormwater discharges will reduce urban runoff of toxics. Further
understanding of the magnitude of atmospheric deposition of toxics has led to more
specific targeting of air emissions. A list of 18 compounds targeted by EPA for
nationwide pollution reduction and prevention actions focus on air sources.39 Additional
15
-------
educational and outreach efforts will concentrate on a baywide implementation of
Integrated Pest Management — an approach that carefully surveys pests, proposes the
selective use of pesticides, and initiates control programs to reduce reliance upon
chemicals. While this technique has been applied most commonly in agriculture, there is
now widespread interest in urban areas.
Accomplishments and Milestones:
Since implementation of the strategy in September 1989, there has been significant
progress towards achievement in several of the most critical toxics reduction strategy
• The first Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List40 was developed;
• Work on the basinwide toxics loading inventory began and is scheduled for
completion by May 1991;
• The first year of a jointEPA/NOAA toxics research program, yielding a total of
$800,000 for 10 directed research projects, has already produced significant findings;
• The fiist basinwide survey of p^*riHH>» me was completed;
• Bay basin states' integrated pest management programs were expanded;
• Baywide atmospheric deposition and tall line toxics monitoring programs were
* A haygririft pilot amhient tmrieity agw«nw>nf program wag imti
In FY89, FY90, andFY91 appropriations were directed towards Implementing the
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy. The funds supported research and assessment of
the impact of toxics on the Bay system, with a portion of the funds directed towards
prevcnxanvc actions. In FY92, the President's budget proposes to continue directing
resources towards implementing the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy.
Approach and Future Workplan:
To prepare for the reevaluation of the "Basinwide Toxic Reduction Strategy" in 1992,
will be Didccu oo pfoviQipj? tn^ Q3t&* inionTifltiftHi *M*" institutional
anisms necessary to:
• Build on existing regulatory programs;
• Define the extent of the Bay's toxic problems and the impact they have on living
resources and human health;
* Develop a more aggressive, cost-effective pollution prevennon'program;
• Investigate opportunity for a pollution prevention waste exchange program;
* Expand die existing Integrated Pesticide Management nn>grain to contol pesticide
16
-------
nonpoint source runoff;
• Acquire data and information necessary to guide future reduction decisions;
• Assess non-traditional sources of toxics and toxicity with emphasis on cross-media
problems;
• Target toxics of concern;
• Reduce loadings of toxics to all media from inventoried sources; and,
* Develop and validate tools for targeting and quantifying toxic problems and
measuring progress.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
Due to the nature of toxic problems, the basinwide strategy implementation activities
will continue to be integrated with most of the other components of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, Research and assessment studies and resultant reduction targets will be closely
associated with efforts to improve Chesapeake Bay habitats. Monitoring and data
management activities will be coordinated with similar activities already underway in other
aspects of the program. Point source inventories, already developed to guide nutrient
reduction programs, will continue to be used in toxic reduction programs.
Addressing the implications of multi-media transfers and impacts of toxics will require
new emphasis of agency personnel involvement and consideration of regulatory mandates.
The Clean Air Act amendments and the significance of atmospheric deposition as a
potential source of toxics to the Bay basin provide important examples of the need to
assess multi-media transfers.
Significant efforts will be made to increase the role of federal agencies and their
facilities in strategy implementation. Involving the federal partners in the Bay restoration
program will create additional opportunities for attaining common objectives by integrating
resources.
17
-------
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Monitoring
Background:
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program, as originally described within "A
Framework for Action-—Appendix F,"41 has expanded its definition to include other
monitoring activities within the Bay basin not directly associated with sampling the Bay's
tidal waters. The Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee has
correspondingly expanded its coordination efforts to include fall line, non-tidal tributary,
and small watershed monitoring programs. These efforts are enumerated and mapped in
the "Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Program Atlas."42-43 This coordination includes
locations, timing, methods used, quality assurance, and correlation between living
resource survey programs and water quality data. As a result, the role of the bay wide
Monitoring Water Quality Program has become more closely linked to the short and long-
term needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program management agencies.
Objectives:
The overall objectives of the baywide Water Quality Monitoring Program are to:
• Characterize the present state of the Chesapeake Bay, including spatial and seasonal
variability, in terms of water quality parameters;
• Determine long-term trends or changes that develop in response to pollution control
programs; and,
* Integrate the information collected in the baywide Water Quality Monitoring Program
with other components of the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of water quality and how it might impact living
resources.
In the near term, the program will focus on collecting and analyzing information useful
to the 1991 Nutrient Reduction Strategy Revaluation. The Monitoring Program's role
will involve detecting water quality changes resulting from the nutrient management efforts
and developing recommendations as to whether nutrient management should be reoriented
after 1991. With a recommendation to redefine the management strategy, the program
must determine how to meet living resources habitat objectives by the year 7"
Accomplishments and Milestones:
The water quality and living resources data collected and compiled through the
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring program has been applied to: characterize the current state of
the Bay's ecosystem;44 document the response of total phosphorus in the upper Bay to
recent control measures;45 and, examine historical variations in dissolved oxygen.46 As a
result of the Chesapeake Bay Coordinated Split Sample Program,47 the measurement
variability among the 10 different laboratories involved in the Monitoring Program has
18
-------
decreased. In addition, the Monitoring Subcommittee has revised its charge to meet the
changing management needs of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Approach and Future Workplan:
The Monitoring Subcommittee is currently assessing the ability of the existing
monitoring network and sampling frequency to detect progress towards meeting the
specific water quality goals recommended for living resource habitat. The assessment will
also explore the role of non-traditional sampling techniques such as remote sensing and
buoy deployment and the role Environment Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
can play in supplementing monitoring efforts directed at meeting management information
needs. In addition, the Monitoring Program will sup-port the 1991 revaluation of the
40% nutrient reduction goal.
During the next year, the following products will be prepared:
• A report reassessing the current monitoring program;
• The 1991 Water Quality Characterization Report; and,
• A guidance document for the analysis of water quality trends.
The following activities will be undertaken:
• Evaluate the results from near field pilot BMP and small watershed monitoring pro-
grams and discern the relationship to adjoining tributary and fall line water quality
monitoring programs;
• Define management information needs as data quality objectives to guide the ongoing
monitoring program;
• Assess and document the ongoing water quality monitoring programs in detecting
anticipated rates of changes in regional water quality and meeting management
information needs;
• Develop a baywide data analysis, interpretation, and reporting strategy;
• Review existing toxics monitoring programs and develop a schedule for the design
and implementation of new toxics monitoring programs;
• Design and implement a long-term sediment monitoring program (with Toxics Work
Group of the Water Quality Commitment Team); and,
• Reinstitute, in cooperation with the Toxics Subcommittee, sampling sediment trace
metals and organic analysis in the Bay's mainstem.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
The water quality component of the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program will continue
to be closely coordinated with the sample collection and data interpretation efforts of the
living resources and toxics monitoring programs. The Living Resources Monitoring Plan,
adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council in July 1988, targets better integration
19
-------
between living resources and water quality monitoring programs through a two-year
implementation of programmatic and technical recommendations.
20
-------
PUBLIC ACCESS
Background:
The "1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement" calls for increased opportunities for public
appreciation and enjoyment of the Bay and its tributaries. Access to the Bay is central to
the public's appreciation, and public appreciation is essential to the long-term support of
Bay restoration and protection. The Bay's access points, though numerous and varied,
need to be more visible and their number expanded to fully accomplish these goals.
Objectives:
The goal of promoting increased opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of
the Bay and its tributaries includes four objectives:
• Improve and maintain access to the Bay including public beaches, parks, and boat
ramps;
• Increase opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing;
• Secure shoreline acreage to maintain open space and provide opportunities for
passive recreation; and,
• Secure necessary acreage to protect unique habitat and environmentally sensitive
areas.
Accomplishments and Milestones:
M
To help achieve their goals, the Executive Council adopted a "Public Access
Strategy"48 which includes an inventory of current access opportunities. "Bay and
River,"49 a subsequent report, is a comprehensive guide to facilities around the tidal
Chesapeake Bay system and the Susquehanna River.
In December 1990, the Bay area states and the District of Columbia completed the
"Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Plan."50 The plan shows existing public and private
access sites and identifies locations where additional access is needed. The document
contains information on what is available at each existing site. In addition, it identifies
important planning factors which need to be considered in the development of future
access areas. This information is enhanced by the "Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access
Technical Assistance Report,"51 a companion document which details the selection and
development of public access sites.
The "Public Access Plan" will be distributed to Bay area localities and will be an
important tool in directing the development of public access and in maintaining existing
access opportunities. It will also track the progress made in meeting the high demands for
public access to the Bay, its tidal tributaries, and the Susquehanna River.
21
-------
Approach and Future Workplan:
Special coordinating work under this category has been completed. State and local
agencies are responsible for implementing access plans.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
As plans are made to secure necessary acreage for Bay access, provisions to protect
unique habitat and environmentally sensitive areas are instigated. Working in conjunction
with the Living Resources Subcommittee, access plans are reviewed to safeguard
designated Estuarine Research Reserves and other sensitive habitats.
Special emphasis of the Public Access Program is given to the control of waste
discharges from recreational boats.52 This will be directed, in part, by the public facilities
that need to provide pumpouts and other land-based waste handling facilities.
22
-------
POPULATION GROWTH A*ND DEVELOPMENT
Background:
Commitments in this category reflect the recognition that unless major changes in
development patterns occur, pollution control programs intended to substantially improve
the Bay's water quality will eventually be overtaken by the increasing watershed
population. The critical nature of this projection was underscored in the report
"Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Year 2020
Panel.""
Objectives:
The objectives of the Bay Program's emphasis on population growth and development
is to diminish the impact of land development by making those involved more aware of
environmental concerns. The approach is to provide local, state and federal agencies with
technical tools that protect environmentally sensitive areas by channeling the population's ~<
growth to environmentally acceptable areas where development controls can be applied.
Innovative techniques are promoted to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts of growth.
Government projects are also regulated to ensure that they exemplify sound environmental
management. These objectives will be met through incentive programs, technical
assistance to local governments, careful planning of state and federal development
projects, the application of the "Chesapeake Bay Development Policies and Guidelines,"54
and increased state-level responsibility for such growth-related activities as land
preservation, capital budgets, and infrastructure planning.
Accomplishments and Milestones:
•
To aid in implementing programs and ensuring that growth and development are
sensitive to the Bay's need for protection, the Executive Council adopted the "Chesapeake
Bay Development Policies and Guidelines" which is directed towards state and federal
activities. The Technical Assistance and Incentives to Local Governments"55 was also
drawn up to inform and assist local governments in their attempts to minimize the adverse
affects of population growth and development
Both Maryland and Virginia have recognized the need to play increasingly stronger
roles in working with local governments to manage growth in sensitive areas. Each state
established standards, adopted regulations, and began aggressive programs of technical
assistance to implement them. Maryland adopted its "Critical Area Law"56 in 1984 and
Virginia adopted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in 1988. Both of,these laws
mandate the strong involvement of local governments in the discharge of their land use
control responsibilities. Due to a lack of projected growth and development, Pennsylvania
and the District of Columbia have not implemented similar programs.
"Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Year 2020
Panel," a report produced by a blue ribbon panel as part of the 1987 Agreement, has been
very influential in highlighting the problems of growth and present development patterns
within the watershed. Consequently, both Maryland and Virginia established their own
study groups to examine further growth and development measures that may be needed to
23
-------
implement the themes accepted in the 2020 Panel's report. In Virginia, the Commission
on Population Growth and Development has been at work for some time, transforming it-
self from a.legislative study group to a full legislative commission with an executive
director and an emerging multi-year workplan. Maryland recently completed the reports of
the Governor's Commission on Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
Approach and Future Workplan:
The management of population growth and development impacts is a state and local
government responsibility. Federal involvement is confined to providing technical
information and planning tools to state and local governments. To this end, a substantial
FY91 and FY92 EPA effort is planned to inventory land uses and land cover and refine
computerized watershed models useful in planning nonpoim source control programs.
This inventory, in conjunction with the inventories of point source dischargers, will allow
the future condition of the watershed to be simulated as an aid to planning.
State and federal compliance with standards of good practice is essential in providing
models for local governments to follow. Reviews of these practices, therefore, are
planned.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
Population growth and development activities are directly associated with plans for
wetland protection noted under the Living Resources Workplan. These concerns for
habitat protection are also related to wastewater treatment and nonpoint source control
programs and to review processes established for environmental impact assessment and
funding coordination. With new programs under the Clean Air Act, the program will
examine the water quality impacts of discharges to the air through motor vehicles.
24
-------
PUBLIC INFORMATION,'EDUCATION, AND
PARTICIPATION
Background .. .-
Commitments in this category reflect the importance the Executive Council places on
information and education of the public about the Bay's resources. The 1987 Agreement
declared that "the understanding and support of the general public and interest groups are
essential to sustaining the long-term commitment to the restoration and protection of the
Chesapeake Bay system..."
Objective
Creation of state, federal, and baywide communication plans were priority
oomrmtmems to support the Public Information, Education and Participation goals of the
agreement Joint efforts were framed to coordinate and broaden the reach and
effectiveness of information and education activities carried out by participating state and
federal agencies. These have included state and federal communications plans that
implement the baywide plan's general proposals, a public review and comment process,
and annual Bay awareness events.
Accomplishments and Milestones
The Public Information and Education Subcommittee was created to involve the public
in the Bay's welfare through awareness and understanding. The kit, "The Chesapeake
Bay—-It Starts With You," includes activity cards targeted for different ages which
describe projects that demonstrate the role of nutrients, wetlands, and other facets of the
Chesapeake ecosystem. The kits are distributed to schools, scout units, civic groups and
other organizations throughout the region.
The Chesapeake Regional Information Service (CRIS) gives residents of the watershed
toll-free telephone access to up-to-date reports on Bay Program activities, publications,
and other resource materials. CRIS also responds to specific information requests.
"Citizen Report," the Alliance newsletter is regularly distributed to more than 16,000
readers in the Bay region, providing timely information about current restoration activities
and in-depth features on topics such as global wanning, reforestation, and the threat from
oil spills. The Alliance also produced "white papers" on selected subjects important to the
program. The Alliance "Baybook: A Guide to Reducing Water Pollution at Home" went
into its fourth printing.
The Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee and EPA continued distribution of "Bay
Barometer," a monthly feature highlighting environmental topics and reporting on water
clarity and dissolved oxygen levels in the Bay. The feature is distributed to newspapers, a
magazine, newsletters, and some 400 schools, colleges, businesses, museums, libraries
and government agencies.
The Alliance continues to support its citizen monitoring program which uses volunteers
to monitor the Bay. This monitoring began in 1985 on the James River in Virginia and the
25
-------
Patuxent River in Maryland, and expanded in 1986 to include the Conestoga River in
Pennsylvania. Information collected by the citizen volunteers feeds into the Bay Program
data center, supplementing measurements from mainstem and tributary monitoring stations
maintained by state agencies.
State education programs have grown in support under the agreement. Virginia's Bay
Team Teachers travel throughout the Bay area each academic year providing instruction to
thousands of students. Sponsored by the Council on the Environment, these teachers
from the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences cover a wide range of topics related to Bay
cleanup.
Other activities included distribution to teachers of instructional materials on the Bay
Program and a soils and land use curriculum. A library resource file about Pennsylvania's
Chesapeake Bay Program was established at 12 central Pennsylvania public libraries. The
Pennsylvania Bay Education Resource List was updated in October 1989, and now
includes over 120 items in 12 categories,. The list has been distributed to more than 300
individuals and organizations.
In Maryland, the One Million Marylanders for the Bay program continued to grow in
1989 with tens of thousands of residents now pledging to undertake Bay-saving measures
in their homes. Participants also receive a quarterly newsletter, "Chesapeack," which
provides updates on Bay Agreement commitments, information about state restoration
activities, tips on pollution control, and a Bay calendar.
Maryland sponsored a 10-day festival, Party on the Bay, in August 1989 to call
attention to the restoration program. Volunteers handed out educational materials to more
than 60,000 citizens at craft shows, crab feasts, fishing tournaments and other events in
more than two dozen communities.
A storm drain painting project, which originated in Anne Arundel County, uses stencils
to mark storm drains with the message, "Chesapeake Bay Drainage/Don't Dump," as a
reminder to citizens that the drains cany water to local streams and eventually to the Bay.
Maryland's income tax checkoff for the Bay raised $964,000 in its first year of
operation. The revenue is split between the State Endangered Species Fund and the
Chesapeake Bay Trust, which uses the checkoff funds as well as other contributions to
expand citizen involvement projects in the Bay watershed.
The Interstate Commission on die Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) sponsors an
education program funded by District grants to encourage public interest and involvement
in the Anacostia River basin restoration.
The Pennsylvania Bay Education Office continued to promote the Bay Program through
public information, education and outreach projects, starting with participation in the
annual Pennsylvania Farm Show.
The office produced several new fact sheets and technical notes and published a
brochure on the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Program and the role of county
conservation districts. Regular issues of the newsletter, "Keystone in the Clean-up," were
distributed to individuals and organizations.
26
-------
Approach and Future Workplan
While the specific content of the Communication Plan is being reviewed, it is expected
that future programs will consist of many of the elements currently found in the program.
Relationship to Other Programs
Public information and education programs are related to all other elements of the
program. This aspect of the program gives the public opportunities to get involved in the
Bay Program. This area of the program educates the public on the value of the Bay and
the programs underway to restore and protect it, leading to more informed choices when
supporting Bay projects.
27
-------
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
Background:
The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office traditionally provided program management ser-
vices to the Bay Program. Over the past few years, the states and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission'have also provided some of these services to a far greater degree than in the
recent past. Whichever organization provides them, the objectives remain the same.
Objectives:
The objective of program management is to provide administrative and institutional
structures which facilitate the conduct and the completion of the technical tasks enumerated
under other elements of the workplan, and to provide public understanding of the program
to foster sustained support
Accomplishments and Milestones:
The Chesapeake Bay Program has prospered as a major multi-state pollution control
and resource management effort involving more than 40 committees and standing work
groups. This multi-dimensional effort involves nine federal agencies and local
governments and numerous private groups. Over the years, this program has been
credited with many technical achievements, and the recognition that its formula for
cooperation and coordination produces management results. Program management is
intended to ensure that immediate as well as long-term needs are met so that progress can
continue.
Approach and Future Workplan:
Program management includes activities involving research, public information,
education and participation, data management, budget preparation, grant and contract
administration, and committee support. Tasks in these categories include:
- Implementing the "Comprehensive Research Plan"57 approved by the Executive
Council in 1988. Under this plan, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
will develop and annually update:
- A "Chesapeake Basin Research Directory"58 with system design and data
compilation. This directory is now in draft form;
- An assessment of the previous year's Bay Program research achievements;
and,
- A list of research priorities and estimates of funding and resource
requirements.
• Preparing public information, education and participation activities outlined in the
"Baywide Communication Plan"59 that provides for
28
-------
- Continuing public review of the Bay Program reports and their
implementation;
- Implementing projects to increase public awareness and knowledge of the
Bay Program;
* Improving coordination among agencies and jurisdictions which will
. - increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of information and education
programs; and,
- Supporting the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Local Government
Advisory Committee.
• Funding the Implementation Committee's budget, data management services for the
monitoring program, water quality and living resources programs through
documentation of the historic data base, and further development and use of the
Geographic Information System;
• Providing grant and contract administration for EPA funds to the program, including
grant awards, grant modifications, monthly status reports, monthly financial reports,
and closeouts of current grants; and,
• Supporting the Executive Council through its Implementation Committee,
subcommittees, and workgroups and by preparing the Council's Annual Report.
Relationship to Other Program Elements:
As noted in the "Objectives" section, program management supports all elements of
the program and, therefore, must have an integral relationship with all committees,
subcommittees, and workgroups.
29
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY GRANT FUNDING FOR STATE
NONPOINT SOURCE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Funding . Provided For:
Program
Admin. & Technical Education
Planning' Assistance^ & Research^
fS million) CS million) fS million)
Total Stale
Financial Habitat & Federal
Assistance4 Restoration^ Grant Funds6
fS million) fS million) (S million)
FY 84-88
PA
MD
DC
VA
TOTAL
FY 89
PA
MD
DC
VA
TOTAL
FY 90
PA
MD
EC
VA
TOTAL
Program
Total
FY 84-90
PA
MD
DC
VA
TOTAL
2.88
0.03
0.68
3.02
6.61
0.796
0.0
0.667
0.47
1.933
0.418
0.046
0.074
0.336
0.874
4.094
0.076
1.421
3.826
9.417
3.45
0.12
1.75
4.19
9.51
1.593
0.12
0.199
1.767
3.679
1.972
0.16
0.663
2.024
4.819
7.015
0.4
2.612
7.981
18.008
4.58
0.07
0.2
3.36
8.21
0.796
0.8
0.53
0.544
2.67
0.24
0.195
0.623
0.656
1.714
5.616
1.065
1.353
4.56
12.594
8.08
18.72
1.94
7.95
36.69
0.796
3.781
0.398
1.2
6.175
1.025
3.205
0.0
1.074
5.304
9.901
25.706
2.338
10.224
48.169
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.175
0.199
0.085
0.0
0.459
0.175
0.199
0.085
0.0
0.459
18.99
18.94
4.57
18.52
61.02
3.981
3.981
1.327
3.981
13.27
3.83
3.805
1.447
4.091
13.173
26.801
26.726
7.344
26.592
87.463
1. Activities and staff necessary to arrange, plan, and oversee contracts for nonpoint source
abatement and control practices.
2. Technical assistance necessary to plan, design, and install abatement and control practices.
3. Education and research necessary to support the program.
4. Financial assistance to land owners to subsidize a portion of capital cost of abatement and
control measures.
5. Financial assistance to cover a portion of the capital cost necessary for installing practices
that restore wetlands, SAV beds and other habitats.
6. Funds are 50% state and 50% federal. States may have additional program funds that are
used but are not tracked by EPA.
30
-------
TABLE 2. NONPOINT SOURCE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Nonpoint Source
Abatement and
Control Measures
1985-1987
Management Measures
Structural Measures
Animal Waste Management
Nutrient Management
TOTAL
1988
Management Measures
Structural Measures
Animal Waste Management
Nutrient Management
TOTAL
1989
Management Measures
Structural Measures
Animal Waste Management
Nutrient Management
TOTAL
1990 (first half year)
Management 'Measures
Structural Measures
Animal Waste Management
Nutrient Management
TOTAL
Program Totai
Management Measures
Structural Measures
Animal Waste Management
Nutrient Management
Unexpended Financial
Assistance Funding*
TOTAL
No. of
Agric.
Practices
Installed
3.269
2,039
563
73
5,944
1.643
794
438
80
2,955
1,104
500
218
256
2,078
568
118
72
217
975
6,584
3,451
1,291
626
NA
11.952
Agric.
Acres
treated
(acres)
70.548
40,181
NA
5.114
115,843
27.864
19.992
NA
2.701
50,557
20.865
11.160
NA
43,271
75,296
10.131
1,035
NA
15.574
26,740
129,408
72,368
NA
66,660
NA
268.436
Sediment
Reduced
ftons/vr)
421,909
92.419
NA
NA
514,328
•
234.813
61.685
NA
NA
296,498
176.691
24,401
NA
NA
201,092
14.607
6.884
NA
NA
21,491
848,020
185,389
NA
NA
NA
1,033.409
* ' i t
Animal
Waste Stored
ftons/vr)
NA
NA
1.646.089
NA
1,646,089
NA
NA
517.394
NA
517,394
NA
NA
450.752
NA
450,752
NA
NA
140,074
NA
140,074
NA
NA
2,754,309
NA
NA
2.754.309
Program
Spending
(S)
2.089,971
570,653
6,479,328
307
9,140,259
1.199,012
2.448,216
6.683.072
2.305
10,332,605
771,252
1.811.686
3.458.911
2.825
6,044,674
277,555
249,624
1.275,254
2.562
1,804,995
4,337,790
5,080,179
17,896,565
7,999
20,846,467
48,169.000
Also includes minor funding for urban nonpoint source controls that are not accounted
for on this table.
31
-------
REFERENCES
1. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. September 1983..
210 pages.
2. 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
December 1983.
3. Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. July 1985. 115 pages.
4. First Annual Report Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Executive
Council. Annapolis, Maryland December 1985. 24 pages.
5. Second Annual Progress Report Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake
Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. February 1987. 36 pages.
6. 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
December 1987.
7. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources: A Report from the
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force. Annapolis, Maryland. August 1987.
250 pages.
8. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources—Second Edition.
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. To be printed.
9. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration
Goals Technical Synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. In
Review.
10. Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Restoration Goals. Chesapeake Bay Program.
Annapolis, Maryland. In Review;
11. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Wetlands Protection
Policy. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. December 1988. 14
pages.
12. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Wetlands Policy
Implementation Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council Annapolis, Maryland.
December 1990. 41 pages.
13. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Policy for Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributaries. Chesapeake Executive
Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1989. 12 pages.
14. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Implementation Plan for
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis,
Maryland. December 1990. 36 pages.
32
-------
15. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Strategy for Removing
Impediments to Migratory Fish in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake
Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. December 1988. 11 pages.
16. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Living Resources
Monitoring Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1988.
94 pages.
17. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Stock Assessment Plan.
Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1988. 66 pages.
18. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Schedule for Developing
Baywide Resource Management Strategies. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. July 1988. 25 pages.
19, Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay Striped
Bass Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland.
December 1989. 33 pages.
20. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay Oyster
Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July
1989. 28 pages.
21. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay Blue
Crab Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council Annapolis, Maryland. July
1989. 29 pages.
22. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay
Alosoids Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland.
July 1989. 37 pages.
23. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay Bluefish
Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council Annapolis, Maryland.
December, 1990. 40 pages.
24. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Coi
luimuncn
t Report: Chesapeake Bay
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout Management Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. December 1990. 37 pages.
25. Status of Stocks Knowledge for Chesapeake Bay Fisheries, 1988. Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee. Washington, D.C. February 1990. 151 pages.
26. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report Baywide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July
1988. 122 pages.
27. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Baywide Conventional
Pollutants Control Strategy. Chesapeake Executive Council Annapolis, Maryland.
July 1988. 46 pages.
28. Nutrient Management Program. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Richmond,
Virginia. July 1990. 11 pages.
33
-------
29. Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy Progress Report, 1989 Annual Progress
Report. Nutrient Reduction Strategy Task Force. Annapolis, Maryland. December
1989. 21 pages.
30. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report. BMP Longevity: A Pilot Study.
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report Series CBP/TRS 50/90. Annapolis,
Maryland. September 1990. 39 pages.
31. Report and Recommendations of the Nonpoint Source Evaluation Panel. Nonpoint
Source Evaluation Panel. Annapolis, Maryland. December 1990. 28 pages.
32. POTW Nutrient Removal Retrofit Study. Prepared for the Commonwealth of
Virginia State Water Control Board by CH2M HILL. Contract Number WDCR
451/024.50/1, October 1989. 105 pages plus Appendix A.
33. Biological Nutrient Removal Study—Volume I. Prepared for the Maryland
Department of the Environment by Beavin Company (Baltimore, Maryland), Camp
Dresser & McKee (Annandale, Virginia), and Metcalf & Eddy (Burtonsville,
Maryland). Contract Number MDE-88-01-WM-1. May 1989. 333 pages.
34. Biological Nutrient Removal Study Appendices—Volume H Prepared for the
Maryland Department of the Environment by Beavin Company (Baltimore,
Maryland), Camp Dresser & McKee (Annandale, Virginia), and Metcalf & Eddy
(Burtonsville, Maryland). Contract Number MDE-88-01-WM-2. May 1989.
35. Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of Biological Dual Nutrient Removal
Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin—Volume L Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. October 1988. 206 pages.
36. Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of Biological Dual Nutrient Removal
Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin—Volume U. Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland. October 1988. 135 pages.
37. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis,
Maryland. December 1988. 40 pages.
38. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy—Appendices. Chesapeake Executive Council
Annapolis, Maryland. December 1988.
39. Toxics Prevention Strategy: Resource Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention. In preparation.
40. Chesapeake Bay Program Basinwide Toxics Strategy Commitment Report
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics
Subcommittee. Annapolis, Maryland. January 1991. In press.
41. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Appendices. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region in, Chesapeake Bay Program, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. September 1983.554 pages.
42. Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Adas. Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring
Subcommittee—Volume I. Annapolis, Maryland. August 1989. 411 pages.
34
-------
43. Chesapeake Bay Basin Monitoring Atlas. Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring
Subcommittee—Volume 11. Annapolis, Man-land. August 1989. 322 pages.
44. The State of the Chesapeake Bay, Third Biennial Monitoring Report, 1989.
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee. Annapolis, Maryland.
September 1989. 33 pages.
45. Trends in Total Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay, October 1984 to September
1990, .Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Annapolis, Maryland. In preparation.
46. Volumetric Analysis of Dissolved Oxygen Trends in the Chesapeake Bay:
Preliminary Findings. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. Annapolis, Maryland. In
preparation.
47. Chesapeake Bay Coordinated Split Sample Program Annual Report, 1989.
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Report Series CBP/TRS 51/90. Annapolis,
Maryland. November 1990. 39 pages.
48. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Public Access Strategy.
Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1988. 6 pages.
49. Bay and Riven A Comprehensive Guide to Facilities of the Tidal Chesapeake Bay
System and the Susquehanna River. Public Access Commitment Team. December
1988. To be printed.
50. Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council.
Annapolis, Maryland. November 1990. 10 pages.
51. Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Technical Assistance Report Public Access
Subcommittee. Richmond, Virginia. October 1990. 60 pages.
52. Recreational Boat Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay. The Implementation Committee
of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. January 8,1991. 23 pages.
53. Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Year 2020
Panel. Annapolis, Maryland. January 1989. 80 pages.
54. Chesapeake Bay Programs Agreement Commitment Report: Chesapeake Bay
Development Policies and Guidelines. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis,
Maryland. January 1989. To be printed.
55. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Technical Assistance and
Incentives to Local Governments. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis,
Maryland. December 1988. To be printed.
56. Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Law and Criteria. Maryland General Assembly.
Natural Resource Article 8-1801-1816. Annapolis, Maryland. June 1986.
57. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Comprehensive Research
Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1988. 78 pages.
58. Chesapeake Basin Research Directory: Who's Who in Chesapeake Bay Research
(draft). Directory Workgroup of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.
Annapolis, Maryland. December 1990. 84 pages.
35
-------
59. Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report: Baywide Communication
Plan. Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland. May 1988. 48 pages.
36
-------
-------
f
T
I
------- |