CBP/TRS 56/91
December 1990
Report and Recommendations
of the Nonpoint Source
Evaluation Panel
EPA
903
CBP
TRS
56/91
C.2
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
0030ZC
Report and Recommendations
of the
^
Nonpoint Source Evaluation Panel
December 1990
» Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Proeram
" HEADQUARTERS UTOARY 7 6
HEADQUARTERS HE
3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
K> WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
MEMBERS OF THE NONPOINT SOURCE EVALUATION PANEL
Frances H. Flanigan, Chairperson
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
Baltimore, MD
Dr. John C. Barber
U.S. Forest Service (Retired)
Warsaw, VA
Dr. Sandra S. Bade
VPI and SU
Blacksburg, VA
Mel Davis
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Retired)
Mechanicsburg, PA
Dr. Peter L. deFur
Environmental Defense Fund
Richmond, VA
David Dickson
Izaak Walton League of America
Arlington, VA
Mark Fuchs
Delaware Maryland Agribusiness Association
Ridgely, MD
Patrick Gardner
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Annapolis, MD
Gerald Heistand
Lancaster Conservation District
Lancaster, PA
John Keeling
American Farm Bureau Federation
Washington, D.C.
Mary Nightlinger
League of Women Voters
Fairfax, VA
John Redmon
Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs (Retired)
Washington, D.C.
Rosemary Roswell
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Annapolis, MD
Jeff Schmidt
Sierra Club
Harrisburg, PA
Senator Noah W. Wenger
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Harrisburg, PA
-------
December 18,1990
Mr. William K. Reilly
Chairman, Chesapeake Executive Council
c/o Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly,
The members of the Nonpoint Source Evaluation Panel are pleased to transmit to you and
the Chesapeake Executive Council our final report. We presented the report to the Nonpoint
Source Committee on December 14 after eight months of research, review and deliberation.
When you created this panel last March, you asked us to evaluate the adequacy of current
nonpoint source programs and provide you with our judgement of the likelihood that these
programs will achieve the 40% nutrient reduction goal set for the year 2000. We took this
charge seriously, and our report summarizes our findings on the issue and recommends a number
of program enhancements and modifications.
We sincerely congratulate program managers for having initiated a large and complex
nonpoint effort in a very short period of time. However, we were not persuaded that the present
array of programs, if implemented as presently designed and at the current resource levels, is
sufficient to guarantee success. Achievement of the 40% nutrient reduction goal will demand,
we believe, greater effort in a number of areas. We want to leave you with several key ideas:
* The efficiency of nonpoint pollution control efforts needs to be improved through
targeting and through better management' of resources, so that maximum pollution
reduction is achieved per unit of program resources expended.
* A wider, more complex array of tools and techniques to achieve pollution reduction needs
to be aggressively employed by program managers.
* Nutrient management to achieve a net reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus migrating
into the atmosphere, surface water and groundwater needs to be the principle which drives
program and funding decisions.
Our report elaborates on these points and provides our ideas on how they might be
achieved.
We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to offer our insights to the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The program's unflagging willingness to listen to advice and to make adjustments and
modifications based on experience and on new knowledge distinguishes it and encourages us
about the prospects for its ultimate success.
-------
Frances H. Flanigan, Chairperson
Dr. John C. Barber
Dr. Sandra S. Bade
Mel Davis
Dr. Peter L. deFur
David Dickson
Mark Fuchs
Patrick Gardner
Gerald Heistand
John Keeling
Mary Nightlinger
Rosemary Roswell
Jeff Schmidt
/
Senator Noah W. Wenger
-------
December 1990
REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY NONPODNT SOURCE PROGRAM EVALUATION PANEL
INTRODUCTION
In March 1990, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
acting on behalf of the Executive Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program, convened this Panel to
assess the effectiveness of current efforts to reduce nonpoint source loadings of nutrients entering the
Bay system. Our task was to provide an independent assessment of the likelihood that the current
array of programs is sufficient to achieve the Baywide 40 percent nutrient reduction goal established
by the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement This panel's members represent a wide range of interests
concerned with and affected by Bay programs in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District
of Columbia.
Over the course of eight months, we reviewed programs related to agriculture, forestry and
urban nonpoint source pollution. We focused on evaluating the effectiveness of programs that
encourage voluntary adoption of measures for controlling nutrient loadings from nonpoint sources.
However, we examined these efforts within the context of the full spectrum of regulatory and
nonregulatory options for achieving nutrient load reductions. We considered the basic nature of the
nutrient enrichment problem, the contribution of various point and nonpoint sources, including some
presently considered to be beyond the control of the States in the Bay program, and likely trends in
the relative contribution of these sources. We examined how nonpoint source control programs are
designed, we looked at program implementation, we reviewed program budgets, and we assessed
research efforts.
-------
Overall, we arc impressed with the progress being made within the Chesapeake Bay Basin in
identifying and reducing nonpoim sources of nutrients. The Chesapeake Bay Program is, we believe,
an unprecedented and unparalleled achievement. The multi-State, multi-agency attack on nonpoint
sources of pollution has raised the level of public awareness of the problem, substantially reduced
nutrient and sediment losses from the land, pushed the frontiers of science and engineering, and
become a model for the Nation. The professionalism, expertise and dedication of program
administrators and staff have brought nonpoint pollution from an obscure problem into the
mainstream of environmental policy.
FINDINGS
While we recognize the progress being made, we are not convinced that nonpoint source
control programs, as currently designed and implemented, are sufficient to ensure meeting the year
2000 goal We believe that current programs must be improved and supplemented, if the States are
to make certain that their efforts will be successful We recognize that strengthening programs will
require the allocation of additional resources to nonpoint source control, as well as re-allocation of
current resources. We believe the costs should be shared by government and the private sector.
We concluded that current programs are inadequate to ensure meeting the year 2000 goal for
a number of reasons. We found that the limited information available on the rates of voluntary
adoption of nonpoint source control measures suggests too slow a pace to ensure meeting the 40
percent goal. We found low participation by Basin fanners in the major Federal agricultural
programs designed to promote conservation. Finally we were unable to discover data showing
perceptible water quality improvements resulting from increased conservation efforts. Based on our
investigation, we concluded mat even after the conservation provisions of the 1985 and 1990 Food
Security Acts are adopted, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) will not be
sufficient to achieve the year 2000 goal.
Our conclusion in this regard was reinforced when our review determined that estimates of
nutrient load reductions are probably optimistic. Because little empirical data exists, reliance on
estimating techniques has formed the foundation of the year 2000 projections. The most commonly
-------
used estimation techniques, which are based on the universal soil loss equation and assume certain
relationships between soil loss and nutrient loadings, result in load reduction values that are much
higher than estimates made using techniques based upon measured nutrient loads lost from typical
farm fields. Estimates of the effectiveness of some structural BMPs in reducing nutrient loads
appear to be inflated The discrepancy seems to arise primarily from double counting when multiple
BMPs are installed in a field, and because of failure to consider the movement of soluble nutrients
through groundwater and the assumption that structural BMPs always function at their design
capabilities.
In reviewing available information, we found it is presently impossible to accurately account
for nutrients entering, moving through and leaving the Bay system. This lack of information is a
great handicap to management efforts. The Panel believes that a mass balance approach should be
developed for nutrient management. The mass balance system would require developing statistical
data bases for all sources of nutrients including, for example; animal wastes, chemical fertilizers,
municipal sludges and atmospheric deposition; for products that use nutrients, such as crops
harvested, and for exports of nutrients, such as processed wastes transported outside of the basin,
losses to ground and surface water and volatilization to the atmosphere. We believe that this
approach should be a long-term program goal. It is described in more detail at the end of this report.
We further found that continuing rapid urbanization in the basin means the nonpoim source
problem is intensifying arid changing in character. Urban and suburban land uses contribute much
higher nutrient loads, on a per acre basis, than other land uses. Moreover, development can involve
the conversion of forest land and wetlands, which now provide positive water quality benefits. We
believe that in spite of efforts to manage and anticipate development and urbanization, more needs to
be done to encourage counties, communities, and private landowners to protect environmentally
beneficial land uses and land cover types. Individuals also need to be convinced to make changes in
the consumptive life-styles that generally characterize the United States today.
In reviewing current nonpoint source control efforts, we found there is no systematic
planning framework that captures all aspects of the nutrient management problem, including the wide
range of nutrient sources and the variety of regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms for controlling
-------
loadings. In some cases, individual nutrient sources are addressed by several regulatory and
nonregulatory programs. For example, nutrient discharges from some types of animal feedlot
operations may be subject to water quality permit requirements, and may also be the focus of cost-
share programs for the construction of manure storage facilities. There is no evidence that the
disparate parts of nonpoint control strategies are well coordinated. The jurisdictions, individually
and collectively, must establish ways to initiate and maintain stronger functional relationships among
program components.
In the course of our deliberations, we also identified a number of specific areas where the
design or implementation of current programs should be modified to increase program efficiency.
Government efforts to encourage the adoption of nonpoint source control measures must be more
sharply focused on the major sources of nutrient loadings. Increased emphasis should be placed on
nutrient management, within a mass balance framework that takes in the full range of nutrient
sources and pathways. The jurisdictions should be particularly aggressive in dealing with the
problem of animal wastes, and should supplement voluntary programs with regulatory requirements.
In addition, the partners in the nutrient reduction strategy must do a better job in developing and
managing the information that is necessary to guide their programs toward success.
When we examined possible ways that the participants in the Baywide nutrient reduction
strategy could further reduce nonpoint source nutrient loads, we considered a range of available
tools, including: regulatory requirements; requirements with public funding and/or technical
assistance supplied; partial public funding as cost share; voluntary adoption by landowners without
financial assistance and technical assistance; and quasi-regulatory programs where important benefits
are withheld if conservation measures are not adopted. We concluded that all these approaches must
be exploited to achieve reduction goals, because none alone is capable of obtaining the water quality
goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The States should continually assess their programs to ensure that they incorporate the most
cost-effective mix of education, technical assistance, financial assistance, research and demonstration
projects, and regulation. Incentives that encourage voluntary adoption of nonpoint source measures
at relatively low cost to the government should be encouraged. In addition, we envision more active
-------
participation by the private sector, especially in the area of education and outreach within the
agricultural community.
The Panel's specific recommendations are described in detail in the sections that follow.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. TARGETING PROGRAMS
Improvements in program targeting offer the best immediate opportunities for further
reducing nonpoint source nutrient loads within the Bay system.
The Panel recommends that the jurisdictions continue to refine their
identification of specific geographic areas and activities that are the most
important contributors of nutrients to the Bay system, and develop and improve
targeting strategies accordingly. Identification of individual farms, woodlots, and
development sites for priority action is essential.
Better targeting requires better information. The jurisdictions must develop more detailed
information that includes farming, forestry, and development practices being employed, proximity of
operations to surface waters or vulnerable groundwater, and the potential leaching or runoff for given
practices, soil types, and topography. Targeting strategies need to focus on smaller land areas, rather
than whole counties or watersheds. Valuable forest and wetland areas that provide buffering
capabilities should be identified and targeted for protection. The Panel believes that sophisticated
information management tools, such as Geographic Information Systems, can be extremely useful in
improving targeting capabilities.
We recommend that the States adopt a tiered targeting structure, with levels
of program support directly related to established priorities, based on explicit cost-
effectiveness considerations.
-------
Targeting systems need to incorporate cost-effectiveness considerations which will help guide
programs. For example, if focusing on a specific land use or activity would result in greater nutrient
load reductions per program dollar expended, then the program should establish criteria for making
resource allocation and targeting decisions that address these land uses or activities.
These criteria could include establishing size thresholds for animal production facilities, targeting all
expanding animal facilities or selecting certain land areas for mandatory nutrient management
planning.
Targeting strategies need to consider the economic and sociological characteristics that
influence decision making. Different crops and livestock operations face different economic realities
and pollution potential Predominant farm type (eg. livestock, hay, grains, truck crops etc.) heavily
influences conservation options as well as pollution potential. Absentee landowners, fanners with
limited resources, and persons holding land for future development do not necessarily respond to the
same incentives or educational efforts as owners/ operators or farm lessees.
Targeting should provide land users with choices that have the highest potential of reducing
nonpoint pollution. For agriculture, these choices should include such actions as participation in the
Conservation Reserve Program. To the extent possible, the landowner should be provided an
analysis of the impacts of his choices on both nonpoint pollution and income.
We recognize that increasing the selectivity of targeting means that some individuals seeking
support will go unsatisfied. But we believe that a tiered targeting structure will enhance the
probability that the jurisdictions will achieve the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal. A farmer whose
operation does not meet requirements for top priority consideration might be ineligible for financial
assistance but could be eligible for technical assistance. Individuals or organizations ranking low in
priority might not have available to them on-site individual technical assistance but could be
involved in group training, workshops and educational programs.
The Panel believes that assuring effective implementation of well-designed targeting
strategies is critical. Where local entities are responsible for making or implementing targeting
decisions (such as establishing criteria for projects eligible for government cost-share), the States
-------
and federal agencies should establish targeting guidelines and require local entities to adhere to them.
Where specific land areas or activities have been identified as high priorities for program action,
jurisdictions should determine if the focus on these areas or activities has actually resulted in the
corresponding adoption of effective nonpoint source nutrient control. That is, monitoring and '
evaluation should be better integrated into the program. For example: has the education activity
targeted to a certain group resulted in a higher rate of implementation by that group than by others?
Has the technical assistance targeted to a specific watershed segment increased participation in that
watershed as compared to others? The answers to these questions should be used to refine targeting
programs. Targeting evaluation must be followed up with timely program modifications that reflect
the management lessons learned.
State water quality management agencies should ensure that water quality standards, water
quality criteria, and monitoring of water quality are adequate to measure the need for and
effectiveness of nonpoint source controls. Hence, improved coordination between water quality
agencies and agencies involved in nonpoint source programs is essential.
2. PROGRAM DESIGN: VOLUNTARY VS. REGULATORY
The Panel examined the question of whether a largely voluntary nonpoint source program
will suffice, or whether more regulatory programs will be necessary to meet the year 2000 goal.
The Panel recommends that the States and the federal government augment
voluntary programs with increased use of regulatory authority for the reduction of
nutrient loadings. To minimize financial burdens, regulatory requirements should
be accompanied by technical and, -where appropriate, financial assistance. The
development of any regulatory requirements should include ample opportunity for
public participation.
The Panel recommends that the wide spectrum of programs and policies
-------
that fall between voluntary and regulatory be fully explored and utilized.
We concluded that the jurisdictions need to more aggressively implement the wide range of
options, from voluntary to regulatory, that presently exist. While additional regulations will be
necessary to meet the nutrient reduction goal, other options that fall between voluntary and
regulatory are largely unexplored territory and offer the Chesapeake Bay Program the greatest
opportunity to attack nonpoint source problems in the coming decade.
Where particular water quality problems are identified, either through complaint or
inspection, States should have both the authority and the resources to compel corrective actions.
The imposition of mandatory controls or practices could be based on the use of "trigger"
mechanisms. For example, stricter controls on the application of nutrients or the management of
animal wastes could be imposed when a certain action level of nitrogen contamination in surface or
groundwater is reached Other triggers might involve water quality criteria being exceeded or
beneficial uses not being met in receiving waters by a certain date. Any time-limited triggers should
allow for an ample period to implement requirements and reduce loadings prior to the year 2000
reduction target date. Reliable data will obviously be necessary to make a trigger approach work.
In addition, regulatory requirements could also be phased in. For example, in the next
section the Panel recommends that nutrient management planning be required for lands that are
targeted as sources of nutrient loading to the Bay. Once nutrient management capability is in place
in these areas, and when the agencies have the institutional capability to provide technical assistance,
nutrient management could be required for all agricultural operations within the basin.
Examples of programs or policies that lie between voluntarism and regulation include those
that tie government benefits to recipient obligations. The principal case where this quid pro quo
approach has been used is Food Security Act programs including sodbuster, conservation compliance,
and swampbuster. In each case, while farmers are not required to protect fragile lands, they stand to
lose their eligibility for a broad array of farm programs if they farm environmentally fragile lands
and fail to take certain conservation measures. There are as many opportunities to build on this
approach as there are farm programs. Accordingly, Bay Program managers should inventory all
-------
existing benefit programs and assess their potential to increase fanner and landowner incentives to
participate in the Bay clean-up by coupling water quality responsibilities to existing farm programs.
Another policy option that Iks between mandatory and voluntary, referred to as "point and
pay," embodies the idea that unproved targeting of remedial resources increases pollution reduction
efficiency and brings program savings. As such, government ought to be willing to pay a
proportionately higher cost-share in return for more efficient targeting. One way to implement this
concept would be to pay die full cost of BMP implementation in return for having the authority to
mandate which fanners would install them. The marginal cost increase to government is small
because cost-shares for installing BMPs already are between 75 and 87.5 percent. The increase in
efficiency could be substantial because the program would eliminate the reluctant participant problem
that presently exists under voluntary programs, since identifying a polluter is no guarantee of his
participation in Chesapeake Bay water quality programs.
One last example of a new approach to reducing nonpoint source pollution incorporates
economic incentives. This approach reflects the idea that many incentives exist to change human
behavior, and one of the most powerful is the profit motive. If non-polluting technology can be
made cheaper than the alternative, then government regulation can be avoided.
A real world example of this can be found in conservation tillage. The Mid-Atlantic states
have one of the highest conservation tillage adoption rates in the country. And while conservation
tillage has salutary environmental benefits through reduced soil erosion, area farmers adopted this
technology primarily because it saves time and money. Integrated pest management and fast
developing alternative agriculture technologies offer additional proof that economics can work in
favor of water quality.
In summary, there are numerous incentives that can motivate farmers to participate in water
quality programs to control nutrient losses to the Bay system. These incentives include voluntary
land stewardship, government benefit programs, economic opportunities, and regulation. No single
incentive will do the job; rather, managers must rely on a reasonable mix selected from the entire
spectrum of purely voluntary to exclusively regulatory.
-------
3. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
Programs and practices that were originally intended to control erosion and soil loss have
provided a foundation for our current strategy for controlling nonpoint sources of nutrient loadings.
BMPs for reducing soil loss offer the additional benefit of controlling the nutrients and pesticide
residues attached to soil particles. Accordingly, water quality program managers have adopted
BMPs as the basic component of a multiple objectives conservation strategy.
If, however, our water quality program is limited to the use of conservation BMPs that have
been designed primarily for erosion control, nutrient control will not be adequately addressed. For
example, many BMPs are ineffective in controlling the soluble nutrient fractions. In fact, several
recent studies show mat some BMPs (e.g., contour fanning, terracing, and no-till, when implemented
without nutrient management planning) can increase loadings of dissolved forms of nutrients. In
such cases, BMP implementation may only be altering the pathway for nutrients leaving land areas.
The Panel urges the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions to develop a uniform and clearly stated
approach to management of nutrient-rich materials, including animal wastes, chemical fertilizers, and
municipal sludges, stored on or applied to land. These sources, whether agricultural or urban, must
be considered collectively in developing regional and watershed nonpoint source management
strategies based on a mass balance concept. To achieve the desired water quality objective, we
believe it is necessary to move beyond the traditional BMP approach.
The Panel recommends that the term Best Management System, which
would go beyond traditional soil loss concepts, be adopted by Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions and Federal agencies. Use of this term will show common support of
a comprehensive nutrient reduction strategy. It should also improve
communication which has been confused by the varying uses of the established
term "BMP."
A Best Management System is defined as a combination of conservation practices or
10
-------
management measures, which, when applied, will achieve nonpoint source pollution control through
reduced transport of sediment, nutrients and chemicals into surface and groundwater. This term
applies to agricultural, forestry, and urban nonpoint source control measures.
The Best Management System concept is based on the need to promote combinations of
practices that most effectively protect or improve water quality. The Panel recognizes that in some
instances, traditional soil erosion control BMPs cannot themselves reduce nutrient loadings, and may
actually increase nutrient loadings. Nutrient management techniques, such as storage of animal
waste and application of fertilizer according to a nutrient management plan, may also be insufficient
if soil erosion is not controlled. Best Management Systems take into account the effect of soil
erosion control, management of animal wastes, synthetic fertilizers and municipal sludges,
application of chemicals, biological uptake of nutrients, establishment of vegetative buffers and other
management measures. They can include structural and management practices.
Program managers also should selectively encourage the adoption of traditional BMPs that
are proven to be effective both in reducing erosion and in controlling nutrient loadings. Where
erosion control practices are likely to be ineffective in controlling nutrient loadings, nonpoint source
program managers must encourage the adoption of a nutrient management plan for the same acreage.
Adoption of plans would promote the accomplishment of multiple environmental quality objectives.
The Panel believes there should be greater emphasis on nutrient management plans. Nutrient
management plans should be applied to private and commercial lawn and turf, as well as agricultural
lands. These plans would establish appropriate nutrient budgets, based upon manure or sludge
testing, soil tests, and nutrient application rates and timing. The goal is to have no excess nutrients
lost into the ecosystem. Nutrient management plans can be expected to provide cost savings to the
landowner, which makes the concept attractive and enhances the potential for voluntary adoption.
The Panel recommends that nutrient management plans be required and
implemented for lands that are targeted as sources of nutrient loading to the Bay.
Criteria for deciding which land areas must have nutrient management plans should be kept
11
-------
consistent with the guidelines described in the preceding targeting section. Nutrient management
plans for individual properties should be based on the mass balance concept, and be incorporated
into the Best Management System approach described above.
Chesapeake Bay Program funds allocated for nonpoint source controls should be used only to
support those practices and combinations of practices included in a Best Management System. In
making funding decisions, Bay Program managers should strongly emphasize their support of
nutrient management efforts.
4. ANIMAL WASTES
11' '
t
We expect that animal numbers, as well as density of animal units per acre in the Bay basin
will continue to increase and that total cropland acres will decline in the future. As a result, manure
will become an even more important source of nutrient loads originating in the agricultural sector.
The States will not achieve a 40 percent nutrient reduction in the agricultural sector without
significantly improving the management and use of manure.
' We recommend that the Bay States be more aggressive in ensuring the
effective management of animal wastes. Specifically, we recommend that the
States target animal operations according to the impact that they may have on the
resource. Larger or more intensive operations should be a priority. Further, we
recommend that the States set mandatory animal unit thresholds above which they
will require farmers to develop and implement best management systems for
animal facilities. Farms in close proximity to surface water or vulnerable ground-
water, as well as operations that are planning to expand, should be specially
targeted for program participation,
The authority is available at the federal and state level to regulate significant numbers of
livestock operations within the watershed. At present, reliance on this authority is sparse,
notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the Federal law. In cases where the States have invoked
12
-------
existing authority the results have been strongly positive. Accordingly, the States should utilize the
regulatory authority provided under the Clean Water Act and as provided by State law to ensure that
affected livestock operations participate in the States' animal waste control programs. The federal
guidelines should be revised to include nutrient management as a permit condition and to lower the
threshold limits.
The Bay States also should examine and track regional trends in the distribution and
characteristics of livestock operations. These data should provide useful information for targeting
program resqurces and setting priorities in the future. In addition, the States need to devote new
resources to research on management techniques for animal waste. The present heavy reliance on
manure storage as the centerpiece of the States' animal waste programs is very expensive and
storage without proper manure management does not itself reduce nutrients. Cheaper and more
practical solutions need to be developed so that all fanners, not just government assisted fanners,
will be able to incorporate unproved nutrient management into their livestock operations.
The Bay States should encourage the development of markets for animal wastes, as well as
municipal sludges and other organic wastes. As part of this effort, the Bay jurisdictions need to
evaluate existing laws and ordinances prohibiting intefcounty or interstate transfer of animal wastes,
municipal sludges, and composting bulking agents, and, where prudent, eliminate such barriers to the
development of markets,
5. LAND USE, GROWTH, AND URBANIZATION
About 10 percent of the total area of the Chesapeake Bay Basin is urbanized, which is more
than the area in pastures and approximately half the total area in cropland within the Basin. We
noted that total nonpoint source nutrient loadings from urbanized land exceed those from forest and
pasture land, and are comparable to those from cropland.
Urbanization of the basin is continuing at a rapid rale, with an anticipated 20 percent
increase in population over the next 30 years. A recent Maryland study shows that from 1970 to
1980 the percentage increase in developed acreage was twice that of population growth.
13
-------
Development is intensifying unban runoff problems and increasing loadings of nutrients to
wastewater treatment facilities.
The population growth mat has occurred in the Bay area in the last 30 years has come in the
form of suburban sprawl This development pattern is extremely detrimental to the waters of the
region including the Chesapeake Bay. It results in large scale displacement of environmentally
beneficial land uses such as forest cover, wetlands and natural floodplains and introduces large areas
of impervious surface. It is characterized by heavy use of low-occupancy vehicles which generate
large pollutant loads and demand major conversion of natural areas to impervious surfaces in the
form of roads and parking lots.
The-Report of the Year 2020 Panel and other studies have concluded that, if anticipated
growth in the region continues in the present pattern, the Chesapeake Bay will not survive. Future
growth must be accommodated by channeling it into density centers, usually preexisting, where it
can be served by more efficient transportation modes and other public facilities and where it will
occupy a smaller footprint on the natural land surface. Those natural areas and uses that are
especially beneficial to maintaining water quality need to be protected.
The environmental benefits of concentrated development centers have an ally in fiscal
necessities. The local jurisdictions which have experienced the heaviest development have found
that the demands for transportation and other public facilities generated by inefficiently sited
development have overwhelmed their fiscal resources. However, political and legal obstacles to
changes in land use policies are formidable. Overcoming these obstacles will require that the
urgency of the issue and strategies for addressing it be brought to the forefront of public attention.
We recommend that the States, universities, and local and regional agencies
greatly increase their efforts to devise land use management systems that
accommodate growth in patterns that minimize environmental damage and can be
affordably served, devise methods to better distribute costs and profits of
development, and promote understanding and acceptance of these policies.
14
-------
We also recommend that States provide the authority to localities to
implement plans that guide growth while protecting environmentally sensitive
areas. Local planning needs to occur within the framework of statewide growtji
management programs.
We recognize that the States are undertaking initiatives to address specific problems related
to urban and suburban nonpoint sources. These initiatives include efforts related to the inspection
and maintenance of BMPs, stormwater management, erosion and sedimentation controls, and septic
systems.
We recommend that the Bay jurisdictions continue to increase their
emphasis on controlling urban sources of nutrients, such as stormwater
discharges, runoff from paved areas and construction sites, suburban lawns, and
the nutrient-enriched groundwater sometimes associated with concentrated septic
tanks. The States should closely oversee local programs that include inspection,
maintenance, and monitoring efforts.
The Panel recognizes that this increased emphasis will require additional resources. The Bay
jurisdictions should consider a full range of alternatives for funding enhanced program activities,
including fee-based options, such as stormwater utility fees.
We recommend that the Bay jurisdictions intensify their efforts to protect
those land uses and land cover types that provide positive water quality benefits.
In particular, we recommend that additional efforts be made to encourage the
maintenance of forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands, most of which are held
in private ownership.
The Bay jurisdictions and relevant Federal agencies should develop a coordinated.
comprehensive inventory of forest and wetland areas within the Basin. Consideration should be
15
-------
given to incorporating, and augmenting as necessary, existing inventories within a unified GIS. The
inventory should be designed to facilitate updating and tracking of changes, perhaps making use of
remote sensing technology.
Each State should develop forest conservation policies and strategies aimed at preventing
urbanization from causing net losses of forests. The strategy should incorporate appropriate land use
•planning guidelines as well as public and private land conservation programs and practices. It
should provide adequate incentives to induce owners of forest lands to protect these resources so
they may continue to provide the pollution control benefits that accrue to the general public.
The States should review their wetlands protection strategies for consistency with the Bay
goal of achieving no net loss of wetlands over the short term and a net gain over the long term. In
particular, the States should evaluate pressures for continuing conversions and alterations of wetlands
as the Basin develops. If necessary, the States should take action to increase the effectiveness of
their wetland protection programs, using the full range of regulatory and nonregulatory tools
available.
i
We urge acceleration of efforts to preserve farmland. Properly managed agricultural land
tends to produce lower nutrient loadings on a per acre basis than urbanized land. The Bay States
should develop economic incentive programs for agricultural landowners to retain their lands in
current use. Participation in such programs should require that property owners adequately address
nutrient loading problems.
6. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The Panel found that little information is available on the effectiveness of education and
outreach-efforts in encouraging the adoption of conservation measures for nonpoint source pollution
control. However, the few studies we reviewed strongly indicate that education and outreach offers
very high payoff per unit of investment Overall, we agree that effective, targeted, persuasive
education and outreach is vital to changing the behavior of many individuals who collectively
16
-------
contribute to nonpoint source pollution.
We recommend that enhanced educational efforts be given high priority as
a means of achieving nutrient reduction goals. Specifically, we recommend that
the Bay States refocus and restructure the educational components of their
programs to more effectively market nonpoint source control to targeted
audiences. Specific goals and measures of ultimate success in terms of both the
rate of adoption of nonpoint source control practices and ultimate improvements
in water quality must be established and adhered to.
Program managers should set marketing goals and should provide training, professional
incentives, and rewards for excellent performance. Similarly, incentives and rewards should be made
available to encourage the targeted audience to participate in nonpoint source control efforts. Public
image, peer group (or user group) influence and social responsibility should all be used in structuring
approaches for encouraging participation. Better information must be assembled and made available
on who is participating in voluntary programs, why they are involved, and where they get their
information.
Hie nonpoint source pollution issue involves a wide array of individuals, groups and
organizations, including but not limited to homeowners, fanners, loggers, developers, and
landowners. Therefore, the educational and outreach components of nonpoint source programs must
be designed for varied but specific audiences. We noted that some key audience segments do not
seem to be receiving educational and outreach services at all. Others may have been contacted, but
in a way that has failed to achieve desired results.
The agricultural community is served by several USDA agencies, state departments of
agriculture and forestry, extension services, industry representatives, cooperatives and farmers
associations. We found that there is not much systematic cooperation among these groups and
concluded that closer cooperation would enhance the success of nonpoint source control efforts. For
example, county level representatives have been particularly important contacts, and the training and
17
-------
use of extension agents to meet outreach and education goals must continue at a high level. At a
time of budgetary and financial cutbacks, the role of these agencies in pollution prevention and
control is essential, not peripheral. Attention to these water quality responsibilities should have first
call on the educational portion of these agencies' budgets.
The state forestry organizations provide leadership in contacts with landowners, loggers, and
the forest industry. Within the forestry sector, mechanisms should be put in place to inform
landowners of their responsibilities for protecting water quality, and to ensure that landowners have
contact with either agency or consulting foresters in advance of entering into contracts to sell their
timber. This advance contact would provide landowners with better information about Best
Management Systems upon which to base their contracts to ensure that proper BMPs are planned
and implemented. State forestry personnel should be provided the resources to monitor harvesting
and regeneration and to follow up on logging operations to advise the landowner of whether the
BMP component of his or her contract has been adhered to.
It is critical that all personnel involved in education and outreach efforts remain informed
regarding technical and programmatic developments. We found existing mechanisms inefficient for
ensuring the maintenance of an adequate knowledge base and skill level for staff working in
nonpoint source control programs. Effective staff training and continuing education programs must
be developed and adhered to.
We also believe that cooperative and collaborative arrangements between government
programs and other groups offer significant opportunities in education and outreach. In particular,
we believe that agribusiness has been significantly under-utilized with regard to education and
training of landowners. The potential for outreach within this segment is enormous and if properly
tapped, could greatly augment government's efforts. A stronger cooperative approach between
government and the agribusiness industry would expedite the achievement of many of the goals of
nonpoint source control programs. For example, we have noted that local representatives for the
fertilizer industry have established an excellent rapport with Basin farmers. Such rapport can be the
foundation for educational programs on nutrient management.
18
-------
We recommend that Federal agencies and the Bay States take advantage of
private sector expertise and establish public/private partnerships to further
common education objectives. We recommend that the Bay States undertake a
special initiative to offer more extensive training to representatives of industry, the
academic community, and environmental groups so that they can effectively
promote good nutrient management practices.
Private industry appears to be playing an increasingly important role in nutrient and pesticide
management within die Basin. This development is largely driven by reduced costs resulting from
improved farm management, but the net result can be improved water quality. Crop Management
Associations and similar groups and companies lie at the cutting edge of the farm information and
management revolution. Every effort should be made to aid these private entrepreneurs to market
and deliver an environmentally sound service by providing training and establishing a licensing or
certification program.
Universities offer another opportunity for education and outreach. One example of the role
academia can play in outreach is illustrated by university-sponsored or affiliated demonstration
farms. Government program staff and university staff should collaborate to a greater extent. For
example, they should work together to develop courses that include current information on nonpoint
source control strategies and practices. Such collaborative efforts can result in achieving multiple
objectives, such as: ensuring that courses are available to meet the needs of the program managers
by educating current or future employees; allowing for direct communication of the results of
university research to those who are developing or promoting programs in the field; identifying
program managers' information needs and channeling research efforts to meet these needs. Research
programs within universities offer a source of expertise in gathering and analyzing data. This
expertise needs to be better tapped by increasing the involvement of the scientific community in
management programs.
Public interest organizations have played a vital role in public education and policy
development For example, citizen stream monitoring programs have encouraged local involvement
19
-------
in erosion and sediment control programs and provided valuable water quality information. Field
trips to local farms, publications on pesticides, lawn care and soil conservation, and other educational
activities have been invaluable. Several groups also conduct on-farm conservation demonstrations
and water quality research. Finally this community of groups and individuals plays a key oversight
and input role in tbe goal-setting and policy-making process relating to the nonpoint source
component of the Chesapeake Bay program. In this period of fiscal austerity, at a time when more
is demanded of the government and less resources are available, the support of the public interest
community is essential. Not only can this community continue to provide information and education
directly to the public in the area of nonpoint source pollution, it can help build and solidify the
political base of nonpoint source programs. Toward that end, Bay program managers and public
interest organizations should cooperate in every aspect of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
7. INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED NUTRIENT SOURCES
'A
Under the current Baywide nutrient control strategy, the Bay States have sought to achieve
the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal by addressing sources considered to be relatively
"controllable." Consequently, a number of known and suspected sources of nutrients entering the
Bay system were initially excluded from the strategy and the water quality models that support the
nutrient reduction effort. We concluded that some of these sources, particularly the atmosphere and
groundwater, are associated with significant loadings. Thus, by specifically addressing them, the
participants in the nutrient reduction strategy will increase their chances of reducing nutrient loads
sufficiently to achieve the desired water quality improvements.
We recommend that the flay States and the federal government undertake
more aggressive efforts to address nutrient loadings associated with atmospheric
deposition, groundwater, septic systems, and shoreline and streambank erosion,
and that these sources be included in the nutrient reduction strategy.
Studies have indicated that between 25-35 percent of nitrogen loadings to the Bay come
from atmospheric sources, making the atmosphere a major contributor to the nutrient problem.
Sources include volatilization from sludge, animal waste, chemical fertilizers, and automotive and
20
-------
industrial emissions. The Panel urges that these sources be incorporated into the 1991 revaluation
studies and explicitly included in the reduction strategy. Also, expected increases in power
generating capacity within the watershed may increase nitrate deposition and tend to negate nutrient
reductions from other sources. Nitrate deposition must be addressed in the nutrient reduction
programs, necessitating State Air Boards' involvement in the process. The Bay program needs to
take advantage of the newly passed Clean Air Act to address these issues.
The Bay States should continue to develop and implement strategies for controlling nutrients
entering groundwater. Where they have not done so already, the States should initiate efforts to
protect groundwater from degradation by nutrients and to identify any areas where degradation has
already occurred The States should target efforts to areas where groundwater and the Bay system
are closely connected hydrologically. Full integration of groundwater into State water quality
programs will necessitate additional training for technical assistance specialists.
The hundreds of thousands of septic systems located within the Basin are an important
source of the nutrients entering the Bay system. Septic systems are not specifically designed to
remove nutrients and even when operating properly, can be a source of nutrient pollution to the
water resources in the basin. We recognize that the Bay States are increasing the stringency of their
standards for septic tank design, installation, and maintenance. We support these efforts and urge
that the States and localities use land use planning and other appropriate mechanisms to prohibit the
installation of additional septic systems in areas where seepage to Chesapeake Bay waters is likely.
Further, the States should encourage the availability of sewage treatment to small communities and
subdivisions, as an alternative to concentrated septic tanks. Further, the land application of effluent
from such treatment systems should be encouraged. Where sewage treatment systems are not
feasible, efforts should be made to provide a broader range of alternatives.
Where they have not done so, the Bay States should limit development and other activities
that aggravate shoreline and streambank erosion, and should undertake revegetation and other bank
stabilization efforts in areas subject to high erosion rates. The States should require developers to
maintain forested or other types of buffer strips when development projects are proposed in areas
subject to shoreline erosion. Managing boat traffic and reducing speed limits would help reduce
21
-------
shoreline erosion and attendant nutrient loadings.
Each of these sources or conduits of nutrients affects water quality and uncontrolled has the
potential to impede achievement of the water quality goals. Because of their large contribution,
atmospheric and groundwater considerations are Bay concerns. However, these sources are also
quite difficult to contain. Hie Panel recognizes that cost-effectiveness considerations are important in
developing programs for inadequately addressed sources of nutrients. Therefore, efforts and
resources should be focused where there is the greatest likelihood of controlling the source.
In some cases, nutrient loadings originate from areas outside the jurisdiction of the States
participating in the Baywide strategy. In such cases, efforts should be made to bring other
responsible jurisdictions into the nutrient reduction process. The Bay Program should adopt a total
basin planning concept that includes an evaluation of nutrient loadings originating in New York,
West Virginia, and Delaware. Opportunities to encourage nutrient reduction strategies in these
jurisdictions should be actively pursued
8. INFORMATION AND RESEARCH NEEDS
As the Bay nutrient reduction strategies progress, improvements in the existing information
base and changes in how participating agencies manage technical information will be needed. It is
understandable that detailed information and data are not available for all aspects of the program
now, but acquisition of better information needs to be a priority in the future. This information
needs to be computerized for easy retrieval and analysis.
We recommend that a greater effort be made by all participants in
the Bay program to ensure that information requested and gathered be planned to
strengthen and guide policy and program decisions, and that the Bay States
cooperate in developing a more consistent information management framework.
We recommend that the Bay Program fund research studies and monitoring
programs to generate the data, information, and knowledge needed to refine and
22
-------
perfect nutrient management efforts.
Water quality information relating to nonpoint sources is lacking in many areas of the basin.
Therefore, EPA, in cooperation with the Bay States, should evaluate current monitoring programs to
determine the adequacy of data to support nonpoint source policy making efforts and assess program
effectiveness. The States should identify data gaps in the parameters studied and the watersheds
monitored, as well as opportunities to cooperate with other monitoring programs or to modify
existing monitoring programs in order to expand their value for nonpoint source problem assessment
and program management
The Panel is concerned about the limitations of the data and information available regarding
the water quality changes that result from the installation of BMPs in the basin. In order to improve
this data base, die Federal government and the States should expand their research efforts on the
water quality effectiveness of all BMPs. Most of the information available for BMP effectiveness
came from small plots. We believe that effectiveness studies should be conducted in phased steps,
moving from small plots to actual field scale demonstrations. This approach allows for design
modifications to be made between steps and provides program managers with the data from field
scale studies, which meets their needs for "real world" information. While we found information
lacking for all BMPs, particular emphasis should be placed on determining the effectiveness of urban
and forestry BMPs within the Chesapeake Bay basin. In addition, research and monitoring on the
effectiveness of combinations of practices and nutrient management approaches- what we call Best
Management Systems— needs to be undertaken.
It is clear to the Panel that nutrient management represents the best option for agriculture to
meet the water quality goals for the Bay. We believe that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), EPA, the state nonpoint source programs, and the state universities should integrate and
expand their research programs on sustainable agricultural and the management practices that reduce
nutrient loadings from agricultural lands. Managers need a better understanding of the biological
uptake of nutrients, as well as the relationship between changes in nutrient inputs and changes in
loadings.
23
-------
Current research activities should be expanded to determine the effectiveness of buffer strips
to uptake nutrients from surface and subsurface flows. Studies should be conducted to identify
relative values of plant species for use in buffer strips including trees, shrubs, grass, and natural
vegetation, and evaluate the management techniques that will maximize nutrient uptake of the most
promising species. Additional studies should be done to identify which buffer characteristics are
most effective considering differing topography, soils, and adjacent land use.
Overall, it is clear that targeting is likely to become more complex and more information
intensive. Accordingly, we believe that improved information management tools, such as CIS will
be essential for effective and systematic targeting. Pioneering efforts suggest that CIS technology,
which allows more complex and sensitive analyses of detailed sets of data, holds great promise as a
tool for effective allocation of resources. Such systems could be used in many other ways by local
administrators, and system costs could be shared. Still, we recognize that CIS frameworks can be
costly to develop, and we have not examined the cost-effectiveness of using such systems. Bay
jurisdictions should undertake a formal assessment of the costs and benefits of using GIS technology
for targeting nonpoint source program resources. If cost effective, consideration should be given to
developing a basinwide system based upon or compatible with the VirGIS system used in Virginia.
We believe the Bay States and the state universities should undertake research and training
programs for on-lot septic systems to ensure proper design, installation and maintenance for long-
term nutrient management effectiveness. Studies should be conducted that will evaluate various
options for resolving home sewage problems in areas where septic systems are failing or where
conditions will not allow their installation. Options should include the use of small-scale sewage
treatment facilities, regional collection,and treatment systems, and systems that utilize gray water for
beneficial use.
We urge that studies be undertaken to quantify the impacts of land use changes on water
quality. Data should be collected on the cumulative effects of land use changes (e.g., conversion of
forests to agriculture or urban uses and the conversion of agriculture to urban uses) in order to assess
the sediment and nutrient loading effects of these changes. These studies should estimate the amount
of land that would be consumed per unit of population growth for varying population densities.
24
-------
These data would be used to predict land use changes and the resultant changes in nutrient and
sediment loadings. The objective should be to provide the nonpoint source management agencies
with information necessary to control and mitigate the loss of beneficial land use cover in each sub-
watershed throughout the basin.
After reviewing modeling efforts for the Chesapeake Bay, which support Bay programs, we
recommend that model developers and users ensure that modeling results always specify
assumptions, confidence intervals for specific estimated values, and limitations of the model output
for use in policy making. It is very important that the users of model output clearly understand these
limitations as they make program and policy decisions regarding the future direction of the nonpoint
source programs within the Chesapeake.
9. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
The Panel identified a number of issues and problems related to administrative aspects of the
multi-state, multi-agency, nutrient reduction strategy. Our concerns had to do with lack of consistent
information upon which program comparisons could be made, incompatible program reporting
formats, difficulties in tracking program expenditures, and several additional administrative issues
mentioned earlier in our report While these issues lack the political and public appeal of many of
the others raised here, the Panel views them as extremely important to the overall program and
potentially capable of seriously undermining it We believe that improvements in program planning,
data management, financial management, reporting, and accountability are necessary to ensure
ultimate success in meeting the nutrient reduction target.
Vie recommend that program managers clearly identify their annual action
plans for accomplishing nutrient had reduction goals. Specific measurable
objectives need to be identified and progress in meeting those objectives evaluated
regularly. The results of program evaluations should be documented and made
available to the general public.
The Bay jurisdictions need to do a better job in selecting and tracking meaningful indicators
25
-------
of program progress. For example, the States should track whether progress is made in correcting
the high priority nonpoint source problems identified through targeting efforts. In addition, the
States should collect and maintain information on the numbers of farmers receiving technical
assistance and the rate of adoption of all BMPs, not just those that are supported by cost-share
programs. The Say States should conduct surveys to determine the effectiveness of education efforts
and to help reveal factors that encourage or discourage the adoption of conservation practices.
We recommend that EPA require and the Bay jurisdictions use compatible
reporting formats and data management systems for nonpoint source monitoring
and modeling data and information.
Compatible reporting formats would help provide a more coherent picture of conditions
within the basin and would allow more meaningful comparisons of progress and approaches being
implemented in each jurisdiction. State water quality monitoring programs provide a good example
of the use of compatible data gathering, analysis, and reporting formats.
We recommend that each Bay State establish a centralized accounting
system for funding and labor resources allocated to nonpoint source control
programs.
This centralized approach should identify funding amounts and the number of full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees allocated to each nonpoint source program component (e.g., cost-share,
technical assistance, education). The approach should also identify resource allocations among
specific projects and areas within each broad program component. As in the case of technical
information, die States should use similar tracking procedures to enable comparisons of program
approaches among jurisdictions. The Panel recognizes the enormity of the task of managing such a
complex and multi-faceted program, but we also recognize the importance of sound management.
Public confidence will be eroded if difficulties that have been encountered in overseeing the
expenditure of cost-share funds and reporting on administrative and fiscal issues are not quickly
addressed. We believe that program success is dependent on the establishment of a more effective
26
-------
program management framework.
A NEW APPROACH TO NUTRIENT CONTROL
The preceding recommendations, if fully implemented, will result in short-term improvements
to the nonpoint source programs of all the jurisdictions. The Panel believes, however, that a
fundamental change in the approach to management of nutrients is necessary if the Bay region is to
achieve its ultimate goal
The Panel recommends that the Bay jurisdictions and the federal agencies
develop a mass balance accounting system, where nutrient loadings are balanced
by the nutrients removed from the system plus those which are introduced and
stored.
This mass balance approach would involve collecting statistics on each of the principal
components of nitrogen and phosphorus sources and uses. Sources would include animal waste,
commercial fertilizers, and municipal sludge. Uses would include crops harvested and waste
composted, incinerated or transported outside the watershed. This approach is based on the idea that
a 40 percent reduction in nutrients must be reflected in significant relative changes in these sources
or uses. Either the sources must decline or the uses must increase by a combined total of 40 percent
if we are to meet our nutrient reduction goal
The mass balance accounting technique should not replace existing measures. Indeed,
several steps need to be taken by the jurisdictions before a reliable mass balance equation could be
estimated. Fertilizer statistics must be collected and reported in a more reliable fashion. Animal
numbers and concentrations also need to be counted or estimated more accurately. In addition, crop
statistics will need to be more complete and detailed in order to generate accurate yield and nutrient
uptake data. Finally, gaps in the mass balance equation will need to be identified and filled in.
It will take time to improve data collection and analysis to the point where confidence that a
mass balance measure truly reflects changes in nutrient loadings can be assured. Even rough
27
-------
estimates, however, should prove quite useful in allowing assessment of progress under the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Although it may take several years to establish a high level of
confidence in the mass balance approach, this procedure, in conjunction with existing techniques, is
certain to prove more determinate man the current approach alone.
In pursuing the development of a framework based on the mass balance concept, the States
should undertake additional efforts to understand the processes by which excess nutrients are
removed from the ecosystem by biological uptake. Greater understanding of this process has
application for all areas, including farms, urban areas, and aquatic systems, and may prove to be the
most cost effective way to address many problems. Winter cover crops, green manure, composting,
and biological uptake in wet ponds, wetlands, and forests, are examples of specific processes that
should be understood in greater depth. The Panel believes that the development of a mass balance
approach is essential to a long range nutrient management strategy.
CONCLUSION
This Panel has reached consensus on this report through free and open discussion, and
examination of the information available to it. We commend the States, federal and local agencies,
and the private organizations, businesses and citizens for their recognition of the importance of
nonpoint source pollution, and their efforts to deal with those problems. Our intent is to provide
constructive recommendations and suggestions that, when implemented, will increase the
accomplishments of the Chesapeake Bay Program and move the Bay region closer to the goal of a
healthy and productive ecosystem.
28
------- |