•tf
|> t \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
FEB I 2 1986 1* WATEfl
NPS: FY-86-21
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Draft Summary Report on Biennial
Review of Chesapeake Bay Initiatives
FROM: Carl F. Myers, Chief^/M "T"'
Nonpoint Sources Branch (WH-585)
TO: All Regional Water Management Division Directors
ATTN: All Regional NPS Coordinators
In 1983, the four major Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions, (Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) committed themselves
to instituting and enhancing point source control programs as well as putting
forth significant efforts in an attempt to reduce nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. A review has been made by the Chesapeake Bay Commission of the initia-
tives enacted by the legislatures of each jurisdiction related to the sources
of pollution and an attempt has been made to assess the progress made toward
fulfilling these commitments.
The Commission formed four work groups to examine progress in each of
the four subject areas: point source control programs, nonpoint source control
programs, fisheries and living resource management and land use and resource
trends. A set of draft work group reports was developed based on the efforts
of the work groups. In addition to an assessment of progress made to date,
the workgroups raised issues which have not been resolved and prepared a set
of findings and conclusions which should be considered by the Commission.
The attached summary provided for your information, indicates the issues
and concerns raised by the work groups. They are presented in the order of
priority which the groups assigned to them.
This document does not attempt to summarize the full report of the work
groups. The work group reports are being reprinted at a later date as a
separate document.
Attachment
-------
CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIENNIAL REVIEW
The Chesapeake Bay Commission committed itself in 1983 to periodically
reviewing the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives and determining
what new issues must be raised and resolved if the Bay is to be restored. The
first such review was held by the Commission on September 26 and 27 in
Baltimore, Maryland. Prior to this event, the Commission had formed four
workgroups to examine progress in each of four subject areas: point source
control programs,__npnj)oint__sojjrce^_ control programs, fisheries and living
resource management and land use and resource trends. A set of draft work
group reports was developed based on the efforts of the work groups. In
addition to an assessment of progress made to date, the workgroups raised
issues which have not yet been resolved and issued a set of findings and
conclusions which should be considered by the Commission. At the Review
conference in Baltimore, all participants had the opportunity to discuss and
analyze the draft reports of the work groups and to reach consensus on what
they believed to be the most important issues for legislative consideration in
the upcoming years.
The following summary indicates the issues and concerns raised by the
work groups and in the conference discussions. The recommendations emanated
from the conference discussions and are presented in the order of priority
which the conference participants assigned to them.
-------
POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
In 1983, all four of the major Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions committed
themselves to instituting and enhancing point source control programs. While
the types of initiatives, and the extent of funds and personnel committed to
these programs varied from state to state, the initiatives generally included
a combination of (1) increasing the level of funding for construction and
upgrading of sewage treatment facilities, (2) improving the process by which
permits are issued, both substantively and administratively, (3) increasing
enforcement activity, (A) funding infiltration and inflow or combined sewer
overflow corrections, (5) removing chlorine from effluents, (6) developing new
procedures for detecting toxic discharges in effluents and in the environment,
and (7) pretreating industrial wastes. Primary subjects that were discussed
with regard to the implementation of these programs included funding needs and
sources, nutrient loads and how to reduce them, and enforcement techniques to
improve compliance .
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CONCERNS
A major concern was the reduction in the availability of federal funding
for sewage treatment plant construction projects at a time when the states and
federal government have identified an increased need for such construction in
order to reduce or eliminate the increase in pollutant loads to the Bay. Loss
of funding results from a decrease in the federal share from 75% to 55% as of
October 1984, a currently proposed change in the allocation formula which
would decrease the amount of funds allocated to Maryland, Virginia, and Penn-
sylvania, and eventual elimination of federal funding support. An end to the
federal construction grants program by the mid 1990's appears likely.
Funding needs vary among the jurisdictions. In Virginia and Pennsylva-
nia, a significant amount of construction will be required to meet the
National Municipal Policy requiring all publicly owned treatment works to meet
final permit limits by 1988. In the District of Columbia and Maryland, most
of the funding needs for secondary treatment have been met. Infiltration and
inflow remains a serious problem in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
Correction of combined sewer overflows would require a significant amount of
funding in Pennsylvania and Virginia and should be given a high priority in
the estuarine environment. In Pennsylvania, however, this has not been shown
to be as serious a problem as have other point sources of pollution.
Maryland has agreed to provide additional funding to compensate for
federal reductions. Neither Pennsylvania nor Virginia currently provides
significant state-level funding for construction of sewage treatment plants.
Virginia has created the Virginia Resources Authority to help finance sewage
treatment plant construction. The Authority, however, cannot address all the
construction funding needs of localities and is currently oriented toward
needs of the "have" versus "have not" jurisdictions. Methods such as
privatization and revolving loan funds are being explored by Pennsylvania. The
needs of rural localities with small populations and low per capita income
levels must also be addressed.
-------
The lack of an overall strategy to reduce nutrient loads to the Bay was
an important issue to the discussion group. Where strategies to reduce
phosphorus have been set using an effluent concentration standard but with no
maximum load defined in pounds, phosphorus discharges to the Bay have
decreased and will continue to do so in the short run. However, loads will
begin to increase again by the year 2000 as growth and subsequent increase in
point source flows occur. This is true of the Potomac and Upper Bay. (The
exception is the West Chesapeake Basin where phosphorus loads continue to
decline through the year 2000 because of the magnitude of removal proposed.)
State managers hope that some of this increase will be offset by nonpoint
source controls. Where no strategies have been put into place, phosphorus
levels will continue to increase. This is true of the Eastern Shore
tributaries, the Western Shore tributaries in Virginia, and the Upper Potomac.
No attempts to reduce nitrogen loads from point sources are being made
except in the Patuxent watershed. Consensus is growing that nitrogen removal
is necessary to protect the health of the Bay. There is a need to improve our
understanding of the role of nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay system. Additional
research into the role played by nitrogen in freshwater and saline water would
be useful.
At present, goals and strategies to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen have
not been set for most of the tributaries to the Bay. EPA and the states
intend to work toward developing the information and modeling tools needed to
determine what loads of pollutants will result in certain levels of water
quality, and to test strategies for achieving those results. This modeling
effort will be conducted over the next three years.
The potential for use of biological nutrient removal as a low cost
alternative to other nutrient removal technologies raises hopes that nutient
reduction strategies may not be as costly as originally anticipated. While
this method is being used in other parts of the world, some questions remain
concerning its applicability to the Bay area, particularly for nitrogen
removal. Several demonstration and full scale facilities for biological
nutrient removal of phosphorus are in place or planned in the Bay watershed.
One full scale biological nutrient removal facility for both nitrogen and
phosphorus control is planned in Virginia. These projects will help in
assessing the overall role which biological control can play in nutrient
reduction strategies in the Bay area.
Increased attention to enforcement of existing permits has resulted from
the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, increased public pressure and citizen suits,
and improved oversight of enforcement by EPA. While the results of this
increased attention were difficult to document, discussion group members were
certain it was having a beneficial effect, especially on industrial dis-
chargers .
In the past, enforcement action against municipal discharges has been
delayed while funding was sought for sewage treatment plant upgrades. The
National Municipal Policy requiring compliance with all municipal permits by
1988 regardless of availability of funding will present significant enforce-
ment challenges. All of the states are making significant strides in
implementing the National Municipal Policy.
-------
While the scope of the problem has not been well-defined, all jurisdic-
tions agree that funding for operation, maintenance, and repair and replace-
ment at municipal and privately owned sewage treatment plants is a serious
problem. User fees are often insufficient to cover these problems. EPA has
taken enforcement action in the District of Columbia because of maintenance
problems; the District is raising fees significantly and upgrading its
maintenance program. Pennsylvania has an annual grant program to help defray
the costs of operating and maintaining publicly owned sewage treatment plants.
Maryland has devised a system of requiring assurance of sound financial
management of municipally and privately owned plants.
Pollution by toxic substances, and the lack of strategies aimed at
achieving specific reductions, was another concern raised. Toxic pollutant
load reduction goals for various parts of the Bay system, and schedules for
meeting such goals, have generally not been considered. Managers are relying,
rather, on improved monitoring to determine when and where toxic pollutant
limits in individual permits might be considered. Pretreatment of industrial
wastes is the other major strategy for dealing with toxic pollutants.
All states and the District are committed to developing pretreatment
programs and securing delegation of the federal pretreatment program
authority. Nearly all local systems which require pretreatment programs have
developed programs or are in the process of doing so. All new statutes
required at the state level have been enacted; necessary new regulations have
been drafted or proposed.
Significant strides have been made in adopting measures designed to
reduce chlorine discharges into the Bay in Maryland and the District of
Columbia. Pennsylvania has no statewide requirement for dechlorination of
effluents, but dechlorination can be, and is, required on a case by case basis
as necessary. Virginia is in the process of adopting a statewide chlorine
standard and has provided funding to upgrade six facilities to date; changes
in operating procedures have resulted in a 41% decrease in chlorine discharge
to the Bay within the Commonwealth.
It is impossible at this time to compare, Baywide, the load of pollu-
tants, other than nutrients, being discharged into the Bay. Data on loads of
conventional and toxic pollutants is being collected for the EPA Bay Data
Center computer files but is not yet sufficiently complete to allow valid com-
parisons. This information is computerized in Virginia but not in the other
jurisdictions. Computerization of state permit information and discharge
monitoring reports should make updating this information easier in the future.
EPA and the states have agreed on funding for a comprehensive monitoring
program and have put the system into place. While not all of the details of
quality control and assurance have been resolved, the data are being collected
and recorded at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Data Center. EPA is to report on the
"State of the Bay" annually. Agencies responsible for monitoring in Maryland
and Virginia are required to report to their General Assemblies on the. status
of the monitoring program and the status of the resources of the Bay. Such
reporting should begin in 1986.
-------
Sludge disposal was recognized as a serious problem which could hamper
attempts to improve treatment of municipal wastes. While some progress has
been made, especially in reaching a multijurisdictional agreement to deal with
Blue Plains sludge, this problem will remain a significant one in the entire
watershed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Funding for Construction of Sewage Treatment Plants
Availability of funding for construction of point source controls regains
a major issue within each state which is exacerbated by the potential loss of
much of the traditional federal funding support. Therefore, there is an
urgent need in all jurisdictions to continue to explore and institute
alternate arrangements to meet funding needs. The states should give strong
support to the idea of continued federal funding even in the face of current
and projected reductions.
2. Nutrient Loads
Nutrient load goals expressed in pounds of nutrients which are allowed to
be discharged (in lieu of concentration limits) should be set for each area
of the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin where nutrient enrichment has been
identified as a problem. Both point and nonpoint strategies for meeting these
goals should be set. There was a lack of consensus as to whether goals should
be set now and revised as new knowledge is gained through modeling and
research, or whether the creation of goals should await the outcome of
definitive research and modelling. Those discussion group members who were
reluctant to recommend setting goals now expressed three points of concern:
(1) that legislators would be tempted to set load goals instead of designating
a lead agency to do so; (2) that there is insufficient information to select a
defensible pound limit; and (3) that agencies do not have the resources needed
to research and develop a defensible pound limit.
3. Enforcement
The increased government attention to, and public pressure for, improved
enforcement should be continued. Violators should not gain an economic
advantage from noncompliance. Furthermore, timely, certain, and equitable
enforcement action should result in improved compliance by dischargers.
4. Toxic Pollutant Loads
Consideration should be given to developing consistent point source
toxic control strategies among the states in the Bay region. States need to
review all sources of toxics entering the Bay's waters, including nonpoint
sources such as air pollution and groundwater leaching from land fills. All
agencies involved in toxics in all the states should meet in a regional forum
to discuss the development of toxic strategies throughout the Bay region.
-------
5. Pretreatment
Enforcement of pretreatment programs is essential in order to reduce
toxic pollutant loads and to enhance the quality of sewage sludge for
agricultural uses.
However, pretreatment programs will only deal with a part of the problem;
the sources of the toxic contamination are varied and difficult to pinpoint.
A regional task force should be established to examine the issues inherent in
establishing toxic load reduction goals for the Bay while adequate funding is
provided to implement, and authority is granted to enforce, the existing
pretreatment programs.
6. Role of Nitrogen
Where and when to remove nitrogen from point source dischargers will be
one of the most important issues to be resolved by state water quality
managers.
7. Biological Nutrient Removal
Biological nutrient removal may provide a low cost alternative to
chemical nutrient removal, and use of this technology should be explored and
implemented where feasible.
8. Operation and Maintenance
Planning for point source pollution control facilities should include
adequate funds for maintenance, operation, and replacement. State and local
jurisdictions should explore methods of improving operation and maintenance.
In addition, training programs (which are currently being carried out by all
jurisdictions) should address financial management, as well as operations,
repair, maintenance and pretreatment.
9. Chlorine Removal
Efforts to reduce chlorine discharge into the Bay system should be
continued.
10. Tracking Nutrient and Toxic Loads
Continuing collection and periodic analysis of data on loads of
pollutants, both nutrients and toxic materials, is vital for assessing the
effectiveness of the management programs instituted to protect the Bay.
Because of the complexity of collecting this data in a compatible form
from all states, and because of the burdensome work load such data collection
could create, care must be taken in designing an efficient system and
integrating it with present reporting requirements. EPA has developed a
Permit Compliance System. The Chesapeake Bay Commission should ask EPA to
report on implementation of this system. Consultation with other EPA regions
in which reporting of toxic loads is required may be useful.
-------
11. Monitoring
There is an urgent need for sound and timely analysis of the monitoring
data being collected.
12. National Municipal Policy
Progress in meeting the National Municipal Policy for attainment of final
effluent limits at all publicly owned treatment works by 1988, should
continue.
13. Sludge
The production and disposal of sewage sludge can present major barriers
to compliance with permit limits. This problem will only increase as time
goes on. The states should engage in programs to stimulate the utilization
of composted sludge, subject to appropriate testing and application.
14. Freshwater Conservation
States should consider water resources in the context of quality,
quantity and distribution. Each state program should include a water
conservation effort.
-------
NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
The states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia are putting forth significant efforts in an attempt to reduce
nonpoint sources of pollution. The increased level of activity is manifested
both in terms of new programs which have been enacted since 1984 and the
increased allocation of resources to existing programs. Each of the three
states has initiated, as a principal element of its nonpoint source pollution
control package, a program to encourage the implementation of best management
practices on agricultural lands. Each has made cost share funds available to
the agricultural community and has developed educational and outreach programs
to inform and encourage farmers regarding the benefits of installing BMPs.
The amounts of funding and manpower committed to these programs vary widely
from state to state but, due to limited resources, no state has yet been able
to fully meet the demands for assistance. At this date, only a small
proportion of farmers in the watershed are receiving direct assistance and
additional sources of funding must be sought.
Each state has developed its own system for defining priority areas to
which available funds should be targeted, and each has developed a different
approach regarding the implementation and enforcement of the programs. While
all of the existing programs are essentially voluntary in nature, there are
differing degrees of regulatory support or "back-up" available to state
agencies and state policies vary concerning the appropriateness and timing of
state-imposed intervention or enforcement actions.
1. Cost-Share Programs
The agricultural best management practices cost-share programs in all
three states are commendable, but the level of interest and requests for
assistance surpass the amount of funding available to support the programs.
Cost-share progress should be continued and expanded as necessary. States
must recognize that these programs are long-terB efforts which will require
continuing support (administrative and technical, as well as financial) from
the legislatures and executive agencies if they are to demonstrate positive
results. Cost-share programs must be carefully tracked to ensure that
resources are being utilized for optimal efficiency and effectiveness.
The states should also consider alternatives to federal and state
cost-share programs. Institutional approaches such as tax credits, use-value
assessments, cross-compliance, and insurance programs tied to risk of loss of
BMPs through natural disaster have been shown to be effective. Regulatory
approaches as well as private funding and funding from local governments
should also be considered.
2. Increased Participation and Public Education
Continuing and increased participation on the part of the agricultural
community, developers and the general public is absolutely essential to the
success of these programs. Farmers, developers and the public at large must
be made aware of the economic and environmental benefits which can result from
their actions. Ongoing educational efforts are also important to ensure the
-------
awareness and support of all nonpoint source control programs directed to the
public sector, urban and suburban, as well as rural. Financial resources
must be made available to deliver these educational programs.
3. Manpower and Resources
It is important that adequate manpower and resources at the federal,
state and local levels be appropriated to these programs in all jurisdictions
and that authorized positions be filled as expeditiously as possible in order
for programs to achieve their maximum potential within the shortest feasible
time frame. It is particularly important that new programs be granted
adequate opportunity and resources to demonstrate their capabilities and
effectiveness. Program evaluations are much more realistic if progress is
reviewed after a full complement of qualified staff is in place to carry out
the program. The availability of trained personnel in soil conservation
technology is extremely limited and this lack of a "talent pool" severely
restricts the the states' opportunity to hire qualified individuals. States
should actively seek to strengthen academic curricula in this area.
4. Enforcement of Erosion and Sediment Control Laws
Effective enforcement of erosion and sediment control laws for non-
agricultural activities has been identified as a problem in all areas. The
basic difficulty appears to be a lack of manpower and resources, though
restricted enforcement options may also be a factor in some areas. Suffi-
cient resources must be appropriated if erosion and sediment control programs
are to be effectively implemented and enforced.
5. Comparison of Point and Nonpoint Source Programs
Each jurisdiction in the Bay region is carrying out both point and
nonpoint source control programs. Point source and nonpoint source controls
and strategies should be compared with each other, and among the various
jurisdictions, and evaluated on a continuing basis to determine efficiency and
effectiveness of each.
6. Tracking of Cost-sharing Best Management Practices Programs
Cost-sharing projects on agricultural lands should be carefully tracked
and evaluated. Such monitoring should include inspection for verification of
installation and maintenance of best management practices on farmlands.
7. Monitoring for Water Quality Results of Best Management Practices
It is important to recognize that absolute benefits to water quality are
extremely difficult to quantify and that it is frequently not possible to
attribute specific improvements to a given practice or program. Nevertheless,
water quality monitoring is an important component of an overall strategy to
evaluate program effectiveness. Obviously, it is not possible to monitor all
sites, but selected water quality monitoring stations adjacent to, or
downstream from, specific farms, employing particular practices or groups of
practices, would be beneficial.
-------
8. Directing Efforts to Priority Areas
All states need to continually review and evaluate targeting strategies
for both urban and agricultural nonpoint source control programs to ensure
the most beneficial results. Given the limited amount of funding available,
it is essential that state efforts and resources be directed toward those
areas and programs which will be able to demonstrate the most beneficial
results.
9. Stormwater Management
Stormwater management programs, regulations and authorities vary widely
among the jurisdictions, particularly as they relate to water quality,
implementation mechanisms and funding support. Water quality improvement must
be considered an integral component of Stormwater management planning, and all
states should provide sufficient resources to adequately and comprehensively
address urban nonpoint source pollution problems. It is important that
existing Stormwater structures be adequately maintained and that, wherever
possible, developed areas be retrofitted for effective Stormwater management.
10. Nutrient Research
Continued research on the role of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Bay
ecosystem is essential. Such research must be encouraged and adequately
funded. Important questions vhich should be addressed include, among others,
nitrogen pathways, the assimilative capacity of the Bay for nitrogen compounds
and sediment-water interactions as they relate to nitrogen release.
11. Application of Agricultural Chemicals
State and federal agencies should increase existing efforts to reduce the
application of agricultural chemicals without reducing the productivity of
cropland.
12. Industrial Nonpoint Source Problems
State and federal agencies should strengthen their permit programs to
address industrial nonpoint source pollution.
13. Soil Conservation Service Priorities
The Soil Conservation Service should re-evaluate its priorities in order
to address water quality concerns in a more effective manner.
10
-------
FISHERIES AND LIVING RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Decline in the harvest of commercially and recreationally important fish
and shellfish was perhaps the single most important factor leading to a public
perception of the need to improve the condition of the Bay and resulting in
federal and interstate actions to preserve and restore the Bay. Similarly, it
is an improvement in these fishery resources to which the public will be
looking to demonstrate results of the government commitment enunciated in
1983. Programs designed to protect or enhance water quality have received the
largest share of appropriations in the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives because it
is hoped that improved water quality will eventually result in improved
productivity for the Bay's fisheries resources. In addition, three types of
fisheries and living resources initiatives are being implemented: (1)
developing and implementing fishery management plans for all important
commercial and sport species, (2) making improvements in fisheries habitat,
and (3) artificially replenishing the stocks of certain species. In addition
to the state action, several federal and interstate activities have been
initiated since 1983 which promise to have a significant impact on the way
fisheries in the Bay are managed. These actions include appropriation of
funds to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for improving the
information available to state fisheries managers, and the use of federal
authority to add "teeth" to the interstate fisheries management plan for
striped bass developed by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CONCERNS
Several fisheries of the Bay, particularly in Maryland, have continued to
decline since the early 1980's. Shad, striped bass, river herrings, yellow
perch, oysters, and soft clams are all at historically low levels. In
addition to threatening the resources, this situation presents a socioeconomic
crisis for Maryland's fishing industry. It may also result in increased
harvest pressure on other species, increased entry into the Virginia fishery
by all users, and loss of traditional markets for Chesapeake Bay seafood.
The fisheries management workshop of 1983 recommended that harvest
pressure on Bay stocks of fish and shellfish stocks (with the exception of
blue crabs) should be immediately reduced. It particularly noted the need to
reduce harvest pressure on striped bass and to increase the level of oyster
repletion funding. Since that time, action has been taken on both species.
Harvest pressure on striped bass has been severely curtailed by a
moratorium on harvest in Maryland, and a six month moratorium on harvest, sale
or possession, and an 18 inch minimum size limit, in Virginia and in the
Potomac River. The District of Columbia is expected to impose an 18 inch size
limit in the near future. All coastal states have complied with the
Interstate Striped Bass Plan as of June, 1985 and additional restrictions are
expected to bring them into compliance with the Plan's 1985 amendments.
Oyster replenishment funding has increased substantially in Maryland and
Virginia. However, repletion efforts had been allowed to decline to very low
levels and the increase does not return these efforts to the levels which were
11
-------
being carried out when the harvest was higher and more stable, although it is
now close to that level. Furthermore, in Maryland, at least, repletion does
not appear to be replacing harvest, apparently due to low spat fall. Several
good spat sets have occurred recently in Virginia. Repletion efforts in the
Potomac River under the Potomac River Fisheries Commission have not been
funded at a level equivalent to those of Maryland and Virginia.
Virginia has reduced harvest pressure on oysters approximately 18% by
imposing a 2:00 p.m. time of day closing. In Maryland, a "white paper" on the
status of the oyster industry has been produced and distributed, a subcommit-
tee of the House of Delegates Environmental Matters Committee has studied the
problems of the industry, and a special Oyster White Paper Committee has been
formed to evaluate alternative management measures.
There are several bi-state aspects to the current problems in the oyster
industry: (1) the loss of oyster harvest from Maryland presents a problem for
Virginia packers, (2) dredged shell from Maryland is used in the Virginia
replenishment program, (3) natural seed is in short supply in Maryland and
still relatively abundant in Virginia, (4) both states are experimenting with
new technologies for producing oyster larvae and seed, and (5) many of the
same problems beset both states' industries (e.g., MSX). The 1983 fisheries
management workshop stated: "Implementation of the most rational oyster
management strategies in the Chesapeake Bay would require a carefully planned
bi-state management program and major legislative reforms to implement it." No
action to develop a bi-state program has been initiated since that time.
The blue crab fishery is one of the most valuable and apparently stable
fisheries in the Bay. Harvest pressure has and probably will continue to
increase significantly. Catch per unit effort appears to have been declining.
There is little information to indicate whether the crab industry can continue
to support an indefinitely growing number of harvesters.
A Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Statistics Workshop was held in 1982. Most of
the recommendations made by that workshop have been implemented, and
consequently, there has been some improvement in the capability of both
Maryland and Virginia to collect and use fisheries statistics. Nonetheless,
it is still not possible, based on data now being collected, to determine the
condition of many fisheries and to identify factors leading to their decline.
The Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee was formed in 1984. Work
begun by this Committee shows great promise in fulfilling many of the most
pressing needs for management information which have been identified in recent
years. This group is currently developing a stock assessment plan for the
Bay. Implementation of this plan should increase the accuracy of the stock
data needed for an understanding of the reasons for declines in important
fisheries and increase our ability to reverse those declines and manage the
Bay's fisheries for long term optimum yields. This effort must be long term
in order to succeed. At present it is based on a one-year appropriation of
federal funds. While funds have been requested for another year's work, there
is no guarantee that additional federal funds will be appropriated. Meanwhile
the Committee's work must continue under whatever ad hoc funding arrangements
can be devised.
12
-------
Work begun by the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office with funds earmarked by
Congress for the Chesapeake Bay should result in better information on
critical threshold levels for toxic chemicals and other environmental
conditions; however, a relatively small proportion of research funds has been
allocated to this problem. Very little of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
funding will be spent on living resource problems. EPA and NOAA have signed a
memorandum of understanding concerning their Chesapeake Bay efforts.
Since 1983, the need for fishery management plans for all major
commercial and recreational species has been recognized, and plan development
is being pursued as a major initiative in Maryland and Virginia. Both intend
to have completed plans for all major species by 1990. In Virginia this
activity is being pursued under a legislative mandate. In Maryland it is
being carried out as an administrative initiative. Both Maryland and Virginia
are depending on the work of the other and on the Atlantic States Marine.
Fisheries Commission to get the bulk of the work on fishery management plans
completed. For example, Virginia is taking the lead on a blue crab management
plan. Maryland will be able to use the Virginia plan in developing its own.
ASMFC is soon to adopt a shad and river herring plan; Maryland's plan is being
developed by building on the information and analysis prepared for, that plan.
Virginia will make use of both the ASMFC and Maryland plans.
Improving water quality in the District of Columbia has led to the devel-
opment of a substantial recreational fishery in that jurisdiction. In
addition, the District has recently taken responsibility for managing its
fishery. The District of Columbia is cooperating closely with the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission in developing its plans and regulations.
The 1983 Fisheries Management Workshop recommended that management of
fisheries resources be placed in the hands of the appropriate state
administrative agencies with the assurance that they are given the authority,
responsibility and flexibility to manage, under careful legislative guidance
and oversight. The Chesapeake Bay Commission committed itself in 1983 to
developing comprehensive legislation in both states which would set a clear
legislative policy for the Chesapeake Bay and which would provide for the
implementation and enforcement of fishery management plans. This commitment
has been partially fulfilled in Virginia, but may be tested when changes in
statutes needed to implement certain plans are proposed. No such comprehen-
sive legislation has been introduced in Maryland due to reluctance of the
legislature to grant additional regulatory authority to the Department of
Natural Resources. Neither states' fisheries management agency has the full
authority necessary to carry out the plans once developed. In the absence of
such authority, it will be necessary to bring each management plan to the
General Assembly for specific legislative changes required for its implementa-
tion.
The need to improve the use of institutions designed to coordinate
management of the fisheries resources of the Bay was expressed in 1983. Since
that time, the Chesapeake Bay Unit of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission has been reconvened. A bistate working committee on fisheries was
abandoned, reconstituted under the auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
and then reorganized in 1985. The current coordinating committee has
committed to reporting to the Commission at each regularly scheduled meeting
on the status of fishery management plans and the need for joint action on
13
-------
legislative or enforcement issues. While there 'has been a high degree of
communication between the fisheries managers, basic differences in the
management philosophies of the two states remain; some management actions,
therefore, have not appeared to be coordinated. Furthermore, none of these
working groups has a high public profile and thus there is little public
awareness of interstate activity concerning the management of the Bay's
fishery resources.
Consensus developed among fisheries managers and the Commission in 1983
that it was desirable to establish recreational fishing licenses for the Bay
and dedicate revenues from the licenses to enhancing fisheries. Since that
time a Chesapeake Bay sport fishing license has been established in Maryland.
Because of lack of public support, resulting in part from fears that the funds
would not be dedicated exclusively to fisheries enhancement, no such license
has been established in Virginia. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission and
the District of Columbia are considering the adoption of sportfishing
licenses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Oysters
Legislative action on the management of oysters, based on the work of
the Oyster White Paper Committee and the Environmental Natters Committee,
will be a priority in Maryland in the upcoming 1986 General Assembly Session.
Legislative action is expected to be a priority in Virginia in 1987, but will
depend on the results and recommendations of the Virginia Oyster Management
Plan to be completed in 1986.
The current crisis in the Maryland oyster fishery should be approached
as a bistate problem. While there appears to be little support in the fishing
industry for a bi-state program, there is a strong consensus among scientists
and managers that a bistate management program is desirable. Accordingly,
although such a program may not be a viable option at the present time, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission should work towards bi-state efforts as a long term
goal. A formal working relationship should be established to ultimately
achieve uniform management.
2. Research Agenda For The Bay
Living resources should be a driving force behind the research agenda
for the Bay. A partnership among EPA, NOAA, the Department of Interior, and
other federal and state agencies is needed in order to ensure that adequate
attention is given to the causes of declines in living resources.
3. Fisheries Statistics and Stock Assessments
Funding and allocation of new positions for statistics and stock
assessments is quite small in relation to that provided for other Chesapeake
Bay Initiatives and should be given a higher funding priority. Benefits to
be derived from this investment for additional staff far outweigh the
expenditures. The Chesapeake Bay Commission should draft a position paper
recommending legislation authorizing a long term program of stock assessment,
supported by federal and state funds, should seek support of key legislators
for such legislation.
14
-------
4. Regulatory Authority
The Commission should continue to work towards the goal of providing
appropriate state administrative agencies the authority, responsibility, and
flexibility to manage fisheries resources under careful legislative guidance
and oversight. It is recommended that both Maryland and Virginia fisheries
agencies be given the regulatory authority to implement interstate fisheries
management plans, once those plans are adopted by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission or the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. However,
the review and hearing procedures of the respective jurisdictions are
extremely important to the success of the regulatory process.
5. Understanding the Biological System
The biological system of Chesapeake Bay is complex and its many
components are highly interactive. The living resources of the Bay include
many more species and communities than the harvested forms alone, important
as they are. Efforts should be substantially increased to measure and
understand the general biological health of the Bay system and to utilize
that health as a target for restoration and protection. Adequate funds should
be provided for this purpose.
6. Improving Institutions and Understanding of Management
While several mechanisms exist to coordinate fisheries management
actions among the Bay jurisdictions, basic differences in the management
philosophies of Maryland and Virginia, and a lack of public awareness of
interstate activities, hinder the resolution of interjurisdictional issues.
Groups such as the Commission, the Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay
and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation should work to improve public awareness and
understanding of interstate fisheries management issues.
Other Research Programs
Programs which make substantial contributions to the body of knowledge
concerning the impacts of environmental and man-induced changes on living
resources, and programs relating to habitat protection, should be continued.
These include, but are not limited to, the Emergency Striped Bass Act,
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, the Sea Grant Program and the Coastal Zone
Management Program.
8. Saltwater Recreational Fishing License
The Commission should encourage all Bay jurisdictions to adopt a
saltwater sportfishing license and should work to foster greater public
support and to emphasize that license revenues would be dedicated to
enhancing fisheries. It is important that such a license be reciprocal among
all jurisdictions of the Bay region, including the District of Columbia and
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission.
15
-------
9. Passage of Anadromous Fish
The Chesapeake Bay Commission is encouraged to address the problems of
spawning passage for anadromous species with particular reference to
Conowingo Dam and restoring shad runs on the Susquehanna River.
10. Research Coordination
The Chesapeake Bay Commission should look into the mechanisms available
to coordinate Bay research and to see that there is a viable mechanism to do
so.
11. Bi-State Fisheries Management Plans
There is consensus among the states' fisheries managers that cooperation
in the management of shared stocks is needed, but uniform bi-state plans may
not be necessary at this time and that differences in scheduled completion of
the plans pose no difficulty. State fisheries managers have committed to
bringing any interstate issues or conflicts which materialize in the course
of plan development in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to the Commission
for resolution. It is recommended that when the various state plans are
nearing the final phase of review prior to adoption, the Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission and/or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission should review
them to ensure compatibility.
12. Blue Crabs
Fishery management plans for the blue crab industry should address the
issue of harvest pressure.
13. Clean Water Act
The Chesapeake Bay Commission should support strengthening the language
of the Clean Water Act as related to protection and enhancement of living
resources.
16
-------
LAND USE AND RESOURCE TRENDS
Land use planning was not a specific focus of the Chesapeake Bay
Initiatives enacted by Virginia and Pennsylvania in 1984. Maryland, however,
which has the most densely populated areas and the most intense development
pressures enacted legislation to provide special management attention to the
"critical area" within 1000 feet of tidal waters. Other jurisdictions quite.
properly placed their initial emphasis on point source and less specific
nonpoint source pollution control programs. By making land use a specific
focus of one of the four work groups preparatory to the Biennial Review,
however, the Commission determined that it was an issue central to the resto-
ration of the Bay.
SUMMARY OF ISSUE AND CONCERNS
Much of the discussion of the workgroup focused on the ability and
response of local governments in implementing the land use authorities granted
them by state governments. The concern was centered on the issue of whether
local governments "were equipped and willing to protect state interests in
water quality and resource protection. Development in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed has been concentrated along the Harrisburg-Baltimore-Washing-
ton-Richmond-Norfolk urban corridor. Growth patterns over the past five
years, however, have begun to show some elements of change. Rural areas such
as Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck-Middle Peninsula areas of Virginia
are experiencing rapidly increasing growth pressures. Such jurisdictions as
these are frequently ill-equipped to handle the more sophisticated planning
functions associated with rapidly developing urban areas.
Growth in the Chesapeake Bay area will continue tow increase into the
foreseeable future, leading to increased stress upon the Bay ecosystem. The
impacts of growth and land development, however, can be mitigated and, to some
extent, directed through existing comprehensive land use planning and zoning
mechanisms. There was recognition, however, that enhancing or even maintain-
ing the quality of the Bay while accommodating growth will involve tradeoffs.
While many localities have strong zoning ordinances and/or regulatory
programs in place, enforcement has been identified as a problem in all
jurisdictions. Without adequate enforcement, regulations are virtually
meaningless. The problem of individual zoning and permit decisions gradually
eroding away well laid land use plans was also raised.
Another issue raised was whether enabling legislation which authorizes
local governments to plan and zone is sufficient to grant them authority to
protect water quality and other resources. In Virginia, for instance, the
authority of local governments to incorporate environmental criteria into
their zoning regulations has been called into question through a number of
court challenges. In almost all cases, the courts have invalidated innovative
exercises of local zoning authority to control growth or to protect environ-
mental resources.
17
-------
Regulation was not the only approach to directing land use trends or
mitigating impacts, however. The influence of taxes and other economic
incentives and disincentives which affect the quality and pattern of
development was also stressed. The role of the state government in serving as
a role model for mitigating impacts through proper development techniques was
emphasized. A central concern was that state governments assume a more active
leadership and oversight role in assisting local governments in the develop-
ment and execution of effective land use policies.
Also of concern was the problem of keeping track of development that is
occurring in the various jurisdictions around the Bay and determining the
extent of the impacts of growth and development. While the EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program developed a good baseline of current land use and projected trends in
1980, little has been done to update this information and monitor growth.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Stronger State Role
Many groups, including the Chesapeake Bay Commission, have previously
recommended that the states take a stronger role in the development of
comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations, particularly as they
affect water quality and habitat preservation and protection, and where
potential interjurisdictional conflicts exist. More specifically, the state's
role should include: (1) a definition of state interests that transcend local
goals, and (2) protection of the interests when local governments fail to do
so.
The time has come for legislative bodies in all jurisdictions to give
thorough consideration to providing a stronger leadership role, or sense of
direction, in the area of land use and development as it impacts the Bay.
Specific land use practices should be examined and their individual and
collective impacts upon Bay water quality assessed. Because of the differ-
ences in state and local authority in each state, and because of the variety
of development pressures faced by each jurisdiction, each state may need to
approach this issue in its own unique fashion.
The General Assembly of Maryland should adopt the critical areas criteria
during the 1986 Session. Virginia and Pennsylvania should "bite the bullet"
regarding state land use policy in critical areas using whatever approach is
best suited to the individual states.
2. Enforcement
Without adequate enforcement, local zoning regulations are meaningless.
The federal government, states and localities must provide sufficient
leadership, direction and resources to effectively enforce existing and
proposed land use programs. Jurisdictions should be evaluated and ranked as
to their effectiveness in administering water quality protection programs.
This should be accomplished by consistent and long-term collection of local
land use data by an entity which could report annually to the legislatures.
18
-------
3. Increased Financial and Technical Support
State governments should provide more active leadership and oversight as
well as increased financial, technical, legal and policy support to local
governments to assist them in reducing the adverse impacts of growth and
development. States should also implement training programs for local
planning officials.
4. Stricter Standards to Offset Impacts of Growth
Stricter standards for sewage treatment, stormwater management, sediment
control, and water conservation, as well as offsets in terms of installing
best management practices on farmland and on redevelopment of urban areas
will become increasingly necessary to maintain or enhance the quality of the
Bay system as population growth and land development continue. Local
governments need to generate a commitment to effective land use practices and
provide the funds, or fee structure, to support these programs.
5. Economic Incentives for Protection of Forest, Wetlands and Buffers
States should encourage the protection of existing forestlands, tidal and
non-tidal wetlands, and vegetated buffer strips near the Bay and its
tributaries. States should examine and utilize innovative programs such as
tax incentives and preservation easements to make it more economically
attractive to reduce the amount of forest and agricultural land which is
converted to more intensive uses. Tax programs, structures and rates should
be designed to provide positive economic pressures to encourage the preserva-
tion of land at the water's edge. Tax policies should be examined carefully
to ensure that they do not conflict or work at cross-purposes with one
another. For example, employment of use value taxation to encourage farm land
preservation should not restrict a locality's eligibility to receive state
benefits which are based on the total assessable tax base for that locality.
States should give priority to Bay and riverfront properties in their open
space acquisition programs to provide increased public access to tidal waters
and to protect such areas from intensive development.
6. Accurate Up-to-Date Land Use Information
All states should have the capacity to swiftly and accurately advise the
Governor and General Assembly on issues related to land use, growth and
development. In order to have a yardstick to measure the impacts of growth
and development on water quality and living resources, and in order to assess
the viability of state and local land use programs, it is imperative that we
have information on land uses and trends as well as data on existing state
and local programs which should be regularly updated. A central repository
should be established with the responsibility for collecting and processing
such data. There are monitoring programs in place for the waters and living
resources of the Bay, but there is currently no system in place to assess
changes in land use on a Baywide basis.
19
-------
7. Monitoring and Control of Shoreline Development
The recently-enacted Critical Areas Act in Maryland represents a strong
step in the direction of steaming the potentially adverse impacts of
uncontrolled growth and development in the area directly abutting the Bay and
its tributaries. The state should be applauded for this effort and encouraged
to continue the program. Favorable action on the Critical Areas Commission
criteria should be given the highest priority by the General Assembly of
Maryland in the 1986 Session. The Act provides an important example of the
ways in which development along the shoreline can be monitored and controlled.
8. Role in Protection of Agricultural and Forestal Land
The protection of agricultural land, forestland and sensitive habitat
areas within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin should be matters of explicit
state policy and should not be left solely to the discretion of local
governments.
9. State Input into Local Decisions
As an element of their oversight responsibility, states should examine
the effectiveness and capability of local governments and regional cooperative
planning agencies to ensure that their activities accurately reflect, and
facilitate the implementation of, established state policies. The level of
state, as well as local, resources devoted to such efforts should be reviewed.
It is incumbent upon the states to provide the necessary resources and
information to local and regional governments to enable them to make informed
decisions regarding land use policy. State assistance is particularly
important and necessary in cases where large-scale developments are proposed
in more rural jurisdictions which have little expertise or experience in
addressing the environmental impacts of such developments. Mechanisms whereby
localities can receive assistance and advice prior to making critical land use
decisions should be available in all states. In most cases, there is a gap
between the needs of local governments to consider the impacts of accelerating
development and their technical and regulatory ability to adequately perform
this task.
10. Clarification of Local Zoning Authority
Zoning enabling legislation in all states should clearly and specifically
grant local governments the authority to address the environmental conse-
quences of growth and development. Clarification and resolution of this
issue should be a priority for the Virginia General Assembly.
11. Standards for State Development
Projects conducted by or under the direction of state agencies and
projects on state-owned property should serve as exemplary models for the
private sector in terms of land use practices. Strict enforcement standards
and compliance schedules should apply to all state projects.
20
-------
12. Non-Living Resources
In addition to programs and policies designed to protect and preserve
living resources, states must also recognize the importance of the statutes
and regulations designed to protect non-living, or physical, resources which
are important components of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
The distribution and transport of sand, for example, may be adversely
impacted by changes in land use. Not only can beach areas, shoals, spits,
etc. be lost, but a host of living resources and their habitats can also be
seriously degraded. The sustenance of most coastal features in the Bay
requires an additional input of sediment from the erosion of fastland.
Planning and zoning mechanisms should recognize the importance of these
physical interactions, which may, in some cases, mean acknowledging that
shoreline erosion (particularly in non-developed areas) should not or cannot
be effectively abated.
13. Off-Site Impacts
Regulatory programs and policies must address the off-site impacts of
land-disturbing activities. This implies a need for comprehensive watershed
monitoring and planning.
14. Infrastructure and clustering
Local land use plans should direct new development toward areas with an
existing infrastructure such as water and sewage systems, roadways, etc.
These areas can best accommodate growth and mitigate the resulting impacts of
such growth. Clustering should be encouraged in order to minimize the amount
of land converted from the "underdeveloped" categories to the more intensely
developed categories.
15. Inventory of Non-Tidal Wetlands
An accurate inventory of non-tidal wetlands should be maintained by all
three states, and protection and enhancement programs developed. Tidal
wetlands should also continue to be inventoried and monitored.
21
------- |