Chesapeake Executive Council
FIRST ANNUAL
PROGRESS REPORT
under the
CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
December 1985
-------
CAN VASBAC K
The Canvasback duck is a species of waterfowl that
has been adversely affected by the water quality
deterioration of Chesapeake Bay No other species is
as uniquely associated with the Chesapeake estuary
as this elegant waterfowl. Half of the entire
population winters in the Atlantic Flyway, and 50%
of those birds in the Bay
The population of this species has decreased
substantially since the 1 930s. Then hundreds of
thousands of Canvasbacks commonly occurred in
the Susquehanna flats and other freshwater Bay
areas rich with submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAy).
The Canvasback’s fame was established early in
Americas history as a epicurean delight
Historically market demand promoted wanton
slaughter. It is believed that the species received
its common name not from the color of its back.
which is white, but from how it was delivered to
market — in canvas bags with the word “back”
stenciled on them, a note to purchasers to return
the bags to the market hunters
Canvasbacks on the Chesapeake are no longer
threatened by market hunters. However, their
abundance and distribution on the Bay, along with
many other species of waterfowl, has changed
considerably. Canvasbacks are vulnerable to
climatic changes, habitat destruction and alteration.
predation and estuarine pollution. Population
decreases occur rapidly, and the species
abundance needs to be closely monitored.
Canvasbacks and other species of waterfowl in the
Bay depended highly upon SAV for food. Until
recently. wildcelery was the preferred SAy for
Canvasbacks on the Bay The scientific name of the
Can — Aythya valisinena — is taken from the
scientifc name for wildcelery, Vallisneria
americana The abundance of SAV in the Bay
decreased dramatically in the early 1 970s primarily
because of nonpoint pollutants, particularly
excessive sediment and nutrients.
Some Canvasbacks moved south to feed in the
SAV-rich back bays of North Carolina Others
remaining in the Bay changed from a customary
diet of SAV to a diet consisting mainly of small
Baltic Macoma clams
The Canvasback still remains the most abundant
Bay waterfowl, although its abundance is a
fraction of its historic numbers. Other species of
waterfowl that relied upon SAV in the Bay.
especially the Redhead, northern Pintail and the
American Wigeon, have become rare on the Bay.
They were less able than the Canvasback to adapt
to other food sources
The reduced populations of these waterfowl are
evidence of the degraded water quality in the Bay.
With improved water quality generated by expected
reductions in nutrients and sediment, we can expect
a return of SAy so important to waterfowl. It will
be a monumental task, but worth the effort.
Cover: The Canvasback, photo
courtesy of the U.S. Fish & Wildite
Service.
Additional copies may be obtained from:
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Study Summary 3
WORKING TOGETHER
UNDER THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY AGREEMENT 4
Coordination and Management ... 4
Roles and Responsibilities 6
PROGRAMS TO CLEAN
UP THE BAY 7
Grants 7
Jurisdictions! Initiatives 8
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES... 13
Monitoring 13
Modeling and Research 16
Data Management 17
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan 18
Citizen Participation 19
FEDERAL INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION 21
OUTLOOK 22
-------
FOREWORD
TO THE SIGNA TORS OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BA V AGREEMENT
AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BAY BASIN:
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in December of 1983. Since then
we have made significant strides. A cooperative state and federal structure has been
established, as called for in the Agreement. More importantly, we have completed the
first Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan, which outlines present and
future state and federal actions to improve the water quality of the Bay. We have
underway coordinated water quality monitoring programs which wi/I help us guage
our progress while maintaining our vigilance in those areas which are presently environ-
mentally sound.
Next year we will start reporting on the water quality conditions of the Bay and
its tributaries, while we continue working with the agricultural community on nonpoint
source pollution control programs on the farmlands of the Basin. This program should
aid the farmer by reducing the amount and the cost of fertilizer which, in turn, will
improve the basin streams, and in time, enhance the waters of Chesapeake Bay. We will
work to define the specific relationships between remedial measures available to us and
their expected effects on the water quality and living resources of the Bay. Upon these
efforts we can develop sound policy recommendations for future pollution control.
Finally, we will maintain and improve the institutional structure and nurture the success-
ful working relationships which were strengthened in 1984—85.
This year’s report discusses the status of the Bay Agreement and the programs
in place to restore and protect the Bay and its tributaries. Future reports by the
Executive Council will discuss more about the state of the Bay and our progress in
reducing pollution loads to the Bay. It took many decades to degrade the Bay; it will
take years to restore it. Our work has only started, but we have made an excellent
beginning bouyed by the cooperation and optimism that we will achieve the goals of
improved water quality and a revitalization of the living resources in the Chesapeake
Bay
Chairman
Chesapeake Executive Council
II
-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In September 1 983 the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
the results of its seven year study of the
Chesapeake Bay. The findings were alarming to the
public as well as to political leaders, federal and
state governments It was obvious to all that if the
resource was to be saved, action had to be taken
immediately
On December 7-9. 1983. over 700 people gathered
in Fairfax. Virginia at a conference convened by the
Governors of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
the Mayor of the District of Columbia. the EPA
Administrator and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission Together the sponsors set forth and
committed themselves to achieve the following
goals
• To improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Bay System
• To accommodate growth in an
environmentally sound manner.
• To assure a continuing process of public input
and participation on regional issues of Bay
management.
• To support and enhance a regional,
cooperative approach toward Bay
management
To provide the mechanisms and organizational
framework necessary to implement coordinated,
cooperative clean-up programs, the conference
sponsors signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983
We recognize that the findings of the Chesapeake Bay Program have
shown an historical decline in the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay
and that a cooperative approach is needed among the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Maryland, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (the States) to fully
address the extent, complexity, and sources of pollutants entering the Bay.
We further recognize that EPA and the States share the responsibility for
management decisions and resources regarding the high priority issues of the
Chesapeake Bay. Accordingly, the States and the EPA agree to the following
actions:
1. A Chesapeake Executive Council will be established which will meet
at least twice yearly to assess and oversee the implementation of
coordinated plans to improve and protect the water quality and living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. The Council will consist
of the appropriate Cabinet designees of the Governors and the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the Regional Administrator of EPA. The Council will
be initially chaired by EPA and will report annually to the signatories of this
Agreement.
2. The Chesapeake Executive Council will establish an implementation
committee of agency representatives who will meet as needed to coordinate
technical matters and to coordinate the development and evaluation of
management plans. The Council may appoint such ex officio nonvoting
members as deemed appropriate.
3. A liaison office for Chesapeake Bay activities will be established at
EPA ’s Central Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland, to advise and
support the Council and committee.
1
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN
“The Chesapeake Bay is ancient and
abiding. Its future is in the hands of
generations of people, here and yet to
come, who recognize the necessity of
a clean and wholesome Bay and who
commit themselves to its protection.”
William Ruckelshaus. former EPA
Administrator
LEGEND
— — — — Stats Boundary
— WatsfIJ .d Boundary
DE
MO
I
I
2
-------
STUDY SUMMARY
The Chesapeake Bay Program findings clearly
indicated that the Bay is an ecosystem in decline.
The Bay’s ecosystem is complex and difficult to
understand, but some of the links between
problems and their causes became clear in the
course of the EPA study.
Polluting activities occurring throughout the
drainage basin affect water quality in tributary
streams and the Bay. Degradation of the Bay’s
water and sediment quality in turn can affect living
resources. Declines in living resources are
paralleled by changes in water quality which
include increases in nutrient concentrations,
chlorophyll a, turbidity, and toxic chemicals, and
decreases in dissolved oxygen.
A summary of the trends follows;
• Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAy), which
provides protective cover and food for diverse
Bay organisms, has declined in abundance
since the 1 960s.
• Oyster spat set has declined significantly over
the last decade.
• Landings of freshwater spawning finfish have
decreased recently.
• Levels of nutrients are increasing in many
areas of the Bay.
• The amount of Bay water showing low
dissolved oxygen levels in the summer has
increased about 1 5-fold in the past 30 years.
• High concentrations of toxic organic
compounds are found in the bottom
sediments of the Bay near major industrial
facilities.
, 0 cc 0 ’
• In many areas of the Bay heavy metals
concentrations in the water column and
sediments are significantly higher than natural
levels. (See figure below.)
The Chesapeake Bay Program recommended
actions necessary if we are to preserve and restore
the Bay. The list follows and, at the end of each
recommendation is a number referencing the page
in this report where progress is reported.
• The states and EPA develop a basinwide plan,
including implementation schedules to control
nutrients and toxic substances from both point
and nonpoint sources. (18)
• NPDES permits should consider Bay Program
findings on nutrients and toxic substances and
limitation in the permits should be enforced.
(9.11)
• EPA and USDA need to work together to
reduce agricultural pollution. (21)
• Required pretreatment programs must be
implemented. (9 P11)
• Toxic compounds must be kept out of the
estuary to the maximum extent possible. (8.12)
• Techniques to reduce phosphorus and
nitrogen loadings to the Bay should be
evaluated and implemented where they are
appropriate. (7,12)
• A coordinated Baywide monitoring plan must
be initiated. (13)
• A coordinated mechanism should ensure that
government takes appropriate actions to
reduce pollution of the Bay. ( 4, 21)
e”
Toxicity in Freshwater
Toxicity in Saltwater
1 e
\-
3
-------
WORKING TOGETHER
TO CLEAN UP THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY
COORDINATION AND
MANAGEMENT
For Chesapeake Bay 1 983 was a year of reckoning,
decisions and promises. In 1 984 state and federal
governments took action. At the federal level
President Ronald Reagan mentioned the
Chesapeake Bay as a “special national resource” in
his State of the Union message and pledged $10
million a year for four years to enhance clean-up
efforts. The three state legislatures concluded their
own intensive reviews of Bay problems, passed
legislation and approved necessary budgets to
greatly accelerate state restoration and protection
programs. (See page 8 .)
Nutrients
lox can ts
Urban
Drainage
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of
Columbia all have expressed long term
commitments to the Bay clean-up. It is and will
continue to be these jurisdictions which provide
the leadership and the majority of the dollars that
pay for water quality and living resources
rehabilitation programs.
The structure of cooperation was established in
1 984. The Executive Council, Implementation
Committee, its subcommittees and two advisory
boards were formed and began meeting and
planning their work. (See Figure following.) The
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office was set up to
coordinate and support the activities of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement groups. Federal
coordination was also formalized through the
signing of special cooperative agreements. (See
page 21 .)
High degrees of mutual trust and recognized
mutual benefits are essential ingredients in the
collective management of resources that cross
state boundaries. The structure established for the
management of the Chesapeake Bay and its
resources recognizes the voluntary nature of the
effort and seeks to capitalize on proven methods of
interstate coordination and cooperation. At the
same time, it recognizes that the jurisdictions have
a unique history of partnership and an intertwined
social and economic bond with the Bay. Their
futures are dependent on the successful recovery of
the Bay ecosystem and its productivity.
The process of cooperation works both from the
top down and from the bottom up. In the first case,
policy directives are issued through the elected
state officials to cabinet officers. The directives are
then implemented and coordinated at a staff level
“I trust the Bay to do its part in
recovery if we do ours. The tough
thing will be to make certain that we
are steadfast, year after year. decade
after decade. The start we have made
is cause for optimism.”
William Ruckeishaus, former EPA
Administrator
(Rivers)
Marsh
Benth ic
Organisms
Ocean
Sediments
4
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
txecutiv
Citizens Advisory Committee
Implementation
Modeling and Research
Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee
m ittee
Data Management Planning
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
TABLE 1 - THE STRUCTURE OF COOPERATION
Membership
First Meeting
Executive Council
Implementation
Committee
Monitoring
Subcommittee
Data Management
Subcommittee
Modeling &
Research
Subcommittee
Planning
Subcommittee
Interagency
Agreements
Citizen Advisory
Comm ittee
Scientific &
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office
September 24
1984
September &
November 1984
December 1 3
1984
December 1 3
1984
Monitoring
Group
Region Ill Administrator &
State Cabinet level officials
Water Division Director• EPA
Agency heads - states/D.C.
Government & research groups
performing monitoring
January 25
1984
February 28
1984
April 26
1984
Federal & state government,
Bay Program computer contractor
State & federal government
and university researchers
May 2
1984
May 3
1984
Government planners
EPA and 6 federal agencies
4 citizen representatives!
jurisdiction + 9 at-large
Up to 4/jurisdiction - from
universities and research
institutions
EPA, other federal agency
personnel and contractors
January 2
1984
5
-------
through state agencies. In the second case, the
public and users of the Bay have direct access to
the Executive Council, They can and do voice
concerns and provide recommendations for action
in the cleanup effort to the Council,
The Executive Council was established “to assess
and oversee the implementation of coordinated
plans to improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system,” It is effective because the nine cabinet
level members of the Council have the authority to
make or change policy affecting the Bay. The
Council members report directly to the Governors
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and ultimately to the public of the region.
The Council serves the Bay public in at least two
broad areas. First, the Council reviews and
evaluates the activities of each jurisdiction as
detailed in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and
Protection Plan (See page 18.) to ensure that they
are compatible with the overall efforts and are
targeted to achieve the common goals and
objectives. Second. the Council and its actions are
a positive influence within each jurisdiction
because they focus attention on the importance of
Bay clean up efforts and activities, and ensure that
the activities are sufficient to address the issues
facing the Bay region and its people.
The Implementation Committee carries out the
directives of the Executive Council. The Committee
is the focal point for managing all activities which
support Bay restoration and protection. These
activities include providing direction and guidance
to its various subcommittees, and utilizing the
expertise and unique perspectives/skills of
members from those groups as well as those of
their advisory groups from the scientific and
technical community and the public.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
EPA is the communication hub for all Chesapeake
Bay Agreement governmental activities. The data
center for Bay information is in the Liaison Office.
Bay related federal grants management is also
performed from that office. EPA Region Ill Water
Management Division staff have begun their
program integration work, efforts to meld and focus
air, hazardous waste, water, and other programs of
EPA in a manner that will not only be in keeping
with mandates, but will also maximize benefits for
Bay resources.
Industry has made great strides in reducing the
point source problems of the Bay, but still more
can be done through pretreatment of wastes sent
to treatment plants, improvements in manufacturing
and waste management processes and adherence
to discharge permit conditions.
State and local governments and the private sector
have an important role to play in Bay rehabilitation.
Nonpoint sources of pollution contribute a large
proportion of the nutrients, organic chemicals,
heavy metals and silt to the Bay. The Bay states
and their local governmental units are developing
programs to control runoff. Program components
include education, demonstration projects, financial
and technical assistance, regulations, research and
monitoring.
Local governments have the power to control much
of the runoff through planning, zoning ordinances,
and other local ordinances and programs. Local
governments’ programs can be used to manage
growth and minimize the consequences of land
modifying activities such as construction, thus
complementing state-directed efforts.
Farmers in the drainage basin are critical to the
Bay’s recovery. Much of the phosphorus and
nitrogen reaching the Bay is draining off croplands
or is attached to eroded soil from agricultural land.
By voluntarily changing their tillage, cropping,
chemical application, manure storage and water
management practices, farmers can preserve their
valuable topsoil and reduce the pollution of the
Bay.
It is the role of the citizens and the media of the
Bay Region to become informed and as active as
possible in maintaining the political will necessary
to support the federal, state and local programs
which are required to assure the recovery of
Chesapeake Bay. Everyone can be involved in some
way through voluntary efforts on personal property,
active group or individual participation in decision
making processes that affect the Bay, and
expressions of concern through media and political
channels. Federal and state government agency
programs of information and participation are or
will be providing the necessary information and
access to citizens and the media.
A procedure for public accountability is built into
each jurisdiction’s planning and budgeting process.
Another avenue for access, review and
accountability will be built into the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan revision process.
Accountability is linked to the Chesapeake Bay
monitoring and modeling programs in that they will
provide the indications of success or failure in
cleaning up the Bay. When the implementation
phase of the Bay Program is sufficiently mature to
measure the effectiveness of control strategies,
both the public and Bay managers will have ample
opportunity to assess the options for continuing with
the ongoing activities or modifying the approaches to
management of Bay water quality and living resources
problems.
6
-------
PROGRAMS TO
RESTORE AND
PROTECT THE BAY
1984 GRANTS
District of Columbia
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
awarded the District of Columbia a $228,000 grant
to initiate projects essential for controlling its
urban nonpoint source pollution problems.
Presently, the District has no stormwater regulatory
program to control new development or
redevelopment after construction. The grant will be
used to support development of stormwater
regulations requiring best management practices
(BMPs) at construction sites, a BMP5 manual to
complement the regulations, and a home owners
BMP guidebook.
Implementation of BMPs required by the proposed
stormwater control program will reduce the amount
of heavy metals in runoff, reduce nutrient loads of
nitrogen and phosphorus, smooth out the storm
hydrograph, reduce bank erosion and scour,
increase aquifer recharge and provide better
aquatic habitat. These regulations and publications
will not only function to reduce loadings of
pollutants, but will also improve public
understanding of the need to abate nonpoint
source pollution.
Maryland
EPA awarded the State of Maryland $875,000 to
begin five Chesapeake Bay projects. In selecting
projects to be funded by the grant, Maryland
focused on activities which are not funded and
supported by state funds and which have high
potential to be implemented in many other
locations around the Bay.
The State Highway Administration will receive
$200,000 to implement stormwater control
practices on Route 2 and portions of Route 50
between Route 2 and the Bay Bridge. This highly
visible area will showcase projects that slow the
velocity of stormwater runoff, reduce bank erosion
and help control sediment and toxic pollution.
With its $200,000 grant the City of Baltimore will
treat the first flush of stormwater which carries
high concentrations of pollutants. The stormwater
will be diverted to remote park areas where it will
be treated by infiltration. This process will reduce
discharges of nutrients and sediment into Gwynns
Falls, Jones Falls and the Inner Harbor.
“These (EPA grant) projects are
tangible evidence of the federal
commitment to assist in the
restoration of the Bay.”
Harry Hughes, Governor of Maryland
Anne Arundel County will receive $160,000 to
reduce sediment loads in the Little Patuxent River
through four stormwater retrofit projects. Queen
Anne’s County Soil and Water Conservation District
will receive $225,000 to reduce shoreline erosion
on Wye Island and protect aquatic life from the
smothering effects of sediment pollution. The grant
will be used to prevent trees from falling into the
water and dislodging sediment, and to plant
vegetation to stabilize the shoreline.
A $90,000 grant will be used to construct vessel
waste pumpout facilities at selected locations with
high boat traffic, This project will directly reduce
nutrient and bacteria loads to the Bay, and increase
the recreational value of Bay waters.
The $875,000 EPA grant is to be matched with
$1,000,000 in state funds which will be used to
demonstrate stormwater retrofit practices in
developed areas.
Virginia
The implementation grant to Virginia is for
$875,000 to supplement agricultural and urban
land drainage pollution control programs. Virginia
will use this grant to supplement its $2.5 million
program. The Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources is offering to cost share with
farmers the installation of specific conservation
practices. It is establishing a process for
determining which are the priority cropland areas
where runoff pollution controls are needed most.
With the help of EPA funds, the Department will be
able to provide more technical assistance and
direct financial assistance to farmers, undertake
demonstration projects, and conduct better
education programs on the benefits of
conservation.
While working Out the long range strategies for
22,000 square miles that drain to Chesapeake Bay,
the Commonwealth will be targeting recognized
nonpoint pollution problems in the Rappahanock.
York, and Shenandoah river basins and along the
Eastern Shore. Cropland pollution control efforts
will be intensified in each area except the
Shenandoah. There the target will be animal waste
management.
7
-------
An important element in Virginia’s program is an
innovative demonstration project. One small
agricultural watershed has been selected based on
its high density agricultural use and on water
quality problems which are tied to agricultural
sources. Additional resources are being
concentrated there to achieve maximum farmer
participation and to monitor short and long term
effects of BMPs put in place.
Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a
comprehensive agricultural nonpoint source
pollution control program with the commitment of
$2 million ($1 million each in state and federal
funds) in its fiscal 1985 budget. The program’s
goal is to accelerate the implementation of best
management practices on agricultural land. It
focuses on animal waste and nutrient management.
The initial phase targets seven watersheds in the
lower Susquehanna River with high livestock
density and intensive cropping practices. The
program will later be extended to other watersheds.
First year costs will cover planning, technical and
financial assistance and education programs.
Planning activities include assessment of
agricultural pollution, coordination of state
agencies’ assistance activities to farmers, and
monitoring to establish baseline loadings and
determine the effectiveness of control programs.
Technical assistance provided through a water
quality specialist and five nutrient management
specialists will result in improved animal waste and
commercial fertilizer management practices, In
addition. tillage demonstration projects will allow
the comparison of yields from different practices
and show proper tillage techniques. A pesticides
management program will provide information on
the proper use of pesticides, and most importantly,
innovative pilot projects will stress on and off site
use of manure as a resource.
One million dollars in financial assistance is
available to assist Pennsylvania farmers implement
BMPs to control soil and nutrient loss. Educational
programs will help Pennsylvanians understand the
Bay’s problems, their contributions to those
problems and what they can do to reduce pollution
causing Bay problems. Public participation is an
important component-of these educational
programs. Additional educational programs,
particularly directed to farmers, will stress the
importance and potential savings from nutrient
management.
JURISDICTION
INITIATIVES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The keystone of the District’s 1 983 Chesapeake
Bay initiatives was enactment of a comprehensive
Water Quality Act. Passed by the District Council in
December 1984, it was signed into law in January
and went into effect in March 1985. Numerous
sets of regulations authorized to implement the Act
are being developed and will go into effect over
the next two years. including: water quality
standards, quality assurances, point source
discharges, pretreatment of industrial waste,
wastewater treatment plant construction, water
quality management planning, sludge management,
fisheries management, nonpoint source control,
groundwater, dredge and fill permit review, and oil
spill prevention and clean up.
Approximately $360 million in federal, state and
local funds will be invested in improvements to the
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant which
serves the Washington Metropolitan area. Through
increased sewer rates, funds will be provided to
improve operation and maintenance of the Blue
Plains STP. A Sewer Use Ordinance developed by
the District Department of Public Works will be
introduced in the District Council in 1 985. It will
allow the District to prohibit the discharge of many
types of wastes into the sewage system. A
combined sewer overflow program which includes
structural changes in sewer systems and
construction of swirl concentrators for the
treatment of combined sewer overflows will benefit
the Anacostia River and Rock Creek.
Regulations protecting living resources in the
Potomac River are to go into effect in 1986. These
have been necessitated by improvements in water
quality which have encouraged migration of such
fish as striped bass, shad, herring and perch to
“All of us who live in the Chesapeake
Bay Region must share the responsi-
bility as stewards for her invaluable
resources ‘
Marion Barry, Mayor, District of
Columbia
8
-------
District waters, and the use of those waters as
nursery grounds. Regulation is expected to be as
strict as those in place in neighboring states. The
regulatory effort is equally funded by the District
with the U.S. Department of Interior.
An oil spill contingency fund and oil spill
equipment will enable the District to respond to oil
and chemical spills beginning in 1985.
Maryland
In Maryland the State General Assembly enacted
comprehensive environmental legislation that
should contribute significantly to the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup. Forty new programs were started. 174
positions were created, and $13.8 million in
operating and $22 million in capital funds were
committed.
These initiatives fall into six categories: 1 point
sources, 2. nonpoint sources, 3 resource
restoration, 4 protection of land resources, 5
resource enhancement, and 6. environmental
education. Programs in each of these areas are
described below
The State of Maryland has undertaken a series of
initiatives to reduce the effects of point source
effluent discharges from waste treatment plants
and industry and to enhance enforcement of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit regulations:
• Increased the state share of sewage treatment
construction funding so that the local share
can remain 12 5% while the federal share
decreases,
• Provided grants to publicly owned treatment
works to install dechlorination equipment,
• Began identifying state owned lands suitable
for sludge disposal and demonstration of the
benefits of composting with sewage sludge;
• Initiated demonstrations of innovative and
alternative sewage treatment systems,
• Began developing comprehensive programs
and regulations to provide more thorough
surveillance of effluent dischargers and more
stringent prosecution of violators;
• Offered loans to industries to pretreat their
wastes prior to discharging them to sewage
treatment plants (STP5);
• Improved training and certification of STP
operators
In the area of nonpoint pollution abatement
Maryland has undertaken several initiatives to keep
the soil and everything on it — toxic chemicals,
fertilizer, topsoil, petroleum residues, pesticides —
from entering the Bay in amounts large enough to
degrade the health of the ecosystem:
• Authorized an additional $7 million of state
funds for agricultural cost sharing;
• Completed BMPs on 628 projects;
• Initiated a program of urban stormwater
demonstration grants to abate stormwater
pollution in existing developed areas;
• Increased enforcement of stormwater control
law that after development runoff rates be
similar to pre-development runoff
characteristics in order to reduce stream
erosion, pollution and local flooding.
• Transferred authority for enforcing sediment
and erosion control laws to the state unless
counties can demonstrate they can do the job;
• Established rules and regulations requiring
efficient design, construction, operation and
maintenance of agricultural drainage projects.
• Enhanced efforts to maintain forest buffers,
• Provided construction funds for shoreline
erosion control,
• Increased appropriations for the conservation
easement program
In the area of resource restoration, Maryland has
begun the following activities to improve the Bay’s
health and productivity
• Replanting of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV);
• Increasing oyster repletion and culture
program funds;
• Restoring black duck habitat,
• Using hatcheries to help restore diminished
stocks of rockfish, black ducks and oysters
To implement state, county and local as well as
private cooperative programs that protect
Maryland’s shorelands and wetlands, the state has:
• Created the Critical Areas Commission to
protect shoreline areas and inshore waters
against further degradation from new land
development;
• Established grants to improve shoreline within
Chesapeake Bay critical areas or on property
owned or intended for acquisition by local
government;
• Begun mapping and inventorying forested
shoreline;
9
-------
• Begun developing nontidal wetland mitigation
criteria for public drainage associations.
To enhance resource habitats throughout
Maryland’s Bay watershed and to encourage and
develop commercial and sport fisheries, the State
has undertaken the following initiatives:
• Development of comprehensive management
plans for major Bay fish species;
• Prohibition of all fishing for rockfish in all
Maryland waters;
• Establishment of a salt water fishing license
that will provide funds for projects to protect,
enhance and monitor specific fisheries,
• Establishment of the Maryland Conservation
Corps to restore natural resource habitats and
to provide employment for disadvantaged
youth
In the area of environmental education Maryland
has begun the following programs to teach future
generations about the complexity and value of
Chesapeake Bay’
• Project direction for environmental education
programs.
• Grants to local school systems for
environmental education programs and
curricula,
• Estuarine field studies program to provide
students with first-hand experience of Bay
ecology,
• Teacher training program to enhance quality
of Chesapeake Bay related instruction
Virginia
The 1984 Session of the Virginia General Assembly
enacted a number of legislative and budgetary
measures designed to improve water quality and
living resource management in the Bay The total
Chesapeake Bay budgetary package adopted
amounts to more than $15 million for the 1984-86
biennium This sum represents the institution of
important new programs as well as the expansion
of existing programs
These Initiatives fall into five general areas 1
point source pollution abatement. 2 nonpoint
source pollution abatement, 3 resource restoration,
4 management and support, and 5 education and
research In the point source abatement area, the
Commonwealth of Virginia has undertaken a series
of initiatives to eliminate toxic chlorine discharges
from STPs and to improve the handling and
treatment of sanitary wastes’
• Provided matching funds (75%) to localities
adding dechlorination technologies and (85%)
to those adding Innovative technologies to
their sewage treatment plants,
• Provided matching funds (55%) to localities to
repair damaged sewerage lines and
interceptor systems to reduce infiltration and
inflow, thus preventing treatment plant
overloading and raw sewage by-passes;
• Created the Virginia Resources Authority to
assist localities in obtaining good rates for
financing water and sewer projects,
To encourage the implementation of best
management practices that reduce the flow of
pollutants from agricultural and urban lands, the
Commonwealth has’
• Enhanced state agricultural conservation
program to induce farmers to adopt
conservation practices with cost share
assistance;
• Established a process for identifying priority
areas where technical assistance,
demonstration projects and education
programs will be targeted,
• Hired new staff and began demonstration
projects aimed at reducing the flow of
sediments, toxic substances and nutrients
from urban areas,
• Provided assistance to low income shoreline
residents with sanitation deficiencies to repair
or install septic tanks and other facilities,
• Began accelerated reopening of condemned
shellfish areas through a new integrated multi-
agency program that concentrates
management resources on those areas with
the greatest potential for productivity,
• Established summer employment program for
disadvantaged youth to work on Bay clean up
projects,
The Commonwealth of Virginia has undertaken the
following Initiatives to enhance and create resource
habitat and to increase stocks of valuable
commercial species
• Began a program to reestablish submerged
aquatic vegetation,
• Continued development of a fisheries
management unit and fisheries management
plans,
• Began development of oyster hatchery for
controlled production of seed oysters,
• Increased oyster replenishment effort,
“The preservation of our soil and
water resou’ces must be one of our
national priorities. History has shown
us that when the soil or water
resources of a society diminish, so
does that society.”
Charles S. Robb, Governor of Virginia
10
-------
• Began construction of artificial reefs for
improved sport fishing;
• Began improvements and maintenance of
public landings;
• Provided funding to public television station
to assist in development of an education
series on the Bay:
• Provided funds to allow for expansion of
program of Bay field trips for school children
being conducted by an environmental
foundation.
To improve coordination of monitoring efforts and
data management, to enhance computer
capabilities within state agencies, and to initiate
planning and monitoring programs to evaluate the
effectiveness of cleanup efforts. Virginia is.
• Developing and implementing a
comprehensive water quality and living
resources monitoring program for Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries,
• Implementing a Chesapeake Bay Pilot Toxics
Strategy to develop toxic substances
detection and analysis capabilities,
• Continuing the James River water quality
monitoring program and recalibrating the
upper James River wasteload allocation
model:
• Monitoring levels of Kepone in the James
River,
• Coordinating data base management among
state agencies, research institutions, and EPA,
• Enhancing State Water Board computer
system,
• Automating the fisheries management data to
aid the development of oysters and striped
bass,
• Coordinating and monitoring of Bay initiatives
by the Council on the Environment,
• Increasing assistance to Marine Patrols Funds
to improve enforcement of regulations by local
marine police,
• Supporting Chesapeake Bay Commission
To inform the citizenry of the Bay’s importance,
problems and solutions, and to expand research
directed toward management of the Bay, the
Commonwealth of Virginia has undertaken the
following programs
• Chesapeake Bay education grant program,
• Environmental public service announcements,
• Continued support to studies on the human
health effects of Kepone contamination,
• Research grants to study factors affecting
oyster setting and development and affecting
critical finfish populations.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s major initiative involves the
implementation of a $2 million comprehensive
agricultural nonpoint source pollution control
program in the Susquehanna River Basin. Details
are provided in the previous section. In addition,
the state is implementing or has implemented the
following initiatives:
• Completed Phase I review of required triennial
water quality standards revision process in
November 1984 and the Environmental
Quality Board approved various revisions in
December, 1984 Revised standards which
went into effect in February 1985 require that
the level of phosphorus control on individual
facilities be based on a determination by the
Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
concerning the specific level of control
necessary for that facility Thus, some point
sources to the mainstem or tributaries in the
lower Susquehanna River may be required to
adopt strategies more stringent than those
necessary to achieve the minimum level of
phosphorus removal (2mg/I),
• Began the second phase of the water quality
standards review process in January 1985
which includes, among other issues, toxic
substances,
• Developed a program strategy to address
EPA’s priority pollutants and to give guidance
to the DER in developing NPDES permit
effluent limits for toxic pollutants,
• Pretreatment programs are expected to be in
place for all 38 municipal dischargers
requiring pretreatment within the Chesapeake
Bay drainage basin by the end of fiscal year
1986,
• Emphasizing development and implementation
of cost effective innovative alternative sewage
treatment technologies to meet the needs of
rural communities which cannot afford
conventional technologies.
• Working with state, federal, interstate
agencies and utility companies which run area
hydroprojects to restore the American shad
and other migratory species to the
Susquehanna River Basin,
• Initiating steps to obtain delegation of the
federal pretreatment program by the end of FY
1986,
• Developing a striped bass stocking program
with Maryland in the Conowingo
Pool/Reservoir,
11
-------
• Expanding program responsibilities/activities
under the federally delegated OSM program
for correcting abandoned mine land problems
which will help improve water quality;
• Instituting educational and technical
assistance efforts to encourage
comprehensive water conservation programs
within the Susquehanna and Potomac river
basins to reduce loadings on existing on-lot
and sewage treatment and conveyance
systems;
• Instituting an environmental education
program for secondary students, teachers and
the general public concerning pollution and
soil and water conservation relative to
Chesapeake Bay.
• Conducting an Outreach Operator Training
Program under Section 104(g) of the Federal
Clean Water Act to improve publicly owned
treatment works efficiency and to attain more
consistent compliance with NPDES effluent
limitations;
1950
“We want it known that even a
distant neighbor can be a good
neighbor. We have made gigantic
strides during the ‘80s in cleaning up
the Susquehanna. We will continue
to do our part”
Dick Thornburgh, Governor of
Pennsylvania
• lnstitutiiiy a PCB sampling program to sample
areas with outstanding fish consumption advisories
and to sample major interstate streams as they
leave Pennsylvania;
• Implementing a quantitative program of
environmental measurements and. analysis to
assess the nutrient sources and loadings to
the mainstem and selected watersheds within
the Susquehanna River Basin;
• Seeking primacy to carry out a federally
delegated RCRA Program in Pennsylvania by
the end of 1985;
• Developing and implementing a
comprehensive groundwater quality
management program.
1980
Land use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. 1950 and 1980.
Despite the slight increase in basinwide forested lands, in the area closest to
the Bay (below the fall line) forested lands have decreased nearly 4% since
1950. Though cropland and pasture land use has decreased. intensity of
cropping and livestock practices has increased.
12
-------
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
MONITORING
The process of cleaning up Chesapeake Bay will
take many years. perhaps decades, and it’s likely
that sampling will occur for years before trends
emerge to reflect what man is doing to restore the
Bay To understand how our remedial actions fit
into the complex life of this estuary, with all its
natural variations — the seasons, the storms, the
droughts — we must monitor the Bay to find out
what is going into it and how the Bay reacts
Monitoring, therefore, is vital in our efforts to
restore Chesapeake Bay.
In 1984 the Implementation Committee formed the
Monitoring Subcommittee to develop and
implement a Basinwide, coordinated monitoring
plan. While that plan evolved, the Subcommittee
served as a forum where present efforts, techniques
and problems could be discussed.
In May 1984 the coordinated monitoring effort
began Researchers went out on the Bay measuring
dissolved oxygen monitoring the onset of anoxia,
the oxygen poor conditions in bottom waters In
July a full network was in place on the mainstem
Chesapeake with fifty stations covering the entire
Bay from the Susquehanna Flats to the Virginia
Capes (See map)
Mainstem
EPA has a Congressional directive and federal
funding to conduct monitoring of the mainstem of
the Bay This is through grants to the States of
Maryland and Virginia which, in turn, arrange for
sampling and analysis The mainstem monitoring
network. 22 stations in Maryland waters, 28 in
Virginia, samples nineteen ( see Table ) water
quality variables from surface to bottom in the
water column. In this first year, sediment was
collected at all the Maryland and eight of the
Virginia stations Those sediments are being
analysed for a number of toxic organic chemicals
and heavy metals.
Tributaries
lithe mainstem Chesapeake Bay stood alone,
monitoring would be a reasonably easy task
However, the Bay is fed by approximately 1 50
tributaries Monitoring includes the tributaries and
attempts to account for the impact of both land
based and on-the-water activities
The states monitor the tributary rivers of
Chesapeake Bay The programs are very similar to
the mainstem, with the same list of items for which
to sample.
Pennsylvania monitors five subbasins in the lower
Susquehanna The District of Columbia monitors
the Potomac and Anacostia rivers and several small
streams Maryland has programs in twelve rivers.
including a major intensive program in the
Petuxent Virginia has programs in six major rivers.
and a special effort in the James
CHESAPEAKE BAY MONITORING
Physical Measurements
Water Chemistry
Biological Indicators
Temperature
Salinity
Alkalinity
Secchi Depth
pH
Total Suspended Solids
Silicate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Ammonia
Total Phosphorus (filtered)
Total Phosphorus (unfiltered)
Dissolved Oxygen
Orthophosphate
Particulate Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Chlorophyll a
Phaeophytin
13
-------
MONITORIN i STATIONS
o Mainstem
• Fall Line
A Tributary
£
I I j
I
14
-------
FALL LINE
Fall Line
Each of the major rivers changes from a tidally
affected (coastal) to a freeflowing (inland fresh
water) river at a zone called the fall line. The
United States Geological Survey and the
jurisdictions work together to operate a fall line
sampling network. In addition, all jurisdictions
monitor tributaries above the fall lines.
Living Resources
Those who worry about deteriorating water quality
in the Chesapeake Bay do so mainly because of the
effects on the living resources. Virginia and
Maryland, the states which regulate living
resources in the Bay, do the majority of this type of
monitoring. Both have quite extensive juvenile fish
monitoring and shellfish quality checking programs
which have for many years been documenting
declining stocks.
These programs will continue and differences
among the state programs will be minimized to
make the data bases more comparable and help us
better interpret patterns from a basinwide
perspective. In Maryland waters, where a large
portion of striped bass spawn, there is a large
continuing effort dealing with that species.
The states are establishing programs on both the
mainstem and the tributary rivers to monitor
components of the living resources food chain,
phytoplankton and zooplankton (the microscopic
creatures at the base of living aquatic systems) and
the benthos (bottom dwelling organisms which are
target prey species for many finfish). These
populations may be a link among water quality,
SAV
habitat, and the commercial and recreational
species of strong interests.
Federal participation in monitoring the Bay’s living
resources comes mainly from EPA and NOAA.
During 1984 EPA funded, through the Monitoring
Subcommittee, an aerial survey of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAy) Baywide. SAV was one of
the bellweathers which led us to conclude the Bay
was in decline. A report is being prepared and it
appears that for FY-85, the Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the States and EPA
will combine resources to repeat much of the
project. As part of its National Status and Trends
Program. NOAA samples the Bay’s benthic (bottom
dwelling) populations, fin- and shellfish for
potential accumulation of toxic materials. NOAA is
working with EPA to assure that these data are
compatible with toxics information gathered
elsewhere in the monitoring effort. NOAA is
assisting the states in assessing the stocks of
commercially and recreationally important fish
species.
The water quality, biota and habitat data collected
in these complex monitoring programs are entered
in the computer data base at the Chesapeake Bay
Program in Annapolis, and there they are used to
determine trends in Bay conditions. The state and
federal agencies together determine the methods
to be used in sample analysis and quality
assurance practices, and together decide to fund
studies to refine sampling and analytical
techniques. Programs are never static, nor are the
choices for methods or interpretation always
clearcut or simple, Professionals systemwide are
working together to forge and sustain over the long
term, a monitoring program which will truly track
the Bay’s restoration.
Monitoring Process
15
-------
MODELING AND RESEARCH
The Modeling and Research Subcommittee serves
as a forum for Chesapeake Bay agencies to develop
a coordinated approach towards addressing
technical needs of the program. The Subcommittee
identifies important technical questions and
recommends a course of action to the
Implementation Committee.
Specific instructions to the Subcommittee require
that it “report to the Implementation Committee on
research needs, assure coordination of modeling
and research efforts, and seek to integrate those
subject areas into the ongoing Chesapeake Bay
implementation efforts. The Subcommittee will also
provide a mechanism to assure scientific and
technical input to the Bay effort.”
Since its formation the Subcommittee has worked
to provide oversight for ongoing modeling efforts
and research projects. An ad hoc modeling
evaluation group, consisting of nationally
recognized experts in mathematical modeling, was
convened to advise the Bay Program on modeling
needs for management purposes.
The group reviewed Bay Program needs and
recommended ways to use models to address
them. Members felt that appropriate models would
be valuable tools in predicting results from various
implementation activities, such as nutrient load
reduction, or installation or various best
management practices on farm land.
In June 1985, the Implementation Committee
accepted the recommendations of the
Subcommittee to update, convert and transfer the
Watershed Model to the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office computer. This will enable both the Bay
Liaison Office staff and state personnel to analyze
the effectiveness of various control strategies in
reducing nutrient loadings to the Bay. The
Implementation Committee also authorized the
development and installation of a predictive
mathematical model which will relate these
loadings to the problem of nutrient enrichment and
low oxygen in the Bay. This steady State model will
also assist managers in identifying appropriate
nutrient control strategies, including the
effectiveness of nitrogen vs. phosphorus controls,
point source vs. nonpoint source controls, and
basin vs. sub basin controls. In addition, the
Implementation Committee directed the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office to undertake
nutrient process studies which will support the
development of the model. It is expected that Bay
managers will have access to the model to begin
assisting with Bay clean up decisions within two
years.
The Subcommittee is developing an inventory of
ongoing research and technical activities,
supported by state and federal agencies, which
relate to Bay implementation.
The Subcommittee outlined priority research and
management questions which formed the basis for
commissioning five technical studies directly
related to major information gaps. As part of this
activity, the Subcommittee developed a technical
peer review system to screen proposals for
technical merit, feasibility, and potential utility of
results. Recognized experts in appropriate fields
throughout the United States performed peer
review.
In 1 985 the Subcommittee is developing specific
work plans for modeling activities. A major goal is
to coordinate modeling efforts between various
interested states and federal agencies. The
Subcommittee also is facilitating coordination of
Chesapeake Bay monitoring, modeling, and
research efforts, including data management. The
Subcommittee will be working with the Monitoring
and Data Management Subcommittees to assure
that all the Bay Program’s technical activities are
oriented towards the same goals, and to assure the
degree of information sharing necessary for
Program success.
Results of monitoring can help guide future
research, as well as provide needed data for the
development of numerical models. The more
intensive focus which directed research can bring
to a problem will help explain phenomena
observed by the monitoring program. Data resulting
from technical studies will be entered into the CBP
data base in Annapolis, and will be used to
develop useful predictive modeling tools.
Because they represent most agencies which
support or conduct technical studies. Subcommittee
members can facilitate the integration of all
appropriate studies into the CBP effort. An ongoing
effort to detail these activities, and to compare
them to important management needs, will help
identify areas where resources should be focused.
In 1985 the Subcommittee will work with the
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) to refine this inventory, and to conduct
workshops directing expertise towards specific
topics of concern to the Bay community. This
information exchange will help direct
implementation efforts by providing a sound
technical basis for decisions. In 1985. the
Subcommittee expects considerable assistance
from the STAC in identifying important research
needs, and developing appropriate technical
coordination and oversight.
16
-------
The Subcommittee played a major role in setting
up the STAC, a group reporting to the
Implementation Committee on scientific matters.
STAC consists of research managers, such as
heads of academic institutions, who can focus
considerable resources on specific technical issues.
In addition, the Subcommittee has called upon
scientists on an ad hoc basis to provide detailed
briefings on activities such as ongoing modeling
efforts and preliminary results of Bay research, etc.
To facilitate coordination of EPAJstate research
efforts with those of other federal agencies,
Subcommittee members participated in drafting
Memoranda of Understanding with NOAA and
USFWS (p 21) The Subcommittee has reviewed
and commented on both the NOAA and the FWS
implementation workplans for 1985. The goal is to
focus the plans on tasks that are appropriate to
each agency, but which also were identified as
priority management or research questions. This
would include such activities as Baywide finfish
stock assessments needed to augment fishery
management efforts, a major concern of NOAA. or
demonstrating the linkages between alterations in
habitat and declines of living resources, concerns
of both NOAA and FWS Both of these had been
identified as “high priority” management questions
by the Modeling and Research Subcommittee,
This sort of cooperation and integration is needed
to direct limited resources towards achieving the
maximum benefits from research and other
technical activities. The Subcommittee hopes to
foster even closer coordination among all the
participating agencies, as well as the academic
community and other institutions involved with
Chesapeake Bay oriented research.
DATA MANAGEMENT
The Computer Center
The Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center in
Annapolis is the repository for information
concerning the Chesapeake Bay. This center is
primarily funded through the U.S. EPA Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). but its operation is
jointly directed through EPA, the states of
Marytand, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the District of
Columbia, and several federal agencies. The Data
Center services the Bay Program partners for their
data processing needs as they relate to the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
During the Bay Program Study (1977-1 983),
approximately 100 million characters of information
concerning the Bay were collected and stored on
the Bay Program and EPA computers in Annapolis
end North Carolina. In late 1983, with the aid of a
federal grant, the State of Maryland Office of
Environmental Programs purchased a computer for
the CBP This new, larger computer has the greater
capacity necessary to support several people
running large data analysis programs
simultaneously.
The CBP data base now consists of over 600
individual files that contain data on the Chesapeake
Bay going beck as far as 1907 in some cases. Prior
to the Governors’ Conference, these data were
contained in individual files on the EPA computer
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
However, specific types of data were difficult to
locate and access. When the computer was
purchased, these files were moved to the new
computer in Annapolis.
During 1984, the computer staff developed a
program called CHESSEE. This on-line, interactive
program allows casual or computer literate users to
browse through the CBP data base so that
information of interest can be located quickly
CHESSEE contains six major areas of interest, each
with more detailed options. Four CHESSEE areas
(Bay Program, Data Management, Monitoring and
Reports) are composed of short text files which
contain paragraphs of descriptive documents
concerning most aspects of the CBP, its research
and findings The other two key areas (Data Base
and Data Dictionary) Contain summaries, contents,
and means of water quality end living resources
data stored in the computer and a dictionary to
help users locate data files on specific parameters
and stations of interest
The Data Management Subcommittee (DMS),
established in May 1984 by the Implementation
Committee, has acted as a bridge between the
Implementation Committee, the CBP computer staff
(under EPA contract) and the computer users
Through the DMS, guidelines were developed
concerning use and access of the computer data
base, user support, and acquisition of new
equipment and programs The group assisted in the
development of a communications system to allow
state users direct access, and helped to revise the
Water Quality Data Management Plan developed
first by the computer staff,
System Users
The CBP Computer Center has approximately 100
system users. Over 60 access the system from
state terminals The remainder of the users are
EPA, other federal users and citizen groups
In 1984-85 the computer center was used to
support the various activities of the CBP. State
agencies used the system to input, verify and
analyze the CBP monitoring data. Graphics such as
maps, contour plots and graphs were produced to
17
-------
provide a picture of the quality of the Bay in
various locations. State personnel also used the
system to run hydrodynamic computer models of
the Bay. The computer has helped eligible users
obtain information about the Chesapeake Bay
Program and provided some information about the
origin and meaning of different data sets.
Support Activities
State users have been provided with continuous
on-line support as well as formal training courses
and training materials. The DMS has provided
support by addressing areas of concern to users.
The CBP computer staff has developed computer
programs in response to certain user needs. To
support research and modeling activities, several
models were installed on the computer system and
statistical analysis and graphics production were
performed.
CBP computer staff has provided presentations,
handouts, and on-line computer demonstrations for
a number of organizations to summarize various
CBP data. Staff has continued to provide data
retrieval and limited statistical analysis in support
of these requests.
Fnnsin nments
The CBP Computer Center staff and users have
worked together through their respective state and
federal agencies to expand the capabilities of the
CBP computer center. During the past year, a
number of new software programs have been
purchased and installed on the system to provide
statistical and graphics capabilities for users.
In addition, federal and state users have worked
together to acquire needed hardware. The State of
Maryland has purchased a large graphics plotter
and is currently in the process of purchasing
additional disk drives for the CBP Computer Center.
EPA provided several important hardware
components during the past year. These
include a power conditioner which provides
regulated power for the computer system, a series
of graphics terminals and a graphics printer. EPA
also provided the funds needed to transform a
commercial office complex to a facility suitable for
computer system operation when the CBP offices
and computer center were moved during February
1985.
CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION
AND PROTECTION PLAN
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1 983 commits
the federal government, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, the State of Maryland
and the District of Columbia to the restoration and
protection of the Chesapeake Bay. It pledges the
signators to prepare and implement a coordinated
plan to restore and protect the waters and the
living resources of the Bay.
An effort is now underway to respond to this
mandate and develop a Baywide coordinated Plan.
Together the state and federal agencies have
agreed to goals and objectives for the Bay. The
overarching purpose of the Plan is:
“To improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system so as to restore and maintain the Bay’s
ecological integrity, productivity and beneficial
uses and to protect public health.”
The Plan’s purpose is supported by goals which
address five areas. For nutrients, the goal is to
“reduce point and nonpoint nutrient loadings to
attain nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations
necessary to support the living resources of the
Bay.”
c
“This Plan will become the blueprint
for future efforts to restore the
Chesapeake Bay.”
Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator
18
-------
In the area of toxic substances control the goal is
to “reduce or control point and nonpoint sources
of toxic materials to attain or maintain levels of
toxicants not harmful to humans or living
resources of the Bay”.
The goal for living resources is to “provide for
the restoration and protection of the living
resources, their habitats, and ecological relation-
ships”.
In the area of institutional and management
activities, the goal is to “support and enhance a
cooperative approach toward Bay management
at all levels of government”. The final goal
recognizes that the Plan does not touch upon all
aspects of management which can affect the Bay.
The goal is to “develop and manage related
environmental management programs with a
concern for their impact on the Bay”.
Each of the goals has a series of objectives which
describe the approaches planned for specific areas
or Baywide use. Finally implementation strategies
are explained for each objective. These are the
particular program activities which each jurisdic-
tion is implementing to support the objectives.
These activities being carried out by the affected
governments in support of the objectives are being
identified and compiled. Many of these activities
are current and ongoing, based on known needs
for the Bay; others are based on probable needs.
Some activities involve monitoring and research
to uncover new information and to determine if
any early remedial actions are producing effects.
The first iteration of the Plan was published in
September 1985. Besides being a compilation of
activities to achieve the agreed upon goals and
objectives, the Plan includes a chapter outlining
current efforts to upgrade the major sub-basins
of the Bay: the Susquehanna, West Chesapeake,
Eastern Shore, Patuxent, Potomac, R appahannock,
York and James.
The final chapter summarizes the implementation
programs and some of the anticipated results which
the jurisdictions expect to achieve. It also addresses
the need for additional research and monitoring to
begin to close the data ga and eliminate
uncertainties such as: what are the major limiting
nutrients for algal growth in the Bay
The initial Plan is the first step in a long term
strategic planning process. That process is now in
the formative stages and the roles to be played by
the Executive Council, Implementation Committee,
Subcommittees, advisory groups, specific agencies.
local governmental units, the academic community,
industry and the public have not yet been
determined.
In the future, the plan will include longer term
commitments. Also, as scientists gain a better
understanding of the Bay, the Plan will be modified
to reflect that knowledge through new or improved
strategies. The restoration and protection process
will be a progressive, cooperative effort. The
Chesapeake Bay Agreement committees structure
will be used to provide ongoing evaluation of all
activities and will assess the overall progress
toward meeting the Plan’s goals and objectives. A
public review process will be an integral part of the
Plan’s updating and evaluation.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
One of the tasks faced by the Chesapeake Bay
Program in 1984 was a redefinition of the purpose
and scope of public participation. EPA asked the
Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay (CPCB) to
plan a public participation program for the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The group has
conducted public participation activities for EPA
since 1977 and organized the 1983 conference
entitled “Choices for the Chesapeake: An Action
Agenda”.
In February CPCB began to develop a list of
potential participants in the planning process and
to design a questionnaire to help evaluate past
programs and to identify current needs. The
questionnaire asked questions about the EPA
program, the work of CPCB and priorities for the
future.
Using information from the questionnaire as
guidance, CPCB organized and conducted a two-
day invitational workshop to draft a public
participation plan. During the course of the
workshop, participants discussed the philosophy
and objectives of public participation, the
relationships among agencies and between
government and the public, and specific tools that
make a public participation program work.
Workshop members felt that an independent
organization should be involved in producing and
distributing information, as well as in coordinating
and conducting educational activities. A split on
the necessity for advisory committees emphasized
the importance of giving careful thought to advisory
committees and the need to establish them so they
are not another layer of bureaucracy.
The April workshop provided the foundation for the
public participation plan. The plan defined six
major objectives.
1. Create a Baywide advisory committee;
2. Distribute Bay.related information;
3. Promote public education;
4. Prepare an annual public report;
5. Organize citizen activities on a watershed
basis; and
6. Coordinate interstate, interagency public
activities.
Many specific tasks were also described in the
plan. CPCB presented the plan to the Executive
Council which accepted it at its July meeting.
19
-------
CPCB submitted a proposal to conduct some of the
short and long term work outlined in the plan, and
in August received a six month grant from EPA
Region Ill During the latter half of 1984 a number
of projects were initiated and some old work
continued. Additionally, planning began for some of
the more comprehensive work
At the request of the Executive Council, CPCB
developed the purpose and functions of a public
advisory committee, researched alternative
approaches during the summer and provided
specific recommendations to the Implementation
Committee in September These recommendations
called for an advisory committee with basic
objectives to communicate with affected Bay
constituencies and to provide advice and guidance
to the Executive Council.
It was agreed that 25 individuals would be
appointed, four from each political jurisdiction and
nine “at-large” Categories of Bay users to be
represented on the committee included agriculture.
business and industry, fishing, recreation and
conservation Members were appointed by the
Region III Administrator and the first meeting of
the CAC was December 13 in Washington. D C, in
conjunction with the ceremony marking the first
anniversary of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
In the fall of 1984 CPCB researched the feasibility
of a citizen monitonng program Contact was made
with about 18 groups having experience in
monitoring, and a technical subcommittee met with
others interested in the topic to prepare
recommendations for EPA Members concluded that
a citizens monitoring program appears feasible and
recommended a pilot program in the James and
Patuxent rivers,
CPCB co-sponsored a conference with a number of
Pennsylvania groups and agencies which was held
at Millersville University near Lancaster,
Pennsylvania on January 26, 1985. Almost 900
people attended the conference which conveyed
two basic messages to Pennsylvania citizens —
your state affects the Bay and there are things that
you can do to reduce the pollution that reaches the
Bay. to politicians — citizens in your state care
about the Bay and want its clean up to be a
priority. Follow up activities will be pan of the
CPCB 1985 program.
In its continuing effort to provide information to the
public, CPCB revised and printed a directory of Bay
organizations and agencies, and distributed more
than 600 copies A new format was developed for
Chesapeake Citizen Report and three issues were
distributed A new information sheet entitled
Baybriefs” was developed to keep people
informed of meetings and other events. During the
second half of 1984 CPCB made presentations
about the Bay Program at 16 public meetings
Films and slides were loaned out 71 times, and
hundreds of requests for information, written and
verbal, were filled
Under its 1985 EPA grant the CPCB is expending
its efforts It has added a staff member based in
Virginia, working out of the Council on the
Environment offices, to perform public education
activities and watershed level participation
programs
In Pennsylvania, CPCB has contracted with three
organizations to perform public education
concerning the contributions to Bay pollution from
Pennsylvania croplands and households In
addition, a full time CPCB citizens monitoring
coordinator has been hired to develop and carry
out plans reviewed and accepted by the Monitoring
Subcommittee on the Patuxent and James rivers
The CPCB will continue providing support to the
Citizens Advisory Committee, producing its
information materials, and working with
organizations throughout the Bay region to improve
public awareness and increase participation in
decisions affecting the Chesapeake drainage basin.
“In the end whet will sustain this
cooperative voluntary effort is what
got it started in the first place.. the
growing numbers of people in the
Bay region who want the effort to be
sustained and to succeed.”
Joseph V. Gartlen. Virginia Stete
Senator
20
-------
FEDERAL
INTERAGENCY
COORDI NATION
Interagency cooperation and coordination is
essential to the success of the implementation
phase of the Chesapeake Bay Program In 1984
federal agencies joined with the State of Maryland,
the District of Columbia and the Commonwealths of
Virginia and Pennsylvania to expand the
partnership in Bay clean-up
On August 8, 1984 Maryland Senator Charles McC.
Mathias, Jr called a meeting of five federal
agencies working on the Chesapeake Bay. the
parties to the Bay Agreement and representatives of
various involved organizations. The purpose of the
meeting was to identify activities which needed
greater interagency coordination and suggest ways
to improve that coordination.
On September 1 3, 1984 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) signed a Joint Resolution on
Pollution Abatement in the Chesapeake Bay The
DoD pledged to give priority consideration to
funding pollution control projects and studies
affecting the Bay There are over 50 DoD facilities
on nearly 400.000 acres of land draining into the
Bay.
At several of its installations DoD will: develop and
initiate environmental self-auditing, review existing
land management practices and take action to
reduce soil erosion and other nonpoint source
pollution, and will review its design, construction
and maintenance management practices
“This is a historic landmark These
agreements symbolize the reversal of
years of neglect.”
Charles McC Mathias Jr.. United
States Senator. Maryland
By November the EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office had negotiated Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (F&WS).
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N OAA),
the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). and the US
Geological Survey (USGS) These MOUs will
provide the means to better coordinate federal
Chesapeake Bay efforts and direct them toward
accomplishing the objectives of the Bay
Agreement
All of the MOU agencies pledge cooperation in
areas of mutual interest and support of the goals of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. There are several
other common points in all the MOUs and they are
reflected in the table below
Specifics differ between agreements because the
expertise of the agencies differs For example, the
SCS will help train state and federal agencies’
personnel in the application of best management
practices to control nonpoint source pollution from
agricultural lands. The agency added ten staff
people to the cleanup effort in fiscal year 1985 and
assigned one person to the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office in Annapolis for coordination
purposes NOAA will work with EPA in monitoring
trends in the Bay. With a $1 5 million
appropriation, NOAA will work to improve fisheries
statistics, conduct assessments of stocks of the
Bay fisheries, and will enter all the information it
has concerning the Bay into the EPA data base.
USGS will work with other agencies in developing
mapping techniques and evaluating the impacts of
groundwater pollution on the Bay F&WS will work
with other agencies to evaluate certain wetlands
activities and assist with monitoring trends of
contaminants in fish The Corps will provide
particular help with modeling the Bay and
tributaries, and work with other agencies while
conducting its recently authorized Chesapeake Bay
Erosion Control Study
Provisions Common to All MOUs
ITEM F&WS SCS COE USGS NOAA
Representation on ex-
Implementation Committee officio X X X
Serve on Subcommittees X X X X X
Provide Annual Workplan X X X X
Provide Expertise X X X X X
Monitoring Activities X X X
Data Provision & Management X X X X
21
-------
OUTLOOK
Stemming the decline of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem will be difficult. Reversing the trends
will be an even greater challenge. It is very likely
that our currently increasing population, the level of
deforestation, the existing alteration of the
shoreline, our present fisheries harvesting efforts
and farming practices will severely limit the level of
recovery we can expect. Regardless of the
extensive clean up efforts which governments,
industries and individuals have implemented and
will maintain or expand, it will not be possible to
recreate the Chesapeake Bay of Captain John
Smith’s days.
However, we can and must return to the more
favorable conditions that existed earlier in this
century when more robust fisheries produced
substantially higher yields than today. We can look
forward to clearer waters with healthier plankton,
less fear of contamination from human pathogens,
and a return to more abundant beds of submerged
aquatic vegetation.
Restoration will take time. The Bay has a “memory”
of what has happened to it, particularly in its
sediments. However, it is likely that many elements
of the restoration can proceed and begin to produce
results, perhaps at about the same rate that it took
to degrade the Bay system. This suggests that long
term strategies and long term commitments are
vital if water quality and living resources in the Bay
are truly to be restored and protected.
Programs to reduce current and control current and
future nutrient loadings to the Bay system are in
place and being expanded. They will produce
results, but today scientists cannot accurately
predict how quickly or extensively the Bay will
respond. Nor can they predict with confidence the
cummulative reductions of toxic materials loadings
to the Bay which current and proposed initiatives
will produce. Mathematical models currently being
developed should assist scientists and regulators in
predicting the reductions that can be expected in
the future,
The regulatory community is certain that significant
reductions in loadings of toxic contaminants will
occur through point source control programs.
Future control technologies will also result in
loadings reductions. Stormwater management and
the installation of best management practices on
urban and agricultural lands will reduce the flow of
toxic substances and nutrients into the Bay and its
tributaries.
Mid-course corrections will be made in control
programs as necessary. The results of research
projects and the effects control efforts produce will
influence the structure and character of future
programs. Improved understanding of the fate and
effects of toxic materials will improve the ability of
scientists and regulators to assure that we attain or
maintain levels which are not harmful to humans or
living resources,
Several reseach and management questions remain
to be answered. The precise impacts and extents of
nutrient enrichment and toxic substances
contamination in the Chesapeake Bay are still to be
defined. We also cannot state witl 4 confidence the
specific numerical objectives which must be
achieved in the Bay and its tributary waters if we
are to protect the water/sediment quality and living
resources of the Bay for future generations.
Enough information was known and understood to
accelerate Bay protection and rehabilitation efforts.
Much more needs to be done and will be.
Strategies used today may be changed over the.
next several years.
“State of the Bay” documents will provide the
overview of programs and their effects on the Bay
system. In future years, this publication will report
the trends in the Bay and its tributaries as
discovered through analysis of monitoring data,
results of specific programs and projects, changes
in state, federal and local programs because of new
research findings, the successful use of specific
best management practices, clean up measures and
education efforts.
“One thing we have to guard against
is impatience. It has taken years to
pollute the Chesapeake Bay; it will
take years to clean it up. Each of us
must make the tough decisions
required today. We cannot be
discouraged if our efforts do not
show immediate results. If we are
persistent, we will get those results
— a cleaner Bay end the restoration
of its living resources,”
James M. Seif, EPA Region Ill
Administrator
‘liii
22
‘ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 985-6O5-395
------- |