Chesapeake Executive Council
July, 1985
Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan
Appendices
Published by the
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
in cooperation with the
State of Maryland
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
-------
Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan
Appendices
July 1986
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Iiiprove and protect the water quality and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay estuarine system to restore and maintain the Bay's
ecological integrity, productivity, and beneficial uses and to protect
public health.
This is the consummate purpose of the Chesapeake Bay restoration and
protection program. Achieving it will take time and the commitment of the
federal, state and local governments, public and private entities, and
citizens.
For several decades as population has been increasing, the water quality and
living resources of the Bay have been declining. The evident degradation has
led to a number of research and monitoring efforts by various governmental and
private institutions to discover the causes.
The largest and most comprehensive of these was the five year study of the
Chesapeake Bay conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
cooperation with other federal, state and private entities. The study findings
and recommendations prompted action.
In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency and the states in the basin
formalized their commitment to restore and protect the living resources and
environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
which states:
"We recognize that the findings of the Chesapeake Bay Program have
shown a historical decline in the living resources of the Chesapeake
Bay and that a cooperative approach is needed among the
Environmental Protection Agency, 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."
The parties to the Agreement called for the preparation and implementation of
coordinated plans to improve and protect the water quality and living
resources of the Chesapeake Bay. This Chesapeake Bay Restoration and
Protection Plan is the first iteration in response to that charge. It
documents the collective implementation activities of the federal and state
agencies, party to the Agreement. The plan acknowledges the contributions of
local governments, private and public sector groups and citizens and
encourages consideration of the Baywide goals and objectives in conducting
their programs.
The Plan is structured to address the goals and objectives of the Chesapeake
Bay restoration and protection effort, formulated on present understandings
about the causes of the decline in the Bay's health and productivity. Each
implementation program addresses one, and often more than one, objective.
i.
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Study found that a combination of point and nonpoint
sources of nutrients and toxics has degraded the quality of water in the Bay
and its tributaries and has contributed largely to the decline in their living
resources. Point sources are those which discharge through a pipe or ditch,
such as municipal sewage treatment or industrial plants and animal fee£lots.
Nonpoint pollution is runoff from urbanized areas, construction, hydrologic
modification, silviculture, abandoned mines, agriculture, irrigation return
flows, waste disposal, and individual sewage disposal. The loss of submerged
aquatic vegetation, mostly due to turbid waters and decreased sunlight, and
the decline of oysters, freshwater spawning finfish, and benthic organisms are
of major concern. The Plan describes the goals, objectives and strategies
which focus on those concerns.
Because the Bay is a complex interactive ecosystem, actions taken in any part
of the watershed may affect a downstream environment. It is, therefore,
crucial to have a cooperative effort among the governing agencies of the area.
Each state, party to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, is implementing programs to
meet the requirements of its own statutes and regulations and also is working
with its neighboring states, the federal government, local governments and
private entities to attain mutual benefits for the Bay. The state/federal
institutional base prescribed in the Agreement is designed to forge
cooperative efforts on the Bay. A Chesapeake Executive Council, composed of
leaders of EPA and the key state cabinets, oversees the implementation of
coordinated restoration and protection plans. The Citizens Advisory Committee
provides independent advice to the Executive Council. An Implementation
Committee guides and reports to the Council on state and federal program
efforts. Advising the Implementation Committee is a Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee.
This institutional structure is a flexible, non-binding one; yet, it reflects
the commitments of the parties to the Agreement to restore and protect the
Bay. These federal and state parties have provided the political support and
considerable financial backing for both site-specific, discrete state efforts
and Baywide undertakings. A significant accomplishment of the participants in
the Agreement has been to agree on an overall purpose for the restoration and
protection plan, as well as goals and objectives for controlling nutrients and
toxics, protecting and restoring the Bay's living resources, addressing other
related matters, and supporting a cooperative approach in managing the Bay.
Nutrients
Goal: Reduce point and nonpoint source nutrient loadings to attain nutrient
and dissolved oxygen concentrations necessary to support the living
resources of the Bay.
Scientific studies have shown that excessive nutrient loadings produce high
nutrient concentrations in the water column, resulting in an increase in the
microscopic floating plants called algae. The increase of the algae prevents
light from reaching the submerged grasses; and, as the algae decompose, they
contribute to low oxygen conditions which, in turn, can be harmful to both
finfish and shellfish. It appears that phosphorus controls the process in
tidal-fresh areas such as the upper sections of the Bay and its tributaries,
while nitrogen may be limiting in the more saline areas. It has been concluded
-------
that reducing nutrient loadings to the Bay from point and nonpoint sources
will reverse the Baywide trend toward nutrient enrichment and begin to restore
the environmental quality of the Bay.
The Baywide objectives designed to reduce nutrient loadings are to:
Provide timely construction of public and private sewerage facilities to
assure control of nutrient discharges;
Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into Bay
waters from such sources as combined sewer overflows and leaking sewage
systems;
Provide for adequate maintenance, operation and replacement of equipment
at sewage treatment facilities;
Establish and enforce nutrient and conventional pollutant limitations to
ensure compliance with water quality laws;
Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants in
runoff from agricultural and forested lands;
Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants in urban
runoff; and
Reduce pollutant discharges from recreational boats in shellfish growing
areas and beach areas used for swimming.
Directed toward meeting these objectives are implementation programs that have
existed for a number of years, such as sewage treatment plants, and relatively
new programs, such as agricultural best management practices (BMPs.). EPA has
provided considerable funding to state and local governments for construction,
maintenance and improvements to sewage treatment facilities. This year
approximately $84 million is being directed to the Bay area; the states also
provide sizable contributions. New sewage treatment techniques for the removal
of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are being tested and on-site sewage
treatments and sewerage lines are being improved. States are stepping up their
enforcement efforts to control point sources. As part of an agreement with
EPA, the Department of Defense is enhancing its comprehensive National
Pollution Abatement Program.
The states have accelerated and expanded their efforts to control nonpoint
sources as a priority for solving the problem of nutrient enrichment in the
Bay and its tributaries. Aided by agencies of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and approximately $10 million, state efforts to apply best
management practices on farms in selected areas have increased dramatically.
Stormwater management programs in urban and suburban areas are also being
implemented to reduce nutrients associated with sediment from construction
sites and streets and roads. State legislatures are appropriating about $14
million this year to control nonpoint source pollution.
The implementation programs address specific locations with their specific
problems since the problems and their remedies vary from place to place.
Collectively, these remedies will ameliorate the nutrient over-enrichment of
the Bay and its tributaries.
iii.
-------
TOXICS
Goal: 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.
Research has shown a relationship between elevated levels of toxic compounds
in the sediments and the survival and diversity of individual organisms
necessary to have a balanced Bay ecology. In certain areas of the Bay, living
resources are threatened by high levels of toxic substances. The major sources
of the toxics are industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants. There are
over 5,000 permitted dischargers in the Bay basin. For contaminants such as
lead, zinc, and many of the organic compounds, urban runoff and atmospheric
deposition are also important sources. Runoff containing pesticides from
agricultural areas may also contribute to this degradation in some areas of
the Bay. Future forecasts indicate that, unless the trend is halted, the
sources of toxic substances will continue to grow in number and change in
nature.
To achieve improvement, point and nonpoint sources of toxic materials which
have been contaminating areas of the Bay need to be reduced, and care should
be taken not to resuspend toxicants currently in the sediments. At the same
time, degradation to uncontaminated areas must be prevented. The Chesapeake
Executive Council, to control toxics, adopted six objectives. They are to:
Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system through
implementation and enforcement of the states NPDES permit programs and
other programs;
Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from sewage treatment plants
resulting from industrial sources;
Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from industrial
sources;
Reduce chlorine discharges to critical finfish and shellfish
areas;
Reduce the levels of metals and organics in urban and agricultural
runoff; and
Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate response to
pollutant spills.
As part of the effort to attain the goal and objectives for reducing toxics,
the states are implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program by issuing permits for municipal and industrial point
sources, monitoring for compliance, and taking enforcement action, as needed.
States are, or will be, requiring toxics limitations and are, or will be,
enforcing best available technology (BAT) and water quality-based effluent
limitations, where needed. Efforts are underway to encourage pretreatment of
effluents from industrial sources and to reduce chlorine discharged from
municipal sewage treatment plants. To reduce toxics from runoff, stormwater
management programs are aimed at developing areas, with some demonstration
projects being initiated; pesticide education programs are being established
as part of the nonpoint source control effort on agricultural and suburban
lands. While the federal and state governments collaborate on all of these
endeavors, this cooperative effort is heightened during emergencies, such as
oil spills.
iv.
-------
Because of the many uncertainties involved in identifying the toxic
substances, their sources and effects, considerable monitoring and research
efforts are being conducted by several federal agencies and the states to
better characterize these substances and their fate. Results of these efforts
will guide development of future programs.
Living Resources
Goal: Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources,
their habitats and ecological relationships.
The decline in the living resources of the Bay can be attributed to several
factors including pollution, physical loss of habitats, overfishing and major
climatic events. The observed relationships among nutrients and toxicants and
living resources provide compelling evidence that water and sediment pollution
threatens important living resources.
To attain the goal for living resources, the following objectives were
established:
Develop or enhance state fisheries management programs to protect
the finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay;
Provide for the restoration of finfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance and diversity of freshwater and estuarine
spawners;
Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance of commercially important species;
Restore, enhance and protect waterfowl and wildlife;
Restore, enhance and protect desirable species of submerged
aquatic vegetation;
Protect and enhance, and restore where possible wetlands, coastal
sand dunes, and other important shoreline and riverine systems;
Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation to
protect Bay habitats; and
Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain estuarine
habitats.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tNOAA), Fish and Vildlife
Service (FWS), Department of Defense (DOD), Corps of Engineers (COE), Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) are working cooperatively with states and local
entities, performing data management, monitoring and research projects around
the Bay. At least $1.5 million is spent annually to regulate the fisheries
industry, assess and enhance fish stock, and ensure that habitats, such as
wetlands, are protected.
In addition to developing comprehensive fisheries management programs, states
are replenishing fin and shellfish stocks, building hatcheries and fishways,
and "planting" shellfish. In FY 86 alone, the states will spend about $14
million on these efforts. Furthermore, a number of state programs are
controlling shoreline erosion, protecting wetlands, and re-establishing
submerged aquatic grasses. Approximately $12 million to restore and protect
habitats will be expended by states in FY 86.
v.
-------
These efforts, combined with accelerated and expanded programs to reduce
nutrients and toxics entering the Bay system, are expected to produce
significant improvements.
RELATED MATTERS
Goal: Develop and manage related environmental programs with a concern for
their impact on the Bay.
It has become increasingly apparent that "cross-media" environmental pollution
is a serious problem. Air deposition, leachate from waste dumps, residuals
from industries and sewage treatment plants, and contaminated spoil from
dredged areas are now recognized contributors to Bay pollution. An integrated
approach to environmental problem solving has been acknowledged in the
formulation of the following objectives:
Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to
protect the Bay system;
Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay;
Consider and address the impacts of atmospheric deposition on the
Bay system;
Improve and maintain public access to the Bay including public
beaches, parks and forested lands; and
Improve opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing.
To address these concerns EPA and other federal agencies are administering
major environmental laws. The states are routinely managing their
environmental problems, implementing federal programs and their own laws and
regulations.
Further, the states are actively improving access for people to enjoy the
benefits of the Bay and its tributaries swimming, boating and fishing.
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Goal: Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management at all
level8 of government.
The Chesapeake Executive Council a*1*1 many federal, state, regional, and local
public and private entities are already working in support of this goal.
Voluntary as well as mandatory programs are being expanded to meet the
following Baywide objectives:
Adequately coordinate Bay management activities and develop and
maintain good mechanisms for accountability;
Assure a continuing process of public input and participation;
Enhance Bay-oriented education opportunities to increase public
awareness and understanding of the Bay system;
Track and evaluate all activities Which may impact estuarine water
quality and resources;
Develop a coordinated Chesapeake ®*y data management system;
Implement a coordinated Baywide ®onitoring program; and
Implement a coordinated Baywide *eaearcll pr0gram.
vit
-------
Each state and federal agency is working within its own requirements and is
cooperating in the Baywide effort, as well. States are evaluating their
initiatives on an annual or biennial basis. The agencies are committed to
expanding public participation and education programs. Major new educational
efforts are involving farmers in the application of best management practices
to reduce soil erosion, with its accompanying nutrients and toxicants.
To support efforts to plan for, manage, track and evaluate these programs,
approximately $18.5 million is provided by EPA alone. Federal and state
agencies continually are collecting and analyzing data to measure results so
they can determine if remedial programs are meeting their own objectives and
those established Baywide.
Measuring progress in the longer-term are comprehensive monitoring, research,
modeling, and data management strategies. To help tie pollutant loadings to
effects on water quality and living resources, about $5 million is being spent
by federal and state governments annually on monitoring. Another $5 million is
supporting research each year to better define present problems and avoid new
ones.
As these activities reveal more information and current initiatives are
evaluated, we will be better able to predict results and therefore better
manage the restoration and protection of the Bay. Then, more streamlined,
numerical objectives will be crafted and implementation programs will be
reviewed and modified, as needed.
The Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan demonstrates that action to
clean up the Bay has begun. The states and federal government are using the
Plan as a tool for defining and shaping both short-term and long-term
commitments. These commitments are crucial if we are to renew and restore this
national treasure the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
A • 1 • p ¦ 1
APPENDIX A - NUTRIENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
NUTRIENTS
Goal: Reduce point and nonpoint source nutrient loadings to attain
nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations necessary to support
the living resources of the Bay.
Summary of Programs
To support the states efforts in planning and managing general water program
activities and specific point and nonpoint source control programs, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides grants and other assistance
under the Clean Water Act. Approximately $84 million is projected for FY 86 to
fund construction projects. Monitoring, permitting, enforcement, assessment,
and planning and management activities are also supported by EPA and cover
nutrient, as well as toxics, reduction programs. The Chesapeake Bay Program
receives an annual appropriation of $10 million for 5 years; about 75% of this
supports state grants to implement nonpoint source, as well as some point
source, control projects. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is expected to
support state agricultural management practices with approximately $10 million
for FY 86. The Department of Defense (D0D)/EPA joint resolution commits DOD to
reducing runoff, reissuing permits and ensuring environmental improvements at
its installations which affect the Bay. Support is also provided by U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Corps of
Engineers (COE). It should be noted that exact federal agency appropriations
for future programs have not yet been determined; all figures are projections.
While the above programs play a major role in reducing nutrients from point
and nonpoint sources, they also lead to the reduction of toxic discharges from
point sources and toxic runoff from urban, suburban and rural areas. The
federal support programs appear here and in Appendix E, Objective 4; the
toxics control programs are in Appendix B.
The nutrient control objectives are primarily addressed by the states through
their point (POTW and sewerage) and nonpoint (agricultural, suburban, urban
runoff and septic system) source implementation programs. Many of these
programs control toxics as well, especially the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and urban runoff programs. The states have
accelerated and expanded their efforts to control nonpoint sources as a
priority for solving the problem of nutrient enrichment in the Bay and its
tributaries. Because nutrient problems vary from basin to basin, each basin
strategy will target specific needs. (See Chapter III, Basin Strategies.)
Each program listing in Appendix A and the other appendices includes a program
title, a budget projection (if available), a purpose, brief description and
the anticipated results. Most of the implementation programs are continuing
efforts which are expected to reduce point and nonpoint source nutrient
loadings in all of the Bay's tributaries; however, many represent expanded
programs and new initiatives.
-------
APPENDIX A: NUTRIENTS
Listing of Program Titles
EPA Construction Grants
EPA Demonstration Sites for Innovative and Alternative
Nutrient Removal
PA Implementation of Revised Water Quality Standards
PA Federal Construction Grants for POTWs
PA Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plans
PA Municipal Wasteload Management
MD Construction Grants: Federal Eligible Projects
MD Upgrade State Sewage Treatment Plants
MD Construction Grants: Nitrogen Removal
VA Pilot Projects for Phosphorus Removal
VA Grants for Construction of POTWs
VA Construction: Water and Sewer Funding Assistance
DC Potomac Strategy
DC Blue Plains WWTP Expansion and Improvements
Pennsylvania's Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537)
PA Innovative/Alternative Technology
MD Construction Loans
MD Construction Grants: Innovative/Alternative Projects
MD Innovative and Alternative Sewage Systems Program
MD Construction Grants: Existing Special Water Quality Needs or
Public Health
VA Improvement of Sewer Line Inflow and Infiltration
DC Combined Sewage Overflow Abatement
DC Construct Separate Storm Sewers as a Part of New Development
Projects
EPA Operation and Maintenance of POTWs
PA Outreach Operator Training
PA Sewage Treatment Plant Operator Training
PA Sewage Treatment Plant and Water Works Operators Certification
Act (Act 322)
PA State Grants for Operation of Sewage Treatment Plants (Act 339)
MD Training of Sewage Treatment Plant Operators
VA Technical Training For POTW Personnel
VA 0 & M Technical Assistance for POTW Managers
DC Operation and Maintenance at the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant
PA NPDES Program
PA Computer Systems for NPDES and State Data
PA State Water Quality Management Program
MD NPDES: Municipal Compliance
VA Enforcement Of Water Quality Laws and Regulations
VA No-Discharge Certificates
DC Water Pollution Control Act
Page Number
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13-14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
-------
APPENDIX A: NUTRIENTS
Listing of Program Titles
SCS Watershed Targeting
SCS Training Assistance
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
USDA Experimental Rural Clean Water Program
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office Implementation Grants
FWS Chesapeake Bay Implementation Assistance
USGS Technical Assistance
SCS Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)
PA Watershed Assessments - Agricultural Nutrient Control
PA Basin and Watershed Monitoring - Agricultural Runoff
PA Education - Agricultural Runoff
PA Demonstration Projects - Agricultural Runoff
PA Conservation Districts - Technical Assistance
PA State Technical Assistance - Agricultural Runoff
PA State Water Quality Coordination - Agricultural Runoff
PA Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program
PA Mason-Dixon Project - Agricultural Runoff
PA Rural Clean Water Program - Conestoga River Project
PA Silviculture Runoff
PA Department of Agriculture's IPA Assignment Agreement
MD Agricultural Technical Assistance Program
MD Agricultural Cost-Sharing
MD Agricultural Research
MD Education Demonstration Projects
MD Agricultural Drainage
MD Agricultural Runoff Control: Enforcement of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution
VA Cost-Sharing for Agricultural Best Management Practices
VA Pollution Source Identification: Agricultural BMPs
VA Research/Demonstration: Agricultural BMPs
VA Technical/Administrative Assistance: Agricultural BMPs
VA Education: Agricultural BMPs
VA NPS Best Management Practices Handbook Update
VA Soil Research And Mapping
PA Storm Water Management Program
MD Sediment And Erosion Control
VA Urban BMP Technical Assistance and Demonstration Projects
VA State Erosion And Sediment Control Program
DC Catch Basin Cleaning
DC Stream Cleaning
Page Number
47
48
49
50
51-52
53
54
55
56
57-58
59
60-61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74-75
76
77-78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87-88
89
90
91
92
-------
A.l.p.2
NUTRIENTS
Objective 1: Provide timely construction of public and private sewage
facilities to assure control of nutrient discharges ,
-------
A.l.FED p.3
PROGRAM - EPA Construction Grants
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 83,900,000
*Based on maintenance of FY 85 level of funding.
PURPOSE
Assist communities to plan, design and construct municipal sewage treatment
systems that provide federally mandated levels of treatment prior to
discharge.
DESCRIPTION
Prior to October 1, 1984 the federal share of grant eligible costs was 75
percent; subsequent grants are 55 percent. Between 1972 and 1983,
approximately 2.5 billion dollars were spent by the federal government to
improve the level of wastewater treatment in the Bay region. A key element in
this program is the priority system/list development process each state
employs to determine the priorities for construction grants funding.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Over 1,000 projects to improve sewage treatment have been funded. Phosphorus
loadings in the Potomac and BOD^ loadings in the James and Potomac have been
significantly reduced despite increases in volume of wastewater discharged.
Many Bay POTWs have the design capacity to handle projected year 2000 flows.
-------
A.1.FED p.4
PROGRAM - EPA Demonstration Sites for Innovative and Alternative Nutrient
Removal
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 300,000* 0 0
*An additional $200,000 is available in FY 85.
PURPOSE
Address Bay states' questions regarding nutrient (phosphorus) removal at
POTWs.
DESCRIPTION
The Wastewater Engineering Research Laboratory (WERL) in Cincinnati is
defining a project to evaluate selected biological nutrient removal processes
and their application in the Bay area ($500,000). in addition, WERL is
considering the preparation of a state-of-the-art report summarizing
biological and chemical phosphorus control technology. Input from the Bay
states regarding their needs and objectives will be considered in preparing
final project scope of work.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
An evaluation of selected biological nutrient removal processes tailored to
answering specific questions raised by the Bay states and/or a report
summarizing what is known about phosphorus removal as it pertains to specific
state interests.
-------
A.l.PA p.5
PROGRAM - PA Implementation of Revised Water Quality Standards
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Regulate phosphorus diacharges within the Susquehanna River Basin,
particularly within the Lower Basin.
DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Bay Management Report states that Pennsylvania should continue
to implement its regulation requiring 80% phosphorus removal at all new or
modified point source discharges in the Lover Susquehanna River Basin. The 80%
removal is equivalent to 2 mg/1 and has been in effect since 1970. It
specifically relates to all diacharges to the main stem and all tributaries of
the Susquehanna River in a zone extending from the mouth of the Juniata River
to the Pennsylvania - Maryland Line*
Pennsylvania completed Phase I of its triennial Water Quality Standards review
process following a public hearing on November 3, 1934. On December 18, 1984,
the State's Environmental Quality Board approved various revisions to its
standards - including statewide phosphorus control regulations for discharges
to streams like the Lower Susquehanna River and its tributaries.
These revisions went into effect on February 16, 1985. Phosphorus controls
will be based on a determination by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) oE the specific level of control needed. Final
implementation guidance for the Lower Susquehanna River Basin will be
developed by July, 1985. In the interim, (1) existing dischargers with
phosphorus controls in place will be required to continue to operate their
facilities in accordance with their present permit requirements» and (2) new
dischargers or existing dischargers proposing modifications will be required
to meet a 2 mg/1 effluent limitation.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved phosphorus controls for the Susquehanna River Basin*
-------
A.l.PA p.6
PROGRAM - PA Federal Construction Grants for POTWs
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
20,600,000 33,700,000 32,700,000
16,800,000 27,600,000 26,700,000
PURPOSE
Obligate all available federal construction grant funds to ensure timely
construction of POTWs.
DESCRIPTION
Pennsylvania has been carrying out a federally-delegated Construction
Management Assistance Grants Program since June, 1979. From federal FY
1979-84, Pennsylvania has approved $229,000,000 in federal funds for the
construction of 61 municipal sewerage projects within the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin. We anticipate certifying 5 more projects for grant funds
totaling $5,100,000 in FY 85, 3 projects totaling $20,600,000 in FY 86, 5
projects totaling $33,700,000 in FY 87, an$l 8 projects totaling $32,700,000 in
FY 88 - all within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality as a result of new and upgraded municipal sewerage
facilities.
-------
A.l.PA p.7
PROGRAM - PA Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plans
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Develop water quality management plans to meet requirements of the State Clean
Streams Law and the Federal Clean Water Act to the year 2000.
DESCRIPTION
In 1974, Pennsylvania initiated the development of comprehensive and
implementable plans to meet requirements of the State Clean Streams Law and
the Federal Clean Water Act to the year 2000. The State was divided into nine
study areas, and plans were developed for each. All nine plana have been
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. The
following plans relating to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin were submitted
to EPA on the dates indicated:
Study Area 3 (Lower Susquehanna Basin Area) - January 3, 1984
(still under review by EPA)
Study Area 4 (Upper Susquehanna Basin Area) - November 13, 1984
(still under review by EPA)
Study Area 5 (Southern Alleghenies Basin Area) - September 6, 1983
(approved by EPA on March 22, 1984)
Study Area 6 (Central Susquehanna Basin Area) - September 6, 1983
(approved by EPA on March 22, 1984)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The plans are being used by State, federal, and local governments as the basis
for making water quality management decisions and actions.
-------
A. 1.PA p. 8
PROGRAM - PA Municipal Wasteload Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Prevent POTWs from becoming overloaded (hydraulic and/or organic) and correct
existing overloaded conditions.
DESCRIPTION
DER administers a Municipal Wasteload Management Regulatory Program. These
regulations require municipal sewage treatment plant dischargers to submit
annual reports on how they are managing their sewage facilities (a) to prevent
them from becoming overloaded, and (b) to limit or ban additional connections
or sewer extensions to an overloaded facility. If the annual report shows an
existing overloaded condition or a potential overload within five years, the
municipal discharger must prepare a plan of action to eliminate or prevent
this condition. If the discharger fails to prepare or implement the plan, DER
initiates appropriate enforcement action.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality through better municipal management of POTWs.
-------
A.l.MD p.9
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Federally Eligible Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Maryland
Federal
Other
11,200,000
60,000,000
PURPOSE
Strengthen the State's commitment to pollution control projects by increasing
the State share of waste treatment plant construction by local governments.
This will offset decreases in federal grant assistance.
DESCRIPTION
The State FY 86 capital budget contains $19.7 million for continued
implementation of water pollution control projects; $11.2 million of these
funds will support construction of federally eligible treatment works
projects.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Grants will enable phosphorus removal facilities to be constructed and
operational by July 1, 1988 (except for Back River which will take longer),
will enable numerous projects on State's priority list to be built, and will
fund sewage facilities such as interceptor lines, pumping stations and water
quality related capital projects.
-------
A.l.MD p.10
PROGRAM - MD Upgrade State Sewage Treatment Plants
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 8,268,000*
~General Construction Loan of 1985.
PURPOSE
Upgrade wastewater treatment plants discharging to the Bay or its tributaries
by bringing all State-owned treatment works into compliance with discharge
standards and providing nutrient removal, where applicable, and land
treatment, where possible. Replace the existing interim wastewater treatment
plant at the House of Correction with an advanced treatment plant to serve the
entire Jessup complex.
DESCRIPTION
Upgrade with new construction additional State-owned sewage treatment plants
at Bowie State College, Southern Maryland Pre-Release Unit and Montrose
School. Provide additional funding to construct the sewage treatment plant at
Maryland House of Correction, Jessup.
General Construction Loan of 1985:
Maryland House of Correction $5,490,000
Bowie State College $950,000
Southern Maryland Pre-Release Unit $203,000
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Reduced loads of BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus discharges to the Bay
and its tributaries.
-------
A.l.MD p.11
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Nitrogen Removal
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 4,000,000*
~Carryover from FY 85
PURPOSE
Require nitrogen removal at several sewage plants on the Patuxent River. If
the nitrogen removal results in the desired improvements in the estuary, the
State will consider requiring nitrogen removal at other plants discharging to
the Bay and its tributaries. The State is paying for the capital costs of
nitrogen removal because the current EPA position is not to award federal
construction grants for nitrogen removal in the Patuxent.
DESCRIPTION
The State expects to promulgate regulations in FY 85 for State grants for
nitrogen removal in the Patuxent.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The total nitrogen load from POTWs will be reduced by 4900 pounds, a 43%
reduction of loads between 1983 and the year 2000.
-------
A.l.VA p.12
PROGRAM - VA Pilot Projects for Phosphorus Removal
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia $360,000
PURPOSE
Assess the capability of various phosphorus removal processes at sewage
treatment plants.
DESCRIPTION
The 1985 General Assembly appropriated funds for up to two pilot projects for
phosphorus removal. One project would use simultaneous chemical precipitation
and one project would use biological nutrient removal. Suitable treatment
plant sites will be selected in the Tidewater region of Virginia. The State
Water Control Board conducts this program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
From these projects key information regarding actual operation of phosphorus
removal by these two processes would be provided including: operational
reliability, phosphorus removal capability, total costs (capital and 0 & M),
sludge processing and disposal and effects on overall plant operation.
-------
A.l.VA p.13
PROGRAM - VA Grants For Construction of POTWs
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide adequate funding for the construction of publicly owned sewage
treatment facilities.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to provide
construction grant assistance to municipalities for planning, design and
construction of sewage treatment facilities to comply with
federally-legislated treatment standard deadlines.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
For the 1984-86 VA biennium, it is anticipated that $72,509,000 in federal FY 85
funds will be available to localities. Also the General Assembly approved $3.3
million in State funds for localities with financial hardship needs for the
following uses during the 1984-86 biennium:
1) to meet requirements of Nat'l Municipal Policy,
2) to provide inflow and infiltration rehabilitation, and
3) to provide design funds.
These funds are to be distributed equitably Statewide so the Bay portion
cannot be determined.
New and expanded POTW capacity expected to be placed in operation over the
84-86 biennia are as follows:
84-86
3,300,000
50,067,000
-------
A.l.VA p.14
N/EX
Location
EX
Stevens Run
EX
Louisa
EX
Leesburg
N
Frederick-Winchester
N
Grottoes
EX
Buena Vista
N
Sperryville
N
New Castle
EX
Ashland
EX
Upper Occoquan**
EX
Lower Potomac**
EX
SmithfieId
H
Bath County
EX
Proctors Creek**
N*
FMC**
EX
Mount Jackson
EX
Berryville
EX
Appomattox
EX
Tappahannock
EX
Surry
*New discharge at FMC with reduced
(Hew Flow ¦ 1.48 MGD (New Flow ¦
Total Flow
Basin Per Permit Limit
P
0.25 MGD
Y
0.2 MGD
P
1.0 MGD
P
5.0 MGD
P
0.2 MGD
J
2.25 MGD
R
0.055 MGD
J
0.175 MGD
Y
1.2 MGD
P
22.5 MGD
P
54.0 MGD
J
0.5 MGD
J
0.45 MGD
J
12.0 MGD
R
2.6 MGD
P
0.2 MGD
P
0.41 MGD
J
0.054 MGD
R
0.4 MGD
J
0.06 MGD
lows at Fredericksburg and Masaaponax.
.472 MGD)
N ¦ New
EX * Expansion/Upgrade
P ¦ Potomac
Y - York
J ¦ James
R « Rappahannock
** « Local fundB only
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Will enable numerous projects on the state priority list to be built. Will
fund sewage facilities such as interceptor lines, pumping stations and
treatment plant upgrades and capacity.
-------
A.l.VA p.
PROGRAM - VA Construction: Water and Sewer Funding Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 547,300
PURPOSE
Provide adequate funding to localities for water and sewer construction.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Virginia Resources Authority, is designed to
assist local governments to obtain better rates on sewer and water bonds
through purchase and pooling of bonds for resale by a state-backed authority.
In VA FY 1985-86 the first bond issues are planned for the summer of 1985.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improve the opportunities for local governments to obtain lower bond rates.
Increase the amount of water and sewer construction that can be undertaken by
local governments.
-------
A.l.DC p.16
PROGRAM - DC Potomac Strategy
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
D.C.
PURPOSE
Coordinate actions for water quality improvements in the Potomac Estuary.
DESCRIPTION
The Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland, Virginia and District of
Columbia have regulatory responsibility for water quality in the Potomac
estuary. The vehicle for defining common goals and implementing mutually
beneficial actions is the Potomac Strategy. The primary problem of concern in
the Potomac is eutrophication, evidenced by recurring algal blooms. Phosphorus
control is being required by the regulatory agencies to control
eutrophication.
Future actions under the Potomac Strategy are the investigation of the
relationship between pH alkalinity and sediment phosphorus release and the
potential recycling of nutrients by the salt wedge.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These investigations may provide sufficient insight into nutrient control to
allow final NPDES permits to be issued to municipal wastewater treatment
plants in FY 87.
-------
A.l.DC p.17
PROGRAM - DC Blue Plains WWTP Expansion and Improvements
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
86 87 88
Federal
D.C.
PURPOSE
Improve hydraulic and treatment capacity at the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant to meet current and future NPDES permit requirements.
DESCRIPTION
The Blue Plains Feasibility Study was completed in August of 1984. The Study
examined water quality requirements in the Potomac River and alternate
treatment processes to meet both current and future NPDES permit requirements.
The Study recommended:
- Expansion of several unit processes to provide adequate hydraulic and
process capacity associated with current and future wastewater flows.
- Convert secondary treatment from a modified aeration process to a step
aeration process.
Federal and local funding has been requested to begin construction of the
recommended facilities. Total project costs are estimated at approximately
$100 million. The District's share of these costs is approximately $50
million.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The proposed facilities and system improvements will allow the Blue Plains
Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet current NPDES permit requirements at peak
design flows. This will assist the District of Columbia in limiting nutrient
loadings to the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
A. 2. p.18
NUTRIENTS
Objective 2: Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage into Bay waters from such sources as combined sewer
overflows and leaking sewage systems.
-------
A.2.PA p.19
PROGRAM - Pennsylvania's Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Implement Act 537 which calls for the planning and regulation of community and
individual on-lot sewage systems, requires permits for these systems, and
provides for grants for implementing its planning and enforcement provisions.
DESCRIPTION
Each of Pennsylvania's municipalities is required to develop and maintain an
official ten year plan identifying how it will meet its sewerage needs (both
on-lot as well as sewers and treatment facilities). Each plan and any
amendment must be approved by DER. DER also provides planning grants to cover
50% of the eligible cost of preparing the official plans. About $70,000 in
grants were given to municipalities within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
in FY 84 to update their official plans.
On-lot sewage systems require permits under the Act. These permits are issued
by Sewage Enforcement Officers (SEO's) working for Local Agencies as defined
by the Act. The SEO's are also responsible for monitoring the installation of
on-lot systems and the condition of existing systems. DER provides Enforcement
Grants to Local Agencies to cover 50% of the eligible cost of carrying out the
permitting, surveillance and monitoring, and enforcement provisions of the
Act. About $500,000 in grants are paid annually to over 300 local agencies
(individual and multi-municipal units of government) within the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Protection and improvement of ground water and surface water through the
regulation of municipal sewerage planning and the design, installation, and
operation of on-lot sewage disposal systems.
-------
A. 2.PA p.20
PROGRAM - PA Innovative/Alternative Technology
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
17,000
2,000
13,000
2,000
13,000
2,000
PURPOSE
Develop and implement cost-effective innovative/alternative sewage treatment
technology to meet the needs of Pennsylvania's rural communities.
DESCRIPTION
In 1978, Pennsylvania initiated the development of a comprehensive rural
sewage management project in the community of Iselin (Young Township), Indiana
County. The project is designed to research and evaluate alternative and
innovative technologies for sewage disposal. The project, which went into
operation in 1982, is totally funded ($450,000) by the Commonwealth and
designed by Department of Environmental Resources' staff. It is owned and
operated by a county municipal services authority. The project features two
separate collection and treatment systems, each having the ability of treating
flows of 10,000 and 12,000 gallons a day. The treatment systems utilized
include as alternative technology a community subsurface system placed in mine
spoil material, and a marsh/pond/meadow system with a stream discharge.
The Department, in cooperation with the University of Indiana of Pennsylvania,
is conducting a five to eight year research and monitoring program of the
project. It is hoped that this technology will provide the foundation for a
comprehensive rural sewage management program designed specifically for the
three million people living in Pennsylvania's rural areas. Innovative
technology is necessary as many of these rural communities (1,500) will never
be able to afford existing conventional technology, and yet are in desperate
need of adequate wastewater treatment facilities to protect the ground water
and surface waters of the Commonwealth.
The State Budget Projection reflects staff and laboratory analyses costs. The
federal projection represents Section 106 funds being used to fund university
students (wage employees) involved in the research and monitoring (sample
collection) of this project.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Adequate rural wastewater treatment facilities to protect and improve surface
and ground water in Pennsylvania and in the Bay.
-------
A.2.MD p.21
PROGRAM - MD Construction Loans
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 0 NA NA
PURPOSE
Enable communities to place their sewage treatment projects under
construction.
DESCRIPTION
This is an ongoing existing program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Loans will be made to communities, throughout the State for various types of
sewerage projects. Loans will also be made available to local governments to
finance the 12 1/2Z local share of sewerage construction costs. The $2,000,000
will permit loans to be made for approximately 5 projects.
-------
A.2.MD p.22
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Innovative/Alternative Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 0 250,000 250,000
PURPOSE
Enable the State to evaluate the application of innovative and alternative
technology to problems of wastewater disposal. Innovative and alternative
technology can and should be applied to correct the water quality and public
health problems of failing septic systems without the construction of
expensive wastewater collection systems. Improved technology will foster
acceptable means of overcoming poor soil, groundwater, or bedrock conditions
which preclude the use of conventional on-site septic systems.
DESCRIPTION
This program enhancement will provide one additional staff and funding
directed toward 1) installation, monitoring and reporting on experimental
systems and the use of these data with field experience to develop new State
guidelines and design criteria; 2) encouraging local health departments to use
these technologies in remodeling systems, and for experimental purposes in
order to solve existing pollution problems and to enhance their eventual use
for new construction when feasible; 3) assisting in training local health
department personnel in obtaining the expertise necessary to review and
approve designs; 4) reviewing applications for construction permits in
cooperation with the local health departments until local expertise can be
developed; and 5) evaluating opportunities to use on-site technologies in lieu
of central sewerage facilities as part of the EPA/State facility planning
process.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
In FY 86, this program will develop design criteria, train local health
personnel, and work toward approval of the general use of innovative and
alternative technologies within a shorter period of time than current staffing
allows.
-------
V.2.MD p.23
PROGRAM - MD Innovative and Alternative Sewage Systems Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 248,126
PURPOSE
Evaluate innovative and alternative technology applied to correct the water
quality and public health problems of failing septic systems without the
construction of expensive wastewater collection systems. (A more detailed
purpose statement is included above, under Maryland's construction grant
program.) This program provides operating funds to support implementation of
the innovative and alternative program,
DESCRIPTION
See Appendix A, NUTRIENTS, Objective 1.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Evaluate previously approved I/A projects.
Train local health departments in review of feasibility of these projects.
-------
A.2.MD p.24
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Existing Special Water Quality Needs or
Public Health
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 1,000,000
PURPOSE
Provide financial support for special sewage facilities, such as house
connectors and collector sewers, to service areas with failing septic systems.
The programs will partially meet the needs of these types of projects, some of
which are ineligible for federal construction grants.
DESCRIPTION
Regulations and priority systems will be completed in FY 85.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Raw or inadequately treated sewage in several communities will be conveyed to
a treatment plant, thereby reducing organic and bacteria loads to the Bay and
some tributaries. These funds will also be used to supplement certain
federally-funded programs, i.e. to defray house connector fees for individuals
unable to amortize the costs on their own, and to make grants available to
local communities with a demonstrated hardship for the local share, reducing
user cos ts•
-------
A.2.VA p.25
PROGRAM - VA Improvement of Sewer Line Inflow and InfiLtration
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 450,000
Other 368,000
PURPOSE
Reduce and/or eliminate flow of untreated sewage into Bay waters.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to provide
local governments with cost-share funds to repair and improve damaged sewer
lines to reduce and/or eliminate infiltration and inflow.
In State FY 85-86:
- $450,000 will be awarded by localities;
- $368,000 will be matched by localities;
- FY 85 monies have already been obligated to three communities: Towns
of Colonial Beach and Onancock and Gloucester County.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The frequency and duration of raw sewage overflows into the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries will be reduced, thereby reducing the quantity of nutrients
discharged. Wastewater treatment plant operations will be improved since
conditions of high influent flows will be reduced. Demonstrate the
effectiveness of I/I rehabilitation programs.
-------
A.2.DC p.26
PROGRAM - DC Combined Sewage Overflow Abatement
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC
EPA
PURPOSE
Control and reduce the impact of combined sewage discharges into the surface
waters of the District of Columbia.
DESCRIPTION
Age and design of the District's sewer system result in the delivery of large
quantity of raw sewage combined with rain water at times of heavy
precipitation. With the control of any dry weather sewage discharge eo the
surface waters essentially complete, CSO plays a crucial role in determining
the water quality of the District rivers, particularly the Anacostia River.
Discharge of the CSO to the streams will be controlled by structural changes
in the sewer systems and by constructing swirl concentrators for the
collection of pollutants associated with CSO.
In 1984-85, $11 million of DC and $32 million of EPA funds have been allocated
for the project.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Control and substantial removal of the pollutants in the combined sewage
overflow will result in significant improvement in the water quality of the
Anacostia and the Rock Creek.
-------
A.2•DC p. 2 7
PROGRAM - DC Construct Separate Storm Sewers as a Part of New Development
Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC 2,200,000
PURPOSE
Remove storm flows from the District's combined sewer system and thereby
reduce the likelihood of combined sewer overflow.
DESCRIPTION
Much of downtown Washington D.C. is served by combined storm and sanitary
sewers. In the late 1960's, the District abandoned a comprehensive sewer
replacement program due to its considerable expense and disruption. At the
present time, the District is installing separate storm sewers in coordination
with major new development projects in downtown Washington D.C. These new
storm sewers will be connected to the existing separate storm sewer system at
the edges of the District of Columbia.
In FY 86, the District of Columbia will spend approximately $2.2 million in
local monies on this sewer separation program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The new storm sewers will reduce nutrient loadings to the Potomac River and
Chesapeake Bay by reducing the likelihood of combined sewer overflows.
-------
A.3.p.28
NUTRIENTS
Objective 3: Provide for adequate maintenance, operation and replacement
of equipment at sewage treatment facilities.
-------
A.3.FED p.29
PROGRAM - EPA Operation and Maintenance of POTWs
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal *
~States had approximately $400,000 over a 10 year period to support
0 & M Training.
PURPOSE
Support states in training POTW personnel to help prevent, reduce and
eliminate pollution. Such training insures improved operations and maintenance
at sewage treatment facilities.
DESCRIPTION
Under Sections 104(g) and 109(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA has provided
grants to state agencies to train POTW personnel.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The operations and maintenance of POTWs continues to improve under this
program.
-------
A.3.PA p.30
PROGRAM - PA Outreach Operator Training
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Provide technical training to POTW personnel to improve POTW treatment
efficiency and to attain more consistent compliance with NPDES effluent
limitations.
DESCRIPTION
DER recently completed a pilot outreach operator training program using FY 82
funds under Section 104(g) of the federal Clean Water Act. Ten plants were
selected to determine whether on-site training of operation and maintenance
staff would result in improved plant performance. Six of the ten plants were
located in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin.
The results confirmed the benefits of the program. Five of the six plants in
the Basin showed noticeable operational and effluent improvements. The sixth
did not because of problems not related to the training program.
DER plans to continue this Statewide program with a combination of remaining
FY 82 funds ($35,000) and FY 84 Section 104(g) funds ($43,000) using the
training capabilities of the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. The
grant period runs from October, 1984 through September, 1986. The specific
plants that will participate will be selected shortly. It is anticipated that
several will be located within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin.
Continuation of this program beyond FY 86 will depend on the availability of
future federal funding.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality due to improved and more consistent POTW performance.
-------
A.3.PA p.31
PROGRAM - PA Sewage Treatment Plant Operator Training
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Provide classroom training to sewage treatment plant operators to enhance
their skills and to help prepare them in taking examinations required under
Pennsylvania's mandatory Sewage Treatment Plant Operators Certification Law.
DESCRIPTION
Since 1973, the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs has been
responsible for training of the Commonwealth's wastewater treatment plant
operators. DCA has organized a training system that locates and develops
course instructors, finds classroom and laboratory facilities for course sites
at locations across the State, selects class texts and resource materials,
informs potential students of various educational opportunities and, finally,
conducts and evaluates classes for plant operators. This system is built
around networking with operator associations (WPCF), DER, EPA, and other
interested parties (colleges and universities, the PA Environmental Council,
Municipal Associations, the various sections of WPCF, etc). This networking
takes place throughout the year, and at the Annual Wastewater Training
Advisory Committee Meeting held by DCA.
DCA offers several structured Wastewater Plant Operator Training Courses using
the Texas and California State University Manuals. Various specialty courses
are also offered, such as NPDES Lab Procedures, Package Plant Operation, and
Sludge Management. Other courses offered in recent years include: Flood Damage
Reduction in Wastewater Treatment Plants, and Cost Savings in Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operations. Classes are held at community colleges, wastewater
plants, votechs, and lab facilities across the State, in the evening for
several weeks. In FY 83-84, over 1,700 persons attending DCA Wastewater
Training.
DCA has had a close relationship with DER over the years in wastewater
training. DCA has relied on DER for advice as to training needs, course
content, etc., and has worked with DER Regional Personnel to locate trainers
and class sites, and to learn more about regional wastewater concerns. DCA
training helps operators qualify for DER's mandatory certification program -
DCA serves as trainer, DER as tester.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality due to improved plant performance by skilled operators.
-------
A.3.PA p.32
PROGRAM - PA Sewage Treatment Plant and Water Works Operators Certification
Act (Act 322)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide for the mandatory certification and licensing of sewage treatment
plant (and water works) operators.
DESCRIPTION
Pennsylvania has had a mandatory certification law since 1968. Operators are
required to pass a written examination and to demonstrate experience in plant
operations before qualifying for certification. All plants are required to
have at least two certified operators (1 primary and 1 backup operator).
The State Board for Certification of Sewage Treatment Plant and Water Works
Operators (the independent board created under the Act) certifies and
decertifies operators. DER provides technical advice, program information, and
makes recommendations to the Board on decertifying operators. Certificates
must be renewed every two years.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality through properly operated sewage treatment plants by
certified operators.
-------
A.3.PA p.33
PROGRAM - PA State Grants For Operation of Sewage Treatment Plants (Act 339)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 4,300,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
PURPOSE
Provide annual grants to help defray the cost of operation and maintenance of
municipal and public school district sewage treatment facilities.
DESCRIPTION
Act 339 has been in effect since 1953. From State FY 79-80 through 84-85,
approximately $23,000,000 in state funds have gone to eligible dischargers
within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. The projections for the next three
fiscal years are noted above.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality through properly operated and maintained sewage
treatment plants.
-------
A.3.MD p.34
PROGRAM - MD Training Of Sewage Treatment Plant Operators
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 94,558 NA NA
PURPOSE
Provide on-site technical assistance for treatment plant operators and enhance
the existing operator training and certification program because federal
commitments to operator training are being reduced at a time the State is
requiring more complicated waste treatment processes.
DESCRIPTION
This program will enhance the existing operator training and certification
program by providing contractual services to support the State Training Center
which provides general training courses to treatment plant operators
throughout the State. Additionally, a site-specific technical assistance
program aimed at problems existing at specific sewage treatment plants has
been established.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved operation of sewage treatment plants, especially improved operation
of phosphorus removal processes.
-------
A.3.VA p.35
PROGRAM - VA Technical Training For POTW Personnel
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 60,000
PURPOSE
Encourage wastewater treatment plants to be maintained and operated in an
environmentally sensitive manner.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to develop
and implement training programs for wastewater treatment plant personnel.
Approximately 600 wastewater treatment plant operators will receive training
through specialized workshops and training programs. Several in-house training
programs at large municipal treatment facilities will be provided. Field
training for approximately 100 wastewater plant operators who cannot
participate in other forms of training due to location or staffing patterns
will also be provided.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Operator skills and knowledge of wastewater treatment plant processes and
0 & M will be improved. Performance of treatment plants will improve.
-------
A.3.VA p.36
PROGRAM - VA 0 & M Technical Assistance for POTW Managers
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 60,000
PURPOSE
Encourage wastewater treatment plants to be maintained and operated in an
environmentally sensitive manner.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the State Water Control Board, is designed to
provide assistance to sewage facility owners and operators in all aspects of
plant operation to achieve consistent permit compliance. It will provide
on-site assistance to approximately 50 facilities to solve the plant's
compliance problems with State and federal requirements.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved operations at POTWs is anticipated. Compliance with NPDES permit
limitations will improve.
-------
A.3.DC p.37
PROGRAM - DC Operation and Maintenance at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC 7,500,000
Federal
PURPOSE
Increase operating and maintenance staffing at the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and also increase supplies and materials in support of
operating and maintenance activities.
DESCRIPTION
In recent years, budgetary constraints have forced reductions in operating and
maintenance staff at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. In FY 85
through 87, the District of Columbia will hire an additional 200 new
maintenance personnel to assist in maintaining plant operations. During this
same period of time, the District of Columbia will hire an additional 40 plant
operators.
In addition, in FY 86, the District of Columbia will spend approximately $7.5
million on supplies and materials in support of operating and maintenance
functions at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The increased operating and maintenance staffing and increased supplies and
materials in support of operation and maintenance activities at Blue Plains
will provide for more effective and efficient treatment of wastewater at the
plant, thereby reducing nutrient loadings into the Potomac River and
ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
A.4.p.38
NUTRIENTS
Objective 4: Establish and enforce nutrient and conventional pollutant
limitations to ensure compliance with water quality laws.
Objective 4 implementation strategies also provide a healthier habitat for the
Bay'8 living resources.
-------
A.4.PA p.39
PROGRAM - PA NPDES Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
PURPOSE
Continue to carry out an EPA-delegated NPDES Program in Pennsylvania.
DESCRIPTION
Pennsylvania has been carrying out a delegated NPDES Program (Permitting,
Compliance Monitoring, and Enforcement) since June 30, 1978.
In PA's review of NPDES Permits, which must be renewed every five years, the
State applies the more stringent of EPA's Effluent Guidelines or the State
Water Quality Standards in setting effluent limitations.
There are 1265 NPDES dischargers within the Pennsylvania portion of the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin - 115 are major dischargers. As a minimum, every
major discharger and every federal P.L. 92-500 funded minor discharger is
inspected annually.
In accordance with a State/EPA Enforcement Agreement signed on October 15,
1984, PA has also agreed to begin taking enforcement .actions involving
significant noncompliance by major dischargers within 180 days.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality through implementation of NPDES Program in accordance
with delegation agreements.
-------
A.4.PA p.40
PROGRAM - PA Computer Systems for NPDES and State Data
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
PURPOSE
Manage through data systems all aspects of water pollution control programs to
identify the case load, assure timely processing of permit applications,
assure that inspections and other monitoring occur, follow individual
violations, and track compliance schedules.
DESCRIPTION
EPA operates the National Permit Compliance System (PCS) for NPDES
dischargers. Pennsylvania plans to take over several aspects of this system
during FY 85, including entering and maintaining effluent limitation data for
major dischargers and entering effluent data generated by the self-monitoring
program into PCS. Future efforts may involve expanding this to cover selected
significant non-major dischargers.
In addition, the Bureau maintains a computerized Facility Inventory System
that includes all industrial and municipal facilities that are regulated. This
includes the many facilities that do not routinely discharge wastes to surface
waters and, therefore, are not subject to NPDES requirements. Enhancements for
the future include a possible link with PCS to eliminate duplication where it
exists, a computerized enforcement system to replace manual logging and
compliance schedule tracking, and computer linkage to DER's laboratory
computer system so that sample data can be identified and returned
automatically.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The use of PCS by the State will result in more timely data entry and make the
system available to assist the State in discharger monitoring. Significant
non-compliance and trends can be identified, and reports such as the Quarterly
Non-Compliance Report can be prepared. The enhancements to the State Facility
Inventory System would automate a number of manual operations, achieving
greater efficiency in managing the program.
-------
A.4.PA p.41
PROGRAM - PA State Water Quality Management Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
PURPOSE
Carry out State Permitting, Inspection, and Enforcement Programs in accordance
with State Clean Streams Law and related regulations.
DESCRIPTION
Pennsylvania has had a Water Quality Management Program since 1905 when the
Purity of Waters Act was passed. The State's Clean Streams Law was passed in
1937 and has been amended several times since then. The program is
administered by DER, and is coordinated with the NPDES Program.
State permits cover the design, construction, and operation of the pollution
control facilities needed to meet the NPDES permit effluent limits. State
permits stay in effect until revoked, cancelled, suspended, or amended.
DER has also developed and is implementing Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategies for inspecting and taking enforcement actions on a
priority basis.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved water quality through implementation of a State Water Quality
Management Program to meet State program priorities.
-------
A.4.MD p.42
PROGRAM - MD NPDES: Municipal Compliance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 237,138 387,000 397,000
PURPOSE
Enforce more effectively and frequently the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits that are issued pursuant to both State and
federal law.
With the resources proposed, enforcement of overflows/spills and raw sewage
discharges will be greatly improved, reducing particularly bacteria and
nutrients in small tributaries on the western shore of the Bay.
DESCRIPTION
Personnel hired in FY 85 will only be able to concentrate on evaluating and
inventorying major interceptors and pumping stations. Additional staff are
needed to evaluate fully all collection systems in the State and identify the
location, causes, frequency and environmental consequences of bypasses and
overflows. Also, continuous monitoring programs must be designed and
implemented in coordination with local sewage authorities to provide for early
detection of overloaded systems. Staff will need to review plans and
specifications of existing sewer systems and conduct field investigations.
Legal staff are needed to develop solid foundations for legal actions against
water pollution violators and to pursue these legal actions through various
legal channels.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Continue development of new compliance tracking system.
Investigate and determine corrective measures needed for various pumping
station problems.
Evaluate and develop compliance plans to correct collection system overflows.
Negotiate collection system agreement with users of Baltimore City sewer
system.
Continue enhancement of enforcement activities.
-------
A.4.VA p.43
PROGRAM - VA Enforcement Of Water Quality Laws and Regulations
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 584,000
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Ensure compliance with water quality laws.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to take
enforcement actions against violators of the various federal and state water
pollution control laws.
Enforcement reviews of approximately 200 violations of laws, policies,
regulations, standards and permits each month (includes both substantive and
technical violations). Appropriate enforcement actions, both administrative
and legal, are taken as necessary.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Will enhance water quality generally and will ensure appropriate permit
compliance.
-------
A.4.VA p.44
PROGRAM - VA No-Discharge Certificates
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 320,000
PURPOSE
Prevent point and nonpoint discharges to State waters, and recycle and reuse
wastewater and sludge via land application.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to
maintain the No-Discharge Certificate program which requires industrial and
agricultural facilities which have potential dischargers to contain and handle
wastes on site. Involves review and approval of plans and specifications for
animal waste and other facilities and issuance of certificates and
inspections. Also includes approval of land application of sewage sludge.
Issue or amend approximately 150 No-Discharge certificates during the
biennium.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Nutrients and other pollutants from industrial waste and animal waste
facilities, as well as from sewage sludge, will be prevented from entering
State waters. Land application projects will allow these "pollutants" to be
recycled for agricultural uses.
-------
A.A.DC p.45
PROGRAM - DC Water Pollution Control Act
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC
EPA
Other
PURPOSE
Provide a regulatory basis for water pollution control by the District of
Columbia.
DESCRIPTION
The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Act was passed by the
District Council on December 11, 1984 and signed by the Mayor on January 9,
1985. It provides for the promulgation of regulations for water quality
standards, quality assurances, point source discharges, pretreatment, WWTP
construction, water quality management planning, sludge management, fisheries
and SAV management, nonpoint source control, groundwater, dredge and fill
activities, and oil spills.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The implementation of the regulations will increase the efficiency of the
effort to improve water quality.
-------
A.5.p.46
NUTRIENTS
Objective 5: Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional
pollutants in runoff from agricultural and forested lands.
-------
A.5.FED p.47
PROGRAM - SCS Watershed Targeting
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal $11,000,000*
PURPOSE
Give special attention to critical resource problem areas and assure that the
most effective use is made of conservation technical and financial assistance.
DESCRIPTION
Designated targeted areas receive additional technical and financial
assistance to control or significantly reduce the identified problem. The
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control area, encompassing portions of Maryland and
Pennsylvania, received technical and financial assistance (Approximately 1.4
million in FY 84). Other areas needing special attention include Potomac
Headwaters, Shenandoah Valley, Chesapeake West, and the Juniata River.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Identification, location, and acceleration of conservation treatment on
critically eroding cropland and woodland resulting in reduced sediment and
nutrient loads to the Chesapeake estuary.
-------
A.5.FED p.48
PROGRAM - SCS Training Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
, . $2,167,500* $2,167,500* $2,167,50*
Federal
*FY 84 conservation technical assistance.
PURPOSE
'd technical assistance to agricultural land users, conservation
districts and urban areas regarding BMPs for soil and water conservation.
description
orovi(ies technical assistance for the planning and implementaion of
ervation plans to land users for pollution control including the design of
C°n8_ ecific pollution control measures and the handling and distribution of
SnimalPwastes and other agricultural pollutants. In FY 84, it was estimated
that $2 167 500 in conservation technical assistance was provided in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
SCS works side-by-side with State and local officials and produces many of the
basic handbooks, standards and specifications used by conservation districts.
This provides consistent technical quality control in the development and
review of sediment and erosion control plans. Through a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA, SCS has assigned a full-time professional staff person
to work with the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. SCS will also participate with
the Liaison Office in identifying priority HPS program areas, cost-effective
BMPs, and will develop procedures for tracking accomplishments.
-------
A.5.FED p.49
PROGRAM - USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal $5,200,000* $5,200,000* $5,200,000*
*Based on maintenance of FY 83 level of funding and portion of state
in watershed.
PURPOSE
Provide financial assistance to agricultural land users in protecting soil
against erosion and waterways from pollution as well as encouraging the
development of private forests, enhancing wildlife habitat and providing
emergency assistance in the wake of natural disaster.
DESCRIPTION
Provides cost-share opportunities and financial incentives to farmers
initiating best management practices covered by the program. Based on the
portion of the state that is within the Bay drainage area, it is estimated
that $5,200,000 in ACP funds were allocated in FY 83.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
ACP funds help agricultural land users reduce sediment, chemicals, and animal
wastes that contaminate streams and lakes by managing the flow of these
pollutants at their source, by catching them in sediment basins, by filtering
them through grass and other plants, and by proper distribution of animal
wastes and pollutants.
-------
A.5.FED p.50
PROGRAM - USDA Experimental Rural Clean Water Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
10 year funds
Federal 10,800,000*
~Funds are available until expended by MD, VA, PA.
PURPOSE
Achieve improved water quality in approved project areas in the most
cost-effective manner possible in keeping with the provision of adequate
supplies of food, fiber and a quality environment; assist agricultural land
owners and operators to reduce agricultural nonpoint source water pollutants
and to improve water quality in rural areas to meet water quality standards or
, goals; and develop and test programs, policies and procedures for the control
of agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The experimental Rural Clean Water
Program was funded in 1980-81 to test the effectiveness of conservation
practices in controlling water quality problems caused by agricultural
activities.
DESCRIPTION
This program is administered by the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service with technical assistance from the Soil Conservation
Service and educational assistance from the Cooperative Extension Service. Of
the 21 projects nationwide, three projects were selected for implementation
within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. They are the Conestoga Headwaters
Project in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, The Double Pipe Creek Project in Carroll
County, Maryland and the Nansemond Chukatuk Project in Isle of Wright and
Sulfolk Counties, Virginia. The program runs for ten years and permits
contracting in the first five years only without an extension. The
Pennsylvania project was approved in 1981 and selected for RCWP comprehensive
monitoring and evaluation. The Maryland project was approved in 1980 and
granted an extension in contracting authority through September of 1986 given
an increased emphasis on nutrient and pesticide management. The Virginia
project was approved in 1981. The funds identified for these projects include
financial and technical assistance, as well as those for monitoring.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
As these are project activities, the accomplishments will be dependent upon
the level of participation. However, the water quality problems being
addressed will contribute to the clean up effort underway for Chesapeake Bay.
In PA the goal is to reduce the usage of chemical fertilizers and promote the
ptoper management of animal wastes to reduce nitrogen loads to surface and
groundwater in combination with normal erosion control techniques. In MD the
goals emphasize erosion control from cropland and animal waste management.
Additional emphasis will be put on nutrient management in FY 85-86. The VA
project deals principally with coliform runoff from hog operations; but, with
erosion control and nutrient management, both nutrient and coliform reductions
are anticipated.
-------
A.5.FED p.51
PROGRAM - EPA. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office Implementation Grants
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 7,250,000* 7,250,000 7,250,000
*A portion of this may be used for point and nonpoint source
objectives other than agricultural and forest land runoff.
PURPOSE
Provide grants to the states and the District of Colunfoia to assist them in
implementing programs to improve water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay. Although any project which reduces pollution loadings or
improves resource habitat is eligible, FY 85 grant criteria require that 75
percent of the grant amount be applied towards nonpoint source controls.
Structural, educational and demonstration projects which address a significant
pollution source in geographic areas of concern will also receive priority.
DESCRIPTION
The current Administration is comnitted to providing $10 million for each of
the next four years towards the Chesapeake Bay clean up. Approximately $7.25
million will be available annually for state implementation grants. To qualify
for assistance, states must provide 50 percent matching funds. In selecting
projects, they must also consider the following criteria:
- The project's potential contribution to reductions in pollutant
loadings or improvements in resource habitat;
- The appropriateness and/or cost-effectiveness of the project: Higher
priority should be given to projects located in designated critical
watersheds;
- The potential beneficial effect of the project on ecologically
important areas in the Bay;
- The unavailability of other federal funding. For example, projects
that can be funded through EPA's construction grants program should
not be considered;
- The project oust be included in the Restoration and Protection Plan;
- The project represents an incremental step in a phased long-term
commitment to determine effective new programs or is part of a
comprehensive abatement program in a specific hydrologic unit;
- NPS implementation efforts should be concentrated in targeted
hydrologic units or targeted to types of source for which solutions
are not known.
-------
A.5.FED p.52
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The grants will help to focus pollution abatement efforts on nonpoint sources.
In the 4 states, implementation grants will fund agricultural cost-share
programs, as well as innovative NPS control activities.
-------
A.5.FED p.53
PROGRAM - FWS Chesapeake Bay Implementation Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide technical assistance to agencies and individuals with primary
responsibility for land management, with a view to developing and implementing
best management practices that mitigate land use and improve the status and
prospects for aquatic resources.
DESCRIPTION
Working with the appropriate state-federal agricultural agencies, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will help prioritize watersheds where NPS
pollutants and their impacts are believed most significant. Aerial photography
will be obtained after heavy rainfall events to document critical erosional
and runoff areas. In cooperation with soil and hydrological experts, on-site
evaluation of land use practices will be undertaken and certain specialized
biological evaluations or data collections may be performed. The final product
from FWS will typically be its contribution to a site-specific conservation
plan. This contribution will emphasize the NPS impacts on important resources
and their habitat, and recommend appropriate BMPs to remedy existing problems.
Future monitoring recommendations will also be made.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
FWS analysis will serve as a basis for practical recommendations to mitigate
land use problems which will improve resources in Chesapeake Bay by improving
water quality and by restoring and improving habitat.
-------
A.5.FED p.54
PROGRAM - USGS Technical Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal NA NA NA
PURPOSE
Provide hydrologic information and technical assistance to state and federal
agencies with responsibility for land management, with a view toward providing
the information for evaluating the success of best management practices (BMP)
implemented to control loss of sediment and nutrients to streams
DESCRIPTION
Working in cooperation with appropriate state-federal agencies, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has in place several investigative studies in
Pennsylvania and Maryland which are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of
BMPs from a hydrologic standpoint. Watersheds and field sites have been
instrumented for the purpose of collecting flow and water quality information
before, during and after implementation of BMPs. The impacts of BMPs on
groundwater quality will be assessed at selected sites. Length of studies will
typically be from 5 to 7 years and will cover a variety of physiographic
provinces, i.e., Carbonate Valley, Piedmont, Coastal Plain.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
USGS will provide technical reports describing the hydrologic regime of
selected BMP study areas along with appropriate flow and water quality
information which will allow appropriate implementation agencies to evaluate
success of programs.
-------
A.5.FED p.55
PROGRAM - SCS Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 3,375,000 6,902,000 3,511,000
PURPOSE
Reclaim the soil and water resources of rural lands adversely af£ected by past
coal mining practices.
DESCRIPTION
Provides technical and financial assistance to landusers who voluntarily enter
into 5 to 10 year contracts for the reclamation of up to 320 acres of eligible
abandoned coal-mined land and waters. A reclamation plan is prepared by the
land user with SCS assistance. The plan outlines what will be done to reclaim
the land each year and the amount of cost-share assistance involved. Action is
occurring in MD, PA, VA, and WV which is within the Chesapeake Bay drainage.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
RAMP will reduce sediment, acid mine drainage and other types of chemical
pollution associated with abandoned coal mine sites. This will be achieved by
applying the reclamation practices needed to remove the problem, shaping of
the reclaimed area, establishing surface water control systems and
establishing permanent vegetation.
-------
A.5.PA p.56
PROGRAM - PA Watershed Assessments - Agricultural Nutrient Control
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
30,000 40,000 40,000
30,000 40,000 40,000
PURPOSE
Perform watershed assessments to determine the potential nonpoint sources of
agricultural related pollution and the measures needed (BMPs) to bring about
changes in agricultural land use management.
DESCRIPTION
The watershed assessment work is completed for the initial priority watersheds
in the 84-85 project year. Assessments will be initiated in the remaining
priority watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay program area. These watersheds
are identified in the state plan as 6 A, 10 C and 10 D and lie in portions of
Centre, Snyder, Union, Northumberland, Montour, Columbia, Sullivan, and
Lycoming Counties. Upon completion of the high priority watershed assessments
in 1986, assessment activities will continue for the next two years in medium
priority watersheds (4C, 4D, 4F, 5C, 5E, 6C, 7D, 7E, 11A, 12A) and other
selected subwatersheds identified or exhibiting potential nonpoint source
problems.
Conservation districts will conduct the surveys. Information on farm
management practices will be gathered from farmers to determine approximate
soil loss rates and the use of nutrients from fertilizers and animal wastes.
Data from the survey will be digitized and an analysis made to determine
specific problems, quantity of best management practices needed and their
specific locations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The assessments will provide data which will allow for the determination of
specific agricultural nonpoint source problems and their locations within
subwatersheds. They will also provide an implementation plan to improve
agricultural land management practices, thus improving water quality in the
watersheds by preventing accele*a®-e<^ soil and nutrient losses to surface and
groundwaters.
-------
A.5.PA p.57
PROGRAM - PA Basin and Watershed Monitoring - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
100,000 100,000 100,000
75,000 90,000 100,000
PURPOSE
Document the water quality of surface runoff and groundwater flow both prior
and subsequent to the implementation of agricultural BMPs. Analysis of data
collected from monitoring studies will indicate the immediate effectiveness
and practicality of agricultural BMP installations. This leads to the
secondary purpose of monitoring studies: utilization of collected data to
determine future agricultural BMP priority planning.
DESCRIPTION
Currently there are two existing proposals for monitoring programs. These
programs are to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission over a number of years. Data collected from these two
studies will give a comprehensive overview of agricultural Bay-related
problems through data analysis collected from the main stem of the Susquehanna
River and its major tributaries. A brief description of the two proposed
monitoring studies is listed below.
A. The USGS proposal is to collect land data, soils and stream quality data,
and precipitation and stream quantity data on three to four agricultural
watersheds in the lower Susquehanna River which are underlain by noncarbonate
rock formations. A special effort will be made to locate monitoring sites in
areas designed for demonstration projects. Each data collection site will
consist of a stream gauging station, precipitation gauge and automatic water
sampling device. Various physical and chemical parameters will be analyzed at
the monitoring sites. Data analysis will involve both statistical trends and
water quality modeling. Trend analysis such as regression analysis of
concentration and load versus runoff and suspended sediment, Seasonal Kendall,
and Wilcox & Rank Sums tests will be used to examine water quality during the
preagricultural BMP phase of data collection. Adjustments in data collection
program will be made as determined by these analyses. A small basin water
quality model such as (HSPF) will be calibrated for each site for
preagricultural BMP phase.
B. The second proposed program for the monitoring study is to be conducted by
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. This study is designated to provide
nutrient loading data for the main stem Susquehanna River and itB major
tributaries in the central and lower basis and nutrient runoff data from small
watersheds representing each prevalent land use found in the central and lower
basin. Nutrient loading will be documented on a seasonal and individual storm
basis. Base flow will be sampled monthly as necessary to supplement ongoing
monitoring by the Pennsylvania DER and the USGS. Major runoff events will be
sampled throughout the rising and falling stream stage. Sampling locations
include 3 in the Susquehanna River, 1 in the Juniata River, 1 on the Swatara
-------
A.5.PA p.58
Creek, 1 on the Conestoga Creek, and 1 on the Condoquinet Creek.
Nutrient runoff monitoring of specific land use may provide data for the
refinement of the nonpoint source watershed model. Four watersheds selected
for this purpose are: Paxton Creek, Stony Creek, Susquehanna River Basin, and
the Valley and Ridge Providence. Filtered and nonfiltered samples will be
analyzed for nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, TKN, total phosphorus, orthophosphate,
calcium, magnesium, and iron.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The following are brief descriptions of the utilization of data collected by
USGS and SRBC monitoring reports.
After agricultural BMP installation, the statistical analysis listed above
will be used to identify changes in water quality. Differences in water
quality which are due to agricultural BMP will be determined by comparing
preagricultural BMP model simulations to observed water quality after
agricultural BMP installation. Changes in crop yield will be evaluated by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Reported data on stream
flow, suspended solids, and chemical analysis will be stored in the WATTSTORE
and published in the annual Data Report titled "Water Resource Data for
Pennsylvania". A brief cooperative report on water resource investigation will
be prepared describing the hydrological water quality characteristics for each
watershed before agricultural BMP installation during the third year of data
collection. A final interpretive report will be submitted for approval as a
water supply paper in cooperation with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
It will be available for review by April 30, 1990.
Nutrient runoff monitoring of specific land use will enable the Bay Program to
develop an improved nonpoint source watershed nutrient loading modeling.
Utilization of these models and data collected from monitoring sites will
provide a substantial factual basis for agricultural BMP installation and
future priority planning.
-------
A.5.PA p.59
PROGRAM - PA Education - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
115,000 125,000 125,000
115,000 125,000 125,000
PURPOSE
Provide farmers better with information on the importance of nutrient
management and the economic, social and environmental benefits obtained
through the adoption of a sound nutrient management program.
DESCRIPTION
A series of approaches must be taken to reach the farmer and general public.
These approaches include the use of promotion materials, media, displays,
newsletters and publications. To reach the farmer, channels of existing
farm-related agencies and associations will be utilized with one overall lead
agency designated. Pennsylvania Association of Conservation District Directors
(PACDD) will continue to serve as the lead agency to coordinate all
educational activities. Funds will be provided to handle the promotional
materials, including brochures to identify the Bay Program and the cost-share
program and coordinate news releases and other information to the news media.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A newsletter will be used to keep Conservation Districts and other interested
agencies and individuals informed of changes in the Bay program.
Demonstrations and research projects involving nutrient management and soil
erosion will be described in publications and widely disseminated to the
agricultural community.
Conservation Districts will promote program activities, needs, problems and
solutions at the watershed level and disseminate any pertinent information
received from PACDD, Penn State University or other agencies to the farmer.
Cooperative Extension Service will provide an informational resource base
which will support a locally based program, provide results of nutrient
management research and demonstrations, and disseminate this information to
county extension offices and conservation districts.
The Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation in DER will revise and update
appropriate manuals to serve as educational guides to expose the farmer to a
wide and varied list of manure management practices. Manuals will include
types of manure storage, crop nutrient needs, and environmental protection
regulations. The educational program is intended to cause a shift in attitude
by farmers resulting in accelerated BMP installation.
-------
A.5.PA p.60
PROGRAM - PA Demonstration Projects - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
Pennsylvania 250,000
Federal 250,000
PURPOSE
Continue and expand a number of demonstration projects which were initiated
during the startup program of the Chesapeake Bay in Pennsylvania to show
state—of—the—art procedures to control excess nutrients from agricultural
cropland and livestock operations. These projects will be continued during the
85 federal year and expanded during the the years 86 through 88. A continued
focus will be on the need to show developing technology for disposal and/or
utilization of animal wastes and to show the benefits of reduced tillage
practices on different types of agricultural cropping systems.
DESCRIPTION
The demonstration projects in the current program and in the expanded program
will relate to the handling and application of animal wastes, reduced tillage
practices and the proper utilization and distribution of chemical fertilizers
in order to improve water quality while satisfying crop needs and maximizing
yields. Some of these projects will demonstrate energy recovery from excess
manure, the burning of poultry wastes to generate heat, the use of
recirculating fluidization beds for the burning of animal wastes to generate
electric power and other waste heat utilization projects. Studies have shown
that even with better nutrient utilization on farms, the exportation of excess
manure outside certain critical watershed areas will be necessary to balance
available supplies against crop nutrient needs. Several projects will be
developed to demonstrate the feasibility of marketing manure outside the
primary area of generation. Future expansion into the middle Susquehanna River
Basin area during FY 86 through 88 will require the demonstration of some of
the techniques from the lower basin under different agricultural conditions.
The size and location of farms, their operating systems, and the type of soils
and other topographic conditions may require slight modification of these
demonstration projects used previously in the initial target watershed areas.
The use of the mobile nutrient ltl n6W watershed treatment areas as
the program moves up basin is antic1?
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These demonstration projects should p™*uce J change of cropping and
management systems on the farms th*c "e "sea ro* demonstration purposes. The
education component of the wiU enc°urage the use of
these results by other farmers watersheds. Excess manure
and associated nutrients will be r
-------
A.5.PA p.61
application, if proper soil tests and nutrient management recommendations are
followed. Certain demonstration projects that provide new products for the
sale of manure derivatives and/or the sale of electric power could also
increase the potential markets and new businesses related to the agriculture
community. Projects that are initiated by Conservation Districts will be
designed to demonstrate successful BMPs and new variations of BMPs that have
the most potential for water quality improvement. The reduction of
conventional tillage through adoption of more soil saving and nutrient saving
conservation tillage practices will enhance the overall farm management system
by individual land owners. The use of less fuel, and less labor will benefit
farmers and less soil erosion from reduced tillage will greatly benefit the
Susquehanna River system and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
A.5.PA p.62
PROGRAM - PA Conservation Districts - Technical Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 80,500 150,000 320,000
Federal 80,500 150,000 302,000
(8 posi- (15 posi- (15 posi-
tions) tions) tions)
PURPOSE
Establish one Erosion and Sediment Control/Nutrient Management Technician
within each of the 39 affected conservation districts. Districts may share
technicians and be cost-shared at 75% (state) and 25% (district)•
DESCRIPTION
Work priorities would be established on the basis of EPA identified nutrient
loading to Chesapeake Bay; work activities would be governed by procedures
established by State Conservation Commission. Work would provide increased
knowledge and training to farmers, municipalities, contractors and others
engaged in earthmoving activities! and agricultural operations in the proper
utilization of nutrient and soil conservation. It would assist, as applicable,
in the development of soil and water conservation/nutrient management plans,
and any regulatory erosion control functions delegated to conservation
districts by the Department of Environmental Resources.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Fewer nutrients and sediments would enter Chesapeake Bay because additional
technicians would provide greater compliance of regulatory functions and
increase the installation rate oi BMPs,
-------
A.5.PA p.63
PROGRAM - PA State Technical Assistance - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
75,000 112,500 150,000
75,000 112,500 150,000
PURPOSE
Manage a basinwide coat-share program, implement a user information service at
the field level, provide technical assistance to conservation districts, and
seek cooperation from other agencies, groups, and individuals regarding proper
nutrient management.
DESCRIPTION
Work would involve the development and implementation of a comprehensive
nutrient management program at the field level. Program elements include
education of farmers and agricultural leaders concerning proper management of
natural and commercial nutrients, assist in the development of criteria for
nutrient management plans, encourage alternative uses of animal wastes, and
assist as appropriate in regulatory functions involving improper
utilization/disposal of animal wastes.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Expected reduction in nutrient levels (N, P) in ground and surface waters
within Susquehanna River Basin commensurate with acceptance and
installation/proper operation of BMPs. A measurable reduction in nutrients is
expected in selected watersheds where demonstration BMPs and water monitoring
devices will be installed.
-------
A.5.PA p.64
PROGRAM - PA State Water Quality Coordination - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
25,000 25,500 26,000
25,000 25,500 26,000
PURPOSE
Establish a Water Quality Coordinator within the Bureau of Hater Quality
Management,
DESCRIPTION
This Coordinator would transfer information on water quality aspects of the
Chesapeake Bay Program and Conestoga Rural Clean Water Project internal within
the Bureau. The Coordinator would assist in the development of inputs and
reports to the Bay program including 1) water quality standards review,
revision and implementation; 2) ambient and compliance monitoring; 3) federal
municipal construction grants; and 4) the installment of point source effluent
limitations and NPS management practices. Provides day to day coordination and
management of the Conestoga River RCWP, including the preparation of reports
required under the RCWP grant agreement.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Provide high level awareness on water quality aspects of the Bay program and
management of the Conestoga River RCWP within the Bureau of Water Quality
Management.
-------
A.5.PA p.65
PROGRAM - PA Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500
1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500
PURPOSE
Continue and improve Pennsylvania's various programs for farmers which were
designed to reduce the sedimentation of Btreams by erosion. These programs
should be continued, but increased financial assistance is needed to reduce
nonpoint pollution from agricultural sources. Erosion and sediment control
programs help to remove phosphorus from runoff, but do not effectively control
nitrogen. To improve nitrogen application practices and other nutrient
management practices, the development and implementation of nutrient
management programs will be needed. The additional funding will be used for
the installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the selected farms.
DESCRIPTION
Guidelines titled "Statement of Policy—Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program" have been developed by the State Conservation
Commission to implement the Financial Assistance Funding Program. The State
Conservation Commission will delegate responsibilities for portions of the
program to the conservation districts. To become eligible for financial
assistance, the selected landowners must be located in high priority
watersheds, become cooperators with the conservation districts, and enter into
a written agreement. The installation of BMPs will be cost-shared at a rate
not to exceed 80 percent, and up to $30,000 per landowner, including
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service monies. If more than one
BMP is installed, a nutrient management program will be required. Five percent
of the allocated money may be used by the conservation district for
administration.
For 1986, $750,000 additional funds are requested to expand the cost-share
program. Also, an additional $100,000 will be needed to compensate the
conservation districts in administering the cost-share program. For the State
to properly administer the program, $75,000 will be needed by the Bureau of
Soil and Water Conservation for administrative costs to assist with the
program and work closely with the conservation districts.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Financial Assistance Funding Program will accelerate the reduction of
agricultural nonpoint pollution into the Lower Susquehanna River. A special
effort will be made to enlist the landowners with critical problems.
Cooperating farmers will have BMPs and nutrient management programs installed
on their farms. This program should especially help to lower nonpoint nitrogen
pollution.
-------
A.5.PA p.66
PROGRAM - PA Mason-Dixon Project - Agricultural Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 920,000 920,000 920,000
PURPOSE
Accelerate the installation of conservation practices on cropland in the Lower
Susquehanna River Basin through the Mason-Dixon erosion control proiect beine
developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
DESCRIPTION
The soil is eroding at a rate of 17.7 tons per acre per year on cropland
without conservation practices in the Mason-Dixon area. This rate is five
times greater than the acceptable soil loss rate of three to four tons per
acre per year. Fourteen counties in Pennsylvania and eight counties in
Maryland will be included in this project. Approximately 2.8 million acres of
cropland are contained within this area, consisting of 24,346 farms of an
average size of 135 acres. To implement this program 34 additional federal
technicians are needed in the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and an additional
$8 million per year of cost-sharing will be required over ten years.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
With the installation of conservation practices, soil loss rates will be
reduced to acceptable rates, and the amount of sediment entering waters of the
lower Susquehanna will be minimized.
-------
A.5.PA p.67
PROGRAM - PA Rural Clean Water Program - Cone8toga River Project
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
110,000* 120,000* 130,000*
* * *
*See A.5.USDA Rural Clean Water Program.
PURPOSE
Evaluate the effects of the implementation of agricultural BMPs on surface and
groundwater quality in the Upper Conestoga River Basin. Excessive nonpoint
source discharges of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus associated with
agriculture are currently degrading many public and private water supplies in
the Conestoga River Basin, which ultimately has an impact on the Susquehanna
River and the Chesapeake Bay. As a result, the Conestoga River Basin was
designated as the No. 1 priority watershed in Pennsylvania's Agricultural 208
Plan. In June 1981, the Federal Rural Clean Water Program funded a project to
install agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Upper Conestoga
River Basin that area designed to reduce nonpoint source contaminants. BMPs
will be implemented on about 300 of a total of 1,250 farms which are
considered the most critical nonpoint source problems in the study area.
DESCRIPTION
The specific objectives of the study are: 1) to quantify the transport of
sediment, nutrients and pesticides in the surface water of the Upper Conestoga
River Basin, 2) to quantify the movement of nitrate into groundwater aquifers,
3) to investigate the transport of water soluble pesticides to groundwater, 4)
to measure the effectiveness of specific BMPs in controlling nitrate and other
contaminant movement into groundwater, 5) to evaluate the cost and
effectiveness of individual agricultural BMPs and surface water quality.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The project is scheduled to run through 1992, during which time a continuous
monitoring and evaluation effort will take place. The Chesapeake Bay Program
study recommends the development of a detailed nonpoint source control
implementation program. Results of Conestoga River Project will be valuable in
the refinement and fine tuning of the agricultural component of the total
program.
-------
A.5.PA p.68
PROGRAM - PA Silviculture Runoff
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 65,200 65,200 65,200
PURPOSE
Reduce the overland flow of soil and nutrients into the streams tributary to
the Susquehanna River by implementing a forestry program.
DESCRIPTION
Sedimentation and nutrient loadings in the streams occur in part because of
active cultivation along stream banks and as a result of the production of
more animal waste than conventional agriculture can profitably use. Under this
proposal, a portion of the animal waste would be applied to woodland areas and
to less productive soils where forest plantations will be established wi t-h
all the benefits of afforestation. '
A second aspect of this proposal is the establishment and/or maintenance of
herbaceous and forested buffer zones between the streams and their cropland
watersheds. These filter strips would serve to intercept overland flow and
trap sediment and nutrients before they enter the streams. The sites are
almost invariably among the most productive, so biomass and timber production
will be essential elements to consider m the planning process.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The combined result of this two-practice approach will be a significant
improvement in the quality of the water entering the Susquehanna River.
-------
A.5.PA p.69
PROGRAM - PA Department of Agriculture's IPA Assignment Agreement
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 6,000
Federal
PURPOSE
Assist the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in carrying out its
responsibilities under the Nonpoint Source Abatement Program.
DESCRIPTION
By means of a matching funding program between the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture and the USDA/Soil Conservation Service, a full-time staff person
has been assigned to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for the
purpose stated above.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improve interrelationships between the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, other federal agencies, state agencies and local
agricultural groups, with emphasis on accelerating the reduction of
agricultural nonpoint source pollution into the Lower Susquehanna River.
-------
A.5.MD p.70
PROGRAM - MD Agricultural Technical Assistance Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 1,735,000 1,735,000 1,735,000
PURPOSE
Implement farm soil and water conservation plans and agricultural best
management practices (BMPs) which control runoff of sediment, nutrients,
animal wastes and agricultural chemicals to waters of the state. The
program is designed to provide the technical assistance needed by farm
owners and operators in order to develop farm conservation plans and
install BMPs.
DESCRIPTION
Technical assistance is provided to farm owners and operators through local
soil conservation districts. Staff assigned to districts advise farmers
regarding soil erosion and water quality problems, prepare soil and water
conservation plans, survey, design and oversee construction of BMPs. Districts
are supported by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) through
placement of conservation planners, technical and support staff and through
provision of operating funds. Increased Department resources, available as a
result of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Program, allow for the expansion of local
soil and water conservation programs. Districts receiving additional staff and
funding are enabled: to conduct an information program tailored to local
conditions which encourages BMPs and informs farmers about the technical and
financial assistance available to them; to establish an outreach program to
farmers and landowners in areas where the greatest potential reduction of
agricultural pollution could occur; to assess local conditions to identify
those which are critical in relation to protecting water quality; and to
provide the technical assistance required to develop farm conservation plans,
design and implement BMPs. The allocation of MDA resources has been based on
the identification of priority watersheds which have the greatest potential
for delivery of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants to the Chesapeake Bay.
As critical conditions are identified and as research provides information
related to effective management of nitrogen and other pollutants, resources
will be directed toward those areas in which the greatest reduction in
agricultural nonpoint source pollution may be achieved.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
With the level of support to local soil conservation districts continuing at
FY 86 levels, the development of approximately 1000 farm soil and water
conservation plans is expected per year. With the continuing availability of
cost-share funds as well as technical assistance, implementation of over 2000
BMPs per year is anticipated. Reduction of nonpoint source pollution resulting
from sediment, nutrient and chemical runoff from farmland will occur as
agricultural best management practices are applied and installed.
-------
A.5.MD p.71
PROGRAM - MD Agricultural Cost-Sharing
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
PURPOSE
Provide funding for the installation of best management practices (BMPs),
including both agronomic and structural practices, to reduce nonpoint
pollution from agricultural sources. The Maryland Agricultural Water Quality
Cost-Share Program was established to assist farmers in correcting existing
water quality problems on their farms.
DESCRIPTION
The Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program, which began in July of 1983,
provides up to 87 1/2% funding for eligible projects with a maximum of $10,000
per project and $25,000 per farm. There are 24 BMPs designed to prevent
nutrients, sediment and animal waste from reaching the waters of the state,
which are eligible for cost-sharing funding. Any individual, corporation,
trust or other business enterprise which participates in the operation of a
farm is eligible to receive cost-sharing funding for projects which correct
existing water quality problems.
The program is administered by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA)
through the local soil conservation districts. Technical assistance for the
planning and designing of the projects is provided by the soil conservation
districts and the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
The initial appropriation in FY 84 was $5 million and in FY 85, $2 million was
approved, all through State bond issue. From July 1, 1983 through March 1,
1985, over 2,000 applications were received for processing by MDA with
$5,075,882 approved for eligible projects. Six hundred twenty-eight projects
have been completed with $1,545,860 paid to program participants. Currently an
average of 130 applications are submitted per month. This is expected to
increase to 170 due to the increase in staffing at the local soil conservation
district offices under the Chesapeake Bay Agricultural Program. Increased
staffing will lead to greater cost-share program participation as outreach is
expanded and more technical assistance becomes available.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A reduction of nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural land is expected.
The highest achievement in pollution reduction should be in the priority
watersheds identified as having the highest potential for the delivery of
phosphorus to the Chesapeake Bay. Greater agricultural runoff control is
expected in these watersheds since additional staffing is being placed in
these areas first. With staffing at the FY 86 level and with continuing
availability of cost-share funds, the installation of over 2,000 best
management practices per year is expected.
-------
A.5.MD p.72
PROGRAM - MD Agricultural Research
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 147,000 147,000 147,000
PURPOSE
Collect the information needed to ensure the installation of best management
practices which will curb agricultural nonpoint pollution. The control of
nutrient losses from farmland is of major importance in the protection of the
water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. Current data regarding nutrient movement
from agricultural land is inadequate to provide for the necessary control.
Therefore, research is being directed towards gathering data on the processes
which control nutrient losses, the pathways by which nutrients move, and the
implications of agricultural nutrient movement.
DESCRIPTION
In FY 85, a multi-year, multi-disciplinary program was designed by scientists
of the University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. As a part of
this program, data is to be obtained from experimental and private farms,
located in different agricultural areas within the State, where controls can
be maintained and cause-and-effeet relationships can be studied on a direct
basis. Detailed investigations will include the relationships between soil and
crop management practices, soil characteristics (including levels of available
nutrients), weather patterns and other factors affecting the amount of
nutrients moving in runoff and lost by leaching and cycling into unavailable
forms in the soil. The primary focus will be on obtaining basic data on the
environmental movement of chemical fertilizers and animal wastes. Experiments
with specific objectives will be established on farms, together with
installations for collecting hydrologic and weather data. Farms will be
managed according to regular productive agricultural practice. Comprehensive
scientific data will be collected to obtain an in-depth picture of the sources
and pathways of nutrient movement affected by agricultural practices.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Preliminary research findings are anticipated in FY 88, with subsequent annual
publication of conclusions and recommendations. The research is expected to
provide a base for the examination of cause-and-effeet relationships in
nutrient balances, the mechanism of nutrient release and nutrient flow. It
will also provide the data needed to estimate cost/benefit ratio of
agricultural management practices in relation to the control of nutrient loss.
-------
A.5.MD p.73
PROGRAM - MD Education Demonstration Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 320,000 320,000 320,000
PURPOSE
Reduce and/or minimize agriculturally related nonpoint source pollution for
the purpose of improving water quality and protecting the waters of the State.
This program will address the education and demonstration programs of the
University of Maryland's Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural
Experiment Station. It is designed to complement the State's technical
assistance program and will aid in successful implementation of nonpoint
source pollution controls on agricultural land.
DESCRIPTION
The Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station, under a
five-year contract to the Department of Agriculture, will conduct
demonstration projects on one or more commercially operating farms to obtain
cost and benefit data resulting from implementation of selected best
management practices to control loss of sediment and nutrients from cropland.
In addition, a Statewide education program will be implemented to encourage
farmers to use best management practices. The demonstration projects and data
retrieved from research will be used as tools in this effort.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
It is anticipated that this project will provide data on how to manage
nutrients and animal wastes in ways which are most economically attractive to
the farmer and least harmful to water quality. The Soil Conservation Committee
will focus all educational efforts of state and federal agencies into a
coordinated water quality education program to aid the agricultural community
in understanding issues and methods to control or reduce
agriculturally-related nonpoint source pollution.
-------
A•5.MD p.74
PROGRAM - MD Agricultural Drainage
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 142,000 142,000 142,000
PURPOSE
Assure agricultural drainage projects protect Maryland's waterways from
pollution. The EPA Bay Study identified agricultural runoff as one of the
major sources of nutrient and sediment inputs to the Bay system. Currently in
Maryland, most large agricultural drainage projects involving the
channelization of streams to lower the water table under agricultural lands
are planned, financed and constructed by local government with cooperation
from the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The involved local government
entities include county government, town councils, soil conservation districts
(SCDs), public watershed associations (PWAs) and public drainage associations
(PDAs). PWAs and PDAs are responsible for managing and maintaining the
completed drainage projects.
Until 1984, the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) had no formal roles
for asserting the State's agricultural, natural resources or environmental
protection interests in this process. A Soil Conservation Service (SCS) plan
drawn in accordance with national criteria may or may not have provided
adequate protection against pollution, flooding and wetland destruction. On
July 1, 1984, Agricultural Article 8-603 became State law and provided the MDA
with direct involvement in all agricultural drainage projects constructed,
operated and maintained by PDAs.
DESCRIPTION
Agricultural Article 8-603 authorizes the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Natural Resources and Agriculture to jointly promulgate, by
regulation, the criteria for the design, construction, operation and
maintenance of agricultural drainage projects which will assure the prevention
of pollution of the waters of the State. Prior to construction or
reconstruction of an agricultural drainage project, a local PDA must develop
and submit a construction, operation and maintenance plan to the Secretary or
Agriculture for approval. Inspection and enforcement of compliance with
approved plans will be carried out by the three departments.
In support of this effort, Agricultural Article 8-602 provides for State
cost-sharing to support PDA and PWA maintenance programs, From 1979 to 1985,
$239,019 in State grants have been utilized for the maintenance of
agricultural drainage projects. The 1986 program will allocate $108,500 to
approximately 53 PDAs and PWAs resulting in the yearly maintenance of
approximately 635 miles of drainage channels in Maryland.
-------
A.5.MD p.75
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Agricultural Drainage Project Regulations (COMAR 15.01.07) will establish
a high standard of design for drainage systems.
The requirements for periodic maintenance of these projects coupled with
financial support from the State should result in the prompt repair of damaged
channels, eliminate the need to reconstruct these projects every 10 to 30
years, and reduce the potential contribution of pollutants to the waters of
the Bay.
-------
A.5.MD p.76
PROGRAM - MD Agricultural Runoff Control: Enforcement of Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 29,134 29,134 29,134
PURPOSE
Complement the technical teams in the soil conservation districts with
enforcement capability. It is anticipated and desired that farm units in
priority areas have best management practices installed within the next five
years.
DESCRIPTION
As the districts target their efforts to deal with priority areas, their staff
will work cooperatively with the Health Department's enforcement staff to
address particularly troublesome farm units where current pollution problems
are documented, contributing to, and causing water quality violations.
Possible enforcement actions are being considered on a case-by-case basis. No
additional staff are being requested in FY 86. A person is to be hired in FY
85.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
OEP expects to implement approximately 30 enforcement actions in FY 86, and 80
in each succeeding year.
-------
A.5.VA p
PROGRAM - VA Cost-Sharing for Agricultural Best Management Practices
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients entering the Bay from Virginia's
farmlands.
84-86
1,033,000
1,642,000
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, is designed to provide cost~sharing grants to farmers for
implementing certain BMPs. The following outlines eligible practices in each
area. An asterisk (*) denotes an addition for the 1985 program.
Level I (All 68 Basin Counties)
~Minimum Till-Cropland
*No-Till Cropland
*No-Till Pastureland
Grass Filter Strips
Permanent Vegetative Cover On
Critical Areas
Reforestation Of Erodible Crop
And Pasture
Level II-A (Animal Waste Priority Area).
Six BMPs listed under Level I plus:
Animal Waste Control Facilities
Grazing Land Protection
Level II-C (Cropland Priority Area)
Six BMPs listed under Level I plus:
~Protection Cover For Vegetable Cropland
Stripcropping
Terraces
Diversions
Contour Farming
Sediment Retention, Erosion Or Water
Control Structures
Sod Waterways
State Cost-Share Rate
$15/acre
$15/acre
$15/acre
$.10/lin. ft.
25%
$75/acre
90X (Federal ACP + State)
25%
25Z
25*
25%
25X
25%
25%
25X
-------
Chesapeake Bay-Chowan River Non-Point Programs
LEVEL I - Entire Basins Area
LEVEL 11-A -
Animal Waste Priority Area
LEVEL II-C
^5 Cropland
Priority Area
I'HifH y
WIIJ 1AM
It \ III
*1 I r I'll \N^
V. ^ AMHKKM
¦ • ¦ [CITY,
\v> ; i •
ISI.K f IF
wn:MT
SoH and Water Conservation Districts Within Program Boundaries
Chowan River Drainage Basin
Animal Waste Priority Area
Headwaters (41)
Lord Fairfax (13)
Shendoah Valley (9)
Chowan River Basin Program Area
Appomattox River (42)
J. R. Horsley (19)
Southside (3)
Cropland Priority Area
Culpeper (7)
Eastern Shore (20)
Hanover-Caroline (30)
John Marshall (32)
Loudoun (36)
Northern Neck (8)
Three Rivers(43)
Tidewater (1)
Tri-County (17)
Other SWCDs Abo Within Program Area
Colonial (18) Piedmont
-------
A.5.VA p.78
The application period for the 1985 Spring BMP program began during December
and closes approximately in March commensurate with the ASCS schedule for
federal BMP cost share.
Farmers in 23 Soil and Water Conservation Districts submitted requests for
1984 Chesapeake Bay Initiative BMP cost-share funding. For the 1984 program,
$281,350 has been disbursed to the Districts for BMP projects in the
Chesapeake Bay basin. (Note: These figures are the Districts' "best estimates"
based on applications and may change.) All 1984 funded practices were to be
installed by December 31, 1984, to be eligible for cost share with the
exception of animal waste systems. For these systems, a farmer must show at
least a $10,000 investment in the project by that date.
Greater than half of the 1984 program funding is for 23 new animal waste
systems at a State share cost of $160,048. The state program has instituted a
$7500 cap in cost share funds for one system. 44% of the 1984 program cost
share funds requested in the Bay basin, or $121,302, are for cropland
practices, including 97 new miles of grass filter strips. (The State
cost-share program for grass filterstrips has previously resulted in 152 miles
of filterstrips.) Other approved cropland practices are funded 25% by State
funds, limited up to $1000 each practice in Level I, and up to $2000 in Levels
II-A and II-C. (See following map for locations.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A significant increase in the use of BMPs by farmers resulting in
substantiated reductions of sediment and phosphorus loadings to streams that
feed the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
A.5.VA p.79
PROGRAM- VA Pollution Source Identification: Agricultural BMPs
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients entering the bay from Virginia1s
farmlands.
DESCRIPTION
The program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, is designed to develop a method for identifying target farms and
critical watersheds.
A demonstration pollution-source data base for Westmoreland County has been
completed by the EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center. DSWC is
in the process of evaluating EPIC's pollution sources of agricultural lands.
DSWC is also exploring alternative ways of collecting the pollution source
data because initial cost estimates for identifying pollution sources in the
Rappahannock and York river basins were underestimated.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
With a computerized data base of farmland, topography soils and hydrologic
information, land areas can be prioritized according to nonpoint source
pollution potential. This will enable the state to target its resources more
effectively.
84-86
120,000
178,000
-------
A.5.VA p.80
PROGRAM - VA Research/Demonstration: Agricultural BMPs
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 175,000
Federal 263,000
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients entering the Bay from Virginia's
farmlands.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, is designed to further investigate and demonstrate the
effectiveness of various BMPs. The program involves the use of a mobile
rainfall stimulator, the application of innovative BMPs, the monitoring of a
small demonstration watershed, and developing of a State model farm.
To date, two test sites for the demonstration rainfall simulator have been
chosen, one in Southampton County and one in Culpepper. It is anticipated that
two more sites will be designated by January, one o£ which will be in the
Shenandoah Valley. The cost of the rainfall simulator is estimated to be
$52,000.
To date, 12 innovative BMP demonstration projects have been approved for cost
sharing with farmers. These include aerial aeedinga, waterway protection,
pasture renovation, a tile outlet terrace and parallel contour filter strips.
These programs will be monitored for effectiveness and become the focus of
local tours and educational programs.
A 5.6 square-mile demonstration watershed has been chosen and includes a small
creek off the Nomini River in Westmoreland County. An agreement for a water
quality/sediment loss monitoring network is presently being developed. The
target starting date to begin monitoring is the end of April.
Chippokes Plantation in Surry County has been chosen as a farm site to
demonstration agricultural BMPs. Although plans are in the developmental
stage, this State-owned farm may become a model farm for demonstrations oE
BMPs.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
By studying and demonstrating BMPs under actual field conditions, better
guidance concerning BMP uBe can be developed and farmers will become more
inclined to use them, resulting in reduced pollutant loads to the Bay,
-------
A.5.VA p.81
PROGRAM - VA Technical/Administrative Assistance: Agricultural BMPs
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients entering the Bay from Virginia's
agricultural lands.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, is designed to provide the State's Soil and Water Conservation
Districts cost-sharing funding for technical and clerical personnel to
administer agricultural nonpoint pollution control programs at the District
level.
In 1984, funding for technical and administrative assistants for the
agricultural BMP programs was disbursed to 24 Districts. 75Z or up to $25,000
of the salary costs for full-time technical assistants is available; part-time
technical assistants are funded 100Z. Up to $5,000 is available for clerical
support.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Additional field personnel will subsequently improve the capability of local
governments and conservation districts to implement effective nonpoint source
pollution control programs resulting in reduced pollutant loading to the Bay.
84-86
300,000
400,000
-------
A.5.VA p.82
PROGRAM - VA Education: Agricultural BMPs
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 122,000
Federal 182,000
PURPOSE
Inform District Directors, farmers and others about the water quality and soil
retention benefits of BMPs.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources in cooperation with the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service.
An education coordinator has been hired and is working out of Fredericksbursr
because it is centrally located relative to the agricultural and animal waste
targeted areas of the State. A strategy for educating farmers about
conservation tillage, timely crop fertilization, and cover crop planting is
presently being developed by the Extension Service under contract. The
educational materials to be prepared will include printed material on
fertilizer application and use practices, and distributed through the District
offices. During October, the education coordinator held an educational forum
for county extension agents in each of the five Agricultural Extension
Districts. Agents were informed of the State cost-share program and ways in
which they can help bring farmers into the program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Throueh education, more farmers will be persuaded to implement BMPs,
nnrticularly those which are coat-effective to their farming operations,
particul y become more aware of the BMP cost-share program and other
tatneta « them. increased ol BMPs vill
11"Loading, to the fro. .gricultar-l U„d.
-------
A.5.VA p.83
PROGRAM - VA NPS Best Management Practices Handbook Update
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 20,000
Federal 60,000
PURPOSE
Review BMP handbooks (Agriculture, Management, Urban, Groundwater, Hydrologic
Modification, Mining, and Forestry) for currency and NPS program definition as
they relate to Virginia's Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
DESCRIPTION
A major part of Virginia's Statewide 208 planning effort involved the
development of Best Management Practices Handbooks. These handbooks, which
were developed by a State Technical Advisory Committee, recommended practices
or a combination of practices that provide the most effective and practicable
means of preventing or reducing pollution generated by nonpoint sources to
levels compatible with water quality goals.
Since the publication of the handbooks in 1979, a great deal has been learned
about water quality and the application of BMPs used in controlling pollutants
from nonpoint sources. Under this program the BMP Handbooks would be reviewed
and, if appropriate, would be revised to reflect any new developments. In
addition the program would review the NPS program definition as related to
Chesapeake Bay and its drainage area.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Following the review and appropriate updating the BMP Handbooks would reflect
present conditions and updated technological practices that are used to
control NPS pollutants within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
-------
A.5.VA p.84
PROGRAM - VA Soil Research And Mapping
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 1,160,000
PURPOSE
Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources provides for an inventory of soil resources in Virginia toward a
planned completed soil survey of the State by 1996. In the past biennium,
1,544,536 acres were mapped. Major activities of the sub-program are providing
administrative leadership; monitoring the productivity of soils mapping
conducted under contracts with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University and the USDA, Soil Conservation Service; promoting soil surveys
to local governing bodies, securing local financial commitments to the
program; and, establishing priorities for mapping.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The basic objective of the program is to conduct an inventory on 1,806,500
acres of the soil resources in Virginia the biennium. The Division of Soil and
Water Conservation will provide financial assistance through contracts with
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU) and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for staff services
of soil scientists, laboratory support services and operational costs to
cooperatively inventory 1,806,500 acres (combined mapping rates of VPI&SU and
SCS utilizing federal, state and local resources).
-------
A.6 .p.85
NUTRIENTS
Objective 6: Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional
pollutants in urban runoff.
States may use Chesapeake Bay Program implementation grant monies to meet thii
objective.
-------
A.6.PA p.86
PROGRAM - PA Storm Water Management Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Develop, implement, administer, and enforce county watershed stormwater
management plans pursuant to the Statewide Storm Water Management Act of 1978
and the attendant 25 PA Code Chapter 110 - Storm Water Management Financial
Assistance Regulations.
DESCRIPTION
The Department is currently developing a system to prioritize designated
watersheds for funding under the Storm Water Management Act. This system will
consider the Chesapeake Bay Program as one parameter. In the development of
the watershed storm water management plans for watersheds containing urbanized
areas, a component to monitor toxics during implementation of the plan could
be included if:
1. The watershed is high on the priority list.
2. County elects to do such work.
3. Additional funds are available to do such work.
4. The study is conducted and administered by the Department of
Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This monitoring would help identify and refine control strategies for toxics
in urban runoff. The funding of these activities under the Storm Water
Management Act is not provided; therefore, other funding sources need to be
obtained. These watershed storm water management plans can be used to provide
updated hydiologic, hydraulic, land use, and other data for water quality
studies.
-------
A.6.MD p.87
PROGRAM - MD Sediment And Erosion Control
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 471,369 471,369 471,369
PURPOSE
Assure consistent Statewide enforcement of the State's sediment control law by
transferring field enforcement responsibility for erosion and sediment control
plans to the Department of Natural Resources with provisions for subsequent
delegation of authority to local jurisdictions; to assure acceptable Statewide
enforcement programs by utilizing the positions hired in FY 85 to enable the
Department of Natural Resources to carry out inspection and enforcement
responsibilities in those jurisdictions that either do not seek delegation or
in those areas where local jurisdictions are not capable of carrying out
acceptable programs; to improve control techniques and their application by
providing funding for review and revision of the Statewide standards for
erosion and sediment control plans; and to insure timely temporary and/or
permanent stabilization during construction by revising the sediment control
regulations.
DESCRIPTION
FY 85:
Enforcement:
Revisions to COMAR which establish minimum standards for delegation of
inspection and enforcement responsibility were published in the December 7,
1984 issue of the Maryland Register and became effective on December 17, 1984.
Evaluation of and a determination on the adequacy of all pending requests for
delegation of inspection and enforcement responsibility will be completed.
Field verification of local inspection and enforcement efforts will be
conducted and findings will be factored into the final decisions on
delegation.
Revision of Standards and Specifications:
A contract will be awarded to evaluate all existing erosion and sediment
control standards and specifications for improvement with special emphasis on
sediment basin design criteria and engineering filter fabric. Sediment control
practices will also be evaluated with respect to their impact on stormwater
runoff to ensure protection of downstream areas from increased stormwater
discharges.
Stabilization Requirements:
Final regulations were adopted on June 26, 1964, and became effective on July
16, 1984.
-------
A.5.MD p.88
FY 86:
An additional $70,000 has been requested to provide data processing
oroeramming services to develop and maintain a computerized system for
tracking actions and violations of the Sediment Control law and regulations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Substantial improvement in the effectiveness of sediment and erosion control
plans at specific construction sites. Improved standards and specifications.
-------
A.6.VA p.89
PROGRAM - VA Urban BMP Technical Assistance and Demonstration Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients entering the Bay from Virginia's
urban areas.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, the
program is designed to provide for cost-sharing funds for local technical
assistance and urban BMP demonstration projects in selected areas undergoing
rapid development.
The Technical Assistance Program is intended to provide additional manpower
resources at the local level to aid in the implementation of erosion and
sediment control regulations and other nonpoint source pollution control
programs and projects. Soil and water conservation districts can obtain 75% of
the cost of employing urban conservation specialists or engineers provided the
remaining 25% of the cost can be obtained from participating localities. This
program has been merged with an agricultural technical assistance program, so
many of the individuals who are hired have agricultural as well as urban
responsibilities. To date, conservation specialists with urban
responsibilities have been hired in 13 conservation districts. There has been
a net increase of 5.85 man years of technical assistance in the Chesapeake Bay
Basin as a result of this program. Applications for additional positions are
anticipated in the next fiscal year.
The Urban BMP Demonstration Program is intended to increase understanding of
the effectiveness and practicability of certain urban BMPs recommended for use
in Virginia. By installing and studying BMPs under actual field conditions the
State hopes to develop useful guidelines for BMP use, and be in a better
position to convince land developers and their consultants that such practices
are economically as well as technically feasible. To date, ten urban BMP
demonstration projects have been selected for funding. The BMPs being tested
include porous asphalt pavement, infiltration trenches, wet ponds, dry ponds,
urban marshes and biotechnical soil stabilization. Project locations include
Prince William County, Fairfax County, Albemarle County, Fredericksburg,
Henrico County and James City County.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Increased implementation of urban BMPs by land developers resulting in reduced
pollutant loads to the Chesapeake Bayt
84-86
650,000
385,000
-------
A.6.VA p.90
PROGRAM - VA State Erosion And Sediment Control Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 366,710
PURPOSE
Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources and provides technical training and advisory assistance to
local government officials, consultants, developers, and others who implement
or are affected by local programs for controlling soil erosion and
sedimentation from construction-related activities.
In each biennia the Department's Division of Soil and Water Conservation plans
to carry out the following activities for this program:
Provide information resources and advisory assistance to local officials,
developers, consultants, landowners and others on the interpretation and
implementation of technical standards established as provided by the State
Erosion and Sediment Control Law.
Conduct 8 Statewide training seminars each year of the biennium and
participate in local or regional training programs.
Review erosion and sediment control standards and specifications on 40 state
construction projects and monitor plan implementation on State projects under
construction during each year of the biennium.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The capabilities of local government officials, developers and consulting
engineers to comply with the State Erosion and Sediment Control Law will be
improved resulting in a reduction in sediment loadings to the Chesapeake Bay
from urbanizing areas.
-------
A.6.DC p.91
PROGRAM - DC Catch Basin Cleaning
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
625,316 625,316 625,316
109,193 109,193 109,193
PURPOSE
Assure the timely and efficient cleaning of all 27,000 catch basins/inlets in
the City and prevent or minimize the discharge of suspended particles to our
waterways.
DESCRIPTION
Catch basin/inlet grates in need of cleaning affect water quality in the
receiving streams by allowing suspended particles to be discharged along with
the street wash that enters the basins. During rainfalls, such discharges go
directly to receiving streams from the storm sewer system. Discharges from the
combined sewer system (including raw sewage) occur only when capacity of the
combined sewer is exceeded or when a malfunction exists. Timely cleaning of
the basins reduces the amount of debris that is washed out into the receiving
streams.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This proposal will assist in the prevention of pollution and contamination of
the Chesapeake Bay and will enhance the current efforts in stream cleaning in
the District and in so doing reduce the sediment load to the tributary
Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.
-------
A.6.DC p.92
PROGRAM - DC Stream Cleaning
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
183,866 183,866 183,866
127,803 127,803 127,803
PURPOSE
Remove debris thrown into streams and entering from storm flows or placed on
the banks of such streams. In addition, simple measures are taken to prevent
erosion of stream banks and adjacent areas.
DESCRIPTION
Debris entering into streams or placed on the banks of streams must be
removed lest it be carried downstream, especially when the streams are at
flood stage. Furthermore, a desirable goal of preventing erosion of streams
banks and adjacent areas, now ignored because of budgetary limitations, will
be implemented at known locations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This orooosal to assist in the prevention of pollution and contamination of
the Chesapeake Bay will enhance the current efforts in stream cleaning in the
District and in so doing reduce the sediment load to the tributary Anacostia
and Potomac Rivers.
-------
A.7.p.93
NUTRIENTS
Objective 7: Reduce pollutant discharges from recreational boats in
shellfish growing areas and beach areas used for swimming.
Efforts are underway in Maryland, Virginia and D.C. to study the use of
pumpout facilities and/or control boat discharges.
-------
B.p.l
APPENDIX B - TOXICS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
TOXICS
Goal: 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.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has major responsibilities for the
control of toxic discharges. Through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), EPA has delegated to Pennsylvania, Maryland and
Virginia authority to issue and enforce permit programs for dischargers. EPA
issues permits for the District of Columbia. In addition, EPA develops permit
limitations for toxic pollutants, water quality criteria, Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation (TREs), and procedures for waste load allocations. These, as well as
the findings from pilot implementation studies, provide additional tools for
controlling toxic discharges. The states implement the NPDES program by
issuing permits for municipal and industrial point sources, monitoring for
compliance, and taking enforcement actions, as needed. Efforts are also
underway to encourage pretreatment of effluents from industrial sources and to
reduce chlorine discharged from POTHs. Toxic substances in runoff from urban,
suburban and rural areas is addressed by the states also. Controlling
stormwater runoff leadB to considerable nutrient as well as toxics reduction
in the Bay and its tributaries. (Some of the programs dealing with metals and
organic chemicals are listed in Appendix A.)
Because of the many uncertainties involved in identifying toxics, their
sources and effects, considerable monitoring and research efforts are also
underway. (See Appendix E for monitoring and research programs.)
In this Appendix, each program listing includes a program title, budget
projection (when available), a purpose, brief description and anticipated
program results. Many of the program costs are inseparable from those dealing
with nutrients. Funding levels for future programs are largely unavailable at
this time.
-------
APPENDIX B: TOXICS
EPA Policy For The Development Of Water Quality-Based Permit
Limitations For Toxic Control 3
EPA Pilot Studies For Implementing Toxics Control Policy 4
EPA Development Of Uasteload Allocation Procedure 5
EPA Development Of Water Quality Standards 6
PA NPDES and State Water Quality Management Programs 7
PA Triennial Water Quality Standards Review 8
PA Point Source Toxics Control Strategy 9
PA PCB Sampling Program 10
MD Biomonitoring 11
VA NPDES Permits 12
VA Chesapeake Bay Toxics Strategy 13
VA Toxics Monitoring 14
Virginia Enforcement of WQ Laws and Regulations and No-Discharge
Certificates 15
EPA Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) - Municipal 17
PA Pretreatment Delegation 18
PA Municipal Wasteload Management 19
MD Pretreatment 20
MD Construction Grants: Industrial Pretreatment Loans 21
VA NPDES: Compliance Monitoring 22
VA Pretreatment 23
DC Pretreatment 24
EPA Technical Support Document For Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control 26
FWS NPDES Permit Review 27
PA NPDES Program 28
MD NPDES: Industrial Discharge Compliance 29
PA Seasonal Disinfection 31
MD Chlorine Removal 32
VA Control of Chlorine at POTWs 33
DC Dechlorination 34
EPA National Urban Runoff Program 36
PA Stormwater Management Program 37
PA Department of Agriculture Funded Research Projects 38
PA Pesticide Use Profile Program 39
PA Pesticide Use Educational Program 40
MD Stormwater Management 41-42
MD Stormwater Management: Best Management Practices For Existing
Urban Areas 43-44
DC Stormwater Management Regulatory Program 45
PA Emergency Response to Pollution Events 47
MD Emergency Response to Oil Spills 48
VA Emergency Response to Pollution Events 49
DC Oil Spill Response 50
-------
B.l.p.2
TOXICS
Objective 1: Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system
through implementation and enforcement of the States' NPDGS
permit programs and other programs.
-------
B.l.FED p.3
PROGRAM - EPA Policy For The Development Of Water Quality-Based Permit
Limitations For Toxic Control
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal * * *
*106/205(j)grant
PURPOSE
Develop an integrated strategy using chemical and biological methods to
control pollutants beyond Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT), secondary treatment, and other Clean Water Act technology-based
requirements in order to meet water quality standards.
DESCRIPTION
The basis of the Region III program is the state adopted water quality
standards. Where a numerical water quality standard has been adopted for a
particular toxic substance, an adequate waste load allocation procedure should
assure that proper effluent limits will be developed for the permit. If a
numerical water quality standard has not been adopted for a particular toxic
substance, then the "free from" clause in their water quality standards needs
to be invoked and water quality criteria developed. Therefore there is a need
to develop procedures for producing reliable water quality criteria. If no
criteria can be developed then biotoxicity testing of the effluent should
govern the permit requirements to reduce or eliminate the toxicity of the
effluent. Consequently there is also need to develop procedures for developing
permit requirements based on biotoxicity testing.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The states, in cooperation with EPA Region III, will develop or update
procedures for producing reliable water quality criteria and for developing
permit requirements based on biotoxicity testing and chemical monitoring. The
above procedures will be implemented in the NPDES permit program.
-------
B.1.FED p.4
PROGRAM - EPA Pilot Studies For Implementing Toxics Control Policy
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal * * *
~Approximately $300,000 in FY 85 extramural funds have been set aside
to support these studies nationwide.
PURPOSE
Refine and clarify technical guidance provided in "Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control" and promote transfer of technology to
the states by conducting cooperative field studies designed to illustrate
practical application of the guidance.
DESCRIPTION
Experience confirms that biological techniques often provide a useful
complement and, in certain cases, an effective alternative to more
conventionally used chemical specific methods for assessing water quality
impacts caused by toxic discharges. The pilot program will build upon previous
application of biological and chemical assessment techniques and broaden its
scope to include evaluation of water quality standards, wasteload allocation
procedures, and permit limit derivation.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Real world implementation and feedback on EPA "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants." These pilot
studies will not only augment EPA and state capabilities in several important
toxics problem areas, but also will help to refine and clarify the technical
guidance provided.
-------
B.l.FED p.5
PROGRAM - EPA Development Of Wasteload Allocation Procedures
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
* * *
Federal
*106/205(j) grant
PURPOSE
Update states' waste load allocation procedures to reflect the most recent
scientific knowledge in the assessment of toxic substances.
DESCRIPTION
Wasteload allocation procedures are used to calculate the allowable effluent
load that meets the numerical water quality standard at the critical low flow.
The appropriate flow of the plant is used with the allowable load to calculate
an effluent concentration. Permit writers generally specify this concentration
as the daily maximum NPDES permit limit. Most, if not all, states in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area need to update their waste load allocation
procedures to reflect the most recent scientific knowledge in the assessment
of toxic substances. State involvement in updating waste load allocation
procedures is to be developed through negotiations in the 106/205(j) programs.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Where a numerical water quality standard has been adopted for a particular
toxic substance, an adequate waste load allocation procedure should assure
that proper effluent limits would be developed for the permit and effluent
toxicity controlled.
-------
B.l.FED p.6
PROGRAM - EPA Development Of Water Quality Standards
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
* * *
Federal
~Accomplish through 106/205(j) grant mechanisms.
PURPOSE
Establish a uniform and scientifically
water quality criteria to serve as the
to justify control of toxic substances
acceptable process for development of
basis for water quality standards, and
through the NPDES permit.
DESCRIPTION
Water quality standards are the foundation of the states' water quality
management process. They drive the development of water quality management
plans, serve as the basis for waste load allocations, and determine the
reduction necessary in various dischargers' pollutant loadings to attain the
level of water quality to protect or attain designated stream uses, EPA Region
Ill's Toxic Control Strategy For Surface Waters seeks to develop within the
states procedures for producing reliable water quality criteria which may be
used in setting water quality standards. State involvement in developing and
updating procedures for producing reliable toxic water quality criteria may be
developed through negotiation in the 106/205(j) programs.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Establishing adequate and consistent procedures for development of water
quality criteria will enable the states to adopt numerical site—specific water
quality criteria for toxic substances and improve toxic control. These
criteria, in combination with the designated use and value of the water
itself, can be translated into enforceable water quality standards. (If no
criteria can be developed than biotoxicity testing of the effluent should
govern the permit requirements to reduce or eliminate the toxicity of the
effluent).
-------
B.l.PA
PROGRAM - PA NPDES and State Water Quality Management Programs
See detailed writeup on these two programs under Appendix A, NUTRIENTS,
Objective 4.
-------
B.l.PA p.8
PROGRAM - PA Triennial Water Quality Standards Review
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
„„ooarv Pennsylvania'8 Water Quality Standards in
Review and revise « f Water Act.
accordance with the Federal Clean
description
.... rederal Clean Water Act requires the states at least
Section 303(cH ) and revise, as necessary, their Water Quality
once every three years review was approved as final rulemaking at the
Standards. P ase o Board Meeting on December 18, 1984, and has been
State Environmental Quality Boar implement,
forwarded to EPA Region III tor aPP
_ * . • „ 'ai review was initiated in January, 1985. Toxics will
Phase II of the triennial revie^ ^
major considerations will be
be included as part of this rev«
addressed:
1. The need for a comprehensive toxics regulation to address human health and
fish and aquatic life concerns.
1a aoecific numerical criteria.
2. The possible need for specn-
;» .-narted to be completed in FY 87 and will be conducted
?n\fc^LPnr^ state and federal P»«« participation procedure..
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
iin-«-«-date Water Quality Standards for toxicants developed in consultation
with neighboring «««« protect .t.t. and inter.tat, water., including the
Chesapeake Bay.
-------
B.l.PA p.9
PROGRAM - PA Point Source Toxics Control Strategy
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Provide guidance to DER staff in developing NPDES permit effluent limits for
toxic pollutants.
DESCRIPTION
The Toxics Control Strategy is a water quality-oriented approach which
addresses EPA's priority pollutants and other toxics. It involves a step-wise
permit application review process that takes into account (1) observed
occurrence of priority pollutants as part of EPA's BAT screening and
verification surveys; (2) EPA's recommended water quality criteria; (3)
Pennsylvania's general standards for water quality protection; (4) current
levels of detectability for these pollutants and available analytical
techniques; (5) pollutant treatability; and (6) fate/transport of these
pollutants in the aquatic environment.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The strategy provides for a consistent Statewide approach for dealing with
toxic and hazardous pollutants from a regulatory program perspective.
-------
B.l.PA p.10
PROGRAM - PA PCB Sampling Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Follow up on the reduced Food and Drug Administration Action Level of 2 ppm;
resample and/or bracket stations which exhibited elevated tissue
concentrations during previous studies; sample areas with outstanding fish
consumption advisories; and sample major interstate streams as they leave
Pennsylvania.
DESCRIPTION
To accomplish the above goals, 50 tissue samples and 4 control samples will be
collected Statewide. Of these, 8 samples and 2 of the controls will be
collected from the Susquehanna River Basin. Fish tissue samples will be
collected between March 1 and August 30, 1985, primarily by the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission. Sample preparation and laboratory analysis will be done by
DER.
Susquehanna River Basin stations will be sampled for skinless fillets from
compositiea of both bottom feeders and predators. For predators, the species
collected will reflect either the predominant sport fish or a recreationally
popular sport fish for the area sampled. Susquehanna River Basin Station
information is as follows:
Station
No. Water Body
C-l* Huntsdale Hatchery
C-2* Young Womans Creek
II1-25 Susquehanna River
111-26 Susquehanna River
III-7 Susquehanna River
111-10* W. Br. Susquehanna
*C " Control
County
Cumberland
Clinton
Lancaster
Dauphin
Luzerne
Union/
Northumberland
Sampling Location/Comments
Rainbow Trout
WQN 443/White Suckers
Holtwood Dam Tailwaters
York Haven Dam Tailwaters
0.5 mile upstream from
Lackawanna River
Lewisburg; WQN 401
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The analysis results generated during this program, along with CORE fish
tissue data, will be utilized to determine the need for fish consumption
advisories. In addition, the data will be published as an update to "PCB's In
Pennsylvania Waters" (BWQM Publication No. 51).
-------
B.l.MD p.11
PROGRAM - MD Biomonitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Maryland
314,348
NA
NA
PURPOSE
Conduct biomonitoring and chemical testing of industrial and municipal
discharges to analyze effluents and determine their toxicity to Bay aquatic
resources. The biomonitoring data is needed to improve the quality of State
discharge permits. This program will provide a comprehensive approach for
analyzing industrial and municipal treatment plant discharges and their
potential toxic effects. Bioassay evaluations will include various measures of
toxicity (e.g. acute, chronic, and life cycle) and determination of
histopathological effects. All information will be provided to appropriate
permitting units for use in establishing discharge permit limitations. Data on
specific chemical contaminants will be developed for use in establishing water
quality criteria or standards.
DESCRIPTION
In FY 85, a contract between the Offices of Environmental Programs and the
University of Maryland, for the bioassay portion of this program, was
completed. The bioassay laboratory is expected to be equipped by the end of
FY 85.
In FY 86, the additional staff will perform ecological field assessments at
the points of discharge of industries and sewage treatment plants. The staff
will design sampling procedures to collect in-stream toxicity data and to
identify the ecological communities that are able to survive near such
discharge points. The staff will then attempt to relate the toxicity of the
effluents to the diversity of species in those vicinities.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Protection of aquatic resources in receiving waters through incorporation of
scientifically-derived toxics limits in NPDES permits and through enforcement
of those permits.
-------
b-1.VA p.12
PROGRAM - VA NPDES Permits
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
PURPOSE
84-86
1,806,000
PURrUSCi
waters meet State and federal water quality
Ensure that discharges into St
standards.
description
UEfSOK.J.f L JL.V/L1
Implemented by State Water Control Board, this program is designed to maini-ai
the NPDES Permit program. It involves issuance, reissuance, modification
application review, and continuance of NPDES permits, as well as technical anA
laboratory inspections and permit compliance. This includes issuance of
approximately 50 new permits and updating, as needed, of the existing 950
permits. Approximately 1,550 technical inspections and 275 laboratory
inspections will be conducted.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
NPDES permits will require that Virginia municipal and industrial discharger*
meet all applicable State and federal laws and regulations.
-------
B.l.VA p.13
PROGRAM - VA Chesapeake Bay Toxics Strategy
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 350,000
PURPOSE
Develop information to prevent significant cases of toxics contamination from
developing.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by State Water Control Board and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, the program is designed to:
- develop an automated toxic data system that regulatory agencies can
use to determine toxic compositions in Bay tributaries,
- obtain additional samples indicating toxicity levels in James and
Elizabeth River sediments, water, and shellfish tissues.
Presently the SWCB and VIMS are working together to synthesize new and
existing toxics data of the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay and the James
River, and to develop an automated program for utilizing the data for
management purposes. It is anticipated that VIMS researchers will train agency
staff to use the toxics indicating strategy. The proposed strategy, based on
the "fingerprint" indicator technology which utilizes gas chromotography and
mass spectrometry, will compare toxics distribution patterns in sediment and
tissue samples with industrial toxics discharged in effluents.
Twenty industry and sewage treatment plants effluents in the James and
Elizabeth Rivers will be sampled in FY 84-85; an additional twenty will be
sampled in FY 85-86, although some sites may be repeated. Twenty sediment
samples will be analysed in each fiscal year of the biennium; the first eleven
to be done during the fall in the Elizabeth River. The clam and oyster tissue
samples will be taken in each year of the biennium also, but the first tissue
samples wilL probably be taken in April.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through the "fingerprint" indicator technology, toxics distribution patterns
in sediment and tissue samples will be compared with toxics discharged from
industrial and municipal effluents.
-------
fc.l.VA p.14
PROGRAM - VA Toxics Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
PURPOSE
Identify the presence o£ toxicity
DESCRIPTION
84-86
222,000
in wastewater effluents.
• , ^ a h„ cmte Water Control Board, is designed to
This program, implemented by Stac ^
municipal dischargers. This involves
evaluate toxic levels o in studies to define toxic effects. Monitoring
lab, on-site bioassays, an i j_u8i0n in NPDES permit on a ^te-specific
requirements are develope o are developed and evalu«ted to increase
basis. New toxicity-testing pro m£ne chronic toxicity of effluents,
predictions capability and to dete
•ii wp reviewed, developed, and/or implemented for
Toxics Monitoring Programs wi municipalities,
approximately 110 industries and/or
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
, . to be in existence and about 55,000 in
With over 3,000,000 compoun s Program goes beyond the EPA Priority
commercial usage, the Toxics o toxicity through a combination of chemical
Pollutants in determining effluent
and biological monitoring*
-------
B.l.VA p.15
PROGRAM - Virginia Enforcement Of WQ Laws And Regulations and No-Discharge
Certificates
See detailed writeup under Appendix A, NUTRIENTS, Objective 3.
-------
B.2.p.l6
TOXICS
Objective 2: Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from sewage
treatment plants resulting from industrial sources*
-------
B.2.FED p.17
PROGRAM - EPA Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) - Municipal
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal * * *
*$200,000 i8 currently available in FY 85 funds.
PURPOSE
Conduct and document, as a case history, a TRE at the City of Baltimore's
Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant. (Dischargers may be required to conduct a
TRE where wasteload allocation calculations indicate or project violations of
water quality standards, or where there is a significant likelihood of toxic
effects to biota in receiving water).
DESCRIPTION
A toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) is an investigation conducted within a
municipal or industrial system to isolate the sources of effluent toxicity,
specific causative pollutants, if possible, and determine the effectiveness of
pollution control options in reducing the effluent toxicity. The proposed
project will also evaluate the link between in-plant toxicity monitoring tools
(MICROTOX and respirometry tests) and the EPA's ecosystem bioassay tests used
on plant effluents for monitoring toxic discharges into receiving waters. A
similar project will be undertaken at an industrial site.
The proposed TRE will provide perspective on Baltimore's ongoing toxics
management program at Patapsco. More importantly, it offers important
technical support for EPA's Water Quality-Based Toxic Control Policy by
correlating in-plant toxicity assessments with effluent toxicity measured
through bioassays and assisting in developing a TRE protocol for application
nation-wide.
-------
B.2.PA p.18
PROGRAM - PA Pretreatment Delegation
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
, - of EPA's Pretreatment program to
Develop a proposal for delegation
Pennsylvania.
DESCRIPTION
a leeated NPDES Program; therefore, m accordance
Pennsylvania carries out a alfl0 obligated to carrying out the Federal
with federal requirements, we
pretreatment Program.
osal f°r Program delegation. A package of
DER has developed a draft Pr0*\ state's Environmental Quality Board and
regulations was submitted to en ^ ^ 1985> We anticlpate receiving
approved as proposed rule-ma*1 * ^ g6< lnitU1 statewide program costs are
program delegation by t^ie,en^v 07 and $415,000 in FY 88.
estimated to be $645,000 «**«"•
tinue to assist EPA Region HI in implementing
In the meantime, DER wi^,con0£ 93 municipal treatment plants in
the program in Pennsylvania* atment program, 38 are in the Chesapeake Bay
Pennsylvania that need a Pre ove
-------
B.2.PA p.19
PROGRAM - PA Municipal Wasteload Management
See detailed writeup on this program under Appendix A, NUTRIENTS, Objective 1.
-------
B.2.MD p.20
PROGRAM - MD Pretreatment
BUDGET PROJECTION
Maryland
PURPOSE
86 87 88
536,823 NA NA
Analyze indirect discharges through industry chemical process evaluation and
sampling to prevent toxics from reaching surface or groundwaters via sanitary
sewage systems. A significant number of industries discharge to sanitary sewer
systems with little knowledge of the waste's properties, its potential effect
on the toxicity of the plant discharge and on its sludge, or the ultimate
impact on the waters of the State.
DESCRIPTION
This initiative has three components that will be enhanced in FY 86:
enforcement, program development, and laboratory services. An additional
engineer will be added to the enforcement staff to assure that industries
involved in pretreatment programs comply with their permits. Emphasis in FY 86
will also be placed on developing a data management system for the
pretreatment program so that information can be organized and retrieved on the
myriad of substances that must be tracked at high frequencies in pretreatment
systems. The laboratory component will increase its staff by a lab helper and
a steno clerk as well as some supplies and equipment in order to analyze the
increasing volume of sewage treatment plant effluents and sludges for
prohibited pollutants.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Finalize compliance schedules, monitor POTW program's implementation, and
implement regulations.
-------
B.2.MD p.21
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Industrial Pretreatment Loans
86 87 88
Maryland 1,500,000 NA NA
PURPOSE
Make loans available to industry for the installation of equipment to pretreat
their waste streams. This new State program, approved by the General Assembly
in 1984, will also assist industries in complying with the pretreatment
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
DESCRIPTION
Regulations will be promulgated in FY 85 for the industrial pretreatment loan
program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Several industrial firms, limited at present to electroplaters, will receive
loans to purchase and install their pretreatment equipment.
Pretreatment of wastes by generating industries will enhance the efficiency of
receiving sewage treatment plants and the quality of the waters of the State.
-------
B.2.VA p.22
PROGRAM - VA NPDES: Compliance Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
84-86
Virginia 198,000
PURPOSE
Ensure compliance with state and federal water quality laws.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by State Water Control Board, the program is designed to monitor
major and minor discharges to ensure that they are in compliance with their
NPDES permits; it involves annual effluent monitoring and quality grab
sampling for each discharge, and performs approximately 290 surveys of major
municipal and industrial treatment plant effluents.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Provide effluent quality data on permitted facilities to compare with
self-monitoring reports and to provide indication of compliance with NPDES
permit effluent limits.
-------
B.2.VA p.23
PROGRAM - VA Pretreatment
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 200,000
PURPOSE
Analyze indirect discharges through industry chemical process evaluation and
sampling to prevent toxics from reaching surface or groundwaters via sanitary
sewage systems. A significant number of industries discharge to sanitary sewer
system with little knowledge of the waste's properties, its potential effect
on the toxicity of the plant discharge on its sludge, or the ultimate impact
on the waters of the State.
DESCRIPTION
This project is being implemented by the State Water Control Board. Funds
approved by the 1985 General Assembly for FY 85 will permit the SWCB to
implement a full Statewide pretreatment program. Emphasis during the year will
be program development and on securing approval of the State program by EPA.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Finalize compliance schedules in NPDES permits for applicable POTWs. Monitor
implementation of POTU programs.
-------
B*2-OC p.24
PROGRAM - DC Pretreatment
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC 0 NA NA
PURPOSE
Control the introduction of toxics and shock loads to Blue Plains WWTP.
DESCRIPTION
The Department of Public Works had developed a Sewer Use Ordinance which will
be introduced to the District Council in FY 85. The ordinance will prohibit
the discharge to the sewer system of many types of wastes, but does not
contain a permitting system. The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control
Law does contain provisions for establishing a pretreatment permitting system.
Promulgation of regulations for the pretreatment permitting system by the
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs is projected for FY 86.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The program will regulate the substances that can be discharged into the sewers
and help prevent WWTP upsets from shock loads. It will also control increases in
heavy metals and toxics delivered to the WWTP.
-------
B.3.p.25
TOXICS
Objective 3: Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from industrial
sources.
-------
B.3.FED p.26
PROGRAM - EPA Technical Support Document For Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
•nmondatiotiB for identifying, analyzing, and controlling
Provide procedural recomme u8ed by the discharge of toxic pollutants. The
adverse water quality impac lejnentation 0f ttie EPA national "Policy for
document is meant to suppor P „ased Permit Limitations for Toxic
the Development of Water Quality
Pollutants", described above.
DESCRIPTION
• a to asses® an<* control toxics have focused primarily
Development or technique . n» ue8 based on biological measurement of toxic
on specific chemicals. ot>ea f0r maay years, have not been widely used to
pollutants, althoug cV*.0*ic pollutaat® in effluents. The national policy
assess the discharge o appr0acb consisting of both techniques. This document
recommends an Integra e 4_tes,ration of techniques and provides more specific
provide, guidance o« the IB 8 logU>1 teehni.
guidance on the application ot
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
#¦/.«! for state P^mit writers summarizing existing EPA
Consistent reference interpirctati°n of biological and toxic chemical
guidance on applica 10 eral orientati0n workshops have been held, and a
assessment technique . apply*-*1® guidance is scheduled for sometime
pilot implementation proj«= l'F
in FY 85.
-------
B.3.FED p.27
PROGRAM - FWS NPDES Permit Review
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Document inaccurate or inadequate NPDES permit conditions which contribute to
excessive releases of toxic materials, working closely with states or DOD.
DESCRIPTION
After review of suitable candidate NPDES outfalls (with other agencies) select
appropriate ones for study. Using selected types of resident organisms and
sediments, collect for analysis inorganic and organic compounds above and
below outfalls. Samples will be sent to appropriate labs for analyses. After
analysis of results, recommendations for revision of NPDES stipulations on
toxic substances will be made, where indicated and based on high accumulations
and comparisons with literature or current standards. Also, assistance will be
provided to states and EPA in developing possible new standards and criteria
for toxic materials affecting Bay organisms. A literature search and
recommendations for bioassays will be provided.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
More realistic conditions on selected NPDES permits resulting in reduced
discharges of toxic materials, and eventual lower bioaccumulations.
-------
B*3.PA p.28
PROGRAM - PA NPDES Program
See detailed writeup on this program under Appendix A, ^UTRlgjjig ^ Objective 4,
-------
B.3.MD p.29
PROGRAM - MD NPDES: Industrial Discharge Compliance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 675,987 NA NA
PURPOSE
Inspect major industrial NPDES permittees by the end of 1987, two to four
times per year, rather than once per year. Minor industrial permittees will be
inspected at least twice per year. Compliance monitoring will be conducted
annually at all major industries, and at fifteen percent of the minor
industries. A computerized data bank of inspection and other permit data will
be established, and its management carried out by one additional person hired
during FY 85.
Currently all major industrial NPDES permit facilities are inspected and
sampled for compliance with permit conditions only once per year. More
frequent inspections and more frequent compliance sampling, followed by
enforcement actions when necessary, are essential to protecting the aquatic
resources of the receiving waters.
DESCRIPTION
This initiative provides more effective and frequent enforcement of permits
governing the direct discharge of industrial effluents into the Bay and its
tributaries. The FY 86 enhancement will provide additional field engineers to
conduct inspections of industrial plants that discharge wastewaters into
streams, rivers, and the Bay. An Assistant Attorney General will provide legal
support to improve enforcement effects against industrial violators of the
State's water pollution control laws. Additional operating resources are
requested in FY 86 to enable evaluation o£ existing operations and design of a
computerized system.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Implement fee schedule.
Increase inspection and enforcement activity.
-------
®-4.p.30
TOXICS
Objective 4: Reduce chlorine discharges to critical finfish and
shellfish areas.
-------
B.4.PA p.31
PROGRAM - PA Seasonal Disinfection
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 86
Pennsylvania
PURPOSE
Reduce, through seasonal disinfection, disease-producing organisms.
DESCRIPTION
Chapter 95.7 of DER's Rules and Regulations requires effective disinfection to
control disease-producing organisms (production of an effluent which will
contain a concentration of greater than 200/100 ml of fecal coliform organisms
as a geometric average value not greater than 1000/100 ml of these organisms
in more than 10% of the samples tested). Chapter 95.2 requires that these
concentrations be met during the swimming season (Hay 1 through September
30).
Chapter 93.7 of DGRrs Rules and Regulations specifies that for the period
October 1 through April 30 the fecal coLiform level shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100 ml based on 5 consecutive samples collected on
different days.
These regulations aLlow for seasonal disinfection, taking into account that a
greater degree of protection is required during the swimming season.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Adequate protection of designated uses and reduced chlorination requirements
during the non-swimming season.
-------
B.4.MD p.32
PROGRAM - MD Chlorine Removal
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 600,000 2,000,000 1,400,000
PURPOSE
Eliminate the toxic impacts of chlorinated wastewater treatment plant
discharges. A body of scientific evidence has developed over recent years
which demonstrates that chlorine, even in small concentrations, is toxic to
certain sensitive aquatic species and toxic to other species in their
sensitive growth stages. While most of the evidence on toxicity is
laboratory-based and is not field proven, there is evidence to raise genuine
concern over environmental damage caused by the chlorination process.
Therefore, as a general policy, disinfection should be continued. However,
where chlorine is used for disinfection, dechlorination processes should be
installed.
DESCRIPTION
The program includes the following components:
State water quality laws have been modified to establish dechlorination
requirements; the approach has changed from a stream-based standard to an
effluent-based requirement.
Funding support is available to assist affected public operators in their
effort to retrofit dechlorination equipment to their wastewater treatment
systems.
Discharge permits are being modified to specify the dechlorination
requirement, and reasonable schedules established for treatment plant
compliance.
The capital budget allowance for FY 86 includes $600,000 for projects to
remove excess chlorine before treated sewage is discharged from publicly owned
sewage treatment plants.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The $600,000 requested, combined with the $1,000,000 funded last year, will
enable grants to be made at approximately 9 sewage treatment plants, 5 of
which discharge directly to the Bay and its tributaries.
-------
B.4.VA p.33
PROGRAM - VA Control of Chlorine at POTWs
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia $1,700,000
Local 255,000 to 425,000
PURPOSE
Reduce chlorine discharges to critical finfish and shellfish areas.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to provide
cost-share funds to localities to install dechlorination equipment (or other
disinfection technology) at POTWs currently discharging significant quantities
of chlorine to critical finfish and shellfish areas.
In State 84-86 biennium, SWCB will award $1.7 million to localities. Local
cost share will range from $255,000 to $425,000 depending on technology used.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improvement of shellfish and finfish populations by reducing the amount of
chlorine discharged. Demonstrate the technology of dechlorination and
alternative disinfection to Virginia.
-------
B*^.DC p.34
PROGRAM - DC Dechlorination
BUDGET PROJECTION
DC
EPA
PURPOSE
Eliminate re si
Potomac River.
description
86
87
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
Blue Plains
effluent
discharged to the
description ,
facility plan, a system is being designed and
Following recommendations of • chlorine ^ the effluent discharge resulting
constructed to treat the re8j_ 8tages in the treatment process required for
from the chlorination at var proceBs will involve chemical neutralization
disinfection. The dechl°*ltl® rovements will be made for more efficient and
of the chlorine using S02. Plant.
safe use of chlorine at the Treacm*
j 176 of EPA funds have been allocated to the
In 1985, $311,392 of DC and $93*.
«rn t.
project.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
• . -hlorine in the Blue Plains effluent will result in
Elimination of excessiv oresent chlorine load to the tidal Potomac and
significant reduction of th^Pre .^ ^
improve the environment ror cne j
-------
B.5.p.35
TOXICS
Objective 5: Reduce Che levels of metals and organics in urban and
agricultural runoff.
States may use Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant monies to help meet this
objective.
-------
*•5.FED p.36
PROGRAM - EPA National Urban Runoff Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 0* 0 0
*Projects are being completed in FY 85. No additional Ending ig
anticipated.
PURPOSE
Examine urban nonpoint source pollutant loadings and the effectiveness and
cos ts of various best management practices.
DESCRIPTION
Nationwide, twenty-eight urban areas representing different climates,
geographic areas and hydrologic regimes were selected for intensive study of
the urban nonpoint source problem and associated control measures. Two
projects were completed within the Chesapeake Bay^drainage area. First the
Jones Falls Watershed Urban Stormwater runoff project examined the problems
associated with urban stormwater runoff in a densely populated section of
Baltimore. Second, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments NURP
Project investigated control measures in developing areas.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Federal, State and local agencies were provided with credible information upon
which to base policy decisions regarding urban stormwater runoff and its
control, identification of priority pollutants present in urban runoff, and
evaluation of their potential threat.
-------
B.5.PA p.37
PROGRAM - PA Stormwater Management Program
See detailed writeup on this program under Appendix A, NUTRIENTS, Objective 6.
-------
B.5.PA p.38
PROGRAM - PA Department of Agriculture Funded Research Projects
PROJECTION BUDGET
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 25,000
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Determine the concentrations of N03N and P04P in surface runoff and
purcolation from cornfields along the Susquehanna River tributaries
contributing excessive amounts of these elements to the river. Also to develop
management systems with minimum chemical monitoring to minimize N and P
contamination of agriculture drainage water without reducing corn yields.
DESCRIPTION
This research program is implemented by the Pennsylvania State University,
College of Agriculture, Department of Agronomy. Funding is provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's research grants to research
institutions. The project began on October 1, 1983. Total funding for this
three-year project amounts to $72,800.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Will allow the farm manager to select management practices that provide
sufficient nutrients to optimize crop yield while limiting nutrient losses to
surface runoff and groundwater in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin.
-------
B.5.PA p.39
PROGRAM - PA Pesticide Use Profile Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 20,000
PURPOSE
Identify the amounts and types of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides used
in specific watersheds associated with the Chesapeake Bay Abatement Program.
DESCRIPTION
An accelerated Pesticide Management Program will be initiated by the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. A pesticide use profile study of the
target region will establish a foundation for initiating a "Proper Pesticide
Use Program." A new Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture employee will serve
as coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Program on pesticide matters.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A determination of the sources and quantities of pesticides currently being
used in a typical farming area of Southcentral Pennsylvania. This information
can be used to develop future educational programs.
-------
B.5.PA p.40
PROGRAM - PA Pesticide Use Educational Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania 20,000 21,000 22,050
PURPOSE
Initiate an education program to bring all pesticide users to a common level
of awareness as to the potential impact pesticides may represent to the
Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
During and following the completion of the pesticide use profile by the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, information gathered would be used to
develop proper pesticide use educational programs in the Lower Susquehanna
River Basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through the educational program, there would be an increase in the proper use
of pesticides, thus reducing the impact they may have on the Chesapeake Bay.
It is anticipated that as this program develops, knowledge gained can be
shared with other pesticide users throughout the Commonwealth.
-------
B.5.MD p.41
PROGRAM - MD Storrawater Management
86
87
88
Maryland
1,631,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
PURPOSE
Implement a Statewide stormwater management program. The EPA Bay Study
identified urban runoff and runoff from developing areas as a major source of
nutrients, toxics, and sediment to the Bay system. On July 18, 1983, the
Department of Natural Resources promulgated rules and regulations pursuant to
State law, which establish criteria and procedures for local government to
follow in implementing a storrawater management program by July 1, 1984. A
local storrawater management program must have: An Administration-approved
stormwater management ordinance in effect; Stormwater management planning and
approval procedures that provide: (1) stormwater management for every land
development subject to the law, and (2) the ability and the information
necessary to review proposed installation and maintenance measures for
stormwater management, and inspection and enforcement procedures that ensure
the proper construction and maintenance of approved stormwater management
measures.
In general, local governments are inadequately staffed to handle all aspects
(plan approval, inspection and maintenance) of implementing a stormwater
management program. The new Statewide program will require a substantial
increase in effort even for those jurisdictions that currently have a
stormwater management program in effect.
DESCRIPTION
This program provided $1.7 million in grants for FY 85 to local jurisdictions
to assist in implementing the Statewide Stormwater Management Law. A similar
amount has been requested for FY 86. In FY 85, grant agreements were executed
and funds awarded to nineteen counties and six municipalities for a total of
$1,175,416
Allegheny County
Anne Arundel County
Baltimore County
Calvert County
Carroll County
Charles County
Dorchester County
Frederick County
Garrett County
Harford County
Howard County
Kent County
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
$ 46,665 Queen Anne's County
$134,097 Somerset County
$ 91,556 St. Mary's County
$ 32,378 Talbot County
$ 28,817 Wicomico County
$ 58,292
$ 30,446
$ 10,552
$ 24,877 Annapolis
$ 77,763 Baltimore City
$ 82,217 Bowie
$ 22,419 Cambridge
$ 33,835 Ocean City
$118,366 City of Rockville
$33,021
$78,637
$ 6,144
$20,664
$32,422
$35,789
$38,162
$ 8,790
$71,736
$24,876
$32,895
-------
B.5.MD p.42
An evaluation of the obligation and disbursement of grant funds to date was
completed and the Grantees were advised that supplemental grant funding would
be made available for additional expenses incurred (only in fiscal year 1985)
that are indirect support of new or expanded stormwater management programs.
The Water Resources Administration will continue local stormwater management
program reviews and approvals in remaining jurisdictions (20 small
municipalities) and determine the need for legal action in any jurisdiction
that fails to take positive steps to comply with the requirements of the
Stormwater Management Law.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Compliance with the Statewide Stormwater Management Law in all counties and
municipalities in the State. Significant reductions in nutrients, toxics, and
sediments reaching the Bay and its tributaries. Decreased streambank scour.
-------
B.5.MD p.43
PROGRAM - MD Stormwater Management: Best Management Practices for Existing
Urban Areas
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 1,750,000* NA NA
^Carryover from FY 85.
PURPOSE
Demonstrate the cost and effectiveness of various methods of controlling
stormwater runoff from existing urban areas. The EPA Study documented that
flushing of pollutants (e.g., stormwater from rooftops, cars, parking lots)
from existing urban areas contributes significant amounts of sediments,
nutrients and toxics to the Bay. Throughout the State, 700,000 acres of land
are now developed. The is no Statewide program to retrofit existing urban
areas to reduce runoff pollution. Best management practices techniques have
not been fully developed. The knowledge gained from this initiative is
intended to lead to a permanent program over the next several years as
cost-effective practices and overall cost are determined.
DESCRIPTION
This initiative established a demonstration program to ascertain the cost and
effectiveness of various methods of solving stormwater runoff problems created
by existing development. Financial assistance in the form of grants is being
provided to local governments to install best management practices to reduce
pollution from stormwater runoff in existing urbanized areas. This program is
administered by the Office of Environmental Programs in consultation with
other agencies. Best management practices are also being provided to reduce
pollution from stormwater runoff from State-owned facilities. This latter
effort will be administered by the Maryland Environmental Services in
consultation with other agencies.
The General Construction Loan of 1984 authorized $750,000 for stormwater
retrofit of State facilities. The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Loan Act of
1984 authorized $1 million for grants to local governments for demonstration
projects.
Basic standards and criteria for demonstration program were developed and
agreed upon. Preliminary proposals were received from 18 local governments.
Drafts of local grant regulations were developed and circulated to State
agencies for review. Eight potential projects were identified. Inspections of
all sites were made by an interagency work group. Evaluations of each site was
conducted and none found to be acceptable. A questionnaire was developed and
forwarded to over 200 State-owned facilities. The 110 responses were screened
based on the initiative's directives with 45 responses passing.
Follow-up screening by telephone or individual site visits yielded six
facilities with potential stormwater problems. The initial retrofit project is
planned to be the Security Boulevard and Baltimore Beltway location of State
-------
B.5.MD p.44
Police Barracks "K" and the State Roads Commission salt storage facility. Salt
laden runoff, erosion, sedimentation and related problems are now occurring.
Preliminary corrective actions were developed and are being forwarded to these
agencies for review. The balance of State agency projects to be retrofitted
will be identified.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Reduction of nutrients, sediment and toxics from existing developed areas.
-------
B.5.DC p.45
PROGRAM - DC Stormwater Management Regulatory Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
250,000 250,000 250,000
250,000 250,000 250,000
PURPOSE
Control nonpoint source pollution by requiring BMP's for new land development
and redevelopment and encouraging voluntary efforts by homeowners.
DESCRIPTION
In FY 85 development of regulations and BMP criteria was initiated for
controlling urban runoff from new development and redevelopment. These
regulations are projected to take effect in FY 86. The regulations will
require developers to maintain runoff at predevelopment or lower quantities,
thereby reducing the sediment, heavy metals and nutrients transported to the
surface waters. Additional benefits will be a smoothing of the hydrograph of
many of the small tributaries in the District which will reduce scour and bank
erosion. Each new development project will be reviewed for compliance with the
regulations and a permit issued for the construction and maintenance of the
BMP's. After installation, the BMP's will be periodically inspected for proper
operation and maintenance. The program will be developed in conjunction with
the existing erosion control program and Soil Conservation District.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Urban runoff from the District of Columbia, excluding combined sewer
overflows, contributes roughly 40,000 pounds of phosphorus, 40,000 pounds of
copper, mercury, lead and cadmium and 40 million pounds of suspended solids.
The program is conceived to be a long-term permanent effort with gradual
reductions in pollutant loadings. These reductions will probably be less than
one percent per year but will, over a period of years, result in a substantial
cumulative reduction.
-------
B.6.p.46
TOXICS
Objective 6: Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate
response to pollutant spills.
U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, EPA and FWS participate in responding to pollution
spills, as well as PA, MD, VA and DC.
-------
B.6.PA p.47
PROGRAM - PA Emergency Response to Pollution Events
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Prevent the occurrence of pollution events (spills) to the extent possible and
to minimize the effect of pollution incidents that occur.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Department of Environmental Resources
as follows:
1. Emergency situations are promptly investigated by the field staff, who
have received training in responding to such situations. Each Regional
Office has a 24 hour number for reporting pollution events, and there la
back-up coverage in the Central Office. The field staff equipment
includes tools, booms, and absorbent materials to contain some types of
spills. In addition, the Department is in the process of obtaining
specially equipped vehicles for emergency response.
2. Prevention, preparedness, and contingency (PPC) plans are required for
NPDES facilities and are reviewed by the Department as part of the
permit process. In addition, high risk activities (such as
transportation of pollutional materials by rail or truck) require a PPC
plan upon notice from the Department. Enforcement actions resulting from
pollution events include a requirement to develop or enhance PPC plans
to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
3. The Pennsylvania Water Emergency Response Manual is distributed to
agencies and industries potentially involved with pollution events. This
manual contains up-to-date phone numbers of agencies and clean-up
contractors, notification requirements, and instructions on prevention,
containment, and clean-up of spills.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Prevent spills or minimize the damage caused by spills to the extent possible.
-------
B.6.MD p.48
PROGRAM - MD Emergency Response to Oil Spills
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 425,000 500,000 750,000
PURPOSE
Reduce the number of inland and water-borne oil spills in the State; restrict
and contain the spread of spilled oil; eliminate the discharge of petroleum
from underground storage tanks; make equipment and supplies available in
emergencies for the containment and cleanup of oil spills; and provide
training in the control, containment, and cleanup of oil spills to fire
departments, state highway administration personnel, private and public
schools, the oil industry, and companies transporting oil.
DESCRIPTION
The oil control program is being implemented by the Department of Natural
Resources on a Statewide basis. This program issues oil terminal facility
licenses, oil operations permits and oil vehicle operators certificates as
well as follow-up inspections and enforcement activities. A 24-hour emergency
number is available and a specially trained spill response team is maintained.
Spill control and cleanup equipment is pre-positioned in key areas throughout
the State. Financial support for the program is derived from the Maryland Oil
Disaster, Containment, Cleanup, and Contingency Fund supported by oil storage
facility fees.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Continue to reduce the number and environmental damage caused by discharges of
oil to the waters of the State.
-------
B.4.VA p.49
PROGRAM - VA Emergency Response to Pollution Events
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 736,410
PURPOSE
Minimize the effects of oil spills, etc.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by State Water Control Board and the Department of Emergency
Services , this program is designed to maintain a Statewide response
capability for the investigation, control and mitigation of water pollution
incidents. This includes oil spills, hazardous materials and fish kills.
Respond to investigate 900 pollution complaints, including 550 oil spills, 35
hazardous material, and 110 fish kills.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Minimize environmental impacts from oil spills, etc., through a quick response
program for investigations and cleanup. Assess fines on person(s) responsible,
as appropriate.
-------
B.6.DC p.50
PROGRAM - DC Oil Spill Response
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC NA 0 0
PURPOSE
Acquire equipment and supplies, and establish a contingency fund for
containing and removing oil and hazardous material spills in the Potomac and
Ancostia Rivers.
DESCRIPTION
The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Act became effective in March
1985. The Act authorized the Mayor to procure equipment and establish a
contingency fund for responding to oil and chemical spills in the waters of
the District .
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
There are an average of twenty-seven spills per year reported in the District.
Most of these are gasoline or oil with one hazardous spill per year. The
volume of gasoline or oil spilled is generally less than 500 gallons and about
a third of these are cleaned up by the spiller. The remainder have
historically been cleaned up by the U.S. Coast Guard. By establishing District
capability, the response time will be reduced significantly resulting in
faster containment and less material escaping to the open water.
-------
C.p.l
APPENDIX C - LIVING RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
LIVING RESOURCES
Goal: Provide for the restoration and protection of the living
resources, their habitats and ecological relationships.
Summary Of Programs
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Corps of Engineers (COE), Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are
working to restore and protect the Bay's living resources and their habitats.
At least $1.5 million is spent annually to regulate the fisheries industry,
assess and enhance fish stock, and ensure that habitats, such as wetlands, are
protected. Working cooperatively with states and local entities, federal
agencies are engaged in data management, monitoring and research projects
around the Bay.
In addition to developing comprehensive fisheries management programs, states
are replenishing fin and shellfish stocks, building hatcheries and fishways,
and "planting" shellfish. In FY 86 alone, the states will spend about $14
million on these efforts. Furthermore, a number of state programs are
controlling shoreline erosion, protecting wetlands, and planting submerged
aquatic grasses. Approximately $12 M to restore and protect habitats will be
expended by states in FY 86.
The implementation programs in Appendix C describe many of the federal and
state programs to restore and protect the Bay's living resources, their
habitats and ecological relationships. Efforts to reduce nutrients and toxic
substances from entering the Bay, described in Appendices A and B,
respectively, will contribute largely to the health of the living resources.
Each program in this Appendix contains a budget projection (when available), a
purpose, a brief description, and results anticipated from the program.
-------
APPENDIX C: LIVING RESOURCES
NOAA Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Nagnuson Act) 3
NOAA Baywide Stock Assessment 4
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Fishery Statistics 5
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Shellfish Habitat Evaluation 6
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Assessment of Contaminant
Body Burdens and Biological Effects 7
FWS Resource Contaminant Assessment 8
PA Striped Bass Stocking Program 9
MD Fisheries Management Program 10
VA Commercial Fisheries Management 11-12
VA Commercial Fisheries Enforcement 13
VA Management Of Public Health Aspects Of Shellfish Production 14
VA Shellfish Grounds Surveying And Mapping 15
DC Fisheries Management 16
FWS Evaluation of Stocking of Striped Bass 18
PA Restoration of American Shad To The Susquehanna River 19-20
MD Finfish (Intercept Hatchery) 21
VA Fishways for Anadromous Species 22
VA Restocking Striped Bass 23
VA Artificial Reef Construction 24
MD Oysters 26
MD Construction Grants: Existing Special Water Quality Needs or
Public Health 27
VA Oyster Conservation and Repletion 28
VA Integrated Shellfish Area Management 29
VA Improvement of Deficient Shoreline Residential Sanitation Systems 30
FWS Endangered Species Program 32
PA Wildlife Restoration/Improvement 33
MD Water Fowl Protection And Management: Ducks 34
VA Waterfowl Management 35
VA Nongame and Endangered Species Program 36
VA Marine Turtles 37
Joint Federal Agency Hydrilla Control Evaluation 39
MD Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Protection and Restoration 40
VA Re-establishment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 41
NOAA Estuarine Sanctuaries Program 43
FWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 44
FWS Fish and Wildlife Permit Review: 404 45
FWS Permit Review: NPDES 46
FWS National Wetlands Inventory 47
FWS Reviews: State Highways, Transmission Lines, Pipelines, etc. 48
PA Wetlands Regulation Through Implementation Of The Dam Safety And
Encroachment Act 49
MD 401/404 Water Quality Certification Program 50
-------
APPENDIX C: LIVING RESOURCES
Listing of Program Titles Page Number
MD Non-Tidal Wetlands Program 51
MD Retention of Existing Forestland 52
MD Conservation Easements 53
VA Wetlands and Bottomlands Management 54
DC Anacostia Watershed Restoration Strategy Agreement 55
COE Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion Study 57
PA Sediment and Erosion Control 58
MD Shoreline Improvement Grants Program 59
MD Shoreline Erosion - (Operating Costs) 50
MD Shoreline Erosion - Capital Costs £1
VA Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service 52
VA Forest Land Management 63
COE Proposed Susquehanna Drought Management Study 55
MD Freshwater Conservation 66
VA Water Resource Planning and Management 67
VA Surface Water Investigations 68
-------
C.l.p.2
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 1: Develop or enhance state fisheries management programs
to protect the finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay.
-------
C.l.FED p.3
PROGRAM - NOAA Fishery Conservation And Management Act (Magnuson Act)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal *
*Funds for Chesapeake Bay are not separated from the National program.
PURPOSE
Administer the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act)
of 1976. The Act is designed to assure that fishing stays within sound
biological, economic and other limitations, and that U.S. commercial and
recreational fishermen have the opportunity to harvest all the fishery
resource within these limitations. The law authorizes the federal government,
in cooperation with fisherman and other interested citizens, to manage most
fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone. The coastal states continue to be
responsible for resource management within the 3-mile limit.
DESCRIPTION
The National Marine Fisheries Service is assisted in jts administration of the
Magnuson Act by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. These councils,
made up of members from government, commercial, recreational, environmental,
consumer, and other interests, plan whether and how each fishery should be
managed in view of relevant scientific, social, and economic factors. The
plans contain objectives for each fishery and appropriate management measures
such as gear restrictions and area and seasonal limitations. Maryland,
Virginia and Pennsylvania are represented on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. The Council intends to consider in 1985 whether management
plans should be developed for important Chesapeake Bay species such as striped
bass and bluefish. The key policy question is whether the federal government
should promulgate regulations for species which are predominately fished in
coastal nearshore waters and spend a little time in federal jurisdiction. The
Magnuson Act provides authority to manage the harvest of these species only
when it occurs predominately in federal jurisdiction.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Development of fishing management plans for those species under jurisdiction
of the Magnuson Act; these plans seek to provide optimum yields while
maintaining a healthy resource stock.
-------
C.l.FED p.4
PROGRAM - NOAA Baywide Stock Assessment
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86
Federal 400,000-550,000
PURPOSE
Assess finfish and shellfish resources. The key management question that has
been posed by the Chesapeake Bay Program regarding finfish and shellfish
resources is: What are the levels of existing stocks of major economic species
in Chesapeake Bay and what are the major environmental factors affecting both
variability and long-term recruitment of these stocks? NOAA's assessment
effort will begin to document the status of economically important Chesapeake
Bay species to determine major environmental stresses on these stocks and
develop methodologies to assess and predict impacts of identified stresses on
Chesapeake Bay's living marine resources.
DESCRIPTION
The stock assessment will consist of the following components:
- Documentation of the relative abundance of economically important
species. This will include development and implementation of a stock
assessment plan which considers selected species from a Baywide
perspective.
- Description of fish and shellfish spawning patterns. This will include
development of a general sampling design to establish the magnitude
timing, and density of spawning, document major trends in spawning
and survival of eggs, and provide estimates of adult spawning biomass.
Effects of physical events will be evaluated.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These data will allow development of a Baywide state and federal stock
assessment for selected commercial species, which will aid in developing
estimates of mortality due to fishing and other anthropogenic factors and
which allows for the assessment of impacts of habitat modification.
-------
C.l.FED p.5
PROGRAM - NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Fishery Statistics
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 200,000
PURPOSE
Provide statistics which will help to understand the impact of habitat changes
on fishery resources. Such data are necessary to establish historical use and
benefits of the resources and to assess the status of resources when used in
conjunction with other data. NOAA's fishery statistics program is designed to
improve Virginia's and Maryland's existing data collections for commercial and
recreational species and to link the Chesapeake statistics collected by the
states and NMFS with the Northeast Regional Marine Fisheries Information
System.
DESCRIPTION
These projects will be carried out in cooperation with the states, and involve
the following components:
- Increased participation in NMFS annual marine recreational fisheries
survey by Virginia and Maryland to document recreational harvest of
marine species;
- Improve Maryland's data collection system, using data from dealers
and commercial fishermen;
- Increase sampling for bluefish and weakfish in Virginia;
- Establish data communication link between Virginia and NRMFIS at
Woods Hole, through purchase of additional hardware and software; and
- Develop an economic data base describing Virginia's harvesting sector.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These projects will assist the states and federal government in estimating
harvest, determining economic benefits from fishery activities and developing
appropriate models and hazard assessments useful in managing habitat quality
and waste discharges.
-------
C.1.FED p.6
PROGRAM - NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Shellfish Habitat Evaluation
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal
PURPOSE
Document the extent of Chesapeake Bay which has reduced water quality, and the
possible effects on growth and production of oysters and other bivalves.
Oysters and other bivalves in Chesapeake Bay have been reported to be in
severe decline. Certain information indicates that a primary cause of the
decline is overfishing; however, natural and anthropogenic environmental
factors have been noted to be significant in certain areas of the Bay,
especially as these might affect the ability of oysters to reproduce set, and
grow to harvestable size.
DESCRIPTION
It is proposed that there be an inter-state/interagency program designed to
use existing data, as well as new data coming forth from research and
monitoring, to document the factors which affect oyster and other bivalve
populations and the relative importance of the various factors or variables.
Attempts will be made to correlate existing information on habitat quality
with information on the condition of oysters and other economically important
bivalves.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Principal products from this program would include 1) information on steps to
be taken to improve habitat quality, which would lead to increased oyster
production; and 2) information that could be used in hazard assessments and
predictive models, as well as for direction of future research, i.e. FY 86 and
beyond.
-------
C.l.FED p.7
PROGRAM - NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Assessment of Contaminant
Body Burdens and Biological Effects
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 250,000-400,000
PURPOSE
Assess effects of toxicants on living resources. The EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program has confirmed that many areas of the Bay are contaminated with toxic
substances. However, it is difficult to relate environmental levels of
toxicants to declines in living resources, in great part due to the nature of
the data. Of critical importance for understanding the relations of
contaminants in sediments and water is the demonstration of correlations
between body burdens and levels of contaminants with suspended matter and in
sediments. This should be accomplished in conjunction with the EPA and through
an expansion of the NOAA Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP) and the NOAA
Status and Trends (S&T) Programs in Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
Sampling will be concentrated in areas where available information indicates a
high potential for toxic contamination (proximity to sources, hydrologic or
sediment characteristics) and which represent important spawning and nursery
habitat. Methodologies will be basically the same as NOAA's S&T program, but
with additional stations sampled seasonally. Important components include:
- improve data on contaminant loading, siltation and hypoxia in the
environment;
- determine contaminant body burdens for species and life stages; and
- integrate these data with condition, distribution, and abundance of
living marine resources.
These tasks will be coordinated with states and other federal agencies.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Information resulting from this program can be used to determine level of
habitat quality necessary to support healthy populations for hazard
assessment, and to guide cleanup efforts.
-------
C.1.FED p.8
PROGRAM - FWS Resource Contaminant Assessment
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Detect trends in environmental quality as measured by chemical residues n fish
and wildlife species and take action to eliminate adverse contaminant impacts
through field operations. Relevant authorities include the 1976 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the general F & W Coordination Act.
DESCRIPTION
FWS carries out field investigations and surveys, collecting organisms for
subsequent tissue analysis (this includes collections for the National
Contaminant Biomonitoring Program Network, withh several Chesapeake Bay
locations). FWS then prepares reports with recommendations for amelioration of
toxic problems and sometimes carries out follow-up studies. As a special
related activity, FWS also participates in °r undertakes special preliminary
resource surveys to determine impacts of Superfund priority sites" on natural
resources. This is under the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
By documenting harmful impacts of toxic^sites and materials, or contaminated
habitat and food chains, FWS aims to bring about eventual improvement in the
impacts on fish and wildlife species, e.g., by recommending specific
activities for cleaning up or mitigating the problem situations.
-------
C.l.PA p.9
PROGRAM - PA Striped Bass Stocking PxogTam
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other* 35,000 35,000 35,000
~Pennsylvania Fish Commission
PURPOSE
Provide a trophy sport fishery in the Conowingo Pool, Susquehanna River,
utilizing a pelagic predator to feed on the abundant gizzard shad population.
DESCRIPTION
Maryland has requested that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission change its
present Conowingo Pool management emphasis from the use of striped bass x
white bass hybrids to purebred Chesapeake strain striped bass. The present
Conowingo Hybrid sport fishery is excellent, but substantial numbers of these
fish have been identified in the Bay, most of which probably originated from
Conowingo stockings.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has agreed to accommodate Maryland's request
that purebreds only be stocked in the Conowingo Pool to reduce the number of
hybrids entering the Bay. Maryland, in turn, has agreed to provide fingerling
striped bass through existing reciprocal agreements for this purpose.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Stocking purebred striped bass in the Conowingo Pool should eventually produce
a trophy sport fishery comparable to that currently provided through annual
hybrid stockings. Any escapement from the Conowingo Pool will enhance the
depressed Chesapeake Bay stocks.
-------
C.l.MD p.10
PROGRAM - MD Fisheries Management Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 146,194 NA NA
PURPOSE
Develop fishery management plans. Increasing demand for certain Bay species b
commercial and sports fishermen requires fisheries management based on modern
flexible population dynamics theory for equitable distribution among competi '
harvestors. Further, since water pollution control agencies need to evaluate"8
their activities in terms of the health of living resources, it
, , . • . i*^»« necessary
to prescribe habitat and water quality criteria.
DESCRIPTION
This program is designed to develop fisheries management plans for specific
Bay species sought by commercial and sports-fishermen in order to maintain
adequate population levels. Specific elements of this program will: provide
resources to establish the fisheries database needed for plan development-
establish a requirement to develop plans pursuant to the national standards of
the Magnuson Act for specific species; require the definition of habitat and
water quality criteria for specific species; and define and prescribe various
fisheries gear among the possible strategies available for harvest restriction
and distribution of stocks among harvesters.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Two staff positions made available by the initiative have been filled and a
draft framework management plan for Maryland's eel fishery has been produced
A contract has been awarded to prepare a shad and river herring management
plan and a draft striped bass management plan will be developed during the
coming year. Field studies and new data analyses to provide background for the
management plans will be developed.
-------
C.l.VA p.11
PROGRAM - VA Commercial Fisheries Management
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
84-86
Virginia
Federal
1,894,430
223,800
PURPOSE
Establish and implement a technical and systematic approach to fisheries
management, thus providing citizens of the Commonwealth perpetual commercial
and recreational utilization of common-property fisheries resources.
DESCRIPTION
Primary activities include the monitoring of Virginia finfisheries and the
drafting of appropriate regulatory measures to minimize the commercial and
recreational uses of the resources.
This program is responsible for the collection, processing, and dissemination
of data relevant to Virginia's seafood industries and marine fisheries. It
collects monthly findings and statistics by canvassing over 200 licensed
seafood buyers located in 39 Tidewater counties. Annually it processes
approximately 18,000 records documenting the commercial harvest of over 70
species of fish and shellfish. Also, it catalogues and analyzes data
pertaining to over 8,000 licensed commercial fishermen, employing 40 different
gear types. It maintains an oyster tax and harvest reporting system as means
of determining levels and location of public and private oyster harvests.
The program also actively participates in the various regional and interstate
organizations, such as the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission. Other task include liaison activity with intra- and interstate
fisheries programs, the commercial and recreational fishing industries,
organized user groups, and research/academic institutions.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Agency staff will develop comprehensive fishery management plans for oyster
and striped bass with input from the Fisheries Management Advisory Committee.
Automated fisheries management information systems will enhance the agency's
capability in dealing with sensitive management issues by providing rapid
access to historical series of fisheries statistics. This will allow agency
staff to assess the biological and socio-economic impacts of existing
regulations, or absence of regulation, and potential impacts of proposed
regulations. VMRC and the Governor's Chesapeake Bay Initiative Package will
jointly fund this program.
A new program will document the recreational harvest of marine species in
Virginia waters. For some species, sport fishing can contribute significantly
to the total catch. Without adequate ioformation for both commercial and sport
fishing activities, regulatory actions may unnecessarily restrict one or both
-------
C.l.VA p.12
user groups. This program will be funded with federal grant and state matching
funds.
-------
C.l.VA p.13
PROGRAM - VA Commercial Fisheries Enforcement
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 5,503,300
PURPOSE
Enforce the Commonwealth's commercial fisheries laws and regulations.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Marine Resource Commission (MRC). Its
primary function is enforcement of laws and regulations regarding commercial
fishing, marine shellfish and recreational fishing below the fall line of all
tidal waters and streams of the Commonwealth.
Under the Marine Patrol Act, subsidies are paid to various tidewater
localities which generate local marine patrol services. The MRC also provides
for a marine police dispatch center for the purpose of increasing emergency
radio coordination in the timely deployment of state and local police vessels.
Enforcement personnel patrol the tidal waters of Virginia that are bordered by
approximately 15,000 miles of shoreline. These personnel enforce all laws and
regulations pertaining to the protection and conservation of natural marine
resources, orders of the State Health Department pertaining to the harvesting
and marketing of shellfish, and laws pertaining to the protection of both
private and state property on tidal waters. They help enforce boating laws
and regulations, provide transportation on the state waters to both state and
federal officials in the conduct of their business, and report apparent
violations of laws pertaining to encroachment in state-owned bottoms and
wetlands.
In addition, marine inspectors assist persons and vessels in distress, sell
commercial seafood licenses and permits to residents and nonresidents, receive
and screen applications for the lease of oyster ground, assist in the oyster
repletion program, and collect fees and taxes due for the inspection, harvest
and sale of seafood products. Enforcement and regulation activities affect an
estimated 6,500 persons engaged in commercial seafood harvesting and
approximately 5,500 persons employed by processors. Enforcement personnel also
provide assistance to the 140,000 registered boat owners, wherever needed,
including search and rescue in emergency distress cases.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The agency makes approximately 19,000 inspections per year of seafood
harvesting and landings.This work is done from vessels that patrol the
waterways and at dockside landing areas. Program personnel will issue
approximately 17,000 licenses for commercial seafood harvesting and
approximately 3,000 special permits which are required for activities such as
transporting and replanting shellfish from condemned waters, using dredges to
harvest oysters on leased ground, etc.
-------
C.l.VA p.14
PROGRAM - VA Management Of Public Health Aap.ct. Of Shell£Uh Production
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
2,133,000
Virginia
PURPOSE
runrv/gu
1-* .hailfish and protect the public health.
Provide for quality shell**80
DESCRIPTION
, ky the Department of Health, provides for the
The program, implementea 8heUfish and crabmeat processing plants, the
inspection of the state g used in harvesting and transporting shellstock,
inspection of boats an q£ shellfi8h fi8h growing areas, and the
the sanitary shoreline su yster and crabmeat samples,
bacteriological analysis
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
j aafe for human consumption and meet the standards of
Insure that shellfish are . program,
the National Shellfish Sanitation g
-------
C.l.VA p.15
PROGRAM - VA Shellfish Grounds Surveying And Mapping
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 794,350
PURPOSE
Encourage and support shellfish production by private leaseholders.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the Marine Resources Commission and is designed
to assess the subaqueous beds of the Commonwealth for the planting and
propagation of oysters and clams. It maintains all oyster ground lease records
and surveys bottomlands used for public and private shellfish cultivation. The
MRC leases approximately 107,000 acres of oyster planting ground to
approximately 7,500 leases. The program maintains all records of leases
applications, assignments, renewable and transfers. The surveying function
involves the marking and maintenance of boundary lines of public and
privately-leased oyster grounds. Created to stimulate private investment in
shellfish propagation, the surveys allow precise location and recording of
private leases and public oyster rocks. Surveys protect public access and the
investments of private leases from encroachments. The Baylor Survey marks the
boundaries of approximately 240,000 acres of naturally productive oyster
ground which are open to public shellfishing under regulations established by
the Commission. More than 1,500 base maps and 114,130 individual plats
document the location of leased grounds.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The automated Oyster Ground Lease Management System will centralize ground
rent billing. This system will eliminate the need for Law Enforcement
Inspectors to collect rent payments personally from lessees residing in their
Districts.
The Oyster Fishery Management Plan will analyse trends in private ground
production. This program may stimulate private-sector investment in oyster
propagation.
-------
C.l.DC p.16
PROGRAM - DC Fisheries Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
DC 65,000
DOI 19 5,'.00
PURPOSE
Manage the aquatic resources of the District of Columbia.
DESCRIPTION
The District is located at the tidal head of the Potomac; and, with the
improvements in water quality from advanced wastewater treatment, there has
been a dramatic increase in
fisheries resources in the District. Striped bass
shad, herring and perch migrate up to the District each year and the juvenile*
fish use the District as a nursery ground. The resident species of gamefish
include largemouth and smalimouth bass, walleye, catfish, eels, crappie and
bluegill. With the increased concern over the stressed aquatic resources of
the Bay system, the Mayor initiated a fisheries management program to protect
the aquatic resources in the District. This program includes not only the fish
but also the submerged aquatic vegetation which is slowly increasing within
the District. In 1981 there was only one bed of Vallisineria in the District*
by 1985, there were two additional beds established with a threefold increase
in the bottom area colonized. During the same period Hydrilla became a
prominent problem in the Potomac.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The regulations will be effective in FY 86 and serious consideration will be
given to ensuring at least as stringent regulations for protecting anadromous
fish as exist for the Maryland and irginia portions of the Potomac Estuary.
Protection will be afforded to ben icial submerged aquatic vegetation.
87
120,000
360,000
88
120,000
360,000
-------
C.2.p.l7
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 2: Provide for the restoration of finfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance and diversity of freshwater and
estuarine spawners.
-------
C.2.FED p.18
PROGRAM - FWS Evaluation of Stocking of Striped Bass
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Evaluate the potential of hatchery production and stocking to restore fully
self-sustaining striped bass migratory stocks to Chesapeake Bay.
description
This will be a cooperative program between FWS and the states of Maryland and
Virginia. The following tasks are included:
- The FWS will establish the position of Chesapeake Bay Fisheries
Coordinator at Annapolis, Maryland;
- The cooperating agencies will jointly develop a Striped Bass
Restoration Plan for Chesapeake Bay to include goal, objectives and
milestones of this stocking program;
The states will furnish FWS hatcheries with striped bass larvae from
~ broodstock, captured in specific Chesapeake Bay tributaries;
The FWS will keep the striped bass separated in the hatcheries as to
tributary origin' will rear them until early autumn of each year, and
will assist the states in distributing the resultant fish to waters
of origin or waters agreed upon by all cooperators;
- For evaluation purposes, a proportional number of the hatchery-reared
striped bass will be marked prior to release; and
- The states will evaluate survival and contribution of the hatchery
Hsh to the population and to the spawning atock and will provide a
report on their evaluation to each other and the FWS, as necessary.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
. will allow managers to assess the efficiency of
The i?forin*t">'\ ° f re8toring self-sustaining striped bass populations to
A3-. -p-ju. -»u t.
hatchery, rearing, and stocKing
-------
C.2.PA p.19
PROGRAM - PA Restoration of American Shad To The Susquehanna River
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
50,000 60,000 70,000
140,000 150,000 160,000
700,000 725,000 750,000
PURPOSE
Provide for the restoration of shad in the upper Chesapeake. Most of the
Susquehanna River historically supported extensive runs of American shad and
other migratory fishes prior to development of hydroelectric dams in the lower
river. Over 300 miles of river habitat is suitable for reproduction and
survival of shad, and technology exists for construction of useful fish
passage facilities at high dams. If the long-range restoration goal is
achieved, a multimillion dollar recreational fishery will develop in
Pennsylvania and Maryland, and substantial contributions will be made to
commercial fisheries in the upper Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The restoration program is guided by a 10-meraber committee with
representatives from three state fishery agencies (MD, PA, NY), two federal
agencies, four private utility companies, and the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides a full-time program
coordinator.
The effort requires that a stock of shad be developed which is imprinted to
the upper Susquehanna River and successfully migrates to the sea. As these
fish mature in 3-5 years, they are expected to return to their natal river
and be effectively transported past dams to reproduce. As the returning
population grows each year, permanent fish passage facilities must be built at
the dams to allow continued expansion of the self-perpetuating stock. During
the next 10 years, principal shad stock contributions to the upper river are
from hatchery production and natural spawning of transplanted adults from
other rivers. Limited trap and transfer capability already exists on the
lowermost dam, Conowingo in Maryland.
Most of this effort is funded by the utility companies which own and operate
Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven hydroprojects. Funding levels
were resolved through settlement agreements reached which state and federal
resource agencies as part of project relicensing requirements.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
When downstream migration problems are resolved and adequate adult shad
capture capability is developed at Conowingo Dam, the population is expected
to grow exponentially. Permanent fishway construction should commence once
-------
C.2.PA p.20
stock rebuilding is demonstrated. Full restoration of 2-3 million shad using
the Susquehanna River each year will likely take 20-40 years after fish
passage is completed.
Ultimately, 200,000 to 400,000 recreational angling days may be ascribed to
this restored fishery during spring spawning runs.
-------
C.2.MD p.21
PROGRAM - MD Finfish (Intercept Hatchery)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Maryland (operating)
Maryland (capital)
166,088 NA
5,000,000 NA
NA
NA
PURPOSE
Resolve biological problems associated with the decline of £in£ish through a
combination of hatchery produced fish to increase brood stocks and sharply
focused research programs. The present status of anadromous stocks in the Bay
requires restrictive management measures on the harvesting of hickory and
American shad and striped bass. The EPA Bay Study documented this decline
and pointed to reproduction failure as one contributing factor. Hatcheries
have a long history of aiding in restoration and enhancement of fish
populations.
DESCRIPTION
Hatchery reproduction will be monitored and fish reared will be marked for
subsequent recapture to determine survival rates. Research efforts will be
integrated with water quality monitoring programs to develop correlative
concepts for improvement of the environment and enhancement of fish stocks. An
intercept hatchery will be constructed in the Upper Bay on State land capable
of producing 10 million striped bass fingerlings per year.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Engineering site selection will be completed by Spring, 1985 and an initial
design program will be released for contract bidding by July, 1985. During
1985, striped bass will be reared in all available existing State facilities
to provide approximately 1.5 million fingerlings to sustain stocks in specific
river systems.
-------
C.2.VA p.22
PROGRAM - VA Fishways for Anadromous Species
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 35,000
State/Federal* 200,000
~Depending upon the availability of DJ funds and authority to breach
dams.
PURPOSE
Provide fishways through existing dams on tidal rivers to permit anadromous
species (striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, shortnose sturgeon,
blueback herring, and alewives) to return to their historic spawning grounds.
DESCRIPTION
Se^icerandNSrnrgi"reinI"i^rteeof Marine Science to provide passage of
to Lve 200 mile. inland Co .pawn. A hydrology atudy of the Jame. River"
Richmond i. being conducted under contract by the Tennea.ee ValleyAuthorxty
to rlcomend optimum breaching of the two lower dama to prov!de f ah p«...ge
L°. c , .. -„j r-orrpational boating values of the river,
while preserving the esthetic and recreational ooa *
the results o£ thia atudy £l£e™^t»gL'o"e"»er two Z
K:"5arf two private entrepreneur, studying the
feasibility o£ u.Ug the two lower dams to generate power. If their effort,
block pl.M to breach the dam., they «.t provrde auitable fvahwaya at their
expense! Current plan, are to breach the dam. a. .oon a. feaa ble, u.mg
anticipated federal aid under the expanded Dingell Johnson Act.
Tbi. agency i. al.o wording
p1"" 'Uo "iu " eah'°" "" """"y "
Walkers Dam on the Chickahominy River.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To permit anadromou. .pecie. to U^TfUl-r,
:r«U ™"e»I«ang8t*r"cruit™.nJ into Che.ape.ke Bay atoOc..
-------
C.2.VA p.23
PROGRAM - VA Restocking Striped Bass
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia *
~Funds from existing programs and anticipated funds.
PURPOSE
Determine the feasibility of enhancing anadromous striped bass stocks through
restocking and to enhance spawning stocks in Virginia's rivers.
DESCRIPTION
In 1985, using fingerlings and larvae raised at the Virginia Game Commission's
Brookneal Hatchery, striped bass will be stocked in the James River at points
jointly agreed upon by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and the Game Commission. The success of
these introductions will be evaluated by VIMS, identifying stocked fingerlings
from natural reproduction based upon DNA characteristics of the Brookneal fish
and existing James River stocks. This effort will be conducted using available
resources.
In 1986, subject to the availability of funds, an effort will be made to
obtain brood fish from the Rappahannock, Mattaponi, and Pamunkey rivers and
spawn them at the Brookneal Hatchery. The progeny of this effort will be
raised to fingerling size using available federal facilities and will be
returned to river of origin at Phase I (2") fingerlings. The method of tagging
these fingerlings will be developed by VIMS and the Game Commission. The James
River will be stocked with fingerlings and fry of the Brookneal strain. If
efforts to obtained brood fish from other rivers are not successful, the
Brookneal strain may be introduced into these rivers.
VIMS will establish criteria to determine when natural reproduction is
sufficient to discontinue stocking operations. VIMS will also evaluate the
success of the stocking effort and make the determination of the significance
of the results to the overall enhancement of Virginia's striped bass fishery.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To evaluate the effectiveness of a restocking program to enhance striped bass
populations in the estuarine environment in Virginia.
-------
C.2.VA p.24
PROGRAM - VA Artificial Reef Construction
BUDGET PROTECTION
84-86
Virginia 268,700
PURPOSE
Construct and maintain artificial reefs.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Marine Resources Commission, is for the
construction and maintenance of artificial reefs for habitat for finfish. The
construction of two artificial reefs off Virginia's coast began in the mid
1970s. Parramore Reef is located off Wachapreague Inlet (Eastern Shore) and
Tower Reef is located off the Virginia Capes. Approximately 50,000 tires or
other modular structures are to be added to each reef site each year.
A study is also being conducted to determine which reef materials are the most
suitable. The study will also recommend reef site locations in the Virginia
portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The artificial reefs will provide additional habitat for finfish species
harvested in the regional recreational fishery and will provide information on
future Bay sites.
-------
C.3.p.25
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 3: Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the BAy(
especially the abundance of commercially important species.
-------
C.3.MD p. 26
PROGRAM - MD Oysters
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 1,620,531 NA NA
PURPOSE
Improve existing stocks of oysters. The EPA Bay Study found a decline in
living resources generally correlated with declines in water quality. It could
take 10 to 15 years for natural reproduction sufficient to increase the
harvest from the 1983 total of 1.5 million bushels if the State did not
improve the existing stocks.
DESCRIPTION
This program is designed to enhance the Maryland oyster industry through an
aggressive program of oyster repletion, implementation of new oyster culture
technology, and to provide extension service to the industry in order to
increase and stabilize harvest at approximately 2 1/2 million bushels
annually.
Specific program activities include: increased shell planting and seeding to
approximately 600,000 acres compared to the current 215,000 acres; innovative
techniques for spawning and rearing oysters at the Deal Island Hatchery; and
supplying seafood industry with improved processing techniques and expanded
oyster marketing.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Deal Island Hatchery facility will be constructed during the Spring of
1985 and experimental planting of eyed larvae on natural bars will be
initiated in mid-summer. Initiative funds were used to plant 300,000 cubic
yards (5.2 million bushels) of dredged shell, purchase and plant all available
fresh shell and move approximately 80,000 bushels of seed oysters. The
magnitude of the 1985 program is approximately what is needed in future years
to sustain Maryland's oyster harvest at 2.5 to 3 million bushels annually.
-------
C.3.MD p
PROGRAM - MD Construction Grants: Existing Special Water Quality Needs or
Public Health
See Appendix A, NUTRIENTS, Objective 1.
-------
C.3.VA p.28
PROGRAM - VA Oyster Conservation and Repletion
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 1,800,000
PURPOSE
Increase oyster production on public shellfishing grounds.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the VA Marine Resources Commission. It is
designed to:
- place clean shell on oyster reefs to provide good environment for
oyster spat set, and
- place seed oysters on oyster reefs to supplement natural production.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
MRC will increase funding levels for Public Oyster Ground Replenishment to
$'900,000 per year. These funds will provide for increased shell-planting and
seed transfer activities.
The section will initiate studies to explore alternate (and less expensive)
sources of cultch material and to expand the number of Virginia suppliers. The
program goal is to increase replenishment activity to 2 million bushels of
shell per year.
Staff will begin testing, validation, and use of the Virginia Oyster
Management Model (VOMM). This is a computerized econometric model which
provides managers with the ability to predict the potential results of
various levels of replenishment activity . The model takes many variables into
consideration, like the price of shells and seed, oyster growth rates,
production levels of specific growing waters, and price of market oysters. The
VOMM is one tool, among many, which may be used to enhance the effectiveness
of the replenishment program.
-------
C.3.VA p.29
PROGRAM - VA Integrated Shellfish Area Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia *
*This activity is a cooperative effort being conducted by State staff
assigned to other programs.
PURPOSE
Provide an integrated approach to the restoration of condemned shellfish
areas.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being coordinated by the Council on the Environment and
involves the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation of the Department of Health, the
State Water Control Board, the Division of Soil and Water Conservation, the
Department of Housing and Community Development, the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science and the Marine Resources Commission.
The program is designed to restore formerly productive shellfish areas to a
healthy and productive state. All condemned shellfish areas have been
classified according to the sources of problems and potential productivity.
This analysis has led to the development of a priority list for the
restoration of condemned shellfish areas. Areas with the greatest potential
productivity and the lowest restoration costs have received the highest
priority for action. Specific restoration plans involving combinations of
management actions are being developed for the highest priority areas and will
be implemented using Chesapeake Bay initiative and other funds.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Analysis and ranking of condemned shellfish areas suitable for restoration.
Restoration and resulting reopening of highest priority areas to shellfish
harvesting.
-------
C.3.VA p. 30
PROGRAM - VA Improvement of Deficient Shoreline Residential Sanitation Systems
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 260,000
PURPOSE
Reopen shellfish grounds closed as a result of deficient residential sanitary
facilities in adjacent watershed/shoreline areas.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the
program is designed to provide grants to individuals through local governments
so that deficient residential sanitary facilities can be corrected or new
facilities installed. This will result in the reopening of shellfish grounds
closed as a result deficient residential sanitary facilities.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
It is anticipated that a total of 1081 acres of shellfish grounds will be
reopened in 1985-86 as a result of this program. The program is being expanded
to include other agencies so that there can be a totally integrated and
comprehensive approach toward eliminating all possible shellfish ground
closures.
-------
C.4.p. 31
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 4: Restore, enhance and protect waterfowl and wildlife.
-------
C.4.FED p.32
PROGRAM - FWS Endangered Species Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Carry out the mandates of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended. This
includes: assessment of the status of rare species, adding those in danger of
extinction to the federal list of endangered species (listing); prevention of
adverse effects on listed specieB which result from federal actions (section 7
consultation); and development of recovery plans bringing about the recovery
of listed species (recovery).
DESCRIPTION
The Annapolis Field Office carries out the three functions described above
for MD, VA, WV and DE. This program tends to focus on individual species which
are in trouble. Work deals both with the Chesapeake Bay area and with
watersheds and ecosystems unrelated to the Bay. Principal target species
around the Bay currently include the Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Piping
Plover, Maryland Darter, Delmarva Fox Squirrel and several Eastern Shore
wetland plant species now being listed as endangered or threatened. In
addition to endangered species, a special Chesapeake Bay Implementation
project is analyzing trends in these and other species of special importance
to the Bay (including FWS1 National Species of Special Emphasis on "NSSE's");
this will also present maps of present and past distribution of key species.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To reestablish the Eastern Peregrine Falcon population, to bring about full
recovery of the Bald Eagle, Delmarva Fox Squirrel, and Piping Plover; to
maintain the Maryland darter population; to survey and list as threatened or
endangered those species which are in trouble.
-------
C.4.PA p.33
PROGRAM - PA Wildlife Restoration/Improvement
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Restore and improve wildlife habitat (water quality, aquatic food webs,
streambank vegetation) within the Susquehanna River Basin and Upper Chesapeake
Bay primarily for animals, small game, and non-game animals and waterfowl.
DESCRIPTION
Implementation of Best Management Practices for nutrient and associated
sediment/erosion control should reduce the amount of silt and nutrients
entering the receiving waters and, in addition, could include the planting and
maintenance of permanent streambank vegetation of importance to wildlife.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The reduction of nutrient and sediment loading to the receiving waters and the
establishment of permanent vegetative cover should result in greater wildlife
use and, in some cases, higher animal populations, for the publics' use and
enjoyment.
-------
C.4.MD p.34
PROGRAM - MD Water Fowl Protection And Management: Ducks
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland NA 108,802 NA
PURPOSE
Operate a hatchery to aid in protecting and restoring the black duck and other
nonmallard species. Duck populations wintering in Maryland have declined
gradually since the early 1950's due to habitat losses through the conversion
of wetlands and adjacent habitat to other land uses. This reduction in duck
habitat acreage is particularly significant with respect to the concurrent
reduction observed in black duck numbers in Maryland and the adjoining
mid-Atlantic states, given that Maryland historically has been a significant
black duck production area. In the past few years, it was necessary to
purchase hand-reared ducks with funds from the Migratory Waterfowl Stamp; the
purchase of non-mallard species is almost impossible. The current rate of
improving duck habitat on both public and privately owned land will be
accelerated to realize an increase in the black duck and other non-mallard
breeding population. An accelerated waterfowl habitat restoration effort on
public and private land is expected to influence approximately sixty thousand
acres of lands beneficial to dabbling ducks within the first three-year
period. A hatchery operation will aid in protecting and restoring the black
duck and other non-mallard species.
DESCRIPTION
To reserve the downward trend of duck populations in Maryland, (particularly
black ducks), and to increase the rate of waterfowl habitat improvement in
public lands by: providing for the construction of hatchery on State land to
propagate nonmallard breeding pairs needed to fill unoccupied breeding niches;
providing an intensive waterfowl habitat education project focusing on the
provision of basic information for the design of projects on private lands;
and expanding the existing program of tax incentives for conservation of
waterfowl habitat.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Final construction of hatchery has been delayed pending adequate design of
waste treatment facilities and site location. Hatchery production estimate for
the first year of operation is 1,500 birds.
-------
C.4.VA p.35
PROGRAM - VA Waterfowl Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 47,750
Federal 143,250
PURPOSE
Protect and manage migratory waterfowl on the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
DESCRIPTION
The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries seta seasons, bag limits and
related hunting regulations within a framework established by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. It enforces the regulations through auto, foot, boat,
and aerial patrols, conducts aerial census of waterfowl periodically during
the migrations, reacts to crop damage created by flocks of Canada and snow
geese and tundra swans, conducts disease control activities such as outbreaks
of avian cholorea, obtains blood samples to determine parasite loads, improves
Comais8 ion-owned marshlands to increase the waterfowl carrying capacity, and
regulates hunting pressure through the sale of waterfowl blind licenses which
limit the placement of blinds to one per 1,000 yards of shoreline. Through
purchase, it obtains marshlands for protection of waterfowl habitat, conducts
banding programs to study migratory patterns of wildfowl; reacts to oil
spills, treating oiled birds; and it relocates resident flocks of waterfowl
that threaten to exceed the carrying capacity of their range.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing program designed to maintain optimum waterfowl
populations within the Commonwealth.
-------
C.4.VA p.36
PROGRAM - VA Nongame and Endangered Species Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 63,708
Federal 191,125
PURPOSE
Provide a program of research and management for Virginia's nongame and
endangered species in the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
Through a comprehensive program of wildlife research, the Commission of Game
and Inland Fisheries collects data needed for the management of the bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, colonial nesting birds, shore birds and the osprey.
Research activities include annual and seasonal inventories of nongame and
endangered birds, aerial census and monitoring of nests, banding of juvenile
birds, recapture of previously banded birds for survival and movements data,
and the re-introduction of apecies (peregrine falcon) for the purpose of
re-establishment. Management data is routinely used to resolve potential
conflicts between development projects and the protection of these species.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Protection and continued recovery and restoration for nongame and endangered
species of the Chesapeake Bay region.
-------
C.4.VA p.37
PROGRAM - VA Marine Turtles
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 77,000
PURPOSE
Monitor and study endangered sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, with the support of the Commission
of Game and Inland Fisheries, i8 studying the endangered marine turtles to
determine the importance of the Bay to these species, the migration routes to
and from the Bay, and methods to reduce mortality of turtles while they are
in the Bay. Inasmuch as the turtles are endangered, these studies are eligible
for support from the Endangered Species and Non-Game Tax Check-Off Program.
VIMS studies have determined that the Bay is important to juvenile marine
turtles. Using aerial telemetery, the study has learned many useful facts
about these animals which will lead to better management and decreased
mortality while in Bay waters.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To obtain greater understanding of the marine turtles and to determine
preferred habitat needs in the Bay, as well as to reduce mortality while they
are in the Bay.
-------
C.5.p.38
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 5: Restore, enhance and protect desirable species of submerged
aquatic vegetation.
-------
C.5.FED p.39
PROGRAM - Joint Federal Agency Hydrilla Control Evaluation
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
State
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
The exotic submerged plant Hydrilla Verticillata now occurs in the tidal
Potomac River, the Susquehanna Flats, and several other localities within the
the Bay basin. The purpose of the present study, which is authorized through
the Aquatic Plant Control Program and Regulatory Functions Program, is to
determine the impact of hydrilla and to propose and test control measures.
These activities are carried on in cooperation with USDA, USDI, Maryland,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
DESCRIPTION
An initial reconnaissance phase (in FY 84) determined that hydrilla
constituted a problem to public uses of the Potomac in selected areas, and
that further study was warranted. Studies are being conducted (by USDA) on the
biology of the plant, its distribution and spread (USGS), and on its
ecological role and value (FWS). The COE has proposed a number of control
measures, several of which were tested in 1984 (barrier films, mechanical
harvesting). A study plan to test efficacy of herbicide control is under
review by concerned agencies. The plan to test Diquat has been reviewed by all
state agencies impacted in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The
consensus of the reviewers was not to allow the testing. Therefore, it will
not occur.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A better understanding of the biology and effects of hydrilla will result from
the ongoing studies, including potential beneficial roles. Areas adversely
affected will be identified, and appropriate (and most feasible) control
measures tested and recommended for implementation by the states and/or
federal agencies involved.
-------
C.5.MD p.40
PROGRAM - MD Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Protection and Restoration
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 96,499 NA NA
PURPOSE
Revegetate areas of the Bay with submerged aquatic vegetation. The EPA Study
found that increased nutrient runoff deterred the ability of submerged aquatic
vegetation to regenerate. Sediments also caused biofouling of the plants which
hindered their growth and expansion. The EPA study has shown areas where
regeneration would likely be successful at present.
DESCRIPTION
This program is designed to revegetate areas of the Bay with submerged aquatic
vegetation that will enhance the habitat for fish and shellfish, provide food
for wildfowl, and improve the overall quality of the Bay waters. Efforts to
date have included:
Provided nursery ponds to build planting stock of various species and
resurveyed submerged aquatic vegetation distribution to confirm reports of
regrowth and to investigate reasons for regrowth.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Investigate SAV planting methods and procedures. Establish SAV nursery at the
University of Maryland at Horn Point. Revegetate selected sites.
-------
C.5.VA p.41
PROGRAM - VA Re-establishment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 150,000
PURPOSE
Restore, enhance and protect desirable species of Bay system vegetation.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Virginia Institute o£ Marine Science
and is designed to:
- re-establish SAVs in suitable areas on an experimental basis.
- conduct related monitoring and research to determine what conditions
are necessary for successful large-scale re-establishment.
Approximately 15 acres of eelgrass was transplanted this past fall. Monitoring
of the survival rate of these plants is to resume in March. Eelgrass remains
dormant during the winter, but begins to grow rapidly in March when water
temperatures rise above 10°C(50°F).
Monitoring also continues for water quality, temperature, insolation (amount
of sunlight coming to the surface), and submerged light (amount of light
penetrating to certain depths) at selected transplant sites. Seed test sites
in the York River and the ocean side of the Eastern Shore are ongoing. Seed
germination, which has been observed at two of the three sites, will be
evaluated to determine the potential value of using seeds for future
revegetation efforts rather than using whole plants. If successful, planting
with seeds would be much more economical and less labor-intensive.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Re-establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Virginia's estuarine
areas will have a number of direct and indirect benefits, including:
- Improvement of habitat by providing cover, food, an bottom
stabilization in 26 acres of planted area. This would help a number of
species in the Bay such as the blue crab, finfish and waterfowl.
- Help to improve water quality clarity by filtering and settling
materials from the water column and by acting as a nutrient buffer.
- Stabilize bottoms to help prevent shoreline erosion.
-------
C.6.p.42
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 6: Protect and enhance and restore where possible dunes, and
other important shoreline and riverine systems.
-------
C.6.FED p.43
PROGRAM - NOAA Estuarine Sanctuaries Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Establishes natural field laboratories where scientific researchers and the
general public learn about coastal and estuarine ecology in a natural setting.
These sites also protect vital habitats for estuarine-dependent life including
endangered species, and serve as relatively undisturbed and protected areas
for long-terra management related research.
DESCRIPTION
National estuarine sanctuaries are a federal-state cooperative effort to
provide research and educational benefits for each site. The sanctuaries are
owned or leased and managed by individual states under the direction of the
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations. These regulations specify
the need for long-term resource management planning by states and a periodic
review of operations by the federal government. The regulations also include
biogeographic classification scheme and typology of estuarine areas from which
potential estuarine sanctuaries are identified.
The program is administered by the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD), Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) within the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Fifteen sanctuaries have been established.
The Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary contains an established and
proposed component. The sites are located at the mouth of the Rhode River and
at Monie Bay on the eastern shore. The Monie Bay component is owned by the
State of Maryland occupying about 16% of the Deal Island Wildlife Management
Area. The proposed Rhode River component encompasses about 78% of the
Smithsonian Institutions Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The sanctuaries will provide educational and research opportunities, as well
as preservation functions. These relatively undisturbed areas can be used as
control systems for comparison with environmental changes documented
elsewhere.
-------
C.6.FED p.44
PROGRAM - FWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Review several types of federal projects under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act general provisions. These aim to insure that federally funded
land and water resources development activities give adequate consideration to
fish and wildlife and habitat protection.
DESCRIPTION
Review such projects as:
a. Corps of Engineers - Federal channel maintenance dredging, flood
control, Hydrilla analyses and control. FWS is involved in site
inspections, recommendations, technical assistance, and sometimes
carries out specialized work.
b. SCS - Inspect, review, recommend, for such projects as Upper Chester
River Watershed Project, (PL-566 type-activity).
c. FERC - Hydroelectric facilities construction or rehabilitation, with a
special regard for fish passage devices. Federal Power Act provisions
may be involved.
These kinds of projects may fall under the 1969 National Environmental Policy
Act provisions and thus include an Environmental Impact Statement or
Environment Assessment, which are then reviewed as part of our responsibility.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Comments, based on expert knowledge of habitats and living resources contained
in them, result in improved protection and conservation for those resources.
-------
C.6.FED p.45
PROGRAM - FWS Fish and Wildlife Permit Review: 404
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Try to ensure that wetlands and other aquatic habitats are not degraded by
dredge and fill activities, as defined in Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act
1899 and/or Section 404, Clean Water Act 1972.
DESCRIPTION
Generally meet with representatives of other agencies, including National
Marine Fishery Service, EPA, and states, to coordinate response and
recommendations addressed to Corps of Engineers, the regulatory authority.
Activity includes frequent predevelopment consultation and frequent field
inspections.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Protection and conservation of fish and wildlife resources and habitat are the
objectives of activity. Where certain activity impacts must take place such as
dredging for navigation, frequently recommend imposition of compensation or
mitigation.
-------
C.6.FED p.46
PROGRAM - FWS Permit Review: NPDES
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Try to minimize impacts on aquatic resources of toxic materials discharged
under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
DESCRIPTION
Review conditions and materials described in NPDES permits and compare with
impacts on various living organisms as described in literature. FWS new thrust
is to perform field collections and analyses on selected organisms in selected
areas, to document uptake and impacts. (See B.3.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
FWS' goal is to describe deleterious effects of certain substances in
effluents upon organisms, then recommend changes in NPDES standards with a
view to bring allowable concentrations more within acceptable limits.
-------
C.6.FED p.47
PROGRAM - FWS National Wetlands Inventory
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Plans, directs, coordinates and monitors the gathering, analysis,
dissemination and evaluation of information relating to the location,
quantity, condition and ecological importance of the Nation's wetlands,
including the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
FWS obtains aerial photography and other imaging and performs extensive ground
-truthing to verify interpretation of wetland (both non-tidal and tidal)
areas. FWS then produces series of mainly 1:24,000 USGS quad maps (other
scales are also produced) locations and identifying types of wetlands by our
own classification method. Recent work completed in the Virginia and Maryland
areas; some digitization is now taking place. (See E.4.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through wide dissemination of maps and other technical assistance, FWS aims to
inform both the governmental and private sectors as to location, value, and
importance of wetlands. Generally aim to reduce or prevent destruction of
these habitat features because of their great value to fish and wildlife.
-------
C.6.FED p.
PROGRAM - FWS Reviews: State Highways, Transmission Lines, Pipelines, etc.
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
activities on fish and wildlife resources and
Review the effects of prop Wildlife Conservation Act (and possibly
habitats under the genera category covers all other projects and
the Clean Water Act and NE * Qr iicense, and not covered by other
actions requiring a permit,
procedures.
DESCRIPTION
r sites where activities proposed, recommending
Carry out field inspections q attetld pre-development and progress meetings
impacts, mitigations, etc. noerative during these kinds of projects,
to keep a consistent presence opera
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
oaaive or unnecessary impacts to fish and wildlife
Protection against exces plans are required to compensate for
resources and habitats. Mitigation p
unavoidable damage taking place.
-------
C.6.PA p.49
PROGRAM - PA Wetland Regulation Through Implementation Of The Dam Safety And
Encroachment Act
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
PURPOSE
Regulate activities to prevent the loss of wetland areas. Wetland areas are
regulated as bodies of water, as defined in the Dam Safety and Encroachment
Act.
DESCRIPTION
DER requires an activity affecting wetland areas to obtain a permit prior to
conducting the activity. The Department will consider in permitting review of
wetland activities the effect on the water quality, sediment loading, nutrient
loading and ecological habitat of the Chesapeake Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The permit program will prevent the loss of wetland areas which affect the
Chesapeake Bay.
-------
C.6.MD p.50
PROGRAM - MD 401/404 Water Quality Certification Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 97,782
PURPOSE
Improve regulation of dredge and fill activities to protect water quality
and living resources. Maryland has been unable to satisfy full review of the
Section 401 Certification for the Army Corps of Engineers' nationwide permits.
The effect of this initiative would increase the number of environmental
impact evaluations and enable closer scrutiny of the permit activities.
DESCRIPTION
One of the sources of sediment and nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay i8 the
approximately 2,000 construction projects in the State each year for which
water quality certificates are issued by the Office of Environmental
Programs. OEP is required, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, to
issue the certificates placing limits on the construction activities as
necessary or in some cases to disapprove the construction where there will be
negative water quality impacts. Section 404 dredge or fill permits are
subsequently issued or not issued by the Army Corps of Engineers based on the
state's water quality certification. Reports on environmental assessments and
environmental impacts are received from the Department of Natural Resources
where wetlands are concerned or are a part of the project. These reports are
utilized by OEP in the water quality certification process. Regulations
governing review of projects are currently being developed.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Evaluation of public drainage projects and their impact on water quality.
Investigation of water quality impacts associated with major dredge and fill
projects such as marina construction, major bulkheading projects and dredging
activities. Monitor 404 activities and report findings.
-------
C.6.MD p.51
PROGRAM - MD Non-Tidal Wetlands Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 169,596
PURPOSE
Protect Maryland's non-tidal wetlands in cooperation with local governments.
Maryland's non-tidal wetlands are transitional environments existing as
isolated entities or between open waters and dry land. These wetlands possess
many of the same values as tidal wetlands. They have complex and extensive
root systems which stabilize streambanks, reduce the velocity of sediment
laden water and trap sediments and pollutants contained in these waters. They
also play valuable role in providing wildlife habitat and food, particularly
to waterfowl and fur-bearing animals. These functions of non-tidal wetlands
can directly influence the habitat of living aquatic resources in the Bay.
Since 1973, Maryland has lost 14,150 acres of non-tidal wetlands; by
comparison, 250 acres of vegetated tidal wetlands have been filled or dredged
during the period 1971-1983.
DESCRIPTION
This is a cooperative program for protecting Maryland's non-tidal wetlands,
with shared responsibilities at the State and local government levels. The
program is designed to: Encourage and assist local governments with the design
and implementation of locally administered non-tidal wetlands management
programs; initiate a non-tidal wetlands resource assessment and monitoring
system which will provide for a quantitative analysis of wetland types; and
establish criteria for soil and water conservation plans to help maintain the
integrity of non-tidal wetland systems.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Continue training and education sessions. Develop wetlands mapping system.
-------
C.6.MD p.52
PROGRAM - MD Retention Of Existing Forestland
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 97,300 57,400 58,700
PURPOSE
Maintain existing forested buffer areas along the Bay and its tributaries to
intercept surface runoff and infiltrate it through the forest soil profile
prior to reaching the water. The protection of forestland located adjacent to
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is of strategic importance to water quality
protection because surface runoff is virtually nonexistent in undisturbed
forestland. Approximately one-third of the land area in Maryland's portion of
the Chesapeake Bay basin is currently forested and, in most caBes, is subject
to conversion to other less protective land uses.
DESCRIPTION
Program activities include: Define and map the critical land areas currently
forested adjacent to the Bay and its tributaries; provide technical assistance
to landowners, including the preparation of forest management plans; cooperate
with local soil conservation districts in developing forested buffers aB best
management practices for agricultural lands. To date, 23 forest management
plans, covering approximately 3255 acres, within the Chesapeake Bay critical
area, have been written. Also 30 acres of buffer plantings have been
accomplished.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
In FY 85, the main efforts have been to develop an information and education
program directed to the public and also to the forest landowners within the
critical area zone. In FY 86, we will continue that program and step up the
number of forested areas which will be put under management in the critical
area.
-------
C.6.MD p.53
PROGRAM - MD Conservation Easements
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 71,825 NA NA
PURPOSE
Expand the conservation easement program in Maryland. The EPA study has
documented the adverse effects associated with nonpoint pollution. One means
of addressing the problems of sediment and stormwater management associated
with development is through the existing easement donation statutory framework
of the Maryland Environmental Trust. Easements offer landowners the
opportunity to make their individual contribution to protecting the Bay,
Because they are permanent, as the total number of easements increases, so
will the amount of long-term protection.
DESCRIPTION
Private landowners are encouraged to preserve and protect undeveloped or low
density areas along the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries
through the execution of easements within the existing Maryland Environmental
Trust Easement Program. The Trust Program was expanded to accommodate the
expected increase in easements. This program provides for the intensification
of the Maryland Environmental Trust easement program to increase
substantially the acreage of land along the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries
placed under easement each year through cooperative efforts with the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and provision of assistance to easement donors to
identify and put into use conservation practices appropriate to their
properties.
Since July 1984, over 1,000 acres, including some three miles of shoreline,
have been put in the easement program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The conservation easement initiative in FY 86 is expected to generate easement
donations on approximately 1,000 acres of significant open space in the Bay
region. This is in addition to the regular ongoing easement program of the
Maryland Environmental Trust. The Trust will target special areas such as
shoreline and will follow up on properties including natural heritage sites
spawning watersheds, and features of critical State concern. Preservation '
opportunities within the framework of local land management programs and the
Critical Areas Commission will be explored. The Trust intends to apply
innovative preservation techniques such as the bargain purchase, restriction
and resale of property. '
-------
C.6.VA p.54
PROGRAM - VA Wetlands and Bottomlands Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
PURPOSE
84-86
543,420
rURTUOIi
Conserve wetlands, submerged habitat and coastal primary sand dunea# and
accommodate necessary development.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Marine Resources Commits ion the *°r the
regulation (through a permitting process) r 5,000 mi lee of t M
shoreline and 2,300 square miles of water s ce, cove g 1, 2,000 acres of
bottomlands. Those areas are e88ential1ha^tlatld!°r V « a *nd
shellfish. Also, 225,000 acres of tidal wetlands, vital as a 8Paw„lng and
nursery habitat, are regulated.
in the 1962-72 decade, permit application® |«encr°achinto submerged land
increased from about 12 in 1962 to 182 «i • In 1972, the f^r«t year of the
Wetlands Act, applications increased i£#ly Jll\ ? 973 t0 1982
an average increase in applications of *** realized.
Last biennium permit applications •vjr.gjd JWJ ,•« «hil« thi. biennium
over 1300 are being processed annually. c J? y* re<*ue8t®.to use or
develop wetlands areas have increased at a he same rate. SimUarly, since
passage of a sand dune protection act, f°* u"e f development of
coastal sand dune systems have incr®*8® e rate* f^nr f ^ *nd Virginia
Beach. It can be anticipated that all thes e« of increase will continue or
accelerate during the next several biennia development pressures along the
shoreline continue to build.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
ANHUirftJ-O" rujuu»"
.f. nd technic*1 Project evolution, the permitting
Through appropriate scienti conserve habitat which is critical to
decision process can be expe
support living resources
-------
C.6.DC p.55
PROGRAM - DC Anacostia Watershed Restoration Strategy Agreement
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
238,000 238,000 238,000
238,000 238,000 238,000
PURPOSE
Install BMPs on the small tributaries to the Anacostia River.
DESCRIPTION
There are eight small tributaries to the Anacostia River located within the
District of Columbia. The sources of most of these tributaries were enclosed
within storm sewers, as development took place over the last two hundred
years, and the existing stream channels now receive most of the urban runoff.
Fortunately, most of the tributaries are encompassed within federal or
District parks. BMPs would be installed on these tributaries to rehabilitate
the tributaries and to reduce heavy metals, nutrients and sediment loads to
the Anacostia.
A pilot grant program for residential neighborhood blocks will be implemented
to reduce urban runoff from homes and to directly involve the citizens in the
restoration of water quality. Materials and supplies for installing BMPs will
be furnished to the homeowner who inturn will install the BMPs. Primary
emphasis will be to increase infiltration of roof and other drainage into the
yard and to decrease erosion and nutrient losses from yards.
The Corps of Engineers may dredge the severely silted tidal portion of the
Anacostia; the District will assist the Corps in locating suitable upland
disposal sites.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The program will improve the aquatic habitat of the tributaries as well as
result in reductions of pollutant loads to the Anacostia. It is anticipated
that a 20Z loading reduction can be achieved on most of the tributaries.
-------
C.7.p. 56
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 7: Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation
to protect Bay habitats.
-------
C.7.FED p.57
PROGRAM - COE Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion Study
BUDGET PROTECTION
85
86
87
Federal
State
500,000 300,000 600,000
300,000 600,000
PURPOSE
Formulate a Baywide shoreline erosion control plan which will protect both
land and water resources of the Chesapeake Bay from the adverse effects of
continued erosion. Within this broad purpose, several major study objectives
have been established: to define the magnitude of the erosion problem, to
examine the range of possible corrective measures, and to recommend specific
projects if economically and environmentally justified.
DESCRIPTION
The study is being conducted in two phases. The reconnaissance phase of the
study includes an identification of critical erosion areas, a general
investigation of protection measures, a preliminary assessment of
environmental impacts, and a determination of areas where the federal interest
would be served by shoreline erosion protection projects. The reconnaissance
phase will take 18 months, including review by higher authority, and cost
If potential federal projects are identified in the reconnaissance phase, then
the feasibility phase will be undertaken to conduct site-specific
investigations of these projects. Benefits, costs, and impacts will be
examined to determine which of the potential projects are justified. The
feasibility phase will take about 30 months, including review by higher
authority, and is estimated to cost $3,000,000. Based on present
administration policy, this amount will be shared equally between the federal
government and non-federal sponsor(s).
Most federal work is funded by COE, but FWS is developing a trends assessment
for Chesapeake Bay shoreline and impacts of erosion control measures on
aquatic resources. (See E.4)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The reconnaissance report will be completed in March 1986, and will contain
recommendations for detailed feasibility studies at specific project sites, if
warranted. Assuming that detailed investigations are warranted at certain
sites and that the appropriate cost sharing arrangements can be negotiated, a
feasibility report will be completed by September 1988. The feasibility report
will contain recommendations for construction of federal shoreline erosion
control projects, if such construction is economically and environmentally
acceptable.
$500,000
-------
C.7.PA p.58
PROGRAM - PA Sediment and Erosion Control
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 B7 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Increase the utilization of erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient control
measures in the Susquehanna River Basin.
DESCRIPTION
Training and education programs for government employees and the public will
be conducted throughout the Susquehanna River Basin to increase the
utilization of erosion and sedimentation control practices on both farmland
and other soil disturbance locations. Erosion and sedimentation technicians
and soil engineers will be hired to increase enforcement and provide technical
assistance.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The utilization of improved practices in the erosion and sedimentation control
program will result in lower sediment and nutrient levels in the critical
watersheds. Increased training, education and enforcement will result in
higher utilization of improved erosion and sedimentation control practices
throughout the Susquehanna River Basin.
-------
C.7.MD p. 59
PROGRAM - MD Shoreline Improvement Grants Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 2,000,000 NA NA
PURPOSE
Create a State Debt, the proceeds to be used to provide State grants to
certain local jurisdictions, to assist with certain eligible costs for
acquisition, design, construction, equipping, rehabilitation, and improvement
of certain projects designed to enhance the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The $2 million appropriated by the 1984 General Assembly is to be used to fund
a portion of the 25 proposals which collectively totaled $5,000,00. A list of
proposals recommended (by an interdepartmental review group) for funding have
been approved by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and have
been approved for funding by the Board of Public Works.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Oversight and implementation of projects to be funded under FY 85 $2,000,000
bond bill appropriation. Coordination with local jurisdictions to develop new
project proposals for FY 87 funding.
-------
C.7.MD p.60
PROGRAM - MD Shoreline Erosion - (Operating Costs)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 378,431 NA NA
PURPOSE
Reduce erosion and sedimentation from shoreline areas. The EPA Bay Study found
that heavy sediment loadings degrade water quality and cause loss of aquatic
life. The present shore erosion control program addresses only critical
eroding areas (more than two feet per year). Less critically eroding areas can
be stabilized through less expensive vegetative means using, wherever
possible, clean spoil from maintenance dredging of channels to reduce annual
dredging costs. There are 376 miles of critical erosion areas and 965 miles
where erosion is less than two feet per year.
DESCRIPTION
This program is designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation into the Bay and
its tributaries by establishing a vegetative shore erosion program for
non-critical eroding areas, by augmenting the existing structural program and
by using spoil from dredging projects to complement both approaches. Personnel
in this program will actively enhance the current level of effort for
structural and non-structural projects to mitigate shoreline erosion.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
MD would construct 56 projects to protect approximately 14,000 feet of
shoreline.
-------
C.7.MD p.61
PROGRAM - MD Shoreline Erosion - Capital Costs
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 1,000,000
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Reduce erosion and sedimentation into the Bay and its tributaries by
establishing a vegetative shore erosion program for non-critical eroding
areas, by augmenting the existing structural program for critical areas, and
by using spoil from dredging projects to complement both approaches.
DESCRIPTION
The EPA Bay Study found that heavy sediment loadings degrade water quality
and cause loss of aquatic life. The present shore erosion control program
addresses only critical eroding areas (more than two feet per year). Less
critically eroding areas can be stabilized through less expensive vegetative
means using, wherever possible, clean spoil from maintenance dredging of
channels to reduce annual dredging costs. There are 376 miles of critical
erosion areas and 965 miles where erosion is less than two feet per year.
Prior to the end of the current fiscal year, approximately 37 projects will be
selected for design or construction.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Plant vegetation on approximately 9,000 linear feet of shoreline comprising 30
different sites.
-------
C.7.VA p.62
PROGRAM - VA Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 275,200
PURPOSE
Control shoreline erosion.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. It is designed to provide
technical advice to private property owners on methods for controlling
shoreline erosion. Various control methods are also evaluated.
The primary efforts of the next two biennia will be to:
Improve the understanding of property owners on the proper
alternatives of minimizing tidal shoreline erosion.
- Provide advice, consultation and education to 325 property owners on
tidal erosion problems each year.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Reduce shoreline erosion through technical assistance to private property
owners.
-------
C.7.VA p.63
PROGRAM - VA Forest Land Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 12,757,255*
Federal 904,431*
*Figures represent approximately 66% of the total statewide budget.
PURPOSE
Improve forest resources management.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Historic Resources. It includes eight major operations of the Department's
Division of Forestry: Forest Fire Management, Forest Management, Insect and
Disease Protection, Tree Seedling Production, State Forest Management, Forest
Management of Other State Owned Lands, Information and Education and
Administration. Through the operations of this program, the Commonwealth
protects and encourages development of some 14.2 million acres of privately
owned forest resource which provide raw materials for an industry that
contributes $3.9 billion annually to the State's economy and directly employs
more than 64,000 of her residents in manufacturing and another 47,000 in full
time employment of support services.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Provide a forest resource to meet Virginia's need while encouraging the
volunteer use of best management practices in forest operations to protect
water moving into the Bay.
-------
C.8.p.64
LIVING RESOURCES
Objective 8: Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain
estuarine habitats.
-------
C.8.FED p.65
PROGRAM - COG Proposed Susquehanna Drought Management Study
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 910,000
State
PURPOSE
Identify those projects and management measures to maintain freshwater inflow
to Chesapeake Bay and to develop a comprehensive drought management plan for
the Susquehanna River Basin.
DESCRIPTION
The Susquehanna River Basin has a population of about 5 million people and
drains an area of approximately 27,500 square miles in New York, Pennsylvania,
and Maryland. The Basin contributes approximately 50Z of the freshwater inflow
to the Chesapeake Bay. Increasing consumptive uses of water as well as
expanding municipal and industrial growth is placing increasing demands on the
Basin's limited water resource. The steadily decreasing flow in the
Susquehanna River is having an adverse impact on the Chesapeake Bay and
certain parts of the Susquehanna Basin have already experienced water
shortages and rationing.
The decreasing freshwater inflow to Chesapeake Bay results in the loss of
valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Some of the important species adversely
affected include oysters, striped bass, clams, submerged aquatic vegetation,
and canvasback ducks. The adverse economic impacts on commercial and sport
fishing are significant with the net losses to the oyster fishery alone
estimated at $60 million annually.
The study will be conducted in two phases, with the initial reconnaissance
phase to be initiated in FY 87 and completed in 18 months. The initial phase
would define the problem and identify those alternatives to be investigated in
detail in the feasibility phase.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Identification of those measures required to maintain freshwater inflows to
Chesapeake Bay and the development of a detailed comprehensive drought
management plan for the Susquehanna River Basin.
-------
C.8.MD p.66
PROGRAM - MD Freshwater Conservation
BUDGET PROJECTION
Maryland
PURPOSE
86 87 88
154,497 NA NA
Provide personnel (4) in the Department of Natural Resources to quantify both
existing and potential consumptive losses of freshwater flow to the Bay and to
implement structural, non-structural, and water conservation solutions to
maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to maintain estuarine habitats.
Additionally, enforcement of plumbing codes, which require use of accepted
conservation techniques designed to promote efficient water use and reduce
consumptive losses, will be accomplished via the Office of Environmental
Programs and the Water and Sewer Planning Process.
DESCRIPTION
The EPA Bay Study and Chesapeake Bay Study by the Corps of Engineers identify
that freshwater inflow from Bay tributaries directly affect the Bay's salinity
regime, a critical habitat component.
To address the need for future freshwater conservation, a $25,000 one-year
interagency agreement was developed with the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin to formulate state-of-the-art computer operating rules for
improved reservoir management in the Potomac and Patuxent Reservoirs. The
desired result is to increase the freshwater inflows to the Chesapeake Bay
during normally low flow periods thus, off—setting the adverse effects on
the Bay of consumptive freshwater losses. Similarly, regulations have been
drafted that require all counties in the State to demonstrate, in locally
prepared sewer and water plans, compliance with the provisions of the Water
Conservation Plumbing Fixtures Act.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A Statewide water conservation program will be in full swing with educational
workshops and direct assistance to local utilities. Refined operating rules
for the Washington area's Potomac and Patuxent reserves will be implemented,
where appropriate, to ensure minimum flow. Analysis of water saving potential
for individual water appropriation and use permittees will begin, with
changes incorporated into permit con i ions.
-------
C.8.VA p.67
PROGRAM - VA Water Resource Planning and Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 1,377,000
PURPOSE
Provide for the maximum conservation, development and utilization of
Virginia'8 water resources.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the State Water Control Board, this program is designed to
develop comprehensive plans to develop solutions for long-range water
resources problems and utilization of water resources. It provides for the
maximum conservation, development, and utilization of Virginia's water
resources. Major subprograms are: Flood Plain Management; Groundwater Planning
Management; Surface Water Planning; and Water Quality Management and Planning.
Maintains status of approximately 190 communities participating in National
Flood Insurance Program. Investigates 50-75 groundwater pollution problems
annually. Obtain by regulation from 1,000-2,000 water users data on water
withdrawal/use. Revise, as appropriate, the five BMP Handbooks to combat
nonpoint source pollution.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Ensures that the States's water resources are utilized to the benefits of the
citizens of Virginia.
-------
C.8.VA p.68
PROGRAM - VA Surface Water Investigations
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 340,000
PURPOSE
Understand and anticipate relationship of stream flow to quality.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to
maintain a network of stream gauging stations to continually record stream
flow, through the State. "LZt. «S\£
important water qua i y p ^ data. Operate and calibrate a stream
resources are
-------
D.l.p.l
APPENDIX D - OTHER RELATED MATTERS
OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Goal: Participate in other related activities to further enhance the Bay
and its sources.
Summary of Programs
The implementation programs described in Appendices A, B and C have a
direct impact on the Chesapeake Bay. A number of other programs have an
indirect or a potentially direct impact on the Bay. These are addressed as
"Other Related Matters," Appendix D.
It has become increasingly apparent that "cross-media" environmental
pollution is a serious problem. Air deposition, leachate from waste dumps,
residuals from industries and sewage treatment plants, and contaminated spoil
from dredged areas are now recognized contributors to Bay pollution. An
integrated approach to environmental problem-solving is acknowledged in this
append ix.
In addition, as the Bay's water quality and living resources are
restored, the citizens of the region can share in its recreational abundance.
Efforts to provide for recreational opportunities are included, also.
All of the states are routinely managing their environmental problems,
implementing federal programs and their own laws and regulations. Following
are some of the initiatives underway by federal and state agencies to address
other related matters.
-------
APPENDIX Ds OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Listing of Program Titles
EPA Technology Transfer
EPA Superfund
DOD Installation Restoration Program
COE Proposed Chesapeake Bay Dredged Material Disposal Study
PA Solid Waste Management Act (Act 97)
PA Resource Conservation Recovery Program Primacy
Maryland Use of Suitable State Lands for Sludge, Sludge Compost
and Sewage Effluent
VA Waste Management
VA Management Of Public Health Aspects Of Drinking Water And
Sewage Systems
DC Sludge Disposal
PA Groundwater Quality Management
PA Acid Precipitation Monitoring Network
VA Protection of Public Beaches
VA State Parks Land Management
VA Land Contributions
MD Recreational Fishing
VA Public Boat Ramp Acquisition and Construction
VA Improvement of Public Landings For Commercial Fishing Craft
Page Number
3
4
5
6
7-8
9-10
11
12
13
14
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
-------
D.l.p.2
OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Objective 1: Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to
protect the Bay system.
EPA, DOD, FWS, and each state have active programs to address this objective.
-------
D.l.FED p.3
PROGRAM - EPA Technology Transfer
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Develop and disseminate new technology in the areas of air and water
pollution, solid wastes, pesticides, hazardous wastes and radiation to
supplement existing knowledge.
DESCRIPTION
The technology transfer activities in the area of water quality assessment are
oriented toward state regulatory agency personnel and include the development
of guidance documents and the provision of direct technical assistance. EPA
regional personnel, using Agency developed methodologies and information,
assist state personnel to conduct wasteload allocations, use attainability
analyses, water quality criteria modification or other water quality
assessment procedures, thereby transferring to state employees the knowledge
and techniques required to successfully carry out these functions.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Provides water quality managers and engineers with new technological
information to be used in improving the performance of existing treatment
technology and in disposing of waste materials.
-------
D.l.FED p.4
PROGRAM - EPA Superfund
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide the general authority to clean up hazardous waste sites or to respond
to spills of hazardous substances onto land or into the air or non—navigable
waters.
DESCRIPTION
Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as
Superfund, authorizes the federal government (EPA) to respond directly to
releases (or threatened releases) of hazardous substances and pollutants or
contaminants that may endanger public health or welfare.
The government generally can take legal action to recover its cleanup costs
from those subsequently identified as responsible for the release. Where
responsibility can be determined, Superfund authorizes the federal government
to take legal action to compel individuals or companies to clean up problems
for which they are responsible.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Serious environmental damage resulting from the careless disposal of hazardous
wastes or accidental spills of hazardous wastes can be avoided by direct
government action. Use of Superfund authorities can help prevent damage to Bay
from hazardous waste sites if potential threats are identified.
-------
D.l.FED p.5
PROGRAM - DOD Installation Restoration Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
State
Other
~Scheduled for FY 86 & 87
PURPOSE
Control the migration of contaminants from abandoned and existing dump sites
on Department of Defense (DOD) facilities.
DESCRIPTION
Phased program to assess toxic threat from DOD installations, develop
technical database to determine the extent of the contamination, and the
development and implementation of techniques for remedial action, as
appropriate.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Identification and evaluation of toxic threats from federal facilities and
development of a strategy to control them.
-------
D.l.FED p.6
PROGRAM - COE Proposed Chesapeake Bay Dredged Material Disposal Study
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal 150,000
State
PURPOSE
Identify, early in the process, long-term disposal actions. Due to the length
of time required to implement specific dredged material disposal sites or
management actions, it is critical that acceptable dredged material disposal
alternatives be identified.
DESCRIPTION
The initial reconnaissance phase of the study would be initiated in FY 87 and
would be completed in March 1988. The reconnaissance phase would include an
identification of projected disposal needs, examination of disposal
alternatives, development of preliminary benefits and costs, selection of the
best alternatives for further detailed study, and coordination with interested
agencies.
The feasibility phase would include a detailed analysis of disposal
alternatives leading to a recommendation for long-term action.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Anticipated study results are an early identification of feasible long-term
solutions to dredged material disposal throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The
study will determine any recommendations for federal action and result in a
report prepared for the Congress in response to the authorizing resolution.
-------
D.l.PA p.7
PROGRAM - PA Solid Waste Management Act (Act 97)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Continue to carry out the mandates of Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management
Act.
DESCRIPTION
Solid Waste is a generic term that includes within its definition wastes
generated from residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural
activities. These wastes are classified into three major groups: municipal,
residual and hazardous. Annually, Pennsylvanians and their industries general
approximately 40 million tons of solid waste. The Department of Environmental
Resources' authority to regulate solid waste activities is derived from the
Solid Waste Management Act, Act 97, passed into law in July of 1980. The
purpose of the act is to:
(1) Establish and maintain a cooperative State and local program of planning,
technical and financial assistance for the comprehensive solid waste
management;
(2) Encourage the development of resource recovery as a means of managing
solid waste, conserving resources, and supplying energy;
(3) Require permits for the operation of municipal and residual waste
processing and disposal systems, licenses for the transportation of
hazardous waste and permits for hazardous waste storage, treatment, and
disposal;
(4) Protect the public health, safety and welfare from the short and long term
dangers of transportation, processing, treatment storage, and disposal
of all wastes;
(5) Establish the Pennsylvania hazardous waste facilities plan, that addresses
the present and future needs for the treatment and disposal of hazardous
waste in this Commonwealth;
(6) Develop an inventory of the nature and quantity of hazardous waste
generated within this Commonwealth or disposed of within this
Commonwealth, wherever generated;
(7) Project the nature and quantity of hazardous waste that will be generated
within this Commonwealth in the next 20 years or will be disposed of
within this Commonwealth, wherever generated;
-------
D.l.PA p.8
(8) Implement Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and
(9) Utilize, wherever feasible, the capabilities of private enterprise in
accomplishing the desired objectives of an effective, comprehensive solid
waste management program.
Over 90% of the wastes currently generated in the Commonwealth are land
disposed or land applied. Using sewage sludge as a soil conditioner, as a part
of a normal farming operation, or in a land reclamation project to restore or
enhance the soil are examples of land application practices that are permitted
under Act 97. Permits are required for all land disposal practices to insure
that the air, land, and ground and surface water are not degraded by improper
waste management practices.
Pennsylvania's projected annual statewide budget is $3,400,000 for FY 86, 87,
and 88.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Adequate management of solid waste to prevent surface and groundwater
pollution.
-------
D.l.PA p.9
PROGRAM - PA Resource Conservation Recovery Program Primacy
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Continue to seek primacy to carry out a federally delegated Resource
Conservation Recovery Act Program.
DESCRIPTION
Recognizing that proper solid waste management and control is a national
problem, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in
1976 (amended in 1980). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L.
94-580) was established to "protect human health and the environment from the
improper handling of solid waste and to encourage the conservation of natural
resources", and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority
to develop a nationwide program to regulate hazardous waste from "cradle to
grave". Congress recognized that parts of RCRA's waste management system
required a federal role, while other aspects were best handled at the state or
local level. Therefore, responsibilities under RCRA are divided between the
federal government and the states.
In order to cope with these rapidly increasing waste problems created by our
technological society in its production of goods and services, the
Administration sponsored and the Legislature passed in July of 1984, a new
comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, Act 97. This new solid waste statute
authorized the Department of Environmental Resources to develop and implement
a comprehensive solid waste management program including control or hazardous
wastes.
The passage of this law made it possible for the Commonwealth to qualify for
"primacy" to implement the federal and state hazardous waste programs in
Pennsylvania.
Working under the broad provisions of Act 97, the Department of Environmental
Resources has structured a program which provides for the identification an
listing of hazardous waste produced in Pennsylvania. Standards permitting
requirements and regulations have been established for all those who generate,
transport, store or treat hazardous waste. The Department, in cooperation with
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, is enforcing the stringent
permitting and monitoring requirements. Concurrent with this joint effort on
the part of the state and federal government, Pennsylvania has applied for and
expects to receive final program authorization (primacy) by the end of 1985,
which will enable the Department to carry out both the federal and state
hazardous waste management program.
-------
D.l.PA p.10
Pennsylvania's projected annual statewide budget is $4,500,000
($1,100,000-State; $3,400,000 Federal) for FY 86, 87, and 88.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Obtain RCRA primacy by end of 1985 and carry out both the State and Federal
Hazardous Waste Management Programs.
-------
D.l.MD p.11
PROGRAM - Maryland Use of Suitable State Lands for Sludge, Sludge Compost
and Sewage Effluent
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 30,000 NA NA
PURPOSE
Promote the use of State land to assist in the management of sludge or for
land application of sewage effluent. Develop new markets for sludge compost.
Assist the public in understanding the beneficial uses of certain types of
sludge.
DESCRIPTION
One contractual employee has been hired as a result of rearranging budget
priorities. Complete the MES sludge management plan; secure permits for
additional State-owned lands; complete the Queen Anne's County project;
continue to develop educational materials; continue the planning process for a
regional composting facility; and assist in the formation of an interagency
technical team for sludge management. Secure suitable State-owned land for
sludge management at Cheltenham Boys' Village and Point Lookout and Rocky Gap
State Parks. In cooperation with DNR's Land Management and Recreation
Services, investigate possible use of State-owned land in the Merkle Wildlife
Management Area (Prince George's County) and several abandoned sand/gravel
pits in Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties. Computerize the MES sludge
management plan. Complete the ComPRO demonstration project in Druid Hill Park,
Baltimore City. Develop a detailed plan for a second compost demonstration
project in the St. Michael's facility (Talbot County). (Note: This will be
similar to the Queen Anne's project.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Utilization of sludge as a resource. Elimination of backup of sludge piles at
treatment plants.
-------
D.l.VA p.12
PROGRAM - VA Waste Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 876,975
Federal 1,287,660
(These sums represent the portion (approximately 55%) of the Statewide
program being conducted within the Bay drainage system.)
PURPOSE
Provide for the management of solid, hazardous and low-level nuclear waste.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Health, includes meeting the
requirements associated with the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Compact. This includes the cost of training, the inspection of all
packaging and transportation of low-level waste, the development of low-level
waste regulations, and the formulation of a limited agreement with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for the regulation of low-level nuclear waste. The
regulation of solid waste consists of reviewing all plans for new landfill
sites, inspecting current landfill operations, issuing permits to operate
sanitary landfills, and investigating open dumps. Assistance is offered to
industry and local governments on the proper disposal of solid waste, new site
selection and proper closure of sites no longer in use. The hazardous waste
management portion of this program regulates the generation, transportation,
treatment storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing effort. During the current biennium, several program
developments are anticipated, including:
(1) Advancement of the Low-Level Nuclear Waste Management Program in the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management;
(2) Continued promulgation of changes to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and changes to the U.S. Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations by the Bureau of Hazardous
Waste Management; and
(3) Enforcement of the Regulations Governing the Transportation of Hazardous
Materials, and the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
-------
D.l.VA p.13
PROGRAM - VA Management Of Public Health Aspects Of Drinking Water And
Sewage Systems
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 14,924,088
Federal 906,780
PURPOSE
Protect the public health and the environment.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Health, provides for the
management of drinking water systems, central and on-site sewage treatment and
disposal systems, and sanitary and sewage facilities at marinas.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing effort to insure that drinking water supplied through
public drinking water systems will not cause human illness; and regulate the
treatment and disposal of sewage so that it does not contaminate drinking
water sources, cause nuisances, contribute to or cause human illness or damage
the aquatic environment.
-------
D.l.DC p.14
PROGRAM - DC Sludge Disposal
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
312,000 559,667
935,000 1,679,000
0
0
PURPOSE
Design and construct a complex of facilities for the disposal of municipal
sewage sludge.
DESCRIPTION
Recommendation of a facility plan adopted by the District calls for the
construction at Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant of a facility for
composting a portion of the sewage sludge and a facility for incinerating the
remaining sludge. The composted sludge will be marketed. The incineration
facility will be designed for energy recovery.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Construction and operation of the facilities will enable the District to find
a permanent solution for the disposal of the sludge, thereby enhancing
attainment of the Blue Plains effluent discharge permit limits.
-------
D.2.p.l5
OTHER RELATED HATTERS
Objective 2: Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay.
EPA, USGS and the states are protecting groundwater through a number of their
existing programs. Some new initiatives are underway, as well.
-------
D.2.PA p.16
PROGRAM - PA Groundwater Quality Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Develop and implement a comprehensive Groundwater Quality Management Program
in Pennsylvania.
DESCRIPTION
DER is in the process of completing two federally-funded reports. One is a
Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy which is intended to serve as an
umbrella program for all DER activities involved in the areas of groundwater
quality protection and management. The second proposes to integrate the
Department's monitoring activities under the Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Strategy which will serve to meet both ambient and compliance monitoring
objectives. DER anticipates proposing to the State's Environmental Quality
Board that an appropriate regulation be promulgated to implement the
Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy and, if necessary, the final
Monitoring Strategy.
The Protection Strategy will address leaking underground storage tanks,
revisions to DER's Spray Irrigation Manual and Implementation Guidance, and
ways of strengthening DER's existing on-lot sewage disposal program.
As part of the Monitoring Strategy, a pilot effort will be conducted to
establish three ambient groundwater quality monitoring systems within high
priority groundwater basins in the State. This will enable DER to assess the
effectiveness of this method of monitoring before finalizing the Monitoring
Strategy.
DER has applied for $233,800 in Section 106 funds to carry out these
State-wide activities during FY 85.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improved monitoring and protection of groundwater quality in Pennsylvania
(and, ultimately, surface waters in Pennsylvania and the Bay).
-------
D.3.p.l7
OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Objective 3: Consider and address the impacts of atmospheric deposition
on the Bay system.
EPA and the states are studying and monitoring atmospheric deposition to
assess its effects on the Bay system.
-------
D.3.PA p.18
PROGRAM - PA Acid Precipitation Monitoring Network
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
33,000 (6 Sites)
13,500 (2 Sites)
PURPOSE
Determine the deposition rates of various chemical species on agricultural and
forest lands and on aquatic ecosystems, and observe long-term trends in the
deposition rates as they may be affected by changes in man's inputs.
DESCRIPTION
The Department of Environmental Resources, in conjunction with the
Pennsylvania State University, operates a 15 site (statewide) acid
precipitation monitoring network which measures selected parameters including
pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, acidity, and various anions and cations
on a weekly basis. Eight of these sites are in the Susquehanna River Basin
(Little Buffalo State Park, Perry County; Frances Slocum State Park, Luzerne
County; Hills Creek State Park, Tioga County; Little Pine State Park, Lycoming
County; Parker Dam State Park, Clearfield County; Sinnemahoning State Park,
Cameron County; Gettysburg National Military Park, Adams County; and Leading
Ridge Watersheds, Huntingdon County). The objectives of this network are: 1)
to determine the magnitude and distribution of atmospheric deposition and
associated toxic and nutrient elements in Pennsylvania; and 2) to assess the
potential environment impacts.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
An understanding of the temporal and spatial distribution of atmospheric
deposition in Pennsylvania.
-------
D.4.p.l9
OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Objective 4: Improve and maintain public access to the Bay including
public beaches, parks and forested lands.
-------
D.4.VA p.20
PROGRAM - VA Protection of Public Beaches
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia
Local
1,070,000
1,070,000
PURPOSE
Enhance the public beaches of the Commonwealth.
DESCRIPTION
The program is implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources. The Public Beach Commission administers a 50/50 State-locality
matching grant program designed to improve the quality of locally controlled
public beaches. The two stage grant requests are reviewed in public hearings
by the six Governor-appointed and two ex-officio commissioners. Technical
review of the proposals is offered to the Commission by the public beach
advisor located at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The Commission,
through its technical advisor, maintains a coastal information system and
archives of the data gathered in monitoring the completed project's
performance. Technical assistance is provided to the localities to insure the
anticipated projects meet all known environmental and engineering
considerations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing effort. For the next two biennia the Commission will
focus on:
- Promoting the enhancement of public beaches through its grant program;
- Continuing to upgrade the advice to localities through the evaluation
of ongoing monitoring efforts;
- Anticipating future problem areas in the growing demand for
accessible public beaches; and
- Supporting experimental research which can lead to better public
beaches.
-------
D.4.VA p.21
PROGRAM - VA State Parks Land Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 3,515,145
PURPOSE
Operate and maintain the system of State recreational resources.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources which provides for operation and maintenance of state parks
operated by the Department's Division of State Parks and Recreation in a
manner that will protect the Bay and its resources.
The program provides for the continued recreational use of 16 State Parks, 4
State Historical Parks and 5 Natural Areas in the Chesapeake Bay drainage.
The budget provides salaries and maintenance and operational funding for those
parks. It is not budgeted for Chesapeake Bay protection, although good forest,
agriculture and urban construction BMP's are part of normal park property
operations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing effort to provide recreational facilities to meet a
portion of Virginia's recreational needs.
-------
D.4.VA p.22
PROGRAM - VA Land Contributions
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 84,887*
~Represents approximately 853 of total program funding.
PURPOSE
Preserve lands for public use.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, provides a
mechanism for preserving a representational portion of Virginia's natural,
scenic, historic, scientific, and recreational areas for present and future
generations by providing a mechanism for charitable donations of open space
easements or real property* The activities of thi9 program include promotion
and solicitation necessary to acquire donations and easements.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is a continuing eff°rt» through private donations of 1000 acres of land
easements per year and donations of other land, cash, stocks, etc. to assist
the program. These sensitive properties will be protected from inappropriate
development and maintained in current use.
-------
D.5.p.23
OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Objective 5: Improve opportunities for recreational and commercial
fishing.
-------
D.5.MD p.24
PROGRAM - MD Recreational Fishing
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
963,875 NA NA
Maryland
PURPOSE
, , r rt.. riipsaoeake Bay Saltwater Sport fishing License to
Utilize funds from the Che P unitiea in the Bay.
increase recreational fisni g PP
DESCRIPTION
tved to provide for the research and monitoring of
This program has been de.xg ^
recruitment, fishing pressure, and
sportfish to determine J"®1 hniques; acquisition and maintenance of fishing
best available enhancemenacCess- increased production of sportfish from
piers to increase fishing 'truction and placement of sportfish habitat
hatcheries for researc , nursery areas and increase production of
reefs to increase eatuarme tisn nur j
marine species in the estuary.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Expect to initiate mpping of eportfiah habitat Jor environmental review and
create aportfiah habitat in certain areas.
-------
D.5.VA p.25
PROGRAM - VA Public Boat Ramp Acquisition and Construction
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 190,000
PURPOSE
Provide public access to public water where existing access is inadequate or
nonexistent.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.
The Commission of Outdoor Recreation's 1982 Tidewater Virginia Recreational
Boating Access Study states that "existing public access ramps will become
overcrowded as increasing numbers of boaters attempt to launch their crafts at
those ramps which serve their favorite water body. In order to keep pace with
projected increases in recreational boating demand, it is estimated the
(Virginia Game) Commission will need to average at least five new
high-capacity sites per year." By 1990, resident boating demand will exceed
33.5 million annual activity days in the tidewater areas of Virginia and over
87,000 watercraft of the 121,000 registered in the area will be competing for
access. The Game Commission has fifty boat landings on the tidal waters of the
Cheasapeake Bay, and acquires and/or constructs about two new boat access
facilities per year. The demand for boating access to the tidal waters of
Virginia will exceed the supply for at least the next ten years.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improve boater access to the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
-------
D.5.VA p.26
PROGRAM - VA Improvement of Public Landings For Commercial Fishing Craft
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia "O.000
PURPOSE
Encourage commercial fishing.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Highways and Transportation, is
designed to survey the present condition of public landings used by commercial
fishing vessels and to improve and repair them as needed and as possible.
Public landing sites are features of the public road system. The origins of
many landings date to the Colonial period when Tidewater rivers and creeks
and watercraft were the chief transportation system for agricultural trading.
t and in? sites often developed prior to the roads, which were later constructed
along old routes that terminated at .at.rfront landing aitea.
Public landing sites declined in importance as transportation of
farm-to-market commerce shifted to a continually growing road system. The
Highway Department assumed public landings in 1932, as part of its massive
acquisition of the secondary road system from the counties.
The chief commercial use of public landings today is the landing and loading
of seafood by Virginia watermen. Some sites have been turned over to the
Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries to be operated as recreational boat
ramps.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Determine which landing sites are in use by commercial fisherman and what
remaining sites are capable of being improved for use. Begin program of
development and maintenance.
-------
E.l.p.l
APPENDIX E - INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
GOAL: Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management
at all levels of government.
Summary of Programs
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983 by federal and state agencies
who recognized the need for a cooperative effort to effectively restore and
protect the Bay. Pursuant to the Agreement, an institutional structure has
evolved under the guidance of the Chesapeake Executive Council. The details of
this and other federal, regional, and state arrangements are described in this
Appendix. In addition, the citizens of the Bay are actively involved in the
decision-making and education processes, and are engaged in a variety of
voluntary projects to help cleanup the Bay and its tributaries.
Government agencies at the federal and state levels oversee the restoration
and protection programs in their areas of responsibility. Ongoing are efforts
by all agencies to manage, plan, track and evaluate their implementation
activities. In 1985, funds to support these activities and others to help
control nutrient and toxic pollution under Clean Water Act sections 106 and
205 were awarded. Approximately $16 million is directed to aid the Bay region;
an additional $2.75 million is available through the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The agencies are continually measuring results to determine if the activities
are effectively meeting the Baywide objectives as well as the objectives of
their own agencies. The states are assessing their remedial programs annually.
To measure progress in the longer-term are comprehensive monitoring, research
and data management strategies. As results from these activities reveal new
information, more streamlined objectives will be crafted and implementation
strategies will be reviewed and modified, as necessary. Approximately $5
million is being spent on monitoring and another $5 million is committed for
research.
Each program in Appendix E describes a Bay institutional or management
program. Some budget projections are included, along with the purpose and
anticipated results of the activities.
-------
APPENDIX E: INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Listing of Program Titles
Page Number
Chesapeake Executive Council
Implementation Committee
Chesapeake Bay Interagency Coordination Group
Department of Commerce Coastal Zone Management Program
The Chesapeake Bay Commission
The Chesapeake Research Consortium
The Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission
The Potomac River Fisheries Commission
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
PA Nonpoint Strategy Committee
MD Critical Area Commission
EPA/State/Local Public Participation And Input
EPA Grant To Citizens Program For Chesapeake Bay (CPCB)
PA Public Input and Participation
DC Chesapeake Bay Public Participation Program
DC Public Information Depository and Information
Dissemination Program
EPA/State/Local Public Education and Outreach
EPA Public Education and Outreach: Citizens Program for Chesapeake
Bay
PA Bay-Oriented Public Education
PA Environmental Education
PA Water Supplier Technical Assistance
MD Environmental Education
MD Youth Conservation Corps
VA Grant For Chesapeake Bay Education Projects
VA Field Studies for School Children
VA Chesapeake Bay Public Television Series
VA Environmental Public Service Announcements
VA Youth Conservation Corps
EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
EPA Water Quality Planning: 205(j) Grants
EPA Water Quality Management: 205(g) Grants
EPA State Water Pollution Control Program Assistance: 106 Grants
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)
EPA III Water Management Division
EPA III Environmental Impact and Marine Policy Branch
EPA III Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA III Environmental Services Division
NOAA Estuarine Programs Office
3
4
5
6
7-8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17-18
19
20
21
22
24-25-26-27
28
29
30
31-32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
-------
APPENDIX Es INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Listing of Program Titles
DOD/EPA Joint Resolution
FWS Documentation of Trends in Natural Resources
FWS Habitat Resources Program Activities
FWS Other Programs and Facilities
PA Computer Systems for NPDES and State Data
MD Water Quality Management Planning
MD Financial Management of Public and Private Sewage Treatment
Plants
VA Tracking and Reporting On Bay Management Programs and
Environmental Trends
VA Coordinated Environmental Review System
VA Bay Related Environmental Reviews
EPA Data Management System
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Data Acquisition for CBDC
NOAA National Estuarine Atlas
USGS Land Use Management System
PA Storet
MD System Development: Regional Data Center
VA Water Quality Data Automation
VA Chesapeake Bay Data Base Management
EPA Chesapeake Bay Mainstem Monitoring
USGS Lower Potomac Oxygen Study
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Programs
NOAA Status and Trends Program
Chesapeake Bay River Fall Line Monitoring (MD, VA, PA, DC)
PA Water Quality Network
PA Assessment of Nutrient Sources from Main Stem and Selected
Watersheds in the Susquehanna River Basin
MD Mainstem Monitoring (Chemical and Biological Indicators of
Water Quality)
MD Tributary Monitoring (Chemical and Biological Indicators of
Water Quality)
MD Patuxent River Special Studies
MD Living Resource Monitoring
VA Mainstem Monitoring
VA Tributary Monitoring
Virginia Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
VA Living Resources Monitoring
VA James River Water Quality Monitoring
VA Tributary Kepone Monitoring
VA Stream Pollution Source Studies
VA Kepone Health Effects Research
Page Number
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62-63-64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73-74
75
76
77
78-79
80-81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
-------
APPENDIX E: INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Listing of Program Titles Page Number
Virginia Special Water Quality Technical Studies 95
DC Tributary Monitoring 96
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 98
EPA Office of Research and Development 99-100
NOAA Weather and Satellite Programs 101
NOAA Oxygen Depletion Studies 102
FWS Research Activities 103
USGS Estuary Study 104
USDA Agricultural Research Activities (ARS) 105
NOAA Sea Grant Program (Maryland and Virginia) 106
PA Research Program 107
Maryland Research Coordination 108
VA Research To Support Management of the Commonwealth's Marine
Resources 109-110
VA Advisory Services in Support of the Development, Management and
Conservation of the Commonwealth's Marine Resources 111
-------
E.l.p.2
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 1: Adequately coordinate Bay management activities and develop
and maintain good mechanisms for accountability.
-------
E.l.FED/STATE p.3
PROGRAM - Chesapeake Executive Council
PURPOSE
Support a cooperative approach 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, recognizing that EPA
and the states share the responsibility for management decisions and resources
regarding the high priority issues of the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The Executive Council is the highest formally constituted body in the Bay
area. It is composed of policy level (State Cabinet/Department Secretaries)
officials from the participating states and Regional Administrator, EPA Region
III. The EPA chairs the Council and facilitates interstate decision making and
consensus development on Bay water quality and resource issues. A primary
focus of the Executive Council, which meets quarterly, is to achieve stated
Baywide objectives. An independent Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) advises
the Executive Council.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Executive Council has given strong leadership to interstate cooperation
and has facilitated a continuing dialogue among the states by establishing:
- an Implementation Committee that meets monthly;
- Subcommittees on Planning, Modeling and Research, Monitoring and Data
Management;
- a Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis;
- a Citizens Advisory Committee.
It is anticipated that the Executive Council will be a vital catalyst in
assuring that interstate coordination and cooperation continues on Bay
restoration and protection programs. The Executive Council has been effective
to date, and i3 expected to continue to play a key role in interstate
coordination.
-------
E.l.FED/STATE p. 4
PROGRAM - Implementation Committee
PURPOSE
Carries out the charges, directives and policies of the Executive Council and
provides a collegial form for consensus decision making on Bay water quality
and resource issues. The EPA, by chairing the Implementation Committee
maintains focus and direction on receiving the Executive Council policy
directives through attaining the Baywide objectives.
DESCRIPTION
The Implementation Committee is the operating level arm of the Executive
Council. As such, it is composed of representatives from federal and state
departments in such areas as health, agriculture and natural resources. In
addition to the state and EPA members, other agencies participate on the
Implementation Committee. These are the Corps of Engineers, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.
This committee meets monthly to address the institutional/management
objectives through four subcommittees and one advisory committee. The
subcommittees are Modeling and Research, Monitoring, Data Management and
Planning. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) provides
independent advice.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The very essence of the Implementation Committee is cooperative Bay
management. In addition to being the forum for governmental cooperation and
coordination, the Implementation Committee facilitates the generation and
dissemination of technical and citizen information on Bay problems and
solution options. It is anticipated that the Implementation Committee will
carry out the mandates of the Executive Council.
-------
E.l.FED p.5
PROGRAM - Chesapeake Bay Interagency Coordination Group
PURPOSE
Assure that the activities of the various federal agencies with Chesapeake
Bay-related missions and mandates coordinate their activities and programs.
This is to assure that there is maximum cooperation, no overlap, and the most
efficient expenditure of limited federal funds.
DESCRIPTION
The Interagency Coordination Group was first convened by Senator Mathias of
Maryland in August of 1984, and is composed of those federal departments with
program activities in the Bay or its drainage lands. The EPA, as the federal
agency with the primary federal water quality responsibility in the Bay, is
responsible for facilitating the coordination. Other participating agencies
include Soil Conservation Service (USDA), Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce),
Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior) and U.S. Geological Survey
(Department of Interior).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Following the initial coordination meeting, formal memoranda of understanding
between EPA and the participating agencies were drafted and signed. These
memoranda identify areas of joint cooperation and pledge support in terms of
staff contributions to the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) for
interagency projects and activities.
-------
E.l.FED/STATE
PROGRAM - Department of Commerce Coastal Zone Management Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
State
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Encourage states to develop and implement land and water resource management
programs for their coastal areas to ensure the effective management,
beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone.
DESCRIPTION
The federal government provides financial assistance to the states to develop
and implement resource management programs if the states meet the guidelines
established for program approval. These guidelines are rather broad and
basically require the states to establish a process for making decisions on
coastal resource use, rather than requiring any specific substantive
decisions. Maryland and Pennsylvania have approved CZM Plans; Virginia is
developing one.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
It is anticipated that the CZM program will continue efforts toward the
establishment of a comprehensive and coordinated management strategy. This
will assure the orderly and environmentally sound development of coastal areas
by reconciling the increasing and often conflicting demands on coastal
resources through a decision making process.
-------
E.1.REG p•7
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
PROGRAM - The Chesapeake Bay Commission
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
MD and VA 75,000 75,000 75,000
PURPOSE
Examine all aspects of governance of the Bay and its resources. Its purposes
are to:
- assist the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia in responding to
problems of mutual concern related to Chesapeake Bay;
- promote inter-governmental cooperation;
- encourage cooperative, coordinated resource planning and action;
- provide, where appropriate, for uniformity in application of
legislation; and
- examine existing management system and where appropriate, make
recommendations for the benefit of present and future inhabitants of
the Chesapeake Bay region.
DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Bay Commission was created in 1980 by joint action of the
Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies (NR Article, Sec. 8-302, Annotated
Code of Maryland; Title 62.1, Section 62.1-69.5 to 62.1-69.20, Code of
Virginia). The Acts creating the Commission recognized Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries, wetlands, and dependent natural resources as an integrated
ecosystem shared by the two states. The substantial joint interest of the two
states in the use of resources includes management and regulatory programs,
implementation methods, and actions affecting migratory fowl, finfish,
shellfish, commercial and mercantile uses, and water quality.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
It is anticipated that the Commission will continue to coordinate the
legislative process in the states to address those issues which are best
addressed by the states acting jointly. Specific goals/results which are
anticipated by the Commission include:
- An invitation to Pennsylvania to be a full partner in the Commission;
- The establishment of identical bills on monitoring in Maryland and
Virginia;
-------
E.I.REG p.8
Coordination and policy development of fisheries management plans;
Analysis and periodic evaluation of progress by the states toward Bay
restoration and protection.
-------
E.I.REG p.9
PROGRAM - The Chesapeake Research Consortium
PURPOSE
Coordinate the scientific staff and facilities of the member institutions to
achieve a broad-based, Baywide approach to the complex investigations which
are essential to wise management of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) was incorporated in 1972 as an
association of four institutions — The Johns Hopkins University, the
University of Maryland, the Smithsonian Institutions, and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science — each of which has longstanding involvement in
research on problems affecting the Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
In addition to carrying out a number of research projects, the Consortium will
continue to be available to play a coordinative role in the Bay's scientific
community.
-------
E.I.REG p.10
PROGRAM - The Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin
PURPOSE
Promote interstate cooperation in the prevention of stream pollution through
water quality and land-use planning measures. The 1970 amendments expanded its
scope to include water supply and other water-use planning.
DESCRIPTION
The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) was created in
1940 by Congressional approval of the Potomac Valley Conservancy District
Compact. Signatories include Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
the District of Columbia, and the federal government. Amendments to the
Compact were ratified in 1970. The Commission's activities are limited to fact
finding, technical investigations, education and coordinating the efforts of
states and federal agencies involved in water quality and water management.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Commission anticipates results in two primary areas.
- Through analysis of studies on sediment related nutrient transport,
the Commission hopes to achieve a better understanding of the effects
in the estuarine portions of the river of best management practices
to control nonpoint source runoff in the upper basins.
- Through coordination of water supply activities along the Potomac,
including reservoirs and intakes, the Commission assures an adequate
water supply for the Washington, D.c. metropolitan area.
-------
E.I.REG p.11
PROGRAM - The Susquehanna River Basin Commission
PURPOSE
Promote interstate cooperation; remove causes of possible controversy; make
secure and protect developments within the states; and encourage and provide
for the planning, conservation, utilization, development, management, and
control of the water resources of the basin.
DESCRIPTION
Created in 1970 by an Act of Congress and by an interstate compact among New
York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the federal government, the Commission has a
very broad mission and powers relating to the Susquehanna River basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The anticipated results of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission are spelled
out in the Comprehensive Plan for Management and Development of the Water
Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin, which is updated periodically.
-------
E.I.REG p.12
PROGRAM - The Potomac River Fisheries Commission
PURPOSE
Recognize the respective ownership, riparian rights, and rights of access of
the two states and their citizens to the beds, waters, and fisheries of the
Potomac River; and carry out necessary conservation and improvement of the
tidewater portion of the Potomac River fishery resource through a Commission
composed of representatives of the two states.
DESCRIPTION
Created in 1958 by an Interstate Compact approved by Congress, the Commission
has authority to regulate fishing in the Potomac River. The Compact recognizes
the ownership of the river by Maryland and the rights of both Maryland and
Virginia citizens to have access to the river's waters and harvest its
fisheries.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Commission anticipates the establishment and maintenance of a program to
conserve and improve the biological resources of the tidal portions of the
Potomac River.
-------
E.I.REG p.13
PROGRAM - The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
PURPOSE
Promote the better utilization of the marine, shell, and anadromous fisheries
of the Atlantic seaboard; develop a joint program for promotion and protection
of the fishing industry; and prevent the physical waste of the fisheries from
any cause.
DESCRIPTION
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact (ASMFC) was adopted by several
states in 1941 and authorized by Congress in 1942. Currently member states
include: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The tidal waters of the Atlantic Coast
to the three-mile limit of state jurisdiction are within the ASMFC area of
concern. Membership is limited to coastal states and contiguous states that
are visited during an anadromous fish migratory cycle.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Commission is working on or has adopted management plans for several
species important in Chesapeake Bay, including striped bass, Atlantic
menhaden, summer flounder, shad, and river herring.
The Commission is also involved in coordinating efforts under the Fisheries
Management and Conservation Act for management of species using the waters
beyond the three-mile limit of state jurisdiction — the fisheries
conservation zone — and is actively involved in reviewing and commenting on
federal fisheries legislation.
-------
E.l.PA p.14
STATE ACTIVITIES
PROGRAM - PA Nonpoint Strategy Committee
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Provide guidance and coordinate the efforts of the various subcommittees. It
serves as an advisory group to the Department of Environmental Resources and
the State Conservation Commission.
DESCRIPTION
The Committee is an unofficial, voluntary group made up of diverse
governmental, public, and private organizations. This committee will provide
long-range planning for program implementation and review annual expenditure
proposals for demonstration projects, technical needs, and financial
assistance.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The orderly functioning of these unofficial subcommittees and the Nonpoint
Strategy Committee should avoid duplication of effort and speed acceptance and
implementation of nutrient management measures.
-------
E.l.MD p.15
PROGRAM - MD Critical Area Commission
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 574,625 NA NA
PURPOSE
Manage land in the critical area around the Bay to protect water quality and
living resources. The EPA Bay Study documented that the quality and
productivity of the waters of the Bay and its tributaries have declined due to
the impact of human activity that has caused increased levels of pollutants,
nutrients and toxics in the Bay system and declines in protective land uses
such as forested and agricultural lands. The shoreline areas of the Bay system
are particularly fragile and sensitive environments, very susceptible to being
adversely impacted by human activity. Pollutants and nutrients associated with
development in these areas will quickly reach waters of the Bay and its
tributaries.
DESCRIPTION
A Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, consisting of State and local
government officials and public members, was created to issue regulations,
consistent with the minimum criteria contained in statute, setting forth
requirements to be followed by affected local jurisdictions in developing
protection programs for their shoreline areas. Local protection programs,
including periodic amendments, are subject to the approval of the Commission.
Where a local program is not developed or approved, the Commission will adopt
the program for the local jurisdiction. The protection programs are enforced
by the local jurisdictions in the same manner as other local laws. However,
the Commission has authority to intervene and to seek other enforcement
remedies regarding violations of the program of a given jurisdiction.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The criteria for the critical area will be drafted for public hearing and
comment in July and August, will be approved by the Commission December 1,
1985, and will be submitted to the General Assembly in January, 1986 for their
approval. Once the criteria are approved by the General Assembly, the local
jurisdictions will begin to develop protection programs based on the approved
criteria.
-------
E.2.p.l6
INTERNATIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 2: Assure a continuing process of public input and
participation.
All federal and state governments in the Bay region consult with the public on
matters concerning the Bay and its resources.
-------
E.2.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.17
PROGRAM - EPA/State/Local Public Participation And Input
PURPOSE
Enlist the help of citizens and encourage dialogue with concerned and affected
persons with the purpose of improving decisions and enhancing the successful
implementation of programs to restore the Bay.
DESCRIPTION
A comprehensive program of public involvement will provide each person in the
Basin with the opportunity to influence decisions which affect the Bay.
Citizen advisory committees to governmental, technical or policy
organizations, special programs geared to specific interest groups or
subjects, comment gathering methods and interest prompting methods employing
new technologies will be used.
Citizen Advisory Groups
There are numerous citizen advisory groups in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
Maryland'8 Department of Natural Resources alone has 63. Individuals on such
committees usually represent an organization or a geographic area; few are
simply interested, unaffiliated persons. Most state and federal agencies
provide staff support to their CAC's. EPA, with the Citizens Program for
Chesapeake Bay, is supporting the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council's CAC.
Comment Gathering
Comment gathering mechanisms most commonly used are hearings and workshops.
State and federal agencies with regulatory powers hold hearings as necessary.
Most citizen organizations have members who give testimony. Academic
institutions also provide "expert" testimony. Virginia and Maryland will be
attempting to involve people in their home communities by working through
existing watershed organization or by developing watershed networks.
Innovative Programs
Ten organizations have citizen monitoring efforts and three (Anne Arundel
Community College, Citizens Program for Chesapeake Bay, and the D.C. Water
Quality Program) have proposed programs to their governing/funding bodies. Of
the ten, six are citizen organizations, three city or county planning
agencies, and one is a college with a grant to purchase a vessel and train
students to perform monitoring.
Two hotline telephones for pollution information (Pennsylvania Environmental
Council and Anne Arundel Community College Environmental Center) and one
events information line (at AACC) were reported.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and numerous other organizations have organized
a portion of their members into smaller groups which respond to action alerts
to attend hearings, write personal letters, send telegrams, go to pollution
locations, attend a legislative session, talk to a legislator, etc. Most
organizations study proposed actions; some watchdog law development and
enforcement and alert members if action is needed.
-------
E.2.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.18
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
c increased opportunities to be involved
Citizens will take advantage of ^ o£ £hat participatlon,
in dectsiona and state initiative, will be
public support for e e .... gs t0 pay for cleanup will be expressed to
officials at alTlevels] creating political will necea.ary to maintain local,
st«e regional and federal funding of Bay restoration efforts.
-------
E.2.FED p.19
PROGRAM - EPA Grant To Citizens Program For Chesapeake Bay (CPCB)
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 110,000
PURPOSE
Provide increased opportunities for the public to participate in developing
and implementing the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan.
DESCRIPTION
CBCP provides support to the Executive Council's Citizen Advisory Committee,
organizes and staffs rivershed networks in Virginia, organizes and staffs
workshops and meetings throughout the basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
More diverse, broader participation will occur, involving more individuals and
enhancing the Plan as well as the process of implementing it.
-------
E.2.PA p.20
PROGRAM - PA Public Input and Participation
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Reduce the amount of nutrients from Pennsylvania's farmlands entering the
Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The program is designed to utilize the Citizens Advisory Committee as a
vehicle to inform and encourage public input to decision-making and public
participation in Chesapeake Bay matters.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Broadbased public involvement should encourage greater public support of Bay
restoration/management programs.
-------
E.2.DC p.21
PROGRAM - DC Chesapeake Bay Public Participation Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide the public with an opportunity to participate in water quality issues
and programs which affect the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, as well as the
Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The District of Columbia will establish a program of public information and
participation designed to give District residents an opportunity to
participate in local programs and decision-making. The public participation
program will also be designed to heighten public awareness and interest in
water quality issues.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The public will have a greater opportunity to learn about issues affecting the
Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay, and have an opportunity to participate in
the local decision-making process.
-------
E.2.DC p.22
PROGRAM - DC Public Information Depository and Information
Dissemination Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
DC
Federal
PURPOSE
Inform the public about issues and programs affecting the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The District of Columbia will establish a central depository to maintain
reports, plans, studies and other information related to the Chesapeake Bay
and Potomac River water quality. The District government will also distribute
background information and program description to the public upon request.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The public will have a central location to collect information on water
quality issues affecting the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Also, the
public will gain greater awareness of issues affecting the Potomac River and
Chesapeake Bay through a public information dissemination program.
-------
E.3.p.23
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 3: Enhance Bay-oriented public education opportunities to
increase public awareness and understanding of the Bay
system.
-------
E.3.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.24
PROGRAM - EPA/State/Local Public Education and Outreach
PURPOSE
Maintain and expand efforts to inform the public of their mandates by the
agencies and organizations which take or influence action on the Bay.
Government agencies will use all possible opportunities and channels of
communication to increase public awareness of the problems of the Bay and what
is required to solve them, the progress or lack of progress in solving
existing problems and the steps being taken to prevent future ones.
DESCRIPTION
Environmental information and data will be made available to the public in
many forms, including general information, annual reports and detailed
technical reports or data. To reach the mass audience, strong media program
will complement information dissemination to the identified, concerned public.
Efforts will be made to inform target groups through organization
publications. For those who do their own research, more resource centers will
be available. General information will be available. Speakers program,
exhibits, audio visual productions, formal education activities and special
events targeted to specific public sectors will increase awareness. Inquiry
response will support outreach efforts.
Information Centers
Citizens who do their own research have numerous opportunities in the major
cities within the basin, at the larger universities that permit entry to the
public, at federal offices in Washington, D.C. and in some state, regional and
municipal agency libraries. Some organizations and agencies are considering
establishing information centers to increase access for those who live long
distances from urban centers and universities.
Publications
Many fact sheets are available concerning Bay related issues. Prime sources
are the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Cooperative Extension Service, Sea Grant
Colleges, the Soil Conservation Service, Save Our Streams (MD), and, on their
specific programs, state agencies. Generally such publications are action
oriented.
Brochures, bulletins, booklets and posters are available from federal, state,
regional and local government units; citizen organizations; academic
institutions and industrial associations.
The Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension, Maryland Department of
Agriculture, Maryland Sea Grant and others from the public and private
sectors have jointly produced material for the agricultural community's use
re: nonpoint source control through the use of best management practices. More
such cooperative efforts are being explored among government and private
sector organizations.
-------
E.3.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.25
Newsletters are many and varied. Some are specific to watersheds (James,
Magothy, Sassafrass); others for an entire state (LCW Voter); some are for the
entire Bay Region (CPCB, CBF, Audubon Naturalists Society); still others are
issues oriented or deal with a specific agency's activities.
Most government organizations publish annual reports of their activities.
Technical reports and data compilations are available from NOAA and EPA.
Federal agencies make limited copies of research and technical reports
available and then refer requestors to the National Technical Information
Center (NTIS) which offers paper and microfiche copies for a fee. Some theses,
unpublished research and articles, and privately funded or performed research
can be lost to the public and the research community in the so-called "gray"
literature. Maryland Power Siting Commission may develop and computerize a
bibliography of such literature on the Bay Program computer during 1985-86.
Audio Visual8
EPA Region III and Maryland Department of Natural Resources have film
collections to lend. Maryland Sea Grant and Anne Arundel County Outdoor
Education Center also lend a few films.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has "Chesapeake Horizons"; the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac has two Potomac films; Smithsonian-Edgewater,
Maryland and the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission have several
to lend. The Lower James River Association is planning to produce a
documentary.
Numerous small watershed organizations have slide shows to lend or show (with
a speaker). Both Maryland and Virginia Sea Grants develop topical shows as the
need is perceived.
State, local and regional organizations have at least one show about
themselves, the area of concern or special issues of interest. A number of
organizations develop shows as needed from their slide collections to meet
requests for speakers.
Smithsonian, Christopher Newport College, schools of communication and cable
television units have video taping capabilities. Smithsonian has a tape of
Maryland's Conservation Corps work on the Bay; C.N. College has tapes on toxic
substances in the Lower Bay and on enrichment which it lends to requestors for
the cost of return shipping. The Susquehanna Tri-State Commission is
developing a tape about the River for public television.
Exhibits
Most organizations can and do mount a display for a special event. Sea Grant
in Maryland and Virginia, VIMS, and Old Dominion University, the Virginia
Council on the Environment, Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency, the Maryland
Office of Environmental Programs and the Department of Agriculture have
exhibits. The Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association has an exhibit and a
traveling tent show. The Cooperative Extension Service has an exhibit on
nonpoint pollution problems and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation shows its
display 12 to 20 times annually.
-------
E.3.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.26
Speakers
State, interstate, federal, regional, academic, county, watershed and local
groups have the capability to respond to speaker requests. Most have agency
personnel or members as speakers. The Pennsylvania Environmental Council taps
a network of statewide experts who have volunteered. The Citizens Program for
Chesapeake Bay plans to train a cadre of volunteers.
Media
Most state and federal agencies doing work on the Bay have information
personnel responsible for activities with print and broadcast media. Research
organizations have publicists and some academic institutions have
communications or Bay programs that provide some information about the Bay to
media. Citizen organizations seek media attention at some time or another for
their special events or issues of concern.
Inquiry Response
Organizations with listed telephone numbers generally have some form of
inquiry response and referral function. Some organizations provide the service
only for their members.
Education
In-school programs are provided through degree granting institutions and the
Sea Grant Colleges which develop curricula and curriculum units. The
Mathematics and Science Center in Richmond has enrichment programs, lends
field and classroom equipment, and holds classes for gifted and talented high
school students. Smithsonian has an intern program, Baltimore City Planning
sponsors classes and the Anne Arundel Community College offers courses. The
Virginia Council on the Environment has a K-12 curriculum on the Bay in
development. The Maryland State Department of Education has a Chesapeake Bay
curriculum and offers grants to local schools for environmental education
activities.
Most agencies and organizations with speakers programs provide a form of
continuing education. Some offer seminars, lectures on and off campus, public
issue meetings, symposia or field education/training.
Teacher training appears to be the most popular form of workshop. Training in
monitoring and pollution prevention or observation also is often given.
Co-sponsorship and contracting with citizens groups are common practices
within government. Some groups schedule a certain number of workshops every
year.
Tours
Walking, driving* canoeing, and on-the-Bay tours are conducted by citizen
organizations. Sea Grant-Maryland uses its research vessel as does the CBF to
show the Bay to decision makers. Nature areas such as parks and sanctuaries
have regularly scheduled guided tours of their properties. Education oriented
organizations like the Mathematics and Science Center in Richmond conduct
summer field trips and study programs to and on the Bay.
-------
E.3.FED/STATE/LOCAL p.27
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Heightened public awareness of the problems of the Bay, government programs to
remedy the problems and increased understanding of the individual's potential
to act to clean up the Bay will contribute to Bay improvement. More people
will voluntarily change their pollution producing actions and will have
greater interest in the actions of government, industry, municipalities and
farmers to curb pollution. Further, because they will be better informed,
citizens will have greater capability to participate in the implementation
process. Media attention to the Bay will elevate its restoration to an issue
of national prominence.
-------
E.3.FED p.28
PROGRAM - EPA Public Education and Outreach: Citizens Program for Chesapeake
Bay
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 140,000
Other
PURPOSE
Increase the number of informed, concerned citizens in the Chesapeake Bay
Basin and heighten awareness of the general public.
DESCRIPTION
Publish a quarterly newsletter and bulletins as necessary; develop and provide
information materials to homeowners; develop and implement a citizen
monitoring effort; provide information to organizations to use to inform their
constituencies; support new education efforts in Pennsylvania; establish and
support a volunteer speakers bureau.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Greater public awareness of Bay problems and programs will keep the issue
before elected officials who will continue to support funds to implement clean
up.
-------
E.3.PA p.29
PROGRAM - PA Bay-Oriented Public Education
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Reduce agricultural nonpoint nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
This educational program is designed to inform educators and students at all
levels about Chesapeake Bay program objectives and related activities
coordinated through the Pennsylvania Environmental Education Network Master
Plan.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Broadbased public education efforts should create greater public awareness of
Bay restoration/management programs and goals.
-------
E.3.PA p.30
PROGRAM - PA Environmental Education
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
Pennsylvania 18,000
Federal 18,000
PURPOSE
Develop and implement a teaching unit and a series of seminars and workshops
for secondary students (grades 10-12), teachers, and the general public
concerning pollution and soil and water conservation relative to the
Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
The Bureau of State Parks will employ an experienced Environmental Education
Specialist to develop and conduct seminars on the Chesapeake Bay pollution
problem at environmental education centers, and select state parks and school
districts within the Susquehanna River Basin.
The Bureau will conduct workshops for environmental education specialists and
school teachers to develop a teaching cadre knowledgeable about the Chesapeake
Bay problems. Bureau specialists and technicians will also conduct learning
activities on these problems for the general public utilizing the state park
network.
The Bureau will develop and produce a teaching implementation plan, a
compilation of information and materials, and a narrated slide/video cassette
program focusing on the Susquehanna River and surrounding land areas to
describe Pennsylvania's contribution to the Chesapeake Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The project should create a significant increase in the awareness of the
Chesapeake Bay problem among the general public in Pennsylvania. In addition,
the project will provide a teaching unit and a cadre of teachers capable of
integrating the Chesapeake Bay issue into the school curriculum. The end
result should produce a citizenry aware of the Chesapeake Bay problems and
involved in cleaning up the Bay.
87 88
19,000 20,000
19,000 20,000
-------
E.3.PA p.31
PROGRAM - PA Water Supplier Technical Assistance
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
80,000 84,000 88,000
80,000 84,000 88,000
PURPOSE
Institute educational and technical assistance efforts to improve water
systems operations; encourage water conservation to reduce loads at existing
on-lot and public sewage treatment facilities; and reduce the need for
expansion of treatment works as well as reduce the need for increased public
water supplies as population grows or as per capita water consumption
increases within the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
DESCRIPTION
DER proposes to expand its existing water conservation and technical
assistance program which works with water suppliers, sewer authorities, large
volume water users, local officials and local interest groups to a water
supplier technical assistance program within the Susquehanna and Potomac River
drainage basins. The formal assistance program would address four primary
action areas as follows:
Conservation planning and water awareness education by working with public
water supply agencies to develop and implement system-specific water
conservation programs for the water supply agency service area. This includes
a specific water conservation plan and long-range water conservation awareness
and education programs.
Leak detection and loss reduction program by loaning several sets of leak
detection equipment to water suppliers and training their personnel to conduct
leak surveys on components of their water distribution system. The company
would then be responsible for initiating necessary repairs to eliminate leaks
found during leak detection surveys.
Drought contingency planning, working with the water supplier to analyze
existing water sources, yields and conservation needs to develop drought
contingency plans to enable public water supply agencies to withstand the
impacts of drought on their service area and to enable them to survive local
water shortage crises.
System operation and management programs need to be developed to enable small
public water suppliers and their consumers to develop effective programs for
(a) system operation and maintenance, (b) systems management, (c) rate
structuring, (d) planning for needed water supply development, (e) supply and
demand problem resolution, (f) quality adjustments and improvements.
-------
E.4.PA p.32
This is a new initiative for which PA is requesting $8W,000 in EPA CBP funds
to carry out in FY 86. The projections for FY 87 and FY 88 are subject to the
availability of State and federal funds.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A comprehensive water supplier technical assistance program will have
significant benefits for the Chesapeake Bay with tangible benefits including:
1. Water conservation efforts will reduce the demand of presently
overloaded on-lot and public sewage treatment facilities within the
area.
2. Leaks and water supply lines will be corrected thus reducing the
possibility of water losses causing increased flow to sewer lines or
causing breaks in sewer lines.
3. Reduced demands for more water will reduce impacts on surface waters and
ground water.
4 Water conservation efforts will reduce the future impacts and potential
for over-loaded sewage treatment facilities within the Chesapeake Bay
region.
-------
E.3.MD p.33
PROGRAM - MD Environmental Education
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 280,675 NA NA
PURPOSE
Expand an environmental education program to increase students' understanding
of the Bay and its problems. During the past five years, a great deal of
curriculum development has been done related to educating students about the
ecology and problems of the Bay. These projects have included: "Decision
Making/The Chesapeake Bay"; Sea Grant's junior high science units on the
oysters, tides, marshes and food webs in the estuary; National Aquarium
teacher resource booklets on the biology of the Bay; and the EPA document,
"Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem".
There are also a number of programs currently in existence which allow
children to have direct, on-site field experience with the Bay. Some of these
programs are conducted in conjunction with existing outdoor education centers;
others are with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Estuarine Field Studies
Program.
DESCRIPTION
This program is designed fund a contractual State specialist in environmental
education. The specialist will help to train teachers on how to implement
environmental education programs with their students. Additionally, grants are
available to local systems for curriculum modification and implementation of
instructional programs which support environmental education.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Increased numbers of teachers will provide environmental education to more
students, increasing the next generations' potential for environmentally
sensitive decision making.
-------
E.3.MD p.34
PROGRAM - MD Youth Conservation Corps
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 568,947 NA NA
PURPOSE
Provides productive employment for disadvantaged youth and also involves them
with career and/or vocational education by providing summer work opportunities
in restoring and creating natural resources habitat.
DESCRIPTION
Many areas of the Bay and tributaries can benefit from near shore habitat
creation and rehabilitation which would result in increased fisheries
reproduction and survival. The joining of the federal summer youth employment
program with the State's efforts to restore the health and welfare of the Bay
provides an excellent opportunity for disadvantaged youths. The Youth
Conservation Corps will undertake labor intensive projects for stabilizing and
refurbishing streams and estuaries. Projects under the vegetative erosion
control program and the submerged aquatic vegetation plantings will benefit
from youth labor. Moreover, the youths are given meaningful summer employment
and provided with experiences that can assist them with later career planning.
We will hire 700 disadvantaged young people, between the ages of 14 and 21,
lead by 115 crew chiefs and field coordinators, to work on over 80 projects
directly related to the Chesapeake Bay and build upon that core by developing
a volunteer conservation corps, open to everyone, regardless of their
background, working through environmental science programs in the school
system to further enhance the Bay cleanup.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This program will increase environmental awareness of participants and will
directly contribute to fisheries and habitat improvement.
-------
E.3.VA p.35
PROGRAM - VA Grant For Chesapeake Bay Education Projects
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 250,000
PURPOSE
Increase public awareness and understanding of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system and its resources.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Council on the Environment, this program is designed to use
grants to environmental groups, local governments, museums, etc. to develop
and implement Chesapeake Bay education programs that will reach large numbers
of the public.
Numerous public and private agencies were invited to submit grant proposals
for the educational grant program in September: 29 proposals were received; an
ad hoc advisory group was established to evaluate and make recommendations to
the COE Administrator on the grant proposals; and 6 grant awards have been
made.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through sources which the general public accepts as credible, Bay
environmental information will reach more people in Virginia, increasing
grass-roots understanding and support for Bay initiatives.
-------
E.3.VA p.36
PROGRAM - VA Field Studies for School Children
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 90,000
PURPOSE
Increase the opportunities for school children to experience the Bay
environment.
DESCRIPTION
Funding is being provided through the Department of Education to the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation so that it can expand its program in Virginia of
conducting Chesapeake Bay field trips for school children.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Expanded opportunities for hands-on experience with the Bay, its rivers and
wetlands, will broaden the base of public understanding of and support for the
Bay cleanup efforts. The school children who are able to participate in these
field trips will share their experiences with their parents as well as with
their schoolmates.
-------
E.3.VA p.37
PROGRAM - VA Chesapeake Bay Public Television Series
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 50,000
PURPOSE
Increase public awareness of the Bay, the problems it faces and the efforts
being made to restore and protect it.
DESCRIPTION
Funds are being provided to the Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications
Association, Inc. (WHRO) through the Department of Information Technology to
assist in defraying the costs of producing a television series of the
Chesapeake Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The series will increase the amount of Chesapeake Bay materials available to
public television stations and, consequently, will expand the opportunities
for citizens to learn about the Bay.
-------
E.3.VA p.38
PROGRAM - VA Environmental Public Service Announcements
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 40,000
PURPOSE
Increase public awareness and understanding of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system and its resources.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources is designed to produce PSAs concerning the environmental conditions
of the Chesapeake Bay, including at least one demonstrating how phosphorus
harms the ecology of the Bay and how it enters the Bay.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through television, mass audiences that otherwise could not be reached will
learn about Bay problems and solutions.
-------
E.3.VA p.39
PROGRAM - VA Youth Conservation Corps
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 300,000
PURPOSE
Improve the physical condition of streams and small watersheds.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, this
program is designed to employ young people to carry out stream and small
watershed improvement projects during the summer vacation period.
Summer youth project ideas were solicited from State agencies in December.
Several agencies with field offices in the Tidewater area proposed summer jobs
which include planting marsh grass, tree cutting, brush clearing, removing
debris from creeks and drainage pipes, seeding right-of-ways, and other
unskilled manual labor jobs associated with mitigating nonpoint source
pollution of the Chesapeake Bay. Working together with the Tidewater Service
Delivery Areas, the Division of Parks and Recreation will request that the
agencies prepare formal project proposals. During early January, a Request for
Proposals will be prepared and distributed to State agencies previously
contacted, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, cities and counties. An ad
hoc committee comprised of Parks and Recreation and Council on the Environment
staff will review project proposals after initial eligibility screening by the
Service Delivery Areas. The program is expected to employ a minimum of 525
disadvantaged youth in the summer of 1985.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through employment of over 500 youth this program will increase their
environmental awareness and improve the quality of the Bay drainage area.
-------
E.4.p.40
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 4: Track and evaluate all activities which may impact
e8tuarine water quality and resources.
-------
E.4.FED p. 41
PROGRAM - EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000
PURPOSE
Coordinate state and federal restoration and protection efforts. The EPA
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) was established by the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983 to advise and support the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council
and it committees.
DESCRIPTION
The current administration has committed $10 million per year for the next
four years to support this program. Approximately $7.25 million of the $10
million will be available annually for state implementation grants (see
Appendix A.5). The remaining funds are used to support the following
activities:
1. Program Administration - The CBLO provides staff support for the
Executive Council and its committees (Appendix E.1), interagency
coordination, grants management, technical planning and analysis, and
program tracking and evaluation.
2. Public Participation/Education - The CBLO coordinates an information
network for the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, public participation and
education efforts are supported through a grant to the Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay (Appendix E. 2-3).
3. Data Management - The Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center
serves as the central repository for information concerning the Bay
and is maintained by the CBLO (see Appendix E-5).
4. Monitoring - State and federal water quality and living resource
monitoring activities are coordinated through the CBLO. The CBLO also
supports an integrated mainstream sampling program of 50 hydrographic
and water quality stations (see Appendix E-6).
5. Research and Modeling - The CBLO tracks end evaluates ongoing
federal, state and university Bay related research activities. In
addition, technical studies which support the development of
predictive management tools are funded through grants or contracts
to research institutions (see Appendix E-7).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The activities of the CBLO support the goals and objectives of this Chesapeake
Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. It is anticipated that the office will
provide the necessary support for an effective, coordinated implementation
effort.
-------
E.4.FED p.42
PROGRAM - EPA Water Quality Planning: 205(j) Grants
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 2,180,570*
~Total funds available for Bay states.
PURPOSE
Provide funds to be used by the states in water quality management planning in
priority water bodies where designated uses are not being met.
description
Provides EPA funds for various water program activities such as water quality
assessments, river basin planning, NPS planning, technical studies and water
quality monitoring and modeling.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Development of water quality management plans in environmentally stressed
areas such as the Elizabeth River. Allows states to conduct technical and
analytical assessments of Bay water quality and to plan for control of
pollutant sources.
-------
E.4.FED p.43
PROGRAM - EPA Water Quality Management: 205(g) Grants
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 6,719,000*
~Total funding for PA and MD.
PURPOSE
Administer the municipal construction, nonpoint source and NPDES grants
programs.
DESCRIPTION
The management assistance grants are used for day-to-day program operations,
including project design reviews and establishment of construction priorities
within the state.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Allows states to assume construction grant program management responsibilities
which include development of priority lists. This ranking process can favor
projects which impact the Chesapeake Bay. EPA has issued new standards for
municipal enforcement which the states must follow up on in their own
enforcement document.
-------
E.4.FED p.44
PROGRAM - EPA State Water Pollution Control Program Assistance: 106 Grants
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 5,150,000*
*Total for all Bay states.
PURPOSE
Provide funds for states in administering their water quality programs.
DESCRIPTION
These funds are used primarily for the NPDES permit program, water quality
monitoring, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. This grant
program can also be used to fund activities that improve Bay water quality
management programs, including NPS program development and management of NPS
programs and demonstration projects (not direct cost sharing to landowners).
Supplemental funds are being used to support groundwater programs. In addition
to funding states, approximately $240,000 has been awarded to two interstate
coiamissions: Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Interstate Commission
for the Potomac River.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Allows states to implement pollution control programs called for in the Clean
Water Act and to focus on activities that will improve Bay water quality.
-------
E.4.FED p.45
PROGRAM - EPA Office of Marine and Gstuarine Protection (OMEP)
BUDGET PROJECTION
Federal 86 87 88
PURPOSE
Develop and implement at the national level strategies to protect the marine
and estuarine environment, using relevant authorities of the Clean Water Act
(CWA); Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); and other
environmental statutes.
DESCRIPTION
OMEP works with EPA's Region III and with the states of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed to implement the following national programs with component projects
pertaining to the Bay:
- Provides national direction and programmatic guidance for the
Chesapeake Bay Program as well as other joint federal/state estuary
restoration programs such as those for Narragansett Bay, Buzzards
Bay, Long Island Sound and Puget Sound. Provides opportunities for
exchanges of information and technical methods among the separate
programs. Supports selected demonstration projects of general
national utility, such as development and testing of particular
monitoring or restoration methods and strategies.
- Develops national guidelines for Regional evaluations of requests for
Section 301(h) (CWA) waivers for release of sewage treatment
wastewaters to estuarine waters. Provides guidance for monitoring
waters that may receive such effluents.
- Provides technical assistance to the Region for evaluating,
designating and monitoring dredged material disposal sites in
estuarine waters (under MPRSA).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The anticipated results of OMEP's National Estuarine Program guidance for the
Chesapeake are to assist in planning and coordination of Bay Program
activities, and to provide technical assistance by supporting selected
national demonstration projects of relevance to estuarine protection and
restoration.
The anticipated results of national 301(h) and dredged material disposal
programs for the Chesapeake are to provide technical guidance to the Region
for assessing suitability of proposed release or disposal sites; for
monitoring waters affected by wastewater release if any are approved under
Section 301(h); and for monitoring dredged material disposal sites.
-------
E.4.FED p.46
PROGRAM - EPA III Water Management Division
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Implement, in conjunction with Region III states, water quality programs to:
1) reduce the pollution of surface waters, 2) prevent the contamination of
groundwaters, and 3) maintain the purity of drinking waters.
By implementing water quality programs to meet the goals stated above, the
Water Management Division fulfills mandates contained in the Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act.
DESCRIPTION
Programs of the Water Management Division are administered through delegation
to state agencies or direct implementation by EPA. These programs include:
1. Construction grants financial assistance for municipal sewage
treatment plants.
2. Pollution discharge permit issuance and enforcement.
3. Water quality management planning functions including water quality
standards development, wasteload allocation procedures development,
and nonpoint source program management. State program grants are
provided to assist state planning and program administration (106,
205j, 205g).
4. Public water system surveillance, underground injection control
management, and development and implementation of a Regional
groundwater strategy to maintain drinking water quality and protect
groundwater. Grant assistance and technical oversight provided.
5. Management of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Financial assistance
provided to states through grants for Chesapeake Bay initiatives.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Implementation of Water Management Division programs will continue water
quality improvements by the following means:
- reduction of pollutant loadings from point source discharges,
- improved compliance with NPDES permit limitations,
- development of Regional strategy for toxics management,
- development of coordinated groundwater protection strategy,
- coordination of state NPS programs.
-------
E.4.FED p.47
PROGRAM - EPA III Environmental Impact and Marine Policy Branch
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Evaluate environmental impact studies for federally funded projects within
Region III; and protect regional wetlands and coastal zones, particularly with
regard to dredge and fill operations and ocean dumping.
The Environmental Impact and Marine Policy Branch is a component of the
Regional Office of the Assistant Administrator for Policy and Management whose
functional authority is derived from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act.
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) require that all federally funded projects be evaluated in terms of
environmental impact.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Wetlands Act, and the Ocean Dumping
Act provide the basis for the branch's wide range of wetlands and coastal zone
management activities.
DESCRIPTION
The two sections of the Environmental Impact and Marine Policy Branch carry
out the following functions:
- The NEPA Compliance Section is responsible for receiving and
coordinating the review of draft Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs), and assists other federal agencies in developing conceptual
frameworks for including environmental considerations into their
decision-making processes; the section also prepares, files, and
distributes final EIS. The section has contract funds available to
prepare EISs and to undertake other special studies.
- The Wetlands and Marine Policy Section is responsible, in conjunction
with the Corps of Engineers, for monitoring and enforcing federal
regulations for dredging and filling wetlands. The section is also
involved in the development of port facilities, managing coastal
zones, and the ocean dumping of wastes.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The branch will continue to review and assess federal projects for impacts to
the natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay and to mitigate negative impacts
to wetlands. The branch will also assist in submerged aquatic vegetation
restoration programs and NPS management.
-------
E.4.FED p.48
PROGRAM - EPA III Hazardous Waste Management Division
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Assess and clean up dangerous hazardous waste sites; and prevent the
proliferation of such sites by requiring that all newly generated hazardous
wastes be treated and disposed in an environmentally sound manner which
safeguards public health.
DESCRIPTION
Though many federal statutes have an impact on the management of hazardous
materials, the core legislation which authorizes the programs of the Hazardous
Waste Management Division consists of:
- the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates commerce to
protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and use
restrictions on certain chemical substances;
- the Federal Insecticides, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
which regulates the manufacture, distribution, and use of pesticides
and herbicide;
- the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which provides
technical and financial assistance for the development of solid waste
management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other
resources from solid waste, and regulates the treatment, storage,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and
- the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA, also known as SUPERFUND), which finances emergency clean
up measures for releases of hazardous substances, and provides for
the recovery of spent funds from, and the assessment of penalties
against, culpable parties.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through the Superfund program, hazardous wastes sites will be evaluated and
remedial actions scheduled* *mPlementation of the 1984 RCRA amendments will
expand the scope of that pr°8ram and increase the number of regulated
facilities. Continuing emergency response capacity will be available for cases
of hazardous waste spills and uncontrolled disposals.
-------
E.4.FED p.49
PROGRAM - EPA III Environmental Services Division
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Provide technical assistance to states in air quality monitoring, Chesapeake
Bay Program quality assurance, environmental emergency response, water quality
monitoring and analysis, public water supply program activities, federal
facility compliance, and air, water, hazardous waste, and toxics substances
enforcement.
DESCRIPTION
The Environmental Services Division is a client-oriented service division
providing technical assistance to regional and state programs in areas
described above. The division provides a regional focal point for research and
development, technical assistance, and technology transfers; manages various
special studies, surveys and projects; provides laboratory analyses and
biomonitoring support for regional and state environmental programs; and is
reasonsible for developing and implementing ambient and compliance monitoring
guidelines.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Continued technical support to EPA and regional, state and local agencies
located in the Chesapeake Bay area. Through this support, data on Chesapeake
Bay natural resources will be updated and quality-assured and used as a basis
for implementing new and ongoing Chesapeake Bay Program initiatives.
-------
E.4.FED p.50
PROGRAM - NOAA Estuarine Programs Office
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide a national perspective and agency-wide leadership for NOAA's broad
range of estuarine programs• The NOAA Estuarine Programs Office (EPO) is
responsible for coordinating NOAA's efforts under the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan.
DESCRIPTION
The EPO was established in 1984 and is staffed by representatives from the
major offices in NOAA. The office works closely with the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Programs in EPA to ensure that NOAA programs and activities in the
Chesapeake and other major estuaries are compatible with EPA estuarine
efforts. For the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Director of EPO represents NOAA
on the Implementation Committee while EPO staff members participate in the CBP
Subcommittee.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The EPO and staff from other NOAA offices have developed a research plan for
the NOAA studies to be conducted under the Chesapeake Bay Program. The NOAA
study effort will focus on four major areas: 1) data acquisition and
management for the Chesapeake Bay Data Center; 2) observation on living marine
resources; 3) improvements in fishery statistics; and 4) evaluation of the
effects of oxygen depletion on living marine resources. These studies
constitute one of the major federal efforts to protect and restore the living
marine resources of the Bay.
-------
E.4.FED p.51
PROGRAM - DOD/EPA Joint Resolution
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Foster cooperation between EPA and DOD to enhance federal Chesapeake Bay
pollution abatement activities.
DESCRIPTION
Under the agreement, the Defense Department (DOD) will give priority
consideration to funding pollution abatement projects and studies, develop
environmental self-auditing at several installations, review practices to
insure quality of environmental improvement, provide information needed to
issue or re-issue major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permits, and review land management practices at
several installations to reduce runoff into the Bay. The two agencies will
meet annually to evaluate progress.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The resolution covers more than 50,000 installations in the Chesapeake Bay
region encompassing 400,000 acres and represents a long-term commitment by DOD
that will significantly upgrade the quality of Chesapeake Bay waters.
-------
E.A.FED p.52
PROGRAM - FWS Documentation of Trends in Natural Resources
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Assess and document trends in important natural resources in Chesapeake Bay,
and identify improved means to manage Bay resources in the future.
DESCRIPTION
Extensive literature review and evaluation of raw data will be used for trend
analysis. Some additional information may need to be collected. Components of
the analysis include:
- Evaluate land use impacts on historical SAV beds;
- Develop a working policy for protection, management, and enhancement
of SAV in Chesapeake Bay: a special project is funding the mapping of
1985 beds of SAV as a means of monitoring this resource;
- Identify, map, and evaluate historical and existing high quality
habitat areas for species of special emphasis (e.g. anadromous
fishes, waterfowl);
- Identify major wetland changes and relate these to specific land use
changes in a major watershed, the Choptank River; and
- Identify trends in shoreline development and relate these to
distribution and abundance of Bay organisms.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These data should strengthen understanding of the relationship between habitat
modification and—loss, and declines in valuable living resources. In addition,
this information can be used to develop policy and guidance for improved
management of these resources.
-------
E.4.FED p.53
PROGRAM - FWS Habitat Resources Program Activities
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Protect, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitat in the
Chesapeake area through recommending and advocating means and measures to
mitigate developmental impacts or improve the resource.
DESCRIPTION
a. Surface mining impacts (Surfacing Mining Control and Reclamation Act) -
analyze and report on efforts of these activities on fish and wildlife
resources and habitats by means of site inspections and recommendations to
Office of Surface Mining. This would tend to occur in far western or northern
portion of Chesapeake Bay watershed.
b. Coastal Zone Management activities - (CZM Act) provide technical advice
to state programs, including for estuarine sanctuary establishment and
programs.
c. Coastal barriers activities (Coastal Barrier Resources Act) - Prepare
recommendations for protection of fish and wildlife resources in CBRA units
(in Bay area) and update maps of areas.
d. Ecological emergencies - Respond, as necessary and required, to
emergencies such as hazardous material spills, which endanger fish and
wildlife resources. Typically we supervise collection and treatment of
impacted waterfowl.
e. Outer Continental Shelf activities (OCS Act and 1978 Amendment) - Review
impacts of prepared offshore drilling for oil and gas on Chesapeake Bay areas.
f. Occasional work preparing management plans for natural resources on
military bases on Chesapeake Bay area (formerly funded through Sikes Act, now
directly, by specific project).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Through participation in programs listed, FWS aims to provide maximum feasible
support for protection and conservation of fish and wildlife species and
habitats under its jurisdiction.
-------
E.4.FED p.54
PROGRAM - FWS Other Programs and Facilities
BUDGET
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Carry out several other programs which are not planned or administered at the
Annapolis FWS Office.
DESCRIPTION
Migratory Bird Program Activities - (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, M.B.
Huntingpond Conservation Stamp Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act)
Anadromous Fish Program Activities - (Anadromous Fish Conservation Act with
Chafee Amendment, Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act)
National Wildlife Refuge System Activities - (National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, Refuge Recreation Act, Refuge Revenue Sharing Act) -
(various locations in Chesapeake Bay watershed).
Enforcement Activities - (various federal statutes, e.g. Endangered Species
Tax)
Research Activities - carried out mainly by Columbia National Fisheries
Research Lab and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (including, at the latter,
work on condition assessments of canvas backs and a program analyzing tissues
of oldsquaw ducks).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The fishery program is closely tied to the Emergency Striped Bass Study
(EPBS), with an emphasis currently on hatchery technical assistance to
Maryland from FWS. Other agencies such as NMFS are involved, and FWS will have
a special coordinator on board in Annapolis sometime in April 1985.
-------
E.4.PA p.55
PROGRAM - PA Computer Systems for NPDES and State Data
See detailed writeup on this program under NUTRIENTS, Objective 4.
-------
E.4.MD p.56
PROGRAM - MD Water Quality Management Planning
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 261,355
PURPOSE
Support water quality planning, water quality modeling and wasteload
allocations for setting NPDES permit conditions and adopting nonpoint source
controls for watersheds. This effort will also evaluate the effectiveness of
targeted agricultural efforts in reducing pollution.
DESCRIPTION
A review and revision of Water Quality Management Plans was initiated in FY
85, and will continue in FY 86. The OEP staff will continue working with the
Maryland Department of Agriculture to implement the agricultural cost-sharing
program. No new staff is being requested in FY 86.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Two updated Basin Plans. Reduction of point and nonpoint source pollutants.
-------
E.4.MD p.57
PROGRAM - MD Financial Management of Public and Private Sewage Treatment
Plants
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 34,550 34,550 34,550
PURPOSE
Provide the necessary fiscal and economic review of all sewage treatment
plants for adequate financial analysis and fiscal planning so that operations,
maintenance, repairs, replacement of equipment, and plant expansions are
accomplished when needed with financing from a system of user charges and
other funds.
DESCRIPTION
New regulations require that all existing sewage treatment plants demonstrate
to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that there are adequate
revenues to support the facility presently and in future years. New facilities
are required to demonstrate adequate fiscal planning and revenue, including
necessary bonds and escrow accounts, before construction permits are to be
issued by the Department. One additional position is required to provide the
necessary fiscal and economic review of information submitted pursuant to this
initiative.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Sewerage treatment facilities will function as designed.
-------
E.4.VA p.58
PROGRAM - VA Tracking and Reporting On Bay Management Programs and
Environmental Trends
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 75,000
PURPOSE
Coordinate Bay management activities and develop and maintain good mechanisms
for accountability.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Council on the Environment, this program is designed to:
- designate a single state agency as primary coordinator for Bay
related management activities.
- monitor the implementation of State Bay management activities.
- report regularly on the status and accomplishments of Bay management
programs.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The COE has established a formal process for tracking of and reporting on the
progress of the Commonwealth's Chesapeake Bay initiatives. The formal
reporting is accomplished through a quarterly report format coordinated by the
COE. Comprehensive overview sessions are conducted quarterly in order that the
status of all Chesapeake Bay initiatives and related projects can be reviewed.
The cabinet secretaries of Commerce and Resources and Human Resources conduct
the reviews, with Council on the Environment staff assisting. Agency heads,
project managers, and other staff persons also participate in the sessions.
Presentations are made to the General Assembly as requested.
-------
E.4.VA p.59
PROGRAM - VA Coordinated Environmental Review System
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 80,000*
^Represents only Council on the Environment involvement and does not
show costs to other participating state agencies.
PURPOSE
Monitor and evaluate environmental consequences of all activities subject to
state and federal environmental impact reporting requirements.
DESCRIPTION
This program is coordinated by the Council on the Environment and involves a
wide range of state agencies and institutions. The program is designed to
evaluate NEPA documents and other types of federal and state environmental
impact documents. Approximately 100 documents related to projects, plans, etc.
are reviewed each year.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Incorporate environmental considerations into State and federal decisions on
projects and activities subject to environmental reporting requirements.
Influence decisions to reflect a sensitive integration of human activities and
the environment in which they take place.
-------
E.4.VA p.60
PROGRAM - VA Bay Related Environmental Reviews
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 130,000
PURPOSE
Monitor and evaluate all activities which may impact estuarine water quality
and resources.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the State Water Control Board and is designed
to use review systems to evaluate 401 certification, NEPA Environmental Impact
Statements, highways projects, channel modifications, etc. Expect to issue
approximately 175 Section 401 certifications, review approximately 80
Environmental Impact Statements, and review approximately 180 highway
projects.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Ensure that 401 projects will comply with State water quality standards.
-------
E.5.p.61
INTERNATIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 5: Develop and maintain a coordinated Chesapeake Bay data
management system.
-------
E.5.FED p.62
PROGRAM - EPA Data Management System
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
State
Other
PURPOSE
Serves as the Congressionally mandated data repository for information
concerning the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center in
Annapolis is currently funded through the U.S. EPA Region III, Chesapeake Bay
program. This is a cooperative effort that involves the EPA, the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and several
federal agencies that are involved in Bay-related projects. The Data Center is
responsible for servicing the Bay Program partners for their data processing
needs as they relate to the Chesapeake Bay Program.
DESCRIPTION
During the initial research phase of the Bay Program (1977-1983) approximately
100 million characters of information concerning the Bay were collected and
stored on the Bay Program PDP 11/70 and EPA IBM computers. With the aid of a
federal grant in 1983, the Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
contracted to purchase a VAX 11/780 computer system for use by the Chesapeake
Bay Program members. This purchase opened a new era for data processing by the
Bay Program, since the VAX computer has the capacity to support multiple users
running large data analysis programs, simultaneously, while operating at a
cost that can be supported by the Program.
The CBP computer system, including hardware, software, and related technical
support capabilities, is not a static entity. A number of system improvements
are planned for the FY 85-86 period, and others are being considered. The Bay
Program Data Center operates a VAX 11/780 computer manufactured by Digital
Equipment Corporation.
SOFTWARE
VMS OPERATING SYSTEM
The VAX operates under a commercial operating system developed by Digital
Equipment Corporation which is called VMS, or Virtual Memory System. VMS is
the heart of the VAX, and all other software programs run under this operating
system.
SAS
The SAS software package is licensed by the State of Maryland for the CBP
computer center. This package is used by nearly all users of the CBP VAX
computer. At any given time during the day there will be from one to five
simultaneous users.
-------
E.5.FED p.63
BMPD
The Bio-Medical Data Programs software package is licensed by the State of
Maryland. Primary users to date are the staff at Maryland DNR including the
Tidewater Fisheries Branch and the Geological Survey.
DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
With the increased volume of data to be entered into the system and the
increased and more sophisticated retrievals of data that will be required,
plans are being made to obtain and install a Data Base Management System
(DBMS). When installed, all users will employ it for data storage, management
and retrieval.
MISCELLANEOUS SOFTWARE
The State of Maryland intends to acquire a library of mathematical functions
for installation on the VAX. The primary users will be those who perform
modeling and those involved in application programming.
CHESSEE
CHESSEE is an online, interaction program which allows casual or computer
literate users to browse through the CBP data base to quickly locate
information of interest. CHESSEE is hierarchical in design, containing six
major areas of interest, each of which includes more detailed options. Four of
these (BAY PROGRAM, DATA MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, and REPORTS) are composed of
short text files which contain paragraphs of descriptive documents. The other
two key areas (DATA BASE and DATA DICTIONARY) contain summaries, contents, and
means of water quality and living resource data, and a dictionary to help
users locate data files.
GENERAL SUPPORT
The CBP computer center staff provides support to approximately 100 individual
and 27 institutional users of the computer center and members of the general
public.
Support is also provided to the Chesapeake Bay Information Center and other
citizens' groups in a number of ways:
- Development of user-friendly programs that can be run by citizens.
CHESSEE is an example of these.
- Retrieval of specified CBP data base information.
- Demonstrations of the CBP computer systems.
-------
E.5.FED p.64
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center will continue as a repository for
the historical data base and new state data. Computer system access for state
personnel and other users will be maintained. As system requirements grow, and
as resources permit, increased user capabilities will be provided through
improvements in operating efficiency and the acquisition of advanced hardware,
software, and related system components.
-------
E.5.FED p.65
PROGRAM - NOAA Chesapeake Bay Implementation: Data Acquisition for CBDC
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 200K
PURPOSE
Support the needs of the Chesapeake Bay data center. NOAA will identify and
acquire existing information to help complete the historical data set for
Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
This information is needed to provide as clear a picture as possible of the
current trends and problems and define gaps in information required for the
understanding and management of the Bay's living marine resources. NOAA's
initial data acquisition effort will address the following tasks:
- Identification of NOAA-collected or supported Chesapeake Bay
environmental data and related data sets appropriate for
supplementing the present Chesapeake Bay Data Center data holdings.
- Coordinate with the Chesapeake Bay Data Center to identify the
priority data needs and ensure that NOAA collected data is organized
in a format that is compatible with the CBDC data bases.
- Provide the Chesapeake Bay user community with information on the
data that is available and data that needs to be collected through
newsletters and data reports.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Refining the historical data base, as well as providing new data as it becomes
available, will allow better analysis of trends and status of water quality.
-------
E.5.FED p.66
PROGRAM - NOAA National Estuarine Atlas
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
State
Other
PURPOSE
Develop a National Estuarine Inventory to systematically and quantitatively
identify and compile a data base on all large and medium sized estuaries in
the contiguous U.S.
DESCRIPTION
NOAA's Ocean Assessments Division has recently completed a preliminary draft
of a National Estuarine Atlas. Information concerning Chesapeake Bay in the
draft atlas includes estimates for: the dimensions and boundaries of estuarine
waters; flow rates; tidal parameters; stratification; surface area; and 25
categories of land use in the portions of the drainage basin directly
affecting the Bay. The estimates are based on existing data and literature.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
When development is completed, the atlas, inventory and data base will be used
to make comparisons, rankings, statistical correlations and other analyses
related to resource use, environmental quality and economic values among
estuaries. This inventory can also be used to identify priority watersheds for
pollution control.
-------
E.5.FED p.67
PROGRAM - USGS Land Use Management System
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
State
Other
PURPOSE
Develop a land use management system for the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin
that merges remote sensing data with other data such as soil type or critical
resource habitat.
DESCRIPTION
The Chesapeake Bay Program has requested the USGS to undertake a pilot project
applying its ARC INFO Geographic Information System (GIS). Suggested sites for
the pilot study are the Stratford Hall quadrangle in the Potomac basin and
eleven quadrangles in the upper Patuxent basin. The CBP has funded a remote
sensing project which is being field evaluated in the Stratford Hall
quadrangle by the local soil conservation district. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has compiled an extensive atlas of environmental information in the
Patuxent River. In many ways these data are similar to what the CBP would like
to collect on the whole Bay drainage area.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These pilot projects would provide valuable feedback to the CBP on limitations
and applications of a GIS and constitute a meaningful hands-on learning
experience for USGS. Upon completion, the land use management system would
facilitate the tracking of land use changes and trends and would help to
identify watersheds for pollution control.
-------
E.5.PA p.68
PROGRAM - PA STORET
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
Pennsylvania
Federal 14,000
PURPOSE
Store, retrieve, and analyze Pennsylvania's ambient water quality data in
EPA'a STORET System.
DESCRIPTION
Chemical and biological data from Pennsylvania's ambient water quality network
and water chemistry, fish tissue, and sediment analyses from EPA's CORE
Monitoring Stations are routinely entered into STORET by DER. This system
provides for convenient storage, retrieval, and analysis of stored data - not
just by DER, but by anyone with access to STORET.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
87 88
14,000 14,000
Up-to-date ambient chemical, biological, and fish tissue data on
Pennsylvania's waters, including the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin.
-------
£.5.WD p.69
PROGRAM - MD System Development: Regional Data Center
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 255,541 NA NA
PURPOSE
Provide Maryland's share of funding for continuance of the EPA Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office in Annapolis.
DESCRIPTION
One of the primary accomplishments of the Chesapeake Bay Program was the
establishment of a data base containing both historical and program-generated
data. To assure continuation of this data base, the States of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania have agreed to provide a centrally located and
jointly maintained data center. The Environmental Protection Agency will
continue to contribute to this center by funding computer support personnel.
The office will coordinate the federal/interstate system and operate the
computer database center, including the historical and program data generated
by the EPA study. The initiative includes operating funds for
hardware/software to be located at both the Department of Natural Resources
and the Office of Environmental Programs, and to store and analyze new
monitoring data. (See EPA Data Management System, also in E.5.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
During FY 86, staff and subcontractors will be improving the existing Living
Resources Database data entry procedures and will be working with CBP staff in
the storage of living resources data in the Regional CBP data base.
Installation of a multiplexer will occur for dedicated telephone
communication. Staff will be involved with developing a program for reduction
of data and model results developed from monitoring program.
-------
E.5.VA p.70
PROGRAM - VA Water Quality Data Automation
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 921,000
PURPOSE
Automate the data files of the State Water Control Board and its regional
offices.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to:
- purchase the necessary computer hardware and software for automation
the SWCB data files.
- prepare a six year plan for implementing the SWCB's data needs and
strategies.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
During March of 1984 the State Water Control Board contracted with a
consultant to design an automated system layout including hardware and
software purchase recommendations, to recommend a staffing pattern for the
system, and to write a six-year plan for implementing the Board's data needs
and strategies. The consultants report was presented October 31, 1984. The
SWCB is presently reviewing the report recommendations and making plans for
feasible implementation. Equipment purchase orders are expected to take place
during the first half of 1985.
-------
E.5.VA p.71
PROGRAM - VA Chesapeake Bay Data Base Management
BUDGET PROJECTION
8^-86
Virginia 300j000
PURPOSE
Develop a coordinated data management system for use by all researchers and
analysts utilizing or contributing to the Chesapeake Bay data base.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by State Water Control Board, this program is designed to:
- link all appropriate state agencies and research institutions with
the Chesapeake Bay Computer Center in Annapolis, MD.
- purchase necessary computer hardware and software for state agencies
and train state personnel in the use of that equipment.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This initiative is the essential underpinning of all Bay related research.
Under the management of the SWCB, data collectors and data manipulators are
trained to prepare the monitoring information in a useful format. But all
involved agencies do not have computer capabilities. The SWCB is working with
the Department of Information Technology on a consultation basis to determine
the hardware and software needs of the agencies: State Health Department
(Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation), Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Soil
and Water Conservation Commission, and the Council on the Environment. It
should be noted that under this initiative the SWCB will coordinate the
monitoring data with all such similar Bay data being transferred to EPA. The
data is transferred to STORET at EPA-Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
as well as to the EPA, Annapolis VAX computer. (See E.5., EPA Data Management
System.)
-------
E.6.p.72
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 6: Implement a coordinated Baywide monitoring program.
-------
E.6.FED p.73
PROGRAM - EPA Chesapeake Bay Mainstern Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Maryland and Virginia
Federal
42,000 44,500 47,250
840,000 890,000 945,000
PURPOSE
Monitor to determine long-term trend in observational data which can help
conclude the results of remedial actions on behalf of the Bay.
DESCRIPTION
A unified network of 50 hydrographic and water quality stations (E.6. Fig. 1)
has been operative in Chesapeake Bay since mid FY 84.
The program is operated by EPA through grants to the states of Maryland and
Virginia who, in turn, contract sample collection and analysis to other
institutions. Its purpose is chiefly to document water quality over the very
long-term using data collected on the parameter list in the table below.
Collections occur at a temporal (bi-weekly, except November-February) and
spatial resolution sufficient to capture interannual and seasonal pattern and
variability attributable to some major environmental events. Water column
samples are collected at surface and bottom and at stratified stations above
and below the pycnocline, when present.
Sediments are sampled to determine baseline and long-term trends for a complex
suite of organic compounds, metals and selected major nutrients. Thirty
stations are included in this sampling program, a subset of the fifty mainstent
stations. The FY 84 sampling is an initial program which may be subjected to
revision upon evaluation of the resulting database by the collecting agencies,
in cooperation with USEPA./EMSL, Cincinnati. Current projection is for the
collections to be made annually,but by consensus, the interval can be extended
to three or five years. NOAA, under cooperative arrangements developed through
the MOU process is sampling a small number of Btations in the lower Bay, and
their data may assist in determining variability in the parameter
concentrations and enable better decisions to be made on appropriate sampling
intervals for trend description.
EPA provides overall quality assurance linking national standards, submitting
laboratory audits and examining data interface among federal, state and
contractor collection teams and laboratories. Quality assurance plans are in
place and are continually being updated.
-------
E.6.FED p.74
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Parameter List summarizes the basic measurements
made at mainstem, tributary, and Call line sampling sites.
Physical Measurements
Temperature
Salinity*
Alkalinity**
Dissolved Oxygen
Secchi Depth
pH
Total Suspended Solids
Water Chemistry
Silicate
Total Nitrogen***
Biological Parameters
Particulate Organate
Carbon
Dissolved Organic
Carbon
Nitrate
Nitrate
Ammonia
Total Phosphorus (filtered)
Total Phosphorus (unfiltered)
Orthophosphate
Chlorophyll a
Phaeophytin
* Reported as specific conductivity
** Fresh waters only
*** Calculated using TKN measurement as interim consensus method
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This is an ongoing program which over the next one or two decades will document
trends. (Detailed parameter lists for the organics and discussions of the
complex methodological decisions can be found in the summary Monitoring Plan at
the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis.)
-------
U03JH
rroton
'.Ml
*
w
UOM
3T04M
voasn
9TDM
-------
E.6.FED p.75
PROGRAM - USGS Lower Potomac Oxygen Study
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Evaluate pattern and process in deep water oxygen losses in the lower Potomac
estuary.
DESCRIPTION
A number of specialized studies are directed at understanding summer deep water
oxygen depletion. These are centered in the vicinity of Piney Point, in the
lower estuary.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Five years of detailed data and a series of interpretive reports and papers are
addressing the problem.
-------
E.6.FED p.76
PROGRAM - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Programs
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Characterize long-term trends at selected sites, and describe patterns in
meteorological forcing functions and major elements of the Bay's living
resources.
DESCRIPTION
The National Weather Service provides near-realtime overall satellite and
ground based weather information at many sites in the basin. They also archive
weather and climate data which is of vital long-term use. There are number of
NWS sites in the basin and scores of cooperative observers in the network. Data
from NWS are used for cruise planning by other agencies, in hydrographic
modeling, and as an interpretive tool for monitoring data.
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) receives
repeated long-term LandSat and LandSat-D image data on a regular schedule for
the Bay and adjacent lands and water. Over the long-term, satellite data can
provide information on changing forest cover and land use. Future satellite
sensors may enable gathering synoptic water quality data for entire LandSat
scenes at predictable points in time.
National Marine Fisheries Service operates a nationwide Status and Trends
program which has established 3 regularly sampled sites in Chesapeake Bay. Both
sediment and living tissue samples will be collected at five sites at least
annually on a continuing basis. Another element of this program (Mussel Watch)
will collect molluscan tissue at 6 sites in Chesapeake Bay for annual,
long-term contamination analyses. These studies will provide information
necessary to relate the delivery of toxic materials to Chesapeake Bay, their
deposition and accumulation at specific sites in the sediments and the
implication of these for commercially and ecologically significant components
in the food chain.
NOAA's Fisheries Statistics Programs will augment the Mainstem Program in both
Maryland and Virginia by supplementing and refining existing state efforts.
(See E.6 state programs.)
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
NOAA's programs provide basic information on environmental forcing functions
and long-term trend in selected toxics in sediment and tissues, and major
commercially important species.
-------
E.6.FED p.77
PROGRAM - NOAA Statue and Trends Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal
PURPOSE
Quantify the current status and long-term, temporal and spatial trends of key
contaminant concentrations, water quality parameters, and biologcal indicators
of effects in coastal and estuarine environment.
DESCRIPTION
NOAA's National Ocean Service conducts the Status and Trends Program. The
Status and Trends Program will measure toxic chemicals in the surface sediments
at five locations in Chesapeake Bay. The program is also monitoring contaminant
levels in selected species of bottomfish at the Chesapeake Bay sites. Another
element of the program (missed watch) will analyze major and trace elements,
PAHs, PCBs, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and percent lipids.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These studies provide information necessary to relate the delivery of toxic
materials to Chesapeake Bay, their deposition and accumulation at specific
sites in the sediments and the implication of these for commercially and
ecologically significant components in the food chain.
-------
E.6.FED/STATE p.78
PROGRAM - Chesapeake Bay River Fall Line Monitoring (MD, VA, PA, DC)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
State Funds from each.
Federal USGS
Other Local funds In Upper Potomac
PURPOSE
Establish a number of key data sets at the fall lines of major rivers to
understand the general broad scale inputs to Chesapeake Bay, and to adequately
interpret the complex data bases resulting from the Mainstem and Tributary
collection programs. CBP, the states and USGS are cooperating in this effort.
DESCRIPTION
It is intended that these collections be continuing and that they provide
comparable long-term data sets to those in the tidewater monitoring effort.
Each state has separate arrangements with USGS.
Such collections will be in place during FY 85, but continuation over the
long-term is not currently assured. The rivers currently targeted are: The
Susquehanna, Choptank, Patuxent, Potomac (current collection underway),
Rappahannock, York (both the Pamunky and Mattaponi) and James. Flow will be
measured at each station as well as major nutrients and suspended solids using
methodology compatible with that in the Mainstem and Tributary programs.
Selected organics and metals are also measured. All analyses in the fall-line
program will be accomplished at the Atlanta, Georgia laboratories of the USGS.
Negotiations are currently underway to enhance quality assurance compatibility
among the two programs, operating under a USEPA/USGS MOU.
- Federal Components: USGS, in cooperative agreements with the states
in assembling fall-line data on the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Choptank,
Rappahannock, York and James Rivers.
- State Components
Pennsylvania: No direct fall-line sampling. (See PA tributary
monitoring summary.)
Maryland: Cooperative funding agreements with USGS for Susquehanna,
Choptank and Patuxent. (The Potomac fall-line at Chain Bridge is
sampled under a multistate arrangement with PRMC and MWCOG, not
involving USGS.)
Virginia is negotiating fall-line agreements with USGS to provide
data sets on the Rappahannock, York and James. Virginia also
contributes to the Potomac Chain Bridge station~through PRMC and
MWCOG.
-------
E.6.FED/STATE p.79
District of Columbia participates in the cooperative arrangement at
Chain Bridge through PRMC and MtfCOG, again without direct USGS input.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Annual evaluations of flow hydrograph solids and nutrient loadings to
interpret long-term trend data and provide input to State of the Bay
assessments.
-------
E.6.PA p.80
PROGRAM - PA Water Quality Network
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87
Pennsylvania 140,000 147,000
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Conduct ambient fixed station monitoring to obtain chemical, biological, and
fish tissue data on Pennsylvania's surface waters.
DESCRIPTION
DER conducts routine ambient monitoring at 118 Water Quality Network (WQN)
Stations in the Susquehanna River Basin and 3 WQN Stations in the Potomac
River Basin. (59 of these stations are sampled monthly and 62 are sampled on a
quarterly schedule). Fourteen of the Susquehanna River Basin stations have
been incorporated into the EPA "CORE" monitoring network.
Routine sampling at each WQN station consists of field measurements,
collection of samples for laboratory analysis, and reading the USGS gage, if
present. Standard field measurements are stream pH, temperature, and dissolved
oxygen. The standard laboratory analyses currently performed on each sample
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Water Quality Network
Standard Laboratory Analyses
PH
Alkalinity (Total as CaC03)
Acidity (Total Hot)
Hardness (Total as CaC03)
Conductivity (Micromho at 25oC)
Turbidity (JTU)
Chloride (Total)
Nitrite (N02-N, Total)
Nitrate (N03-N, Total)
Ammonia (NH3 + NH4-N, Total)
Phosphorus (Total as P)
Total Dissolved Solids
Calcium (Total)
Magnesium (Total)
Iron (Total)
Fecal Coliform (No./lOO ml)
In addition to these routine analyses, many stations receive special analyses
as determined by the Regional or Central Office based on local conditions and
water quality standards. During low flow, a separate, fixed sample is
collected at each station for heavy metals analysis. The metals included are:
88
154,000
-------
E.6.PA p.81
copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, cadmium, mercury, lead, aluminum, manganese,
and arsenic.
During 1972-73, biological monitoring was incorporated into the WQN system.
Currently,1 benthic macroinvertebrates (fishfood organisms) are sampled
qualitatively using a hand screen and by hand picking organisms from rocks at
most stations. The composition of the aquatic community serves as an
additional indicator of water quality trends. Biological sampling is conducted
on an annual or quarterly basis.
Since about 1979, DER has been cooperating in the EPA "CORE" monitoring
network. This is a nationwide system of 1,000 stations established under the
"Basic Water Monitoring Program" guidelines. In Pennsylvania, most of the
stations designated as "CORE" stations were existing WQN stations. Chemical
sampling is conducted monthly at the 14 "CORE" stations in the Susquehanna
Basin. In addition to the parameters listed in Table 1, "CORE" samples are
analyzed for chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids. Concentrations
of fish tissue contaminants are measured once a year at "CORE" stations. Each
sample consists of a composite of five whole fish, with white suckers being
the target organism. The fish tissue is analyzed for PCB, pesticides, and
heavy metals.
Routine monitoring will be continued at stations operated by the United States
Geological Survey in the Susquehanna River Basin. The National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) is a data-collecting program for obtaining
regional and nationwide overviews of the quality and quantity of surface
streams. Four stations are operated on the basin in Pennsylvania: The
Susquehanna River at Danville; the West Branch Susquehanna River at Lewisburg;
the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg; and the Juniata River at Newport.
Sampling is conducted bi-monthly for a list of inorganic parameters,
discharge, and bacteria. In addition, four samples per year are analyzed for
trace metals. The station at Harrisburg is part of a radiological subnetwork,
and this station and the Lewisburg Station receive pesticide analyses on water
and sediment as part of another subnetwork.
The National Hydrologic Bench-Mark Network was established to provide data on
stream basins little affected by man's activities, and which are not expected
to be significantly altered by man. One station is operated in Pennsylvania,
on Young Womans Creek near Renovo. A complete list of parameters is measured
ten times per year. It includes most of the parameters analyzed at NASQAN
stations plus some additions. DER collects an annual fish tissue sample (brown
trout) at this site as part of the "Core" network.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Up-to-date long-term chemical, biological and fish tissue data on
Pennsylvania's surface waters.
-------
E.6.PA p.82
PROGRAM - PA Assessment of Nutrient Sources from Main Stem and Selected
Watersheds in the Susquehanna
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
Pennsylvania 100,000
Federal (USGS) 70,000
SRBC 140,000
PURPOSE
Implement a quantitative program of environmental measurements and analysis
that will provide base line nutrient loading data for main stem, major
tributaries and other representative subwatersheds.
DESCRIPTION
The program is planned for a 5 year period, 1985-89. Thirteen gage sample
sites were selected and installed in FY 84 at an initial startup cost of
$76,000 (PA - 106 Funds - $25,000; MD - $13,000; SRBC - $38,000). Sampling was
started October 1984. Nutrient loading will be documented on a seasonal and
individual storm basis. Base flow will be sampled monthly at 13 stations (3
main stem; 7 major tributaries; 3 minor tributaries). Major runoff events will
be sampled just prior to, at peak, and throughout falling stages.
Nutrient runoff data from tributary watersheds of specific land use will be
collected in the same pattern as noted above. Four watersheds were selected
and include sites representative of suburban, urban, and industrial, pristine
forest, mixed forest/agriculture, mixed urban, suburban, agriculture and
forest and a major urban area.
Samples will be analyzed by USGS Laboratory for pH, temperature, specific
conductance, suspended sediment, organic carbon-total and nitrogen and
phosphorus species. Data will be placed in STORET and Chesapeake Bay Program
Computer.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The data collected will provide a basis for model refinement, and model
verification, and will establish a sound data base for government,
agriculture, and the public to most effectively plan and implement immediate
and long-range nutrient reduction efforts.
River Basin.
87
100,000
70,000
140,000
88
100,000
70,000
140,000
-------
E.6.MD p.83
PROGRAM - MD Mainstem Monitoring (Chemical and Biological Indicators of Water
Quality)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 14,970
Federal 287,238
Others
PURPOSE
Characterize existing water quality conditions and determine long-term trends
in the mainstem of Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
Baseline trend monitoring of water quality and sediment parameters will be
conducted. The monitoring plan is designed to improve the spatial, temporal
and parameter coverage of existing trend programs. Twenty-two stations will be
sampled on a bi-monthly basis for water column parameters. Stations that are
located in stratified areas are sampled at four depths: surface, 0.5 meters
the bottom, and at some area above and below the point of stratification.
Sediments will be sampled once yearly at these stations. This program is
coordinated with Maryland tributary sampling and Virginia mainstem efforts. In
addition to the chemical/physical program, the monitoring of indicators of
water quality have been integrated into the program. This includes
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic organisms, toxics and ecosystem processes.
These programs have been instituted in both mainstem and tributary locations.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Information on present water quality conditions and the detection of long-term
trends in response to management decisions.
-------
E.6.MD p.8-4
Program - MD Tributary Monitoring (Chemical and Biological Indicators of Water
Quality)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland NA NA
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Characterize existing conditions of water quality and determine of long-term
trends in Maryland's tidal rivers.
DESCRIPTION
Data collection is designed to complement the mainstem program with a parallel
program in the tidal rivers. Frequency is either same as mainstem program or m
monthly. Stations are shown in E.6. Figure 1, and the Parameter List on
E.6.p.74. The Tributary river monitoring effort is supported by both the
Governors' State initiatives and EPA 106 water pollution control grant
funding. Stations are located (Fig. 1) in twelve Maryland rivers on the
Western Short and 12 on the Eastern Shore. In addition, 3 major embayments are
sampled on the Eastern Shore supplementary work in the upper Potomac. This is
accomplished jointly with Virginia and DC through the Potomac Regional
Monitoring Committee (PRMC) organized by the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments (MWCOG). Chemical and biological (included in mainstem budget)
indicators will be sampled as part of this program.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Information on short-term ambient water quality characterization and long-term
trends in response to management decisions.
-------
E.6.MD p.85
PROGRAM - MD Patuxent River Special Studies
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
Maryland
USGS
EPA
390,000 409,500 429,975
85,000 82,000 85,000
168,000
PURPOSE
Monitor, model and conduct research in the Patuxent River Basin to provide
information to more accurately characterize the present water quality in the
Basin, and allow managers to more effectively evaluate and select management
options for future implementation. Additionally, the Patuxent will serve as a
surrogate for various Baywide monitoring, modeling and research activities.
DESCRIPTION
OEP is presently in the process of developing a basin-wide nonpoint source
pollution model in cooperation with the USGS. Additionally, OEP is developing
a hydrodynamic and water quality model of the tidal portion of the estuary.
Several process oriented data collection and research activities are under way
to provide supplemental information for the model development.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
OEP will develop several comprehensive quantitative management decision tools
to assist policy makers in improving and protecting the quality of the
Patuxent River.
-------
E.6.MD p.86
PROBLEM - MD Living Resource Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 776,529
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Implement a regional monitoring program to determine association and potential
cause and effect relations among living resources, hydrography data and
climatic data, and to provide a framework for directed applied research.
DESCRIPTION
This is designed to determine association and potential cause-effect
relationships between habitat variables, hydrographic and climatic parameters,
and two biological resources, initially concentrating on:
- abundance of anadromous fish, striped bass larvae, and oysters;
selectivity of net sizes;
- stress and biological abnormalities due to habitat conditions;
- food availability measured by zooplankton and pholoplankton
populations;
- laboratory and field assays of finfish larvae and juveniles, oysters,
and oyster spat;
- histopathology and morphology of striped bass larvae; and
- collection of hydrolographic and climatic data.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
During FY 86, the monitoring of habitat quality and abundance of striped bass
eggs and larvae in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River will continue.
Modeling (statistical and deterministic) will continue to address larval
transport, effects of habitat quality indicators or larval density, and
effects of freshwater inflow and the C&D Canal during the spawning period.
Equipment will be purchased for improved sampling and on-site bioassay
capabilities during the spawning period. Continuation of interpretation and
analysis of data.
-------
E.6.VA p.87
PROGRAM - VA Mainstern Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 23,455
Federal 445,659
PURPOSE
Conduct long-term monitoring in the Bay. In the past there has been no
long-term water quality monitoring effort in the Virginia portion of the
main8tem Bay. This program of water and sediment monitoring will provide a
long-term data base by which we can assess trends in Bay water and sediment
quality. These data are essential for effective Bay management.
DESCRIPTION
Baseline monitoring of water and sediment quality will be conducted at
twenty-eight stations in the Virginia mainstem. Uater quality parameters are
sampled twenty times per year, surface and bottom, and at some areas above and
below the point of stratification. Sediment samples are taken annually. An
initial plankton monitoring program also was started this summer.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The establishment of a long-term monitoring network in the Virginia mainstem
that can be interpreted for trends in conjunction with other Bay monitoring
programs.
-------
E.6.VA p.68
PROGRAM - VA Tributary Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 300,000
PURPOSE
Provide adequate water quality and habitat data.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being implemented by State Water Control Board with the
participation of other local, state and federal agencies.
The program is designed to develop and maintain baseline monitoring and
analytical programs for water quality and habitat in nine tributaries to the
Bay and to track the changes in the water quality and habitat of these water
resource. Water quality sampling for FY 84-85 in the Chesapeake Bay
tributaries began during mid-July and continues at 32 stations twice a month
during March through October, then once a month from November through
February. This program is often referred to as the Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Monitoring Program. Benthic community and planktonic communities will also be
sampled in the lower Bay and tributaries of Virginia. Benthic sampling will be
by ODU.
Sediment will be sampled by VIMS during the Spring 1985. Sediment will be
analyzed for organic toxics by VIMS and analyzed for metals by DCLS. As noted
above, many different research groups ahare in the responsibilities of this
initiative. To ensure that samples and analyses are being done in a uniform
manner among the researchers, the State Water Control Board has provided the
samplers and lab technicians with reporting and sampling formats. Samples
taken by VIMS will be analyzed in their own labs. Samples taken by SWCB will
be analyzed by DCLS with the exception of chlorophyll samples which will also
be analyzed by VIMS. Chlorophyll samples will later be analyzed by SWCB.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Long-term trend description for water quality and habitat. Components will be
factored into State of the Bay Reports.
-------
E.6.VA p.89
PROGRAM - Virginia Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 468,000
PURPOSE
Acquire and maintain adequate information on ambient water quality conditions
in Virginia's rivers and streams.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is a Statewide program
and consists of:
Surface water network - 308 stations monitored monthly for surface water
quality. Monitored annually for metals, pesticides and herbicides in the water
column and semi-annually for the aforementioned parameters in the sediments
(EPA core network of 40 stations).
Biological network - 161 stations examined qualitatively for benthos.
Groundwater network - 120 wells for chemical analysis, 250 wells for level
readings, 15 wells for salt water intrusion and 2 wells in high pumping areas.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Provides detailed chemical, physical and biological data essential to
preserving and managing the Commonwealth water resources.
-------
E.6.VA p.90
PROGRAM - VA Living Resources Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
Virginia
Federal
PURPOSE
Operate a continuing program to monitor fishery resources in waters of the
Commonwea1th.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being conducted primarily by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science and the Marine Resources Commission.
Juvenile fish sampling and index calculation for numerous stations in
Virginia tidal rivers, with emphasis on early life stages.
- Spatfall survey and routine sanitation monitoring of shellfish in
current and potential productive areas.
- Assembly and use of dockside harvest statistics.
- Biological sampling of commercial catch.
Characterization of significant spatial and temporal patterns of
phytoplankton and zooplankton communities.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The monitoring effort will result in the continued expansion and refinement of
the fisheries database. This will permit greater understanding of the
relationship of finfish and shellfish stocks to water quality climate and
fishing effort, and will provide the basis for the development and
implementation of fisheries management plans.
84-86
548,000
420,000
-------
E.6.VA p."91
PROGRAM - VA James River Water Quality Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 400,000
PURPOSE
Provide adequate water quality data for the James River.
DESCRIPTION
This program is being overseen by the Virginia State Water Control Board with
implementation by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. The
program is designed to collect data in order to recalibrate the Upper James
river Estuary Wasteload Allocation model, to determine the presence of
sediment toxics in the James River from fall line south to the Chickahominy
River, to verify any excessive phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the James
River, and to provide water column data for the Hopewell water supply, to
provide data to measure the impact of Richmond's Shockoe Retention Basin.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
This project is the continuation of a monitoring program of the James River
which began in FY 83-84. A final summary report to the General Assembly is
expected at the end of FY 85-86, however, the first FY 84-85 report of
progress was completed October 20, 1984.
All 1984 water and sediment sampling has been completed. Data is presently
being analyzed and entered in EPA's centralised Water Quality Data Base.
Preliminary analysis of data will be conducted in the winter by VPI and DCLS.
Initial findings are expected to be reported'Spring 1985.
-------
E.6.VA p..92
PROGRAM - VA Tributary Kepone Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 150,000
PURPOSE
Determine distribution and concentration of the pesticide Kepone in the
estuarine environment.
DESCRIPTION
This program implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to continue
a systematic sampling of fin and shellfish, sediments, and groundwater m the
James River estuary to determine Kepone levels. More than 317 fish samples
have been collected and prepared for Kepone analysis since July 1, 1984.
Sediment samples from 21 stations were collected and prepared for Kepone
analysis. DCLS is presently doing the sediment analysis.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
A recent analysis report (third quarter of calendar year 1984) states that
fish samples contain Kepone levels lower than any other samples since 1980 for
the same time of year. River flow levels influence the amount of Kepone which
is taken up by fish; high flow and other unknown factors resulted in lower
Kepone levels for this quarter.
Finfish samples are being analyzed by VIMS and sediment samples by DCLS.
-------
E.6.VA p.93
PROGRAM - VA Stream Pollution Source Studies
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 830,000
PURPOSE
Understand and anticipate stream conditions.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by State Water Control Board, this program consists of stream
studies designed to identify and measure environmental changes resulting from
changes in pollution loads discharged to receiving waters. This includes
dye/flow studies and stream/water quality surveys. We expect to conduct about
15 stream studies.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Surveys will establish wasteload allocations for affected discharges.
-------
E.6.VA p. 9.4
PROGRAM - VA Kepone Health Effects Research
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 300,000
PURPOSE
Determine effects of organic chemicals (specifically, the pesticide kepone) on
human health.
DESCRIPTION
Implemented by the Department of Health, this program is designed to:
- Medically re-evaluate as many as possible of the 30 original Life
Science Products Company employees who were originally hospitalized
because of kepone exposure.
- Determine whether kepone levels in Virginia seafood are carcinogenic
to humans.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
During 1985, the five-year re-evaluation of Life Science workers will take
place. It is hoped that the majority of the original 30 occupationally exposed
patients will be located, and will agree to participate in the medical
evaluations. When the last evaluation took place in 1980, only 13 persons
elected to participate.
A contract between Medical College of Virginia (MCV) and the Health Department
has been negotiated, and a medical protocol agreed to, modified from 1980.
Research to determine the carcinogenity potential of kepone levels in Virginia
seafood has begun. The research plan includes 18 months of laboratory study;
the remaining time will be used for data analysis and report preparation.
A contract between MCV and the Health Department has been negotiated. Monthly
progress reports have been submitted, as have quarterly financial statements,
detailing the progress of this investigation.
-------
E.6.VA p.95
PROGRAM - Virginia Special Water Quality Technical Studies
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 325,000
PURPOSE
Understand and anticipate the environmental effects of pollution.
DESCRIPTION
This program, implemented by State Water Control Board, is designed to conduct
and support environmental studies assessing the effects of pollution on the
chemical and biological indicators of water quality, i.e., bioassays,
evaluation of toxic impacts, benthic studies. Will conduct special
environmental investigations that include 30 benthic surveys, 15 special
environmental surveys, 1 standard evaluation and 250 bioassays to determine
toxicities.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
These studies may result in water quality criteria designed to maintain the
balances in indigenous populations of aquatic species.
-------
E•6•DC p. 96
PROGRAM - DC Tributary Monitoring
BUDGET PROJECTION
86
87
88
DC
EPA
50,000
200,000
PURPOSE
Document current conditions and long-terra trends in water quality and living
resources in District waters of the Potomac, Anacostia and several tributary
streams.
DESCRIPTION
Sampling is conducted monthly at 13 stations and every two weeks during the
months of April through October at 8 stations in tidal waters of the Potomac
and Anacostia Rivers.
Sampling is coordinated with Maryland and Virginia tributary monitoring
through the Potomac Regional Monitoring Committee (PRMC) and the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Government (MWCOG).
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Long-term trend description will result from this continuing program. Annual
reports from PRMC and MWCOG summarize elements integrated to cover the upper
Potomac estuary.
-------
E.7.p.97
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Objective 7: Implement a coordinated Baywide research program.
-------
E.7.FED p.98
PROGRAM - EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 300,000
PURPOSE
Provide technical information to support model development and guide
management and implementation strategies.
DESCRIPTION
The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, through the Modeling and Research
Subcommittee, supports technical studies specifically addressed towards
modeling and similar management tools. Current emphasis is on processes which
govern transport and fate of nutrients and toxicants, impacts on productivity
and biota, and the processes which lead to episodes of low dissolved oxygen.
Funding is managed through grants or contracts to research institutions.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Data necessary to develop useful predictive models, and increased
understanding of the processes linking pollution to water quality and resource
impacts.
-------
E.7.FED p.99
PROGRAM - EPA Office of Research and Development
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Develop and assess scientific and technical data and economic methodologies in
order to improve the basis for environmental decision-making.
DESCRIPTION
Currently, ORD supports environmentally related research, development, and
demonstration efforts through its headquarters office in Washington, D.C. and
its laboratories nationwide, as well as sponsoring research elsewhere in the
scientific and academic communities, through cooperative agreements,
contracts, and grants.
A program to undertake long-term and anticipatory environmental research is
managed by ORD's Office of Exploratory Research. The research grants
assistance program funds activities in the following areas:
- Environmental Chemistry and Physics - Environmental chemistry and
physics research involves understanding the basic processes by which
pollutants are transported, transformed, degraded, or otherwise
distributed in all environmental media, including air and water.
- Environmental Biology - Environmental biology involves the examination
of effects of pollutants and their components, as well as the
environment as a whole.
- Environmental Health - Environmental health research involves
utilizing short-term in vitro studies, accurate and chronic animal
toxicology, controlled human exposure, and epidemiology to determine
whether or to what extent exposure to pollutants contributes to health
effects.
- Environmental Engineering - Environmental engineering research
involves multimedia (solid, liquid, gaseous) pollution control
processes associated with hazardous material and energy production as
well as with consideration, increased efficiencies, recycling, and
reuse.
- Environmental Measurements - Environmental measurement research
involves methods, techniques and devices needed to identify and
measure levels of pollutants and to monitor them in numerous
situations.
-------
E.7.FED p.100
- Economic Benefits - The development and validation of methods for
measuring economic benefits will assist in evaluating the
effectiveness of environmental control programs.
Currently, OER is funding several projects within the Chesapeake Bay area
which relate directly to water quality and/or living resources.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To provide an ongoing source of information to refine environmental policy,
management and regulation.
-------
E.7.FED p.101
PROGRAM - NOAA Weather and Satellite Programs
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
State
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Characterize, through NOAA's weather and satellite programs, long-term trends
at selected sites, and describe patterns in meteorological forcing functional
DESCRIPTION
- The National Weather Service provides near-realtime overall satellite
and ground-based weather information at many sites in the basin. They
also archive weather and climate data which is of vital long-term use.
There are numerous NWS sites in the basin — cooperative observers in
the network. Data from NWS is used for cruise planning by other
agencies, in hydrographic modeling, and as an interpretive tool for
monitoring data.
- National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
receives repeated long-term LandSat and LandSat-D image data on a
regular schedule for the Bay and adjacent lands and water. Over the
long-term, satellite data can provide information on changing forest
cover and land use. Future satellite sensors may enable gathering
synoptic water quality data for entire LandSat scenes at predictable
point8 in time.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
NOAA's weather and satellite programs provide basic information on
environmental forcing functions and long-term trends in weather, climate and
land use.
-------
E. 7 .FED p.102
PROGRAM - NOAA Oxygen Depletion Studies
BUDGET PROJECTION
85 86 87
Federal 400,000
PURPOSE
Determine if increasing episodes of low dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay
have impacts upon the biota of the estuary.
DESCRIPTION
The NOAA study will have several components:
- Determine effects of hypoxia on distribution and migratory pattern of
important fin and shellfish.
- Determine the effects of hypoxia on reproductive capacity and
behavior; resistance to disease, toxicants, and predation; feeding
ability; and other important physiological factors in key Bay species.
- Determine the effects of higher nutrient loads on the composition of
the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities of the Bay and impacts
of any shifts in the composition and quality of this food supply on
the Bay's living resources.
- Determine the utility of remote sensing as a tool to enhance the
monitoring and research capabilities of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
It is anticipated that research will be conducted by NOAA, federal and state
agencies, and other research institutions.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The results from this study will be linked to results of ongoing ecological
process research and monitoring programs to provide guidance for control
measures to reduce impacts of low dissolved oxygen.
-------
E.7.FED p.lQ3
PROGRAM - FWS Research Activities
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide scientific information necessary to protect, restore, and enhance the
nation'8 fish and wildlife resources.
DESCRIPTION
FWS supports a variety of research and field studies to address the above
goal. The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center conducts research on migratory
waterfowl, endangered species, wildlife diseases, contaminant impacts on fish
and wildlife, and studies on important habitat types such as wetlands,
submerged vegetation, etc. Research is conducted at FWS fishery labs on fish
diseases, life histories, toxicant impacts, and special efforts such as the
Emergency Striped Bass Study (ESBS) which is being conducted in cooperation
with NMFS. FWS field offices conduct studies on pollutant impacts on living
resources, effects of habitat modification, evaluation of mitigation
procedures for projects such as dams, and other management-directed research.
A significant portion of these activities are directly related to the
Chesapeake Bay area, or to species important in the estuary.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Information obtained will be used to improve management of fish and wildlife
resources.
-------
E.7.FED p.104
PROGRAM - USGS Estuary Study
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Provide for a study to help:
- understand physical, chemical, and biological processes within the
estuary;
- develop flow and transport models to predict movement and fate of
nutrients and algae; and
- develop efficient techniques for the study of tidal rivers and
estuaries. The ultimate goal is to aid water quality decision-making.
DESCRIPTION
The study is being conducted in an interdisciplinary manner. Five major
problem areas are being addressed: nutrient enrichment; algae blooms;
dissolved oxygen; sedimentation; and effects of water quality on living
resources, including SAV. A number of investigations are currently ongoing,
including benthic flux studies, submerged vegetation processes, and modeling
efforts.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Increased understanding of basic processes within the tidal river, and
relationships to living resources, which will improve the ability to manage
these types of systems.
-------
E.7.FED p.105
PROGRAM - USDA Agricultural Research Activities (ARS)
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Federal
PURPOSE
Develop means to increase production of food and fiber, while at the same time
avoiding or minimizing hazards to the environment.
DESCRIPTION
Much of USDA's research efforts which are important to Chesapeake Bay are
focused through the Agricultural Environment Quality Institute and the Plant
Physiology Institute (PPI) of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center of
ARS. Areas addressed by AEQI include fate of pesticides in soils and water,
safe use of municipal, agricultural, and industrial organic wastes for soil
improvement, nitrogen cycle in soils and evaluation of best management
practices. PPI contains the Hydrology Lab, which tests methologies such as
mathematical modeling and remote sensing to predict runoff, and investigates
all aspects of water movement and storage.
Information developed by ARS is dissiminated to the agricultural community
through a variety of means, including the ARS Information Service, the
scientific community, and through state extension services.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Improve the scientific and technical basis for agricultural production, and
reduce impacts of agricultural activities on the environment.
-------
E.7.FED,MD,VA p.lQ6
PROGRAM - NOAA Sea Grant Program (Maryland and Virginia)
BUDGET PROJECTION
85
86
87
Maryland
Virginia
Federal
733,000 1,000,000
733,000 1,000,000
1,456,000 1,000,000
PURPOSE
Continue the Sea Grant program, administered within the participating states,
which fosters marine-related research, advisory services, and education
operating under the guidelines of the National Sea Grant College Program of
NOAA. Goals include: expanding knowledge for managing the states' and the
nations' marine and estuarine resources; providing technical assistance;
training; enhancing public awareness of pertinent issues.
DESCRIPTION
The research component of this program is administered by the states of
Maryland (at University of Maryland) and Virginia (at VIMS, VPI, ODU & U.VA)
Funding is provided by federal and nonfederal sources. Research and
development in both programs focuses on fisheries and other marine resources,
technology and engineering, and environmental research. In addition, both have
strong education and marine advisory components.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To provide a continuing input of knowledge needed to develop, utilize, and
manage the marine resources of the states, and to develop outreach programs
for marine industries, users, and the general public.
-------
E.7.PA p.10.7
PROGRAM - PA Research Program
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Pennsylvania
Federal
Other
PURPOSE
Reduce agricultural non-point nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.
DESCRIPTION
To research new technologies which could provide for the proper utilization of
nutrients by plants or construction or conversion of unwanted animal wastes.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
To develop new technologies or systems which, "if adopted, would provide
practical methods to manage nutrients.
-------
E.7.MD p.lQ8
PROGRAM - Maryland Research Coordination
BUDGET PROJECTION
86 87 88
Maryland 500,000 NA NA
PURPOSE
Establish an annual research budget and to direct the Governor's Council on
the Bay to determine research priorities.
DESCRIPTION
Many of the initiatives stemming from the findings of the EPA Bay Study, as
well as questions identified by the regional monitoring program, will require
research to confirm the activities of management actions.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
It is anticipated that the projects that were initiated in FY 85 will be
continued and/or completed during FY 86. Another series of project
recommendations will be solicited form the management agencies and reviewed
and new projects, to the extent that funding allows, will be initiated during
FY 86.
-------
E.7.VA p.J09
PROGRAM -VA Research To Support Management of the Commonwealth's Marine
Resources
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 11,300,000
PURPOSE
Provide the technical foundation for management of the marine resources and to
provide those results to the regulatory and management agencies of the State.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
A program of directed research focuses on fifteen program areas, all of which
are related to existing or anticipated resource management issues. Relative
emphasis between programs may vary as required but all are active:
1. Investigate the fisheries of Virginia and factors affecting fluctuations
in abundance.
2. Investigate and define the distribution of benthic animals and
communities and their interactions with the biological, physical and
chemical environment.
3. Develop an understanding of plankton processes in the Chesapeake Bay
system and Virginia coastal waters.
4. Describe and evaluate the tidal freshwater ecosystems of Virginia's
major rivers.
5. Investigate structure and function of mesohaline marshes and submerged
aquatic vegetation.
6. Study diseases of marine and estuarine organisms.
7. Develop and perfect methods and techniques for economical culture of
marine and estuarine organisms.
8. Determine the fate and effect of toxic chemicals in the Chesapeake Bay
system.
9. Study nutrient cycling processes and controls in riverine, estuarine and
coastal marine environments.
10. Evaluate factors leading to, and the consequences of, nutrient
enrichment.
-------
E.7.VA p.110
11. Understand the dynamics of benthic boundary layers and associated
processes of sediment resuspension, transport, and animal-sediment
interaction in coastal and estuarine environments.
12. Describe and understand the circulation of waters in the estuarine and
coastal environment.
13. Develop a better understanding of shoreface, surf zone and beach
processes.
14. Describe and explain the late Quaternary sedimentology, stratigraphy and
geologic evolution of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters.
15. Conduct investigations related to the development, utilization, and
management of resources of significance to the marine environment.
During FY 84-85 enhanced efforts in four interdisciplinary program elements
have been possible through the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Initiatives ($1,850,000
of the above total). These program elements are:
A. River circulation studies for revitalization of the James River Seed
Oyster Industry.
B. Biological studies of factors causing decline in Virginia's oyster and
critical finfish populations.
C. Chemical poisons in Virginia's tidal waters.
D. Re-establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
The initiative research studies will result in:
A. Recommendations on means for enhancement of the seed oyster beds.
B. Establishment of a monitoring scheme to assess levels of toxic organic
chemicals in seafoods
C. Establishment of methodology to assess the metabolites of parent toxic
compounds.
D. Establishment of improved methodology to re-establish SAV, and
assessment of the variables critical to SAV growth.
The continuing elements of the program will result in advances in
understanding and predictive capability needed to develop, utilize, and manage
the marine resources of the Commonwealth.
-------
E.7.VA p.Ill
PROGRAM - VA Advisory Services in Support of the Development, Management and
Conservation of the Commonwealth's Marine Resources
BUDGET PROJECTION
84-86
Virginia 1,100,000
PURPOSE
Enhance development of the commercial and recreational fisheries of the
Commonwealth, and provide to the Legislative and Executive Branches and the
citizens the technical foundation for the wise utilization and management of
the marine resources of the Commonwealth.
DESCRIPTION
This program is implemented by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. This
broadly based program has two principal components. One component will assist
development of the commercial and recreational fishing industry. This is
achieved by introduction of new harvesting technology, assessment of market
structure for products and by products, and development of
agriculture/mariculture systems. Communication is based between advisory
personnel and the watermen of the Commonwealth and other components of the
commercial and recreational industry. A regular series of publications is
devoted to public education and information. The second component provides a
continuing mechanism for translation of the Institute's directed research
program to meaningful advice regarding the conservation and management of the
marine resources. This is achieved by assessment of stocks and causes of stock
variability, and evaluation of marine habitat and the causes and impacts of
water quality degradation. Communication is based between teams of research
specialists and members of regulatory/management agencies and/or legislative
commissions.
In addition, an active marine education program (K-12) is maintained to
instill an awareness and understanding of the workings and importance of the
marine environment and its resources as an integral component of the setting
and economy of the Commonwealth.
ANTICIPATED RESULTS
Results anticipated from industry related services include economic
feasibility analyses of the soft-shell crab industry in Virginia, hard clam
seed production and grow-out, and crab meal production. In addition,
assistance will be advanced to help local seafood producers in developing
export markets. Harvesting technology improvements include modifications for
vessels participating in multi-species or alternate fisheries. Recreational
fishery analyses include the mid-Atlantic tuna and billfish.
Ongoing advisory work with management agencies and legislative bodies include
assessment of dredging and disposal projects, stock assessment for fisheries
management, and assessment of water quality impacts.
------- |