Chesapeake Executive Council
September 1985
Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan
Published by the
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
in cooperation with the
State of Maryland
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
CB 00555
»¦
-------
For additional copies or information,
Agency Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, Maryland, 21403.
contact the Environmental Protection
Annapolis City Marina, 410 Severn Avenue,
Note: Any mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection Plan
September 1966
-------
For tale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER I: AN OVERVIEW
CHAPTER II: GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
CHAPTER III: BASIN STRATEGIES
CHAPTER IV: LOOKING AHEAD
APPENDICES: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS (DETAILS)
APPENDIX A - NUTRIENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
APPENDIX B - TOXICS IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
APPENDIX C - LIVING RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
APPENDIX D - OTHER RELATED MATTERS
APPENDIX E - INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
-------
FOREWARD
On December 9, 1983, history was made. On that day, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pledged to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. This precedent setting
commitment, known as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983, called for the
preparation and implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect
the water quality and the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay. The
Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan is the first iteration of
the planning effort implemented in response to this commitment.
The Plan is structured to address the goals and objectives of the Chesapeake
Bay restoration and protection effort. It has been formulated based on our
present understanding of the causes of the decline in the Bay's health and
productivity. Achieving the goals and objectives of the Plan will require
the continued commitment of federal, state and local governments, private
and public sector institutions, and, most importantly, the general public.
Clearly, a genuinely concerned and well informed citizenry is the ultimate
key to restoring and protecting the health of the Bay.
Overall, the Plan describes the federal and state strategies and programs
which are to be implemented to meet the objectives and goals of the restor-
ation and protection commitment.
Chapter I provides a look at the Bay's present status and describes some of
what we know to be wrong with it. It also gives some of the history of the
present effort to restore and protect the Bay.
Chapter II states the goals, objectives, and strategies of federal and state
government agencies. In many cases, these reflect on-going endeavors to
upgrade water quality (such as sewage treatment); in other cases, they repre-
sent new initiatives (such as the implementation of agricultural best manage-
ment practices). These goals, objectives, and strategies are specifically
addressed to a variety of topical areas such as nutrients, toxics, living
resources, and other related matters. Institutional arrangements designed to
coordinate, evaluate, and oversee the restoration and protection effort are
also outlined; as is the management support structure of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. Appendices A through E provide a more detailed account of the
implementation strategies listed under each objective in Chapter II.
Chapter III describes the problems and management strategies each state will
use in approaching the restoration and protection of river basins encompassing
Chesapeake Bay.
In Chapter IV we look ahead as though through the mist which, on occasion,
shrouds the Bay. The steps described in the first chapters will continue
to retard the decline of the Bay and its resources. This Chapter briefly
outlines what we hope to achieve beyond a mere holding action. Work planned
over the next several years will quantify and more precisely forecast what
we must do to completely restore the Bay to a satisfactorily robust condition.
1
-------
Many of the strategies and programs will help to achieve more than one goal
and objective; the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program,
for example, controls for both nutrient and toxic discharges from both
municipal waste treatment facilities and industrial point sources. The
editors of the Plan have tried to demonstrate this by citing such multi-
faceted implementation strategies under different objectives In Chapter II
and/or making multiple citations to such programs in the Appendices.
Please join this effort. The Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan
1s an Inventory of the many federal and state government agency programs which
have an impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, The Integration of
these is a major step in establishing a cooperative federal/state effort for
comprehensive environmental management of the Bay. The Executive Council,
its committees, and the general public will be involved in future efforts to
expand and refine this Plan which will serve as an evolving blueprint for the
restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. James M. Seif, Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region ill
Chairman, Chesapeake Executive Council
The Honorable Torrey C. Brown, M.D., Secretary
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
The Honorable Nicholas DeBenedictis, Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
The Honorable Betty J. Diener, Secretary
Virginia Department of Commerce and Resources
The Honorable Joseph L. Fisher, Secretary
Virginia Department of Human Resources
The Honorable Richard E. Grubb, Acting Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Ms. Carol B. Thompson, Director
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. John Touchstone, Director
D.C. Office of Public Works
The Honorable Adele Wllzack, R.N., M.S Secretary
Maryland Department of Health and MenuI Hy^
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan is the product of many
contributing authors, editors and commentors. Credit must be given to the
members of the Chesapeake Executive Council and Implementation Committee who
were responsible for initiating the Plan and overseeing its development. The
Citizens Advisory Committee and Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
members actively followed and helped steer its development. The Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office staff prepared and helped edit much of the document.
A special credit should be given to members of the Planning Subcommittee who
had the major responsibility for this document.
Keith Buttleman, Commonwealth of Virginia, Chairman of the Planning
Subcommittee
Louis Bercheni, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
James Collier, District of Columbia
Kenneth McElroy, State of Maryland
Virginia Tippie, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Special thanks are also due to Dr. Alvin R. Morris, Chairman of the Implementation
Committee.
A Note on Pagination: The pagination of the Plan is arranged according to chapter,
objective and page within the individual chapters. For example; "II.A.l.p.8"
refers to the eighth page in Chapter II found under Nutrients (A) Objective #1;
"A.3.MD.p.4" refers to Appendix A: Nutrients, Objective #3, of a State of Mary-
land implementation program found on page 4 of Appendix A. The Appendices
correspond to the implementation strategies outlined 1n Chapter II.
iii
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Improve 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.
-------
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 m their living
resources. Point sources are those which discharge through a pipe or ditch,
such as municipal sewage treatment or industrial plants and animal feedlots.
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 provide e political support and
considerable financial backing for both site-specilic discrete state efforts
and Baywide undertakings. A significant accompl^s m o the participants in
the Agreement has been to agree on an overall PurP°®eJ°^ the restoration and
protection plan, as well as goals and objectives tor controlling nutrients and
toxics, protecting and restoring the Bay's living resources, addressing other
related matters, and supporting a cooperative app*<>acn managing the Bay.
Nutrients
Goal: Reduce point and nonpoint source ^trientJ°yd^6S to attain
and dissolved oxygen concentrations neces^ y co support the living
resources of the Bay.
Scientific studies have shown that excessive nutr*ent 'loading8 produce high
nutrient concentrations in the water column resuu 8 in ,n increase in the
microscopic floating plants called algae. The m the the algae prevents
light from reaching the submerged grasses; and, ^ gae decompose they
contribute to low oxygen conditions which, v contrQia h®ri1l£ul to b°th
finfish and shellfish. It appears that ph°*Ph^u® Bay * 'tl?e Process in
tidal-fresh areas such as the upper sections of t ^ nd u8 tributaries
while nitrogen may be limiting in the more saline It has been concluded
v.
-------
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.
vi.
-------
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 gources
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.
vii •
-------
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
spawner8;
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 (NOAA), Fish and Wildlife
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.
viii.
-------
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
levels of government.
The Chesapeake Executive Council and 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 Bay na8ement system;
Implement a coordinated Baywide monitor ng Program; and
Implement a coordinated Baywide researc gram.
ix.
-------
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.
x.
-------
IV
Pennsylvania
Maryland
*
v. Baltimore
Washington, N
D.C 1
Virginia
Delaware
6
Richmond
Atlanhc
Ocean
Kilometers
Hampton
Norfolk
0 10 20 30
Miles
Elizabeth
FIGURE 1-1. The Chesapeake Bay.
-------
I.p.l
CHAPTER I - AN OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and one of its most
valuable natural resources. Located in the mid-Atlantic region within
Maryland and Virginia, its mainstem is over 195 miles (314 km) long and 3.4
to 35 miles (5.5 to 56 km) wide. Because the Bay drains 64,000 square miles
(165,760 km^ ) and has over 150 rivers, creeks and streams flowing through
portions of six states and the District of Columbia, a regional approach to
its environmental management is essential.
Renowned for its bounty, the Bay provides an abundant fishery and wildlife
habitat of national importance; its fishery harvests are exceeded only by
those of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This extensive finfish and
shellfish harvest represents an annual commercial value of approximately one
billion dollars. In addition to the riches from its waters, the extensive
7,000 miles (11,270 km) of shoreline and wetlands provide a home for
countless animals and plants, and are a major stop along the Atlantic
Migratory Bird Flyway. The Chesapeake undoubtedly supports a fisheries and
wildlife population unmatched by any other estuary.
As an important regional economic resource, the Bay has for centuries
supported a wide range of human activities. It is a major commercial
shipping center with two major port complexes connected by extensive
transportation networks to inland areas. This network has encouraged the
development of commercial activities in the region such as fishing,
shipbuilding, agriculture, steel-making, paper manufacturing, and chemical
production. These activities have attracted more people to the area as
residents and tourists who, in turn, support the Bay's recreational
industries. Boating, sportfishing, and hunting are just a few of the
recreational activities available to shoreline residents and millions of
visitors.
Recent studies have shown, however, that the cumulative effects of these
activities have resulted in a decline in the living resources of the Bay. It
is expected that the increasing population and continued development of the
Bay area will cause even greater damage to the Bay's living resources. In
response to this growing threat, the federal government and the states of
the Chesapeake Bay region have pledged to restore and protect the Chesapeake
Bay and its living resources. This commitment to restore and protect the
living resources and environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay was
formalized in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 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
-------
I.p.2
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."
This Plan provides the framework for an integrated and comprehensive
federal/state effort to restore and protect the Bay. The purpose, goals, and
objectives of this effort are described in Chapter II.
BAY TRENDS AND PROBLEMS
In 1975, the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to conduct a major study of the Bay's water quality and living
resources. The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program identified or confirmed a number
of environmental problems which represent a threat to the health and
productivity of this estuary. In addition, the Corps of Engineers conducted
a major study of the potential future degradation of the Bay due to land use
changes and hydrological modifications within the watershed. The study
identified the major areas of concern: nutrients, toxics, and living
resources. In turn, the Chesapeake Executive Council, through the Chesapeake
Bay Restoration and Protection Plan process, adopted goals and objectives to
address these areas of concern. The states (including the District of
Columbia) and federal government are focusing their existing programs and
initiating new efforts to meet these goals and objectives.
A. NUTRIENTS
Increasing levels of nutrients are entering the Bay system, both from point
sources (primarily sewage treatment facilities) and nonpoint sources
(agricultural lands, and in some places inflows from urbanized areas).
Population growth within the basin, as well as changing farming practices,
are contributing to eutrophication of the Bay. It is predicted that by the
year 2000, phosphorus loads will increase 43% and nitrogen loads will
increase 7% given 1980 treatment levels.
Elevated nutrients have resulted in increasing frequency of phytoplankton
blooms, particularly in the Upper Bay and upper reaches of major
tributaries. Increased algal density and increased sediment loads delivered
to the Bay have reduced water clarity in many areas of the Bay.
The estimated volume of water experiencing reduced oxygen levels in summer
months has increased significantly in the last thirty years. In addition,
the duration of this hypoxia has increased, typically lasting from May
through September. Increased organic loading resulting from eutrophication
appears to be the primary cause. To address these problems, efforts to
reduce phosphorus loadings at sewage treatment plants in the upper Bay are
under way. Nutrient loadings from agricultural runoff into the Susquehanna,
York and Rappahannock rivers are being reduced while nutrient loadings from
industry and sewage treatment plants in the Susquehanna, West Chesapeake,
Patuxent, and James rivers are being cut back.
-------
I.p.3
While the nutrient reductions from nonpoint sources cannot be quantified at
this time, it is evident that recent point source control efforts have
resulted in significant reductions of phosphorus loadings in the West
Chesapeake, Patuxent and Potomac rivers. It appears, also, that further
reductions will be achieved through agricultural best management practices.
Many questions still remain, however, to determine precisely what reductions
are needed to protect water quality and living resources.
B. TOXICS
Elevated levels of heavy metals and toxic organic compounds have been found
in Bay water and sediments. The highest concentrations occur near urban or
industrialized areas and in the upper Bay. These toxicants come both from
point sources (primarily industrial and municipal facilities) and from
nonpoint sources (including urban, suburban and agricultural runoff, and
from atmospheric deposition). It is predicted that these levels will
continue to increase in the future due to increasing population pressures.
The reduced diversity and abundance of benthic organisms can be related to
the toxic contamination of the sediments in the more heavily affected areas.
Recent work has also found tissue abnormalities in finfish from two Bay
tributaries with high levels of sediment toxicity. In some areas, organisms
are bioconcentrating significant levels of metals or organic chemicals.
Both point and nonpoint source controls are needed to abate toxic substances
pollution to improve water quality and provide a healthy environment for the
Bay's living resources. Through the current National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs and stepped-up enforcement efforts,
pretreatment programs, and dechlorinization at sewage treatment plants,
significant reductions are expected in some rivers. Additional monitoring
will help determine exactly which substances need special controls and at
which locations. Nonpoint sources control programs are also being
implemented which will reduce toxics from urban areas and from farm uses.
Because of the many uncertainties with respect to toxics, new research and
data gathering are continuing priorities of the federal and state
governments.
C. LIVING RESOURCES
Habitat degradation, either through physical modification or reduction in
water or sediment quality, has occurred for several economically important
Bay species. Freshwater spawning finfish and those organisms (such as
oysters) which inhabit areas with anoxic bottom waters are especially
harmed. Areas used as nursery grounds by other species have also been
affected by declining habitat quality.
Landings of freshwater-spawning finfish have decreased in recent years;
successful spawning of these species has also been poor in most of the study
areas. Similarly, landings of oysters have declined, and spatset has been
reduced significantly, particularly in the upper Bay, western shore
tributaries, and some eastern shore rivers.
-------
I.p.4
The recent Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is unprecedented in
the Bay's history. Increased turbidity and decreased sunlight in the past 20
years is a major reason for the decline in SAV. There is also some evidence
that, in local areas close to sources, herbicides may have an adverse impact
on the plants.
Still another problem is the reduction of the volume of freshwater flowing
into the Bay due to increased individual and industrial consumption. This
reduction could adversely affect a number of living resources, especially
those species which spawn or live in freshwater, or are vulnerable to higher
salinity predators and parasites.
To begin to solve the problem of restoring the Bay's living resources, the
states have management plans for fire and shellfish and are restocking fish
and oysters. Over 50 acres of submerged grasses are being planted in rivers.
Still, the cause and effect relationships have not been definitely
established, even though it is apparent that the Bay's environmental quality
has been seriously harmed by human activities. State and federal governments
are now committed to addressing the known effects of these activities on
water quality. Chapter II describes in specific terms the goals, objectives,
and strategies which have been developed to restore and protect the Bay's
health and productivity. Monitoring and research efforts continue, however,
so that we can better understand and respond to problems which affect the
Chesapeake Bay.
POLLUTION SOURCES AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Increased pollution from human activities has caused the deterioration of
the Bay's water and sediment quality, which in turn has affected the Bay's
living resources. The major Bay pollutants - nutrients, sediments and toxics
materials - come from point and nonpoint sources throughout the Bay
watershed. Achieving the necessary reductions in pollutants from point and
nonpoint sources will require the implementation of a variety of pollution
control strategies.
Point sources of pollution generally are described as those which discharge
effluents into a waterbody through a discrete pipe or ditch. Examples
include municipal sewage treatment plant discharges, combined sewer
overflows and industrial discharges (including large animal feedlot flows
and active mines). Over 5,000 point sources discharge nutrients and toxics
to the creeks and tributaries that flow into the Chesapeake Bay. The
Chesapeake Bay Program watershed model estimates that 61% of the phosphorus
and 33% of the nitrogen delivered to the Bay system comes from point
sources. Strategies for controlling polluting point sources include
developing new initiatives and continuing existing programs such as NPDES,
which was established by the Clean Water Act and whose permitting and
enforcement regulations are used to control discharges of nutrients and
toxics from all point sources.
-------
I.p.5
Nonpoint source pollution is generally carried over or through soil and
groundcover via rainfall and snowmelt. Unlike discrete and readily
identifiable point sources, nonpoint sources (NPS) are extremely diffuse,
can come from any land area or from the air, and are difficult to quantify
and trace. EPA defines NPS as the effects of runoff from urbanized areas,
construction, hydrologic modification, silviculture, abandoned mines,
agriculture, irrigation return flows, waste disposal, and individual sewage
disposal. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the principal source of nonpoint
source pollution is runoff from agricultural, suburban, and urban lands. The
Chesapeake watershed model estimates that 39% of the phosphorus and 67% of
the nitrogen delivered to the Bay system comes from nonpoint sources.
Strategies for controlling pollution from nonpoint sources also include a
mix of existing and new programs. To control agricultural and urban runoff,
regulatory programs, educational efforts, technical assistance, and
cost-share programs are being implemented; additional personnel are being
hired. New programs are underway to address leaking underground storage
tanks and spills. Other nonpoint sources such as atmospheric deposition,
acid mine drainage, hazardous waste sites, as well as problems such as
contaminated groundwater need further study so that programs may be
developed to address any problems and their impacts on the Bay.
BAY MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 recognized the need for a regional
management structure to support and enhance a regional cooperative approach
for the environmental management of the Bay. Toward this end, the Agreement
established an Executive Council, an Implementation Committee, and a
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office. This regional management structure was
instituted in 1984, and the restoration and protection program was begun.
Figure 2 outlines this management structure. Appendix E further describes
these management and institutional arrangements. These management
organizations, their members, and their roles and responsibilities are:
Executive Council
- meets at least twice a year to assess and oversee the implementation
of coordinated plans to improve and protect the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system;
- members are the designated representatives of the EPA Administrator
and state governors; these are:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Administrator
Region III
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Environmental Resources
State of Maryland:
Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene
Secretary of Natural Resources
-------
Executive Council
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Citizens Advisory Committee
Implementation Committee
Subcommittees
Planning
Monitoring
Modeling and Research
Data Management
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Figure 1-2 The Chesapeake Bay Management Structure
-------
I.p.6
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Secretary of Commerce and Resources
Secretary of Human Resources
District of Columbia:
Director of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Director of Public Works
In 1984, the Council recommended new programs and funding allocations,
and also established a Citizens Advisory Committee; a Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee is to provide guidance to the
Implementation Committee.
Implementation Committee
- meets at least 8 times a year to implement Executive Council guidance
and programs;
- members represent federal and state agencies with water quality
and/or living resources responsibilities, and are appointed by the
Executive Council.
In 1984, the Implementation Committee identified major issues of
potential concern, recommended appropriate distribution of FY 84 and FY
85 Chesapeake Bay Program implementation funds, and drafted a 1984
Chesapeake Bay Flan. The Committee also established subcommittees for
Planning, Monitoring, Modeling and Research, and Data Management, and
acted on recommendations of the subcommittees in conformity with
Executive Council Policy Guidance.
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office - Annapolis, Maryland
- advises and supports the Executive Council, the Implementation
Committee, and the subcommittees;
- supports the coordination of Bay initiatives;
- staff is primarily from EPA, although other agencies have provided
support.
In 1984, the office initiated and funded planning, monitoring,
research, modeling, data management, and public information efforts,
and also administered EPA state assistance grants for implementing
demonstration projects. At the federal level, the Liaison Office
established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the other federal
agencies involved in Bay activities including the Array Corps of
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Soil Conservation Service, and the U.S. Geological
Survey. These MOUs will assure coordination of federal activities in
the Bay.
-------
I.p.7
During the past 7 months, the management organizations set into motion the
drafting of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration & Protection Plan. A Planning
Sub-Committee, to draft this first annual Plan, was appointed by the
Implementation Committee. In this first Plan, a number of accomplishments
should be noted:
- The federal and state parties agreed upon a set of Baywide goals and
objectives;
- The actions underway and proposed to address the goals and objectives
are catalogued here in one document;
- The actions herein represent the state and federal governments as
individual entities, as well as in concert within specific river
bas ins;
- The state activities reflect all of the state agencies' contributions
to the Bay effort, and the initiatives supported and funded by their
legislative bodies;
- The Plan allows for comparison among agencies and encourages an
exchange of views among those agencies and others;
- It emphasizes gaps in data and future research needs; and
- Finally, the Plan helps to point out the strengths and weaknesses of
the specific planned actions and determine whether collectively the
activities will meet the Baywide goals and objectives. Thus, it helps
to define a longer-term planning process and strategy to improve the
Bay.
In addition to establishing regional management and institutional
mechanisms, the states and federal government have also made substantial
financial commitments to the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake
Bay. In 1984, the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress authorized new
expenditures in support of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort totaling
approximately $60 million. These financial commitments were in addition to
ongoing program obligations such as the EPA's Construction Grants Program
which had allocated approximately $186 million annually to the Bay area for
the construction of sewage treatment plants. The following chapters and
appendices of this Plan describe how these and new federal and state
initiatives are to be employed in the Chesapeake Bay area. Funding
projections, where possible, are stated for the next three fiscal years.
Some of these figures represent "carry-over" funds; some are based on
allocations from previous years; Virginia's are based on a biennial cycle.
Future appropriations cannot be stated with certainty at
th i s t ime.
-------
I.p.8
Cleaning up and restoring the Chesapeake Bay requires the commitment of
local governmental units as well as the state and federal agencies.
Agricultural runoff controls and best management practices are generally
implemented in local conservation districts; stormwater runoff from city
streets and construction sites is the responsibility of city and county
governments; zoning restrictions, sewage treatment operations and buffer
strip maintenance programs are conducted at the local level. While this plan
recognizes the vital role played by the local jurisdictions, public and
private sector groups and the general public, it does not elaborate on their
considerable financial contributions nor the time they have contributed as
part of the Bay effort.
The next chapter of this report outlines the goals and objectives which the
parties comprising the Executive Council have adopted to address the
restoration and protection needs. For each objective, each party has also
listed its related implementation strategies. The strategies, or
implementation programs, are more fully detailed in the appendices.
-------
II.p.1
CHAPTER II - GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
Chapter II is organized according to goals, objectives, and strategies (or
implementation programs); this framework demonstrates the recognition that
strategies should be implemented to meet specific, concrete objectives which
have been set as the means toward achieving the general goals of this Plan.
Each implementation program strategy listed in the tables of this chapter is
described in detail in a corresponding appendix. For example, if the reader
is interested in the specific program being implemented in Pennsylvania to
support the goal for Nutrients (A), Objective 5 (reducing agricultural
runoff) on p. 13 of Chapter II, the reader would refer to Appendix A.5. and
locate the pages of interest under PA. The statement of purpose provides the
rationale for the activities identified in the implementation strategies.
PURPOSE AND GOALS
PURPOSE
Improve 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.
GOALS
A. NUTRIENTS
Reduce point and nonpoint source nutrient loadings to attain nutrient and
dissolved oxygen concentrations necessary to support the living resources of
the Bay.
B. TOXICS
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.
C. LIVING RESOURCES
Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources, their
habitats, and ecological relationships.
-------
II.p.2
D. RELATED MATTERS
Develop and manage related environmental programs with a concern for their
impact on the Bay.
E. INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management at all
levels of government.
-------
II.p.3
A. 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.
BAYWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Provide timely construction of public and private sewerage
facilities to assure control of nutrient discharges.
2. Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
into Bay waters from such sources as combined sewer overflows and
leaking sewage systems.
3. Provide for adequate maintenance, operation and replacement of
equipment at sewage treatment facilities.
4. Establish and enforce nutrient and conventional pollutant
limitations to ensure compliance with water quality laws.
5. Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants
in runoff from agricultural and forested lands.
6. Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants
in urban runoff.
7. Reduce pollutant discharges from recreational boats in shellfish
growing areas and beach areas used for swimming.
-------
II.p.4
B. 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.
BAYWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system through
implementation and enforcement of the states NPDES permit programs
and other programs.
2. Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from sewage treatment
plants resulting from industrial sources.
3. Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from industrial
sources.
4. Reduce chlorine discharges to critical finfish and shellfish
areas.
5. Reduce the levels of metals and organics in urban and agricultural
runoff.
6. Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate response
to pollutant spills.
-------
II.p.5
C. LIVING RESOURCES
GOAL
Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources, their
habitats and ecological relationships.
BAYWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Develop or enhance state fisheries management programs to protect
the finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay.
2. Provide for the restoration of finfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance and diversity of freshwater and estuarine
spawners.
3. Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay,
especially the abundance of commercially important species.
4. Restore, enhance and protect waterfowl and wildlife.
5. Restore, enhance and protect desirable species of submerged
aquatic vegetation.
6. Protect and enhance, and restore where possible wetlands, coastal
sand dunes, and other important shoreline and riverine systems.
7. Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation to
protect Bay habitats.
8. Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain estuarine
habitats .
-------
II.p.6
D. RELATED MATTERS
GOAL
Develop and manage related environmental programs with a concern for their
impact on the Bay.
BAYWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to
protect the Bay system.
2. Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay.
3. Consider and address the impacts of atmospheric deposition on the
Bay system.
4. Improve and maintain public access to the Bay including public
beaches, parks and forested lands.
5. Improve opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing.
-------
II.p.7
E. INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
GOAL
Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management at all
levels of government.
BAYWIDE OBJECTIVES
1. Adequately coordinate Bay management activities and develop and
maintain good mechanisms for accountability.
2. Assure a continuing process of public input and participation.
3. Enhance Bay-oriented education opportunities to increase public
awareness and understanding of the Bay system.
4. Track and evaluate all activities which may impact estuarine water
quality and resources.
5. Develop a coordinated Chesapeake Bay data management system.
6. Implement a coordinated Baywide monitoring program.
7. Implement a coordinated Baywide research program.
-------
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
II. A.1.p.6.
Goal: Reduce polat and nonpoint source nutrient loading* to attain nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentration necessary to support
the living resources of the Bay.
Objective 1: Provide tiaely construction of public and private sewage facilities to ensure control of nutrient discharges.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Coluafcia
EPA: Provide grants for eli-
gible costs to plan, design,
and construct aanlcipal
sewage treatment aysteas
(CUA Sec. 201);
Support.phosphorus reaoval
deaonstratlon projects and
evaluation.
COE - Continue Department of
Any pollution abateaent
prograa of construction of new
wastewater facilities.
Iapleaent revised Hater
Qusllty Standards to
continue to regulate
phosphorus discharges within
the Susquehanna River Basin
(particularly within the.
lower basin).
Provide construction grants
for POTWs in accordance
with EPA-approved project
priority list; continue to
Bake full use of federal
grant funds earaarked for
developaent and iaple-
aentatioa of innovative/
alternative sewage treataent
technology.
Inpleaent Upper Bay Phos-
phorus Reaoval Policy
Construct and have
operational phospho-
rus reaoval facilities by
July 1, 1988, except for
Back River which will take
longer.
Increase state share of
federally eligible treat-
aent works construction by
local government to offset
decreases in federal grant
assistance.
Hake loans to local gov-
ernaents to finance the
local share of sewerage
construction costs.
Iapleaent pilot projects
for phosphorus reaoval
Continue iapleaentatiou and
re-evaluation of Potoaac
Eabayaent Standards
Provide state grants for
construction of POTWs.
Provide water and sewer
funding assistance (loank).
Continue iapleaenta'
tion of the Potoaac
Strategy to control
eutrophication of
the Potoaac Estuary
Iapleaent water
quality related
facility laprove-
aents at the Blue
Plains UWTP as
recoaaended in the
Blue Plains Feasi-
bility Study.
-------
Goal: A
Objective 1: (continued)
II. A.1.p.9.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
'
Continue to implement the
Comprehensive Water
Quality Management Plans
for Upper, Central, and
Lower Susquehanna Basin
Areas.
Continue to implement the
State's Municipal Waste
Load Management Program.
Monitor nitrogen
removal results in the
Patuxent estuary and con-
sider advisability of re-
quiring nitrogen removal
at other plants.
-------
II.A.2.p.10
Goal: A
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.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Coluiribia
EPA: Provide grants for cor-
rection of infiltration and
inflow (CUA Sec. 201);
Authorise funds for cor-
rection of CoabinedSewer Over-
flow discharges into urine
bays and estuaries
(CUA Sec. 201).
Continue to implement
Pennsylvania's Sewage
Facilities Act to identify
municipal sewerage needs
and to regulate on-lot
sewage disposal.
Continue to evaluate
effectiveness of state-
funded Harsh-Pond-Headow
demonstration project at
Iselin (Young Township,
Indiana County) as a low
cost, alternative treatment
process; provide for
technology transfer of data
and site visits for munlcipd.
officials, consulting
engineers, and other
interested parties.
Improve enforcement of
overflows/spills and raw
sewage discharges.
Evaluate and foster oppor-
tunities to use innovative
and alternative onsite
technologies.
Provide State financial
assistance for special
types of projects such
as house connectors and
collector sewers to
service areas with
failing septic systems.
Provide grants to locali-
ties for improvement of
sewer line infiltration
and inflow problems.
Implement Combined
Sewer Overflow
Abatement Program.
Construct separate
storm sewers as a
part of develop-
ment projects to
direct storm flows
away from the
District's sanitary
sewer system.
-------
XI.A.3.p.11
Goal: A
Objective 3: Provide for Adequate maintenance, operation, and replacement of equipment at sewage treatment facilities.
1 Federal
| Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EfH - Provide grants fox
technical assistance to
improve the operation of
sewage treatment plants (CWA
Sections 109(a) and 104(g) ).
COE - Continue upgrading
of existing wastewater
treatment facilities.
Continue to carry out an
Outreach Operator Training
Program for P01U personnel
with funds under
Section 104(g) of the Federal
Clean Uater Act.
Continue to provide classrooi
training for sewage
treatment plant operators
(public and private) through
the Pennsylvania Department
of Community Affairs.
Continue to enforce the
Commonwealth's mandatory
Sewage Treatment Plant
Operators Certification
Law.
Continue to carry out
Pennsylvania's Act 339 to
provide annual grants to
help defray the cost of
operation and maintenance
of municipal and public
school district sewage
treatment facilities.
Improve operation of phos-
phorus removal processes
by providing on-site tech-
nical assistance for treat-
ment plant operators and
enhancing operator training
and certification program.
Require all existing
sewage treatment plants to
demonstrate that there are
adequate revenues to
support the facility
presently and in the futuri
years. Require new fac-
ilities to demonstrate
adequate fiscal planning
and revenues.
Implement using amended
regulations for construc-
tion permit authority and
for water and sewer plan-
ning authority.
Provide technical training
for POTV personnel.
Provide 0 & H technical
assistance for POTV owners
and operators.
Increase 0 and M
support, at the
Blue Plains WVTP,
and increase
supplies and mat-
erials in support
of plant 0 and M.
-------
II.A.A.p.12
Goal: A
Objective 4: Establish and enforce nutrient and conventional pollutant limitations to ensure compliance with water quality laws.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Provide overview of state-
delegated NPDES including per-
iodic compliance inspections}
Issue permits for D.C.
DOD- Ensurecompliance with
water quality laws.
Continue to carry out
EPA-delegated NPDES
Program (Permitting,
Compliance Monitoring,
and Enforcement) in
accordance with delegation
agreements.
Enhance the computerized
data system for NPDES
and State permit,
inspection, and
enforcement data.
Continue to carry out the
State Water Quality
Management Permitting,
Inspection, and
Enforcement Programs
Have more effective and
frequent enforcement of
NPDES municipal and
industrial discharge
permits.
Bring all State-owned
treatment plants into
compliance with discharge
standards: provide
nutrient removal where
applicable and land
treatment where possible.
Establish a computerized
data bank of inspection
and other permit data.
Utilize water qaulity
planning, water quality
modeling, and wasteload
allocation for setting
NPDES permit conditions.
Conduct NPDES permit pro-
gram.
Continue enforcement
of water quality laws
and regulations.
Require municipalities to
meet National Municipal
Policy.
Continue implementation and
re-evaluation of Potomac
Embayment Standards.
Continue
NPDES compliance monitor-
ing.
Conduct No-discharge
Certificate Program.
Promulgate regula-
tions under the DC
Water Control Act.
-------
II.A.5.p.l3
Goal: A
Objective 5: Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants in runoff from agricultural and forested lands.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
USDA/SCS - Provide technical
and financial assistance to
agricultural land users to
reduce HPS pollution.
EPA - Grant implementation
funds to help control runoff.
FWS - Assist in tracking
effectiveness of BMPs in
improving water quality
and aquatic resources.
USGS - Provide hydrologic
information and technical
assistance to help evaluate
BMPs.
SCS - Reclaim soil and water
resources of rural lands
adversely affected by past
coal mining practices.
COE - Require safeguards froi
MPS pollution on leased
civil and military land.
Implement BMPs on 20X of
critical farms in 10
priority watersheds by 1988.
Complete watershed
assessments and determine
critical farms in 13
priority watersheds by 1988.
Demonstrate nutrient
testing on 750 farms in
20 priority watersheds
by 1988.
Implement a forestry
program.
Have soil conservation and
water quality plans
developed for farms in
priority watersheds by
July, 1989.
Provide agricultural
cost-sharing grants to
landowners In priority
watersheds to assist with
the installation of BMPs.
Develop soil conservation
and water quality plans
for all farms by July,
1994.
Recruit and place teams of
planners and technicians
in soil conservation
districts where priority
watersheds for agr. NPS
problems exist.
Develop BMPs for nutrient
runoff control.
Develop statewide educa-
tion and demo, program
to assist landowners.
Provide cost-sharing
funds for agricultural BMPs,
Identify potential sources
of agricultural nonpoint
pollution.
Conduct research and
demonstration projects for
agricultural BMPs.
Provide cost-sharing for
funds for local personnel
for BMP programs.
Conduct BMP education
programs.
Implement State erosion
and sediment control
program.
Conduct soil research and
mapping.
Assist property owners in
forest land management.
-------
II.A.5.p.14
Goal: A
Objective 5: (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Assure agricultural
drainage projects
protect Maryland water-
ways froa pollution.
Coapleaent activities
with enforcement actions
as needed in priority
areas.
-------
Goal: a
Objective 6: Reduce the levels of nutrients and other conventional pollutants In uiban lunoff.
IX.A.6.p.15
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA - Provide information on
pollutants in urban runoff
and on costs and effectiveness
of control strategies, based
on the results of the Nation-
wide Urban Runoff Program and
other available inforoation.
COE - Continue reduction of
NPS pollution at nilitary
installations.
Implement the Storn Water
Management progran pursuant
to the Pennsylvania Storm
Water Management Act of 1978,
Implement the Statewide
Stormwater Management Law
with assistance grants to
local jurisdiction.
Make grants for demon-
stration projects to as-
certain the cost and
effectiveness of various
methods of solving storm-
water runoff problems
created by existing
development.
Provide cost-sharing
funds for local government
for BMP programs.
Conduct BMP education
programs.
Conduct demonstration
projects for urban BMPs.
Formulate and
implement Storm-
water Management
Program.
Retrofit BMPs on
public land in the
Anacostia basin.
Retrofit stormwater best
management practices at
State facilities.
Provide 16 additional en-
forcement inspectors to
assure consistent State-
wide enforcement of the
State's sediment control
law.
Improve sediment control
techniques and their
application by providing
funding fox review and
revision of the State-
wide standards for ero-
Implement State erosion'iand
sediment contcol programs.
Provide grants to
Anacostia basin
residential areas
for BMP retrofit.
Improve catch basin
and stream cleaning
to reduce sediment
entering the estu-
ary.
sion and sediment control
plans.
-------
II.A.7.p. 16
Goal: A
Objective 7: Reduce pollaUnt discharges froa recreational boats In shellfish growing areas and beach areas ased for inilMlng.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Oolwbia
Use part of FY 84 imple-
mentation funds for deaoa-
stration puapout facil-
ities.
Coatinae to investigate
feasibility of providing
requiring pnapoat facil-
ities.
Proaalgate regula-
tions under the
District Water Act
to control boat dis-
charges in D.C.
-------
B. TOXICS
II.B.1 .p.17
Qoal; 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.
Objective Is Identify and control toxic discharges to the Bay system through implementation and enforcement of the states NPDES
permit programs and other programs.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Develop and implement a
integrated strategy to
control toxic pollutants
beyond technology-based
requirements;
Reduce non-compliance
with permit standards;
Provide EPA oversight of
state-delegated NPDES,
including periodic compli-
ance saapling;
Issue D.C. permits.
DOD - Ensure compliance
with NPDES program.
COE - Monitor for
contaminants at reservoirs.
n Continue EPA-delegated
NPDES Program in accordance
with delegation agreements.
Continue State Hater Quality
Management Permitting, In-
spection, and Enforcement
Programs.
Continue Phase II of trien-
nial Uater Quality Standards
review to address priority
issues, including Toxics.
Continue State's Point
Source Toxic Control Stra-
tegy for dealing with cer-
NPDES permit renewals and
new NPDES permits.
Implement a study of PCB
residues in fish tissue.
Use biomonitoring and
chemical testing of in-
dustrial and municipal
discharges to analyze
effluents and to determine
their toxicity to Bay
aquatic resources. Per-
form ecological field
assessments at the points
of discharge of industries
and sewage treatment
plants.
Complete the EPA Integrate!
Env. Mgt. Project for
Balto. Harbor in coopera-
tion with local gov'ts.
Conduct NPDES permit
program.
Develop and implement
automated toxics "finger-
printing" system.
Conduct toxics monitoring
program.
Study fate and effect of
PAHs in estuarine environ-
ment.
Develop early warning sys-
tem for pollutants in
seafood.
Promulgate regulations
under the District
Uater Pollution
Control Act to control
point source dis-
charges.
Examine alternative
methods of meeting
future water quality
standards for toxics.
-------
II.B.2.p.18
Goal: B
Objective 2: Reduce the discharge of metals and organics from sewage treatment plants resulting from industrial sources.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Colombia
EPA-Encourage states to seek
pretreatment delegation
authority.
EPA-Develop protocol to
conduct toxicity reduction
evaluations (THE) at
municipal plants.
Continue to develop a
proposal for delegation of
EPA's Pretreatment Program
responsibilities to
Pennsylvania.
Continue to implement the
State's Municipal Uaste
Load Management Program.
Implement a pretreatment
program concentrating on
enforcement, program
development and laboratory
services.
Make loans available to
industry for installation
of pretreatment equipment.
Develop and implement a
pretreatment program.
Conduct NPDES permit pro-
gram.
Conduct toxics monitoring.
Develop and implement
automated toxics "finger-
printing" system.
Enact a sewer use
srdinance and develop
a pretreatment program.
-------
II.B.3.p. 19
Goal: B
Objective 3: Reduce the discharge of aetals and organics froa industrial sources.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA-Pro»ide technical
guidance to pernit writers.
EPA-Develop and iapleaent
an . Integrated strategy to
control toxic pollutants
beyond techno logy-based
reqai resents.
Continue to carry out EPA-
delegated HPDES Progran
(Permitting, Compliance
Monitoring, and Eaforcenent!
in accordance with delega-
tion agreements.
Incorporate BAT effluent
liaitations in NPDES
peraits and enforce then.
Conduct RPDES perait pro-
graa.
Conduct Ho-Discharge
Certificate FtO(t*a.
Coadact toxics aoaitoriag,
sampling, and analyses.
Develop and iapleaeat
automated toxics "finger-
printing" systea.
finaalaU regula-
tioas under the
District Mater Pollu-
tion Control Act to
control point source
discharges.
tPi-Smlop protocol to
conduct toxicity redaction
evalaatioas at iadaatrial
plants.
W5-l>oc—t bicmr— latloa
of toxica Mar selected oat-
falls. recaaeaf redactd
enf i at rations.
-------
II.B.A.p. 20
Goal: B
Objective 4: Reduce chlorine discbarges to critical flnflsh and shellfish areas.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA-Propose criteria for
estuarine waters.
EPA-Provide grants for
dechlorination (Blue Plains))
(CWA Sec. 201).
Continue to iapleaent
statewide regulation
authorising seasonal
disinfection of effluents.
Where chlorine is used for
disinfection, dechlorina-
tion processes should be
installed.
Establish dechlorination
requirements in State
water quality laws and
regulations.
Provide 1001 State grants
to assist affected public
operators to retrofit
dechlorination equipment.
Modify discharge peraits
to specify dechlorination
requireaents and reason-
able schedules.
Establish and iaplenent
a state water quality
standard for chlorine.
Provide grants to locali-
ties for control of
chlorine at POTUs.
Implement dechlorina-
tion at Blue Plains
UVTP.
-------
II.B.5.p.21
Goal: B
Objective 5: Reduce the levels of metals and organics in urban and agricultural runoff.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Provide implementation
grants to states to control
urban and agricultural
runoff;
Study and provide inforaation
on urban runoff and the
effects of BHPs.
EPA - Conduct pesticide
registration prograa;
provide grants to states
to implement FIFRA and
technical training and
assistance for appropriate
use of pesticides.
USDA - Provide technical
assistance programs; cost-
share programs.
Implement the Storm Water
Management program
pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Storm Water
Management Act of 1978.
Develop management systems
with minimum chemical
monitoring to minimize N
and P contamination of
agricultural drainage water
without reducing com yield
Identify the amounts and
types of insecticides,
herbicides and fungicides
used in specific watersheds
associated with the
Chesapeake Bay Abatement
Program.
Initiate an education
program to bring all
pesticide users to a com
level of awareness as to
the potential impact
pesticides may represent
to the Chesapeake Bay.
Implement Statewide
Stormwater Management Law
Use Fi 84 implementation
funds to retrofit storm-
water best management
practices.
Install agricultural best
management practices In
priority watersheds.
Implement Critical Areas
Statute.
Retain existing forest-
land in buffer areas.
Implement stormwater manage
ment program to:
- conduct BMP education
programs.
- conduct demonstration
projects for urban BMPs.
- provide cost-sharing
funds for BMP programs.
Identify potential sources
of agricultural nonpoint
pollution.
Provide cost-sharing funds
for local personnel for
BMP programs.
Conduct research and
demonstration projects
for agricultural BMPs.
Implement state erosion
and sediment control
program.
Formulate and
implement a Storm-
water Management
Program to control
heavy metals.
Retrofit BMPs on
public land in the
Anacostia basin.
Provide grants to
Anacostia basin
residential areas
for retrofitting
BMPs.
Improve catch basin
and stream cleaning
to reduce heavy
metals entering
the estuary.
-------
Goal: B
Objective 6: Minimize water pollution incidents and pcovide adequate response to pollutant spills.
II.B.6.p.22
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA-Respond to releases (or
threatened releases) of
hazardous substances that
¦ay endanger public health
or welfare.
FHS-Participate in emergency
response actions.
Continue to carry out
emergency response
activities in coordination
with local, state, federal,
and interstate organiza-
tions.
Continue to maintain and
distribute an up»to-date
Water Emergency Response
Manual to provide guidance
to agencies and industries
on spill prevention, clean-
up, and notification
procedures.
Continue to require
Preparedness, Prevention,
Contingency (PPC) Plans
for activities that have a
high potential to cause
pollution incidents.
Implement MD's oil spill
response program.
Maintain emergency response
capability for pollution
events.
Establish oil spill
contingency fund and
plan.
-------
C. LIVING RESOURCES
Goal: Provide for the restoration and protection of the living resources and their habitats and ecological relationships.
Objective 1: Develop or enhance state fisheries management programs to protect the finfish and shellfish stocks of the Bay.
XI.C.l.p. 23
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
NOAA: Develop fisheries
management plans for species
under Magnuson Act;
Assess status of Bay fish
stock;
Develop data on fish
harvests;
Evaluate shellfish habitat;
Develop a striped bass
stocking program with
Maryland in the Conowingo
Pool/Reservoir (Pennsylvania
Pish Commission).
Develop fisheries manage-
ment plans for specific
Bay species sought by
commercial and sport
fishermen: eel; shad/
river herring; striped
bass; white perch; yellow
perch; spot; croaker, and
shellfish.
Develop and implement a
comprehensive fisheries
management program includ-
ing plans for striped bass
and oysters. Enforce
fisheries laws and
regulations.
Automate fisheries manage-
ment information.
Develop a Fisheries
Management Program.
Determine toxic effects on
fin and shellfish.
Manage public health
aspects of shellfish
production and marketing.
FWS - Measure chemical
residues in fish to detect
trends; deternine toxic
effects.
Survey and map shellfish
grounds.
Investigate factors affect-
ing fluctuations in stocks.
-------
II.C.2.p. 24
Goal:C
Objective 2: Provide fox the restoration of finfish stocks in the Bay, especially the abundance of freshwater aad estmarine spanners.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
FWS - Evaluate striped bass
stocking practices.
Continue to carry out a
prograa to restore Aaerican
Shad and other diadroaous
fishes to the Susquehanna
River.
Iapleaent restrictive ian-
ageaent aeasures on the
harvesting of hickory and
American shad and striped
bass.
Implement a moratorium
on striped bass
which began in January,
1985.
Utilize hatcheries
to aid in the restoration
and enhancement of fish
populations to increase
brood stocks.
Construct an intercept
ha tchery.
Conduct wetlands and
bottorn lands (habitat)
Management.
Manage wildlife aad fresh
water fisheries.
Implement all water
quality-related programs.
Develop fishery aanageaent
plan for striped bass.
Participate in interstate
management plan for shad
and herring.
Study the diseases of
finfish.
Establish regula-
tions protecting
anadroaous fish as
part of the fisheries
aanageaent program.
-------
II.C.2.p.25
Goal: C
Objective 2s (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Utilize sharply focused
research programs to
resolve biological
probleas associated with
the decline of fish stocks
Mark fish for subsequent
recapture to determine
survival rates.
Develop prograa to provide
fishways for anadroareus
fish at daas on tidal
rivers.
Study the feasibility of
expanding the artificial
reef prograa.
Enhance James River striped
bass population through
restocking.
Stock Blue catfish in
Jaaes and Rappahannock
rivers.
-------
II.C.3.p. 26
Goal: C
Objective 3: Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay, especially the abundance of commercially important species.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Enhance the Maryland
oyster industry through
additional planting and
seeding.
Oyster repletion-Implemen-
tation of new oyster
culture technology.
Provide extension service
to the industry.
Expand oyster repletion
activities by developing
oyster culture for replen-
ishment activities and a
seed oyster hatchery.
Conduct wetlands and
bottomlands (habitat)
management.
Implement integrated
shellfish area enhance-
ment program.
Implement all water
quality related programs.
Provide grants to locali-
ties for improvement
of deficient shoreline
residential
sanitation systems.
-------
II.C.4.p.27
Goal: c
Objective 4: Restore, enhance, and protect waterfowl and wildlife.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
FVS - Implement the Endang-
ered Species Act of 1973.
National Marine Fishery
Service and other federal
agencies protect water-
fowl and wildlife.
FVS - Carry out various
projects and activities
to enhance and protect
waterfowl and wildlife.
Improve wildlife habitat
within sections of the
Susquehanna River Basin
and Upper Chesapeake Bay
by reducing agricultural
nonpoint nutrient and
associated sediment loading
of receiving waters down-
stream froa Pennsylvania's
faralands through imple-
mentation of BMP's.
Improve duck habitat on
both public and private
land to realize an in-
crease in the black duck
breeding population.
Provide an intensive
waterfowl habitat educa-
tion project.
Expand the existing
program of tax incentives
for conservation of water
fowl habitat.
Conduct wetlands and
bottomlands (habitat)
management.
Maintain system of wildlife
management areas.
Protect and manage migra-
tory waterfowl.
Continue work on programs
to protect the bald eagle,
and to study the peregrine
falcon, osprey, colonial
nesting birds, and marine
turtles.
-------
Goal: c
Objective 5; Restore, enhance, and protect desirable species of submerged aquatic vegetation.
II.C.5.p.28
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Joint Federal Effort -
Determine impact of hydrills
and propose and test control
measures•
FWS - Fund sapping of SAV
and development of manage-
ment policies.
Revegetate areas of the
Bay where regeneration
would likely be
successful.
Intensify survey efforts.
Reestablish submerged
aquatic vegetation.
Conduct wetlands and
bottomlands (habitat)
management.
Establish regulations
to protect SAV and
continue observation
of the resurgence of
beneficial SAV.
-------
II.C.6.p.29
Goal: c
Objective 6: Protect and enhance, and restore where possible wetlands, coastal sand dunes, and other important shoreline and
riverine systems.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
NOAA - Establish sanctuaries
for research and educational
opportunities.
FWS - Ensure that federally-
funded activities protect
fish and wildlife habitat.
FWS - Catalogue, map and
describe trends in wetlands;
examine impact of shoreline
structures.
COE - Create wetlands
through use of dredged
materials.
Continue to implement a
Wetlands Protection Program.
Implement Dam Safety and
Encroachment Act.
Enhance 401/404 water
quality certification
program.
Evaluate public drainage
projects and their impact
on water quality.
Maintain wetlands protec-
tion through existing
licensing and permitting
program.
Monitor dredging and spoil
disposal projects.
Monitor 404 activities and
report findings.
Establish and implement
criteria for drainage plan
approval, including
standards for the design,
construction, and oper-
ation and maintenance of
agricultural drainage
projects.
Initiate program for water
conservation and control
of consumptive water loss
to maintain freshwater in-
flow to the Bay.
Control the impacts of
human activity within
the critical area con-
tiguous to the Bay and its
tributaries.
Conduct wetlands and
bottomlands (habitat)
management.
Conduct coastal primary
sand dunes protection
program.
Protect public beaches
from erosion.
Provide shoreline erosion
technical advisory services
Work with property owners
to obtain open space
easements.
Manage state parks so as to
protect the Bay.
Promulgate regula-
tions under the
District Water Poll-
ution Control Act to
protect wetlands.
-------
II.C.6.p.30
Goal: C
Objective 6: (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Implement the Critical
Areas Statute.
Develop and implement
BMPs around the Bay and
its tributaries to inter-
cept surface runoff and
infiltrate it through the
soil profile prior to
reaching the water.
Define and map the criti-
cal land areas currently
forested adjacent to the
Bay and its tributaries.
Provide technical assis-
tance to landowners, in-
cluding the preparation
of forest management
plans.
Assist property owners in
forest land management.
-------
II.C.6.p.31
Goal: c
Objective 6: (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Encourage private land-
owners to preserve and
protect undeveloped or
low density areas along
the shoreline of the Bay
and tributaries.
Increase the execution of
easenents within the
existing Maryland Envir-
onmental Trust Easenent
Progran.
-------
II.C.7.p. 32
Goal: c
Objective 7: Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation to protect Bay habitats.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Coluobia
COE - Identify and analyze
severe shoreline erosion
problens. Recommend projects
for implementation.
EPA and USDA-Provide
technical and financial
assistance.
Increase technical training
for erosion, sedimentation,
and nutrient control.
Increase enforcement and
compliance of the erosion
and sedimentation control
program by the addition of
conservation district
technical personnel.
Enhance the current level
of effort for structural
and non-structural proper-
ty to mitigate shoreline
erosion.
Establish a vegetative
shore erosion control
program for non-critical
eroding areas.
Augment the existing
structural program for
critical areas.
Use clean spoil from
maintenance dredging pro-
jects to complement both
approaches.
Provide State grants to
certain local jurisdic-
tions, to assist with
certain eligible costs
for acquisition, design,
construction, equipping,
rehabitation, and improve-
ment of certain projects
designed to enhance the
shoreline.
Implement state erosion and
sediment control program.
Conduct soil research and
sapping.
Provide shoreline erosion
technical advisory service.
Conduct demonstration pro-
jects for urban BMPs.
Conduct BMP education
programs.
Conduct research and demon-
stration projects for
agricultural BMPs.
Provide cost-share funds
for agricultural BMPs.
Provide cost-sharing funds
for local personnel for
BMP programs.
Coordinate Soil
Conservation District
and stormvater
control activities.
-------
II.C.7.p.33
Goal: C
Objective 7: (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Protect non-tidal wet-
lands, with shared re-
sponsibilities at the
State and local govern-
ment levels.
Encourage and assist
Local governments with
the design and imple-
mentation of locally
administered non-tidal
wetlands management.
Initiate a non-tidal
resource assessment and
monitoring system which
will provide for a
quantitative analysis
of wetland types.
Establish criteria for
soil and water conserva-
tion plans to help main-
tain the integrity of
non-tidal wetland systems.
-------
Goal: c
Objective 8: Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain estuarine habitats.
II.C.8.p.34
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
COE - Conduct proposed
Chesapeake Bay drought
Management study.
Quantify both existing
and potential consumptive
losses of freshwater flow
to the Bay.
Implement structural,
non-structural, and water
conservation solutions.
Enforce plumbing codes
using the Water and
Sewer Planning Statute.
Conduct water resource
planning and management.
Conduct stream flow
studies.
Maintain the
minimum flowby
under the Low
Flow Agreement.
-------
D. RELATED MATTERS
Goal: Develop and manage related environmental programs with a concern for their impact on the Bay.
Objective 1: Manage sewage sludge, dredge spoil, and hazardous wastes to protect the Bay system.
II.D.l.p.35
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA - Establish programs to
manage sludge and hazardous
wastes which include tech-
nical assistance, informa-
tion transfer, training,
and funding under RCRA,
Superfund, and CUA.
DOD - Control hazardous
wastes at installations.
PUS - Review dredge spoil
activities and impacts on
SAV and wetlands.
Continue to carry out the
Pennsylvania Solid Uaste
Management Act.
Continue to seek primacy
to carry out a federally-
delegated RCRA Program.
Promote the use of state
land to assist in the
management of sludge or
for land application of
sewage effluent.
Complete
the Maryland Environmental
Service sludge management
plan.
Secure permits for
additional State-owned
lands.
Develop new markets
for sludge compost.
Manage all categories of
waste in a safe and
effective manner.
Conduct research study on
the environmental effects
of land disposal of
sewage sludge.
Continue to support land
application of sewage
sludge through approvals
to localities and permitsto
private contractors.
Implement a long-
term solution for
Blue Plains WVTP
sludge disposal.
COE - Conduct proposed
Chesapeake Bay dredged
material disposal study;
continue navigation
dredging management program.
Continue to develop edu-
cational materials.
Form an interagency
technical team for
sludge management.
-------
Goal: D
Objective 1: (continued)
II.D.l.p.36
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Implement Federal
and State hazardous wastes
laws and regulations.
Investigate water quality
impacts associated with
dredging activities.
Use clean spoil from main-
tenance dredging of chan-
els in non-critically
eroding shoreline areas
for stabilization through
vegetative means and to
reduce annual dredging
costs.
Implement federal and state
hazardous waste laws and
regulations.
Assist Corps of
Engineers in locating
upland sites for
dredged spoil.
-------
II.D.2.p.37
Goal: D
Objective 2: Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Colunbia
EPA - Develop and implement
a groundwater strategy to
protect underground
reserves.
(JSCS - Provide available
groundwater data and
technical assistance, as
requested.
Continue to develop
Groundwater Quality
Management and
Monitoring Strategies and
a Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Program.
Utilize NPDES, hazardous
wastes, and landfill regu-
latory programs to protect
groundwater.
Utilize oil control pro-
gram to prevent, contain,
and clean-up oil dis-
charges from leaking
underground storage tanks.
Implement solid and
hazardous waste and other
waste programs, no-
discharge and NPDES permit
programs to protect
groundwater.
Initiate a coopera-
tive agreement with
DSGS for a compre-
hensive ground-
water assessment.
Promulgate regula-
tions for protecting
groundwaters.
-------
II.D.3.p.38
Goal: D
Objective 3: Consider and address the impacts of atmospheric deposition on the Bay system.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA - Provide for research,
Monitoring, and infornation
transfer on acid rain
problens.
Continue to operate an
Acid Precipitation
Monitoring Network.
Coordinate, complete, and
evaluate results of moni-
toring and special study
efforts.
Review state and national
data to determine and
analyze impacts on
Maryland's resources.
Review and assess the
various legislative
options being considered
at the national and
state level.
Review national research
and data sources, conduct
monitoring and selected
acid deposition effect
studies.
Evaluate re-estab-
lishing atmospheric
deposition mon-
itoring stations.
-------
II.D.4.p.39
Goal: D
Objective 4: Improve and maintain public access to the Bay including public beaches, parks, and forested lands.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Assist local gov'ts in
developing areas for
public access.
Protect public beaches
fron excessive losses.
Maintain and expand systea
of public boat landings,
wildlife aanageaent areas,
waterfront state parks.
-------
II.D.5.p.40
Goal: d
Objective 5: Iaprore opportunities for recreational and coaaercial fishing.
federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
COE - Collect end reanve
drift aaterial.
Utilise funds froa the
Chesapeake Bay Saltwater
Sportfishing License to
increase recreational
fishing opportunities in
the Bay.
Acquire and aaintain
fishing piers to increase
fishing access.
Construct and place sport-
fish habitat reefs to
increase estuarine fish
nursery areas and to
increase production of
marine species in the
estuary.
leprove public landings
for coaaercial fishing
craft.
Maintain and expand systea
of public boat landings, "
wildlife aanageaent areas,
waterfront state parks.
-------
E. INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT
Goal: Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management at all levels of government.
Objective 1: Adequately coordinate Bay management activities, and develop and maintain good mechanisms for accountability.
11. £. 1. p .41
Federal/Regional
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Federal and State - Imple-
ment Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983 which
commits the signatories to a
cooperative regional manage-
ment approach to improve
and protect the water
quality and living resources
of the Chesapeake Bay es-
tuarine system.
Interstate, Regional and
Local Commissions - Carry
out regulatory and voluntary
programs.
Continue to participate as
a member of the Chesapeake
Bay Executive Council and
the Implementation
Committee and its
subcommittees.
Continue to participate as
a member of the Potomac
and Susquehanna River
Basin Commission.
Continue the involvement
of the Nonpoint Strategy
Committee for overall
planning and strategy
development of
Pennsylvania's nonpoint
agricultural abatement
program.
Maryland's Chesapeake
Executive Council members
will listen to and respond
to concerns of the
Citizens Advisory Commit-
tee.
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
Implementation Committee
members will interact with
and review reports of the
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee.
Maryland Executive Branch
agencies will participate
on the four subcommittees
which report to the Imple-
mentation Committee.
Governor's Council on the
Bay will coordinate
intrastate management
activities, with staff
support provided by the
"Wye Group".
Participate in Executive
Council, Implementation
Committee and other inter-
governmental organizations.
Establish citizen advisory
committees in each trib-
utary basin.
Monitor and report on Bay
management programs and
environmental trends.
Conduct coordinated eval-
uation of NEPA documents,
etc.
Participate in
Chesapeake Execu-
tive Council and
Implementation
Committee.
Participate in the
Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River
Basin.
Participate in the
Metro. Washington
Water Resources
Planning Board.
Manage in
cooperation with
Maryland the Ana-
costia Watershed
Restoration Strategy
Agreement between
D.C. and Maryland.
-------
II.E.l.p. 42
Goal: E
Objective 1: (continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
Provide Pennsylvania
participation froa the
Legislative branch on the
Chesapeake Bay Commission
to facilitate effective
cooperation and coordina-
tion of Bay planning and
nanageinent among the
states.
Provide leadership and
liaison for Chesapeake
Bay legislation through
support for Chesapeake
Bay Commission.
Prepare annual report
on progress and use of
funds. (Gov.'s Council
on Bay).
Set priorities for initi-
atives annually and cite
multi-year funding needs
as needed. (Cov's Coun-
cil).
Provide leadership and
liaison for Chesapeake Bay
legislation through
support for Chesapeake
Bay Commission.
-------
II.E.2.p. 43
Goal: E
Objective 2: Assure a continuing process of public input and participation.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Support a comprehen-
sive prograa of public
involvement to provide
citizens with opportunities
to influence decisions
affecting the Bay;
Provide support to Citizens
Advisory Coaaittee to
increase public participa-
tion in developing and iaple
aenting Chesapeake Bay Res-
toration and Protection Plan!
Fund activities of the
Citizens Prograa for the
Chesapeake Bay.
Utilize Citizens Advisory
Com! ttee (CAC) as a
vehicle for public input
and participation.
Iapleaent the Chesapeake
Bay Trust. Use individual
and private sector con-
' tributions for Bay clean-
up projects.
Utilize watershed planning
groups for overseeing
iapleaentation at the
watershed level.
Consult with SVOAC, CRAC,
CAC as vehicles for pub-
lic input and participa-
tion.
Provide grants for Chesa-
peake Bay education pro-
jects.
Establish citizen advisory
coaaittee in each tributary
basin.
Develop and distribute
Chesapeake Bay public
service announceaents.
Set-up space for
public access to CBP
computer via the D.C.
computer.
Establish a Chesa-
peake Bay Citizen
Participation
Prograa.
Establish a Public
Inforaation Depos-
itory and Inforaation
disseaination prograa.
-------
II.E.3.p. 44
Goal: E
Objective 3: Enhance Bay-oriented education opportunities to Increase public awareness and understanding of the Bay system.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Coordinate and
support public information
and awareness activities
with state and local govern-
ments , institutions, public
and private organizations,
and the public;
Fund educational activities
of the Citizens Program for
the Chesapeake Bay.
FWS - Carry out a public
awareness program.
Support educational programs
concerning Chesapeake Bay
coordinated through the
Pennsylvania Environmental
Education Network Master
Plan.
Develop and implement an
education program on
Chesapeake Bay pollution
problems.
Conduct an outreach program
for small water companies
to provide technical assis-
tance for the reduction of
water consumption, water
losses, and operational
inefficiencies.
Educate students about the
ecology and problems of
the Bay.
Fund a contractual State
specialist in environ-
mental education to
train teachers.
Make grants to local sys-
tems for curriculum modi-
fication and implementa-
tion of instructional
programs.
Provide productive employ-
ment for disadvantaged
youth.
The Youth Conservation
Corps will undertake
labor intensive projects
for stabilizing and
refurbishing streams and
estuaries.
Provide grants for Chesa-
peake Bay education pro-
jects .
Develop and distribute
Chesapeake Bay public
service announcements.
Provide opportunity for
selected disadvantaged
youths to participate
in stream cleanup and
related activities
(Youth Conservation Corps).
Establish out reach
to home owner for
nonpoint source con-
trol.
Develop educational
initiatives to
increase public
awareness and under-
standing of the
Bay eco-system.
-------
II.E.4.p.45
Goal: E
Objective 4: Track and evaluate all activities which may impact estuarine water quality and resources.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA - Provide grants to
states foe water quality
1 management planning, mon-
1 Itoilng, modeling, assess-
ing, administering, and
enforcing Clean Water Act
programs.
NOAA - Provide guidance,
data, research to support
Bay.
Enhance the computerized
data system for NPDES
and State pernit, inspection
and enforcement data.
Develop computerized data
bank of inspection and
other NPDES permit data.
Develop computerized data
bank of installed and
properly maintained best
management practices.
Conduct special pollution
effect studies.
Conduct stream pollution
source studies.
Conduct Bay-related
environmental reviews.
Support implemen-
tation of the
Potomac Strategy.
DOD - Abate pollution
in Chesapeake Bay
installations.
Implement Critical Areas
Law.
FUS - Support Bay through
a variety of actions and
programs.
COE - Continue to implement
CVA Sec. 404 (Regulatory
Program).
-------
II.E.5.pA6
Goal: E
Objective 5: Develop a coordinated Chesapeake Bay data management system.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Develop a coordinated
data management system for
use by all researchers and
analysts utilizing or con-
tributing to the Chesapeake
Bay data base;
Dpdate pollutant loading
information on point source
discharges, and store in
computer.
NOAA: Contribute to the
Chesapeake Bay Data Center;
Develop an Rational
Eatuarine Inventory.
OSGS - Develop a land use
management system using
its G1S.
Continue to enter ambient
water quality data into
EPA's STORET System to
provided for storage,
retrieval, and analysis.
Provide Maryland's share
of funding for continuance
of the centrally located
and jointly maintained
data center at EPA's
Liaison Office in
Annapolis.
Provide 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.
Upgrade capabilities of
SUCB automated water qual-
ity data system.
Establish automated and
coordinated data base
management system among
agencies included in
Bay work.
Automate fisheries data
management.
Establish telecommuni-
cation with CBP com-
puter and update data
base.
-------
II.E.6.p.A7
Goal: E
Objective 6: Implement a coordinated Baywide Monitoring program.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA - Coordinate state and
federal monitoring efforts
to determine trends in
water, quality, event
correlations, and effective-
ness of management decisions
USGS - Measure flow and
conduct water quality
sampling at Fall-Line
stations.
NOAA - Characterize
long-term trends at
selected sites and describe
patterns.
Continue to conduct routine
ambient, fixed station
monitoring at 118 Water
Duality Network (WQN)
stations in the Susquehanna
River Basin and at three
UQN stations in the
Potomac River Basin.
Continue to carry out a
project entitled,
"Assessment of Nutrient
Sources from Mainstem
and Selected Watersheds in
the Susquehanna River
Basin" (Susquehanna River
Basin Commission).
Improve the spatial,
temporal, and parameter
coverage of existing
programs.
Conduct baseline trend
monitoring of water
quality and sediment
parameters increasing
the number of stations
tenfold.
Utilize the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey services
for Fall Line monitoring.
Sample Potomac, Patuxent,
Patapsco, Back, South,
Rhode, West, Bush,
Chester, Choptank and
Little Choptank Rivers,
Eastern Bay and Tangier
Sound.
Conduct baseline water
quality and sediment mon-
itoring to improve the
spatial and temporal cov-
erage of existing programs.
Conduct living resource
monitoring to determine
associations between living
resources and water and
sediment quality.
Carry out special James
River water quality mon-
itoring program.
Conduct toxics monitoring.
Develop and implement
automated toxics "finger-
printing" system.
Conduct Kepone monitoring.
Continuing coor-
dinated Potomac
Monitoring activ-
ities.
-------
Il.E.6.p.A8
Goal: E
Objective ^(continued)
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
lipUient a regional
aonitoring program to
determine association
and potential cause and
effect relations aBong
living resources, hydro-
graphic and cliaatic
data and to provide a
fraaevork for directed
applied research.
Continue Modeling to
address larval transport,
effects of habitat quality
indicators on larval
density, and effects of
freshwater inflow and C
A D Canal during the
spawning period.
-------
II.E.7.p.49
Goal: E
Objective 7s Implement a cooidlasted Bayvide research program.
Federal
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
District of Columbia
EPA: Provide technical in-
formation to support aodel
development and guide manage-
ment and implementation
strategies;
Develop and assess data to
improve decision-making.
NOAA: Quantify trends in
coastal and estuarine envir-
onment ;
Conduct research projects
directed at reducing agri-
cultural nonpoint nutrient
loadings to the Bay.
Establish an annual re-
search budget. The Gover-
nor's Council on the Bay
will determine research
priorities.
Continue and/or complete
research projects initia-
ted in FY 85, during FY
86. Initiate new projects,
as funding allows, during
F* 86.
Conduct research and ad-
visory services to support
estuarine/narine resource
management.
Conduct Kepone health
effects research.
Conduct research as
needed by the Potomac
Strategy Management
Committee.
Characterise trends and pat-
terns in meteorlogical
forcing functions;
Determine low DO Impacts on
biota.
FVS - Provide needed scien-
tific data.
USGS - Study Potomac Estuary.
DSDA - Develop means to in-
crease production while min-
imizing harm to environment.
-------
Major River Basins
Legend
State boundaries
Rivers
—— River basin boundaries
Fall line
Susquehanna
Hamsburg
=\ MD.
Baltimore
S V
DEC
/ ^
.Washington^
Richmond
Norfoik
Potomac
James
Patuxent
Eastern Shore
Rappahannock-York
FIGURE III.l. Major river basins of the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
Ill.p.l
CHAPTER III - BASIN STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay watershed, with over 150 tributary rivers and streams,
covers 64,000 square miles. Its major sub-basins are the Susquehanna River
Basin, Upper Chesapeake Bay, West Chesapeake, Eastern Shore, Patuxent,
Potomac, Rappahannock, York and James river basins. Each of these major
river basins has a unique set of characteristics; therefore, effectively
managing the Chesapeake Bay system requires management strategies that
address the special characteristics of each basin. This chapter describes
the general characteristics of and defines a management strategy for each
basin. Targeting strategies to deal with the most serious problems of a
basin will help assure a more selective and more effective allocation of
limited resources and alleviate the collective impact on the Bay and its
living resources.
Each state and the District of Columbia have committed resoqrces to help
solve the most serious problems of the various basins. For example, the
General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia hars given special emphasis
to its commitment to the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake and
the Virginia tributaries through its $15.5 million initiative package of the
1984-86 biennium budget period. Maryland, likewise, has made its commitment
to the Bay with approximately $46 million dollars for a three year period.
Pennsylvania's Susquehanna program commitment is supported by approximately
$3 million for three years. The District of Columbia has authorized $13.3
million for 1984 through 1988. Each of the states' Baywide programs,
outlined in Chapter II and described in Appendices A-E, applies to all the
river basins and is not reiterated in this chapter. Rather, this chapter
describes the problems and management strategies unique to each basin.
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
DESCRIPTION
The major water pollutants of concern in the Susquehanna River Basin are
nutrients: phosphorus and nitrogen. According to the CBP Management Study,
the Susquehanna is dominated by nonpoint sources which account for 76% of
the phosphorus and 90S of the nitrogen loads within the basin.
A high percentage of the nitrogen (85Z) and phosphorus (602) loadings
delivered by the Susquehanna is attributable to runoff from cropland. The
study found that 41Z of the Susquehanna's nonpoint source load comes from
the intensively farmed area in the lower Susquehanna River basin below
Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
Within the lower basin, soil loss from untreated cropland may be as high as
17.7 tons/acre/year. In addition, the large concentrations of livestock
produce more manure than required for land application. Furthermore, the
lower Susquehanna River basin has a high percentage of conventional tillage
cropland and a low percentage of forest land. This is significant because
nutrient loadings from conventional tillage cropland are potentially the
highest for all land uses, while those from forest land are the smallest.
-------
III.p.2
The study also notes that fall line metal loadings indicate that toxic
substances are being discharged from municipal and industrial point sources
within the Susquehanna River basin.
Present pollution loads at the fall line during an average rainfall year are
as follows:
Phosphorus 2,900,000 lbs.(March-October)
Nitrogen 58,200,000 lbs.(March-October)
Toxic Metals 12,531 lbs/day
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
In accordance with the CBP Management Study recommendations, Pennsylvania is
initially targeting the lower Susquehanna River Basin for a comprehensive
implementation program to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The
program focuses on commercial fertilizer management, animal waste
application management, animal waste control, erosion and sediment control,
and pesticide/herbicide application and control. By 1988, watershed
assessments will be conducted to identify critical farms in 13 priority
watersheds; Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented on 20% of
the critical farms identified in 10 of the priority watersheds, and nutrient
testing will be demonstrated on 750 farms in 20 priority watersheds.
The Pennsylvania program also calls for continued (1) implementation of
recommendations contained in the DER report, "An Assessment of Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution in Selected High Priority Watersheds m
Pennsylvania", (2) Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Project, and (3) the
Conestoga Headwaters Rural Clean Water Program.
For further details on the Mason—Dixon Erosion Control Project, refer to the
upper Chesapeake Bay basin strategy in this chapter.
Pennsylvania has been participating in the federally funded Conestoga
Program since June 1981. The Conestoga River basin above Lancaster,
Pennsylvania contains diverse and highly intensive agriculture with very
little industry and has been designated as the number one priority watershed
in Pennsylvania's Agricultural 208 Plan. The study is evaluating the effects
of implementing agricultural BMPs to control fecal coliform bacteria,
nitrate, dissolved solids, sediments, and pesticides from nonpoint sources
of pollution. The BMPs include animal waste controls, terraces, and
waterways, and will be implemented on about 300 farms (out of a total of
1,250 farms) which are considered to be the most critical nonpoint source
problems in the study area.
The CBP Management Study also recommends that Pennsylvania continue to
implement its regulation (similar to the UCBP Policy) which requires 80%
removal (2 mg/1) of phosphorus at all new or modified point source
discharges within the lower Susquehanna River b«in. Revisions to this
regulation went into effect on February 16, 1985. Phosphorus controls will
be based on a determination by DER of the specific level of control needed.
Final implementation guidance will be developed for the lower Susquehanna
River basin by July, 1985. In the interim, (1) existing dischargers with
-------
III.p.3
phosphorus controls in place will be required to continue to operate these
facilities in accordance with their permit conditions; and (2) new or
modified discharges will be required to meet a 2 mg/1 effluent limitation.
In Maryland, Havre de Grace will decrease phosphorus loadings from an
average of 92.6 lbs/day to 32 lbs/day for the year 2000; compliance with the
phosphorus effluent limit is expected in 1987. Perryville phosphorus
loadings will increase from 5 lbs/day to 10 lbs/day by year 2000. The plant
is in compliance at the present time. Net phosphorus reduction from POTWs in
Maryland by the year 2000 is 5,480 lbs. in the March-October period, a
reduction of 22% below 1983 levels.
In 1984, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the
Office of Environmental Programs, developed and approved a report entitled
Statewide Priority Watersheds for the Potential Release of Agricultural
Nonpoint Phosphorus and Nitrogen. The report ranked all watershed segments
which drain to the Chesapeake Bay in order of their relative potential to
release phosphorus and nitrogen as a result of agricultural activities.
Factors included in the ranking of the watersheds were: (1) the intensity of
agricultural land use; (2) intensity of agricultural cropping; (3) the
amount of cropland under conventional tillage; (4) the fraction of cropland
on steep and erodable or, for nitrogen, highly permeable soil; (5) the
potential intensity of animal waste application to cropland; and (6) an
estimate of the influence of topography upon phosphorus movement. In setting
priorities, meetings were held with the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources to learn where stressed aquatic areas corresponded with critical
agricultural areas. Targeted for the implementation of best management
practices on critical farms is the Deer Creek watershed. The Mason-Dixon
project will assist in the implementation of best management practices on
farms in Cecil, Harford and Baltimore counties.
Toxics
Pennsylvania will continue to control toxic pollutants from point sources
through implementation of the federally-delegated NPDES program and its
State Water Quality Management Program. In addition, Pennsylvania has
initiated steps to obtain delegation of the federal Pretreatment Program by
the end of federal FY 1986.
Maryland will use the results of its biomonitoring program to determine the
need for toxics limits in future renewals of NPDES municipal and industrial
permits. Maryland expects pretreatment program delegation in 1985. Several
of Maryland's statewide nonpoint source control programs, such as storrawater
and sediment control, will also abate toxics.
Living Resources
The restoration of American Shad and other diadromous fishes to the
Susquehanna River Basin, and the development of a striped bass stocking
program with Maryland in the Conowingo Pool/Reservoir continue to be high
priorities in Pennsylvania.
-------
III.p.4
The State of Maryland is committed to restoring commercial and recreational
fisheries such as the American Shad and yellow perch in the Susquehanna
River basin.
-------
I \
7-
VC
I
N.Y
k. r< 7"'
V
-t'-T
/
V \ '
r
MD.j
W.VA.
s
/a /
/ V
Fall Line
1. Susquehanna
2. Eastern Shore
3. West Chesapeake
4. Patuxent
5. Potomac
6. Rappahannock
7. York
8. James
DEL.
VA.
•s
*?iV
FIGURE III • 2. The Chesapeake Bay drainage basin.
-------
III.p.5
UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY
DESCRIPTION
In the Maryland portion, the Bay proper covers 1,310 square miles, while the
remaining area (1,165 square miles) consists of tidal tributaries. The Bay
is about 200 miles in total length; Maryland's portion extends southward 125
miles from the Susquehanna River and contains 3,950 miles of tidal
shoreline. It is a relatively shallow body of water, with an average depth
of 28 feet.
Water quality in the upper Chesapeake Bay proper is good to fair and is
generally suited for recreational activities and the maintenance of a
reasonable number of most aquatic resources. The EPA Bay Program, however,
has identified a number of disturbing trends in water quality and resource
production. The program found that:
- Increasing levels of nutrients are entering many parts of
the Bay, particularly the upper reaches of almost all the
tributaries. The lower portions of the tributaries,
eastern embayments and the lower Bay have moderate
concentrations.
- The amount of water in the main part of the Bay that has
low or no dissolved oxygen has increased. Although this
condition occurs naturally in an estuarine system, it
appears to have become far more severe in the Bay in
recent years as nutrient inputs have increased.
- In the upper Bay, an increasing number of blue-green
algal or dinoflagellate blooms have been observed in
recent years.
- Landings of freshwater-spawning fish such as shad and
alewife have decreased. Striped bass landings have also
declined especially since 1973. Harvests of
marine-spawning fish have increased. Oyster harvests have
also decreased Baywide. Blue crab harvests have seen
recent increases.
- Elevated concentrations of toxic organic compounds have
been found in the bottom sediments near sources such as
industrial facilities. The highest concentrations in
Maryland were found in the Patapsco River (Baltimore
Harbor).
- Submerged aquatic vegetation has declined in abundance
and diversity throughout the Bay. This decline is most
noticeable in the upper Bay and western tributaries. The
loss appears to have moved progressively downstream and
the current SAV populations are essentially limited to
the lower estuary.
-------
III.p.6
The decline of submerged aquatic vegetation and commercially important
anadromous fish during the last decade indicates that the Bay is struggling
to maintain these populations. Municipal discharges, urban and agricultural
runoff contribute to the excessive nutrient and suspended sediment levels in
the middle and upper Bay. Organic decomposition in the deeper waters
contributes to anoxic or low oxygen conditions which reach into the Lower
Bay. The Susquehanna is the dominant source of phosphorus, contributing 53%
of the total phosphorus load to the upper Bay. The west Chesapeake is
second, contributing 44% of the total load, and the upper Eastern Shore is
the smallest, contributing 3% of the total phosphorus load reaching the
Upper Bay. The Susquehanna is also the dominant source of nitrogen,
contributing 77% of the nitrogen delivered to the Upper Bay. The west
Chesapeake and upper Eastern Shore areas contribute 21% and 2% respectively.
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Mason-Dixon Erosion Control Project
The Maryland and Pennsylvania State Offices of the USDA/SCS have included
the lower Susquehanna drainage area and parts of the Potomac, Patuxent,
Eastern Shore, and west Chesapeake drainage areas in the Mason-Dixon Erosion
Control Area (SCS 1983b). The area has been targeted for technical
assistance. The primary objectives of the project are the protection of the
soil resource base and improvement of the productive capability through a
significant reduction in soil loss in 22 county areas of Maryland and
Pennsylvania, It is not certain how much effect the sediment, erosion, and
animal-waste control BMPs in the Mason-Dixon Project will have on nutrient
loadings. However, Chesapeake watershed modeling results indicate that
applying an agricultural conservation practice, contour plowing, in concert
with a more intensive practice, such as conservation tillage, reduces
direct-stream loadings of phosphorus and nitrogen from nonpoint sources in
the lower Susquehanna River by 30% and 13%, respectively.
Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy
In the Susquehanna, the upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy
(UCBP) requires 80% removal (approximately equal to 2.0 mg L-l effluent) of
phosphorus for all new or modified wastewater treatment facilities with
flows greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD and discharging to tributaries and
the main stem of the Susquehanna River below its confluence with the Juniata
River. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER) had a
similar regulation for phosphorus removal but without the 0.5 MGD
limitation. DER's regulation was revised on Feb. 16, 1985. For further
details refer to Susquehanna River Basin Strategy in this Chapter.
Maryland has targeted priority watersheds for the nonpoint source abatement
of sediment, animal waste, nutrients and bacteria from agricultural sources
that contribute to the upper Chesapeake Bay problems. The targeted
watersheds are Deer Creek, upper Choptank River, and lower Wicomico River,
lower Pocomoke River and upper Chester River.
To reduce phosphorus from POTW's discharging in the upper Bay, Maryland
requires all POTW's with flows greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD discharging
into the Maryland portion of the Bay north of and including Gunpowder River
-------
III.p.7
(Zone I), or POTWs with flows greater than or equal to 10.0 MGD, between
Gunpowder River and the southern edge of the Choptank River (Zone II), to
meet the effluent limitation of 2 mg L-l.
Toxics
Maryland has targeted several west Chesapeake watersheds for initial
implementation of its biomonitoring program. The sites are mostly in the
Patapsco River basin at major industrial discharges.
Living Resources
Maryland has selected several sites within the upper Chesapeake Bay for the
re—establishment of SAV beds for vegetative solutions for shoreline erosion
problems.
-------
III.p.8
WEST CHESAPEAKE RIVER BASINS
DESCRIPTION
The west Chesapeake river basins include the heavily developed Baltimore
metropolitan region. Urban runoff and industrial discharges contribute major
water pollutants of concern including toxic metals, suspended solids,
bacteria and nutrients. Water pollution problems are most severe in
Baltimore harbor, where heavy metal and organic chemical concentrations in
the bottom sediments are among the most toxic found in the Bay system.
Bacteria and nutrient pollution is common in the basin due to untreated
stormwater runoff; occasional sewage overflows also contribute to the
bacteria levels. Present pollution loads are as follows:
Phosphorus 2,391,000 lbs. (March - October)
Nitrogen 15,984,000 lbs. (March - October)
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
The table below summarizes specific objectives and implementation strategies
which Maryland has established for the west Chesapeake basin. Primary
emphasis in this watershed is on reducing nutrients and toxics from point
sources, including a very substantial pretreatment program applicable
throughout much of the sewerage systems serving the west Chesapeake
watershed. Loch Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty reservoirs have been targeted
for reduction of nutrients from both point and nonpoint sources. The State
Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Carroll County have entered an
agreement for nutrient reduction in those watersheds. The reduction in
phosphorus loads from such sewage treatment plants as Aberdeen, Sod Run,
Back River, Patapsco, Cox Creek, Broadneck, Annapolis and others will reduce
STP phosphorus loads in the year 2000 to 77% below their 1980 level.
-------
Pollutant/Resource
of Concern Specific Objectives
Nutrients
Reduce total P loads from POTWs.
Nutrients
Reduce P and N loads from both
point and nonpoint sources to
the reservoirs
Nutrients, Toxics, Con-
ventional Pollutants
Consider how best to reduce pollutants
from separate stormwater pipes.
Nutrients, Toxics, Con-
ventional Pollutants
Toxics
Identify & control toxic discharges to
the Patapsco River
III.p.9
Implementation Strategy
-Complete construction of all STPs where TP=2 is
currently applicable (current UCBP policy) & enforce
Net P reduction from POTWs in Maryland
by year 2000 is 1,020,480 ® in March-October period,
a reduction of 58% below 1983 levels. P loads in
period 1980-1983 were reduced by 46%.
Implement the Reservoir Agreement signed by the
State, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and
Carroll County.
Analyze the relative amount of pollutant loads from
separate stormwater discharges. When effluent limits
are violated, use educational effort, technical
assistance, &/or enforcement & fines to reduce
pollutant loads from stormwater pipes.
Nonpoint sources -Implement & enforce 1983 State
stormwater regulations
-Agriculture - install BMPs in priority areas
-Implement Critical Areas statute (see Bay-wide
implementation strategy)
-Complete & use 1984 CB implementation project re-
sults (Ritchie Hwy, Baltimore City, Towsers Branch)
as basis for new requirements/policy re stormwater
from existing development.
-Implement educational campaign re fertilizer appli-
cation by urban & suburban landowners.
Implement biomonitoring program & use results to
change provisions of future municipal & industrial
NPDES permits.
-Implement dechlorination at various POTWs.
-------
III.p.10
EASTERN SHORE RIVER BASINS
DESCRIPTION
Maryland's Eastern Shore river basins include the coastal plain tributaries
in a region that is predominately agricultural. Pollutants of concern in the
region include nutrients, sediment, chemical pesticides. Bacteria levels in
some local areas have caused shellfish harvesting areas to close. Nonpoint
sources account for most of the pollution problems in these basins. Runoff
from cropland contributes 50% of the total phosphorus and 83% of the total
nitrogen loads in this region. Turbidity and sediment pollution problems are
most severe immediately following storm events in areas of conventional
cropland tillage. High levels of bacteria occur after peak periods of
recreational boating activities in certain areas, such as Kent Narrows.
Nitrogen is of concern in portions of the Chester watershed where the
Maryland Soil Conservation Committee has identified a relatively high
potential for nitrogen release to the Bay. Recent study has linked tile
drainage to the transport of nitrate from fields to streams through
groundwater. Nitrogen in animal wastes is being studied by OEP and USGS as a
source of both surface and groundwater pollution. Present pollution loads
are as follows:
Phosphorus 833,000 lbs (March - October)
Nitrogen 8,741,000 lbs (March - October)
The Eastern Shore of Virginia, just to the south, is predominantly forested
(54%) and used for agriculture (44%) with less than 2% classified as urban
land use. Pollutant problems of concern are nutrients, fecal coliforms and
low dissolved oxygen.
Population there is expected to increase from the 1980 level of 48,900 to
56,800 by the year 2000.
MARYLAND - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Maryland has just revised and expects to submit to EPA by Fall, 1985 an
updated water quality management plan for the Chester River basin. A similar
update for the Elk - lower Susquehanna basin should be completed by
December, 1985. The Choptank plan should be updated by early in FY 87.
Nutrients
Point Sources
- Complete construction at all STPs where TP*2 is currently
applicable (currently UCBP policy) & enforce permits
- The UCBP policy applies to the POTW's serving Elkton, Havre de
Grace, Northeast, and Perryville. For these plants a 71.4% P
reduction below present levels is expected by the year 2000.
-------
III.p.11
Nonpoint Sources
- Implement BMPs in priority agricultural areas.
- Implement Bay Critical Areas legislation.
- Implement educational campaign re: fertilizer application by urban
and suburban landowners in Elk and Choptank River basins.
- Strengthen agricultural enforcement and follow-up where needed.
- Strengthen sediment and erosion control enforcement on
construction sites.
- Complete and evaluate Bay implementation projects, including
marina pumpout facilities.
The State of Maryland has targeted several Eastern Shore river basins,
including the upper Choptank River, upper and lower Wicomico rivers, lower
Pocomoke River and upper Chester River to reduce nutrient loads from
agricultural sources.
Living Resources
The State of Maryland is establishing a SAV nursery at the Oxford Ponds. The
Deal Island fish hatchery facility will be constructed in the spring of
1985.
VIRGINIA - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
The Eastern Shore has been targeted as a priority area for cropland BMPs.
Funding from the Infiltration/Inflow Rehabitation Initiative will assist the
Town of Onancock in its program to reduce raw sewage overflows from its
sewer system.
Toxics
The Town of Onancock will also receive initiative funding to convert its
sewage treatment plant's disinfection system from chlorination to ultra
violet radiation.
-------
III.p.12
PATUXENT RIVER BASIN
DESCRIPTION
Water pollutants of concern in the Patuxent River basin include sediments
and nutrients. Nutrient concentrations are among the highest of the Bay
tributaries. The concentration of chlorophyll £, which is associated with
high nutrient loads, is also among the highest. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations are low in the estuary during summer months. Municipal
treatment plants account for 79% of the total phosphorus and 47% the total
nitrogen loads. Storrawater runoff from urban areas contributes nutrients and
toxic metals. Present pollution loads are as follows:
Phosphorus 478,000 lbs (March - October)
Nitrogen 2,493,000 lbs (March - October)
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
Maryland has set a goal of reducing total daily phosphorus load from point
sources to 420 lbs by 1987. Total phosphorus loads from POTWs will be
reduced 1000 lbs, a 52% reduction, between 1983 and the year 2,000. This
assumes:
1983 - 3.05 mg/1 P concentration for 39 MGD
2000 - 1.0 mg/1 P concentration for 76 MGD
The State has set a goal of reducing the total daily N load from point
sources to 3,900 lbs by 1987. Total nitrogen loads from POTWs will be
reduced 4900 lbs, a 43% reduction between 1983 and the 2000. This assumes:
1983 - 6000 mg/1 N/day loading
2000 - 18 mg/1 N for all STPs not named in Patuxent nutrient strategy
(37 mgd)
3 mg/1 N for all flows controlled by Patuxent nutrient
strategy (39 mgd)
The Patuxent basin will receive Maryland agricultural cost sharing funds and
will be involved in further research on agricultural nonpoint pollution. As
of 6/1/85, the Maryland Department of Agriculture has approved 190
agricultural cost-sharing applications and 76 of these have been processed
and approved by the Maryland Board of Public Works.
Toxics
The State strategy includes efforts to control the discharge of chlorine and
other toxicants from power plants, industry, municipal waste water treatment
plants and urban runoff sources.
-------
III.p.13
Living Resources
The State of Maryland strategy for the Patuxent River watershed includes the
re-establishment of SAV beds and the use of vegetative solutions to
shoreline erosion problems. This strategy also includes efforts to restore
habitat and resource potential for finfish and shellfish.
-------
III.p.14
LOWER CHESAPEAKE BAY
DESCRIPTION
The lower Chesapeake Bay area includes the main Bay proper from the Patuxent
on the western shore to the Choptank on the eastern shore, and extending to
the mouth of the Bay at Norfolk. Major tributaries to the lower Bay include
the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James. There are numerous smaller
tributaries on both the eastern and western shores.
The upper segment of the lower Bay, CB-5 (Fig. III-3) is characterized by
salinities of 12 to 13 ppt in the long-term summer average and lies mid-way in
the area subject to summer anoxia. Most of the deeper areas of the Bay are
found in this segment.
The boundary between CB-5 and CB 6-7, separates the lower Bay into three
regions with different circulation patterns. North of this boundary, the Bay's
density stratification results in two distinct, vertical layers. The deep
water then moves in a net upstream flow, and the surface layer flows
downstream. Between this boundary and the Bay mouth, the density distribution
tends toward a cross-stream gradient rather than a vertical one. This results
in net advertive flows throughout the water column, on the average, to flow
north in segment CB-7 and south in CB-6 and CB-8. This pronounced horizontal
gradient also exists across the Bay mouth. Thus, planktonic organisms and the
larvae of anadromous fish are brought into the Bay with the higher salinity
ocean water along the eastern side of the lower Bay, until they become
entrained into the lower layer at segment CB-5 and are carried up the Bay to
grow and mature. Also, the high rates of sand deposition in this segment are
thought to be imported from the inner shelf region at the ocean boundary.
Eastern shore embayments such as Eastern Bay (EE-1), the sub-estuary of the
Choptank River (EE-2), and Pocomoke and Tangier Sounds (EE-3) have salinities
similar to adjacent Bay waters and are shallow enough to permit light
penetration necessary for submerged aquatic plant growth. These areas provide
shelter for many invertebrates and small fish that contribute to the Bay's
natural richness.
Water quality in the lower Bay is fair to good. The upper segment is subject
to summer anoxia which can be toxic to fish, crabs, shellfish, and benthic
animals. The segment from the Patuxent to the Rappahannock is influenced by
inflow from the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers and is rich in nutrients.
Point sources of toxics appear to be significant in the Norfolk industrialized
area.
MARYLAND - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Maryland has research projects underway.
VIRGINIA - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Virginia is supporting pilot projects for phosphorus removal and is doing
research in support of Chesapeake Bay management programs.
-------
Figure HI-3 Chesapeake Bay Program segments used in data analysis.
-------
III.p.15
FEDERAL - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
EPA pilot studies for implementing its toxics control policy and DOD's
installation restoration program are currently underway.
Note: See Management Programs of lower Bay tributaries: Potomac, Rappahannock,
York and James rivers.
-------
III.p.16
POTOMAC RIVER
DESCRIPTION
The Potomac River drains 14,669 square miles of Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, D.C. and Maryland. The majority of the land in the basin is either
forested (56%) or in agricultural use (37%) and the remainder (7%) is
developed. The Washington metropolitan area, the largest population center
on the Bay, is located at the fall line and is served by Blue Plains WWTP,
also the largest municipal WWTP on the Bay.
During the 1960's the Potomac estuary was characterized by massive
blue-green algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen levels associated with high
levels of nutrients. Efforts have been made to halt the river's degradation
by upgrading the treatment capabilities of POTWs in Maryland, Virginia, and
D.C. discharging to the river through the addition of nutrient removal
capability. Today there is a decrease in the total phosphorus concentration
in the water column of the upper segment and a decrease in total nitrogen
levels in the lower portion of the estuary. There are large decreases in
algae and significant increases in dissolved oxygen. In 1980, municipal
point sources accounted to 59 percent of the phosphorus and 44% of the
nitrogen load of the Potomac River basin. Nonpoint sources of pollution
accounted for 41% of the phosphorus and 55% of the nitrogen load.
- High levels of nitrogen and moderate levels of phosphorus are found
in the upper estuary. Total nitrogen concentrations in this area
averaged from 1.0 - 1.7 mg/1 and total phosphorus levels from 0.11 -
0.14 mg/1 during 1977 - 1980.
- Low nutrient levels exist in the lower estuary. Nitrogen levels
averaged between 0.4 - 0.6 mg/; and phosphorus from 0.06 - 0.08 mg/1
from 1977 - 1980.
- Metal contamination is highest in sediments in and below the
Washington metropolitan Area.
While there has been some improvement in living resources, the overall
situation still requires considerable improvement.
- Oyster harvests and reproductive success have declined.
- Blue crab harvests have remained relatively stable.
- Landings of finfish spawning in the freshwater reaches of the river
have declined.
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
An updated water quality management plan for the Middle Potomac basin in
Maryland is expected to be completed and submitted to EPA by late Fall,
1985. The lower Potomac plan update will be started in late Summer, 1985.
-------
III.p.17
Nutrients
In 1983 a severe algal bloom occurred in the tidal fresh Potomac and the
embayments. The Potomac Strategy Management Committee, composed of Maryland,
Virginia, the District and EPA, assembled a panel of nationally recognized
experts to determine why the algal bloom occurred when nutrient loadings
from point sources were at an historical low. The Expert Panel study,
completed in March, 1985, determined that the bloom was initially stimulated
by a combination of adequate nutrients and favorable hydrologic and climatic
conditions. However, from August to October the bloom was greatly
intensified and maintained by a substantial, unexpected source of phosphorus
generated from the river sediments under high pH conditions.
The Panel provided general recommendations on alternative control actions
which could be taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence of algal blooms
similar to the 1983 bloom, and subsequently to achieve various water quality
goals. In addition to maintaining the existing phosphorus removal program,
the Panel recommended that a number of other control alternatives be
considered. It was also recommended that while pursuing development of a
control strategy, additional scientific studies should be initiated in
order that the remaining questions can be answered more fully. The Potomac
Strategy Management Committee is currently evaluating the Panel's
conclusions and recommendations, and will be developing a control strategy
based upon this study, as well as all other necessary information including
control costs, feasibility, and environmental risks and benefits of
alternative control options.
A process has been established which will result in the development of
revised wasteload allocations for nutrients by FY 87, with an interim
allocation to be developed during the summer of 1985.
Toxics
Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia will be implementing
dechlorination at various POTWs to improve finfish and shellfish survival.
Control programs for urban runoff, proposed or in place will provide for
reductions in heavy metals. The Potomac Estuary is relatively unaffected by
industrial discharges but pretreatment programs will provide additional
reductions in heavy metals from POTWs.
Living Resources
The Potomac Estuary supplies 80% of Virginia's commercial rockfish harvest,
and partial bans on rockfish harvesting have been implemented by the
bi-state Potomac River Fisheries Commission. The District is considering a
ban. SAV, which had been declining, is beginning to increase in the estuary.
However, this increase has been overshadowed by the discovery of Hydrilla,
an introduced exotic SAV. Controversy exists over the benefits and
detriments of Hydrilla. Research by USGS, Maryland DNR and the Corps of
Engineers is underway.
-------
III.p.18
Implementation of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Strategy Agreement,
signed by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia in July, 1984
should improve water quality sufficiently to restore the tidal portion to a
state suitable to again serve as a nursery ground for anadromous species.
The removal of toxic chlorine from POTWs discharging to the Potomac Estuary
will increase the survival of fish larvae and oyster spat.
Ins t i tut iona1/Management
Maryland, Virginia, the District, various local governments, and other
agencies such as the Washington metropolitan area Council of Governments and
the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin, maintain a
coordinated monitoring program on the Potomac. The Potomac Strategy
Committee meets as needed and coordinates regulatory activities on the
Potomac.
Other
Sludge management in the Washington metropolitan area has been a difficult
problem; however, local, state and federal cooperation has resulted in an
interim solution for the next five years while the long term solution is
being put in place.
-------
III.p.19
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
DESCRIPTION
The Rappahannock River drains 2,631 square miles and its land uses are
primarily forest and agriculture. Its major developed area is
Fredericksburg, near the river's fall line. The downstream Rappahannock area
is also developed. The 1980 basin population was 150,000 and is projected to
increase to 209,000 by the year 2000.
The Rappahannock is considered one of the least adversely affected western
tributaries of the Bay. Nevertheless, negative trends in some living
resources have been recorded.
- Commercial oyster harvests have recently declined, as has oyster
reproductive potential.
- Blue crab harvests have remained relatively stable.
- Harvests of finfish spawning in the freshwater reaches of the river
have declined steadily.
- Submerged grasses disappeared in the river between 1970 and 1975.
Near the river mouth less than 3% of potential habitat is occupied by
these grasses.
- Over 24,331 acres of shellfish beds are closed to harvest due to
fecal coliforms (7,628 acres of productive beds and 16,703 acres of
non-productive beds).
Although concentrations of phosphorus in the mid- and lower reaches of the
river are currently low, trend analysis indicates that concentrations of
inorganic phosphorus have been increasing. Nutrient loadings in the
Rappahannock drainage system are chiefly (74%) from nonpoint sources.
Industrial activities generate more than one-third of the small total point
source load. Toxic substances are not a problem in the river.
- 1980 nutrient loads to the Rappahannock River system approximated 2.9
million lbs. total nitrogen and 0.3 million lbs. total phosphorus.
- High levels of phosphorus, averaging between 0.14 - 0.24 mg/1 during
1977 - 1980, and moderate levels of nitrogen, averaging 0.8 - 1.0
mg/1 during this period, are found in the tidal fresh section of the
river, just below Fredericksburg.
- Lower nutrient levels are found in the lower portion of the river.
Between 1977 - 1980 phosphorus concentrations averaged 0.06 - 0.1
mg/1 and nitrogen concentrations between 0.4 - 0.6 mg/1.
- River sediments contain low levels of metals, although small areas
are enriched with metals, especially cadmium, from natural sources.
- Information on other water quality parameters and on organics is
limited.
-------
III.p.20
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
Given expected basin growth and development and assuming existing levels of
controls, the future (year 2000) phosphorus loading is projected to increase
16% and the future (year 2000} nitrogen loading to increase 2% relative to
1980 nutrient loadings.
In order to achieve the Commonwealth's tentative goal of a 20% reduction in
phosphorus relative to the 1980 loading, the total annual input of
phosphorus into the Rappahannock from all sources would have to be 222,000
lbs. To achieve the tentative goal for nitrogen, the annual loading would
have to be 2,945,000 lbs.
Work is continuing on methods that will allow a more accurate assessment of
the effects of the various nonpoint source control techniques. As that
information becomes available, it will be much easier to quantify the
expected effects of alternative combinations of point and nonpoint control
strategies for the basin.
The initial mix of control strategies being developed for the basin and the
initial basin nutrient goals will be reviewed as new information becomes
vailable and will be modified as necessary. The Virginia General Assembly
has established a joint subcommittee to examine the nutrients question and
associated management options. The findings of that subcommittee will be
central to the development of a nutrients policy for this basin.
As population in the basin expands there is a corresponding need for
expansion in sewage treatment capacity. During the two biennia under
consideration two new publicly owned treatment works will be put into
operation, and one plant will have its capacity expanded to accommodate that
growth and to protect the river. The new and expanded plants are as shown in
the following table.
Location Total Flow/Permit Limit (MGD)
New Expanded
Sperryville 0.055
FMC* 2«6
Rappahannock to 0*^
* New discharge from the former FMC plant treatment facility with sewage
bring transferred from Fredericksburg and Massaponax publicly owned
treatment works. The new, reduced flows will be 1.48 MGD from the
Fredericksburg facility and 1.47 MGD from the Massaponax facility.
-------
III.p.21
The Commonwealth is also working to reduce the amount of nutrients entering
the river from agricultural nonpoint sources. The Division of Soil and Uater
Conservation is managing this voluntary program in conjunction with the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts of the basin. In the first year of the
1984-86 biennium, a total of $8,805 in cost-share funds has been allocated
to 34 farms for the implementation of selected BMPs. Efforts are now being
made to interest additional farm operators in the program.
Toxics
While toxics are not now a problem in the Rappahannock, the potential for a
problem will increase as basin growth and development increase. Monitoring
for toxics in the Rappahannock River is carried out on a routine basis.
Living Resources
A submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) replanting effort is taking place in
the Rappahannock River.
A program for improving deficiencies in shoreline residential sanitary
systems will result in a total of 431 acres of shellfish grounds being
reopened for harvest in the Rappahannock River and adjacent areas fronting
on the Bay ("Western shore embayments").
Public Participation
A Rappahannock River citizens participation program is being developed in
1985 to give interested parties in the basin an opportunity to work with the
State in the definition and resolution of basin water quality and living
resource problems. Support for these activities of the citizens groups will
come from both the State and EPA.
-------
III.p.22
YORK RIVER
DESCRIPTION
The York River drains 2,986 square miles and its land uses are primarily
forest and agriculture. Its major developed areas include West Point, at the
confluences of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey tributaries, and Gloucester, near
the river mouth. The 1980 basin population was 180,000 and is projected to
increase to 285,000 by the year 2000.
The York River is a relatively unaffected western shore tributary, but it
has lost some of its resource quality in the last decade or so.
- The river supports a small oyster fishery with wide fluctuations in
harvest. However, oyster reproductive potential is fairly stable.
- Blue crab harvest have remained relatively stable, and finfish
landings have steadily declined.
- Submerged grasses occupy between 0 - 6% of the available habitat in
the river. However, the Mobjack Bay area supports some of the largest
SAV beds in Virginia.
- Over 17,766 acres of shellfish beds have been closed due to fecal
coliforra contamination (8,569 acres of productive beds and 9,197
acres of non-productive beds).
The tidal-fresh portion of the York is moderately enriched with phosphorus,
and trend analysis indicates the nitrogen concentrations are increasing in
the Pamunkey and Mataponi rivers, tributaries to the York. The 1980 EPA-CBP
data indicated that nonpoint sources were the major sources of nutrients,
contributing 65% of the phosphorus and 87% of the nitrogen load. Point
sources accounted for 35% of the phosphorus and 13% of the nitrogen load.
- 1980 nutrient loads to the York River System approximated 2.3 million
lbs. total nitrogen and 0.2 million lbs. total phosphorus.
- Moderate levels of phosphorus and nitrogen are found in the upper
reaches of the system, above West Point. Total nitrogen
concentrations averaged between 0.6 - 0.8 mg/1 and total phosphorus
concentrations from 0.11 - 0.14 during the period from 1977 - 1980.
- Low levels of nitrogen, averaging 0.4 - 0.6 mg/1, and moderate levels
of phosphorus, 0.08 - 0.11 mg/1 during 1977 - 1980, characterize the
lower portion of the river.
- Information on other water quality parameters and on metal and
organic contaminants is limited.
-------
III.p.23
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
Given expected basin growth and development and assuming existing levels of
controls, the future (year 2000) phosphorus loading is projected to increase
58% and the future (year 2000) nitrogen loading to increase 11% relative to
1983 nutrient loadings. For the York River 1983 was chosen as the base year
to take into account the HRSD-York River POTW that went into operation that
year. In order to achieve the Commonwealth's tentative goal of a 20%
reduction in phosphorus relative to that base year, the total annual input
of phosphorus into the York from all sources would have to be 248,000
pounds. To achieve the tentative goal for nitrogen, the annual loading would
have to be 2,710,000 pounds.
The Virginia General Assembly has established a joint subcommittee to
examine the nutrient question and associated management options. The
findings of that subcommittee will be central to the development of a
nutrients policy for this basin.
Work is continuing on methods that will allow a more accurate assessment of
the effects of the various nonpoint source control techniques. As that
information becomes available it will be much easier to quantify the
expected effects of alternative combinations of point and nonpoint control
strategies for the basin.
The initial mix of control strategies being developed for the basin and the
initial basin nutrient goals will be reviewed as new information becomes
available and will be modified as necessary.
As population in the basin expands, there is a corresponding need for
expansion in sewage treatment capacity. During the two biennia under
consideration two publicly owned treatment works on the York River will have
their treatment capacity expanded to accommodate that growth and protect the
river. The plants being expanded are as follows:
Location Total Flow/Permit Limit (MGD)
The Commonwealth is also working to reduce the amount of nutrients entering
the river from agricultural nonpoint sources. The Division of Soil and Water
Conservation is managing the voluntary program in conjunction with the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts of the basin. In the first year of the
1984-86 biennium a total of $14,523 in cost-share funds has been allocated
to 22 farms for the implementation of selected BMPs. Efforts are now being
made to interest additional farm operators in the program.
Expanded
Louisa
Ashland
to 0.2
to 1.2
-------
III.p.24
Toxics
While toxics are not now a problem in the York River the potential for a
problem will increase as basin growth and development increase. Monitoring
for toxics in the York River is carried out on a routine basis.
Living Resources
A submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) replanting effort is taking place in
the York River off shore of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science of
Gloucester Point and is showing substantial growth.
A program for improving deficiencies in shoreline residential sanitary
systems will result in a total of 637 acres of shellfish grounds being
reopened for harvest in the York River and adjacent areas of Gloucester
County fronting on the Bay ("Western shore embayments").
Public Participation
A York River public participation effort will be developed in 1985 to give
interested parties in the basin an opportunity to work with the State in the
definition and resolution of basin water quality and living resource
problems. Support for these activities will come from both the State and
EPA.
-------
nr.p.25
JAMES RIVER
DESCRIPTION
The James River drains 10,195 square miles, about one quarter of Virginia's
total area. Its land use is primarily forest with a small percentage of
cropland and significant urban development below the fall line. Major urban
developments are Richmond/Hopewell and the Greater Hampton Roads area with
Williamsburg a separate center.
The James River shows environmental degradation and related loss of
biological resources.
- Commercial harvests of market oysters and oyster reproduction
potential have declined.
- Landings of finfish spawning in the upper reaches of the river
(striped bass, shad, river herring) have declined.
- Submerged grasses disappeared from the river prior to 1970, with the
exception of a few grass beds near the mouth of the James.
- Over 101,216 acres of shellfish beds are closed in the James River
and adjacent Chesapeake Bay waters due to fecal coliform
contamination. (53,979 acres of productive beds and 47,237 acres of
non-productive beds).
Most of the James' total toxic and nutrient load is generated below the fall
line by industrial and municipal point sources. High levels of both
phosphorus and nitrogen are found in the upper- and mid-reaches of the
river. However, trend analysis indicates that both phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations are declining throughout most of the estuary. Municipal point
sources below the fall line account for 93Z of the phosphorus and 79% of the
nitrogen load in the James River. Industrial discharges are significant
sources of toxic substances and nutrients.
- 1980 nutrient loads to the James River basin approximated 20.5
million lbs. total nitrogen and 3.8 million lbs. total phosphorus.
- High levels of both nitrogen and phosphorus are found in the James
River between Richmond and the mouth of the Chickahominy River. Total
nitrogen concentrations in this area averaged between 1 - 1.75 mg/1;
total phosphorus between 0.14 - 0.24 mg/1 during the period from
1977-1980.
- Moderate levels of nitrogen and low levels of phosphorus characterize
the lower portion of the river. Between 1977-1980 total nitrogen
concentrations in this area average between 0.6 - 0.8 mg/1; total
phosphorus between 0.06 - 0.08 mg/1.
- River sediments contain high levels of metals near Hopewell and the
Elizabeth and Lynnhaven rivers.
-------
III.p.26
- High levels of sediment organics, especially PAHs, are found just
below Richmond, near Hopewell and in portions of the Elizabeth River.
- Data on other water quality parameters are limited, with the
exception of Kepone, which is routinely monitored by the State Water
Control Board.
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Nutrients
Given expected basin growth and development and assuming existing levels of
controls, the future (year 2000) phosphorus loading is projected to increase
32% and the future (year 2000) nitrogen loading to increase 22% relative to
1980 nutrient loadings.
In order to achieve the Commonwealth's tentative goal of a 20% reduction in
phosphorus relative to the 1980 loading, the total annual input of
phosphorus into the James from all sources would have to be 3,040,000 lbs.
To achieve the tentative goal for nitrogen the annual loading would have to
be 20,505,000 lbs.
Work is continuing on methods that will allow a more accurate assessment of
the effects of the various nonpoint source control techniques. As that
information becomes available it will be much easier to quantify the
expected effects of alternative combinations of point and nonpoint control
strategies for the basin.
The initial mix of control strategies being developed for the basin and the
initial basin nutrient goals will be reviewed as new information becomes
available and will be modified as necessary. The Virginia General Assembly
has established a joint subcommittee to examine the nutrient question and
associated management options. The findings of the subcommittee will be
central to the development of a nutrients policy for this basin.
As population in the basin expands there is a corresponding need for
expansion in sewage treatment capacity. During the two biennia under
consideration, two new publicly owned treatment works will be put into
operation, and five plants will have their capacity expanded to accommodate
that growth and to protect the river. The new and expanded plants are as
follows:
Location
Total Flow/Permit Limit (MGD)
New
Expanded
Buena Vista
New Castle
Smithfield
Bath County
0.45
0.175
to 0.5
to 2.25
Appomattox
Surry
Proctors Creek
to 12.0
to 0.054
to 0.06
-------
III.p.27
The Commonwealth is also working to reduce the amount of nutrients entering
the river from agricultural nonpoint sources. The Division of Soil and Water
Conservation is managing this voluntary program in conjunction with the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts of the basin. In the first year of the
1984-86 biennium a total of $6,632 in cost-share funds has been allocated to
33 farms for the implementation of selected BMPs. Efforts are now being made
to interest additional farm operators in the program.
Toxics
The James River has experienced various degrees to contamination from toxic
materials. Kepone is a persistent problem although that toxicant is being
buried by river sediments over time. The areas below Richmond and Hopewell
are areas of significant concentrations of other toxicants as is the
Elizabeth River. Special monitoring and analytical programs are being
carried out for Kepone and for other organic compounds. The Water Control
Board is developing a comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality Management
Plan that will include an adequate assessment of the river's environmental
conditions and recommend realistic management options.
Public Participation
A James River citizens involvement program will be developed in 1985 to give
interested parties in the basin an opportunity to work with the State in the
definition and resolution of basin water quality and living resource
problems. Support for these activities will come from both the State and
EPA.
-------
IV.p.1
Chapter IV - LOOKING AHEAD
Introduction
This Plan has described the current state and federal initiatives to restore
and protect the Bay. Although the cumulative impact of these efforts cannot
be predicted with certainty, there is reasonable evidence that these
programs are a step in the right direction - an effort to stem the tide of
pollution. It must be recognized, however, that the restoration and
protection of the Bay will require long-term commitments from the citizens
and governments of the Bay region. The Bay's problems are the result of
decades of abuse; understandably, there is no short-term solution.
As discussed in Chapter I, the Chesapeake Bay Program findings clearly
indicate that the Bay's water and sediment quality have degraded and many of
its important living resources have declined. The relationship observed
between the reduction in water and sediment quality and the Bay's declining
resources demonstrate probable causes and their effects. These causal
inferences have guided the direction of the control efforts and enabled the
respective levels of government to qualitatively project the potential
impacts of their remedial programs. The general results anticipated from the
state and federal initiatives and the remaining questions are identified in
this chapter. The continuing process to restore and protect the Bay is also
discussed here. (Detailed descriptions of the implementation programs are
included in Appendices A-D, and the research, monitoring, and modeling
efforts as well as the institutional mechanisms to address remaining
questions are described in Appendix G).
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. The nutrient which controls this process varies in
different parts of the Bay. For example, it appears that phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient 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. This relationship between increased nutrient loadings and
environmental quality was clearly demonstrated in the upper tidal-fresh
Potomac when increased nutrient loadings from 1930 to 1970 resulted in
massive blue-green algae blooms. These nuisance blooms were ameliorated by
1980 through phosphorus load reductions at sewage treatment plants. It can
be reasonably concluded, therefore, that reducing the nutrient loadings to
the Bay from point and nonpoint sources will reverse the Baywide trend
-------
IV.p.2
toward nutrient enrichment and begin to restore the environmental quality of
the Bay. A target objective under consideration for the Bay proper is the
dissolved oxygen condition of the middle 20th century, when resources were
more abundant (Figure IV-1).
The varied control programs in this document reflect the fact that each
region of the Bay has unique characteristics. The nutrient loadings from the
Susquehanna and Rappahannock river basins are derived primarily from
nonpoint source agricultural runoff, while the West Chesapeake basin and the
Patuxent and James rivers are dominated by point source nutrient loadings
from sewage treatment plants and industry. The Potomac and York rivers are
fairly evenly divided between point and nonpoint sources. To assure
cost-effective utilization of limited financial resources, the states and
federal government are targeting their nutrient control strategies to the
particular water quality needs of the different geographic areas. Thus,
nonpoint source controls are emphasized in the Susquehanna and Rappahannock
basins and point source controls are emphasized in the West Chesapeake basin
and Patuxent and James rivers. If it is assumed that the tidal-fresh
segments of the Chesapeake Bay tributaries are similar in their natural
characteristics, one can predict that the Patuxent, Potomac or upper Main
Bay can be improved through changes in phosphorus concentrations resulting
from load reductions. Presently the Rappahannock is characterized by
relatively abundant submerged aquatic vegetation and finfish and shellfish.
This river system qualitatively represents the general condition worth
achieving Baywide by the year 2000.
In this plan, there are no firmly established quantifiable target loads for
each of the tributaries. Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the nutrient levels necessary to achieve specific goals or
nutrient loadings before and after program implementation, such predictions
will be developed. It is known that the existing nutrient loads are
resulting in over-enriched conditions; therefore, included in this plan (see
Appendix A) are nutrient reduction programs to reduce existing loads and
control future loads as follow:
- The Upper Bay Phosphorus Limitation Policy, the Potomac Strategy and
the Patuxent Strategy will reduce sewage treatment plant phosphorus
loadings to the highly enriched tidal-fresh areas of the Bay;
- The Federal Construction Grant Program will provide approximately $84
million for sewage treatment plant construction in 1985. These funds
will support projects that are currently reached on the priority list
and are within the Bay drainage system. Appropriate matching funds
will be provided by state and local governments;
- The Washington, D.C. combined sewer overflow abatement program
will reduce pollutant loads to the Potomac estuary;
- State/Federal Agricultural Control Programs will be implemented in
1985 providing cost-share financial assistance in targeted areas and
other support activities, including technical assistance and planning;
- State and local sediment and erosion control programs will be
implemented to reduce nutrients associated with sediment from
construction sites in urban and suburban areas; and
-------
FIGURE IV. 1. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels in Chesapeake Bay in 1950 (left,' anil 1980 (rifchl).
-------
IV.p.3
- The Department of Defense national pollution abatement program will
reduce nutrient loading to the Bay from federal installations.
Efforts are currently underway to quantify some site specific and cumulative
nutrient reductions that will be achieved by all these programs. Reductions
will be projected from point source loadings and nonpoint source loadings.
In fact, recent point source control efforts have shown significant
reductions in phosphorus loadings between 1980 and 1983 in the West
Chesapeake, Patuxent and Potomac. (See Table IV.1) Future projections, given
the proposed strategies, suggest it may be possible to hold current loadings
in several basins and achieve further reduction in highly enriched areas
such as the West Chesapeake and Patuxent. It is evident, also, that
significant nutrient reductions could be achieved if conservation tillage
practices are implemented on more farms in key areas. Even further
reductions will be achieved if other best management practices are applied.
Remaining are questions that need to be addressed to assure effective
long-term nutrient management. The major questions are:
- What are the specific impacts of nutrient enrichment in the Chesapeake
Bay system?
- What specific nutrient reductions levels need to be met to assure
water quality and protect living resources?
- What specific water quality and living resources benefits will be
attained at these levels?
- What additional actions, if any, are needed to achieve these levels?
The results from research, modeling and monitoring programs described in
Appendix E will help answer these questions. As our understanding increases,
we may need to redirect our priorities and implement additional strategies
for the control of nutrients.
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 of individual organisms and the diversity
of living organisms necessary to have a balanced Bay ecosystem. Individual
organisms exposed to highly contaminated sediments of the Bay initially
experience harmful effects such as fin decay and lesions and may die. Field
studies have also shown that areas of the Bay contaminated with toxic
sediments support only a few types of organisms while uncontaminated areas
of the Bay have many different types of organisms. These findings clearly
suggest that the living resources, in certain areas of the Bay, are
threatened by high levels of toxicants. The major sources of the toxicants
are industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants. There are over 5,000
-------
TABLE IV-1
Municipal Point Source Phosphorus Loads (Millions of pounds) Discharged/nelivered
to the Chesapeake Ray (March-October)*
1980 (1)
1983(2)
2000 (2+3)
BASIN
Discharged
Delivered
Discharged
Delivered
Discharged
Delivered
Susquehanna
PA
MD
3.11
0.03
0.61
0.03
?.?0(3)
0.02
—
3.17(5)
—
West Chesapeake
1.94
1.94
1.70(4)
__ ^
1.12(4)
E. Shore
MD
VA
0.24
0.004
0.24
0.004
0.28(3)
—
0.33
—
Patuxent
0.41
0.38
0.20
MM
0.15
Potomac
DC
MD
VA
Total
1.04
0.43
0.78
2.25
1.04
0.14
0.52
1.70
0.20(3)
0.58(3)
0.44
1.22
0.13
0.70
0.6?
1.45
Rappahannock
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.12
York
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.32
James
2.72
2.58
2.96
3.9?
TOTAL
10.81
7.59
8.82
—
10.58
(1) Framework for
Action and
Hartigan Model
Results
(?) MD OEP and VA
SWCR
(3) EPA CRLO Point
Source Update
Based on 1983
operational
data
(4) Includes 0.4?
million pounds
of phosphorus in
treated effluent
from Back River
STP discharged
by Rethlehem
Steel.
(5) Projected
discharge based
on ? mg/1 permit
limits in lower
Susquehanna.
* The Table shows that discharged municipal phosphorus loads have decreased basin wide between 1^80 and 1983.
This Is due to implementation of policies limiting effluent phosphorus concentrations in the Susquehanna,
West Chesapeake, Patuxent, and Potomac River basins. Discharged loads for 1980 and 1983 are based on
operational data and if not available, an effluent phosphorus default value of R.O mg/1 for secondary
treatment. Discharged loads for year 2000 reflect permitted effluent phosphorus concentrations. Delivered
loads reflect simulation of natural physical and chemical decay processes that occur to discharged loads as
they are transported from within the Bay drainage basin to estuarine waters.
-------
IV.p.4
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. 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 in the future, sources of toxic materials which have
been contaminating areas of the Bay need to be reduced. Care should be taken
not to resuspend toxicants currently in the sediments. Simultaneously, the
discharge of toxic materials to uncontaminated areas must be dealt with to
prevent degradation. The following activities, summarized from Appendix B,
are expected to reduce toxic pollution:
- State NPDES permit programs are or will be requiring toxic limitations
and are or will be enforcing best available technology (BAT) and water
quality-based effluent limitations, where needed;
- Fingerprinting and biomonitoring programs to analyze toxics in
effluents and evaluate their impact on the living resources in
receiving waters are being implemented;
- Pretreatment programs are being implemented at municipal sewage
treatment plants, where needed;
- Chlorine control programs, including dechlorination and/or seasonal
disinfection, will be implemented at selected sewage treatment plants;
- Stormwater management programs to reduce toxicants in urban runoff
will be implemented in developing areas and demonstration projects
will be initiated in selected developed areas; and
- Pesticide management will be instituted as part of the nonpoint source
program on agricultural and suburban lands. Mostly an educational
program, this saves users many dollars per acres and costs little to
implement.
While the cumulative impacts of the toxic control activities are difficult
to quantify, it is certain that significant toxic loading reductions will be
achieved through the control of municipal and industrial point source
programs. For example, metal loadings from many industrial facilities were
significantly reduced between 1970 and 1980 due to pollution control
efforts. It is anticipated that future control techologies will result in
even greater reductions. With respect to nonpoint sources, the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program has demonstrated that significant reductions can be
achieved through stormwater management. To reduce potential harm caused by
pesticides in agricultural runoff, educational efforts are being
implemented. The effectiveness of all the control strategies will be
evaluated and, if appropriate, modified. The evaluation nay also indicate
the need for additional actions.
In the future, an increased understanding of the fate and effect of
toxicants will help us set, attain and maintain levels not harmful to humans
or living resources. Questions that are being addressed to assure more
effective toxics management in the long-term are:
-------
IV.p.5
- Which toxic substances and/or sources
- What are their impacts?
- What specific toxic levels should not
water and sediment quality and living
- What additional activities need to be
these toxicants not harmful to either
the Bay?
Some of the research, modeling and monitoring programs described in Appendix
E will help answer these questions and better characterize the fate and
effect of toxic materials.
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, major
climatic events, and reductions in the amount of freshwater entering the
Bay. As previously discussed, the observed relationships among nutrients and
toxicants and living resources provide compelling evidence that water and
sediment pollution threatens important living resources. An effective
indicator of both pollution stress and physical alterations is the decline
in the desirable species of submerged aquatic vegetation from 1965 to 1980
(Figure IV-2); a return of grasses to the 1965 condition is an appropriate
target objective and several states have initiated revegetation programs.
Furthermore, it must be recognized that the decline in the Bay fisheries is
exacerbated by overfishing. Finally, natural climatic factors, such as
unusually cold or warm winters, extremely wet or dry springs, and events
such as hurricanes, dramatically affect the spawning success of finfish and
shellfish.
It is apparent that the decline in the Bay's living resources cannot be
attributed to a single cause, but rather a myriad of ecological stresses and
overuse. This Plan describes those factors which can be controlled —
pollution, physical alteration (dredging, filling, damming, diverting), and
overfishing. Following is a summary of those activities that provide for
habitat restoration and fisheries management (See Appendix C):
- Fisheries management plans for striped bass and oysters will be
developed by 1986 for both Virginia and Maryland waters. Shad and
river herring plans will be developed for Maryland waters by 1986;
- A Baywide assessment program will evaluate the status of the major
economically important fishery stocks;
- Striped bass stocking and shad restoration programs are being
developed in the Susquehanna River Basin (PA and MD waters);
affect the Bay system?
be exceeded to protect
resources?
implemented to achieve levels of
humans or living resources of
-------
FIGURE-IV. 2. General area of SAV distribution in (a) 1965 and (b) 1980.
-------
IV.p.6
- Oyster restoration efforts will result in approximately 3 million
bushels of seed oyster planted in selected areas of the Bay and over 5
million bushels of fresh shell returned to the Bay by 1990; in
addition, over 1000 acres of shellfish grounds will be reopened by
1986;
- Vegetative restoration efforts will result in 50 acres of submerged
aquatic grasses planted in the Upper Bay, Choptank, York, Rappahannock
and Potomac rivers; and
- Corps of Engineers shoreline erosion control programs are protecting
the shores while reducing sediments into the Bay system.
Through these efforts to enhance Bay habitats and manage the fisheries,
great strides can be made toward providing for the restoration and
protection of the living resources. However, to assure effective long-term
management of the living resources, there are remaining questions of
concern:
- Which key living resources need special protection?
- What specific conditions are required in each area of the Bay to
protect and restore those living resources?
- What specific actions do we need to take to reach these objectives?
Research, monitoring and modeling efforts will help address many of these
remaining questions (see Appendix E). Because of the complex ecology of the
Bay, we may never have all the answers to these questions. Nonetheless, we
are taking immediate action to reverse the decline in these valued
resources.
Institutional/Management
Goa 1:
Support and enhance a cooperative approach toward Bay management at
all levels of government.
The Bay is a complex interactive ecosystem and actions taken in any part of
the watershed may result in environmental degradation downstream. For this
reason, it is essential that the activities of the federal and state
planning and regulatory agencies be coordinated. Although each state, party
to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, is implementing programs to meet the
requirements of its own statutes and regulations, the states and federal
parties are working together to attain mutual benefits. States are also
working with local governments and private entities to attain these
benefits.
The federal/state cooperative effort called for in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement of 1983 has resulted in a number of major accomplishments:
-------
IV.p.7
•i Tmnlementation Committee, four technical and
- An Executive Council, P c;tizena Advisory Committee, and a
management ^^Jnical'Advisory Committee have been established and
are operational;
• an Has bficn initiated and this initial
- * region*"* and frotection ?Un has been developed;
Chesapeake Bay &escor««.
,. d a joint Resolution among the federal
- Memoranda of Under8ta?*Mflhed t0 improve coordination and cooperation
agencies have been 'protection effort.;
in Bay management, rescor«
vi4«Hed its ovm system for preparing, implementing,
- Each state ha8e*®"ating its Chesapeake Bay initiatives on an annual
tracking, and ^
or biennial basis;
- states will initiate new programs, as needed;
• * strategy aimed at quantifiable objectives will be
- For each basin, a scrai-CJ" af-«,te(s) to address the unique problems
developed by the appropriate state.
and needs of that basin,
¦ narticipation efforts will be expanded to
- s°d ^"t*ndi°8 o£ the Ba,;
. The need for and feasibility of a computerized. comprehensive BMP
tracking system is being evaluated,
„ Center has been established and the Baywide
- —-ii1 - ~d-
, n„aiitv and resource monitoring network
- The Baywide integrated water qaalxty
is being implemented; and
. Coordinated Baywide research and modeling program, are being
formulated.
1 a listed above summarize the many institutional
The accomplishments and pia ^ Appendix E. The8e arrangements help
and management programs^es ^ accountability to the public,
establish the basis on the 8tate agencies have instituted their
To further ensure ^ ^ the implementation of their
ow internal annual evaluations of their progress. In
activities, and are Per*° federal agencies oversee federal regulatory
addition, EPA and the and review all of the activities for which
programs delegated to the s »e#8 acnitinizes the Executive Branch
grants are awarded. Just as 8tatute8 are carrled out and appropriated
federal agencies to be sur w.iaturea watch over the state agencies,
funds are properly speai^ federal elected and appointed
Tracking the activities or ibute t0 the system as additional checks and
officials are c^tize"®, f these efforts help ensure that each
balances. Together. £1 _ t<> improve the Bay does so.
implementation progra
-------
IV.p.8
All existing and new programs are being continually evaluated and the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan will be updated annually. As
monitoring and research efforts unfold, new data will be assessed. Together,
all levels of government, public and private sector groups, and the general
public will need to judge whether the current efforts are successful, and
what additional corrective measures may be necessary over the long-term. In
the meantime, the efforts described here, such as agricultural best
management practices and improved sewage treatment operations, represent the
best informed judgement of the participants in the Chesapeake Bay
restoration and protection program.
A major and significant accomplishment of the process leading to this Plan
has been the adoption of goals and objectives for the Bay by the federal and
state parties to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Although this 1985 Plan deals
primarily with federal and state actions to meet these goals and objectives,
there are some unique initiatives being carried out by other entities.
County Conservation Districts play a major role in reducing agricultural
runoff and local sewer authorities are key actors in the treatment of
wastewater. In Pennsylvania, the Fish Commission is a leader in restoring
bass, shad and other finfish to the Susquehanna River. Baltimore County,
Maryland is providing, through a manual, specific guidance for proposed land
developers to help protect wetlands and stream quality. Each local
government'8 wetlands board, using local funds, administers Virginia's
wetlands protection law. All local governments, as well a,a other private and
public local, state, regional, and interstate entities are urged to continue
to consider the Bay goals and objectives in the development and
implementation of related programs.
Also, working voluntarily to improve the Bay are countless citizens and
private groups. Citizen volunteers from all around the Bay are helping to
replant submerged grasses and to record the return of grass to the Bay.
Homeowners are becoming aware of the necessity of using lawn, garden and
cleansing chemicals wisely. Community groups are organizing stream
clean-ups, teaching their neighbors about erosion control, and monitoring
their local creeks and streams. In Maryland, marina owners have sponsored
workshops to inform boaters about their role in protecting the Bay and its
tributaries. Pennsylvania's farmers are forming private associations,
providing assistance in using best management practices. A chemical
manufacturer is underwriting the cost of monitoring a no-till farm.
Developers arp making an effort to keep trees in place to reduce runoff. A
major utility has loaned one of its high level employees to manage
Maryland's new Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund. Environmental group memberships
are growing rapidly. These groups are engaged in research, education,
compliance monitoring and legal action. One group, through conservation
stamp sales, has made a $20,000 fund available for community projects. All
of these and other voluntary activities should be vigorously continued and
expanded as an example to others. Moreover, each individual must recognize
that his or her actions have an impact on the Bay and must take
responsibility for the stewardship of the Bay, its tributaries and
surrounding land.
-------
IV.p.9
This Plan represents a major step in a process to manage the Bay. It not
only sets goals and objectives agreed to by the states and federal
government; it also catalogues all the federal and state activities
undertaken to improve water quality and restore living resources. As part of
an ongoing evaluation effort, these implementation activities will be
assessed to determine their effectiveness in achieving the goals and
objectives; to see if there are significant problems still to be addressed;
to consider priorities for the Bay clean-up; to evaluate additional funding
needs; and, to encourage further efforts by local governments and the
private sector. This evaluation will be used to refine specific goals for
nutrients, toxics and living resources based on benefits to be achieved,
balanced with their costs. Decisions about "how clean" and at "what cost"
will then be weighed and made within the various institutional structures.
Perhaps the most important accomplishment of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
and its implementation has been the creation of an institutional structure
which is flexible, allowing for change and growth. Yet, this structure is
rooted in federal and state governmental institutions which provide the
political support and the financial backing required to solve problems and
attain the objectives which will help restore and protect the Bay. This
cooperative commitment will be a continuing one led by the Chesapeake
Executive Council, involving all interested citizens of the Chesapeake Bay
area.
Also supporting the Chesapeake Bay Agreement restoration and protection
effort are the Implementation Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee and
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Several subcommittees of the
Implementation Committee, composed of representatives of federal and state
agencies, are actively reviewing existing plans, recommending actions and
continually evaluating Baywide monitoring, modeling, research and data
management efforts. One of these groups, the Planning Subcommittee is
responsible for this and future planning activities. The Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office serves as staff to these committees.
Summary
Stemming the decline of the Bay wi.il be difficult, and reversing the trend
to achieve restoration will be an even greater challenge. It is very likely
that the current population, the existing amount of deforestation, the
constant alteration of the shoreline, and many present fisheries harvesting
practices will inhibit recovery. Additionally, the projected increases in
human population in the Chesapeake Basin will further stress the Bay and its
resources, and test the adequacy of current efforts.
Nevertheless, it is very likely that we can restore the Chesapeake Bay to
the conditions that existed in mid—century. At that time, robust fisheries
produced substantially higher yields than today. Clearer waters with
healthier plankton and more abundant beds of submerged aquatic vegetation
were prevalent. The past 30 years has seen an overwhelming increase in human
activity: suburbanization, with accompanying land development and burgeoning
sewage treatment needs; flourishing agricultural production, with more
chemicals on the land; new products in the marketplace, spurring the
production of newer and more exotic substances; and advancing technology,
too quickly utilizing our resources and rendering them obsolete. Now, we are
-------
IV.p.10
Icsming new ways to continue to prosper and grow, while we restore and
protect our valuable resources. This restoration effort will take time, for
the Bay has a "memory", particularly in its degraded sediments. Even so, as
this Plan demonstrates, action has begun. To succeed, implementation of both
short-term and long-term strategies, and firm commitments are crucial. The
states and federal government are using this Plan as a major tool for
defining and shaping those commitments. We have begun to renew and restore
this national treasure the Chesapeake Bay.
*U.S. QOVIRNMINT PRINTING 0W0«: 1985 529 626 31038
------- |