ACHIEVING THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY NUTRIENT GOALS
A Synthesis of Tributary Strategies
for the Dey'd Ten Watersheds
Chesapeake Bay Program
October, 1994
-------
This document was prepared by the stiff of the Chesapeake iay Program
Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the assistance of
r«ptB9t9iitative» from the participating otatoe, th« District of Columbia, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Copies may be obtained, free of charge, by calling 410-267-5700 or toll-free
at 1-800-YOUR BAY to place an order.
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency far th« f!hflsapaaka Bay Program
Prided 00 ncYckd
-------
-------
PREFACE
In 19S3, the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia
•esapeake Bay Commission, and the US Environmental Protection Aoency joined in «
H«»* • .- ° r!f!,0re We UhesaPeake BaV- T^ese jurisdictions realized that the Bay's
deterioration and degradat.on could not be arrested by any one of them acting singly
They acknowledged that the Bay was endangered because of changes In the entire
22?E?i£" ?*V Watershed, a 64.000 square mil« *.»•* **t«nding from Cooporatown, NY,
south to Virgmia Beach, VA. In 1987, they agreed to resolve the most pervasive
fYFrtniflIYi r\u uttf\*ts\f*fm *.**. ^tt*.—*. _. A*\H* .•.« *.. „ _ „ . '
Significant progress has been made toward the nutrient reduction goal, but much
remains to be done. Each of the jurisdictions is currently developing tributary strategies
that delineate the ways in which nutrient pollution loads will be reduced in the maw sub-
watorahoda th
-------
-------
SECTION I \
ORIGINS AND OBJICTIVES OF THE TRIBUTARY STRATE6IIS
lu tin* law 1 97Os and early 1880s The newly created Chesapeake Bay Program
instituted an intensive research project to determine the causes of the degradation in
Chesapeake Bay water quality as welt as the fish, shellfish, and other living resources and
their habitat. Eutrophication1, brought on by excessive nutrients entering the Bay, was
identified as the primary problem. Consequently, an extensive program to affect
significant reductions of nutrients entering the Bay was instituted. Four years after
completion of the research phase of the Bay Program, reduction of excess nutrients was
further emphasized twhnn th« Fvooutiu* Council? signed the 1987 R*y Agreement. This
document called for. reducing the controllable amount of nutrients reaching the Bay by
40% by the turn of the century. . __
In 1992, this Day Agreement nutrient reduction 900! was confirmed by UNI USB of
computer models, and strengthened by allocating nutrient reduction goals to each of the
ten major tributary systems of the Bay, as well as to each jurisdiction. The States of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed to develop
tributary specific nutrient reduction strategies in order to achieve the new nutrient loading
targets. The loading targets represent a 40% reduction of the portion of the 1985 Base
load that is •controllable", defined as the difference between the 1985 Base load and the
load from a totally forested (undisturbed) watershed. As a result, the loadino target I«
calculated as the sum of the load from a totally forested watershed plus 60% of the
difference between the 1985 Base load and the forested watershed toad. The result is a
nutrient limit or "cap" for each major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The caps also
aooount for anticipated population growth arid development between 190G and 2OOO.
These reduced nutrient loadings will tie achieved through the implementation of the
tributary strategies. All jurisdictions have completed draft plans and are at different stages
in me process of developing the final strategies. These plans document the magnitude of
the reduction that is to be achieved; the percentage of the reduction which has been
attained since 1985, and finally, options for achieving the remaining reductions. Details of
the strategies, as summarized in subseauent sections, examine the mix of nutrient
management controls for the different tributaries. The strategies recommend additional
controls on wastewater treatment plants, agricultural runoff, and stormwater from urban
areas. Existing, modified, or In some cases, new implementation mechanisms will be
applied in point couroo progromo, nonpoint ooucoo programs, and in aooootetod incentive or
* The condition of the water when an excessive amount of algae is present. This condition
is created by an overabundance of nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus. The deleterious
result is anoxia, a depletion of dissolved oxygen.
8 Comprised of ttie uovernors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; me Mayor or Hie
District of Columbia; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
-1-
-------
disincentive programs. Citteen involvement In the
n«mm«*' and
strategies.
tributary strategies developed oy each Bay Program
Although each strategy is a unique tributary plan, there are .number of findings
that «in be drawn from their synthesis, as listed below;
.n r a
that the Start! ^evST S ^nitrogen and phosphorous , w» *%****£%!* 8ay
means tnere musi be iMriMity to employ tho mo« eost^ffscrtva solutions.
of
The technology challenge, to Keep pressiny u* effort t« fi«d now, b«tt«r ,r«l
cheaper ways to get results.
The fiscal dudtanea, to obtain the funds necessary to support the actions
called for in the strategies.
The challenge to cWiens to engage in the effort to implement the strategies
and assure thoir auaoaee.
The cnallinae to local governments, to accommodate the underlying land
Ise dwebnt and wastewater issues central to effective implements
se
of the strategies; and
- The overall political challenge to retain and build public support for restoring
the Bav, as the reality of what it will take becomes evident to every
community in the watershed through these nraunito»,
-2-
-------
Whether we can meet these challenoes will determine if we restore the Bay; we do have
the technical means. '* .
, number of reasons, the tributary strategies Indicate that success in meeting
reduced nutrient levels will require oddod attention to point coureoc. Nutrient sources in
the tributaries can be broadly divided into those discharging through pipes, or "Point
Sources", and, those running off the land and into streams and rivers, or "Nonpoint
Sources.* The major Point Sources for nutrients are municipal sewage treatment plants.
Technology Improvements are occurring at m rapid rate In nutrient- uwiuula un tieauneiit
plants, and costs are dropping. As a result of these advances, nutrient controls are
becoming cost-effective at increasing numbers of plants. Also, the results of nitrogen
removal are felt immediately in the receiving streams, since there is direct discharge
through a pipe.
The role of nonooint sources in the clean-up is more challenging. Because most
management practices to control nutrient loadings from nnnnnint snurcas deal with run-off
to streams during storm events, or with loadings to the water table, they are difficult to
measure In terms of effectiveness. This problem is exacerbated with respect to
groundwater due to the amount and variability of time it takes for the water with reduced
nutrients tu miyiaUj tu surface streams and move on to the Bay. Finally, a number of the
strategies call for levels of participation in voluntary programs that challenge the delivery
capacities of public sector support programs. For all these reasons, the effectiveness of
nonpoint source nutrient reduction efforts in the strategies is more difficult to define and
to calculate than is the case with point source elements of the strategies.
Changes in agricultural practices are rapid and will need to be tracked 08 Strategies
mm imnlflmflntftri For example, in Pennsylvania, concentrated feed lots are a significant
area of growth. As new technologies are tested and adopted by the agricultural
community, it will be necessary to make adjustments to projected loadings and to the
management measures called for in the strategies. Cropping, silage and planting
practices are also subject to rapid changes os tho industry continues to eeoh out_th* most
cost-effective farming operations.
Finally, population growth is a major influence on the level of effort rewired in the
strategies. Bay Program projections of land use changes flue TO development and growth
in loads to sewage treatment plants by the year 2000 will result in additional loadings of
31.2 million pounds of nitrogen to the 74.2 million pounds already needed to be eliminated
to meet tha year 2000 nutrient cap for the Bav. In other words, for every two pounds of
nitrogen removed, one pound returns as a result of population growth and must also be
removed. The strategies are designed to accommodate this impact, but its extent
underlines the need to emphasize nutrient removal from treatment plants and adequate
management of tho offoote of development on tho streams and rivers af the Bay
-3-
-------
-------
SECTION II-
. , ' •» • . •
COMMON ELEMENTS
The 'development of Bay Program Tributary Strategies fosters a cooperative,
integrated, and consistent scientific approach to nitrogen and phosphorus reduction while
providing each of the Bay region states and the District of Columbia the flexibility to deal
with the special circumstances of each tributary.
All of the signatory jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay region are sharing the
responsibility for nutrient reduction. Working together, the CBP jurisdictions first divided
the region into major watersheds. Ten such watersheds were identified and an explicit
nutrient reduction goal was set for each.
While each jurisdiction developed its own tributary strategies, each strategy
Addresses specific common *>lnm«nt
-------
i. This information allows cost comparisons of
o identify those Which are most productive and least
costly.
wayof the Susquehanna. However, any nutnerrt reductions gained in New YOTK
?£,£ Z «titS* for Pennsylvania's reduction efforts but are being considered in
progress assessments. These issues are addressed later m this report,
°^^^.^^^^^^^^<^^^^.
ooals Areas of emphasis being considered include biological nutrient
equivalent technology, reservoir management, upgrading wastewater
plants, stormwater retrofitting, implementation of Best Managemer
including nutrient management plans, BsmWiahment of riparian bu*
streambank protection. ,, •
emwth: Each of the Jurisdictions needs to offset nutrient loads associated with
growth and development between 1985 and 2000. AS noted above, thea,
loadings are very significant in some areas of the watershed.
-5-
-------
VARIED APPHUAUhlbS
There is no single cause of the Bay's environmental .problems and no simple
solution for them. The aeoaraohic, hvdrolooic, political, and philosophical variations
among the jurisdictions result In different approaches to achieve the nutrient reduction
goals in an equitable and cost-effective manner. Acting consistent with the common
elements discussion in Section II, each jurisdiction crafted a different mix of actions to
achieve the nutrient cap on each tributary. The strategies that resulted reflect traditions of
local government and private landowner cooperation, or traditions of state relations with
the business sector. Alternatives, developed by staff and at public meetings, reinforced
the importance of local government, voluntary actions, and private landowner stewardship,
which differ from state to state. While most, uf UN* land in the watershed is in private
hands, the District of Columbia strategy emphasizes working with those Federal agencies
which are extensive landowners along the Potomac and the Anacostia.
Maryland and Pennsylvania used different starting points in developing their '
tributary nutrient reduction strategies. Maryland developed strategies designed to achieve
the nutrient reductions goal assuming resources can be found to expand existing
nhfitamant And rnnrrrtl rwngn)m
-------
Pollution loads originate from point and .
can R
of the financial plans to implement
Special Case: Potomac River Basin
The Potomac River tasin includes all of ^iuri^i^
basin goal.
The jurisdictions with treatment plants in the Washington Metropolitan Area-the
to ac&leve furttwi swings.
-7-
-------
IV
*
REMAINING ISSUES
As noted above, the work done to date on the tributary strategies indicates that we
have the technical capacity to meet the nutrient reduction goals for the Bay, but that many
challenges lie ahead. These include the continuing search for more cost-effective
technologies, the need to establish adequate financial sources to carry out the plan, and
the on-going puonc commitment to the clean-up of the Bay.
We are making progress. Bay Program tracking of nutrient reductions shows a
reduction of phosphorus by 1992 of 4.1 million oounds. an achievement of 48% of tha
phosphorus nutrient reduction goal. A major factor in the phosphorus reductions was the
phosphate detergent ban, an excellent example of pollution, prevention in the Bay basin.
Reductions in nitrogen are coming more slowly. By 1992, 6.6 million pounds of nitrogen
loads wore reduced, achieving 0% of tho nitrogen nutrient roduotion goal.
And there are other encouraging developments. Recent advances in biological
nutrient removal, supported by Bay Program funding, demonstrate that cost-effective
technologies fw year-round nutrient removal can achieve significant reductions in nitrogen
affluent at municipal sewage treatment plants (STPs). For example, at the Annapolis STP,
the cost of necessary nitrogen removal was reduced from $24 million to $9.7 million by
applying these evolving technologies. Most tributary strategies contain biological nutrient
removal as a key element.
The challenge ahead is to achieve similar technical breakthroughs for controlling
nutrients, particularly nitrngon, from nnnpoint sources Unlike point sources, where
nutrient reductions are relatively immediate and easily quantifiable, there are major
challenges in the nonpoint source arena. For example, appearance in the Bay of the
benefits of increased efforts to implement agricultural nutrient abatement and control
meeaurea mar be delayed due to tho hmyUi uf lime il lakes fui lint luduuwU nitruysn
loadings to travel through groundwater. A similar condition exists for sediment loads
already in streams and rivers from past land use activities which were not sensitive to
pollution effects of erosion.
Improved understanding of subsurface load sources is needed. Nitrogen subsurface
loads from on-site waste disposal systems (septic systems} are also expected to Increase.
The loads from on-site waste disposal systems, ami fantnrs whirh rsnntrnl tha timing of
subsurface nitrogen transport, need to be better understood. Improved understanding of
reservoirs as potential nutrient sinks is needed.
Coneietonoy in quantifying removal efficiencies for the different nonpoint source
actions challenges the development of realistic load reduction expectations and alternative
options to meet the nutrient reduction goal. Perhaps more importantly, reliance on
voluntary participation by the agricultural community and the general public in the
implementation or nonpoint source abatement and control measures may cause
uncertainty in these estimates.
-8-
-------
The tributary strategies allow for certain types of trading among nutrient
40» reduction can not to achieved, a state may opt to make up far
t? rad^T^stewater treatment plant on another tributary to exceed the
40% reduction.
A soecial case is the Susquehanna Basin where a trade between states may be
allowed if K%«duTon goal cannot be achieved in Pennsylvania, "the case of the
SSlSiS %*St£2J*** Plan **^&W«*^*"^^
is baino^done bv the Commonwealth on point sources and other actions to close irte gap.
£±S *M£ from the outset that it would be •"^ffSSS^
reduced levels in the Susquehanna, the 1 992 Agreement provided for possible re-
allocations to uliwr tributaries.
Our improved understanding of atmospheric nitrogen pollutants is also encouraging,
We ha£ teamed^* about a qJttr of the nitrogen load entering ^V^s from
atmospheric sources. About i » of tnis is deputed on B«Y w«t«»« J.«h« mmri r«ter
oTthl land and is washed into the Bay, Air sources of nitrogen originate from the
S£»3 caTs and frZthe smokestacks of power plants ^«|*^J"*2
and how to control it is needed.
Finally, me eiittriiawiii tav^rnM from tf» tribuf ry •£•*•£•*> y "222 f0r
any reductions in nutrient loadings from the non-signatory ^Y ^ns^es of De aware,
New York, and West Virginia. While in each case the rivers of the state drawng into the
comprise a small fraction of all watersheds, together they comprise a
n of the upper reaches of tne watershed, it te known tf«t «»••«£•"*
in DelawariTand New York, to deal with nutrient pollution in general, _and
in particular. Additional efforts are needed to understand and
IctMties. and to establish working relationships with these
other Bay watershed states.
-9-
-------
SECTION V
THi NEXT STEPS! IMf LEMtNTINU I Mfc PLANS ANO ACHIEVING THE NUTftlfcN I CAPS
The tributary strategies are in various stages of development and public review.
This report summarizes the content of the current draft strategies in all jurisdictions.
Progress on development of the strategies will be reviewed in October, 1994 by the
Executive Council. In the fall of 1995, the completed strategies will be presented to the
Executive Council for approval.
An administrative challenge will be to develop consistent and reliable methods to
assess progress in implementing tributary strategies and determining progress towards the
40% nutrient reduction goal. The Bay Program partners will complete annual tracking of
the nutrient load reductions through computer model Progress Scenarios. Coordinated end
targeted monitoring efforts will verify model predictions and provide a real world measure
of water quality and living resource response to our efforts-:
A ma]or review of the goals and progress of the tributary strategies will occur in
1997. For the lower Bay tributaries of the Rappahannock, York, James, and the Western
and Eastern shores of Virginia, the connections among nutrient loads, water quality, and
living resources will be examined in the computer models now under development.
Underwater grasses and bottom organisms will be simulated, providing tributary specific
goals for nutrients based on habitat improvements.
Through tho 1004 06 period the Boy Program will improve monitoring and modeling
of atmospheric loads. These activities will move toward estimates of the controllable
atmospheric load delivered to the tidal Bay. Inherent in an improved understanding of
atmospheric loads are estimates of the controllable and uncontrollable atmospheric
sources, me bounaanes or tne Chesapeake airsnea, ana the transformations anil losses or
deposited atmospheric loads. Estimates of the atmospheric sources of nitrogen are
important because although these loads will Initially be reduced through implementation of
the Clean Air Act, atmospheric loads beyond the year 2005 will increase unless further
controls are initiated.
Finally, as progress is made in the Bay Agreement states of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and .the District of Columbia, more attention will turn to the
loadings to river segments of the Chesapeake watershed that lie in Delaware. New York,
and West Virginia. These upstream loadings may be subject to controls which are more
cost-effective in terms of Bay impact than further actions which might be taken by the
signatories. In any case, further dialogue wren these non-signatory states should be pail uf
the 199.7 review.
Many challenges lie ahead. The Chesapeake Bay Program is about to enter a new
phase, which will focus first on tracking nutrient reductions as we move toward the year
2000 goal, and then on maintenance of the nutrient caps. New tools and analyses, now
under development, will be needed to track nutrient loads as the Chesapeake Basin moves
toward sustainable rfmralnnmnnt Riit as wa mtrnduna these new elements, we should
also remember the mainstays of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which are the sense of
community and place we hold in common as citizens of the Chesapeake watershed, and
the willingness to make the decisions necessary to protect a national resource.
-10-
-------
- , I
-•*
The following tables and oharts delineate the specific nutrient reductions for each
ri ari evtry Jurisdiction, The Summary Sheet for the Basin Indicates overal
m St TO niroTem r«,duulhm e<»U* »~~ver, tho blowing must h* kapt In mind:
The Pennsylvania draft strategy was designed to identify the shortfall after
all contemplated nonpoint source control actions were taken: *» _
Commonwealth is currently examining point source control optoona and other
"gap-closers'1 as part of its final strategy. The Chesapeake Bay Basin
Summary assumes that these "gajHJlosers" ultimately tttaem J^S??
of thi* shortfall: the remainder is handled by reductions in other tributaries In
the Basin. .
The Virginia numbers are estimates and are likely to undergo revision as part
of tho commonwealth** public r««ii*«* process this winter. Virginia agrees
to the reduction goals for the lower tributaries being 40%, on an interim
basis, pending the completion of additional modeling and monitoring through
1 997. Virginia's draft strategy for the Potomac sets out a series of
alternatives to mee* ttw 40% yoal.
Tributary strategies are based upon a jurisdiction's totaUoad allocation, in
cases where tributary load estimates for the Year 2000 are above the cap, a
jurisdiction may have determined that it was more cost affective to reduce
the differential in another tributary.
Lo.d Auction* shown nn the "Tributary Strategy (1 993-2000)" line do not
include progress from 1S8S through 1992. It is assumed the 19i2
Progress-to-Date (Model)" line accounts for this.
-RwnalnlnB Reduction- fine include* mn estimate o< thm imraasa due to ^
growth from 1893 through 2000. This growth increase is based upon the
Year 2000 model projection.
Your attention is drawn to footnotes arowiwa 10 a number of tho Tobiee.
-11-
-------
NUTRIENT LOADINGS- 1985, 1992, and 2000
(millions of pounds/year)
BASIN
Susquehanna
Potomac
Patuxent
Western Shore, MD
Eastern Shore, MD
Western Shore, VA
Eastern Shore, VA
Rappahannock
York
James
TOTAL
1985
Base
116.8
sir0
4.9
a«V»
4&f
4.2
1.8
8.3
6.4
43,7
^30Z»~
NITROGEN
1SS2
Progress
W?6
&$&<»
•w.a*0*
ft. "Wo
a\-^A6
4.2
1.7
8.1
6.1
39.7
f"'j2Si5"£&1'
2000
Nutrient
Caps
98.S
^£
3.i; "
•tfi^i
^
3.0*
1.4*
S.71
4.5f -
29.6f
^ ^,ft m^
CZ»7TK>
PHOSPHORUS
198S
Base
5.95
*ii
0.53
*°4J&
»-H$4i«
0.50
0.09
0.86
0.93
6.18
"23^
1992
Progress
4.76
«-*w
0.29
'•^iai
»-H
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basin
- Summary Sheet
Strategy Reduction
(inllBoo. rfpoowb)
pfieKKfSEt
1985 BtieYvv Load 30x9
lWIVofre«t-»J)to (Model) 2SS.J
Y^2000 ABoc«iJoiiLo«d (Cip) 22SU
JEJHHiiimi lijgy K JlnnMBMHBi ?IXlff
•Tribatary Strategy (1993-2000) mt
m*™*™.
23.79
1 11.97
1539
4vOO
4^8
•4MS
. • "' .— '
Landuse Statistics
WmHvnAr M^ wwnr^
«.
Croptaid 4319
H^Und 2jS$7
l"«*a» Wi
Poreft 2Q456
Ufam 3J4B
Bwln Total 33,780
• '. .
• M
13
' f
60
Ifi
100%
Choip««kc Bay gate .Phaphonu
JOO.
]»•
uo.
100.
', r«w
KW
Qv
— t-"
M-
H>
11-
1.
*
1
FMI
2006
df
•••Iff
im
Tributary i
Itrntcgj- Components
•T fc«T AM Tributary Strategy-
NflBBaJntSiiiHg-
Cora«v«»n pluming md ^jplkation
Treatment of highly credible land (HHL)
Stretmb«nkprot(ctiDn
Winter cw«r crops on cropland
T«rget the Potora»c baiin for inlenshw BMP iruulUlton.
Additional «ninul waste sy«etni intulled.
Kormoinl Sauna- -Forest
Reduce forest Und
en,
nibns.
.
Implement timber htrvett BMP«.
,Upgride»ewtgetre
-------
District of Columbia Summary Sheet
Stratei
tn£
\
lQ85BMeYc«rLo«d
Y«r 2000 Allocation l*«
»y Reduction
Ciai
-------
Maryland Summary Sheet
StrategvReduction*
1985 Base Year Load
Year 2000 ADoouion Load (Cap)
Ratuinmc Reduction
Triboury Strategy (1993-2000)
Overage (-VShonf afl (+)
63J
53.6
144
-5.1
BEJrimit
3JW
194
334
047
U4
-OJS7
$
crapuna
Hayland
Patture
Rural
Urban
Landu^Statistics
ic •
ltM-2
315
384
2,623
llfiZ
State fatal 5,795
& - -
23
s
7
45
2fi
100*
MtryUod -Nitrogen
PttcMphonu
•j
£ **•»« '
•
•
r*t
•3A
)Cv
| 1
uts -
KwYr
im
TfJDOO
^_fl^ • •
IMS
Tributary Strategy Components
itrknli
Plant winter cover crop*.
Continue existing program,
Aooeicrate impiemenuutcm of scwj Fitni
Protect > 800 mflec of ttromt through femt & grass buffent.
Co
Protect f«niitivc<
Fully iroptaaent timbw b«rve»ting BMPt.
Enhance tnd rapport ttite, local and privtte efforts to
. Erockn it Sadimmt ConBoL
IfeveJopedocttionprogrtituihrt:
Eoxungc Mpiic puoifitv CTGI; iliw
IEOHW cfEartt K> coonectf tiling i^Memi B WWCB.
InCTCuenntrieatrotnipmentbyhoriKiowMrt.
point Stmroe
" Upgrade »«w«ge treiiment pLwui > 0^ MC3D.
forb»k>gkalNAcbamcaIPremov«L
-15-
-------
Pennsylvania Summary Sheet
StratepRtiliictlon
MSaMMpoggL—^
19&5BoeYe«U*d 12*J *•»
lo«Pror-«J^n^e'Moden 124-7
Yt«r 2000 AHoc*tk» L»d(Cq>) 1010
R«n«inLagReducti(«
Landuse Statistics
(Virtovi
KiyUad
RttiT
Urttn
State Told
« &
M02 10
MS7 tt
IJMS i
W,M9 Uft*
w
Nitrogen
JlOft*.
M4.
1 ""'
•
1
h~
M0
s»
-*•
H
taw
FM
MS
l««Tr
«»
Tributary Strategy Components
r - Under CooAtawttai To D«l With Stortf tils
Dociiiiieiiliii«rMtiki*i«liicdoi»ftmi^
wiih «nd wittont govemment Miirt«or.,
46-
-------
Virginia Summary Sheet
Strategy Reduction
piinsycn
198$ Btie Year Load 94J
1992 ftograti-tQ-Daie (Model) 9CU
Year 2000 AIk)c*iionLo*d (Cap) 66X
Remaining Reduction 313
•Tributary Slrmtegy (1993-2000) 3L3
Overage (-yStotfall {+) QjO
iUfi
836
733
US
111
Landuse Statistics
{d«M«ifc rf«cr«)
Cropland
Upland
PMIBB
FaraM
Ifcbaa
State Total
. *
1405
941
U7T
<%
urn
ms
Tr
i«
tone
Virginia?$ Tributevy Strategy for basinsbelow the Potomac is to continue with current wxriew
reduction programs until additional water quality monitoring and modeling allows for tkf
establishment of fined tributary nutrient reduction targets. The Tributary Strategy will be finalized
qfter this work is completed. Ongoing programs for the interim, and future possibilities being
considered, include:
Tributary Strategy Components
ConlinueExiittn«Progmni
CoaiCTvttion Plmning ntd Application
TiwUnentofHEL
IncretscTretlmeiUofCAPO
Increase Use of Cover Crop
Inrtillttkm ef Forett mi Oast Buff en
liKKtstd Stre«mb*nk Pnuctioc
Erotkn tad Sediment Control
Stormwater Maugetnett
IIKTCUC Skxmwtter Retrofits
FiiMndlMm Nutrient Mmi2«nKnt
Increase StfXkCoBaectioni to Sewer
Incnaie Shoreline Protection
Upend. porw« to
-17-
-------
CUP Tributary Plan - Susqueliaiina
nSnvm"
ll&t
117A
MS
302
7.7
4.76
3.13
Ul
1JJ
0,71
Landuse Statistics
PMBKB
f^OIfifl
. IMan
TNK
1JHW
940
1*314
Cuc<{U«luuu>* Bl
uu*r
1~:
r«r
1
£ 4J8'
IT •«'
I ***'
* LM<
MO
»« , m*
1MI OR
Strategy Reduction
CBP Tributary Plan - Patuxent Elver
Landuse Statisilcs
f«r30dD Anottdon Una &if)
THtaton Stnutr (1W-MOO)
OvonfC (-VShartSn (+)
49
029
0.7 -002
47 Mi
ao -aio
Cwd«d
Htytnd
IMMB
TtHI •
J3S
Putuxcnt llm - Nitrogen
fatatat Ihwr - Pboq>bon«
10
t
0
1
~£~
12
4
43
n
10M
*-°n
4*0*
tfl-
u.
•
F«if
(006
Ctf
MO-
- .ejo •
1
£
? BJB"
* w««
» ' iyOO *
K
'*
Mitt
C^
KM
T- ,
fdMD
-------
CBP Tributary Plan * Maryland Eastern Shore
Stratc
Yew 2000 ADoc*ikxiLb*4(Cq>)
1SJ
14.1
1X5
1JO
9S6
0.14
•Jl
-047
L«iMf vt* StalMIet
Crated
Hqfittd
74$
15
m
Ubn
ss
2
2
1C
MD Eastern Shore - Nitrogen
MD Eutern Shore - Fbospborw
•3 i«j»-
1 1U*
* 1U-
9 IQuB «
I "•
M.
•
«•
•
F-r
OM
3V
mi
.Tr
Maryland's Eastern Shore Strategies
MD Upper E. Show Strategy
MD Lower E, Shore Strategy
Urn MM «••>• I ol ICirt 42
IMT
*M<
f **
1 *
I »"'
-
I M
i*«
HMMM
••MMBBi
••MHH
* *•« I
MI » ar
MD Cboptiiik Stritep
22 up
D
«§•<
1-
ii
"*""""
l~l
n.
49-
-------
CUP Tributary Plan - Maryland Western Shore
Strategy Reduction
" "*'•'**!
Ye« 2000 AttoewioD Low! (C^)
2.9
?J
auo
-402
MD Western Shore -Miwgoi
1""
| xu>.
TS |5j«
* |J«*
*
•
IMI
JWI
<*t
MlW
••No
Ocetoi
' JUT*—* •
nfliM
Fate*
1MB
TiUi
m
in
. «
91
913
IM
wn
16
6
15
a*
IM*
MD Wttteni Sinn! - Pbotpborw
Mo-r
OJO- •
WJ
•wTr
Maryland's Western Shore Strategies
MDUwwrW.
u
8
003
•*•
tun
**T
!:
—
~~
mmmff
D,
MD Draw W.
v»
I*
aj «•
Hi f
JJj • t»
B H
i:
I-
WC^rW.IMn
1 M
t
i:
On
tot»««~«4^to»
•20-
-------
til
Ifi
II'
i
i
I If IFI iIS
I • i i i 1 1
1-
1 ifi
1
g
III
1
|
|
k
! Hi
.
ifi
.
H-
ui
1 t
_ i
1
1 {
' •
fll
Hi
u
HI
Hi
\\
HI
v
1 i
I
I
SI
At
i
gee ess
itssii
r
I
i
p
I
i
etc ess
§61 6I§
f
o.
•Mi
CA
*«'
S
o
l""»"
I
E
1
tfilflew
1 § I
f
1
1
Ikiiill
III
,.
f
' 1
I1
H
^ I
Q
i
i
t
o
-------
1 «-.
1=
li
1ST - *C S
** No
CBF Trfbular? Plan
^KS3SS^T(yCS^»^
(matouofpoanJj)
Rotation
054
ttlf
•IS
(LOO
fliiouiHi^Bii^Bi^
K
m
341
u*«
T«ttl
"I"
12
,1
61
i
Rippalunaock ftlwr - Nitrogen
- Phoipbonis
My
U«
4J)<
1J<
*4<
"
I'M
MA
c^
L««r
'**
rucoa
-22-
-------
CBP Tributary Kan - York River
Landuse Statistics
'
Off
TtM
its
a
122
11
4
4
YortcRlwr-Ntfcrogen
f«1
•JO'
»*
«J.
w-
t
' FM
100
CMf
IMS
•No
raao
tatima»**i}c*U
York Rlrer •> Pbospbonu
•M*
Ou«0.
•JO-
m*9 -
MO-
OJO-
*
•
*
FM
'2ft
>cv
an . . un •* mi i i
t«Yr Kw» 1WM8 IMW
CBP Tributary Plan -James RlYer
Stratey Reduction
1992Pro€i*i«-w-DwB(M)
43.7
S9.7
29.6
14J
no
4XH
a«
1M
JIAl
Landuse Statistics
' ..... ,JP ....... .......-*
B M •GIW J
fuom
3S5
W9
666
Total
6
^
II
11
fi
100*
Junes River * NltroHen
*-]
% JW>"
•
*•
r^
*•
^P
nts
YdOOO
James Rlftr - Pbospbona
«B.
MO-
4M>
wo.
100 •
p
*
*
I"*"1
!M0
a.
• Yi
-23-
-------
CBP Tributary Plan - Virginia Eastern Shore
Strategy Reduction
-
IfftSBMeYttrLowl
"IT
17
L4
CM
• 4
ao
a 12
006
006
tac
aao
TA P»«t«t» CTitrt
Ul.
1 "•
£ 1*1 *
J ""
I
1
1
FMT
a» •
-l-
•
Landuse Statistics
fcST 124
Utei 6
-in* *«
3k
11
0
1
«4
a
•Ml*
VAEajcteniSltore-Phoq^KiTVt
_ ftit-
• AJfi «
*i:
* Mti
i
, • fl MT MM C^
IKS
WM
CBP Tributary Plan • Virginia Western Shore
Strategy Reduction
M
42
42
U
1C
ao
"5355551"
050
OJl
OJl
O07
MS
XL06
Landuse Statistics
c~g~j> ^
SB? ^ .
SK u
*-!*•!. '. m
n
I • v
2
61
11
100*
V A Western Shot*-Nitrogen
VA Wertere Shore -
JJ».
4J»-
fc*-
J^.
k
N
'
r*«
fOM
Cv
IMS
IM2
OJU •
i ****
t BJ9*
*
•
n-
MM
QV
•
tMI
•w
an
p
------- |