[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
D P, D J- f P Z, Jv; - Fa jP"A @i W-Yff-p@ V Z F F 0 gf - F, -p "I U v U V A". J, "ff- Ap@ a, -w, ov -'AL OAST -C E- TIO ,,A F o wl--11@1-4-11-lvw-l 232 C43 @ZONIE, N C NTER P76 1987 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Office of the Governor Oerald L Baliles Go@ernor Richmond 23219 Dear Friends, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program moved steadily ahead during 1986. From across the Commonwealth, citizens both in and beyond the Chesapeake Bay drainage area gave of themselves, their resources and their talents to help our programs succeed. So, it is a pleasure to present you with our 1986 Progress Report. our task is simple: Having now secured momentum, we must now sustain it over the long-term. I believe we can do it. But it will require hard work and unselfish commitment by all Virginians. We know the Chesapeake Bay's great value to our Commonwealth. It represents a resource of unparalleled productivity, pleasure and pride. The Bay warrants our best efforts. Clearly, to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its place of prominence will require generations of support from individuals, interested private organizations and government at all levels. So, in a sense, today we lay the groundwork for expansion and improvement by our successors. Accordingly, the current biennium state budget provides more than $40 million toward advancing the Bay's management activities. More than 50 percent of those funds will support sewage treatment plant construction. Of course, from time to time, it behooves us to step back and take an accounting of our progress. Likewise, it is our duty to inform the citizens of the Commonwealth of both our successes and our remaining challenges. Hence, this report. I hope you will read it with care, because I value your reaction, suggestions and recommendations. To all who have given their time and talent to this worthy effort, I extend my gratitude. Judging from the broad support the Chesapeake Bay has acquired, I have no doubt that together we will make a difference. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, 4 Gelald L. Baliles ipiagiess aepurt of' V@RGHN@A'S CH74SAIPTEAK7, EAY PROGRAM February 1987 U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON . SC 29405-24133 property of CSC Library -@p ca Cz Council on the ]Environment 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 JI BALTIMORE WASHINGTON voo CHESAPEAKE BAY RICHMOND ATLANTIC OR 89 JA Es CAPE CHARLES CAPE HENRY ELIZABE H RIVER Page FIGURES .............................. iii TABLES ............................... iii B. Rappahannock River Basin ..... ..... 23 Description .................... ..... 23 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................. iv Nutrient Loadings .............. ..... 23 Water Quality ................. ..... 25 1. INTRODUCTION ....................... 1 Water Quality Conditions ....... ..... 25 Strategies ...................... ..... 25 II. PROGRAM SUMMARIES Project Status Reports ......... ..... 26 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 26 Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives .... 3 Agricultural Best Managemeiit Progress to Date ..................... 3 Practices ...................... 26 Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, Urban Runoff Controls ..... ..... 27 Appropriations, and Results to Date. . 9 Point Source Pollution ControL ..... 28 Other Initiatives in the Bay Region ...... 13 Municipal Sewage Treatment District of Columbia ................. 13 Plants ......................... 28 Maryland ........................... 13 Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Pennsylvania ........................ 14 Pretreatment ............. ..... 28 Environmental Protection Agency ..... 14 Resource and Habitat Improvement. 29 111. MAJOR CHESAPEAKE BAY TRIBUTARIES Shellfish Enhancement. 29 IN VIRGINIA .......................... 15 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation A. Potomac River Basin ................ 15 Reestablishment ............... 29 Description ......................... 15 Nutrient Loadings ................... 15 C. York River Basin ................... 31 Water Quality ...................... 16 Description ......................... 31 Water Quality Conditions ............ 16 Nutrient Loadings ................... 31 Strategies ........................... 18 Water Quality Conditions ............ 33 Project Status Reports ............... 18 Strategies ........................... 33 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 18 Project Status Reports ............... 33 Agricultural Best Management Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 33 Practices ...................... 18 Agricultural Best Management Urban Runoff Controls .......... 20 Practices ...................... 33 Urban Runoff Controls .......... 34 Point Source Pollution Control ..... 20 Municipal Sewage Treatment Point Source Pollution Control ..... 34 Plants ......................... 20 Municipal Sewage Treatment Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Plants ......................... 34 Pretreatment ................... 21 Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Pretreatment ................... 35 Resource and Habitat Improvement. 22 Shellfish Enhancement ........... 22 Resource and Habitat Improvement. 36 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Shellfish Enhancement ........... 36 Reestablishment ............... 22 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Hydrilla Control ................ 22 Reestablishment ............... 36 B. New Water Quality Standards ........ 50 D. James River Basin .................. 37 Chlorine Standard ................. 50 Description ......................... 37 Nutrient Control Strategy .......... 50 Nutrient Loadings ................... 37 Anti-Fouling Paints Containing Water Quality Conditions ............ 39 Tributyltin (TBT) ................. 51 Strategies ........................... 39 Project Status Reports ............... 39 C. Financing Sewage Treatment Plant Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 39 Construction and Expansion ....... 51 Agricultural Best Management Practices ............. **'***'** 39 D. Fisheries Management ............... 52 Nansemond and Chuckatuck Rural Fishery Management Plans and Clean Water Project ............ 40 Regulations ...................... 52 Urban Runoff Controls .......... 40 Oyster Repletion .................. 52 Seed Oyster Hatchery ............. 53 Point Source Pollution Control 41 Striped Bass Restocking ............ 53 Municipal Sewage Treatment Spawning Grounds for Anadromous Plants ......................... 41 Fish ............................. 54 Chlorine Reduction .............. 41 Freshwater Fish ................... 54 Toxics Control, Monitoring, and Artificial Reef Development ........ 54 Pretreatment ................... 42 E. Commercial and Recreational Boating 55 Elizabeth River Water Quality Marina Pollution Abatement ....... 55 Management Plan .............. 44 Commercial Public Landings ....... 55 Resource and Habitat Improvement. 44 F. Research ........................... 56 Shellfish Enhancement ........... 44 Oysters .......................... 56 Critical Finfish Populations ......... 56 E. Minor Tributaries, Coastal Chemical Poisons in Virginia Embayments, and the Eastern Waters .......................... 56 Shore ............................ 45 Kepone .......................... 56 Description ......................... 45 Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Research Nutrient Loadings ................... 45 Reserve ......................... 57 Strategies ........................... 46 Project Status Reports ............... 46 G. Education .......................... 57 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 46 Agricultural Best Management H. In-state Management ................ 59 Practices ...................... 46 1. Coastal Resources Management Point Source Pollution Control ..... 47 Program .......................... 59 Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants ......................... 47 J. Land Use Roundtable ................ 59 Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Pretreatment ................... 48 K. Shoreline Erosion ................... 59 Resource and Habitat Improvement. 48 Shellfish Enhancement ........... 48 L. Citizen Participation ................. 61 River Basin Committees ............ 61 IV. BAY-WIDE ACTIVITIES AND COASTAL Citizen Monitoring ................ 61 ISSUES .............................. 49 Private Environmental Groups ...... 62 A. Water Quality and Monitoring ........ 49 Overview of Water Quality in M. Inter-State Coordination ............. 62 Virginia's Major Tributaries . , , , , * ,49 Water Quality Conditions of the V. 1985 AND 1986 BAY PROGRESS Mainstream of the Bay for 1984 and REPORTS ............................ 62 1985 ............................ 49 Plankton and Benthos Monitoring 50 VI. HOW YOU CAN HELP ................. 63 ii F 0 igures Figure Title Page 1 Sites of Reopened Shellfish Growing 23 Toxics Sampling Locations in the', 42 Areas, July 1984-October 1986 ...... 7 Elizabeth River ................ 2 Potomac River Nutrient Loadings 24 Sites of James River STPs with and Sources ...................... 15 Toxics Programs .................... 43 3 Municipal STPs Employing Nutrient 25 Nutrient Loadings of Minor Removal .......................... 16 Tributaries and Ernbayments ....... 45 4 Potomac River Water Quality ....... 17 26 Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the 5 Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the Minor Tributaries and Embayments Potomac River as a Result of Cost- as a Result of Cost-Shared Cropland Shared Cropland BMPs ............ 19 BMPS ............................ 46 6 Significant Municipal Sewage 27 Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants .................. 21 Treatment Plants .................. 47 7 Sites of Potomac River STPs with 28 Sites of STPs with Toxics Toxics Programs ................... 21 Programs ......................... 48 8 Rappahannock River Nutrient 29 Monitoring Stations of Embayments Loadings and Sources ............. 23 and the Bay Mainstern ............. 49 9 Rappahannock River Water 30 Relationships of Market Oyster Yield Quality ........................... 24 Shell Plantings Five Years Before Harvesting ........................ 5@3 10 Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the 31 Anadromous Fish Spawning Rappahannock River as a Result of Grounds .......................... 54 Cost-Shared Cropland BMPs ....... 26 11 Significant Municipal Sewage 32 Public Landing Sites Rehabilitated in Treatment Plants .................. 28 1984-86 ........................... 55 12 Sites of Rappahannock River STPs 33 Shoreline Eroding at Greater Than with Toxics Programs .............. 28 Two Feet or More Per Year ......... 60 13 York River Nutrient Loadings and 34 River Basin Committees for the Sources ........................... 31 Chesapeake Bay ................... 61 14 York River Water Quality .......... 32 15 Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the York River as a Result of Cost- Shared Cropland BMPs ............ 34 Tables 16 Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants .................. 35 17 Sites of York River STPs with Toxics Table Title Page Programs ......................... 35 1 Shellfish Bed Reopenings July 1, 18 James River Nutrient Loadings and 1984 through October 6, 1986 ....... 7 Sources ........................... 37 2 Potomac River Cropland Tillage ..... 20 19 James River Water Quality ......... 38 3 Rappahannock River Cropland 20 Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the Tillage .... ...................... 26 James River as a Result of Cost- 4 York River Cropland Tillage ........ 34 Shared Cropland BMPs ............ 40 21 Significant Municipal Sewage 5 James River Cropland Tillage ....... 40 Treatment Plants .................. 41 6 Charlottesville Wet Pond Pollutant 22 Toxics Sampling Locations in the Removal Efficiency ................ 40 James River ....................... 42 7 Eastern Shore Cropland Tillage ..... 46 To the Reader: This report was produced by the Virginia Council on the Environ- ment as part of its responsibility to coordinate, track and report on Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives program. Janice Carter-Lovejoy, Chesapeake Bay Program Coordinator, served as project manager. H. Shepard Moon, Jr., Paul 0. Hagenmueller (es- pecially for graphics, layout and design), Catherine Harold, Wanda Ross, Patty Walsh and Gwen Jones contributed. Other agencies contributing include the Virginia Water Control Board (in particular Robert Siegfried, John Kennedy, and Alan Pollock), Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Virginia Health Department, Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development, Virginia Resources Authority, Department of Education, Department of Highways and Transportation, Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Depart- ment of Information Technology, Hampton Roads Water Quality Man- agement Agency, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Numerous citizen organizations, other agencies and individuals, in Virginia and elsewhere, also play important roles in the progress reported here. We are grateful to all who have contributed to this report and to everyone who is helping bring back the Bay. Keith J. Buttleman, Administrator Virginia Council on the Environment iv Hm'ToductiOn Virginia is graced with one of the finest natural resources of North America, the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay has served mankind since long before the colonization of the United States, and it has served wildlife for tens of thousands of years prior to man's inhabiting the region. Today, the value of the Chesapeake Bay is mea- sured in terms of its environmental, recreational, economic, and historical value: � One of the world's richest sources of shellfish, crabs, and finfish. � Provides special habitats for overwintering waterfowl, � Provides numerous opportunities for boaters, sportsfishermen, campers, and nature lovers. � Over half the annual U.S. oyster catch is har- vested here. � Two of the world's major shipping ports are lo- cated on the Bay. � Has contributed to the heritage of many native American and European settlers. Many of man's activities have taken a toll on the Bay's resources. Its capacity for renewal is waning in the wake of decades of use and abuse. By the mid 1970s, signs of stress on the Bay and its resources were noted by concerned citizens and state and federal authorities. Congress authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to undertake an intensive study of the Bay to determine the fac- tors causing its decline. After seven years of re- search and evaluation, the study results confirmed the hypothesis: the condition of the Bay was de- teriorating due to point and nonpoint sources of pollution. (Point source refers to the discharge of wastewater from a specific location like a sewage treatment plant outfall pipe. Nonpoint source re- fers to runoff from nondiscrete locations such as farms, lawns, and streets.) The study report documented disturbing trends 0 Excess Toxics. Large quantities of toxic sub- in three main areas: stances have been found in specific areas of the Bay primarily around urban and highly industrial- ized areas. Toxics contaminate waters, sediment, 9 Excess Nutrients. Primarily phosphorus and and living resources, and have the potential to af- nitrogen, these nutrients can foster the growth of fect humans as they accumulate in the food chain, aquatic plants such as algae when present in large These are but the three most dramatic problems quantities. When these blooms die off and decom- identified in the Bay study. Virginia and the other pose they reduce the dissolved oxygen which is Bay area states continue to study the Bay to help critical to the survival of living resources in the determine sources of pollution problems and to Bay's waters. Excess nutrients are coming from a assist in the formulation of new and alternative combination of agricultural, forestry, and urban solutions to those problems. runoff, and municipal and industrial plant dis- charges. Since 1950, phosphorus and nitrogen en- In 1984, the Commonwealth of Virginia, along tering Virginia's tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay with other states and federal agencies, began a have increased 44% and 87% respectively. If no comprehensive effort to bring a halt to the Bay's additional nutrient controls are implemented, decline. After only two years of program imple- these loadings will increase by another 36% and mentation, cleanup progress cannot yet be mea- 23% by the year 2000 due to projected population sured on any large scale in terms of improved increases. water quality or increased numbers of fish. What can be measured now is the State's successful im- plementation of new initiatives to tackle the prob- 0 Decline of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. lems, identify alternatives and solutions, provide Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has all but assistance to localities to abate pollution, and look disappeared in the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu- for ways to revise man's activities which adversely taries since the late 1960s. SAV provides fish and affect the Bay. crabs essential habitat and protection from pred- This 1986 Virginia Chesapeake Bay Progress Report ators, buffers wave energy, and produces much gives a status report of the first biennium (1984-86) needed oxygen for the living resources of the Bay. of the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, discusses re- The decline of these grass beds is attributed to ex- lated coastal issuesf and outlines the continuing cess nutrients, turbidity, and sedimentation. cleanup program. 2 rgnm @ a aves Summary of Vi 's (Chesapeake Bay Hnotato Progress to Date The effort to reverse the long-term decline of projects during the 1984-86 biennium and the Chesapeake Bay has been a cooperative one $43,913,589 for 1986-88. Of the funds allocated for involving a wide range of players. Joining the 1986-88, $20,400,000 is for sewage treatment plant Commonwealth of Virginia in this coordinated ef- construction. Overall program coordination and fort are the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania, tracking is provided by the Council on the Envi- the District of Columbia, and the federal govern- ronment, and program accomplishments are con- ment. In December of 1983 these players entered tinuously reviewed and documented Bay-wide as into the Chesapeake Bay Agreement which called well as by river basin. for the preparation and implementation of coordi- nated plans to improve and protect the Bay. One of the prime products of this interstate effort was Many citizen and special interest groups have ning, implementation, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection been involved in the plan Plan which establishes basic goals and objectives and monitoring of the cleanup effort from the be- and sets out strategies and programs, planned or ginning. As a result, public awareness and sup- in place, to improve the Bay's condition. Each port for Virginia's program continues to grow. state, the District of Columbia, the Environmental This, too,. will serve Virginia's Bay cleanup effort Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, well over the coming years by helping it to main- developed its own set of initiatives for cleaning up tain the momentum it now enjoys. the Bay. The Plan recognizes that bringing back the Bay is a long-term endeavor, one which will It is important to keep in perspective the fact take several decades before significant improve- that it will be several decades before widespread ments in water quality will be assured. improvements in water quality and living resource populations are evident. Nevertheless, some local- Virginia has developed an aggressive Initiatives ized improvements have already been realized in a program including 30 projects in nine agencies in- number of areas. Those accomplishments are volving five different cabinet secretariats. Almost noted in this report, along with those efforts $59 million has been committed since the pro- which will require a longer period to be truly gram's inception. This includes $14,937,604 for effective. 3 Pollution Abatement The greatest concentration of program effort in such a demonstration. The rainfall simulator, a Virginia's Chesapeake Bay package includes a va- portable, modified spray irrigation system, creates, riety of individual programs designed to reduce over a one-and-a-half acre area, the equivalent of a the amount of pollutants entering the Bay and its typical summer cloudburst. It is set up over a test tributary waters. Virginia is taking actions to re- area which contains two side-by-side farm plots, duce nutrient loadings on a large scale, and is dra- one of which has been conventionally tilled, the matically increasing efforts to keep other pollu- other using no-till. By "raining" on both plots tants out of Virginia's portion of the Bay. equally, under controlled conditions the rainfall simulator provides a graphic demonstration of just Farms. Pollutant-carrying runoff from agricultural how well no-till cropping reduces runoff com- land is being reduced through a combination of pared to conventional practices. The runoff from education and cost-sharing grants designed to en- both plots is channeled into two side-by-side flows, in which the difference in clarity (sediment) courage farmers to use "Best Management Prac- is clearly visible. One demonstration in Essex tices" (BMPs). During 1984 and 1985, 1,444 farm- County showed the no-till plot to produce half the ers installed BMPs on 58,594 acres as a direct total runoff, and one-tenth of the sediment, and result of state cost-sharing funds. From these ac- phosphorus loss and one-fourth the nitrogen loss, tions, 333,930 tons of sediment which otherwise when compared with the conventional plot. would have eroded off farm fields each year will now be retained in place. This also reduces the The local Soil and Water Conservation District amount of sediment that would otherwise have offices and the federal Soil Conservation Service actually reached a stream or river by approxi- are also helping by providing technical assistance. mately 31,260 tons. Besides reducing sedimenta- Together with farmers, management plans are de- tion, the BMPs reduce phosphorus from entering veloped or conservation practices are recom- receiving streams. Phosphorus is carried by soil mended for circumstances particular to individual particles; 33,760 pounds of this "hitchhiking" nu- farms. trient are now being kept out of Bay and tributary According to U.S. Department of Agriculture waters. Another 51 farmers are installing facilities data, 1985 Virginia cropland under no-till practices to manage 114,407 tons of animal waste each year had risen by about 7.6% from 1984, and from 58% from their livestock operations, thereby reducing to 61% of the total acreage planted. Through the the potential for additional nutrient pollution. education efforts targeted at farmers, including While these figures represent a promising be- further use of rainfall demonstrations, as well as ginning, it is really only a start. There are approx- through the cost-sharing program, Virginia will imately 24,000 farmers in the Virginia portion of continue to improve that ratio. the Bay basin, operating on nearly 3.7 million acres of crop and pastureland. Based on Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) estimates, it Urban Areas. In urban areas, runoff from streets, would take about $170 million in state funds to parking lots, and other impervious surfaces can bring all agricultural acreage and animal oper- carry contaminants into nearby waters. just as in ations under BMPs if we rely on cost-sharing the case of farmland, certain best management alone. practices can prevent or reduce this form of pollu- Consequently, the education component of our tion. While not a major initiative area, the use of agricultural runoff control program is especially urban area BMPs is being encouraged through important, in order to demonstrate to farmers the cost-sharing and technical assistance on selected value of using BMPs and also to convince them to demonstration sites. Eleven individual projects install BMPs voluntarily. The Division of Soil and have been started in 7 localities. These include Water Conservation, along with Virginia Tech, has porous asphalt pavement, an infiltration trench developed an educational program that illustrates and a grassed waterway, stormwater manage- to farmers the benefits of BMPs. There are no ment, streambank stabilization, and an "urban guarantees that a farmer will continue to use the marsh" and a "wet pond" (manmade rainwater BMP in subsequent years, or he may lease his detention basin). Monitoring at the "wet pond" land to another farmer who does not employ the site indicates that it is effective in removing up to BMP. For these reasons it is imperative that the 87% of the silt and 80% of the phosphorus from education component of the BMP program con- the runoff. It also removes up to 65% of the lead tinue each year. and zinc. While this project is relatively small, its One of the best mea 'ns of encouragement is by efficiency at pollutant removal is significant. It and demonstrating the value of BMPs in a clear, con- other projects serve to demonstrate the urban vincing way. Virginia Tech developed for the BMP concepts and promote voluntary use of simi- Commonwealth a rainfall simulator for providing lar practices in other urban areas. Sewage Treatment Plants. Other significant During the 1984-86 biennium, the State has sources of nutrients are the 476 municipal sewage made significant strides in reissuing discharge per- treatment plants (STPs) in Virginia portion of the mits so that the limitations imposed on treatment Chesapeake Bay basin. The Virginia Water Control plants remain current. In addition, a State stan- Board estimates a price tag of about $2 billion for dard for chlorine has been adopted, and efforts the necessary construction, expansion, and im- are underway to develop nutrient standards and provement in levels of treatment at municipal toxicity reduction strategies. The combined results STI's to carry Virginia to the year 2000; more than of these regulatory programs and the financial as- half of this need is in the Chesapeake Bay drain- sistance programs will contribute dramatically to age area. In light of this need and the reductions the abatement of point source pollution in the in federal funds available for this purpose, Vir- years to come. ginia has become directly involved in the financ- ing of construction and repairs of municipal STPs. Prior to this, the majority of funding for such Living Resources and Habitat projects came from a federal construction grant Improvement program and some local sources. Beginning in the 1986-88 biennium, the newly- A number of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initia- created Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund tives have a continuing direct effect on marine makes available to localities construction loans at habitat in the Bay and its tributary waters and low interest rates. A limited amount of grant complement on-going programs such as the man- funds are also available and targeted for localities agement of tidal wetlands and subaqueous lands. with a limited ability to pay. It is likely that a lo- cality could design a financing package involving a Chlorine removal or reduction. One effort is di- loan from the Revolving Fund and/or bond financ- rected towards reducing the amount of chlorine ing through the Virginia Resources Authority, used and discharged by sewage treatment plants The Virginia Resources Authority was created (STPs). Chlorine, used as a disinfectant by STPs by the 1984 General Assembly in order to provide prior to discharging wastewater to the rivers, is low-interest financing alternatives to localities to acutely toxic to marin 'e organisms, especially fish fund or refinance water, wastewater, and drainage and oyster larvae. To address this problem, spawning areas of critical finfish populations and facility projects. Three financings (bond issues) important shellfish areas have been identified and have taken place to date for a total of $63,620,000. a program to reduce chlorine yet maintain a level Of the nine localities which have participated, six of disinfection adequate to protect public health are within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. has been initiated. Localities with STPs adjacent to Other programs are underway to upgrade STPs, sensitive spawning and growing areas are being to reduce nutrients and chlorine discharged by targeted for participation in the State's cost-share STPs, as well as reduce sewerline infiltration and grant program to reduce the amount of chlorine inflow problems (M). Fourteen municipal sewage being discharged. The cost-share program is really treatment plants are scheduled to reduce or elimi- just an incentive to speed up chlorine control nate chlorine, ten with 1984-86 Chesapeake Bay since the Virginia Water Control Board has Initiatives funds, the other four with 1986-88 adopted a water quality standard for chlorine. (See funds. Eliminating the 40 infiltration and inflow Chlorine Standard in the Bay-wide and Coastal Issues problem areas existing in the Bay basin should re- section of this report.) sult in significant reductions in the number of oc- For the 1984-86 biennium, ten localities were casions that rainfall causes STP overflows and the awarded cost-sharing grants totaling $1.8 million discharges of untreated sewage into the Bay and for either dechlorination or alternative disinfection its tributaries. Four I&I projects are currently un- at their sewage treatment -plants. Another $1.7 derway with another six planned for fiscal year million has been allocated for 1986-88 with four 1986-87 with the assistance of Initiative cost-share more projects approved to date. Other localities grants. are reducing chlorine vQluntarily, or under order During the second year of the 1984-86 bien- in conjunction with state discharge permits. These nium, the Commonwealth instituted a pilot nutri- actions will result in a 36% overall decrease in the ent removal program. Grants were awarded to amount of chlorine discharged to the Bay from three localities to evaluate the costs and effective- Virginia tributaries. Prior to the Bay cleanup ef- ness of removing phosphorus and nitrogen at fort, 6670 lbs. of chlorine were being discharged sewage treatment plants. Operations began in Fall each day; this amount will be reduced to 3905 lbs. 1986; preliminary results from the York River STP per day. Because many of the localities reducing biological nutrient removal process indicate-the or eliminating chlorine in STP discharges are adja- level of phosphorus discharged has been reduced cent to spawning. and nursery areas, an increase by more than 75%, from 8 mg/I to less than 2 in fishery populations is anticipated as the young mg/l. marine organisms reach maturity. Finfish. Another effort to protect important Tower, and Triangle Reef-east of Cape Charles. commercial and recreational fisheries has been the Other experimental reef sites are located in the development of fishery management plans. Plans Chesapeake Bay near Gwynn's Island and Cape set goals and objectives and include strategies for Charles, and another in the Atlantic Ocean south increasing available stock, improving habitat, man- of Wachapreague. aging harvest, and ensuring the proper collection of fisheries data. The first plans to be developed are for striped bass and oysters. Shellfish Grounds. Virginia has led the nation The State's agricultural cost-share program is in the production and export of shellfish in the also having direct impacts on marine habitat. past, but generally declining production threatens 333 '930 fewer tons of soil are eroding from farm- that prominent position. A variety of natural land in the Bay basin as a result of new best man- causes, such as predators and diseases, have been agement practices employed by farmers in 1985. In partly responsible. A substantial portion of Vir- addition to keeping excessive nutrients out of the ginia's productive shellfish waters have been water, soil retention directly reduces the siltation closed for public health reasons, however, due to of river bottoms, the burying of submerged their contamination with high bacterial levels, grasses and bottom dwelling organisms, and de- usually associated with domestic sewage. creases turbidity allowing better light penetration By 1982, over 91,000 acres of productive shell- which is essential to good submerged aquatic veg- fish grounds had been permanently condemned etation growth. due to contamination, out of the 450,000 total acres of leased and public grounds available. As a Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Beds of sub- result of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative program, however, Virginia has taken aggressive action to merged aquatic vegetation (SAV) were once com- reverse this situation. Besides maintaining its firm mon features of the many shoal areas along the commitment to protect the public health from con- tributaries and Bay. An extensive experimental taminated seafood, the State is also working to re- program was started in the first biennium to rees- open condemned shellfish grounds by correcting tablish SAV beds and determine what causes their the causes of the contamination through the decline. Fifteen acres of eelgrass were transplanted Shoreline Residential Sanitation Program and the to 10 locations in the Bay tributaries in the fall of Shellfish Enhancement Task Force. 1984. Transplant survival ranged from moderate to This has been one of the most rewarding devel- poor. Losses are attributed to winter ice scour, opments of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative pro- turbidity, accidental dredging, cownose ray and gram, and one that has shown dramatic results crab uprootings, and other biological factors under since its inception. Early in the process, the Vir- investigation. ginia Marine Resources Commission reviewed all Another 15 acres were transplanted into 11 plots condemned shellfish areas and gave them priority in four river systems in the fall of 1985, primarily ranking according to their value for shellfish pro- in those areas where previous success had been duction. Independently, the Health Department demonstrated. As of June 1986 survival rates ranked areas in terms of their sources of contami- ranged from 10% to 75%. Growth in some areas nation and the likelihood of their responsiveness has been phenomenal where at one site each to corrective actions. Sources of pollution include transplanted plug has expanded an average faulty septic tanks and pit privies, animal waste, 100-fold. Efforts to reestablish SAV beds, includ- industrial waste, sewage discharges, and marinas, ing using seeds in the planting process, monitor- among others. When the rankings of the two ing of the key environmental parameters, and re- agencies were combined, the result was a priority finements of a conceptual model on eelgrass ranking by both productivity and ease of cleanup. growth, are continuing in the 1986-88 biennium. The State was then able to target its available funds to those areas where they would be most effective. Artificial Reefs. Artificial fishing reefs continue During the 1984-86 biennium, plus the first few to be constructed in order to create habitat to at- months of 1986-88, 3,740 acres of productive shell- tract and increase the production of recreationally fish grounds have been reopened, making avail- important fish species. This program began in the able to commercial harvesting $1,288,288 in shell- mid-1970s and was funded with unrefunded fish the first harvest year. If grounds are managed motor fuel taxes, but with specific funding well, these areas should continue to produce shell- through the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, the fish valued at about half this amount in each year amount of reef material deployed increased by thereafter. The cost to the state has been $115,016, about 40% in each year of the biennium. for an overall benefit-cost ratio of about 11 to 1. Three reef sites continue to be added to each Another 756 acres with an estimated market value year: Parramore Reef-off the Wachapreague In- of $650,000 have tentatively been reopened under let, Tower Reef-east of the Chesapeake Bay Light carefully monitored conditions. 6 A significant element of this program has been that once sources of contamination were identi- fied, enforcement action was sufficient, in many cases, to correct the problem at no additional cost to the state. In addition to the 3,740 productive Table 1. Shellfish Bed Reopenings July 1, 1984 through October 6, 1986. acres reopened, another 247 acres that are not Acreage State Market now productive have been reopened, all through Opened Initiative Cost Value enforcement. Now that they are available, some of Potomac River these acres could become productive in the future 1. Buckner Greek 67 $ 0$ 5,200 if developed by leaseholders. 2. Jackson Greek 60 0 52,000 Numerous areas remain condemned to shellfish harvest. In the first two years of the Chesapeake Rappahannock River Bay Initiatives, those areas with easily identified 3. Carter's Creek 154 14,250 80,113 problems were corrected first; those remaining will 4, Corrotoman River 107 0 78,000 therefore be more difficult. In many of the remain- 5, Greenvale Creek 53 0 3,250 ing condemned areas the sources and causes of 6, Lagrange Creek 149 0 10,000 7. Parrotts Creek* 17 0 1,300 pollution are unknown. And in some cases reli- 8. Sturgeon Creek 41 0 58,500 able methods to identify and correct the problems 9. Mill Creek 21 0 5,200 range from poorly understood to non-existent. Figure 1 shows the location of shellfish reopen- York River ings; Table 1 lists them by name, area, cost to the 10. Cedarbush 28 0 3,250 state, and market value. 11. Felgates Creek 63 0 6,500 12. Sarah Creek 104 11,962 7,800 13. York at Cheatham Annex 134 0 10,400 14. York at Gloucester Point 54 0 3,900 James River ;1_311 15. Nansemond River* 455 57,995 130,000 16. Pagan River and Jones C, Greek 166 0 195,000 Minor Tributaries and Embayments 31 28 0 325 17. Back Creek* 37,000 18. Back River at Harris River 145 0 If 19. Brown's Bay 346 27,679 69,500 20. Chisman Creek 158 0 10,700 + 21, CHESAPEAKE @'-3 4 21. Dividing Creek 91 0 2,600 7 5 4 BAY 22. East River 95 0 13,000 6 23. Horn Harbor- 77 630 129,350 24. Occohannock Greek* 160 0 1,300 9 25. Severn River at Haywood 28 Greek- 52 0 1,300 2 26. Severn River, N.W.** 113 0 2,600 30 17 23 27. Thornton's Creek** 21 0 5,200 13 10 -, 1 28. Upper Piankatank 433 2,500 63,700 25 29. Upper Poquoson River 254 0 300,000 26 X Ware River at Wilson 0 27 Creek" 94 0 1,300 :33 TOTAL$ 3,740 $ 115,016 $1,288,288 An additional 247 acres have been reopened in five other areas whose cur- 16 rent productivity is unknown or nonexistent: 15' 31. Lower Machodoc Greek, Potomac River, 60 acres 32. Farnham Creek, Rappahannock River, 71 acres 33. Indian Field Greek, York River, 76 acres 34. Hunting Creek, Eastern Shore, 40 acres 1@ *Reopened since July 1986. **Off Mobjack Bay. Figure 1. Sites of Reopened Shellfish Growing Areas, July 1984-October 119116 7 Oyster Rock Repletion. Meanwhile, another ini- Research tiative has expanded the existing oyster repletion program to enhance the oyster industry in areas where production is on-going. Oysters depend on the availability of suitable bottom conditions in Oysters. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science order for larvae to have a place to "set." One of is studying the factors and processes influencing the best substances for oyster larvae to set on is the productivity of the James River seed oyster other oyster shells, but large scale harvesting, as beds. Water circulation studies suggest that these well as siltation, has severely reduced the avail- complex patterns play a vital role in the life cycle able oyster shell bottom in most areas. Therefore, of the oysters. Beginning in 1987, these findings the Virginia Marine Resources Commission will be used in a three-dimensional model to help (VRMC) has for many years planted oyster shells assess the impact of spoil island development and at appropriate locations. The Commission has also dredging on the oyster beds. Eventually, the relocated seed oysters (very young oysters) to fur- model will be used to predict the movement of ther encourage oyster development where natural oyster larvae. set may not be sufficient. Since 1971 there has been a very strong correlation between VMRC re- Finfish. Many factors affect the numbers of fish pletion program shell planting and the subsequent in Bay waters. Studies were undertaken to deter- harvest of marketable oysters three to five years mine the trends and cyclic components of juvenile later. This Chesapeake Bay Initiative added fish recruitment to the Bay, together with the cli- $1,000,000, or an increase of 50%, to the repletion matological factors which may influence their program for the 1984-86 biennium enabling the populations. The viability of striped bass eggs in Commission to plant approximately 3.8 million the Pamunkey River was also monitored. Egg bushels of shell and 66,500 bushels of seed oysters mortality is a reliable indicator of spawning activ- by the end of 1986. There are plans to plant ity. Egg viability will be assessed again in 1987 as another 2 million bushels of shell in each year of it indicates trends in the future size of fish the 1986-88 biennium as well as develop alterna- populations. tive methods of supplying shell for repletion. Numerous other research projects are on-going including the analysis of water quality and living Oyster Hatchery. The Virginia Institute of Ma- resource monitoring data. The findings of these rine Science (VIMS) has also been heavily involved studies are coordinated and shared throughout the in the restoration of the oyster industry with a state and Bay region. major research project on seed oyster production and distribution. In the fall of 1985, VIMS began operation of an oyster hatchery which will in fu- At the end of the program's first biennium we ture years help ensure availability of seed oysters. can see measurable accomplishments in many The hatchery will produce eyed-larvae (those ma- areas. With continued growth, awareness, and ac- ture enough to attach to a substrate) for remote ceptance of the program by the public, and the setting by oystermen as well as for scientific re- concerted effort by all concerned parties we will search. So far, 221 million oyster larvae have been be able to reverse the Bay's decline and ensure its raised for in-house research and for industry use. productive future. 8 Virginia7s Chesapeake Bay Initiatives: 1984-86 Expenditures, 1986-88 Appropriations, and Results to Date The Commonwealth of Virginia embarked upon a comprehensive, long-term program to revitalize the Bay. During the 1984-86 biennium, $14,937,604 million was spent for Bay cleanup initiatives. For the 1986-88 biennium, Virginia has appropriated $43,913,589 million for Bay initiatives. These initiatives include: 1984-86 1986-88 Funds Funds Nonpoint Source Pollution Control *Adoption of Agricultural Best Management Practices $ 5,455,130a $ 6,764,65 1 b (BMPs), in order to: *Reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay by providing cost-sharing grants to farmers for implementing certain BMPs such as con- tour farming and no-till planting; *Educate farmers and others about the water quality and soil retention benefits of BMPs; *Monitor the impact of cropland and livestock BMP implementation on small watersheds; *Develop methods for identifying target farms and critical watersheds; *Provide grants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts to employ technical assistants for BMP installation and program administration. RESULTS TO DATE * 1444 farmers participating. * BMP, installed on 58,594 acres - 333,930 tons of soil kept in place. * 33,245 pounds ofphosphorus kept out of Bay, * 114,040 tons of animal waste managed. Inclucies EPA grants of $3,050,004. 'Includes EPA gmis of $4,162,950. *Demonstration of Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects (urban BMPs), in order to: �Demonstrate and monitor the effectiveness of certain innovative urban BMPs at controlling erosion and sediment; �Assess their practicability by cost-sharing with localities for BMP implementation; �Provide grants to localities for technical assistance for urban runoff control projects, RESULTS TO DATE � 11 demonstration projects in 7 localities. � projects include porus pavement, infiltration trench, grassed waterwaj,, stormwaler management, stream- bank stabilization, "urban marsh" and "uvt pond" (retention basin), �"wet Pond" shown to remove 87% of silt 80% of phosphorus 65% of lead & zinc .::nd[cates upenditures ndicates approptiations including carry overs from 1984-86 9 igs4-86 1986-88 1984-86 10-88 Funds Funds Funds Funds Point Source Pollution Control 0 Reduction of Chlorine Discharged by Sewage Treatment $ 39,565 $ 3,355,348c ODevelopment of a Computerized Toxics Data System, in 345,i4o 746,292 Plants (STPs), in order to: order to: *Improve shellfish and finfish populations by reducing Develop advanced technologies for detecting and anal- the amount of chlorine (disinfectant) discharged by yzing toxics in Bay tributaries, beginning with projects STPs into spawning areas of rivers-, in the James and Elizabeth Rivers. *Provide cost-share grants to localities to add de- chlorination technologies or to apply alternative disin- RESULIS TO DATE fection methods; Sediment and water samples collected at 40 *Continue on-going state action encouraging voluntary charge sites monitoring of chlorine levels at STPs. -sbelfsh samples collected at 16 sites - Analysis shows most samples exhibit muth-source RESULTS TO DATE contamination,- however@ *ChAgrine standard adopted. * Some contaminants can be traced to specific *10 local projectsfunded in 84-86 so u rces, *4 approved so far in 86-88 *Demonstration of Nutrient Removal at Sewage 0 36o,oool *When completed, 36% decrease in chlorine aiv- Treatment Plants, in order to: charges to bay (from 6670 lbs Iday to 3905 Gain information on the reliability, operation, and lbs. /4). costs associated with nitrogen and phosphorus removal *Fish survival & reproduction will be enhanced due technologies by providing grants to localities to im- to chlorine removal in critical habitats plement these techniques. 'includes $1.660,394 earned toward from 1984-86. RESULIS TO DATE Projects unaeruvy at *Correction of Sevverline inflow and infiltration, $ 344,296 $ 1,596,897' Fre6A?ricksburg-simultaneous precipitation through cost-share grants to localities, to rehabilitate HRO-York River-biological nutrient removal deteriorated sewerlines, in order to: k1marnock-biological nutrient removal *Reopen shellfish beds, enhance growth of submerged ,Preliminary results at York River HP show pbos- aquatic vegetation, and improve aquatic nursery pborus reduced by more than 75% ffrom 8 mg1l to grounds by reducing the amount of untreated sewage less than 2 niglo. entering rivers; (Water, other than wastewater, which -Modest additional cost. enters a sewage system through defective pipes, joints, or manholes is called infiltration. Inflow is water, 'Inclodes $360,000 that is being carried forward ftorn 1984-86. other than wastewater, which enters the system through direct connections such as rain gu tters or sump pumps). Resource Improvement RESULTS TO DATE *Replenishment of shellfish growing areas by trans- $ 1,000,000 $ 1,250,000 * 4 projects underway in: planting clean oyster shell to provide a good place for Colonial Beacb-20% of problem solved oyster larvae to "set." Fredericksburg- 7% ofproblem solved Gloucester Co-40% ofproblem solved RESULYS TO DATE Onancock-35 to 40% ofproblem solved - 3.8 million bushels of shell planted in 1984-86 (up * 6projeca scheduled in: from approx. 2 million bushelsfor 82-84). Kilmarnock - 4 million bushels projectedfor 86-88, West Point *Development of a pilot oyster hatchery to test tech- 292,557 346,4439 Fredericksburg niques for the controlled production of seed oysters. Neuport News RESUEYS TO DATE Suffolk 221 million oyster larvae ralsedfor industry and Colonial Beach in-house research. "Includes $104,817 carried forward from 1984-86 8includes $46,443 carried foivard froin 1984-86 *opening of shellfish grounds closed as a result of defi- 260,000' 300,000 *Creation of Virginia Resources Authority, in order to: 547,300 0 cient shoreline residential sanitation facilities by pro- *Relieve some of the future capital needs for water and viding grants to low income residents for the correc- wastewater treatment by providing a bond market for tion or installation of facilities. communities so that facilities can be financed at lower interest rates. RESULYS TO DATE - 3 740 acres of productive sbeqi@b grounds reopened RESULYS TO DArE - $1,288,288 worth of shelffuh now availablefor *$63,620,000 worth of bonds issued harvest. * 6 out of 9 localities participating are in Bay -cost to state of $115,016 waAmhed. - A&filibnal shoreline cleanup projec& under contract. hAn additional $4,832 in agency funds were expended to cmer personal experses. 1984-86 1986-88 1984-86 1986-88 Funds Futick Funds Funds Education *Reestablishment of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) 150,000' 150,000 *Development of education programs for citizens on the by transplanting whole eelgrass plants or by reseeding; importance of the Bay, its problems, and its solutions, and studies into factors causing its success/failure. SAV in order to: provides habitat and food and acts as a nutrient buffer -Produce public service announcements for TV and $ 40,000 $ 01 and sediment trap. radio@ -Provide Chesapeake Bay educational grants to schools 250,000 250,000' RESULTS TO DATE afid institutions; - Experimental plots estab&hed at 21 locations. .Funds to support the production of a documentary 50,000 01 - Varied rates of survival. film on the Bay to be broadcast on public televisicn; - Phenomena[ growth (100-fold increase) in some -Establish youth employment projects-funds to hire 270,000 6oo,ooo areas teenagers to work on summer projects which reduce , New efforts to focus on use of see&. soil and sand erosion and nonpoint source pollution 'Does not include VIMS support (non-Initiative Funds) of $190,679. entering rivers and streams@ *Establishment of a Fishery Management Division to 240,780 293,100 -Support on-the-water studies for school children-to 90,000 180,000 improve and maintain critical finfish and shellfish help more children participate in the Chesapeake Bay stock including the development of methods to reduce Foundation's education program. fishing mortality, collection of catch statistics and bio- logical data, and rebuilding and maintaining spawn- RESULTS TO DATE ing stock. *Over 1600 information calls responded to. -Permanent educational exhibits completed at RESULTS TO DATE -Virginia Marine Science Museum, Virginia Beach � Management plans nearing completiton for., -Science Museum of Virginia, Richmond Striped Bass -Science Museum of Western Virginia, Roanoke Oysters -Traveling computerized exhibit developed. � Next to be developed include: -Over 15,000 students given one-day program by, Shad vi5iting teacher. River Heriing ,Over 2700 students participated in on-the-water field Hard Clams tr0s. *Placement and maintenance of artificial fishing reefs 259,739 264,36ii -Public tekvi@sion documentary completed and aired. which provide increased habitat for recreational IThese projects have been completed. fishing. RESULTS TO DATE Research 40% increase in annual additions of reef material *Support of research projects which will provide infor- at three sites. mation necessary to better manage the Bay and its re- Parramore Reef-off Wacbapreague Inlet sources. They help assess the positive and negative im- Tower Reef-east of Ches. Bay Light Tower pacts associated with applying new technologies for Triangle Reef-east of Cape Charles improving water quality, such as determining at what )includes $8,961 carried forvard from 1984-86. level nutrients become harmful to the quality of salt- *Improvement of commercial public boat landing sites 90,768 139,232 k water, The purpose of these studies is to: and planning for others requiring repair. -Analyze biological and physical factors causing de- $ 1,700,000m $ 2,000,000 clining oyster and critical finfish populations; RESULTS TO DATE -Develop advanced techniques for detecting metabolized Repairs and site improvement completed at 12 pub- toxics in seafood; lic landings. -Assess health effects of Kepone (pesticide) on humans. 300,000 300,000 kincludes $39,232 carried for,vard from 1984-86, -Predict movement of estuarine waters and material 0 525,000 *Removal of hydrilta from the Potomac River by U.S. 0 75,000 transport by a three dimensional model. (This is a Army Corps of Engineers. (New for 1986-88) new program for 1986-88), RESULTS TO DATE RESULTS TO DATE 50 acres of hydrilla clearedfrom around channels, -7hree-dimensional circulation model acquired. access to marmas. -Circulation identified as critical in success of James 01niplement scientific methods for establishing marina 0 150,000 River seed oyster beds condemnation buffer zones, assess boat holding tank *Population prediction tecbniques under development chemicals on septic systems, and boater sanitation ed- for striped bass, other species. ucation. (New for 1986-88.) - High performance liquid chromalograply-mass spectrometry @vstem (on@v one of its kind in marine RESULTS TO DATE science) developed by VMS to analyze chemical Work begun, proceeding on schedule. pollutants. -Kepone health effects results due in 1988. 'Does not include VIMS support (non Initiative Funds) of $39,103 1984-86 1986-88 1984-86 1986-88 Funds Funds Funds Funds Support Monitoring 0 Provide management and support services for an *Development of monitoring programs designed to facil- automated data management system, in order to: itate the collection and maintenance of information �Develop a coordinated data base system linking state $ 300,000 $ 21,234 critical to Bay management, and to: agencies, research institutions and the U. S. Eriviron- -Monitor levels of Kepone (pesticide) in the James $ 139,479 $ 151,480 mental Protection Agency; River; �Purchase a computer system for the Virginia Water 921,000 600,000 *Monitor water quality in the James River to determine 400,000 01 Control Board to manage state regulatory information; what reasonable waste loads can be discharged by �Computerize fisheries mangement informatiom j66,850 93,000 STPs and industries without upsetting the assimilative �Manage and coordinate state Chesapeake Bay In- 75,000 111,299" characteristics of the river; itiatives at one central location and prepare periodic .Monitor water qualik, and habitat resources on a fre- 300,000 i,66o,254- status reports; quent basis in the Bay's tributaries and in the main- �Support the Chesapeake Bay Commission; 16o,ooo 170,000 stream; conduct nutrient studies of the major �Reimburse localities which operate their own marine 750,000 805,6oo tributaries. patrols for law enforcement, safety, or rescue; RESULTS TO DATE �Implement and administer the Virginia Water Control 0 254,398 All monitoring projects continue on an on-going Board's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives (New for 1986-88) basi@ in conjunction mill) otber state anarfeaeral RESULTS TO DATE agencies, �initial computer bardware, softivare and linkages 'These projects have been completed. are now in place in state agencies. 'Includes EPA grants of S792,0K � Detailed status reports on all initiatives have been pubh@bed quar/er@y; progress reports pub&bedfor 198_@- and 1986. TOTALS $14,937,604 $23,513,589 �otber projects completed as indicated. "Includes $48.239 in federal grant funds to support staffing of the Governor's River Basin Citizens Committees In addition, two other new projects have been initiated in the 1986-88 biennium: Water and sewage treatment facility grants for localities 400,000 with a limited ability to pay; Establishment of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving 20@000,000 Fund for construction loan assistance. Both of these projects will be applied statewide; how- ever, over half of the Commonwealth lies in the Che- $43,913,589 sapeake Bay drainage basin and treatment plans in this region receive top priority ranking. Of the adjusted net appropriation of $17,157,451 for 1984-86 Initiatives, $14,937,604 was extended in 1984-96 and $2,219,847 was CWTied fomrd to 1996-88. The implementation of these activities is taking place in a coordinated program designed to target the funds available where they will be most effective. Levels of water quality and habitat deterioration vary from one tributary river to another as do the sources of that deterioration. Virginia's approach has been to apply a particular mix of programs to each basin according to its specific characteristics. 12 Other Initiatives in the Bay Region: District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the Environmental Protection Agency The coordinated effort to reverse the decline of the Chesapeake Bay is a dramatic example of how governments and citizens can work together towards accomplishing a common goal. The fol- lowing is a brief summary of some of the Chesa- peake Bay Initiatives of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the Environmental Maryland bounds both sides of the Bay and has Protection Agency. also developed a wide array of initiatives and pro- grams designed to address Bay-related problems. The District of Columbia lies adjacent to the Poto- Some of these efforts include: mac River and straddles the Anacostia River, a 0 Controlling point source pollution through the tributary of the Potomac. Since the District is construction and improvement of sewage treat- heavily urbanized, efforts are directed towards as- ment plants, bringing existing plants into com- sociated urban problems such as stormwater run- pliance with state and federal regulations, off, sewage overflow and erosion control. Some of enforcing pretreatment programs requiring in- the District's efforts include: dustries to reduce waste content in effluent � Enacting a Comprehensive Water Quality Act they send to publicly-owned treatment plants, addressing water quality standards, point and providing grants for installing dechlorina- source discharges, pretreatment of industrial tion equipment at publicly-owned treatment waste, treatment plant construction, nonpoint plants. source control and other related activities. 0 Addressing nonpoint pollution through Best � Constructing facilities limiting the frequency Management Practice (BMP) activities such as and volume of sewage overflow through the demonstration projects, technical assistance, combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program. education programs, cost-sharing to farmers for implementing BMPs, providing construction 0 Exploring ways of limiting stormwater over- funds for shoreline erosion control, and initiat- flows and controlling urban runoff. ing a program of urban stormwater demon- � Improving the regional Blue Plains Wastewater stration grants. Treatment Plant including the construction of Restoring fisheries, wildlife, and habitat re- dechlorination facilities. sources through research; developing fisheries � Directing educational programs informing the management plans for important Bay species; public about how to maintain and preserve a replenishment of shellfish growing areas by clean water system. transplanting oyster shell; operating fisheries, black duck and oyster hatcheries; restoring � Developing Best Management Practices to help black duck habitat and planting submerged citizens living near the Anacostia River control aquatic vegetation. erosion, handle pesticides and motor oil prop- 0 Supporting education efforts including field erly, and care for their yards in such a way that trips and studies, distribution of Bay-related pollution to the river is reduced. materials, and grants for Bay-related projects. � Improving the Potomac's fisheries by identify- 0 Establishing a Critical Area Commission to ing and describing types of fish in the area, de guide local land use along the shore of the Bay veloping regulations to protect fish in the and its major tributaries. Washington metropolitan waters, and negoti- ating with several jurisdictions to eliminate 0 Carrying out a variety of monitoring and re- blockages in the Potomac that hinder fish search projects and activities on water quality, movement. habitat and others. 13 Pennsylvania is focusing its Bay cleanup efforts on the reduction of nutrients from agricultural sources in the Subquehanna River's drainage The Environmental Protection Agency functions basin. The Susquehanna River is the largest river as a central liaison for Chesapeake Bay Agreement in the Bay basin, contributing nearly 50% of the governmental activities. Federal entities provide Bay's freshwater. Some of the major thrusts of the funding support, research support, and man- Pennsylvania program include: power for the Bay program. Other federal par- � Promoting an aggressive Best Management ticipants include the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- Practices program through technical and finan-' vice, National Oceanic and Atmospheric cial assistance, demonstration projects, monitor- Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- ing, farmer-to-farmer meetings, educational ac- neers, the Soil Conservation Service, Department tivities, and providing experienced field staff to of Defense, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Some assist farmers in reducing erosion and nutrient of the specific federal activities include: loss. Providing EPA grants for the support of a vari- � Enhancing certain fishery resources of the Sus- ety of state nonpoint source pollution control quehanna River through activities such as projects. (In Virginia alone EPA provided stocking, hatching, transporting fish upstream, $3,050,004 for nonpoint activities for the 1984-86 regulating fishing practices, and planning for biennium. This support is projected to be ways for fish to migrate around dams. $4,162,950 for the 1986-88 biennium.) � Regulating wetland development. Supporting monitoring and research activities in the Bay through funding and participation of � Promoting a strong educational program federal agency personnel and scientists. through meetings, media, and the schools. Maintaining and operating the Chesapeake Bay � Targeting for pretreatment programs those Program Computer Center at Annapolis, sources of industrial waste which are being dis- Maryland. charged into publicly-owned sewage treatment These activities of the Bay-area states, District plants. of Columbia, and Environmental Protection � Controlling phosphorus at municipal and in- Agency emphasize wide-ranging project efforts of dustrial treatment plants within the Susque- the Chesapeake Bay basin necessary for a success- hanna River Basin, especially the lower basin. ful cooperative and regional program. 14 0 Description The Potomac River watershed includes parts of In spite of some improvements in the water northern Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and quality, oyster harvests and reproductive success all of the District of Columbia. The Potomac River have declined, and landings of anadromous finfish itself lies completely within the State of Maryland, have also declined. Some of the finfish decline and except for embayments, the river's fisheries may be attributed to loss of access to spawning are governed by the Potomac River Fisheries grounds due to dams and other impediments. Commission. Blue crab harvests have remained comparatively With a drainage of 14,669 square miles, the Po- stable. tomac is second only to the Susquehanna River in size and volume of flow among Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Loadings tributaries. It contains the largest urban concentra- tion within the Bay system, the Washington met- While the Virginia portion of the Potomac basin ropolitan area, as well as the largest single munici- is largely rural, (only about 7% is urban), nutrient pal sewage treatment plant (Washington's Blue problems are about equally attributable to both Plains plant). Virginia's portion of the basin ac- point and nonpoint sources. The Shenandoah counts for 42% of the land area (5,747 square River basin, the Potomac's major tributary in Vir- miles) and a population of 1.4 million, projected to ginia, and the lower Potomac River basin, contrib@ nse to 1.9 million or a 35% increase, by the year ute runoff from agricultural lands including crop 2000. and livestock operations. Nonpoint source loads Approximately 7,600 acres of productive shell- vary from year to year as a result of rainfall run- fish grounds are closed to harvest. Some of these off, dependent upon the length and frequency of closings are due to sewage treatment plant outfall, storm events. others are due to contamination from runoff. J 1 20,000,000- 1,500,000- NITROGEN LBS. PHOSPHORUS LBS. 15 930,000 1; 12' 'Q Z 15.000,000 - 2,0 a 1,078,000 13,355,000 1,000,000- "/1 B @,000 978,000 11,899,000 , I I , 6.735,000 183000 17, @0 10,000,000 264,000 742,000 7,640,000 6,735,000 6,735,000 264,000 560,000 183,000 7@_7 1,122 000 5,000,000- 500,000- 264,0oo 5,050,000 00 7,735.000 582,000 515100D 264,000 31696,000 279,000 15 LL1,4166.100ZO\ \\\\\\ 97,000 -346.0001- 6,000 210,000- '16, 00@- -U, !"'.1-16,000 1950 1980 1985 2000 1950 1980 1985 2000 5 20 OTHER F1 CROP Figure 2. Potomac River Nutrient Loadings and Sources 01 MUNICIPAL EJ INDUSTRIAL The point source contributions are primarily Water Quality from the river embayments in the upper estuary of the river in Northern Virginia. Although the Potomac River water quality is monitored by the municipal sewage treatment plant (STP) dis- State of Maryland since the river lies entirely chargers began removing phosphorus during the within their boundaries. The data presented in 1970's (see Figure 3) and waste loadings have Figure 4 compare the 1984 condition of the river to greatly decreased, some nutrient problems still oc- the 1985 condition. An analysis of these data curred in this area of the river. Due to the physi- follows. cal characteristics of the embayments, such as lim- The main parameters used to measure water ited flushing capabilities, as well as nutrients quality are defined below. These parameters will harbored in sediments, algal blooms can still occur be used for each of the rivers and the Bay main- even though the STPs are employing the best stem as a measure of progress in the improvement available technology for phosphorus removal. And of water quality. as population increases in the areas, nutrient loads to the river will increase as well because STP flows 1. Dissolved oxygen is an important indicator of Will increase. The future nutrient reduction poten- water quality as it shows the amount of oxygen tial, therefore, lies in nonpoint source reductions available for aquatic organisms. in both the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. Long-term monitoring will help our understanding 2. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen indicate of the linkage between trends in nutrient reduc- available nutrient concentrations which, when tion, and water quality from both point and non- present in large amounts, can result in exces- point sources. sive algal growth and in severe cases, algal blooms. Excessive algal growth reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water when WASHINGTON the algae die off and decompose creating aes- thetic problems and reducing the light needed by submerged aquatic vegetation. VIRGINIA 3. Chlorophyll-a is a green pigment found in al- gae. Measurements of chlorophyll-a indicate the amount of algae present in the water column. ALEXANDRIA 1401 4. Secchi depth is a measurement of water clarity, which is dependent on the concentration of al- gae and suspended solids in the water column. MARYLAND Water Quality Conditions Potomac River water quality is primarily affected QUANTICO by heavy agriculture above the fall line and urban development with municipal sewage treatment plant discharges in the tidal fresh zone. Nitrogen levels at the fall line and tidal fresh AQUIA zones are much higher than those of the Rappa- hannock, York, and James Rivers, The fall line and tidal freshwater zone concentrations of phos- phorus are comparable to the concentrations in the James River but the transition zone exhibits POTOMAC RIVER much higher concentrations than any other Vir- ginia river. This area also corresponds to the areas that have experienced the worst algal blooms of 1984 and 1985. Both phosphorus and nitrogen de- crease rapidly in the lower estuary zone to levels Figure 3. Municipal STPs Employing Nutrient Removal very close to those of the other rivers. 16 The unusually high levels of algal production in the Potomac River greatly exceeds the levels found in the other rivers. This undesirable overproduc- tion of algae has prompted the policy of phos- phorus removal for municipal dischargers in an effort to control these blooms. The very wet sum- mer of 1984 produced bloom conditions of 50-100 ug/l (micrograms per liter) for chlorophyll and pushed the peak of the bloom further downstream 0.25 Total Phosphorus (MG/L) than normal. The tidal freshwater zone averaged 30-40 ug/l while the transition zone experienced an untypically high average of 55 ug/l. The summer 0.20 of 1985 produced chlorophyll levels of 40 ug/l in the tidal freshwater zone and more typically expe- riences levels near 10 ug/l. However, during the 0.15 spring of 1985 there was a blue-green bloom of 90 ug/l. The upper Potomac River experiences short- 0.10 term oxygen depletion in certain areas. The em- bayments often experienced supersaturation of dissolved oxygen due to very high algal produc- 0.05 tion rates. The lower Potomac behaves very much like the main Chesapeake Bay with stratification and very low dissolved oxygen during the sum- 0.00 L. mer months. FL TF TS LE No cause and effect relationships can be drawn between pollution abatement measures and water quality this early in the Bay cleanup effort. Condi- tions are reported here so that trends can be established, 70 Chlorophyll 'A' (UG/L) 2.5 Total Nitrogen (MG/L) 60 2.0 50 40- 1.5 30 - 1.0 20- 0.5 10 - 0 h, 0 FL TF TS LE FL TF TS LE SEASON Summer'84 El Summer'85 El Figure 4. Potomac River Water Quality 17 Strategies The cost of an animal waste control facility ranges from $10,000 to $150,000 depending on its Among Bay tributaries, the Potomac River may design and number of animals served. This cost offer the best illustration of what we hope to ac- can be shared by the state, the farmer, and some corr@plish throughout the Bay. Characterized by federal assistance is available. During the first severe nutrient problems in the 1960s, the addi- biennium of the Initiatives' program, only live- tion of nutrient removal capabilities at sewage stock farms in the Valley were eligible. But be- treatment plants (STPs) in all Washington area ju- cause these waste control facilities have been risdictions and Virginia embayments has led to shown to have a direct effect on reducing non- dramatic improvements in water quality. Water point nutrient pollution, farms located elsewhere quality models have been developed and are cur- in the Bay basin of Virginia are now eligible to rently being used to determine what future point participate in this cost-share program. source controls will be necessary. Also, in the Po- tomac River embayments (Virginia jurisdiction) point source pollution is being reduced at some jr r. 7,; r; STPs through chlorine reduction. Since the phos- phorus loading from STPs has already been signif- icantly reduced in the Potomac River, future atten- tion to nonpoint sources from both urban and rural areas should result in even further improvement. In the headwaters of the Potomac River, and AH Vi particularly in the Shenandoah River sub-basin, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives are aimed primarily at reducing nonpoint source pollution. They focus on encouraging farmers through cost- share grants and education to adopt Best Man- agement Practices (BMPs). Some effort has also, been initiated to demonstrate to developers and local governments the merits of urban BMPs. A no-discharge lagoon is often part of an animal waste control facility. Nonpoint Source Pollution To measure the effectiveness of pastureland BMPs and animal waste control, an extensive sur- Control face and groundwater monitoring project has been developed by the Division of Soil and Water Con- servation. Located near Calverton in Fauquier Agricultural Best Management Practices County, the Owl Run watershed was selected for demonstration because it is a livestock-dominated A heavy concentration of livestock in the Shen- area. A BMP watershed plan is being developed andoah River basin creates a high potential for nu- for the implementation and monitoring of waste trient loading to the Potomac River. Runoff from storage facilities and nutrient controls. manure containment areas and feed lots often re- Farming practices that reduce soil erosion and sult in water quality problems. Under a Chesa- fertilizer runoff from crop and pastureland are also peake Bay Initiative, 27 new animal waste systems important in the Potomac River basin for nutrient at livestock operations have been installed in the control since many of the point sources on the Shenandoah Valley during FY 1985-86. As a result river are already addressing nutrients. As a result of this cost-share program, 53,766 tons of animal of the cropland BMP cost-share program for cal- waste are now being controlled annually to reduce endar years 1984 and 1985, 11,520 acres have ben- their potential for water pollution. The state paid efited in the Potomac River basin by 304 farmers. $323,489, or 37% of the cost of these projects. A The State share of these costs was $189,992, or federal cost-share program contributed an addi- 57%. For the 1986 program, 40 farmers, out of 382 tional 16%. the farmer paid the remaining 47%. who signed up in the spring, have already in- 18 stalled their BMPs to benefit 1,115 acres. Soil ero- Soil and Water Conservation, in conjunction with sion in 1986 is being reduced by an additional the Agricultural Extension Service, has developed 7,900 tons per year, attached phosphorus by 5,031 an education program to inform farmers about lbs., and 2400 tons of animal waste are being pasture management as well as other techniques handled. Figure 5 illustrates the results of farmer to illustrate methods which reduce soil and ferti- participation since the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives lizer runoff. program began. Research and demonstration programs serve an To assist farmers in implementing BMPs and to important purpose in the education process. For help administer the cost-share program in the Vir- example, a large modified irrigation system was set up in Augusta County over two pastures ap- ginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts, em- proximately one and a half acres in size: one plot ployees were supported, in part, by this nonpoint was poorly managed, the other well managed. source pollution control initiative in the 1984-86 bi- Rainfall was then simulated by the irrigation sys- ennium. A similar number will be supported in tem and runoff collected in order to demonstrate the 1986-88 biennium. the effectiveness of good pasture management. A The Potomac River basin also has a large significant difference in the quantity and quality of amount of pastureland, particularly in the Shenan- runoff between the two plots was immediately doah River sub-basin where cattle and sheep con- apparent. Rainwater ran off the well-managed centrations are high. Pastures that are over-grazed pasture much later than off the poorly managed and poorly managed tend to erode faster, result- plot due to the increase in infiltration or ability for ing in higher pollution potential. The Division of saturation. When runoff did begin, it was visually evident that the water off the well-managed plot (Xi 00,000) contained less sediment than the runoff from the 2.75- 271,976 poorly managed plot. 2.50- LBS./YEAR 2.25 10 01 10 ow '0 .50 - .25- 5298 160 F-7-1 POTENTIAL 1984 LOAD 1985 LOAD LOAD REDUCTION REDUCTION REDUCTION FOR AGRI- CLILTURE* *Based on 1980 EPA average year agricultural load minus base loads. Good cropland and pasture management practices are demon- Figure 5. Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the Potomac River as a strated under simulated cloudburst conditions. Result of Cost-Shared Cropland BMPs J 19 To help determine the results of the state educa- tion using a modified irrigation system similar to tion efforts, National Conservation Tillage Infor- that used to demonstrate agricultural BMPs. mation statistics are monitored. Table 2 illustrates Several point sources control measures which a growing trend in no-till practices. will affect all the waters of the state are being evaluated or instituted. See New Water Quality Standards in the Bay-wide and Coastal Issues section Other Total for details on nutrient control and chlorine No-Till Conservation Conventional Acres standards. Year Acreage Till Acreage Till Acreage Planted 1983 103,969 (31%) 112,577 (34%) 117,148 (35%) 333,694 1984 140,742 (37%) 105,661 (28%) 135,668 (35%) 382,071 Point Source Pollution 1985 161,812 (41%) 110,811 (28%) 123,317 (31%) 395,941 Control Table 2. Potomac River Cropland Tillage. Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants An intensive ten-year water quality monitoring In the Virginia portion of the Potomac River project has begun in a small watershed off the basin there are 20 significant municipal dis- Nomini Creek in the Potomac River basin. The chargers, that is, sewage treatment plants dis- five square-mile watershed, characterized primar- charging more than one million gallons per day ily by cropland farming, was chosen to specifically (mgd) located anywhere in the drainage basin or monitor the effects of BMP installation. Although less than one mgd located below the fall line. Fig- initial results from the first year of monitoring ure 6 illustrates the locations of those plants and have not been analyzed, trends will be established designates those which have yet, but are sched- as more and more BMPs are installed in the water- uled, to meet final effluent limits as required by shed. Both surface and ground water are being the Clean Water Act National Municipal Policy by analyzed for nutrient and chemical pollution. July 1988. Urban Runoff Controls Deterioration and breakage of sewerlines is com- mon to all sewerage systems over time. One of Urban development, established or under con- the State's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives addresses struction, takes its toll on the water quality of re- this program by making available to localities cost- ceiving rivers by contributing sediment, nutrients, share grants for corrections. Grant recipients are and toxics. Rainwater carries these pollutants from chosen based on criteria including proximity to streets, lawns, and roof tops. Several areas in the critical living resource habitats and spawning Potomac River basin were chosen to demonstrate areas. See Figure 6 for locations of sites partici- to localities and developers the merits of urban pating in the program. Best Management Practices. The cost of installing Several localities are making improvements to and monitoring the effectiveness of the BMPs was their sewage treatment plants (STPs) with assis- shared by the state and participating locality. A tance from a state facility bonding authority. Cre- stormwater management model was developed ated in 1984 as a Chesapeake Bay Initiative, the and will be tested in Fairfax County. Also, in Virginia Resources Authority helps localities se- western Fairfax County, a detention basin is being cure financing at interest rates below market. The monitored with each storm to measure pollutant Town of Colonial Beach is replacing its sewer sys- removal efficiency. And in central Fairfax County, tem to reduce excess flow entering from rainwater a streambank will be stabilized using state-of-the- during heavy storms; the Prince William Service art techniques and vegetation. Authority is refinancing existing and outstanding To demonstrate the effectiveness of porous as- bonds, and the Upper Occoquan Sewage Author- phalt installed at the Davis Ford Park of Prince ity is expanding the capacity of their STP which William County, rainfall was simulated at the loca- serves four local jurisdictions. 20 CHLORINE DISCHARGE CONTROL PROJECT 0 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REHABILITATION PROJECT A WINCHESTER o 0 PILOT NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (NMP) WASHINGTON e VRRGINIA MARYLAND STAUNTON Figure 6. Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Pretreatment Programs As a result of the above methods, the 1984-86 Eight localities in the Potomac River basin are total chlorine discharged into the Potomac River undertaking measures to reduce the level of chlo- has been reduced by 750 lbs-from 2400 lbs./day rine discharged in their STPs' effluents. Survival to 1650 lbs./day-a 31% reduction. In addition, of shellfish larvae, as well as the ability of finfish 675 lbs./day will be eliminated as a result of the to reproduce, is affected by chlorine residuals. Initiative program continuing in 1986-88, bringing A Chesapeake Bay Initiative provided $425,701 the total reduction in chlorine discharged to the in grant assistance to three localities during the Potomac River by Virginia to 59%. 1984-86 biennium (Stafford Co., Prince William Figure 7 shows the locations of STI's receiving Co., and Colonial Beach) and $427,725 at the start State grants for chlorine reduction. of the 1986-88 biennium (to Alexandria) for chlo- In the Potomac River basin the Virginia Water rine discharge control systems. These funds cover Control Board has issued discharge permits re- 75% of the cost for conventional dechlorination, quiring toxics monitoring to twelve industrial or (85% for alternative disinfection); the localities pro- municipal treatment plants. An additional five tox- vide the remainder. Other STPs are reducing chlo- ics monitoring programs are under development. rine on a voluntary basis while still maintaining Seven municipal plants have approved pretreat- adequate disinfection to protect public health. All ment programs and another is in the final stages point source dischargers are now subject to the re- of development. cently adopted water quality standards for chlo- rine, and may have to provide chlorine discharge control as a result. (See Chlorine Standard in the *A Bay-wide and Coastal issues section of this report.) WINCHESTER AA WASHINCT N TOXICS MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS 0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS VERGEN:A A A MARYLAND A* A A STAUNTON At A, Figure 7. Sites of Potomac River STPs with Toxics Programs 21 causing the failure of SAV to reestablish are dis- Resources and Habitat cussed in the York River basin section. But be- Improvement cause no success was had at this site in the Poto- mac River, it was not included in second year transplant efforts. Shellfish Enhancement Hydrilla Contr Fol Shellfishing in the Virginia Potomac River em- bayments is regulated by the Virginia Marine Re- Hydrilla vertiefflata is a type of non-native sub- sources Commission. (in the Maryland embay- merged aquatic vegetation accidentally introduced ments, shellfishing is regulated by the Maryland to the Potomac River in the early 1980s. Like other Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.) SAV, hydrilla provides sediment control and oxy- Through the State's Chesapeake Bay cleanup ef- gen and habitat critically needed by fish and forts, deficient residential sanitation systems are crabs. At the same time, however, hydrilla out- being corrected. During the 1984-86 biennium, 127 competes native species and grows in thick mats acres of productive shellfish grounds and 60 acres creating problems for boaters and marinas. State of less-productive grounds in the Potomac embay- scientists are evaluating the benefits and detri- ments of Virginia were reopened to harvest, re- ments of allowing the establishment of hydrilla as sulting in the availability of $57,200 in marketable a desirable SAV in Virginia waters. shellfish. The reopened areas are located in West- During July 1986 the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- moreland County: Buckner Creek, Lower Macho- neers began mechanically harvesting hydrilla in doc Creek, and Jackson Creek. order to keep access areas to the shore of the Po- Two other areas have also received attention in tomac River open for boating and other public an effort to improve water quality through shore- uses. The Commonwealth of Virginia is contrib- line corrections so that shellfishing can again be uting $75,000 in the 1986-88 biennium to assist in permitted: Upper Nomini Creek and Mattox this effort. About 50 acres of plants were har- Creek. Farming is prevalent in the Nomini water- vested initially primarily along the Virginia shore- shed-and animal pollution sources are much line south of Washington, D.C. more difficult to pinpoint and abate than a faulty septic system. Water quality improvements of these latter two areas has not been successful thus far. In some cases all known point sources of pollu- tion are abated, yet fecal coliform counts remain high so that an area cannot be opened for the har- 2, "TAM vest of shellfish. Bonum Creek is such an exam- VXPAT? A in I ple. Using federal grant funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a study of this area will begin in 1987 in an attempt to identify nonpoint sources of pol- lution and seek measures to correct them. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Ir"N'V A Reestablishment Program Experimental transplanting of eelgrass, the most common of the submerged aquatic vegetation A (SAV) types found in Virginia waters, was con- ducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the fall of 1984 in the Potomac River. Two acres were planted near the mouth of the Coan River, half of the plants being fertilized. Although soon after transplanting fertilized plants showed more leaf matter and mass, ultimate plant survival was Hydrilla was mechanically harvested in the Potomac River during not dependent upon such fertilization. Five Summer 1986. months after planting 72% survived, but after seven months only an average of 41% remained; Photo credit: Curtis Dalpra/ICPRB one year later no plants were found living. Factors I 22 0 Description The Rappahannock River basin drains 2,631 square miles of north-central Virginia. It is almost entirely rural and heavily forested, with Freder- icksburg the only major city. The 1980 basin popu- lation was 150,000 and is projected to increase to 209,000 or 39% by the year 2000. It is the least pol- Nutrient Loadings luted of the Bay's major tributaries. Due to in- creasing pressure to urbanize the drainage basin, The majority of 1985 nutrient loadings in the however, the potential exists for deterioration of Rappahannock River basin, (85% of nitrogen; 59% surface water quality in the near future. of phosphorus) comes from nonpoint sources- Declining trends in resource availability have forestry, agriculture, and urban runoff. The re- already become apparent. Commercial oyster har- mainder comes from municipal and industrial vests have dropped as well as the oyster repro- point source discharges. ductive potential. There are currently 7,611 acres If no additional nutrient initiatives or control of productive shellfish beds closed to harvest due strategies are implemented, phosphorus loads are to fecal coliform contamination from deficient expected to increase by 44%, and nitrogen 15%, residential sanitation facilities, sewage treatment by the year 2000. Figure 8 illustrates nutrient load- plants, marinas, or unsatisfactory water quality. ings to the Rappahannock River-past, present, Submerged aquatic grasses had disappeared from and future. the river by 1975. 500,000- 4,000,000- NITROGEN LOS. PHOSPHORUS LOS. 410,000 3,456,000 400,000- /61,000 2,996,000 442,000 3,000,000- 2,870,000 // / / // r//4 4/2., 00( 442,000 300,000- 284,000 108,000 271,000 2,146,000 442;11Y 2,120,000 211.000 200,000- 2,120,000 2,120,000 L%@Z/ 108,000 108,000 202,000 1,000,000- 1,590,000 - 776,000 100,000- 108,000 q53000 ,000 \ \ \ 99,000 190,000 \7 37, @6\0 0 70,\ =3.9 0.0.0 190 @39,000J Z 'd I 15,000 1=1,.1'1':,d____j118.000L_ 1118,000L__ J9 3,000- 1950 1980 1985 2000 1950 1980 1985 2000 OTHER 1080010" CROP MUNICIPAL Figure 8. Rappahannock River Nutrient Loadings and Sources INDUSTRIAL 23 FIL MONITORING STATIONS A WATER QUALITY TF EJ WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC 0 WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT A WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BENTHIC F R E D E R I C K S BR TUT RR @GG-6, ZONES: FIL FALL LINE (DISCRETE REFERENCE POINT) TF TIDAL FRESHWATER 71 TS TRANSITION ZONE TS LE LOWER ESTUARY 50- 40- Chlorophyll 'A' (UG/L) 30 LE 20 10 CHESAPEAKE BAY F@ Fl- TF TS LE 8- Dissolved Oxygen (MG/L) 6- - 0.15 - Total Phosphorus (MG/l.) 4- 0.10 - 2- 0.05 0 0.00- Ffl TF TS LE Fl. TF TS LE Secchi Depth (M) 2.0 Total Nitrogen (MG/L) 1.5- 1.5- 1.0- 1.0- 0.5- 0.5- 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 11 o L---A" r TF TS LE FIL TF TS LE I- @ SEASON Summer '84 El Summer '85 F1' Figure 9. Rappahannock River Water Ouality 24 Water Quality layering prevents mixing of the top and bottom waters and often results in low oxygen in the With the exception of the Potomac River, the deep waters of the main channel. During the sum- Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) monitors mer of 1984 the high freshwater flows intensified water quality in the major Bay tributaries in Vir- this layering and resulted in low dissolved oxygen ginia, and contracts with the Virginia Institute of concentrations in the lower estuarine and tran- Marine Science and Old Dominion University to sition zones. During the worst point of the 1984 monitor the mainstem of the Bay. Since 1984 summer, up to 32 miles of the river experienced water samples have been collected twice per dissolved oxygen below 2 mg/l. During the dry month from March through October, and once per summer of 1985 the layering was not as strong month from November through February in three and dissolved oxygen depletion was not as severe sections of the river: tidal fresh (TF), transition because tidal and storm forces periodically caused (TS), and lower estuary (LE). The fall line stations the mixing of the two layers. are sampled once per month. Figure 9 compares baseline 1984 sample data to 1985 conditions. Sampling locations are indicated Strategies on the adjacent map. The Rappahannock River is a high priority area for the State's agricultural Best Management Prac- tices (BMP) program. A geographical information Water Quality Conditions data base identifying all potential pollution sources has been created for the entire basin and The Rappahannock River basin contains a large this information will be first used on a pilot basis amount of agricultural area above the fall line and in the 1987 BMP program for targeting cost-share some urbanization around the fall line but the and educational efforts. Primarily for BMPs which lower river is basically unaffected by development. manage cropland runoff, the State is encouraging Total nitrogen concentrations at the fall line are the use of stripcropping, no-till farming, and the relatively high but quickly decrease and level off installation of vegetated filter strips among others. downstream. In contrast to the high nitrogen lev- Several of the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives aimed els at the fall line, phosphorus concentrations are at reducing point source pollution are also tar- very low. The phosphorus levels tend to increase geted in the Rappahannock River basin. These in- in the tidal fresh and transitional zones of the clude reducing chlorine and nutrients discharged river due to some point source inputs and the by sewage treatment plants. natural occurrence of the turbidity maximum zone The Rappahannock River and many of its tribu- where nutrients and sediment naturally accumu- taries are well suited for productive recreational late. During the summer of 1985, there was a and commercial fisheries. Efforts to reduce resi- sharp increase in phosphorus concentrations. dential sanitation system violations along the Chlorophyll-a levels averaged around 25 ug/I (mi- shoreline are concentrated here so that shellfish crograms per liter) in the tidal freshwater zone but grounds may be reopened. In addition, seed oys- dropped rapidly to average near or below 10 ug/I ters and oyster shell have been transplanted in for the rest of the river. order to replenish many of the once-productive The lower Rappahannock River often experi- oysters rocks located there. Food and habitat areas ences summer stratification similar to the Bay it- for crabs and finfish are being improved through self. Lighter freshwater flows over the denser salt- the submerged aquatic vegetation replanting water in the deep channel at the river mouth. This program. 25 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Agricultural Best Management Practices An analysis of the 1983 EPA Chesapeake Bay Study report findings indicated a potential for im- proving water quality in the Rappahannock River basin through cropland pollution control efforts. The State's Agricultural BMP program particularly targets cropland conservation measures for this watershed. In the first two calendar years of the program implementation (Fall 1984 and all of (xi 00,000) 1985), 14,174 acres of farmland benefited from 1.25 - conservation practices cost-shared by the State. The amount of phosphorus entering the Bay has thus been reduced by almost 9,300 lbs. per year and soil escaping farms by 100,150 tons per year. The State paid $215,595, or 70% of the total proj- 1.00- 96,836 ects' cost involving 381 farmers. For the 1986 pro- LBS./YEAR gram, 67 more farmers have implemented prac- tices to date of the 265 who signed up at the beginning of the calendar year. The others have .75 - until the year-end to install their practices. Figure 10 illustrates some of the results of farmer participation. To assist farmers in implementing BMPs and to help administer the cost-share program in the Soil .50- and Water Conservation Districts, employees are being supported in part by the agricultural non- point pollution control initiative. Other farmers are using conservation tillage anct .25- 9024 are not necessarily participating in the cost-share program. Many of these are employing the prac- tices as a result of the State's educational efforts. 235 Since 1984, the number of acres being conserva- tion-tilled is estimated to have decreased by 6%. POTENTIAL 1984 LOAD 1985 LOAD However, the amount of acreage under no-till in- LOAD REDUCTION REDUCTION creased 11%. REDUCTION FOR AGRI- Other Total CULTURE* No-Till Conservation Conventional Acres Years Acreage Till Acreage Till Acreage Planted *Based on 1980 EPA average year agricultural load minus base 1983 82,895 32% 58,455 22% 120,219 46% 261,569 loads. 1984 99,012 36% 53,270 19% 126,315 45% 278,597 1985 110,373 35% 52,194 17% 152,754 48% 315,321 Figure 10. Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the Rappahannock River Table 3. Rappahannock River Cropland Tillage. as a Result of Cost-shared Cropland BMPs 26 Runoff from a no-till plot contains less sediment and phosphorus. Compare the quantity and clarity of this conventional ly-ti I led plot. Similar to the BMP effectiveness demonstration held h-i the Shenandoah River basin, several rain- fall simulator demonstrations were conducted in the Rappahannock River basin. During 1985 no-till farming was pitted against conventional tillage at a farm located in Tappahannock. Using the modi- fied irrigation system, rain "fell" simultaneously at both sites. Runoff collected showed spectators (farmers, government officials, legislators, etc.) that less sediment and water flowed from the no- till site. Lab results support this. A similar dem- onstration event was held in Richmond County in FOR 1986. (Reference similar section in the James River Basin section.) Use of agricultural innovative BMPs were also encouraged by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation during the 1984-86 biennium. Aerial seeding into a cover crop is just one example of practices that were cost-shared to farmers. Urban Runoff Controls 77 One of the 1984-86 Chesapeake Bay Initiatives provided cost-share grants to localities for demon- strating best management practices which abate Aerial seeding is one of the innovative BMPs encouraged for use urban runoff pollution. Porous asphalt pavement by farmers in the Bay basin. was installed at a Fredericksburg site in Summer 1986 and another pavement project was con- structed this fall at a commuter lot in Warrenton. 27 Figure 11. Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants A CHLORINE DISCHARGE CONTROL PROJECT A INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REHABILITATION PROJECT CULPEPER 0 PILOT NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS 0 FREDERICKSBURG 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (NMP) MADISON 0 Point Source Pollution TAPPAHANNOCK Control Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants CHESAPEAKE BAY Currently there are nine significant municipal sewage treatment plants (STPs) discharging along the Rappahannock River. Figure 11 illustrates the locations of those plants and designates those Spotsylvania County is renovating and expand, which have yet, but are scheduled, to meet final ing the former FMC Inc. sewage treatment plant effluent limits as required by the Clean Water Act for its own use. Utilizing funds raised in a 1985 National Municipal Policy by July 1988. bond sale by the Virginia Resources Authority, the The Virginia Water Control Board also initiated County was able to finance this project at below- a pilot project in 1985 to assess the efficiency and market interest rates. costs associated with nutrient removal at one Rappahannock STP. Fredericksburg received a state grant to monitor and analyze the simul- Toxics Removal, Monitoring, and taneous precipitation of phosphorus during its Pretreatment Programs sewage treatment process. Study results will be In the Rappahannock River basin it is necessary available in 1987. for two industrial dischargers to monitor toxics in their plant effluents as ordered under permit by the Virginia Water Control Board. One of these programs is established, the other is under devel- opment. In addition, the Culpeper municipal sew- age treatment plant has in place a pretreatment program and also monitors its effluent for toxics. See Figure 13 for site locations. Figure 12 also illustrates the location of those localities participating in Chesapeake Bay Initiative CULPEPER programs to reduce chlorine discharges at STI's A* FREDERICKSBURG (Urbanna, Stafford Co., Spotsylvania Co.), and A repair faulty sewerlines (Fredericksburg). MADISON A" A TOXICS MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS 0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS 0 TAPPAHANNOCK Figure 12. Sites of Rappahannock River STPs with Toxics Programs 28 Resources and Habitat Improvement Shellfish Enhancement Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The Rappahannock River is one of the Bay's Reestablishment Program most productive tributaries for shellfish. Portions Several locations in the Rappahannock River of seven areas totalling 542 acres in the river basin were planted with eelgrass in an attempt to rees- that were previously closed to shellfishing due to tablish submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) there deficient septic systems (or other residential sani- and to study the factors which caused its disap- tation devices along the shoreline) were reopened pearance. During Fall 1984 four acres of trans- during the 1984-86 biennium. And since July 1986, planted eelgrass resulted in moderate reestablish- an additional 17 acres of Parrotts Creek have been ment success at locations near Parrott Island and reopened. The cost to the State was $14,250 in ad- Morratico. During Fall 1985, 6 acres of eelgrass dition to established administrative enforcement were planted near Belle Isle and test plots again costs' The market value of the shellfish in these near Morratico. areas combined is $236,363, based on $13.00 per The reestablishment of SAV is critical to creating bushel of oysters. The areas reopened are portions and maintaining finfish and blue crab fisheries. of Carter's Creek, Corrotoman River, Mill Creek, Historical records indicated that over 100 acres of and Greenvale Creek of Lancaster County; and SAV were present in the Rappahannock River. In Lagrange, Sturgeon, and Parrott's Creek in 1980, no eelgrass was present. Middlesex County. Other reopened areas adjacent to the Rappahannock River basin are reported under the Minor Tributaries section of this report. FF 0", d U qgpu -MaRM --@ u t,-.,2T,@ _V U, The SAV reestablishment program is labor-intensive. So far, only plants transplanted by hand have survived. 29 AV R n7j ' (eZ BD ale noln Description The York River basin drains the portion of cen- Nutrient Loadings tral Virginia between the James and the Rappa- hannock Rivers. The York basin is slightly larger The most recent data (1985) suggest that non- in area than the Rappahannock (2,986 square point sources are the major contributors of nitro- miles vs. 2,631 square miles) and in population gen and point sources are the major contributors (180,000 vs. 150,OOQ). The York River basin is al- of phosphorus. Given the expected basin growth most entirely rural, with West Point and Glouces- and development, phosphorus and nitrogen load- ter being significant population centers. The popu- ings are projected to increase 43% and 18% re- lation in this basin is projected to increase by 57% spectively above the 1985 levels by the year 2000 if to 285,000 by the year 2000. no additional nutrient initiatives or controls are The river supports a very small oyster fishery adopted. See Figure 13. with wide fluctuations in harvest. Oyster repro- The tremendous increase in phosphorus and ni- ductive potential is fairly stable but at low levels. trogen loading from 1980 to 1985 is a result of the At present, 8,823 acres of productive shellfish York River sewage treatment plant which went beds are closed due to fecal coliform contamina- into service in 1983. tion, primarily from residential sanitary systems, sewage treatment plant outfalls, or unsatisfactory water quality. Blue crab harvests have also re- mained relatively stable while finfish landings have steadily declined. Very little submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) exists in the York River, but nearby Mobjack Bay supports some of the largest SAV beds in Virginia. 4,000,000- 500,000- 483,000 NITROGEN LBS. 3.236,000 PHOSPHORUS LBS. LEI-1,400 3,000,000- 2,737,000 400.000- 130.000 772-3 730rg 07 338,000 2,329,000 @@13,000 LZ 1,793,000 300,000- 2,000,000- 130,000 1,637,000 222,000 /AAAD 1,793,000 200,000 - K @13,000 @LZ 300,000 1,793,000 164,000 Z /13,000 130,000 1,000,000- 155,000 1,350,000 100,000 - N 130,000 1,047-00 39,000 548,000 -io 000 0 0=0 000 1163,000 1 1163,000 @C_N ,Goo '-1=_-�4,'009 1950 1980 1985 2000 1950 1980 1985 2000 OTHER Figure 13. York River Nutrient Loadings and Sources F] CROP MUNICIPAL 31 INDUSTRIAL MONITORING STATIONS FL A WATER QUALITY EJ WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC 0 WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT TF & WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BENTHIC ZONES: FL FALL LINE (DISCRETE REFERENCE POINT) TF TIDAL FRESHWATER TS TRANSITION ZONE A TS LE LOWER ESTUARY WEST POINT A LE 40' 't-@ MOBJACK BAY Chlorophyll 'A' (UG/L) vb-@ 30- A. EASTERN SHORE 20- 10 CHESAPEAKE BAY 0 FL TF TS LE 8- Dissolved Oxygen (MG/l.) 7 6. 0.15- Total Phosphorus (MG/L) 4 0.10, 3 2 0.05 0 0.00 F TF TS LE Fl. TF TS LE 1.5- 2.0 Total Nitrogen (MG/L) Secchi Depth (M) 1.5" 1.0- 1.0 0.5 0.5 '@'@rCHV 0.0 L 0 TF TS LE FL TF TS LE SEASON Figure 14. York River Water Quality Summer'84 0 Summer'85 D 32 Water Quality Conditions The York River is actually composed of two The condemnation of shellfish growing areas river systems. The fall line, tidal fresh zone, and continues to be an issue as residential sanitation much of the transition zone is located in both the system violations and marina development con- Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers which combine tinue. To combat this, shoreline residential viola- to form the lower estuarine zone of the York tions are receiving increased attention and new River. The Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers do marina regulations are being promulgated. (See not have major development around the fall line, Marina Pollution Abatement in the Bay-wide and as do the other rivers, and has only minimal ag- Coastal Issues section.) In another effort to improve ricultural impacts. Thus the upper portions of the York River oyster fishery, oyster shells are these rivers are some of the most pristine in Vir- being transplanted to provide good substrate for ginia. The York River is impacted by point sources young oysters to develop. at West Point and near the river's mouth. This Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is being pattern is opposite from the Rappahannock River transplanted in order to provide food and habitat where the major impacts are located in the upper for finfish and blue crabs. A study to determine reaches. The lower areas of the York River are also the factors causing the SAV decline is also concen- less developed. Another major difference is the trated here. much smaller drainage area and freshwater flow Even though point sources are the minor con- of the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers compared tributors in terms of quantity to the York River, to the other tributaries. the locations of these discharges are critical to ma- The nitrogen concentrations are nearly level rine organisms. A continued emphasis on improv- throughout the rivers. Much of the nitrogen in the ing sewage treatment plants is necessary to correct upper reaches appears to be derived from plant sewerline inflow and infiltration problems and to decay and not from nitrate-rich agricultural runoff. reduce chlorine and nutrient discharges. Phosphorus concentrations increase in the tidal freshwater zone and peak near West Point where the first major area of development isencountered. Chlorophyll-a concentrations are generally low throughout the York River. Occasional short-term Nonpoint Source Pollution algal blooms of up to 35 @Lg/l (micrograms per liter) have been measured but the York River Control averages 10 @Lg/l. The low levels of chlorophyll-a in the tidal freshwater zone of the York River con- trast with the higher levels seen in the other riv- ers. This reflects the low level of urban or ag- ricultural development in the upper tributaries of Agricultural Best Management Practices the York River unlike the other rivers. The contribution of nutrients to the Chesapeake Dissolved oxygen in the lower York River is Bay from the York River originates from cropland subjected to stratification similar to the Rap- runoff and two major sewage treatment plants. pahannock River but it usually breaks up every The 1983 EPA Chesapeake Bay Study report states few weeks with the occurrence of the spring tides. that cropland contributes 77% of the nitrogen and Thus dissolved oxygen depletion in the York River 44% of the phosphorus in the York River. In addi- is a more short-term problem. Both the summe .r of tion to this, soil carried in runoff contributes sig- 1984 and 1985 appear to have had similar oxygen nificantly to the sediment load in the river. During concentrations with the transition and lower estu- the 1984 and 1985 (calendar years) BMP program, ary zones exhibiting slightly lower than desirable 193 farmers installed Best Management Practices levels of oxygen. (See Figure 14.) (BMPs) cost-shared by the State. The State contrib- uted $159,832 or 64% of the cost for these prac- tices which include reforestation of erodible crop- land, grass filterstrips, and no-till planting. Gross Strategies soil erosion has been reduced through the 1984 and 1985 cost-share program by 50,510 tons per Because the York River basin is primarily rural, year. The BMPs implemented will also reduce the nonpoint source pollution control initiatives have attached phosphorus load by 53,076 pounds per been targeted here. All farmers are being encour- year. Another 29 farmers, out of 180 who re- aged to adopt cropland conservation practices quested grant assistance in 1986, have imple- which will reduce soil erosion and fertilizer runoff, mented BMPs benefiting 1,930 acres to date. Many and the entire basin has been evaluated and BMPs are seasonal and will be installed later this mapped on a pollution-potential basis. j year. (See Figure 15.) 33 The National Conservation Tillage Information Center collects statistics on cropland tillage prac- tices. This information is used to help gauge the success of the BMP cost-share and education pro- grams. (See Table 4.) Although these facts are esti- mates, a slight decrease in no-till planting is indi cated since 1984 but at the same time, the total number of acres planted decreased by 8%. In ad- dition, the lands of the York River basin have re- cently been evaluated in terms of pollution poten- tial according to soil types, slope, and proximity to receiving waters. This information will be used by 7 the Soil and Water Conservation Districts to target farms which should absolutely be using BMPs and recommend specific BMPs to those farmers. This d program will begin with the 1987 cost-share sign- up period. Other Total Stripcropping and contour planting are BMPs being encouraged. No-Till Conservation Conventional Acres Years Acre ge Till Acreage Till Acreage Planted 1983 54,261 (27%) 70,720 (36%) 72,490 (37%) 197,471 1984 63,981 (27%) 77,850 (33%) 94,999 (40%) 236,830 Urban Runoff Controls 1985 57,681 (26%) 73,626 (33%) 87,818 (41%) 219,125 The purpose of the urban nonpoint source pollu- Table 4. York River Cropland Tillage. tion control initiative was to demonstrate to locali- ties the benefits of BMPs for urban and suburban To assist farmers in implementing BMPs and help development. Few areas of the York River basin administer the agricultural cost-share program, Soil can be classified as urban, nonetheless, Orange and Water Conservation District employees were County participated in this cost-share program dur- supported, in part, with Chesapeake Bay Initiatives ing 1985. A stone-centered grassed waterway was funds in the 1984-86 biennium. Such support will installed to demonstrate its effectiveness of detain- continue in the 1986-88 biennium. ing runoff as an urban drainage way. (X1OO'OOO) 1.00- LBS./YEAR Point Source Pollution Control 78,185 .75- Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants There are four significant municipal sewage .50- treatment plants in the York River basin, that is, those STI's which discharge more than one million gallons per day (mgd) located anywhere in the drainage basin or less than one mgd located below the fall line. The most significant discharger in the .25- York River basin is the York River STP, part of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, at 15 mgd. 4683 The York River STP is also a recipient of a -94 $187,000 nutrient removal project grant under the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives. Modifications to the POTENTIAL 1984 LOAD 1985 LOAD plant for biological nutrient removal of phosphorus LOAD REDUCTION REDUCTION have been completed and operations have been REDUCTION underway since August 1986. The process for re- FOR AGRI- moving nitrogen will begin before the end of 1986. CULTURE* Total na 7A I cres ge Planted 7 197,471 Initial results for phosphorus removal indicate that *Based on 1980 EPA average year agricultural load minus base the amount of phosphorus now being discharged loads. from the plant has been reduced from 8 milligrams Figure 15. Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the York River as a Re- per liter (mg/1) to less than 2 mg1l, which is an sult of Cost-Shared Crooland BMPs 34 A CHLORINE DISCHARGE CONTROL PROJECT ,& INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REHABILITATION PROJECT 0 PILOT NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS SPOTSYLVANIA 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (NMP) BOWLING GREEN LOUISA 0 HANOVER excellent loading reduction in terms of best avail- able technology and nutrient standards. Except for the initial capital investment, no significant addi- tional. operating costs are associated with biological GLOUCESTER POINT nutrient removal. Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and YORKTOWN Pretreatment Programs Figure 16. Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants The West Point STP has been awarded a 1986-88 cost-share grant for chlorine removal. A 75% cost- share grant will result in the removal of four lbs. of In the York River basin the Virginia Water Con- c lorl h ine per day. This project, in combination with trol Board has issued discharge permits requiring chlonne removed as a result of discharge permit re- toxics monitoring at four industrial sewage treat- quirements, reduced the amount of chlorine dis- ment plants. Monitoring programs at two municipal charged from STPs in the basin by 79% for 1984-86 plants are under development. Two municipal and 1986-87. plants also have approved pretreatment programs. (See Figure 17.) SPOTSYLVANIA BOWLING GREEN A LOUISA A ANOVER A, TOXICS MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS 0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS GLOUCESTER POINT Figure 17. Sites of York River STPs with Toxics Programs YORKTOWN 35 Resource and Habitat Improvement Shellfish Enhancement Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Similar to the Rappahannock River, the York Reestablishment Program River is a potentially productive shellfish growing Eelgrass was transplanted in Fall 1984 to three area. Seven growing areas, previously condemned sites in the York River: Claybank, Mumfort Island, due to deficient residential sanitation facilities along and Gloucester Point. Survival rates of individual. the shoreline and direct discharges of sewage, have transplants at the sites as of June 1985 ranged from been reopened through the coordinated efforts of 0% to 64%, averaging 18.4%. the Shellfish Enhancement Task Force and through The objectives of the SAV program are to reestab- stepped up enforcement efforts by the Health De- lish these important grasses in areas that once sup- partment. The added cost to the state for these ported dense beds, to better understand how the efforts is $12,592. grasses respond to nutrient and turbidity stress, The reopened areas totalling 383 acres include and to determine criteria for best management pro- portions of Cedarbush Creek and Sarah Creek, tocols relative to SAV resource conservation and Gloucester County, and Felgates Creek, the York enhancement. River at Cheatham Annex and Gloucester Point, A study of the production of eelgrass trans- York County. The market value of the now- planted into an area of the York River that cur- available shellfish is over $31,850 based on $13.00 rently supports vegetation (Gloucester Point) and per bushel of oysters. (Other reopened areas adja- an upriver area that formerly but no longer sup- cent to the York River are discussed in the Minor ports stands of vegetation (Claybank) has been Tributaries section of this report.) undertaken. Sites are monitored semi-monthly for Two other areas currently targeted for shoreline nutrients, temperature, salinity, light, chlorophyl-a improvements are portions of Timberneck Creek and suspended sediments. Results indicate a bi- and King Creek. Residential sanitation system vio- modal, annual pattern of plant production with lations are being corrected at King Creek and have significantly higher production levels during only been completed at Timberneck Creek. Apparently the spring and fall at the Gloucester Point site. animal pollution is contributing to poor water qual- Summertime high temperatures stress the plants, ity at the latter. Further investigations are planned and their failure is likely due to poor growth during to determine how much of this can be attributed to the spring and fall. Other factors such as the farm and undomesticated animals. The federal Soil growth of small plants and animals (epiphytes) on Conservation Service has also been involved in the the leaves of transplanted vegetation are currently Timberneck Creek project assisting farm operators being investigated. in best management plans for their farms. Efforts to reestablish SAV beds, including using seeds in the planting process, monitoring of the key environmental parameters, and refinements of a conceptual model on eelgrass growth, will con- tinue in the 1986-88 biennium. 36 0 Description Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives target the basin for point source controls and toxic reduction The James River basin drains 10,495 square strategies. miles of central Virginia, approximately one quar- While the Elizabeth River is characterized by a ter of Virginia's total land area. Its population is distinct set of problems and conditions, it is geo- about 2 million and is projected to increase by graphically part of the James River watershed, and 14% to 2.3 million by the year 2000. The James is is therefore treated along with the James in this characterized by extensive urban development at section. Its watershed lies entirely within the cities the fall line, (the Richmond, Petersburg, and of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Chesapeake. Land Hopewell metropolitan areas,) and around Hamp- use in its drainage basin is characterized by exten- ton Roads; elsewhere the basin is mostly ag- sive urban development which includes six major ricultural and forestland. The James River suffers industrial dischargers and four major federal facil- from significant nutrient problems, with point ity dischargers. The Elizabeth River rivals Balti- sources dominating. The river also suffers from more Harbor as one of the Bay's most severely toxics problems, particularly near Richmond, toxic-contaminated areas. River sediments contain Hopewell, and Hampton Roads. high levels of metals as well as sediment organics, The degradation of the river's water and sedi- including major creosote spills and PAH's (poly- ment quality is reflected in the loss of living re- aromatic hydrocarbons) which are especially harm- sources. Commercial harvest of market oysters ful to aquatic organisms. and oyster reproduction potential have declined over the years. Over 53,567 acres of productive Nutrient Loadings shellfish beds are closed in the James River due to fecal coliform contamination from deficient resi- Because high nutrient levels in the James River dential systems, marinas, or sewage treatment and are nearly all attributable to municipal sewage industrial plant outfall. Submerged grasses disap- treatment plants, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initia- peared from the river prior to 1970, with the ex- tives target the basin for point source controls. ception of a few grass beds near the mouth of the Phosphorus loads, if no additional nutrient control James. strategies are implemented, are expected to in- The James River has the most water quality crease by 34% by the year 2000, and nitrogen by problems of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay tributaries. 27% above 1985 levels. (See Figure 18.) 25,000,000 23,848,000 5,000,000- 4,901,000 NITROGEN LBS. PHOSPHORUS LBS. 2@5,600 455,000 20,000,000 - 19,760.000 18,743,000 4,000,000- //1,8' ' 5,946,000 3,657,000 45,00i 1@ / , , / '/ 3,546,000 Al 1,45,,100 //26.006 265,000/, 455,000 15.000.000 - 5,946,000 3.000,000- 455,000 5,946,000 2,157,000 3.688,000 10,362,000 1 '/ 265,600 10,000,000 - "/1445'000' 12.775,000 2,000,000- / / / I \ 687 000 7,670,000 455,000 2,333,000 444,D 4,450,000 5,000,000 1,000,000- 1,232,000 57Z@82 0-001 5_ii_@000_ 37_2 4 2, @070 F493,000, @M.101 @21 .0001@ 1119 _31wol 1950 1980 1985 2000 1950 1980 1985 2000 XN OTHER Figure 18. James River Nutrient Loadings and Sources F1 CROP 01 MUNICIPAL 37 El INDUSTRIAL FL MONITORING STATIONS WATER QUALITY 0 WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC RICHMOND WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT A WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BENTHIC TIF ZONES: FL FALL LINE (DISCRETE REFERENCE POINT) TF TIDAL FRESHWATER TS TS TRANSITION ZONE LE LOWER ESTUARY LE WILLIAMSBURG PETER BURG 50 Chlorophyll 'A' (1.1113/1.) CHESAPEAKE BAY 40 30 20 10 0 F] F] VIRGINIA BEACH FL TF TS LE 8 Dissolved Oxygen (MG/L) 0.20 Total Phosphorus (MG/l.) 6 0.15 4 0.05 0 0.00 TF TS LE FL TIF TS LE 1.5 Secchi Depth (M) 1.5 Total Nitrogen (MG/l.) 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 F, 0 TF TS LE FL TIF TS LE SEASON Summer '84 El Summer '85 MFigure 19. James River Water Quality 38 Water Quality Conditions The James River exhibits the impacts of both ur- pair of sewerlines to eliminate inflow and infiltra- ban point source and agricultural nonpoint tion, reduction of chlorine discharged by sewage sources of nutrients. Total nitrogen remains at a treatment plants, and the identification of and relatiyely constant level from the fall line to the search of solutions for toxics in river water, sedi- river mouth with a slight increase in the tidal ment, and living resources. freshwater zone. This increase is probably due to Because a significant portion of the state's urban the increased levels of ammonia, nitrite, and ni- population lives in the James River basin, several trate from point sources between Richmond and urban nonpoint source pollution control projects Hopewell. Phosphorus shows a relatively much have also been demonstrated here. higher peak in the tidal freshwater zone probably One of the world's most productive seed oyster due to point sources but the contribution of non- beds is located in the lower estuary of the James point source phosphorus is also important. While River. These beds are being studied as well as the the higher freshwater flow rates in the summer of factors affecting them. 1984 slightly reduced nitrogen concentrations in Wasteload allocations from point sources in the the James River due to dilution, the higher flows upper estuary of the James are also being adjusted tended to increase the phosphorus concentrations according to recent data summaries and analyses. due to the transport of suspended sediment which Specific to the special conditions surrounding is high in phosphorus. This is most noticeable at the Elizabeth River, a comprehensive Water Qual- the fall line monitoring station. ity Management Plan is being developed. Both Chlorophyll-a concentrations from above the fall point and nonpoint sources of pollution are being. line to just below Richmond are usually below the addressed. detection limit, then increase dramatically to peak between Hopewell and the confluence of the James and Chickahominy Rivers. Downstream of the Chickohominy River the average chlorophyll-a Nonpoint Source Pollution concentration drops sharply but short term minor Control blooms (35 VLg/1) do exist. The average concentra- tion for the tidal freshwater stations during the summer of 1985 was 33 tig/I (micrograms per liter). The station at the mouth of the Appomattox Agricultural Best Management Practices River typically had the highest concentrations (35 Runoff from cropland areas contributed 28.5% to 70 p.g/1) with the stations between Hopewell of the nutrients entering the Bay from the James and the mouth of the Chickahominy River also ex- River in 1985. During the 1984 (fall only) and 1985 hibitin! a high level of chlorophyll-a (30 to 60 @Lg/,)- 19 calendar years, 404 farmers participated in the Dissolved oxygen in the James River does not Best Management Practices (BMP) cost-share pro- experience the same stratification seen during the gram implementing BMPs on 11,701 acres. The re- summer in the Rappahannock or York Rivers. This sults of these practices will reduce the amount of is due to the complex currents in the lower James soil escaping farm fields by 73,488 tons per year. River which tend to keep the water well mixed. (For reference, a truckload of top soil averages 9 to During the summer of 1984 and 1985, all three 10 tons.) Phosphorus escaping farms, attached to 3 soil particles, is reduced by 87,233 pounds per zones of the river had roughly the same dissolved year. Requests for 1986 BMP cost-share assistance oxygen concentrations. Data from the James River were accepted through Spring 1986. Of the 406 Water Quality Monitoring Program has shown farmers requesting grants, 61 are reported to have lower dissolved oxygen in the tidal freshwater implemented practices to date benefiting 1,472 James River located just downstream of Richmond acres. The remaining farmers have until the end of and Hopewell. This is due to oxygen consuming the year to implement their practices. processes typically associated with municipal Technical and administrative assistants are being discharges. supported by Chesapeake Bay Initiatives funds so that farmers can plan and implement better soil and fertilizer management plans. Strategies To illustrate the advantages of no-till farming over conventionally-tilled fields, the Division of The James River has a documented history of Soil and Water Conservation conducted a demon- pollution from point sources, therefore, the pri- stration at Southampton County in 1985 and in mary strategies from improving water quality in 1986 held demonstrations at Chippokes Plantation the basin are focused on point source abatement at Surry County and another at Augusta County. projects. Projects include the construction and up- Rainfall produced by a modified irrigation system grade of municipal sewage treatment plants, re- fell simultaneously over the two fields and runoff 39 samples were analyzed. (Visually, the no-till plot reational shellfishing. Most point sources of pol- had clearer runoff and was less in terms of quan- lution have been eliminated, and recent studies tity of flow.) Lab analysis of the no-till runoff from indicate that poor water quality in this area is a these and other basin demonstrations showed re- result of nonpoint sources, ductions of 34% to 97% in soil loss, 24% to 82% in The RCWP was developed with federal funding nitrogen loss, and 41% to 87% in phosphorus loss authorized under the Clean Water Act Amend- as compared to the conventionally-tilled plot. ment of 1977 and project implementation began in The National Conservation Tillage Information 1981. Similar to Virginia's agricultural cost-share Center provides other information helpful in as- program, the RCWP provides cost-share grant sessing the number of acres using conservation funds to aid in the installation of agricultural non- practices. point source pollution controls such as cropland and feedlot Best Management Practices (BMPs). Other Total Approximately $1.47 million in U.S. Department No-Till conservation Conventional Acres of Agricultural funds is being cost-shared on a Years Acreage Till Acreage Till Acreage Planted variable percentage basis (most at 75%) for 142 of 1983 69,504 (23%) 96,039 (32%) 131,125 (45%) 296,669 the 200 farms located in the critical area (77,445 1984 93,293 (29%) 105,654 (33%) 122,206 (38%) 321,153 acres) of the RCWP area. Individual farmland im- 1985 96,501 (30%) 108,634 (34%) 112,730 (36%) 317,864 provement contracts are established between the Table 5. James River Cropland Tillage. farmer and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), lasting from three to ten years. As of June 1986, 105 farm units, benefitting 14,870 acres, have (Xi 00,000) been put under contract. 4.25- In addition to the SCS, the Nansemond- LBS./YEAR Chuckatuck project is administered and monitored 412,714 with the cooperation of other agencies including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hampton Roads Water Qaulity Agency, Virginia Department 4.00- of Health, Virginia Water Control Board, Virginia Tech, and the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Suffolk. Baseline water quality conditions have been es- 3.75- ablished so that water quality trends following implementation of the agricultural BMPs can be assessed. It is too early, however, to draw any t e quantitative conclusions at this time. .50- Urban Runoff Controls Although only 3% of the James River basin is urbanized, approximately 9% of the nitrogen and .25 7% of the phosphorus entering the river comes from urban and forested areas plus urban areas contribute a significant amount of toxics. Several 7111 localities in the basin were awarded cost-share 204 grants for the implementation and/or monitoring of best management practices to demonstrate POTENTIAL 1984 LOAD 1985 LOAD nonpoint source pollution control. In Charlottes- LOAD REDUCTION REDUCTION ville a rainwater detention basin has been moni- REDUCTION tored for its efficiency at removing pollutants. FOR AGRI- *Based on 1980 EPA average year Table 6 illustrates this "wet pond's" removal ef- CULTURE* agricultural load minus base loads. ficiency for an average year. Pollutant Removal at Oufflow Figure 20. Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the James River as a Total Phosphorus 80% Result of Cost-Shared Cropland BMPs Suspended Solids 87% Zinc 65% Nansemond River-Chuckatuck Creek Rural Lead 62% Clean Water Project Table 6. Charlottesville Wet Pond Pollutant Removal Efficiency. The Nansemond-Chuckatuck Rural Clean Water Other urban best management practices cost- Project (RCWP) is a pollution control project to shared in the basin include construction and protect the area water supply reservoirs, and monitoring pollutant removal of porous asphalt clean up the waters for viable commercial andtorec- pavement and a level spreader. A CHLORINE DISCHARGE CONTROL PROJECT A INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REHABILITATION PROJECT 0 PILOT NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS 0 SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (NMP) 0 CHARLOTTESVILLE 0 0 0 COVINGTON Rll@_HMOND LYNCHBURG 0 0 0 HOPEWELL 0 HAMPTON @,t 'Itt 0 Figure 21. Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 0 Point Source Pollution Control Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants monitoring program in the upper James River es- tuary, fro'm the fall line at Richmond, down river There are twenty significant municipal dis- to the Chickahominy River. Water and sediment chargers in the James River basin. Their design samples were collected for two years to analyze flow capacity ranges from 0.5 million gallons per for quality, toxics, metals, and nitrification. These day (mgd) to 70 mgd, the average flow being 16 data are being used to recalibrate a model which mgd. Of these, eight plants have yet, but are will assist in formulating wasteload allocations for scheduled, to meet advanced treatment require- the municipal and industrial plants that discharge ments (National Municipal Policy) of the Clean to the river. Resulting regulatory decisions are an- Water Act by July 1988. (See Figure 21.) ticipated to begin in mid 1987. A number of localities' sewerline systems are experiencing inflow and infiltration problems, a Chlorine Reduction at Municipal Sewage result of age and pipe deterioration. To assist in Treatment Plants rehabilitative efforts, which ultimately results in less plant overflows, the State is awarding cost- The amount of chlorine being discharged in share grants to localities. Newport News and Suf- sewage treatment plant (STP) effluents is being folk have all been awarded grants for the 1986-88 reduced by two methods: voluntary reduction by biennium. plant operators, and through the addition of de- Several localities are also making improvements chlorination or alternative disinfection technol- at their, sewage treatment plants (STPs) with as- ogies. Two municipal STPs are voluntarily re- sistance from a state bonding authority, the Vir- ducing chlorine in their effluents to a level where ginia Resources Authority. In August 1985, Ches- adequate disinfection is still achieved. Four other terfield County financed $20 million in bonds for municipal STPs are adding dechlorinating equip- capital improvements to their water and sewer ment, whose cost is shared by a state Chesapeake systems and for the retirement of existing debt. Bay Initiatives' grant: Richmond, Chesterfield Alleghany County is restoring and upgrading its County's-Proctor's Creek plant, and the Hampton water and sewer system. Through the Authority, Roads Sanitation District's James River and Boat ON financing is generally available at below-market in- Harbor plants. As a result of these 75% state terest rates. grants, 1489 lbs. of chlorine no longer will be dis- An important Chesapeake Bay Initiative in the charged per day to the river. Figure 21 shows the 1984-86 biennium was an intensive water quality locations of STPs receiving State grants for chlorine reduction. 41 Toxics Control, Monitoring, and Pretreatment Programs The Virginia Water Control Board has instituted a program to identify toxic compounds in indus- trial, municipal, and federal installations' dis- charges as part of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. The focus of the 1984-86 biennium was on the James and Elizabeth Rivers. In the 1986-88 CHESAPEAKE BAY biennium, work is continuing in these rivers, but the program has been expanded to the Potomac, Rappahannock, and York Rivers plus the Eastern Shore. In the first biennium of this project, it was learned that many toxics found in sediment and fish tissue cannot always be easily traced to point source effluents because of the influence of mul- tiple sources of toxics compounds from point and zelt" 01@ nonpoint sources. Volatile organics were predomi- nantly detected at sewage treatment plant outfalls, and wastewater from facilities on the Elizabeth River which treat ship ballast waste are major con- tributors of hydrocarbons such as petroleum products. Discharges will be selected for evaluation through a Toxicity Management and Reduction Program. An automated toxics data base has been established and will be maintained. See Figure 22 IJ/ for a location of 1984-86 toxics sampling locations. Figure 23. Toxics Sampling Locations in the Elizabeth River RICHM D HOPEWEL WILLIAMSBURG PETERSBURG CHESAPEAKE BAY 0 ELIZABETH R R IVE Figure 22. Toxics Sampling Locations in the James River @T 42 Upper James River STPs with Toxics Programs A A TOXICS MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS 00 0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS A 9 CHARLOTTESVILLE COVINGTON A A A A 4AA A AA A RICHMOND A LYNCHBURG HAMPTON NORFOLK Forty-eight industrial and municipal sewage treatment plants are monitoring toxics in their effluents as ordered under permit by the Virginia Water Control Board. Monitoring programs at fif- teen other STPS are under development. This in- cludes plants both above and below the fall line. Kepone into the water column again, so after the In addition, sixteen municipal STPs have ap- 1985 flooding, additional sampling was under- proved pretreatment programs. (See Figure 23.) taken: no increase in Kepone concentrations was Since 1975, the Virginia Water Control Board indicated, or movement of Kepone residues into has been sampling finfish and sediments to deter- previously uncontaminated areas. mine trends in Kepone levels in the James River. Kepone is an extremely potent pesticide which This information is necessary to protect the health was produced for more than a year by Allied Cor- of seafood consumers and to support decisions to poration and Life Science Products in Hopewell. lift, modify, or continue fishing restrictions. Dis- Kepone was used as an ant and roach poison until turbances of bottom sediments may release settled banned from U.S. production in 1975. Also at this time it was discovered that some of the pesticide was escaping the plant in processed wastewater discharged to the James River. The river was im- A mediately closed to fishing and crabbing, but has RICHMOND since had some areas reopened for harvest as the levels of Kepone have dropped below closure lev- A els for some species. HOPEWELL Lower James River STPs with Toxics Programs WILLIAMSBURG A HAMPTON CHESAPEAKE BAY A A NORFOLK / A '6@ A go Figure 24. Sites of James River STPs with Toxics Programs 43 Resource and Habitat Elizabeth River Water Quality Management Plan Improvement The Elizabeth River, whose drainage area is ap- Shellfish Enhancement proximately 200 square miles, is a unique tributary at the lower estuary of the James River. No free Nonpoint source pollution, deficient residential flowing streams enter the river, thus, the inflow of sanitation systems, and municipal and industrial freshwater is limited primarily to stormwater run- sewage treatment plant discharges are the main off from within the basin. sources contributing to the closure of shellfish For years, concern has been expressed about the grounds in the James River. Whenever possible, ill health of the Elizabeth River. This body of these problems are being addressed by the Shell- water suffers from low dissolved oxygen, high nu- fish Enhancement Task Force. Two shellfish areas trients and sulfur-sulfite values, high bacterio- totalling 621 acres have recently been reopened as logical counts (shellfishing has been banned since a result of improved water quality and the correc- 1914), heavy metals, oil spills, creosote leachate, tion of shoreline residential sanitation systems up- and high temperature cooling water discharges. river: portions of the upper Nansemond River in Many of these problems have been generated be- Suffolk and the Pagan River in Isle of Wight cause of heavy industrialization of the sur- County. State grants assisted low and moderate rounding area. income households. Based on $13.00 per bushel of Beginning in the mid 1980s, the local govern- oysters, the market value of the shellfish now ments of Southside Hampton Roads and the State available is $325,000. The added Chesapeake Bay began a cooperative effort to prepare strategies to Initiatives cost to the State was $57,995. Work is manage the water quality of the Elizabeth River. also underway to eliminate pollution sources re- The Southeastern Virginia Planning District sulting in shellfish area condemnations at the Commission and the Hampton Roads Water Qual- Chuckatuck and Brewer's Creeks area. ity Agency have been working with the Virginia The Lynnhaven River produces oysters na- Water Control Board on the development of pre- tionally renowned for their flavor, but due to liminary management recommendations for the nonpoint source pollution, primarily urban, the Comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality shellfish area remains closed to harvesting most of Management Plan (CERWQMP). To date, studies the year. Cooler water temperatures retard fecal have been completed on current water quality coliform growth, however, and during a portion conditions and problems, nonpoint source pol- of just about every winter harvest season the lution, and waterfront development as it relates to Lynnhaven River is temporarily reopened for water quality conditions. A preliminary plan and shellfishing. For example, in early 1986, 1 ,408 ac- management approach will be completed in De- res of the river were opened making $425,000 in cember 1986. The final plan is scheduled for com- shellfish available. pletion in late 1987. 44 TEI'J=I)aaymalm@o@, aiim& 2he Eaiatemn Share Description comico, Back, and Poquoson Rivers and em- bayments such as the Mobjack and Brown's Bays. This section reports the status of programs im- Eastern Shore waterways include Hunting and plemented in the minor tributaries of the Chesa- Occohannock Creeks. peake Bay in Virginia, coastal embayments of the Eastern Shore. Virginia's Eastern Shore drainage Bay and the Eastern Shore, as well as the land area is less than a thousand square miles. It in- mass of the Eastern Shore. Because the minor trib- cludes numerous small to moderate waterways utariesand embayments have their own dis- such as Pungoteague and Nassawadox Creeks. tinctive circumstances regarding adjacent land The Eastern Shore population was 48,900 in 1980 uses, sources contributing to pollution, and living and is expected to increase by approximately 16% resource information, no attempt is made here to to 56,800 by 2000. Almost all of the Shore is rural combine these facts as such, and in many cases and less than 1% of the land use is urban, Onan- specific details are unavailable. Data that are avail- cock and Chincoteague being population centers. able are reported in this section. For a charac- terization of the land uses of a specific tributary, Nutrient Loadings refer to the report sections describing the nearest major tributary, i.e., the Potomac, Rappahannock, Water quality varies from embayment to em- York, and James Rivers. bayment so characterizing the minor tributaries is "Minor tributary" refers to those creeks and riv- an impossibility. But collectively nutrient loadings ers which flow directly into the Chesapeake Bay from point sources can be compared and nonpoint itself or into a small coastal bay not hydro- sources can be estimated. If no additional nutrient graphic-ally connected to the major tributaries control measures are implemented by 2000, phos- listed above. The minor tributaries on the western phorus loadings will increase 50%, and nitrogen shore of the Bay include the Piankatank, Wi- 26%, over 1985 levels. 4,000.000- NITROGEN LBS. 600,000- PHOSPHORUS LBS. 560,000 500,000- 3.000,000- 3,097,000 2,843,000 XZZ//, /1,245,000/ 418.000 42,000 400,000- 378,000 1,245,000/ /1,245.000 93,000 2,000.0130 - 559,000 300,000- 42,000 Z 42,000 55g,000 409.000 559.000 230 000- 1,300,dOo- 1,697,000\ 11 267,000 27 00 945,000 100,000 -14,0 1980 1985 2000 1980 1985 2000 OTHER L,\\\@2 6 N:@@ x\\X L\7 \\74@,O@O @, 116,000 46 000 CROP Figure 25. Nutrient Loadings of Minor Tributaries and Embayments MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL 45 Strategies All farmers in the Commonwealth are en- From the National Conservation Tillage Infor- couraged to adopt Best Management Practices. mation Center, Table 7 shows that the Eastern The Chesapeake Bay Initiatives provide financial Shore had 53% of its total cropland acreage in incentives and education toward this end. Farmers conservation tillage in 1985, a dramatic 31% in- in the entire Bay basin and the western half of the crease over 1984. At the same time, however, the Eastern Shore (the portion draining to the Bay) are amount of acres planted decreased by 1.0%. eligible for cost-share grants. Point sources of pollution are being reduced Other Total through several of the Initiatives which provide No-Till Conservation Conventional Acres financial assistance to localities: chlorine discharge Years Acreage Till Acreage Till Acreage Planted reduction, sewerline infiltration and inflow re- 1983 18,083 (20%) 420 1%) 71,586 (79%) 90,089 1984 17,483 (21%) 819 1%) 66,148 (78%) 84,450 habilitation, and nutrient removal. 1985 27,675 (33%) 16,740 (20%) 39,093 (47%) 83,507 Some of the productive shellfish beds have been reopened and others are presently targeted with Table 7. Eastern Shore Cropland Tillage. pollution mitigation and control efforts. (Xi 00,000) .75 - Nonpoint Source Pollution Control .50- Agricultural Best Management Practices 25,043 LBS./YEAR The 1983 Chesapeake Bay study report states .25- that for the Eastern Shore, cropland is responsible for the majority of the excess nitrogen and phos- 6807 phorus loading into the Bay. Since the Chesa- peake Bay Initiatives program began in June 1984, 30 F, 4, 7t;@, 162 farmers installed Best Management Practices (BMPs) benefiting 10,364 acres in 1984 (fall only) POTENTIAL 1984 LOAD 1985 LOAD and 1985. LOAD REDUCTION REDUCTION As of October 1986, another 13 farmers had in- REDUCTION stalled BMPs benefiting 416 acres. An additional 5 FOR AGRI- farmers who signed up for 1986 cost-share -as- CULTURE* sistance have until the end of the calendar year to install their practices in order to receive a grant *Based on 1980 EPA average year agricultural load minus base award. The shared cost to the State for 1984 and loads. 1985 was $92,215, for 1986 to date, $8,024. One animal waste control facility has also been in- stalled. The above figures and those in Figure 26 Figure 26. Reduced Phosphorus Loading to the Minor Tributaries include participation in the minor tributaries and and Embayments as a Result of Cost-Shared Cropland coastal embayments as well. BMPs; 46 Point Source Pollution Controls Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants There are eight significant municipal dischargers located in the minor Bay tributaries and the East- ern Shore. The largest municipal sewage treatment plant (STP) of this area is the Chesapeake/ Elizabeth River plant of the Hampton Roads Sani- tation District (30.0 mgd). The smallest is the Tan- gier Island STP (0. 1 mgd). The Gloucester County STP is correcting its A sewerline infiltration and inflow (I&I) problems 0 MARYLAND 0- with assistance from 1984-86 Chesapeake Bay In- itiatives grant of $123,000. The County is con- tributing approximately $100,000 to the project VIRGRNIA which should eliminate 40% of the I&I flow to the plant. Excess inflow to an STP robs treatment ca- pacity and may cause raw sewage overflows or pump station by-passes during heavy rainstorms. The Town of Onancock on the Eastern Shore is also a recipient of a 55% state cost-share grant for I & I rehabilitation. Corrections are scheduled to EASTERN SHORE be completed in early 1987. Approximately 35% to 40% of the excessive I & I is estimated to be elimi- nated by this effort. The Town of Kilmarnock, located on the west- ern shore of the Bay and north of the mouth of the Rappahannock River, was awarded two local assistance Chesapeake Bay Initiatives grants. With 1984-86 funding, Kilmarnock will be removing C@e phosphorus and nitrogen via the Biological Nutri- ents Removal System process. Design work was completed in Summer 1986 and plant modification work is scheduled for Winter 1986-87. Kilmarnock was also recently awarded funding under the 1986-88 Chesapeake Bay Initiatives program to re- habilitate its sewerline's to reduce inflow and infil- tration. VIRGINIA BEACH A CHLORINE DISCHARGE CONTROL PROJECT A INFILTRATION AND INFLOW REHABILITATION PROJECT 0 PILOT NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT * SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS * SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (NMP) '@@ q@q Figure 27. Significant Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 47 Resource and Habitat Improvement Toxics Reduction, Monitoring, and Shellfish Enhancement Pretreatment Since the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives program Figure 28 illustrates the locations of sewage began in July 1984, fourteen shellfish growing ar- treatment plants monitoring toxics in their efflu- eas within the minor tributaries or coastal em- ents. Two of the plants' monitoring programs bayments have been reopened to shellfishing. The (Perdue and Chesapeake/Elizabeth) are underway reopened acreage, totalling 2067 acres, is a result via state permits and two others are under devel- of corrections to residential sanitation systems opment. In addition, the Chesapeake/Elizabeth either by grants to low and moderate income River STP pretreats its influent for toxics. households, or by Health Department enforce- The Town of Onancock received a 1984-86 ment efforts. Two other growing acres totalling Chesapeake Bay Initiatives grant of $264,150 to in- 188 acres have been reopened since July 1986: stall ultraviolet light treatment equipment to its Back Creek and Occohannock Creek. See Table 1 STP. This 85% cost-share award will allow Onan- for a complete listing of reopened areas and the cock to disinfect plant effluents without using markel- value of shellfish now available. chlorine. Ass- voman Creek on the Eastern Shore has Mathews County will receive a 1986-88 Chesa- been an active target area of the Shellfish En- peake Bay Initiatives cost-shaie award for chlorine hancement Task Force. All deficient residential discharge control at its sewage treatment plant. sanitation system violations have been corrected The County is presently investigating the use of and efforts to modify animal farming practices are ultraviolet light added to wastewater disinfection underway with cooperation from some farmers as a replacement for their chlorination system. and the federal Soil Conservation Service. Water quality remains poor and is not acceptable for shellfish harvested for human consumption. Monitoring continues, however, and hopefully will improve after the installation of additional ag- ricultural best management practices. MARYLAND VIRGINLk Y_- 77 EASTERN SHORE A TOXICS MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS VIRGINIA BEACH 0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS L4 Figure 28. Sites of STPs with Toxics Programs 48 Ta) 0 0 r, 0 LD)(Ily=wndle kctunnea Indl CoaalER @Gauea much of 1985, the flow was generally well below Water Quality and the long term average. Hurricane Juan in Novem- ber 1985 dramatically increased the freshwater Monitoring flow, especially in the lower Bay. Nitrogen concentrations in the mid Bay appear controlled by the transport of nitrogen, especially Overview of Water Quality in Virginia's nitrate, from the upper Bay. Nitrate concentrations Major Tributaries were high during the summer of 1984 and again The major rivers in Virginia have very different during the winter and early spring of 1985 due to patterns of development and land use in their increased freshwater flowing in to the upper Bay. basins which contribute to the differences seen in The nitrogen concentrations in the lower Bay ap- the water quality characteristics of these rivers. pear to be more controlled by local storm events The annual cycles of freshwater flow and nutrients than by the transportation of nitrogen from the further combine to give each river it own charac- upper Bay. During periods of low oxygen the teristic water quality. These differences among the sediments can release ammonia-nitrogen which is rivers are important in understanding each river an important nutrient controlling algal production. and developing appropriate management stra- tegies. The upper reaches of the Potomac River have the highest nitrogen levels of any of the Virginia MARYLAND rivers but all of the rivers have similar con- __77 centrations at their mouths. Total phosphorus is Art", high at the fall line of the Potomac and James VERGRNIA Rivers and then increases in the tidal fresh zones. The Potomac River phosphorus levels remain high further downstream than in the James River. The @ 07 York and Rappahannock Rivers are fairly low in both nutrients, with higher concentrations seen in -k r)) the upper reaches of the Rappahannock and the EASTERN SHORE lower reaches of the York River. Chlorophyll-a a, concentrations are highest in the highly urbanized V tidal freshwater Potomac River. The James River experiences more algal production than the Rap- pahannock or York Rivers but not as great as the Potomac. The dissolved oxygen concentrations are A affected by both natural occurrences such as the stratification in the Rappahannock and York Riv- ers. and anthropogenic impacts as seen in the up- per James and Potomac Rivers. Water Quality Conditions of the Mainstem of the Bay for 1984 and 1985 VIRGINIA BEACH The amount and timing of freshwater flowing into the Bay dramatically influences the nutrient MONITORING STATIONS and dissolved oxygen levels of the whole Bay sys- tem. The majority of the freshwater flowing into WATER QUALITY the Bay is contributed by the Susquehanna; Poto- 11 WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC .@p mac, and James Rivers. Freshwater inflow from 0 WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT the winter through the summer of 1984 was above A WATER QUALITY, SEDIMENT, AND BENTHIC the 30 year average. From the fall of 1984 through Figure 29. Monitoring Stations of Embayments and the Bay Mainstern 49 Phosphorus concentrations in the Bay are quite taries in March 1986. As of the end of the summer variable and usually lower than seen in the tribu- of 1986 the Commonwealth has combined and be- taries. As with ammonia, orthophosphate is re- gun funding these two programs. The current pro- leased from the sediments during low oxygen gram samples 13 stations up to twenty times per conditions in the summer. These released nutri- year. ents are important in the nutrient cycles con- Plankton are very small plants or animals car- trolling algal production. ried by the currents of the Bay and the rivers. The Chlorophyll concentrations in the mid and algae, or phytoplankton, are vital to the complex lower Bay are relatively low. It typically reaches a food chain that supports the entire Bay but too maximum during the spring peak in freshwater much algae can create many problems. Excessive flowing into the Bay but the high flow conditions algae block light from other plants on the bay bot- of the summer 1984 resulted in chlorophyll con- tom such as eelgrass, and after dying, the algae centrations (15-30 @Lg/l) in certain areas of the mid consume large amounts of oxygen. The plankton Bay region. also include zooplankton which are microscopic The high freshwater flows in the summer of animals, eggs and larvae, that feed on the phy- 1984 resulted in an overall decrease in salinity and toplankton or each other. While a majority of the an increase in the vertical stratification of the zooplankton are made up of very small creatures water column. This increased stratification limited called copepods and cladacerans, many familiar the mixing of the lower high salinity layer and the animals also live part of their early life a part of upper low salinity layer. This resulted in low dis- the plankton, such as blue crabs, oysters, and solved oxygen in the main channel as far south as many fish. The plankton are the base of the entire just off the Rappahannock River. In 1985 the area food chain in the Bay and react quickly to changes of low dissolved oxygen did not extend nearly as in the environment, either natural or man-made. far south due to less stratification and more mix- It is vital to study these plants and animals in or- ing of the Bay's waters. der to fully understand the complex nature of the Bay. Plankton and Benthos Organism Monitoring In addition to initiating water quality monitoring in the Bay and its tributaries, the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Program has been developing extensive biological monitoring programs for the Bay. The biological Chlorine Standard programs sample many of the same stations and During 1986 the Virginia Water Control Board close to the same time periods as the water quality developed in-stream water quality standards for monitoring program. This will help establish the chlorine in both freshwater and estuarine waters. links between the quality of the water and the or- In freshwater, the standard requires that residual ganisms living within it. chlorine not exceed 19 parts per million (ppm) as During March 1985 the first samples were col- an hourly average and 11 ppin for the daily aver- lected for the Benthic Monitoring Program. This age. For estuarine waters, chlorine-produced oxi- program studies the bottom dwelling organisms dants are not to exceed 13 ppm as an hourly aver- such as worms, snails, and clams that provide age and 7.5 ppin for the daily average, These food for many important species of fish. Through standards, which were adopted by the Board in their presence or absence, these benthic organisms June 1986, have no final implementation date, but can also indicate the quality of the overlying water all new and reissued discharge permits will in- and the sediment in which they live. The benthos clude provisions to meet the standard. The VWCB is particularly vulnerable to low oxygen conditions staff is presently prioritizing the list of point during the summer since most of these organism source discharge permits in the State for imple- have little or no ability to move. Low oxygen con- mentation of the new water quality standard. One ditions during the summer are believed to be ad- criteria for a higher priority is location of the fa- versely affecting the benthic organisms in the cility in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. lower Rappahannock River and in the deep chan- nel of the main Bay. During 1986 and 1987 addi- Nutrient Control Strategy tional sampling will be funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Until recently the problems of nutrient en- to study the extent of the problem. richment in Virginia's waters have been limited to Through a grant from the EPA, Virginia started localized areas, thus the management strategies to monitor plankton populations within the main that were developed were local or regional in na- Bay in July 1985. NOAA assisted-the development ture. Examples include the Occoquan Reservoir in and start up of a plankton program in the tribu- Fairfax and Prince William Counties, the Potomac 50 Embayments below Washington and the Chick- Concentrations of TBT in Virginia waters have ahominy Watershed in the Piedmont region of the been found to be as high as 900 ppt. Many com- James River basin. Based upon the results of mercial marine vessels and an estimated 50% of EPA's seven-year study which were published in pleasure craft use TBT-based paint. 1983, the concerns over nutrient enrichment have The issue of TBT-based paint was brought to the broadened to include all of the Bay drainage area. forefront in the surnmerof 1985 when the Navy Therefore, a comprehensive nutrient control strat- announced its proposal to use Organotin, a TBT- egy is required. based paint, on its entire naval fleet. After re- In 1985 the Virginia General Assembly estab- viewing the Navy's environmental assessment, Virginia's natural resources agencies led the nation lished a special subcommittee, the Joint Sub- in opposing the Navy's proposal until more re- committee Studying Nutrient Enrichment in the search was done on the impacts of TBT on aquatic Waters of the Commonwealth, to examine this resources and human health. Congressional action issue. The 1986 subcommittee report recom- followed with an amendment to the Navy's bud- mended that the Virginia Water Control Board de- get prohibiting the use of Organotin until the velop water quality standards to address nutrient close of federal FY 1986. The prohibition was re- enrichment problems in the Bay and its tribu- instituted for FY 1987 with a provision which al- taries. The Board decided to expand their efforts lows the Navy to conduct limited boat paintings in state-wide and has since begun to develop these waters outside Virginia. standards to cover all waters in the state and is Much scientific research has been initiated in re- scheduled to complete them by 1988. As with the sponse to the immediate concerns of the TBT anti- development of any major regulatory action, there fouling marine paints. The Environmental Pro- are a number of opportunities for the general pub- tection Agency is studying recreational and com- lic, the scientific community, environmental orga- mercial uses of the marine paint and is also nizations and the regulated community to provide monitoring its amounts in the Chesapeake Bay. input towards the development and implemen- Study findings will be reported in the winter of tation of the nutrient standards. These standards 1986-87. In addition, the Virginia Institute of will provide an appropriate regulatory mechanism Marine Science is developing methods to detect for a state nutrient control program. With the con- TBT in minute quantities and is studying its ef- tinuing interest and work of the General Assembly fects on aquatic fife, e.g., whether there is a cor- Joint Subcommittee, the Commonwealth is now relation between the concentrations of TBT in Vir- on course toward a comprehensive strategy that ginia waters and the decline of marine life in re- will address the nutrient enrichment problems and cent years. Some of this work is being done in will provide a key element in the long-term resto- conjunction with the Virginia Water Control ration of the Bay and its tributaries. Board. Anti-foulin Marine Paints Containing The Virginia Water Control Board and the 9 Council on the Environment has also asked the Tributyltin (TBT) Virginia Department of Agriculture to no longer Paints containing Tributyltin have in recent register the use of TBT in the Commonwealth. years become the choice product for retarding the In response to a Council on the Environment growth of barnacles and other marine life on boat and Virginia Water Control Board recommenda- hulls. The pesticide in the paint slowly leaches out tion, Governor Baliles has also requested the EPA of the paint over a period of time ranging from to discontinue the registration (permitting) of TBT. one to five years. Because TBT paint is more toxic and lasts longer than other marine paints, the ec- Financing Sewage onomic benefits are tremendous. But these bene- Treatment Plant fits may not be great enough to offset the envi- ronmental costs. Construction and Expansion TBT paint (tin-based) is 7 to 40 times as toxic to barnacles as traditionally used copper-based paint. The cost for future wastewater treatment needs It is lethal even at extremely low concentrations, in Virginia has been estimated at $2 billion. This measured in parts per trillion (ppt), to organisms includes new construction of wastewater treat- other than those for which it has been targeted: ment plants and sewer systems, upgrade or ex- � Shellfish tend to bioaccumulate the toxins. pansion of existing plants, and nutrient removal. � As little as 15 ppt can be lethal to hard clam In an attempt to satisfy this need, the Virginia larvae. Resources Authority was created by the 1984 Gen- � Paint particles inhaled while painting and eral Assembly and authorized to issue up to $300 scraping boat hulls may be harmful to hu- million in bonds. In addition, the 1986 General mans. Assembly appropriated $20 million in the FY 51 1986-88 biennium to capitalize the newly created Fisheries management plans have been under Water Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (WFRLF). development for oysters and striped bass. Drafts The VRA will administer the financial services re- of these plans have been completed and are avail- quired for the WFRLF and the Virginia Water able for public comment. They include strategies Control Board will make policy decisions on the for increasing the stock of young oysters and allocation of loans to localities. The General As- str '. bass, improving the available habitat, sembly also provided $400,000 in the FY 1986-88 mandging harvests, and ensuring the proper col- biennium to assist localities with a limited ability lection and management of fisheries data. to pay for improvements. These funds may be dis- tributed in the form of grants. Regulations. In some cases, new or revised The following assumptions apply to the Re- regulations are necessary to implement the man- volving Loan Fund: agement actions stated in the fishery management � An initial capitalization of $10 million in plans. For striped bass, the minimum size has state appropriation combined with $50 mil- been raised to 24 inches and the open season re- lion of federal funds for each year of a five stricted to the time between June 1 and November year period; 30. In ahother action, the authority to regulate � All funds are renewed immediately. oyster harvests is in the process of being moved from the General Assembly to the Virginia Marine The $2 billion need can be met by the year 2009 if Resources Commission which also regulates the loans are made from the WFRLF at an 8% annual other fisheries. interest cost. Assuming a lower interest cost of 6% would produce $1.6 billion, and a 4.5% interest rate would produce $1.3 billion by the year 2009. Oyster Repletion The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) has established an Oyster Repletion Pro- gram to enhance Virginia's public oyster fishery through the planting of oyster shell in oyster Fishefies Management spawning areas and to transplant seed oysters to suitable growing areas. Historically this program Virginia's marine fisheries have long been a was supported by the Oyster Rock Replenishment valuable resource. Stocks of several commercially Fund, but a specific Chesapeake Bay Initiative ap- and recreationally valuable finfish and shellfish propriation was made to increase the repletion species inhabiting the Commonwealth's tidal efforts by 50%. waters have, however, been declining for some During calendar year 1985, 1.8 million bushels time. In an attempt to reverse this decline a num- of oyster shell and 26,579 bushels of seed oysters ber of Chesapeake Bay Initiatives and Bay-related were planted in 18 different areas. During cal- activities have been developed to improve and endar year 1986, 2 million bushels of shell and protect the State's fisheries. 42,000 bushels of seed oysters were planted at 20 different areas. Fishery Management Plans and Regulations Two new activities are being initiated during the 1986-88 biennium by the VMRC. A search for bur- Planning. In 1984, the Virginia General As- ied oyster shell that could be mined was begun. A sembly established an overall fisheries manage- local source of shell material is necessary for fu- ment policy and gave the Virginia Marine Re- ture program activity; this will reduce the need of sources Commission (VMRC) the authority to de- importing shell from Maryland. velop fishery management plans for the long term The second activity involves a process to conservation and management of individual "clean" shell previously planted which did not species. To accomplish these plans, a fisheries receive a good oyster strike. Because oyster larvae management division was created at VMRC. To do not attach to fouled or sediment-covered oyster provide citizen involvement in the planning pro- shell, the transplanted shell are turned over cess the Fisheries Management Advisory Commit- through the use of a dredge to expose their tee was established with members representing "clean" sides. both commercial and recreational user groups. The An evaluation of the 1984 oyster strike at Committee has worked in an advisory capacity planted sites indicated an average strike of 1000 throughout plan development by providing as- spat per bushel. This is considered to be very sistance with the technical aspects of the problem good and is,an indication that plantings were suc- as well as focusing public attention on fisheries cessful. Figure 30 shows public oyster harvests management. Planning efforts are also being coor- have been extremely dependent upon and highly dinated with Maryland resoLirce managers. correlated with oyster repletion activity. 52 4.0- -800 3.5- -700 Kid, 3.0- MARKET OYSTERS -600 LU X p E 2.5- 500 C= Cn ir@f 7@ IA- LL "'2 CL 400 2.0- _J _s _J LU al 1.5- -300 AJ CO Cn GO 1.0 SHELL PLANTING -200 Co 0.5 100 0 76 77 78 i9 dO ill i2 6 ill 8 15 0 HARVEST YEAR 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 PLANTING YEAR An oyster hatchery has been established at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Figure 30. Relationships of Market Oyster Yield Shell Plantings Five Years Before Harvesting Seed Oyster Hatchery Striped Bass Restocking As one of the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives insti- Virginia has joined together with Maryland in tuted in 1985, the Virginia Institute of Marine experimental efforts to stock Chesapeake Bay trib- Science (VIMS) has built a seed oyster hatchery in utaries with native striped bass. An agreement an effort to stimulate oyster production in Vir- signed between Virginia agencies and the federal ginia's waters. The institute is developing tech- government has moved the Commonwealth into niques for controlled oyster production for dis- an experimental restocking program. tribution to industry as a five-year pilot project. Three Virginia agencies and the U.S. Fish and Thus far cooperative tests have been accom- Wildlife Service are pooling their knowledge and plished with six individual watermen at their re- resources to produce wild striped bass in hatch- spective sites. In these tests a self contained eries for release in their native streams. Par- trailer-mounted tank is taken to an individual's ticipating with the Wildlife Service are the Virginia dock and filled with Bay water and bags of oyster Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, the shells. Oyster larvae are then placed in the tank Virginia Marine Resources Commission and the and allowed to set, or attach themselves to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. shells. The shells are then returned to the oyster The restocking program will involve catching bed or hung off a dock to harden. The oysterman, spawning-run stripers in a Virginia river and who has invited the test, then evaluates the dem- transferring them to a state hatchery where they onstration and decides whether he would like to will be allowed to spawn. After the eggs are pursue the method further. To date, 18.6 million hatched, the young fish will be moved to a federal larvae have been distributed to individual industry hatchery until they become 6 to 10 inches. They representatives for these demonstrations. will then be returned to their river of origin where During the early stages of an oyster's life, after they will be tagged for monitoring and released. it has set on an existing shell, it is very vulnerable As many as 500,000 baby bass will be placed in to predators, poisoning, being smothered with Virginia tributaries to the Bay each year beginning sediment, and must suffer through many other in 1987. difficult environmental factors found in an estu- The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries ary. In an attempt to improve the survival rate of regularly stocks Virginia's fresh water areas with a these young oysters, or spat, VIMS is conducting number of fish species including the striped bass. experiments to see what most often kills them in Some of the fish that are stocked in the rivers various estuarine environments. By determining above the fall line manage to make their way which methods reduce mortality the most and at downstream into salt water and therefore contrib- what size it is best to transplant the spat, re- ute to the Bay's striped bass population. The searchers hope to produce a higher return on in- Commission has also stocked the tidal freshwater ,@',""",,,,MARKET OYSTERS vestment for the hatchery program. The program areas of the James and Cbickahominy Rivers with has a targeted production level of 500,000,000 oys- a total of nearly 230,000 young stripers during the ter larvae for calendar year 1986. past two years. These also contribute to the Bay's fish population. 53 Spawning Grounds For Anadromous Fish Fish Passage. Another problem facing an- The Chesapeake Bay plays a critical role in the adromous fish is that their migration up river to life cycles of many commercially and recreationally spawn is often impeded or halted by dams which valuable fish species. Many, including croaker, have no mechanism for fish passage. Many states spot and sea trout, use the Bay as a nursery area have successfully enhanced or reintroduced an- where young of the species spend much of their adromous stocks after long absences by construct- development periods before beginning their mi- ing fishways at dams and restocking these species gratory patterns which take them out to sea and aboVe the obstructions-. Hundreds of miles of along the coast. Others spend virtually their entire spawning habitat have been eliminated due to the lives within the Bay and its tributaries. construction of impoundments in Virginia rivers. A number of valuable species spend most of Feasibility studies to restore anadromous fish to their lives in saltwater but migrate to freshwater their historic spawning grounds in Virginia rivers areas where they spawn and where the young indicate that hundreds of miles of habitat could be hatch. Species which follow this pattern are called restored on the major tributaries. anadromous. The Council on the Environment has recom- While general water quality improvements from mended that state assistance be made available the overall Chesapeake Bay cleanup program and under Chesapeake Bay Initiatives for projects ongoing state programs such as wetlands pro- identified as having a significant impact on an- tection will benefit all species, anadromous fish adromous fishery stocks. A proposal will be de- require special attention. Their spawning areas are veloped for the 1988-90 biennium. As a first step, in the upper, freshwater portions of the estuaries, the Council recommends state financial assistance usually near the fall line, where population and be made available to the City of Richmond for an- development pressure tends to be high and pol- adromous fish passage. lution problems most intense. And, these species inhabit these areas at sensitive periods of their life Freshwater Fish cycles. Therefore, emphasis is being placed on projects in these areas, especially those to control The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries the discharge of chlorine from municipal treatment manages the State's freshwater fisheries, including plants. These projects are discussed under each those which occur in the upper reaches of the trib- river basin. Species that are year-round residents utaries of the Chesapeake Bay. All these fish are of these areas will also benefit. non-migratory. Game fish managed for recreationa@use include: 0 Sunfish 0 Walleye 041 0 Largemouth Bass 0 Northern Pike 0 Smallmouth Bass 0 Muskellunge 0 Catfish 0 Rock Bass 0 Pickerel 0 Yellow Perch 0 Artificial Reef Development CHESAPEAKE The Virginia Marine Resources Commission has BAY established artificial reef sites in order to create habitats to attract and increase the production of Z recreationally important fish species. This program began in the mid-1970s funded by unrefunded motor fuel taxes, but with specific funding pyq through the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives. The amount of reef material deployed increased by about 40% in each year of the past two fiscal years. Three reef sites continue to be added to each year: � Parramore Reef-off the Wachapreague Inlet on Virginia's Eastern Shore LKE@ � Tower Reef-east of the Chesapeake Bay Light Tower Figure 31. Anadrornous Fish Spawning Grounds 0 Triangle Reef-east of Cape Charles 54 Other experimental reef sites are located in the Commercial Public Landings Chesapeake Bay near Gwynn's Island and Cape Public docks provide convenient landing facili- Charles, and another in the Atlantic Ocean south ties for Virginia watermen to land and unload of Wachapreague. their seafood catches. As part of the Chesapeake Approximately 1,700 tire modules, and 3,500 Bay Initiative program, the Virginia Marine Re- tire-in-concrete units accounting for over 400,000 sources Commission has surveyed the Common- square feet of reef substrate, were deployed dur- wealth's public docks to determine their condition ing the 1984-86 biennium at the designated of- and need for maintenance. In an effort to improve fshore sites. Of these, the tire-in-concrete units the access and quality of these landings, the Vir- have been found to be the most successful. In ad- ginia Department of Highways and Transportation dition, a surplus barge was sunk at the Tower then completed repairs and restoration activities Reef site. on 12 landings as illustrated in Figure 32. They have also erected approximately 46 signs identi- fying landing sites. More landings are slated for improvements in the 1986-88 biennium. Marina Pollution Abatement The discharge of human wastes through boat LANDING SITES TARGETED FOR toilets has often caused shellfish areas to be con- MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS demned in zones around marinas. In an effort to 1. King's Landing better understand some of the problems associated 2. Timber Dock Landing with controlling sewage discharges from boats and 3. Seaford Landing develop a more scientific method of establishing 4. Guinea Landing buffer zones around marinas, a new Chesapeake 5. Williams Landing Bay Initiative has been introduced for the 1986-88 6. Forest Landing biennium. The Virginia Department of Health has 7. Rowe's Landing designed a program to mitigate the problem. The 8. Shipping Point Landing program has three objectives. 9. Crane Creek Landing One objective is to apply a quantitative method 10. Farnham Landing 11. Jones Creek Landing for establishing marina shellfish condemnation ro 7 12. Totuskey Landing zones based on the flushing capability and physi- cal characteristics of the marina location. Here, a 116 numerical model will be constructed to consider the ability of marinas possessing similar geo- graphical conditions to assimilate or flush con- taminants for the purpose of determining the size of the condemnation zone needed around the marina. Within this zone, shellfish can not be har- vested or sold to the public. Another objective is to determine what impact the chemicals contained in boat holding tank wastewater may have on septic tanks and other sewage treatment systems. The Health Depart- ment is seeking sites to use for field studies on this issue. If no suitable sites can be found, ex- periments will be conducted in a laboratory. The final objective of this initiative is to deter- mine the feasibility of a voluntary no-discharge zone program. Under this program, boat owners would be informed of certain areas where they could not discharge treated sewage into the water. The Health Department wants to test the feasi- bility of a voluntary program by distributing in- formation on no-discharge zones and then sur- veying boatowners as to their knowledge of and compliance with the zones. The Health Department is also revising regu- lations concerning requirements for marina sewer- age systems and pump-out facilities for boat hold- Figure 32. Public Landing Sites Rehabilitated in 1984-86 ing tanks. 1 55 Critical Finfish Populations. The Chesapeake Bay is an important nursery area for flounder and Research spot, and recruitment of these species, which spawn on the continental shelf, is highly variable. Research provides the scientific information Predictive models for recruitment of these species necessary to identify and understand the factors is being developed based on environmental factors that affect the Bay's resources. It is the foundation and trends and cyclic components identified with from which many management and implemen- recruitmenL Other finfish studies involve the tation strategies are developed. The emphasis of examination of factors which may affect striped the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives research in Virginia bass survival during the early developmental has been on factors and processes influencing the stages of life such as predation and water chemis- productivity of oysters and finfish and the detec- try. tion, fate and effects of chemical poisons in the Bay. Conducted at the Virginia Institute of Marine Chemical Poisons. A major research achieve- Science, this research addresses existing or an- ment in the past biennium has been the develop- ticipated resource management issues. ment of a combined high performance liquid Oysters. Because the James River seed oyster chromatography and mass spectrometry system. beds are so important to the oyster industry in This analytical equipment, the only known one of its kind in the marine science field, will be used in Virginia, the need for greater understanding of the research on the effects of chemical pollutants in factors affecting the recruitment of larvae to the the Bay system. Toxic chemicals may affect the re- seed bed area and their subsequent survival has productive processes and longevity of organisms been the basis of several research projects. which comprise Virginia's seafood resource. Be- Water circulation studies conducted in the James cause of the public health risk toxics con- River during 1984-86 suggest that these complex tamination may pose, sampling of seafood from patterns play a vital role in the life cycle of the wholesale distributors has been started to provide oyster and may be responsible for the noted baseline information on contamination levels. This productivity of the James River seed oyster beds. information will be used along with other ele- These findings and continuing research are being ments of on-going monitoring and research stud- used in the development of a model that could be ies establishing a comprehensive monitoring used for oyster management programs or pre- program. dicting the effects of major dredging or filling projects on the circulation patterns. In a separate but related effort, a three- dimensional computer model, originally developed Kepone. A grant was awarded to the Medical for the Army Corps of Engineers, will be used to College of Virginia to undertake a laboratory study predict the movement of water and materials in of the potential of Kepone to cause liver cancer estuarine water, and also to assess the potential and to undertake the second five-year medical impact of the proposed Newport Island develop- evaluation of former Life Science Products Co. ment on the critical seed oyster beds. This project workers who were exposed to this pesticide dur- was initiated in Fall 1986. ing the early to mid 1970s. Studies were also undertaken in the 1984-86 In 1985, the workers previously exposed to Ke- biennium to examine the sedimentation processes on oyster beds. The findings from this study will pone were tested and found to be in reasonably form the basis for development of site selection good health. Some patients did show some medi- criteria to guide shell plantings, a method of en- cal problems, however, and they will be re- hancing oyster productivity by increasing sub- evaluated in two years, rather than the five-year strate availability. The success of this replen- follow-up. ishment strategy depends upon selecting areas not The final results of the laboratory study are not significantly impacted by siltation. expected until 1988. Researchers are trying to de- Other studies in the biennium included an termine if Kepone promotes tumors and in what examination of the effects of predators, fouling or- doses it causes adverse health effects. This infor- ganisms, and chlorinated sewage on spatfall and mation will assist governmental decision-makers spat survival and an evaluation of the sex ratios in their evaluation of the impact of dietary ex- and genetic composition of the James River brood posure by consumers. To date, evidence from the oysters. laboratory study supports the idea that Kepone may promote tumors, and may have the potential of being a true carcinogen. 56 Public Television Programs. Public television sta- tion WHRO of Norfolk has produced a sixty- minute documentary entitled "The Bay, Pre- servin g the Future" with Chesapeake Bay Initia- tive Funds. While celebrating the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay, the program concentrates on the p oblems identified by the 1983 Environmental r Protection Agency report and examines the efforts of states and private agencies in their efforts to clean up the Bay. After airing on all of Virginia's public television stations in the Fall of 1986, the program will be made available to other Bay area states and then qg, F, NJ offered nationally via satellite for use in other states. It is expected that at least a quarter of a million people will eventually see the program. The Council on the Environment and the Chesa- Advanced technology is being used to study toxic problems in peake Bay Commission, in conjunction with Cox Chesapeake Bay waters. Cable of Virginia Beach, are also producing a tele- vision documentary relating to the Bay. The pro- gram will examine the effects of various land uses on adjacent water quality and on the Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. Bay. This past summer the governors of Virginia and Maryland agreed to work together in developing a Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Research Reserve Sys- Public Service Announcements. Radio and tele- tem. This program is designed to set aside a net- vision public service announcements relating to work of sites in each state, representative of the the environmental conditions of the Chesapeake various environmentals of the Bay and its tribu- Bay have been produced. Three announcernents, taries, for the purposes of research, education and entitled "Phosphorous", "Rain", and "You Can monitoring of natural processes, and for ap- Help" were developed and narrated first by Gov- preciation of future generations. The site selection ernor Robb and then by Governor Baliles. process is expected to begin early in 1987. The announcements advertise a toll-free num- ber, 1-800-H@ELPBAY, and urge citizens to call and request additional information on the Bay. A vari- ety of materials, including a brochure and fact Education sheets are sent to each caller. As of October 1986, approximately 1600 calls have been received in re- Much effort is being put into informing Vir- sponse to the ads as of October 1986. ginia's citizens of the Bay's problems and potential Education Grants. The Chesapeake Bay Education solutions. Chesapeake Bay Initiatives educational Program has been initiated to fund educational activities are targeted for the general public, citi- programs on the Bay for Virginia citizens. The zen groups, young Virginians, and farmers and Council on the Environment has awarded a total include the use of a variety of different educa- of six grants during the 1984-86 biennium and tional techniques. other grants will be made in 1986-88. Over the Public Information. A number of brochures, re- next several years the diverse mix of projects ports, and other publications concerning the chosen will reach millions of Virginians of all ages. Chesapeake Bay have been prepared and made In awarding the grants, the Council chose proj- available to the public by various public and pri- ects which would reach audiences of different age vate organizations. Information is available on the levels, with particular emphasis placed on teachers status of the Bay cleanup and restoration efforts, and school-age children. This was considered im- what steps citizens can take to help the Bay, and portant since the State's cleanup efforts are of a on special technical issues. General information long-term nature. School-age citizens will, in the brochures are also available in quantity for meet- future, be making the decisions through business, ings of groups interested in the Bay. industry, government and personal activities The public is also informed throu h the many which will affect the health of the Bay. Another 9 consideration was to select a mix of projects which presentations given by public and private envi- would provide state-wide coverage of Bay issues. ronmental leaders across the Commonwealth. Fur- An example of an education grant is the "Bay ther details on what information is available can Team" visiting teacher program. Under this grant, be obtained by contacting the Council on the En- direct classroom lessons are taught statewide by a vironment. visiting teacher. More than 15,000 students were reached in 1985-86. 57 Youth Conservation Corps. The Division of Parks Bay tributaries and canoe trips to small tidal fresh and Recreation coordinates an initiative to make water tributaries. Students, working under the di- physical improvements on the condition of the rection of teachers and other experienced edu- Chesapeake Bay by employing disadvantaged cators, collected data, performed data analysis and youths for summer projects. In addition to helping conducted comparative studies. clean up the Bay, the program provides an oppor- A total of 218 field trips were offered through tupity for youths to learn about the Chesapeake this program with 5,662 students participating. Bay environment and the problems it faces. Projects have included shoreline stabilization Encouraging Best Management Practices. The use and erosion control, marsh area improvements, of conservation techniques called Best Manage- trail construction, and waste site clearing. An ex- ment Practices (BMPs) helps farmers retain their ample of a project was the City of Chesapeake's land's soil and nutrients and thus improves the employment of 10 youths to remove debris, litter, water quality of the Bay. To encourage the use of and sediment from drainage areas and to con- BMPs, Virginia has initiated a number of pro- struct a fish habitat. Another example was the grams to inform farmers of the benefits of these City of Norfolk's employment of 12 youths to help practices. stabilize dunes, build snow fences, and fertilize The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service con- beach grass. The program employs approximately ducts a general education program through its 150 disadvantaged youths each summer at a cost county extension agents within the Bay basin. The of about $200,000 and is scheduled to continue. program includes farm visits, educational meet- ings, news articles, and radio programs. The Ex- Bay Field Studies for Children. The Chesapeake tension Service has also prepared brochures on Bay Foundation was funded by the General As- the subject and developed a nutrient management sembly in addition to a Chesapeake Bay education demonstration program. grant to conduct an education program in Virginia The Division of Soil and Water Conservation during the 1984-86 biennium. The overall objective has a number of BMP educational programs. of the program was to give students an intensive, Grants have been made to local Soil and Water direct experience on the Chesapeake Bay to en- Conservation Districts (SWCD) to conduct educa- hance marine science teaching and leaming. tion programs and tours. A Clean Water Farm The first phase of the program involved the de- Awards Program has also been developed to rec- velopment of a marine science component de- ognize those farmers who are properly managing signed around the Standards of Learning-Science. their soil and nutrient resources. Research and The second phase of the program was directed demonstration programs have played an impor- to in-service teachers for working with the Stu- tant educational role with 16 installations of 11 dents in implementing a more comprehensive different types of innovative BMPs serving as focal marine science program. Eighteen days of teacher points for many SWCD tours. An example of a training were offered during the year. demonstration program is the rainfall simulator The third and final phase of the program in- which emphasizes strong visual differences be- volved field trips for students, along with teach- tween no-till and conventional-till farming. ers. Field trips consisted of boat trips on the larger "MA @Jfl v0li N, Educational programs inform young Virginians about the Chesa- Farmers and local officials learn about Virginia's Chesapeake peake Bay. Bay Program through informal meetings. 58 The $1 million has been allocated in the fol- In-State Management lowing manner: 1) $500,000 for assistance to planning districts and The Council on the Environment provides over- local governments of the coastal area: all state-wide coordination of Virginia's Chesa- 0 $340,000 to the planning districts to help peake Bay cleanup efforts. It monitors progress on support staff positions to provide technical the various Bay initiatives, develops new initia- assistance to the districts and their member tives, and acts as a liaison between the public and local governments for matters related to the state agencies involved in the Bay program. coastal resources management. In order to better manage the Commonwealth's 0 $160,000 to local governments for non- data on the Bay, the Virginia Water Control Board construction projects relating to coastal re- and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission sources management. are in the process of automating and updating 2) $434,580 for assistance to state agencies to sup- their data processing capabilities. Integrated data plement existing coastal resources management management systems are nearly complete and efforts: some are already in use. 0 $359,580 to the Virginia Water Control Board The Virginia Marine Resources Commission is to develop new water quality monitoring and computerizing information on licensing, fishery analytical capabilities. statistics and harvest information, and oyster har- 0 $75,000 to the Department of Health to eval- vest and tax information. The information is being uate the feasibility of developing a private used in a number of ways including facilitating sector program for monitoring the appli- the creation of fishery management plans. cation of sewage sludge to agricultural lands. The Virginia Water Control Board is coordi- 3) The remaining funds will be used for VCRMP- nating the collection and analysis of Chesapeake related administrative responsibilities and pub- Bay water quality, sediment, and benthic monitor- lic information and participation activities. ing data. They share the data with other Bay area A process for distributing funds to the coastal states and the EPA through the Chesapeake Bay area planning districts and local governments be- Program Computer Center at Annapolis. gan in Fall 1986. An advisory committee has been In addition to data management, the Common- created to assist in the development of subgrant wealth also helps manage marine patrol efforts. criteria and application of those criteria to sub- The Marine Patrol Initiative reimburses Tidewater grant requests. localities for a portion of their marine law en- forcement, safety, and rescue operations expenses, Land Use Roundtable and provides support for the Virginia Marine Re- A Land Use Roundtable was established in 1986 sources Commission's marine dispatch operations. to begin to address the difficulties local govern- ments often face in dealing with land use prob- lems. The Roundtable is an informal assemblage of individuals with varied associations-local and state government, the legislature, the Chesapeake Coastal Resources Bay Commission, real estate and development, fi- Management Program nance, and conservation, and is staffed by the University of Virginia's Institute for Environmental The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Negotiation. The current focus of the group is to Program (VCRMP) received final formal approval study the effects of land uses on adjacent and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- downstream waters and on the legal and insti- ministration in September 1986. As a participant in tutional mechanisms available as solutions. the federal Coastal Zone Management Program the Commonwealth has received $1 million with Shoreline Erosion the probability that a like sum will be available in each of the next five years. Virginia is graced with over 5000 miles of tidal Virginia has taken the network approach to shoreline ranging from barrier islands to ocean coastal resources management with the result that front beaches to the marshes and cliffs of the the program relies almost entirely on existing Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. All of these regulatory programs. That management network shore types are affected by the natural process of is bound together by the new VCRMP Executive erosion. Shoreline erosion occurs when land is Order and is coordinated by the Council on the washed away by the actions of storms, waves, Environment with oversight by the Secretary of and tides. Problems arise from this process when Natural Resources and the Governor. it compromises man's use of the shorefront. 59 Problems. From 1850 to 1950 the Commonwealth lost 21,000 acres of land to shoreline erosion. At present it is estimated that 330 miles of tidal shoreline suffer severe erosion at a rate of more than two feet per year. In some areas, the rate is as much as twenty feet per year. This means a 16 loss of property for individuals, a loss of taxable 16 IV, " EASTERN SHORE land and public improvements for localities, and an influx of eroded sediments into the Bay. The it @p loss of land is, however, by far the largest prob- lem created by shoreline erosion. The amount of eroded shoreline sediments is actually a rather in- E7 significant pollutant when compared to the quan- A tity of sediments deposited into the Bay from run- off and erosion of upland rivers, Most individual efforts to mitigate shoreline ero- sion consist of a property owner using some tech- nique to protect his property. It has been shown, ONO however, that the preferrable way to address the problem is on a reach basis. A reach is a con- tinuous section of shoreline that shares similar composition and orientation characteristics. While individual efforts may protect a single piece of property, they may also accelerate the erosion process for nearby properties. In many cases this will then cause the original protection device to fail and the entire reach to deteriorate. Figure 35. Shoreline Eroding at Greater Than Two Feet or More Per Year Solutions. The Commonwealth of Virginia has or- ganized efforts to mitigate shoreline erosion. An umbrella organization, the Shoreline Programs A survey of users of the service taken in 1985 Section of the Division of Soil and Water Con- found that 100 percent of the landowners who re- servation, has been created to coordinate these turned the questionnaire found SEAS to be a efforts. Its initiatives include: valuable service and 60.3 percent actually carried � Technical assistance program for private water- out the recommendations. Since 1980, when the front property owners, program began, SEAS has served 1,823 land- � Funding and technical assistance to help protect owners. Their biennial operating budget was or restore public beaches, $282,219. � Research to determine the best ways to deal The Board for the Conservation and Develop- with the problem. ment of Public Beaches determines which public beaches are suffering from erosion and provides The Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS), money from a dedicated state fund to those local- within the umbrella organization, provides tech- ities most in need of relief. The Board also pro- nical assistance to owners and prospective owners vides technical advice concerning beach erosion of waterfront property concerning shoreline ero- mitigation and restoration techniques. Advice can sion. The agency provides data on historic erosion also be provided to localities with other coastal levels for properties, makes recommendations for erosion problems. The Board's biennial budget of the techniques best suited to control erosion there, $1,262,000 included approximately $1 million for recommends where on a property to build a project grants such as beach replenishment. house, and estimates prospective costs for pro- Research into the Commonwealth's shoreline tecting the land. In addition, assistance can be erosion problems is conducted by the Virginia In- provided with the regulatory permitting process stitute of Marine Science (VIMS). The Institute is and with arranging contractor bids for construc- researching the effectiveness of various erosion tion. SEAS will also assist in the design of the rec- mitigation techniques in various shoreline situa- ommended shoreline protection device and give tions. Recent research has included tests on marsh further cost estimates if landowners decide to grasses and on the use of breakwaters. VIMS also build a structure themselves. To encourage pro- monitors and documents the rate and extent of tection of an entire reach, SEAS urges individuals Virginia's shoreline erosion. Their biennial budget who consult the agency to work with their neigh- for research on shoreline erosion was approxi- bors and coordinate their efforts. mately $188,000. 60 Citizen Participation River Basin Committees Citizen Monitoring Citizen advisory committees were created in A volunteer citizen monitoring program has 1985 in an endeavor to provide thoughtful, long- been started by the Citizens Program for the term public participation in Virginia's Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay on the James River in Virginia Ba restoration efforts. The Virginia River Basin and the Patuxent River in Maryland. The purpose y of the program is to determine whether volunteers Citizen Committees for the Chesapeake Bay re- view Virginia's Bay Initiatives and other state pro- can collect reliable water quality data which will grams related to the Bay, in light of the goals and enable managers to predict, and assess long-term ob ectives set for the Commonwealth's various trends in the ecology of the Bay system. Data is . i being collected on five water quality factors at 12 river basins. There are approximately 150 commit- sites on the James and 17 sites on the Patuxent. tee members including people from local govern- Results obtained from the program so far indi- ment, industry, agriculture, private non-profit cate that the trained volunteers are collecting accu- groups, and marine trades. They are expected to rate, reliable data. When compared with data col- recommend changes to state plans and programs lected at nearby stations by state agencies, the designed to benefit the Bay for the 1988-90 bien- volunteers' data has been shown to be very simi- nium. lar. The Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, If successful, programs such as this could prove under contract from the Virginia Council on the to be very valuable in building public support and Environment, provides staff support for the com- understanding of Bay restoration efforts. A similar mittees. If-citizens are interested in becoming in- program on the Conestoga River in Pennsylvania volved with a River Basin Committee, they can is scheduled to start in late 1986. obtain more information by calling (804) 225-4355. The eight river basin committees are indicated on Figure 34. Chesapeake Bay River Basin Committees 1 Northern Virginia-Potomac River Basin @., 511@< 2 Lower Potomac River Basin 3 Rappahannock River Basin 4 Shenandoah River Basin 4 5 York River Basin 6 Central James River Basin 7 Lower James-Hampton Roads River Basin 8 Eastern Shore Basin r N_ rl @s LP Lf 3__ Figure 34. River Basin Committees for the Chesapeake Bay 61 1905 almd 1906 Frogreas Regazte Several important changes need to be pointed out between Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives First Annual Progress Report (September 1985) and this report, Progress Report of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program (December 1986). More sophisticated techniques and methods are available to derive es- timates and another year of data is available. The changes instituted in this document report more accurate information and improve our ability to Private Environmental Groups assess trends for future strategies. Private environmental organizations concerned Nutrient Loading Charts. The 1980 nutrient load- with the Bay such as the Lower James River Asso- ing figures stated in the 1985 progress report were derived from EPA sources. The river basin totals ciation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Sierra Club, Aud- Included adjacent coastal tributaries that were not ubon, and numerous others, are informed of the actually part of that drainage basin. Virginia's 1986 various Chesapeake Bay Initiatives and coastal progress report of nutrient loadings for 1980 are, issues through informal meetings with Council on hence, revisions with separate estimates provided the Environment staff, Council quarterly meetings, for the Eastern Shore and minor coastal tribu- and through periodic mailings. Through these taries. avenues, the Council has established effective channels of communication with Virginia's envi- Water Quality Conditions. The water quality data ronmental groups. In return, the organizations reported last year for each river basin water qual- often contact the Council or share their own news- ity was correct but did not represent a full year's letters of issues that they feel are important con- monitoring since the program was just beginning. cerning Virginia's environment. The data in the 1986 progress report represents average summer conditions for 1984 and 1985. This period was selected since the lowest oxygen Inter-state Coordination levels and the highest chlorophyll-a levels typi- cally occur during the summer. This period will Efforts are being made to coordinate Chesa- continue to be used in the future as a measuring peake Bay clean-up initiatives on a regional basis. point. Therefore, the data charts in this report The Chesapeake Bay Commission, created in 1980, differs from those in the first progress report. provides a forum for legislators, cabinet sec- Chlorophyll-a has been added to the water qual- retaries, and citizens from Virginia, Maryland, and ity charts in 1986 as a measure of light pen- Pennsylvania to discuss Bay matters from a legis- etration. No chlorophyll-a data was available for lative point of view. The Commission identifies most Virginia rivers prior to the summer of 1985. significant Chesapeake Bay issues and develops Chlorophyll-a is an indirect measurement of algae recommendations for legislative action. It also production in the water column. High algal pro- conducts biennial evaluations of B ia@ conditions, duction reduces light penetration and may reduce programs, and management. oxygen levels. The algal production can be directly Another regional coordination group, the linked to the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Chesapeake Executive Council, was created in December 1983 as a result of the Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Load Reductions. The level of phos- Agreement. It is a cooperative state and federal phorus loading to Bay waters from agricultural structure that provides a forum for cabinet level sources is being monitored in order to assess the discussion of key matters relating to the Chesa- impacts of the State's Best Management Practices peake Bay. The Council's membership includes cost-share program. The 1985 progress report used cabinet and department secretaries from Virginia, 1983 EPA Chesapeake Bay Study Report data for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of base year comparisons. The model used to cal- Columbia and the EPA regional administrator. It culate these figures, however, has been revised. advises EPA on the use of EPA-Chesapeake Bay More accurate agricultural load reduction potential funds and guides the continuing development and figures are used in Virginia's 1986 progress report, annual refinement of the Chesapeake Bay Resto- as calculated by the Division of Soil and Water ration and Protection Plan. Conservation, and are reflected in the new charts. 62 HcwYDu Can He The Chesapeake Bay cleanup program is tremendous in scope with concentrated state ac- tivities and region-wide efforts. At times it is diffi- cult for individuals to see just what role they have or can have in the clean up program. It is, how- ever, important that everyone contribute. Here are some ways each of us can contribute to the Chesa- peake Bay restoration: Stay Informed Water Quality � Contact local and state representatives to let * Don't dump paint cleaners, antifreeze, pesti- them know your concerns. cides down the drain. Use secure containers � Report pollution incidents (illegal dumping, soil and dispose of them in the trash. erosion etc.). To report a pollution incident, call 0 Recycle your motor oil. Don't pour it down the the Virginia Water Control Board in your re- drain or on the ground. There are a number of gion. service station operators who will take your Northern Office/Alexandria 703/750-9111 used oil. Call this toll-free number statewide: Piedmont Office/Richmond 804/257-1006 1-800-552-3831. Southwest Office/Abingdon 703/628-5183 0 Use "no" or "low" phosphate detergents (it TidewaterNirginia Beach 804/499-8742 will tell you on the label) and wait until you Valley Office/Bridgewater 703/828-2595 have a full load to wash clothes. West Central/Roanoke 703/982-7432 0 Use care when you use fertilizers, pesticides or � Be aware of development and zoning changes herbicides to minimize runoff pollution. A little in your community and how they may affect goes a long way! Call your local Agricultural water quality and shorelines. Extension Agent for more information. � Encourage the use of best management prac- 0 Use lead free gas as airborne emissions from tices such as porous pavement, buffer strips, vehicles fall with precipitation back to the sur- etc. in your community. face and into waterways. 0 Properly maintain your septic system to prevent groundwater pollution. For Boaters 0 Bag or compost your yard clippings and leaves to keep them out of storm drains. � If your boat is equipped with a marine sam- 0 Don't leave pet wastes on the ground to be fation holding device, use it! washed away. � Use biodegradable bilge cleaner and empty 0 Have gutters and downspouts drain into the bilges at pump stations only. grass or use a splash block to prevent erosion. For further information contact: The Council on the Environment 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 786-4500 63 DATEDUE GAYLORDiNo. 2333 ilRINTED IN U,S,A, III 111110111111111 3 6668 14107 7547