Maryland's tributary strategies for nutrient reduction a statewide summary

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

AfARYLAND'S
TRIB UTAR Y STRATEGIES FOR
NUTRIENTREDUCTION:
A STATEWIDE SUMA1ARY

March, 1995

Maryland Department of the Environmment
Maryland Department ofNatural Resources
Maryland Department ofAgriculture
Maryland Office of State Planning
Maryland Governor's Office
University of Maryland

NL&RYLAND'S

TRIBUTARY STRATEGIES

FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION:

A STATEWIDE SUMMARY

March, 1995

Prepared By:

Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Maryland Office of State Planning
Maryland Governor's Office
Q51 University of Maryland

PREFACE

In 1983, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency joined in a
partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Leaders of these jurisdictions recognized that the
Bay's problems could not be solved by any one of them acting alone. In 1987, they signed the
Bay Agreement to remedy the most pervasive pollution problem by working cooperatively toward
a 40% reduction in nutrients entering the Bay by the year 2000. In 1992, they acknowledged
that the Bay was in decline because of changes in the watershed as a whole, and likewise, that
the Bay's restoration is dependent upon a watershed-wide solution. The Bay Agreement was
therefore amended to require tributary-specific plans for nutrient reduction in the Bay's major
tributaries.

Significant progress has been made toward the nutrient reduction goal, but much remains to be
done. This is especially true given that the nutrient reduction goal results in a nutrient load cap
which we are not to exceed. Each of the aforementioned jurisdictions is currently developing
!'Tributary Strategies" that describe the ways in which nutrient pollution loads can be reduced by
40% in the many sub-watersheds that drain into the Bay. This coordinated watershed-by-
watershed approach brings the Bay clean-up closer to home for the many citizens and local
governments that must participate for the restoration to be successful. The benefits of these
Strategies will be realized not only in the Bay itself, but in the local streams, rivers, and
groundwater that directly affect our health and quality of life.

This document summarizes and synthesizes the Nutrient Reduction Strategies for Maryland's ten
Tributary Strategy watersheds. Each of the ten Strategies provides specific recommendations to
achieve the 40% nutrient reduction goal. The Strategies represent a collective effort over the past
year among all levels of government with extensive input by various interest groups and citizens.
Local governments, in particular, have spent considerable time and effort and provided significant
input to the draft Strategies. Each Strategy provides an example of how the goal may be
achieved through specific programs and practices, called "nutrient reduction options. " In
implementing the Strategies over the coming years, new information on methods to reduce
nutrient pollution will undoubtedly come to light, available funding will change, more detailed
data on watershed conditions and needs will become available, and priorities will shift. The
Strategies are meant to be flexible and dynamic so that the goal can be met in the most efficient
and practical manner. Locally-based "Tributary Implementation Teams" will be established to
facilitate the continued participation of local governments, interest groups, and citizens in
deciding how best to refine and implement the Strategies to meet our shared goals.

Public meetings to discuss the draft Strategies were held during the spring of 1994. The
Strategies have since been revised in response to public comment. Among the more frequently
heard recommendations were a greater focus on education, improvement of existing regulations,
and emphasis on cost-effective options and on practices with benefits in addition to nutrient
reduction. Other revisions to the Strategies were due to data corrections, practical
implementation considerations, and as a result of new or changes in state laws and policies
adopted during the drafting of the Strategies.

This summary of the ten Strategies demonstrates that Maryland's overall 40% nutrient reduction
goal can be achieved statewide, describes how this can be accomplished, and provides a context
in which to review the watershed-specific Strategies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Problem .................................................. 1

Restoration Commitments .......................................... 1

What are Tributary Strategies? ............................ : .......... 2

Living Resources in the Tributary Strategies ............................... 4

The Tributary Strategy Process ....................................... 5

Nutrient Loads and Goals .......................................... 6

How the Tributary Strategies were Assembled ............................. 6

Statewide Summary of the Tributary Strategies ............................. 10
Wastewater Treatment Plants ................................... 10
Developed Land ........................................... 12
Agricultural Land .......................................... 13
Resource Protection and Watershed Planning .......................... 14

Statewide Summary of the Tributary Strategy Load Reductions ................... 15

Implementation ................................................. 21
Tributary Implementation Teams .................................. 21
Additional Funding for the Strategies .............................. 22

Tracking Progress ............................................... 22

Legacy ...................................................... 24

Glossary of Option Terms .......................................... 25

List of Tables

Table la. Nitrogen and Phosphorus 1985 Base Loads, Controllable Loads, Reduction
Goals, and Loading Caps for Maryland's Tributary Watersheds ......... 7
Table 1b. Nitrogen Loadings in Maryland's Tributary Watersheds ........... 8
Table lc. Phosphorus Loadings in Maryland's Tributary Watersheds ........... 9
Table 2. Statewide 40% Nutrient Reduction Strategy ...................... 18
Table 3. Nutrient Reduction Options Currently Not Quantified ................ 19

List of Figures

Yigure 1. Maryland's Tributary Watersheds ............................ 3
Figure 2. Level Funding and 40% Strategy Projected Nutrient Loadings .......... 16

Statewide Summary Page 1

The Problem

The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and one of its most valuable and treasured
natural resources. It is home to a rich diversity of over 2,700 plant and animal species, and
serves as a major commercial and recreational resource for the people of Maryland.
Unfortunately, water quality and living resources in this great Bay have declined markedly
over the last several decades. Bay waters have become murky from pollution, unable to
support the underwater grasses that serve as critical habitat for Bay life. This, combined
with other stresses, has dramatically reduced fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and other wildlife
populations, degraded our drinking water supplies, and diminished recreational opportunities,
thereby reducing our ability to earn a living and to enjoy the Bay. Rapid -population growth
is at the root of many of these problems. The state's population is projected to increase by
1. 3 million people between 1990 and 2020, a 28 % increase. How we accommodate- this
population growth will affect our and our children's quality of life, living resources, water
quality, and the opportunities for restoring the Bay and its tributaries.

In the late 1970s, scientists began an extensive study of the Chesapeake Bay to determine the
specific reasons for its decline. Three major problems were identified:

0 excess nutrients from wastewater, agricultural land, and developed land;

sediment runoff from farms, construction sites, and other lands; and

0 possibly elevated levels of toxic chemicals.

All three problems are being addressed in the Chesapeake Bay restoration. Maryland's
Tributary Strategies focus on the largest problem, the reduction of excess nutrients-nitrogen
and phosphorus-entering the Bay.

Restoration Commitments

To address the Bay's problems, a watershed-wide restoration effort began in the early 1980s.

� In 1983, the Bay jurisdictions (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia), the Chesapeake Bay Commission (representing the legislative bodies of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), and the federal government made a joint
commitment to restore the Bay's water quality and living resources and established
the Chesapeake Bay Program.

� In 1987, the Bay Agreement was signed by the parties above (called the Chesapeake
Bay Executive Council). A major element of the Agreement was the commitment to
reduce nutrients entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. Bay scientists have

Statewide Summary Page 2

determined that this step will increase oxygen in the deep waters of the Bay by about
20%, resulting in more "livable" habitat for the Bay's living resources. Equally
important, scientific forecasts show that the Bay will get significantly worse if nothing
is done.

In 1992, amendments to the Agreement reaffirmed the 40% goal and highlighted the
importance of the Bay's tributaries. As a result, the Bay Program is "moving
upstream," renewing the focus on the rivers of the Chesapeake. These rivers carry
nutrients and sediment to the Bay. If we can reduce the amount of nutrients entering
the rivers, we will reduce the pollution flow to the Bay. This will not only help the
Bay, but will bring cleaner water and more living resources to the rivers and streams
of Maryland.

In 1993 and 1994, the development of the Strategies or plans to reduce the pollution
entering the rivers were initiated and are the main focus of this document.

0 In 1997, the Strategies will be reevaluated for progress to determine if mid-course
corrections are necessary.

Significant progress has been made as a result of the Bay restoration effort. Since 1985, the
baseline year for measuring the reductions, Maryland has reduced nitrogen entering its tidal
waters by 17% and phosphorus by 27%. But more remains to be done. To gain the full
benefits of our work so far, and to continue our progress toward our goal, we in Maryland
must bring the commitment of the Bay Agreement to our own neighborhood rivers and
streams.

What are Tributary Strategies?

T he Tributary Strategies comprise a comprehensive approach to reducing nutrient pollution in
Maryland's tributary watersheds. The Strategies are developed by the state-and local
governments, and the citizens living and working in their watersheds. To achieve the 40%
nutrient reduction for the state, Maryland's Chesapeake Bay watershed has been divided into
ten major tributary watersheds including the three subwatersheds for the Maryland portion of
the Potomac River (see Figure 1). Each of these tributaries has a specific nutrient reduction
goal, which when summed across all the tributaries, will allow Maryland to achieve its
overall reduction goal. This regional focus allows the state and local governments to work
with the public to build a locally-based framework to protect and restore the rivers and
streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The Tributary Strategies involve a collaborative effort among state and local government
staff, workgroups from every watershed, and participants in public meetings. The Strategies

Figure 1. Maryland's Tributary Watersheds
Patapsco/ Upper Western
Patuxent Back ore
S,

..I., ..... ....
.. . .....
Upper Eastern
....... ...........
. ....... Shore

.. ....... ..... .....

. . . . . .. ......
Upper Potomac Choptank

Middle Potomac
Lower Eastern
Shore

Lower Western
Shore

. .................. x,
...........

Maryland Department
MDE of the Environment Lower Potomac

Statewide Summary Page 4

include a number of "options" -practices and programs that reduce nutrient pollution-that
together will achieve the 40% nutrient reduction goal.

The Strategies are a combination of existing regulatory programs and comprehensive
voluntary programs. They include some options we know will reduce nutrients, but don't
know by how much. The Strategies are plans for achieving the 40% nutrient reduction goal
in each of -the ten watersheds that will undoubtedly be fine-tuned and improved as they are
implemented between now and the year 2000. The Strategies will reflect public, local, state,
and federal government concerns, availability of resources, and the emergence of new
technologies. A critical part of the Tributary Strategies, other than the plans themselves, is
the process that is being established for making them work, a process that relies upon the
participation of all those who have a role in their success.

The Tributary Strategies present a unique opportunity to change the way we manage
resources. The Strategies focus on our watersheds, rather than the traditional jurisdictions of
county or state boundaries. This innovative approach is an opportunity for citizens to have
critical input into how natural resources are managed in their own watersheds. By providing
a framework for a comprehensive approach to watershed management, the Tributary
Strategies provide an opportunity to integrate nutrient reduction efforts, habitat restoration,
growth management and planning, preservation of agricultural lands, protection of drinking
water reservoirs and aquifers, and other initiatives to promote a healthy environment and
livable communities.

Living Resources in the Tributary Strategies

The Tributary Strategies are part of a larger effort to restore the Bay's living resources that
includes habitat restoration, toxics reduction, removal of blockages to fish spawning areas,
and improved fisheries management. The ultimate purpose of the Tributary Strategies is to
restore the water quality necessary for the Bay's living resources. The 40% reduction goal
was reaffirmed by the Bay scientists after determining that meeting the goal would improve
the dissolved oxygen and water clarity needed to support fish communities and Bay grasses
in the mainstern of the Bay. The Strategies recognize that improvements in the mainstern of
the Bay depend on the nutrient reductions in the tributaries and thereby extend this goal to
improve water quality and habitat to the tributaries as well.

Many of the options included in the Strategies have additional purposes other than nutrient
reduction. Forested buffers and nonstructural shore erosion controls, for example, create
wildlife and aquatic habitat as well as reduce nutrients. Implementing these and other
options, such as forest and wetland conservation, will provide additional benefits to living
resources through the protection and creation of habitat. Options that create and restore

Statewide Summary Page 5

habitat may be particularly cost-effective components of the Strategies when all of their
benefits are considered. The Strategies aim to incorporate these considerations in setting
implementation priorities.

As we begin to implement and track the progress of the Strategies, living resources win
indicate improvements in environmental quality. The Chesapeake Bay Program has already
set quantitative targets for the restoration of Bay grasses, a primary indicator of improving
water quality. Other indicators are being developed for areas ftirther upstream, such as an
"index of biotic integrity" which combines information on different fish species to indicate
the overall health of the ecosystem.

The Tributary Strategy Process

A series of public meetings to discuss the Strategies were held in each watershed in 1993 and
1994. During these meetings, interested citizens commented on the process of developing
the Strategies, what options should be included in each Strategy, and how these options could
be implemented. The public raised strong support for educational programs targeted at
homeowners and other voluntary efforts, improved enforcement of existing regulations,
options that are cost-effective and site-specific in design and implementation, and practices
that have other environmental benefits in addition to nutrient reductions. The public
comments on the draft Strategies are helping ensure that the Strategies are workable, fair,
cost-effective, and recognize the environmental priorities of the citizens and local
governments in each watershed.

Developing and implementing the Strategies is an evolving process. The Strategies, revised
in response to the public comments, data fine-tuning, and other technical and practical
implementation considerations, comprise Maryland's commitment to meet its 40% nutrient
reduction goal. Tributary Implementation Teams will be formed in each of Maryland's ten
tributaries to assist with refining and implementing the Strategies (see "Implementation").
A progress review of the Tributary Strategies will be undertaken in 1997.

To maintain the progress that has been made and continue to protect the Bay beyond the year
2000, all of the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement agreed that once the 40%
reduction has been achieved, nutrient pollution to the Bay should not be allowed to increase.
This "cap" on nutrient loads means that future growth and development must be managed in
a way that does not cause additional nutrient pollution. Meeting this challenge will require
ongoing collaboration between state and local governments, and the people who live in each
watershed.

Statewide Summary Page 6

Nutrient Loads and Goals

Approximately, 76.4 million pounds of nitrogen and 5.84 million pounds of phosphorus enter
the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters each year from all sources in Maryland (see Tables la to
1c). To restore important habitats and improve water quality in the rivers and the Bay, state
and local governments have pledged to work toward a 40% reduction in the "controllable"
part of this load, that is, the pollution part caused by man's activities which include point
sources (wastewater treatment plants) and nonpoint sources (polluted runoff and groundwater
from agricultural and developed lands). This translates to a reduction goal of 22.8 million
pounds of nitrogen and 2. 10 million pounds of phosphorus which, when subtracted from the
1985 base load, results in the loading cap. To achieve this loading cap, pollution win have
to be reduced from all sources: wastewater treatment plants, agriculture, and developed
lands.

Reductions due to air pollution controls are not counted towards the attainment of the 40%
reduction goal. Atmospheric loads, however, are included in the nonpoint source (NPS) load
estimates. Only deposition directly to water surfaces (a relatively small load) is not
considered in these estimates.

How the Tributary Strategies were Assembled

To assemble the individual Strategies, nutrient reduction options were prioritized as described
below until the 40% goal was achieved. A "maximum feasible" level of implementation was
defined to indicate the upper limit that any Tributary Strategy could achieve in terms of
nutrient reduction. This highest feasible level of implementation was determined by the best
professional judgment of the Tributary Strategy participants. Achieving equity among
categories of options and watersheds was an important consideration throughout this process
(see the attached glossary for a complete list and brief description of the options). The first
three options below were included in each Tributary Strategy:

0 All wastewater treatment plants (WWT?s) with a design flow equal to or greater than
0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) will be expected to implement chemical
phosphorus removal and install biological nutrient removal (BNR) or equivalent
technology for nitrogen removal. While the technology will be designed to operate
seasonally, every effort will be made to operate the BNR process for as much of the
year as feasible in order to remove more nitrogen.

All existing regulatory programs with nonpomt source control benefits (e.g., erosion
and sediment control, stormwater management, and implementation of the Forest
Conservation Act) will be fully implemented and enforced.

Table Ia. Nitrogen and Phosphorus 1985 Base Loads, Controllable Loads, Reduction Goals
and Loading Caps for Maryland's Tributary Watersheds

. . .......... ........
I.M. 110. ....
-0. '0 1. Ion . 1,
'01*01 "0
.............. . .... L ......
ro. ..............
-on ro.
. .............. C .....
b I....................
.............
1985-1---Sag C
Point Sources 31.95 31.95 2.52 - 2.52
Total Nonpoint Source (NPS) 44.49 25.10 3.31 2.73
Agriculture NPS 27.94 19.41 2.56 2.18
Developed NPS 8.47 5.68 0.63 0.55
Undeveloped NPS 6.711 0.00 0.07 0.00
Direct Atmospheric 1.371 0.00 0.05 0.00

... ......
ad 67
L . . ............ . ....

`.2
40
MR "duc. on.....0 al . .... ."42, % of controllable) (40% of controllable)
..........
. . .. . . .......

Notes:
1) Due to rounding errors, some numbers in the table may not equal the totals shown.
2) 1985 base load Is the estimated amount of nutrients entering tidal waters in 1985.
3) Controllable load Is the 1985 base load minus the load if the watershed were totally forested and with no point sources.
This can be thought of as the "pollution load" due to man's activities in the watershed.
4) 40% Reduction Goal = 40% of Controllable Load. The 40% reduction goal applies to the total controllable loads.
Load reductions from each source will depend on the final strategy that is selected and Implemented.
5) Loading Cap = 1985 Base - 40% Reduction Goal.
6) Point source load Is the load delivered to tidal waters from municipal point sources > 1000 gal/day plus major Industrial and military discharges.
7) Undeveloped land nonpoint source (NPS) load Is from forest and wetland areas and Is not considered a controllable or "pollution load".
8) Direct atmospheric Is the load from the atmosphere to water surface only; atmospheric load to land Is Included In the three
land use categories.

Tablelb. Nitrogen Loadings in Maryland's Tributary Watersheds (in million lbs/year)

.................. .... . .. X.X.
U
Oft .........
..... ....
X
- ....... :: -" -X:
..........
d X""', . . . ..... ..........
.. ..........
. ... . ...
LOA, I .... .. ..........
Choptank 3.7 1.4 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.9 2.8
Lower Eastem 9.2 3.9 4.9 0.4 5.3 2.1 7.1
Lower Potomac 3.7 1.2 1.9 0.6 2.5 1.0 2.7
Lower Western 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.5 1.2
Middle Potomac 9.1 1.1 1.3 6.7 8.0 3.2 5.9
Patapsco/Back 21.9 1.0 1.9 19.1 21.0 8.4 13.5
Patuxent 4.9 1.4 1.8 1.7 3.5 1.4 3.5
Upper Eastern 5.6 2.0 3.3 0.2 3.6 1.4 4.2
Upper Potomac 10.7 5.2 4.0 1.5 5.5 2.2 8.5
Upper Western 5.8 1.7- 3.3 0.8 4.1 1.6 4.2
Maryland Total 76.4 19.4 25.1 31.9 57.0 22.8 53.6 -7

Notes:
I ) Due to rounding errors, some numbers In the table may not equal the totals shown.
2) 1985 base load Is the estimated amount of nutrients entering tidal waters In 1985. The 1985 base load Is equal to the sum of the backgr6und,
controllable nonpoint source (NPS), and point source loads.
3) Background load Is the uncontrollable NIPS load or the load that would exist If the watershed were totally forest and with no point sources.
4) Point source load Is the load delivered to tidal waters from municipal point sources > 1000 gal/day plus major Industrial and military discharges.
5) Controllable load Is the 1985 base load minus the background load. This can be thought of as the "pollution load"
due to man's activities In the watershed. Conversely, controllable load Is equal to the controllable NPS plus the point source load.
6) 40% Reduction Goal = 40% of Controllable Load. The 40% reduction goal applies only to the total controllable load.
Load reductions from each source will depend on the final strategy that is selected and Implemented.
7) Loading Cap = 1985 Base Load - 40% Reduction Goal.

Tableft. Phosphorus Loadings in Maryland's Tributary Watersheds (in million lbs/year)

. .......................... ......
XXX`...:
.... .......X R
................
.............
. . . . ......
41606 40
x. . .................... . .... ..
ViN
.........I
.-.1.1 .......... ... ......
........... .. . ..
. . ..... .
X N... --X . ...... . ....
. .. ....
.... .......... 'NO ........
4i -6 :
'd. 0
......................

Choptank 0.31 0.04 0.17 0.09 0.26 0.10 0.20
Lower Eastern 0.70 0.12 0.43 0.15 0.58 0.23 0.47
Lower Potomac 0.30 0.03 0.17 0.10 0.27 0.11 0.19
Lower Western 0.26 0.01 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.10 0.16
Middle Potomac 0.31 0.04 0.17 0.10 0.27 0.11 0.21
Patapsco/Back 1.24 0.02 0.19 1.02 1.22 0.49 0.75
Patuxent 0.53 0.03 0.21 0.29 0.50 0.20 0.33
Upper Eastern 0.44 0.07 0.31 0.06 0.36 0.15 0.29
Upper Potomac 1.26 0.18 0.64 0.44 1.08 0.43 0.83
Upper Western 0.50 0.04 0.37 0.09 0.46 0.18 0.31

Maryland Total 1 5.84 1 0.59 1 2.73 1 2.52 1 5.25 1 2.10 3.74

Notes:
1) Due to rounding errors, some numbers in the table may not equal the totals shown.
2) 1985 base load Is the estimated amount of nutrients entering tidal waters In 1985. The 1985 base load Is equal to the sum of the background,
controllable nonpoint source (NPS), and point source loads.
3) Background load Is the uncontrollable NPS load or the load that would exist If the watershed were totally forest and with no point sources.
4) Point source load Is the load delivered to tidal waters from municipal point sources> 1000 gal/day plus major Industrial and military discharges.
5) Controllable load is the 1985 base load minus the background load. This can be thought of as the "pollution load"
due to man's activities in the watershed. Conversely, controllable load Is equal to the controllable NPS plus the point source load.
6) 40% Reduction Goal = 40% of Controllable Load. The 40% reduction goal applies only to the total controllable load.
Load reductions from each source will depend on the final strategy that Is selected and Implemented.
7) Loading Cap = 1985 Base Load - 40% Reduction Goal.

Statewide Summary Page 10

0 All other options currently being implemented will continue to be implemented at
least at current funding levels.

If the combination of the above options did not reach the 40% goal, then the following
options were included, as needed, above and beyond the first three options to achieve the
40 % goal:

0 A target of at least 10% of the maximum feasible level was set for educational
programs promoting septic system pumping, urban/suburban nutrient management,
and domestic animal waste control.

0 Increased implementation of the remaining options at "realistic" levels based on cost-
effectiveness and past implementation levels. (Cost-effectiveness is the lowest cost
per pound for the nutrient not yet reduced by 40%.)

If the combination of the options listed above still fell short of the 40% goal, then:

0 Remaining options were included at the maximum feasible level, in order of cost-
effectiveness.

Statewide Summary of the Tributary Strategies

Over tile past year, state and local government staff and concerned citizens have worked
together to develop a menu of "nutrient reduction options." These include both regulatory
and voluntary (e.g., incentive and educational) programs encompassing existing programs,
new directions for state and local governments, and nongovernmental activities. Many of
these options have important benefits, such as habitat creation or runoff control, in addition
to nutrient reduction. The following sections describe what is necessary to achieve an
overall 40% nutrient reduction statewide in the four major categories of options: wastewater
treatment plants, developed land, agricultural land, and resource protection and watershed
planning. The potential for further expanding the selected options, or adding new ones, is
also discussed. Several options could contribute more significantly to nutrient reduction if
existing obstacles to implementation (such as need for public education, lack of eligibility for
funding, etc.) are addressed.

Wastewater Treatment Plants

The Strategies call for the implementation of biological nutrient removal (BNR) of nitrogen
and chemical phosphorus removal (CPR) at all wastewater treatment plants that currently
have a design flow equal to or greater than 0.5 MGD. If smaller VVWTPs are expanded to
above 0.5 MGD in the future, the expectation is that BNR and/or CPR will be implemented
at the time of expansion.

Statewide Summary Page 11

The implementation of BNR at each of these WWTPs has been and will continue to be
achieved through the adoption of a BNR Agreement between the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) and the jurisdiction controlling the plant. The Agreement calls for the
controlling jurisdiction to design and construct facilities so as to achieve a seasonal (April-
October) total nitrogen concentration of 8 mg/l and operate the BNR process for as much of
the year as possible in order to maximize nitrogen removal. After a trial period of
operation, permit language will be drafted based upon the plant's performance during this
period. The duration of the trial period as well as the conditions that will be included in the
plant's discharge permit have not yet been determined. For most major WWT?s in the state,
phosphorus removal is a permit requirement.

Based on our limited experience with the performance of BNR at existing WWT?s, MDE
believes that a plant designed to meet a seasonal total nitrogen (M limit of 8 mg/l will
actually yield an annu average TN concentration of 8 mg/1 if the BNR process is operated
year-round. In the warmer months of the year (April-October), TN concentrations should
range from 4 mg/1 to 8 mg/l, while in the colder months of the year (Novernber-March), TN
concentrations should range from 9 mg/l to 13 mg/l. If the BNR process is only in effect
during the design period of April-October, the average annual TN concentration will be about
10 mg/l.

Annual BNR with CPR was selected as the point source nutrient reduction option because it
was determined to be the most cost-effective method of removing nitrogen and phosphorus
from wastewater. If future evaluations of nutrient reduction progress show that the goals in
a watershed will not be met with the existing Tributary Strategy, options that may be
considered as part of the revised Strategy are upgrading of major WWT?s with advanced
nutrient removal (limit of technology) and/or the implementation of BNR and CPR at some
of the minor WWTPs (less than 0.5 MGD).

There are currently seventeen major WWTPs in Maryland that are actively removing
nitrogen. Eight of these seventeen VAVT`Ps are located within the Patuxent watershed where
much of the effort toward point source nutrient load reduction has been directed. Because of
the Upper Bay Phosphorus Removal Policy, all major V;WT?s above Baltimore Harbor are
required to remove phosphorus to a level of 2 mg1l. In addition, all major WWTPs in the
Patuxent watershed have a 1 mg/1 phosphorus limit. There are also several other plants
which have a phosphorus limit because of local water quality conditions (i.e., La Plata,
Salisbury) or because of the Potomac River Embayment Standards (i.e., Blue Plains,
Piscataway, Mattawoman).

The point source component of Maryland's Tributary Strategies currently calls for an
additional 47 major WWT?s to be upgraded for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Twenty-
four of these plants have entered into an agreement with MDE to implement nitrogen

Statewide Summary Page 12

removal. The jurisdictions controlling the remaining WWTPs not yet scheduled for
upgrading will be encouraged to commit to the implementation of nitrogen and/or phosphorus
removal through the execution of such an agreement in the next few years.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) has recently proposed an
innovative Regional Pilot Program to help meet the restoration goals of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. -This program would help meet the nutrient reduction goals in the Potomac River
basin through a regional, cooperative effort to implement nitrogen removal at major WWTPs
in the basin, including those in Washington, D.C. and Virginia. This program would allow
for flexible measures such as nutrient trading between WWTPs, between jurisdictions, and
between nonpoint sources and point sources. Emphasis would be placed on identifying the
most cost-effective overall strategy for achieving the nutrient reduction goals. In addition,
this pilot program would require that funding sources, such as MDE's Biological Nutrient
Removal Cost-Share Program, be identified before the local governments are required to
implement nitrogen removal. The State of Maryland will continue working with the
MWCOG to try to integrate the pilot program's objectives with the Tributary Strategies.

One result of the wastewater treatment process is a by-product known as sludge. The sludge
that remains after organic material is broken down contains valuable plant nutrients. Some
sludge is incinerated or landfilled, but the best way to dispose of sludge is to "recycle" it as
plant fertilizer. Many farmers therefore allow sludge application on their crop or pasture
land to save on chemical fertilizer costs. MDE requires nutrient management plans to be in
place before sludge application, facilitating development of nutrient management plans and
assuring that only necessary amounts of nitrogen are added to the land.

Developed Land

For all newly developed land, the Strategies call for the full implementation of existing state
and local regulatory programs for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management.
Granting of waivers should be minimized. In addition, state requirements for both programs
are being revised and strengthened. Erosion and sediment control standards and
specifications were revised and implemented in the summer of 1994. State stormwater
management program requirements are currently being revised to improve stormwater quality
control by introducing alternatives for development site design and promoting the use of
marshes, wet ponds, and extended detention or retention facilities.

Nonregulatory programs for urban lands that contribute to nutrient reductions include
retrofitting previously developed land with stormwater control measures and converting
existing dry ponds to more effective stormwater management practices. Stormwater retrofits
apply to land that was developed without stormwater controls. This option is expensive
because land available for stormwater facilities is often scarce, but controls are necessary to

Statewide Summary Page 13

achieve water quality and stream protection benefits in urban areas. Several such projects
are planned in each of the ten watersheds. Additional projects will be identified as part of
more detailed watershed water quality management planning by local governments.

Educational efforts will also be enhanced in a number of areas affecting pollution control on
developed land. Nutrient management efforts for private homes, businesses, roadways, and
public land need to be increased. Outreach and education efforts will be strengthened and
improved; educational materials will be developed and published to provide landowners with
specific guidance for types of vegetation, landscaping methods, and organic waste and
fertilizer management to minimize environmental impacts. Operation and maintenance of
septic systems can also be improved through the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures,
reduction in the use of garbage disposals, and regular pumping to remove accumulated
solids. Not only will these measures improve the nutrient removal capabilities of septic
systems, but they will also prolong the life of these systems and save on expensive repair and
replacement costs.

Agricultural Land

Agriculture is the most widespread land use in Mafyland, and the implementation of
agricultural best management practices (BMPs) will make a significant contribution to
nutrient reductions in the state. Local Agricultural Tributary Teams identified a list of
applicable BMPs for each tributary. In addition, the local agricultural tributary teams
pointed out that there are BMPs that many farmers implement on their own. The level of
implementation of these practices outside of federal, state, and local programs has not been
quantified, but needs to be determined. The Strategies call for varying levels of
implementation of BMPs to meet the 40% reduction based on the needs in each tributary.

Expanded and accelerated levels of implementation of Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Plans (SCWQPs), nutrient management plans, cover crops, conservation tillage, and
treatment of lands with high erosion potential will contribute significantly to nutrient
reduction in Maryland. SCWQPs are currently on 41 % of the agricultural land in the state
and this percentage is expected to increase to 64%. Nutrient management plans will need to
be increased from the current level of less than 20% to 56% of cropland. Much of this win
be achieved through the assistance of certified private consultants. In addition, cover crops
will need to be planted on 29 % of the cropland acres available for timely planting of cover
crops. Conservation tillage in Maryland will need to be accelerated from the current level of
40% to 57% of cropland. Existing education programs can be used to achieve this goal.
Treatment of lands with high erosion potential will be increased from the current level of
50% to 84%.

While most of the nutrient reductions from agricultural lands will be achieved through the
five practices described above, others will also be important. Animal waste management
systems are an integral part of the nutrient management planning on farms with animals and

Statewide Summary Page 14

will contribute to reducing pollution from those farms. Stream protection BMPs, including
stream crossings, remote watering facilities, fencing, and buffers will also play a role in
meeting the nutrient reduction goals in Maryland. The ten agricultural tributary teams
identified additional best management practices that addressed specific resource issues in their
basins. These include the use of water management systems for reducing nutrient loss from
farm drainage systems, the application of presidedress soil nitrate tests, and outreach to
recreational horse owners for implementation of horse pasture management. While nutrient
reductions associated with these options have not been quantified, they add to our ability to
meet our water quality goals.

Resource Protection and Watershed Planning

Resource protection options include a range of practices designed to protect forests,
wetlands, and other natural areas. These ecosystems generate fewer nutrients than any other
land use, and some, such as forests and wetlands, actually function as nutrient filters. Many
of these options-such as forested buffers and nonstructural shore erosion control-help
restore habitat for fish and wildlife, and the food webs they depend on. The implementation
targets for each practice included in the Strategies are the minimum needed to achieve the
40% nutrient reduction goal. Additional implementation above these targets would help to
restore the biological diversity and abundance of our streams, rivers, and the Bay.

Among the resource protection options, a priority win be planting strearnside forested buffers
and protecting existing buffers on agricultural and developed lands. The Departments of
Natural Resources and Agriculture, together with other interested groups, have begun
worldng to identify and address existing obstacles to planting forested and grassed buffers,
and other stream protection measures. Recommendations include promoting flexible, site-
specific solutions; providing incentives to private landowners to protect riparian areas; and
providing additional resources for technical assistance. By 2000, the Strategies aim to
protect at least 850 miles of streams through the establishment of forested and grassed
buffers, and many additional miles through local stream protection ordinances.

The Strategies recognize the benefits of the Forest Conservation Act, which is estimated to
reduce forest loss by at least 20% between now and the year 2000. Under the Strategies,
tree planting will be increased and a broader coverage of forest harvesting best management
practices will be achieved statewide through logger training, enforcement, standardized
permit procedures, and monitoring. These steps will promote full implementation of
existing regulatory requirements, such as erosion and sediment control, and greater coverage
of additional voluntary measures that may be appropriate at a given site. The Strategies also
recommend an increase in structural and nonstructural (vegetative) shore erosion controls,
which prevent sediment and associated nutrients from entering the Bay.

In Spring 1994, Maryland passed legislation requiring the installation of marine sewage
pumpouts at all marinas with 50 or more slips and all new or expanding marinas over ten

Statewide Summary Page 15

slips. Federal funding under the Clean Vessel Act will allow the state to expand its grant
program to marinas to cover the full cost of installing these new pumpouts. State and federal
law prohibit the discharge of raw sewage into the Bay, and legislation passed in 1994 will
allow state enforcement of this provision. The Strategy calls for pumpout use by all boats
with holding tanks. The state will focus its efforts on educational programs for boaters to
encourage pumpout use.

Many resource protection and watershed planning options help reduce nutrient pollution, but
have benefits that are difficult to quantify. The Critical Area Law, for example, has been
estimated to reduce nutrients from the critical areas by 20-30%. Other programs that prevent
nutrient pollution include the 1992 Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act,
which requires the state and local governments to protect sensitive areas and concentrate
growth, and local planning and zoning ordinances to protect streams, shorelines, and
wetlands. Because we lack nutrient reduction estimates for these programs, they are
considered to be "unquantified options" that contribute to maintaining the cap on nutrient
loads.

Statewide Summary of the Tributary Strategy Load Reductions

The figure and tables that follow provide a summary of the estimated nutrient load reductions
to the Day that will be achieved with the implementation of the Tributary Strategy
recommendations.

Figure 2 presents the projected nutrient loadings under two loading scenarios in each of the
ten watersheds by the year 2000. For each watershed, three nitrogen and phosphorus loading
levels are presented, as follows:

0 The white bar, labeled "Loading Cap," indicates the load remaining after the
"controllable" or pollution load of the estimated amount of nutrients entering the
Bay's tidal waters in 1985 (shown in Tables la to lc) is reduced by 40%. This cap
represents the commitment made in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

0 The black bar, labeled "Level Funding," shows the estimated load in 2000 if
reductions achieved by current programs are continued at the same rates through
2000. This scenario includes projected growth and illustrates what will be achieved if
we continue current program implementation with financial and staff resources
comparable to the present.

0 The gray bar, labeled "40 % Strategy," shows the estimated loads in 2000 after
growth is accounted for and the Tributary Strategies' recommendations are
implemented.

Figure 2. Level Funding and 40% Strategy Projected Nutrient Loadings

Nitrogen Loads

C
0
6 -11
M.
W' ..

:@E
0 rr

Phosphorus Loads

1.0

0.8

0.6

0
OA I

0.2

0.0 ..

[:]Loading Cap Level Funding ED 40% Strategy

Notes: This figure compares nutrient loads under two possible management scenarios C'Level Funding" and "40%
Strategy") with the "loading cap," the goal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement The loading cap (white bar) was
calculated by reducing the controllable 1985 loads by 40%. The first management scenario, "Level Funding"
(black bar), shows the loads that would result if current programs were continued without increase until the year
2000. The second management scenario, "40% Strategy" (gray bar), shows the loads that would result from
increasing implementation of nutrient control practices in order to reach the 400A goal for nitrogen and phosphorus.
The figure illustrates that level funding is not adequate to achieve the loading cap in nine of the ten tributaries.

Statewide Summary Page 17

Figure 2 shows that with level funding, all but one tributary does not meet its Strategy goal
for nitrogen, phosphorus or both. With plans in place to upgrade large WWTPs and because
of the large point source component to its loads, only the Patapsco/Back River watershed can
meet its goal for nitrogen and phosphorus with level funding. This watershed will however
require additional effort to reach its nonpoint source targets. Additional resources will be
needed to reach the goal in the remaining tributaries. (More specific information on what
additional implementation efforts will be needed can be found in the
Strategy documents for each individual tributary.) Two of these tributaries-the Middle
Potomac and the Lower Western Shore-will come close to but not quite attain their loading
cap for nitrogen even at maximum feasible levels of implementation of the nutrient reduction
options. In the Potomac River as a whole (Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac) and in the
Western Shore as a whole (Upper Western Shore, Patapsco/Back River, and Lower Western
Shore) the Tributary Strategy goals can be met with additional resources required to
implement the Tributary Strategies. Similarly, the nutrient reduction goal can be met
statewide with the implementation of the Tributary Strategies.

Table 2 summarizes the practices, levels of implementation, and the nutrient reductions they
are expected to achieve. There are also many unquantified options (listed in Table 3) which
will further reduce the loads. In the face of continued population growth and development,
maintaining a load below the capped load beyond the year 2000 will eventually require
additional options not presented in the current Tributary Strategies.

The list of quantified options in Table 2 are recommendations for the level of implementation
aimed to achieve the 40% reduction goal in each of the ten watersheds. Achieving the goal
in the ten watersheds will not only improve water quality in the Bay's mainstem, but will
also help restore rivers and streams throughout the state. The local benefits are critical for
protecting and restoring living resources, protecting drinking water supplies, and all of the
other ecological, recreational, and economic benefits associated with clean water in each of
the watersheds. For example, while sewage treatment plant upgrades on the Patapsco and
Back Rivers will significantly reduce nutrients entering the Bay, they will do little to protect
prime striped bass spawning areas in the Choptank, nontidal stream habitat in the Middle
Potomac, or drinking water reservoirs in the upper Patuxent.

The first column of Table 2 names the options, which are described in more detail in the
attached glossary. The second column indicates the units used to describe the physical
measures or units of implementation such as "plants" for wastewater treatment, "systems" for
septic systems, or "acres" for cover crops. The third and fourth columns set the boundaries
for nutrient reductions that would attain nutrient loads which correspond to "Level Funding"
and "Maximum Feasible." The latter represents the maximum nutrient load reduction that
can be accomplished between 1994 and 2000 with projected growth and with highest feasible
level of implementation of nutrient reduction options as determined by the best professional
judgment of the Tributary Strategy participants. The fifth column is a set of
recommendations which will result in 40% nutrient reduction at the state level.

Table 2. Statewide 40% Nutrient Reduction Strategy

Coverage by 2000 N Load Reduction P Load Reduction
Coverage by 2DOO wt Maximum Feasible Coverage with %W 40% Strategy w/ 40% Strategy
Option Unit w/ Level Funding Resources 40% Strategy Jlbslyr) (lbstyr)

Treatment Plants
....... .....
ova
1BI0813,11-1-81 a-chemical Nutrient Rem I- Xofplants 24 47 47

Developed Land
...... ... ..
Erosion and Sediment Control acres 18,693 19,272 19,272
Enhanced Stormwater Management acres 130AM 134,901 1U.901
Stormwater Management acres 5,766 14A16 7.5"
.... ... ... 4.
Stormwater Management Conversion acres 2,W 4,768 3,426
............
septic pumping systems ? 13,801 3_-69
........ ....
Septic Denitrification systems ? 662 101
.......... . .......... ........
Septic Connections systems 6,752 15.093 5,946
Urban Nutrient Management acres ? 160,797 49,818
Domestic Animal Waste households ? 0 0
lClustering of New Development
acres ? 10,118

X
. ..... ......... .
-X.
AgdCultural Land ... . ......... ..... X, .
SoH ConsJWater Quality Plan Implementation acres 251,639 856.058 468,377
Cormervation Tillage .789 494.802 339@M :::;X;X;X!:
acres 327
acres 186,511
219.2N
65,546
Treatment of Highly Erodible Land
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land acres 5= 9" 6,941
324 1,797 637
Systems;
Animal Waste Management System-Livock K
systems 392
Animal Waste Management System-Poultry 252 548 ..
Runoff Control acres 592 1,676 566 .......... -73"11:
-X
Stream Peotac on with Fencing acres 2.W G.M2 2,668
Strearn P -'-, tion without Fencing res G@m 20= 6,656
acres 766,1149
Nutrient Management - Fertilizer 617.398 1.121= f "V74.
Nutrient Management - Organic res 91AN 170.974 100,052
Cover Crops wl Nutrient Management fes 62,665 23BA90 150,698
Cover Crops wtoNutrierrt Management acres 7,30 24,750 16,500
Home Pasture Management acres 23 231 23 ... 11
Presidedress Soil Nitrate Text acres 1,679 3,917 1.679
Water Control Structures acres 4 240
Wetlands/Sediment Basins acres 2 120
Poultry Waste Distribution acres 0 1

. ..........
Resource Protection & Watershed Planning
Buffers
acres 2.737 7.362
3,204
Forested (overall)
(on agricultural land) acres ?
Fonts ?
acres ? ?
Forested (an developed land)
Grassed (on agricultural land) acres 3,6811 11,748 4.173
M45,
X
Structural Shore Erosion Control linear feet 35,742 295rm 37,782
12'
Nonstructural Shore Erosion Control linear feet 53.060 389A76 76,810
Forest Conservartion Fes 16A99 Is=
Tree Planting Fes 8,T75 19A70 10.290
Forest Harvesting Practices acres IZM 19,Sw 19,530
. .... ....
Marine Pumpouts (installation) marinas 164 295 1" ..... .......
,Pumpout Education boaters 30,535 30,535 30.535

Totd Reductions (million lbstyr) 31 1 19.39

Nitmen Phosphorus
(million lbstvr) (million lbsivr)
< 1985 Ekm Load (ftm Table 1)
'74
< Loading Cap (ftm Table 1)

-c Projected Total Load in 2000 with no additional Implementation effort
x Reductions (from above)
XXX -c Less: Total

-c Projected Total Load in 2000 with Strategy Implemented
-c % Below Loading Cap

Legend:
- Assumes plant designed for seasonal BNR will be operated year-round; point source strategy includes chemical phosphorus removal.
? This information is not currently available.
* Loads are not computed for these options because loading reduction rates have not been quantified.

Notes:
1 ) "Level Funding" coverage is the coverage that can be expected by 2000 if current programs and practices were continued through 2000 with financial and
staff resources comparable to the present.
2) "Maximum Feasible"coverage is the coverage that can be expected by 2000 with the highest feasible level of implementation as determined by best professional
judgment.
3) "40% Strategy ,is the coverage estimated by the year 2000 if the Strategy is fully implemented.
4) "Loading Cap@' is the loading expected if 1985 point and controllable nonpoint source loads are reduced by 40%.
5) Coverages and reductions shown in this table are for 1994-2000. Pmjected total load in 2000 with no additional implementation effort includes nutrient reductions
achieved over the period, 1985-1993.
6) Most options have benefits in addition to nutrient reduction, for example, forested buffers provide wildlife habitat, stormwater management prevents erosion, etc.
T) The Draft Strategy illustrates how the 40% reduction goal can be met through specific programs and practices. The Strategy is intended to be flexible to reflect public
input and practical considerations such as available funding and new technologies.

Statewide Summary Page 19

Table 3. Nutrient Reduction Options Currently Not Quantified

Point Sources/DeveloDed I-and

Infrastructure Improvement (e.g., lealdng sewer pipes)
Stormwater Facility Maintenance
New Small WWT?s
Elimination of Combined Sewer Overflows
Water Conservation
Improved Site Design and Planning

AF-ricultural Land

Public Education/Outreach
Horse Pasture Management
Presidedress Soil Nitrate Test
Water Management Systems

Resource Protection

Stream Stabilization/Restoration
Land Easements and Acquisition
Wetlands Protection
Critical Area Law Implementation
Mine Reclamation
Restoring Aquatic Ecosystems (e.g., oyster restoration)

Watershed Planning

1992 Planning Act Implementation
Concentrating Growth
Agricultural Land Preservation
Stream Corridor Protection
Reservoir Protection
Roadside Drainage System Management

'Many of these options are defined in the attached glossary.

Statewide Summary Page 20

The last two columns (shaded) translate the Statewide 40% Strategy recommendations from
implementation units to actual pounds reduced for each option. Note that although these
reduction benefits may appear to be fairly precise, these numbers are only a function of the
calculations. The rounded values at the base of the column, which represent the sum of the
reductions, are more reflective of the actual precision appropriate for these estimates.

Finally, in- the shaded box at the bottom of Table 2, a summary calculation shows the
difference between the projected loads and projected reductions resulting from the
implementation of the Tributary Strategies to the year 2000. This difference is then
compared to the loading cap. If the difference is equal to or less than the cap, the 40%
reduction goal is attained.

In summary, Table 2 indicates that Maryland's Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction goals can
be achieved provided that:

0 Recommended wastewater treatment plant upgrades are implemented;

9 State and local erosion and sediment control regulations and stormwater management
programs are fully implemented on all new -development;

0 The Forest Conservation Act reduces forest loss by at least 20% between 1993 and
2000; and

0 Implementation of other existing state and local nonpoint source pollution control
efforts continue at current or expanded levels.

The 40% reduction goal specified by the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council was framed in
quantitative terms, that is, 40% of the 1985 loads. Table 2 responds to those specific
quantitative terms, and provides for accountability and measurement of progress. However,
there are many practices for which nutrient reductions cannot be quantified at this time.
These practices are a critical part of the Tributary Strategies even though they are not
included in Table 2. Despite the current inability to estimate the nutrient reductions
associated with these practices, their continued implementation will contribute substantially to
nutrient reduction efforts between now and the year 2000, and toward maintaining the cap on
nutrient loads thereafter. These options provide valuable environmental and living resources
benefits that go directly to the ultimate goal of the Bay restoration: improved habitat for the
Bay's living resources. For example, land acquisition for recreation or wildlife habitat also
helps to keep areas in forest, which has a naturally low nutrient pollution load. Wetland
protection laws protect tidal and nontidal wetlands that act as natural filters. Watershed
planning, which helps local governments to concentrate growth and protect sensitive areas,
reduces nutrient pollution resulting from sprawling development and loss of forests,
wetlands, and other open space.

Statewide Sunmary Page 21

As mentioned previously, Strategy recommendations for the ten watersheds summarized in
Table 2 will change as new and more refined information and estimates become available.
The Tributary Strategies will evolve to reflect the ideas and concerns of the public and the
local, state, and federal governments. The Strategies will embody the most efficient,
effective, and practical methods of achieving the nutrient reduction goal.

Implementation

The implementation of the Tributary Strategies initiates a new phase of the Bay clean-up
efforts that began over a decade ago. The Tributary Strategies are meant to be the start of a
comprehensive watershed- and locally-based approach that will reduce nutrient pollution from
most controllable sources. The next challenge will be implementation. Existing programs
-may need to be refined or expanded, as needed, by state and local agencies, industries or
individuals currently responsible for them. New programs may also have to be developed to
meet needs identified in the Strategies, such as public education regarding septic maintenance
or landscaping and lawn care. These programs will be developed and implemented through a
collaborative process with state and local government agencies and citizens.

Implementation of the Strategies will involve:

� identifying the agencies and groups who will implement needed programs;

� refining implementation mechanisms and identifying the types and amount of
additional resources required;

� identifying and addressing any obstacles to implementation; and

0 setting schedules for implementing any needed programs.

Dibutary Implementation Teams

To assist with developing implementation plans, Tributary Implementation Teams will be
formed at the local level to represent the needs and concerns of each watershed. These
teams will consist of local and state government representatives, concerned citizens, and
representatives of affected economic interests such as the agriculture and land development
industries. It will promote watershed integration of activities by:

0 developing and revising implementation plans to meet nutrient reduction goals;

0 tracldng Strategy implementation to help it proceed on schedule in a fair and flexible
way with consideration given to sensitive areas such as reservoir watersheds and
stream headwaters;

Statewide Summary Page 22

0 coordinating cooperation among citizens, state and local government agencies, and
other interested parties;

0 identifying and communicating potential problems, needs, and concerns, as wen as
possible solutions to responsible state and local agencies; and

0 promoting the Strategies through public education activities.

Adchtional Funding for the Strategies

Additional funding and staff for state and local agencies will be necessary. to implement the
Strategies. Of course, the amount and types of funding needed will depend upon the
programs ultimately selected as part of the Strategies. For example, funds from MDE's
Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund can be used for wastewater treatment plant upgrades
and nonpoint source water quality improvement. Many agricultural options are implemented
by providing technical assistance and cost-share funds available from federal, state, and
county funding programs.

A "Blue Ribbon Panel" of financial experts from the investment community, local, state and
federal government, academia, and other private sector concerns was convened by Governor
Schaefer in June, 1994. The Panel's final report, completed in January, 1995, identified
funding options to assist state and local agencies in financing portions of the Strategies and
recommended ways to provide private sector support.

Tracking Progress

The Strategies set targets for the implementation of certain practices between 1994 and the
year 2000. To evaluate the Strategies' effectiveness, monitoring and tracking programs are
needed. Tracldng and monitoring programs may be grouped into three categories:

0 Tracking implementation. For some practices, tracIdng mechanisms are already in
place because of program requirements, permit or other regulatory requirements, or
funding mechanisms. For example, there is a system, which is currently being
improved, for traclang the implementation of agricultural BMPs. For many voluntary
options, such as incentive or cost-share programs for agriculture or resource
protection, tracldng programs are in place, but may need to be revised to provide
watershed-based information.

0 Monitoring nutrient load reductions. The nutrient load reductions that have been
estimated for most of the options are listed in Table 2. These will continue to be
refined using new research and field data and local data sources to improve the
estimates of the impact of various practices. Monitoring programs are in place to

Statewide Summary Page 23

track point and nonpoint source nutrient loads, but these programs are being re-
examined to ensure that adequate information is being collected. In addition, the
watershed and water quality computer models, primary scientific tools for developing
the nutrient reduction strategies, are being refined to improve estimates of nutrient
loads and reductions in the watershed.

0 Monitoring status and trends in water quality, habitat, and living resources in
response to the Strategies. Many comments were received concerning the need to
adequately monitor water and habitat quality in each of the ten tributary watersheds.
Several existing programs will help us to evaluate the impact of the Strategies on
water quality and living resources in Maryland's portion of Bay watershed.

0 MDE's Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program tracks changes in
water and habitat quality in the mainstem of the Bay and the tidal portions of the
tributaries.

0 Stream habitat and living resources monitoring data are currently being collected
by DNR, MDE, and local jurisdictions. Biomonitoring can show changes in
pollution-sensitive organisms. Stream walks for habitat assessment help to
identify land use conditions that are harming aquatic resources. This information
can also be used to evaluate existing management practices or to target future
implementation of BMPs.

0 The Chesapeake Bay Program tracks the extent of Bay grass beds which have
shown rapid increase in some areas with improved water quality.

0 Volunteers conduct water quality monitoring and provide valuable information on
status and trends in many tributaries. The use of volunteers can be expanded to
assist government efforts.

These monitoring efforts are also being reexamined to ensure adequate tracking of the
Tributary Strategies. There is also a need to integrate these statewide programs with any
monitoring being conducted by local government agencies. One of the functions of the
Tributary Implementation Teams will be to ensure that the necessary integration of state and
local monitoring occurs.

All of these efforts will contribute to a reevaluation of the Tributary Strategies in 1997,
which will allow us to assess how much progress has been made toward the 40% goal and
what mid-course corrections may be needed.

Statewide Summary Page 24

Legacy

The Tributary Strategies present an opportunity for all of us who are concerned about the
Bay and the creeks and streams in our own backyards to work together to protect these
irreplaceable resources for ourselves and our children. The plight of the Bay illustrates that
every individual and every part of the economy have an impact on the Bay. The progress in
the Bay-clearer water, more striped bass, returning Bay grasses-illustrates the positive
results that can be achieved when governments, farmers, business, and active citizens work
together toward a common goal.

We are now faced with a difficult and critical challenge: building management strategies to
provide a legacy of healthy rivers with abundant living resources that sustain the very water
and food that each of us require to exist. The Tributary Strategy process aims to heighten
the awareness of the citizens of Maryland that their lives and livelihoods are enriched by the
Bay and its tributaries. This awareness will foster the actions needed today to ensure heal-thy
waters for tomorrow.

Statewide Summary Page 25

Glossary of Option Terms

1992 Planning Act Requires local governments to update comprehensive plans and
implementation development regulations to incorporate the seven environmental
principles or "visions" in the Act, protect sensitive areas,
streamline development approval procedures in growth areas,
and ensure that all development regulations are consistent with
comprehensive plans.

Animal waste Systems for the proper handling, storage and use of waste
management system generated by confined animal facilities. These include ponds,
lagoons, and tanks for liquid waste, and sheds or pits for solid
waste.

Animal waste runoff Measures to prevent runoff from animal confinement areas,
control including upslope diversions and directed downspouts to
minimize offsite water entering the facility.

Biological nutrient A temperature dependent process in which the ammonia nitrogen
removal (BNR) for present in raw wastewater is converted by bacteria first to
nitrogen nitrate nitrogen and then to nitrogen gas. Annual BNR refers to
the operation of this process for as much of the year as possible
in order to maximize nitrogen removal.

Chemical phosphorus The addition of chemicals to wastewater in order to
removal (CPR) precipitate phosphorus which is ultimately settled out and
removed with sewage sludge.

Clustering of new Voluntary or required measures to group new residential or
development other development on a smaller portion of the available land in
order to preserve open space.

Concentrating growth Reduces nutrient pollution by preserving open space and
reducing transportation needs.

Conservation tillage A process that uses tillage equipment to seed the crop directly
into the vegetative cover or crop residue on the surface, with
minimal soil disturbance.

Statewide Summary Page 26

Cover crops Small grains (rye, barley or wheat) planted in September or
early October on land otherwise fallow with no fertilizer
applied. Tins practice reduces nitrate leaching losses during the
winter, and also reduces erosion.

Critical Area Law Requires a special planning process for all lands within 1,000
implementation feet of tidal waters including the designation of three land use
categories (i.e., intensely developed areas, limited development
areas, and resource conservation areas) and the establishment of
a 100-foot vegetative buffer around the Bay.

Domestic animal waste A public education program targeted at pet owners to properly
dispose of pet waste.

Enhanced stormwater The regulatory requirement for the control of stormwater on all
management new development, including maintenance on new and existing
facilities. Enhancements include improved standards and
guidance emphasizing water quality controls in addition to water
quantity controls.

Erosion and sediment The regulatory requirement for erosion and sediment control
control on all new development over 5,000 square feet. Assumes that
the enhanced standards now being developed by MDE will be
fully implemented and enforced.

Forested buffer A linear strip of forest along rivers and streams that filters
nutrients and sediment and enhances stream habitat.

Forest conservation Implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, which requires
the retention of a portion of forested lands on any newly
developed site.

Forest harvesting Application of regulatory and voluntary best management
practices practices applied to timber harvests, including erosion and
sediment control, streamside management zones, etc.

Grassed buffer A linear strip of grass along rivers and streams that filters
nutrients and sediment.

Highly erodible land The removal of lands with a high potential for soil loss from
(HEL) retirement crop or hay production for at least ten years.

Statewide Summary Page 27

Highly erodible land An accelerated application of practices used in SCWQPs on
(HEL) treatment lands with a high potential for soil loss. (See definition of
SCWQP.)

Horse pasture The use of a range of practices to address erosion and animal
management waste problems on horse pasture operations in suburban to rural
areas.

Land easements/ Easements are voluntary, long-term restrictions on the permitted
acquisition uses on a parcel of land that remains in private ownership, and
are usually donated or purchased. Acquisition is the purchase of
land by a public or nonprofit agency for conservation purposes.

Marine pumpout A facility sited at marinas for pumping sewage from boat
holding tanks to a dockside storage facility.

Mine reclamation The restoration of lands disturbed by mining operations. May
include seeding of areas to grass, reforestation, or creation of
nontidal wetlands.

Nonstructural shore A practice for stabilizing eroding shorelines by establishing
erosion control marsh grasses; suitable for sites with lower wave energy. Also
creates wetland habitat.

Nutrient management A comprehensive plan to manage the amount, placement, timing
plan and application of animal waste, fertilizer, sludge, or other plant
nutrients.

Point source control See definition for BNR and CPR.

Pumpout education Boater education programs to encourage pumpout use and
responsible environmental behavior.

Presidedress soil A test to determine if additional nitrogen is needed during
nitrate test the growing season for corn.

Restoring aquatic The restoration of tidal and nontidal ecosystems to a healthy
ecosystems state which maximizes nutrient recycling and biological diversity
(e.g., oyster restoration, which is expected to improve water
quality in the Bay for many other living resources).

Statewide Summary Page 28

Roadside drainage system The use of buffers, stormwater controls, and maintenance
management requirements to achieve nutrient reductions from roadside
drainage systems.

Septic connections The connection of failing septic systems to sewer lines.

Septic denitrification The installation of new systems or retrofitting of existing
systems with technology to remove nitrogen from individual
systems.
Septic pump Pumping of individual septic systems once every three years, the
average for routine maintenance of these systems.

Soil conservation and A comprehensive plan addressing natural resource management
water quality plan on farmlands directed toward the control of erosion and
(SCWQP) implementation sediment loss and management of animal waste or agricultural
chemicals to minimize their movement from agricultural land to
surface waters.

Stormwater management Conversion of dry ponds for stormwater management to
conversion extended detention or retention facilities which are more
effective at nutrient removal.

Stormwater management Construction of stormwater management facilities on lands
retrofits previously developed without such facilities.

Stream corridor The use of a variety of tools (local ordinances, land acquisition
protection and easements, buffers, etc.) to protect streams and their buffers
for living resources, recreation, and other values.

Stream protection Fencing along streams to completely exclude livestock
with fencing from the stream. Also improves streambank stability and
reduces sedimentation.

Stream protection Providing troughs or other watering devices in remote
without fencing locations away from the stream to discourage animals from
entering the stream, and the provision of some fencing adjacent
to stream crossings to limit access points.

Statewide Summary Page 29

Stream stabilization/ May include a variety of practices, depending on the needs of
restoration the site, including streambank erosion controls, re-establishment
of riparian vegetation (see buffers), channel erosion control, in-
stream habitat creation/enhancement, and mitigation of upstream
pollution sources.

Structural shore A practice for stabilizing eroding shorelines using stone riprap
erosion control or timber bulkheads. Suitable for sites with high wave energy.

Tree planting Reforestation or afforestation on any site except along rivers and
streams (see Forested buffer).

Urban nutrient A public education program to reduce excess lawn fertilizer
management use, targeted at suburban residents and businesses.

Water management The use of water control structures, sediment basins, and/or
systems small constructed wetlands
to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen levels in water flowing
through farm drainage systems.

Wetland protection Protection of tidal and nontidal wetlands through federal and
state laws and planning processes.

Statewide Summary Page 30

.............. .. ........

..... .....

. .........
.... ... .. ....

...... .... . ..

.... .................... . .....
................... .. .....

..........
............ ....
.. .... ........
T V., i: -i- @ M-K

.. ...... ......... ....

.. .. ....... . . ...................................
.................... . ......
.................... ................. .... ... . ....
.................. . .....

... ....... ... ............
.... .................... ..........
.......... . .. .I.........,..................-.......,...-.,.........-:..'................I ......................
. ................. ............................... ............................

. I NO" COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
3 6668 14111464 7