[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.

           ï¿½      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.

           ï¿½      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.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

                                 14


                                 12


                                 10


                                 8

                           C
                           0
                                 6        -11
                                           M.
                                          W'        ..


                                 4

                                                                                                                        :@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:

           ï¿½      identifying the agencies and groups who will implement needed programs;

           ï¿½      refining implementation mechanisms and identifying the types and amount of
                  additional resources required;

           ï¿½      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