Chesapeake Bay, a framework for action

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

United States Region 3
BE A Environmental Protection Sixth and Walnut Streets
at E AP Agency Philadelphia, PA 19106 September 1983

CHESAPEAKE BAY:
A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

COASTAL ZO, 'E
INFORMATION CEINTER

APPENDICES
COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER

CHESAPEAKE BAY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

APPENDICES

September, 1983

COASTAL ZO?.'Tj2

INFORMATION CENTER

Property of csC Library

U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

PREFACE

This document includes the seven appendices to the report
Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. The report
and its appendices describe the state of the Bay, pollutant sources
and loadings, and alternative management strategies for improving the
environmental quality of the Bay.

CONTENTS

Preface ...............................

Appendix A

A-ll
Figures .............................

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-iv

Section

1 Introduction .....................A-

2 Development of a Classification System for Nutrients A-3

3 Insights Gained from the Literature ....... . . . A-18

4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Nutrients ......A-23

5 Nutrients, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fisheries ......A-24

6 Methodology for Developing Degree of Metal A-30
Contamination .....................

7 Discussion and Conclusions ...............A-35

8 Literature Cited ...................A-38

Appendix B

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B -iii

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-vi

Section

1 Population Methodology and Data ......B-

2 Land-Use Methodology and Data .......B-2

3 Methodologies for the Costs of Point Source Controls. � B-50

4 Description of the Chesapeake Basin Model .......B-3

B-58
5 Summary of Modeling Results for Existing Conditions .B�

6 Methodologies for Estimating Point source Nutrient
B-62
Loads and Point Source Inventory Data ........

7 Phosphorus Ban Nutrient Load Reductions and Costs B-67

iii~~~~~~~~B6

8 Alternative Nutrient Controls .....B-79

9 Estimated Costs and Percent Changes in Nutrient Loads
for Different Management Strategies . B-.0

10 Detailed Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads B-97

11 Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater
Flow ......................... B-106

12 Literature Cited .B-115

Appendix C

Figures ......................... C-ill

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-iv

Section

1 Summary of Agricultural Activities in Maryland and
C-1
Pennsylvania ....................
C-11
2 Agricultural Activities and Trends by River Basin . .

C-38
3 Control Options ...................

4 Administrative Alternatives .. C-4.1

C-48
5 Literature Cited ...................

Attachment

1 Maryland Resources Conservation Act Executive Summary C1

2 Pennsylvania Resources Conservation Act Executive

C-2-1
Summary . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .C-1

3 Chesapeake Ba) Program District Worksheet .......

Appendix D

Figures ............................. D-iii

Tables.Di
D-iv

Section

1 Chlorine .......................D-1

2 Biological Monitoring .................D-9

3 Fingerprint File .................... D-14

4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D-16
4 Data to Calculate Metal Loads . ......

5 Methods for Calculating Copper Loadings from
Anti-Fouling Paints ..................

6 Industrial Metal Loads for 1980 ...........D-21

7 Literature Cited ..................D-25

Appendix E

Figures ............................. E-iii

Tables .............................. E-iv

Section

1 Federal Control Programs ............... E-1

2 State Water Quality Programs ............. E-20

3 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Problem Areas and
Ongoing Water Quality Management Projects in Chesapeake
Bay Region by State .................. E-53

4 Literature Cited ...................

Appendix F

Foreword ............................ F-ii

Executive Summary ....................... F-iv

Figures ............................. F-vi

Tables .............................. F-viii

Introduction ......... . ................. F-1

Section

1 The Need for a Bay-wide Monitoring Strategy ...... F-4

2 The Theory Behind the Plan .............. F-7

3 The Plan ....................... F-23

4 Literature Cited ................... F-28

Attachment

1 Major Problems with Past (and Present) Monitoring
Efforts and Data Collection ....... F-i-i

2 Hypothesis Testing .................. F-2-1

3 Summary of Present Monitoring Activities ...... .-3-1

4 Chesapeake Bay Biological Resource-Monitoring Data F-4-1
Acquisition and Analysis Requirements and Recommendations

5 Volunteer Monitoring Program ............. F-5-1

6 Baseline Monitoring ..................

A Suggested Monitoring/Management Strategy for
Nutrients, Oxygen, and Oysters in the Main Stem of F-7-
Chesapeake Bay .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

8 A Description of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in
Upper Chesapeake Bay from 1971 to 1981 and the Resulting F-8-1
Management and Monitoring Recommendations .......

Appendix G

Section

I Introduction ..................... G-1

2 The Chesapeake Bay Commission ............. G-2

3 The Bi-State Working Committee for Chesapeake Bay and
Coastal Areas of Maryland and Virginia ........ G-6

4 The Chesapeake Research Consortium .......... G-10

5 The Chesapeake Bay Research Board and Office of
Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination .......... C-12

6 The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin C-15

7 The Susquehanua River Basin Commission ........ G-19

8 The Potomac River Fisheries Commission ..G. -22

9 The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission . . .. G-24

APPENDIX A

AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY: A FRAMEWORK

Robert B. Biggs
David A. Flemer
Willa A. Nehlsen

CONTENTS

Figures...............................

Tables ................................

Section

1 Introduction .. ......................A-

2 Development of a Classification System for Nutrients .A-.

3 Insights Gained from the Literature .. ...........A-

4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Nutrients.. .......A-'

5 Nutrients, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fisheries .. .......A-:

6 Methodology for Developing Degree of Metal Contamination A--'

7 Discussion and Conclusions . .A-...: ....

8 Literature Cited......................A-'

A-iu

FIGURES

Figure 1. Correlation between percent vegetated stations and annual
total nitrogen of the previous year ...........A-4

Figure 2. The response of submerged aquatic vegetation in
experimental ponds to various loading rates of nitrogen
and phosphorus ...................... A-5

Figure 3a. Conceptual relation between nitrogen concentration and the
N/P ratio illustrating the limiting nutrient concept . . . A-6

Figure 3b. Management alternatives for modifying water quality . A-6

Figure 4. Potomac summertime phosphorus concentration versus N/P
ratio .......................... A-8

Figure 5. N/P ratios for the tidal-fresh segments of Chesapeake Bay
and tributaries ..................... A-9

Figure 6. Wastewater nutrient enrichment trends and ecological
effects on the upper Potomac ridal river system 1913 to
1970 ........................... A-20

Figure 7. Volume of water in Chesapeake Bay with low levels oi
dissolved oxygen, 1950 to 1980 .............. A-25

Figure 8. Oxygen decrease per unit salinity increase at stations
848E and 845F in July 1949 to 1980 ............ A-26

Figure 9. Degrees of metal contamination in the Bay based on the
Contamination Index (Ci) ................ A-31

Figure 10. Toxicity Index of surface sediments in Chesapeake Bay A-34

A-il

TABLES

Table 1. Maximum and Minimum Seasonal Nitrogen (TN) and Phosphorus
(TP) concentration in Chesapeake Bay Segments During the
Period 1970 to 1980. ..................A-1i

Table 2. Frequency of Occurrence of Nitrogen or Phosphorus as a
Potentially Limiting Nutrient for Phytoplankton .....A-17

Table 3. Annual Range in concentration of Several phosphorus and
Nitrogen Fractions from Surface Waters of Selected Areas
in the Patuxent River for the Periods from 1963 to 1964
and 1963 to 1968. ....................A-21

Table 4. Estimate of Nutrient Recycling for Chesapeake Bay . . . . A-28

Table 5. Area of Chesapeake Bay Bottom Affected by Low Dissolved2
Oxygen (DO) Waters in summer. ..............A-29

Table 6. Some Relationships Between Living Resources, System A3
Features, Nutrients, and Toxic M~aterials .A6 . I

Table 7. A Framework for the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Quality
Classification Scheme. .................A-37

A-iv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

Human intervention in aquatic systems must be regulated to protect the
environmental quality of waters. The extent to which such intervention is
controlled has traditionaly been determined by a combination of
technological and use-based controls. The framework discussed here permits
the continued use of technology-based controls; however, consideration of
use-based controls will be amplified because the need and availabile
information indicates that water quality, a surrogate for use designations,
is now useful and appropriate for Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries.

In the Bay system an effective approach is to emphasize specific
environmental quality goals for waters based on the uses desired of them.
For example, an oystering area should have different environmental quality
goals than a harbor. Quality criteria, where practical, should be related
to a range of environmental goals, so that the addition of materials can be
tailored to comply with the best uses of the waters. The advantage of this
approach is that criteria can be defended for selected materials because
they support attainment of specific uses.

Relationships between pollutant concentrations and biological effects
in estuaries are not well understood scientifically. Estuaries are complex
because of their congruent marine and fluvial influences. As better
definition occurs between ecological processes and patterns of observable
phenomena, it is anticipated that this proposed framework will provide the
basis for evolving what is now a static characterization of ecological
relationships into a dynamic framework. However, the present state-of-
the-art suggests that simple linear approximations of inherently non-linear
processes is a reasonable place to begin the process of data organization.
The calculus of an Environmental Quality Classification Scheme (EQCS) must
await further scientific understanding of the Day as an ecosystem (U.S. EPA
1982a; also Appendix F, this document). For this reason, the EQCS is
likely to be greatly improved in the future as our scientific understanding
increases. Although imperfect, this tool provides guidance for management
decisions and suggests areas needing scientific study.

RATIONALE

Users of the environmental quality classification scheme may infer that
attainment of a criterion value will result in meeting its associated
objectives. However, attaining criterion values can never assure that
environmental objectives will be met because criterion values are analogous
to limiting factors. In the same sense that adding nutrients will not
stimulate phytoplankton growth if light is limiting, attaining water
quality criterion values will not promote development of a desired
r ~~~biological resource if some other factor limits its well-being. Thus, the
proper interpretation of water quality criteria is that their attainment
will not guarantee that environmental objectives will be met; on the other
hand, water quality inferior to criterion values will not support the
environmental objectives.

A-i

When water quality criteria are developed in association with
environmental objectives, the criteria must be seen as a composite rather I
than as a set of isolated variables. This concept represents a significant
advance over our previous notion of criteria as single isolated variables.
It is a holistic approach that accounts for the interaction of many factors
in supporting biological resources (i.e., an ecosystem perspective).

Criterion values are based on the attainment of a given use. Because
of the high salt content in the estuary, the water is seldom considered for
drinking purposes, except in the tidal-fresh zone. However, recreation and
various fisheries and their supporting food-webs rank high among the
traditional uses, especially for Chesapeake Bay and tidal waters. it is in
this context that the discussion of the development of a framework for an
environmental quality classification scheme will be focussed.

The framework is probably most reliably applied to situations in which
the environmental objective is to maintain uses at their existing level or
to permit some degradation. These situations are better documented with
data. There is less certainty in applying water quality criteria to
improve uses because there are less data to describe such situations. it
is not known how much time is required for a system to recover once uses
have been lost, nor is it known when a system is so degraded that it is
technically impossible to restore certain uses to it. The classification
scheme is probably most reliable under normal climatic conditions. Effects
of extreme conditions and catastrophic events are not accounted for.

OBJECTIVE

In this appendix, a framework for a classification scheme for nitrogen
and phosphorus is developed, relying on the relative difference between
segments of the Bay to develop a continuum. Deep-water anoxia in the main4
Bay is discussed and first order estimates of its importance, biological
consequences, and possible causes and controls are offered. For toxic
components in sediments, the contamination index developed in the
characterization report (Flemer et al. 1983) is used to rank segments
against pre-Colonial metal concentrations. In both the nutrient and
sedimentary toxic schemes, more emphasis is placed on nutrients as compared
to toxic substances because we have more information to relate nutrients to
biological efforts. An attempt is made to qualitatively relate important
ecological thresholds, but the schemes are not combined.

A- 2

SECTION 2

DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASSIFICTION SYSTEM FOR NUTRIENTS

To derive water quality ranks, several analytical approaches were
attempted. First, the Vollenweider function (Vollenweider 1968) for each
tidal-fresh segment, as well as for CB-I and CB-2, was computed using
historic nutrient loadings (corrected for changing population, point
sources, land use, and fertilizer application rate) from 1950 to 1980.
Residence time for each segment was computed using plug flow, salt-water
fraction, and modified tidal-prism methods. The loads of total nitrogen
(TN), total phosphorus (TP), and the inorganic and organic fractions, were
regressed against observed concentrations of chlorophyll a, dissolved
oxygen (DO), and nutrient concentrations in the respective segments. No
statistically significant relations were found and the method was
abandoned.

A second approach, involving retrospective analysis of water quality
and resources, was attempted. Water quality parameters were correlated
against estuarine resources such as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), tile
juvenile fisheries index, and fish landings. When a statistically
significant correlation exists between water quality and resources, a
causal relationship may exist. These correlations are discussed in detail
in Flemer et al. 1983.
Figures I and 2 illustrate the kinds of relationships that can be
demonstrated between water quality parameters and resources from historical
field data (Figure 1) and from laboratory mesocosm data (Figure 2). The
problem with a classification scheme based on such relationships is that
both the water quality and the resource variables may co-vary with an
unknown and uncontrollable variable such as climate. Further, resources
may be affected by management practices; water quality may be affected by a
change in land use. It was concluded that correlative retrospective
analysis can provide only a first-order estimate of the relationship
between living resources and environmental quality. The correlations which
F ~~~were obtained could not be inverted; that is, the degree to which improving
water quality will restore resources cannot be quantified. Thus, the
possible causal relationship must be developed independently of simple
correlations before the simple approach can be used with confidence.

The third attempt to develop a classification schem~e involved the use
of seasonal TN and TP concentrations in the water column as a relative
index of water quality. This scheme avoids explicit correlations between
water quality parameters and resources, yet permits qualitative comparisons
between them. Thus, a tidal-freshawater segment might be classified as
"P'atuxent-like" or "Rappahannock-like" on the basis of nitrogen or
p ~~~phosphorus concentrations. The approach assumes that major system features
(i.e., flushing time, sediment type, tidal-marsh development, etc.)
approximate each other between the tidal-freshwater Patuxent and
Rappahannock River segments.

Total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations have long been used
as indicators of environmental quality in aquatic systems (Jaworski 1981).
The CBP attempted to evaluate estuarine water quality on the basis of N and
P concentrations and the NIP (atomic) ratio, as illustrated in Figure 3.

A-3

50 -

A ET-4
ET=Eastern Tributary
Go WT=Western Tributary ;
q- - CB=Chesapeake Bay
EE= Eastern Embayment
c WT-7
E0-IA DEE-I DSpring
sO EE-1 ^ \ [ EE-1I
" 25 - A Summer

\ A~WT~ET-5

So rt n itre- of previous year 1977)

Seasonal total nitrogen of previous year (1977)
(mglL)

Figure 1. Correlation between percent vegetated stations and annual total nitrogen
of previous year.

A-4
q!

NUTRIENT LOADING EFFECTS ON MACROPHYTE BIOMASS

II
11 X

* no effect
/-
12.5 - _ biomass decreased '
X biomass eliminated _

10.

m 7.5.
/

-
~~~< ..~- */.-TN concentration = 0.7 mg L-1
O
5.0. /
= /
CC

2.5- /

O /+ * & . . , // ,*
0~~

0 eeI a , , J H
0 30 60 90 120 360

NITROGEN LOADING, u MOLE WEEK-1

Figure 2. The response of submerged aquatic vegetation in experimental ponds to
various loading rates of nitrogen and phosphorus (Kemp et al. 1982).

A-5

30 lP is oLimiting

._ 30

o 20 - N & P increasing at the same rate (NIP= 16)

10 N- S'rIh Limiting

0
0O -1-i
N (mg L-1 )

Figure 3a. Conceptual relation between nitrogen concentration and the N/P ratio
illustrating the limiting nutrient concept.

?~~~~~~~~~~~~~

40 -�

20 N & P increasing at the same rate (N/P= 16)

10_
E . I

0
N (mg L )

Figure 3b. Management alternatives for modifying water quality.

A-6

Plots of this kind have two distinct advantages. First, specific
concentrations or concentration ranges of ecological significance can be
labeled on the concentration axis, permitting water quality managers to
visualize concentration (not load) reductions necessary to make a
Patuxent-like segment into a Rappahannock-like segment. Second, the N/P
ratio provides a first-order estimate of the nutrient that is potentially
limiting phytoplankton production. It is critical to recognize here that
the forms in which N and P present may be more important than the total
concentrations and that other factors, such as turbidity, may actually be
limiting phytoplankton growth. For a detailed discussion of the factors
affecting phytoplankton growth and productivity, see Smullen et ai.
(1982). Phytoplankton, on the average, incorporate N and P in the ratio of
16:1 (by atoms), but that ratio can vary from 10:1 to 20:1 (the shaded area
on Figures 3a and b). When the data from specific segments are plotted on
such a diagram, the manager can see which nutrient is potentially limiting
(above the shaded zone, P is potentially limiting; below the shaded zone N
is potentially limiting). If the management objective is reduction of
phytoplankton growth by limiting nutrients, and nitrogen is presently
limiting production, then one can reduce the ambient N concentration from
the field marked A to the concentration field marked B (Figure 3b).
Suppose, however, that N cannot be controlled; then one can reduce P,
increasing the N/P ratio and forcing P to become limiting. Such a
hypothetical scheme is also illustrated in Figure 3b where the initial, and
if one supposes, the undesirable envelope of concentration is the field
marked A, and the desired (or at least acceptable) field is marked C. To
get from the situation in A to the situation in C without changing the
concentration of N, one must reduce the concentration of P. A critical
caveat must be mentioned; the static nature of N/P ratios fails to give
information on the flux of these nutrient forms among the various
environmental compartments (i.e., particulate living and non-living and
dissolved organic and inorganic materials.)

A real example of the hypothetical scenario outlined above involves the
Potomac River. By 1970, the tidal-fresh portion of the river received
11,000 kg day-1 of P and 27,000 kg day-1 of N from wastewater loading.
Advanced wastewater treatment processes, initiated in 1974, were designed
to remove P from the wastewater flow. By 1979, the wastewater load of
phosphorus to the tidal-fresh Potomac had been reduced to 2,400 kg
day-1. The summertime concentrations of phosphorus, plotted against the
N/P ratio for the tidal-fresh Potomac, are illustrated in Figure 4. The
plot shows how the N concentration and N/P ratio changed with institution
of the treatment practices. The plot also shows that, despite accumulation
of N and P in bottom sediments and their release to the water column, the
tidal-fresh Potomac responded rapidly (45 years) and positively to the
pollution control strategy. Figure 4 illustrates the decline in TP
concentration coincident with, and principally caused by, phosphorus
removal from sewage effluents. As phosphorus removal continued, the ratio
of N/P doubled.

The data points for all tidal-fresh segments of Chesapeake Bay
tributaries, and CB-1, WT-5, and ET-1-4 are illustrated, for summertime
(June, July and August), in Figure 5. The York and Rappahannock plot in
the lower left portion of the graph form a distinct contrast to the Back
River plot. Clearly, estuarine water quality managers can see two
strategies for the Patuxent, for example. The Patuxent is potentially

A-7

40.0
0 76
.- 37.5 76
0
35.0

, - 32.5
0
079
.n 30.0 7
O 0 78
- 27.5 -78
25.0 @-*77 � 75
cu 25.0
'- 22.5 - � 72
- � 68
no 20.0
0
17.5 - 73
074
- 15.0 @ 71
+- 469
� 12.5 1-

10.0 ' '
0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.49

Total Phosphorus (MGIL AS P)

Figure 4. Potomac summertime phosphorus concentration versus N/P ratio.

SAV's Phytoplankton Massive
Abundant Dominant. Algal Blooms
80

71D ; \TP=O. 1mg L-'

60 Season: Summer Upper Main Bay
50 7 1977-1980
c~a 50). \ / TP=0.15 mg L-'

40/ . /
0

z I ! , . . York/ Potomac Patuxent
20\ and ABack River
Eastern Bay Rappahannock

Lower By

0.0 ,

0 0.6 t.0 .8 2.2 3.4
Tolal Nitrogen (MIglL as N)

Figure 5. N/P ratios for the tidal-fresh segments of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.

nitrogen limited during the warm season, and a reduction of nitrogen
concentration from about 2.6 mg L-1(the center of most of the "data
cloud") to 0.6 or 0.7 mg L-1 could make the tidal-fresh Patuxent become
Rappahannock-like. Alternatively, the ambient nitrogen concentration could
be maintained and phosphorus could be reduced from ambient concentrations
of 0.4 mg L-1 to 0.15 mg L-1 to achieve a water quality status like the
post-1974 Potomac in the summertime.

The N/P ratio does not consider historic (pre-1968) N or P
concentrations, relying instead on the "most desirable" defined as "most
desirable at present." Because both the York and Rappahannock Rivers
receive nonpoint source loads from agricultural activities, there is reason
to believe that neither of them are pristine, or as low in nutrient loads
as they were in the past. The N/P ratio, though of utility to managers in
predicting concentration reductions, does not provide data on load
reductions necessary to achieve the desired concentration reductions. The
N/P ratio also does not explicitly link resources to N or P, except in a
qualitative way.

Table 1 illustrates a summary of the TN, TP, N/P ratio, and potential
limiting nutrient for all segments of the Bay during the decade from 1970
to 1980 for each season (except winter, for which insufficient data are
available). Table 2 provides the frequency distribution data on the 734
paired nitrogen and phosphorus data points by season. Phosphorus is always
the principal potential limiting nutrient while nitrogen is potentially
limiting less than 10 percent of the time during any season. Almost all of
the cases of potential nitrogen limitation occur in the Patuxent, Potomac,
James, Rappahannock, and York Rivers. In the first three rivers, both TN
and TP are high; in the latter two cases, both TN and TP are in low
concentrations.

A-10

_ w -- - -- *w IF -W -- -- r-r -v - . s - U Y Y - ~ V I P - - V * . - r - - q --v -* - *,-- -_- - _ - _

TABLE 1. MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SEASONAL NITROGEN (TN) AND PHOSPHORUS (TP) CONCENTRATIONS IN
CHESAPEAKE BAY SEGMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 1970-1980. CONCENTRATIONS IN mg L-1,
N/P BY ATOMS

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn(Sept.,Oct.,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limit1

CB1 max. .20 2.17 66 P(10) .14 1.89 59 P(9) .23 1.61 80 P(8)
min. .05 1.16 25 .04 .87 17 ?(1) .04 1.02 13 ?(1)

CB2 max. .22 2.08 84 P(10) .16 1.34 59 P(10) .19 2.00 92 P(8)
min. .04 1.12 22 .03 .74 19 ?(1) .04 .99 11 ?(1)

CB3 max. .36 2.16 69 P(10) .18 1.47 53 P(8) .10 1.82 77 P(1)
min. .05 1.06 12 ?(1) .04 .45 12 ?(3) .02 .72 23

CB4 max. .15 1.49 77 P(10) .16 .97 44 P(7) .17 .93 34 P(9)
min. .03 .87 22 .04 .38 12 ?(3) .04 .44 6 N(1)

CB5 max. .15 1.38 278 P(8) .15 1.03 73 P(6) .10 .81 37 P(6)
min. .01 .70 21 .02 .34 12 ?(2) .03 .45 15 ?(2)

CB6,7,8 -------------------------------Insufficient data---

Eastern Bay
EEl max. .12 .81 32 P(2) .08 .66 27 P(2) .10 .74 24 P( )
min. .05 .53 14 ?(2) .05 .36 14 ?(3) .05 .53 15 ?( )

Choptank
EE2 max. .19 .65 22 P(1) .09 .88 34 P(3) .06 .43 22 P(1)
?(1)
min. .04 .35 7 N(1) .04 .58 17 ?(1) .04 .38 14 ?(1)

(continued)

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn(Sept.,Oct.,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limi t

Pocomoke Sound
EE3 max. .06 .89 34 P(4) .10 1.06 38 P(5) .08 1.12 42 P(3)
min. .05 .75 29 .04 .64 20 .05 .47 15 ?(2)

NE River
ET1 max. .11 1.42 63 P(7) .17 1.43 44 P(7) .26 1.21 70 P(5)
min. .05 1.13 28 .04 .45 15 ?(1) .03 .41 11 ?(2)

Elk River
ET2 max. .60 2.62 61 P(7) .16 1.69 38 P(8) .11 2.72 97 P(7)
min. .06 1.43 14 ?(1) .06 .95 21 .05 .94 41

Sassafras
ET3 max.' 1.4 1.98 81 P(7) .11 1.49 38 P(5) .16 1.31 34 P(5)
min. .04 .87 3 N(1) .06 .58 17 ?(2) .05 .55 19 ?(1)

Chester
ET4 max. .64 2.67 38 P(3) .20 1.84 47 P(4) .30 1.50 29 P(2)
?(1) ?(1) ?(4)
min. .07 1.25 9 N(1) .05 .54 10 N(1) .06 .50 8 N(1)

ET5 max. .41 2.32 59 P(6) .16 2.92 78 P(7) .41 2.05 110 P(6)
min. .06 1.30 13 ?(1) .07 .79 17 ?(1) .04 .85 8 N(1)

ET6 max. .70 2.19 91 P(6) .14 1.61 46 P(5) .14 2.01 59 P(5)
min. .04 1.53 7 N(1) .04 .43 17 ?(1) .04 .98 21

ET7 max. .21 3.07 99 P(6) .40 2.64 44 P(4) .38 1.81 51 P(4)
min. .07 1.91 29 .08 .68 15 ?(2) .07 1.10 9 N(1)

(Continued)

-~~~~~~~~~ -U ~ -iL-P ~i.~1L~~1-_�- L - I - -1 -YI

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn(Sept.,Oct.,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl

ET8 max. .05 1.10 50 P(2) .08 .67 35 P(2) No data
min. .04 .44 25 .03 .46 18 ?(1)

ET9 max. No data .05 .73 33 P(2) No data
min. .03 .34 22

ET10 max. .21 2.00 53 P(5) .54 1.77 36 P(3) .15 1.57 44 P(2)
?(3)
min. .08 .89 20 .08 .44 7 N(1) .05 .66 14 ?(3)

WT1 max. .08 2.34 107 P(2) .22 2.98 71 P(3) .05 3.32 190 P(3)
min. .05 1.58 42 .05 1.20 31 .04 2.03 86

WT2 max. .07 1.77 90 P(4) .18 2.20 125 P(7) .07 1.91 82 P(6)
min. .03 1.15 50 .04 1.01 26 .04 .89 29

WT3 max. .06 1.47 72 P(4) .07 .80 30 P(2) .07 .82 47 P(1)
min. .03 .47 36 .06 .28 11 ?(3) .04 .35 15 ?(3)

WT4 max. .45 6.32 220 P(4) .31 5.32 58 P(4) .39 7.28 66 P(3)
min. .04 3.89 25 .21 2.25 16 ?(1) .15 1.76 12 ?(2)

WT5 max. .21 2.49 83 P(9) .21 2.24 68 P(7) .15 1.93 77 P(7)
min. .06 1.50 27 .07 1.97 18 ?(2) .06 .67 20 ?(1)

WT6 max. .10 1.31 150 P(4) .12 1.12 35 P(2) .12 1.35 42 P(3)
min. .02 .87 20 .03 .45 12 ?(2) .04 .35 13 ?(2)

(Continued)

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn(Sept.,Oct.,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limit1 TP TN N/P Limit1 TP TN N/P Limitl

WT7 max. .12 1.17 62 P(5) .10 1.46 114 P(5) .13 2.14 75 P(2)
?(3)
min. .03 .26 12 ?(1) .02 .45 15 ?(1) .06 .46 9 N(2)

WT8 max. .08 1.62 62 P(5) .22 1.40 50 P(2) .16 1.16 22 P(2)
?(4) ?(2)
min. .04 .75 29 .06 .34 6 N(2) .08 .45 9 N(2)

TF1 max. 1.98 2.56 23 P(1) 2.02 4.19 29 P(1) 1.22 4.14 16 ?(6)
?(6) ?(6)
min. .16 1.49 2 N(1) .22 1.37 1 N(1) .41 1.71 3 N(2)

TF2 max. .26 2.07 40 P(7) .35 2.48 39 P(7) .46 2.87 45 P(8)
min. .08 1.42 17 ?(4) .11 1.02 15 ?(4) .10 1.17 14 ?(2)

TF3 max. No data No data .12 1.11 22 P(1)
min. .09 .68 15 ?(3)

TF4 max. .15 .82 38 P(1) .22 1.01 28 P(1) .13 .76 17 ?(6)
?(1) ?(4)
min. .05 .24 5 N(3) .07 .57 8 N(3) .07 .44 11

TF5 max. .18 1.62 37 P(3) .20 1.96 31 P(4) .37 2.30 39 P(4)
?(4) ?(5) ?(5)
min. .10 .74 8 N(2) .10 .84 10 .10 .51 8 N(1)

RET1 max. .14 1.36 21 P(1) .18 .99 15 ?(1) .16 .77 12 ?(1)
min. .13 .68 11 ?(1) .11 .25 5 N(2) .15 .51 7 N(1)

(Continued)

-~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~I, I. �-r -" -,__,�� .

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn(Sept.,Oct.,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limitl

RET2 max. .25 2.20 42 P(9) .23 2.52 44 P(4) .24 1.72 44 P(5)
?(6)
min. .09 1.02 13 ?(2) .08 .63 9 N(1) .09 .65 12 ?(5)

RET3 max. .19 1.13 15 ?(4) .16 1.45 33 P(1) .13 .80 16 ?(4)
min. .11 .73 13 .10 .54 11 ?(3) .08 .53 14

RET4 max. .16 .67 19 ?(2) .13 .57 13 ?(2) .15 .76 18 ?(4)
min. .07 .29 7 N(4) .10 .53 9 N(1) .09 .36 9 N(1)

RET5 max. .11 1.67 51 P(3) .15 1.20 34 P(4) .20 1.30 30 P(2)
?(3)
min. .07 .72 14 ?(1) .08 .87 15 ?(2) .10 .40 9 N(2)

LE1 max. .18 1.36 25 P(1) .27 .97 22 P(1) .13 .59 14 ?(1)
?(2) ?(1)
min. .07 .43 9 N(1) .06 .24 3 N(3) .09 .43 7 N(1)

LE2 max. .10 1.18 45 P(5) .11 1.30 47 P(3) .11 .86 28 P(2)
?(5) ?(2)
min. .05 .49 18 ?(2) .06 .29 7 N(1) .05 .32 9 N(1)

LE3 max. .13 1.42 65 P(2) No data .30 .87 32 P(2)
?(2)
min. .05 .46 11 ?(2) .04 .48 6 N(1)

(Continued)

TABLE 1. (Continued)

Spring(March,April,May) Summer(June,July,Aug.) Autumn( Sept. ,Oct. ,Nov.)

Segment TP TN N/P Limit' TP TN N/P Limitl TP TN N/P Limit1

LE4 max. No data .09 .51 13 ?(2) .09 .77 24 P(1)
?(2)
min. .06 .36 12 .07 .27 8 N(1)

LE5 max. .12 1.09 24 P(3) .11 1.06 24 P(3) .15 1.17 27 P(4)
?(3) ?(3)
min. .10 .61 11 ?(3) .08 .17 4 N(1) .08 .39 9 N(1)

1 "Limit" determines potential phytoplankton limiting nutrient defined as follows:

(a) If N/P (atoms) C 10, then N is limiting [symbol is "N", (#) is frequency].
(b) If 10 C N/P$ 20, then limiting nutrient is indeterminate [symbol is ?, (#)
is frequencyl.
(c) If N/P ,.20, then P is limiting [symbol is "P", (#) is frequency]. See
discussion of assumptions.

- --_ L _ _L _

TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF NITROGEN OR PHOSPHORUS AS A POTENTIALLY
LIMITING NUTRIENT FOR PHYTOPLANKTON. ALL DATA IN CBP DATA BASE FOR
1970 TO 1980

Season Spring Sumamer Autumn
Nutrient (Mar., April, May) (June, July, Aug.) (Sept., Oct., Nov.) TOTALS

TN1 15 ( 6%) 17 ( 7%) 20 ( 8%) 52 ( 7%)
?2 42 (18%) 83 (32%) 81 (34%) 206 (28%)
TP3 179 (76%) 158 (61%) 139 (58%) 476 (65%)

TOTALS 236 258 240 734

Nitrogen is defined as potentially limiting when N/P (by atoms) is less than
or equal to 10.
2The potentially limiting nutrient is indeterminate when N/P (by atoms) falls
in the range of less than or equal to 20 and greater than 10.
3Phosphorus is defined as potentially limiting when N/P (by atoms) is greater
than 20.

A-17

SECTION 3

INSIGHTS GAINED FROM THE LITERATURE

NUTRIENTS AND PHYTOPLANKTONIC STANDING CROPS

Ketchum (1969) analyzed a large body of data and concluded that
phosphorus enrichment in estuaries should be considered at a danger level
when concentrations approach 2.55 ug of L-1 (0.079 mg L-1) in winter
and 1.7 ug of L-1 (0.053 mg L-1) in summer. Carpenter et al. (1969)
found that when Potomac River concentrations of nitrate reached 100 to 150
ug atoms per liter (1.4 to 2.1 mg L-1) and phosphorus levels reached 5 ug
atoms per liter (0.155 mg L-1) (high flow) or when nitrate reached 50 to
70 ug atoms per liter (0.90 to 0.98 mg L-1) and phosphate reached 3 to 5
ug atoms per liter (0.093 to 0.155 mg L-l) (low flow), high
concentrations of chlorophyll were produced by Microcytis aeruginosa which
floats to form highly visual discolorations and collects on the shoreline
in unatt ractive mats. The conditions were also accompanied by a more
pronounced decrease in dissolved oxygen ('I ml L-1) at depth in the
Potomac River than occurred at depth in the upper Chesapeake.

Jaworski et al. (1972), reviewing historical data for the upper Potomac
estuary, indicated that if the concentrations of inorganic phosphorus and
inorganic nitrogen were at or above 0.1 and 0.5 mg L-1, respectively,
algal blooms of approximately 50 ug L-1 or more were considered
indicative of excessive algal growths. Studies of the James River estuary,
a sister estuary to the Potomac, by Brehmer (1967), indicate that nitrogen
appears to be the rate-limiting nutrient.

Based upon several analyses, including bioassays and algal modeling,
Jaworski et al. (1972) developed the following criteria for reversing
eutrophication in the freshwater portion of the tidal Potomac River:

Inorganic nitrogen 0.30 to 0.5 mg L-1
Total phosphorus 0.03 to 0.1 mg L-1

These authors indicate that:

The lower values in these ranges are to be applied to the freshwater
portion of the middle reach and to the embayment portions of the
estuary in which the environmental conditions are more favorable for
algal growth. The upper ranges of the criteria are more applicable to
the upper reach of the Potomac estuary, which has a light-limited
eutrophic zone of usually less than 0.6 m in depth.

Studies of the mesohaline portion of the Potomac estuary showed a
relatively sharp transition from freshwater to a typical mesohaline
environment. At the upper end of the 35 km transition zone at Maryland
Point there are primarily freshwater phytoplankton and zooplankton
populations. Above Maryland Point, the salinities are less than two
percent. Predominantly marine forms dominate the lower end of the
transition zone at the Route 301 Bridge, with salinities in summer
approximating 12 ppt. Based on five years of field studies, it appears
that the growth of massive blue-green algal mats are apparently
restricted to the freshwater portions. In the mesohaline environment,
dinoflagellates were often encountered in "red tide" proportions.

A-18

These observations lead to two points of emphasis in estuarine
water quality management: 1) fairly discrete biotic provinces may be
identified within a given reach of the estuary, responding differently
to a given stress; and 2) there is insufficient evidence to date to
generalize on nutrient parameters and hypertrophic conditions in all
portions of a given estuary. Therefore, at the present time no
specific nutrient criteria have been established for the mesohaline
portion of the Potomac estuary.

Figure 6 shows important historical changes in nutrient enrichment
trends and ecological changes for the upper tidal Potomac from 1913 to 1970
(Jaworski et al. 1972). The nutrient concentrations in the upper estuary
under summer conditions before 1920 were estimated to be from 0.04 to 0.07
mg L-1 of phosphorus with inorganic nitrogen ranging from 0.15 to 0.30 m&
L-1. With a reversion to these concentrations, not only should there be
a significant reduction in the blue-green algal population but there should
also be a general reversal in the ecological succession of the community.

The Patuxent River estuary showed large increases in the levels of
nitrate-nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphate-phosphorus between 1963
to 1964 and 1968 to 1970 (Flemer et al. 1970, Herman et al. 1967). Table 3
compares the available data on nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll a for
these two study periods. Salinities were approximately similar between
years at stations used in the comparison. Thus, physical dispersion is
assumed to be roughly similar for each study. Nitrate-nitrogen increased
significantly over the six-year period at the upper and lower river
stations, respectively. The greatest relative increases occurred in the
higher saline waters. A smaller increase was noted in phosphate between
the two periods. Chlorophyll a levels approximated each other over the two
study periods at Lower Marlboro but a significant increase occurred at
Queentree Landing from 1963 to 1964 and 1968 to 1970. If it is assumed
that the 1968 to 1970 chlorophyll a normalized to uncorrected values would
increase 'by 30 percent, than the increase in chlorophyll a is more striking.

The data on the Patuxent River estuary are intended to show that the
system responded rapidly to nutrient enrichment. Later studies (Heinle et
al. 1980) have shown even higher levels of nutrients and chlorophyll a.
The highest nitrate levels occurred during the winter and approximately a
four-fold increase between 1963 to 1964 and 1968 to 1970 in nitrate at
comparable salinities (a measure of dilution) was indicative of a six- to
seven-fold increase in chlorophyll a (uncorrected values in 1968 to 1970
estimated to be 30 percent higher than corrected reported values).

During the summer of 1970 in the Patuxent, when the total dissolved
nitrogen (NH3, NO2, NO3, and dissolved organic nitrogen) averaged
0.71 mg L-1 (N = 4) at Lower Marlboro (salinity approximated 1.4 ppt),
the estimated uncorrected chlorophyll a averaged 43 ug L-1 (N = 4). At
the Queentree Landing station, the salinity for the summer of 1970 averaged
10 ppt and the total dissolved nitrogen and chlorophyll a averaged (N = 4)
0.26 mg L-1 and 52 ug L-1, respectively. These data show that
different salinity regimes in the Patuxent correlate differently with the
concentration of nitrogen. The higher saline reach of the Patuxent
exhibited a higher level of chlorophyll a per unit concentration of
nitrogen than the low saline (upper) reach.

A-19

NO MAJOR PLANT WATER CHESTNUT INVASION WATER MAS-14 E 250.000
NUISANCES MILVOIL PERSISTENT
INVASION 8LtJE-GREEN
LOCAL ALGAL BLOOMS
BLUE-GREEN
ALGAL BLOOMS

20.000- 60.000- -200.000

15.000- z 45,000- 50.00

O~
a s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L L~0'

z Q

4 10.000 < 30.000- - 100.000
0 0

.01~~~~~~~~~~~

5.000- 15,000- -50.000

NITROGEN -.

PHOSPHORUS

0 I i I I 0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

Figure 6. Wastewater nutrient enrichment trends and ecological effects on the
upper Potomac tidal river system 1913 to 1970 (Jaworski et al. 1971).

- --- ~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~r =~ rr e..~ rLCaI. -IL-~_U - --- --A --- - -

TABLE 3. ANNUAL RANGE IN CONCENTRATION OF SEVERAL PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN FRACTIONS FROM SURFACE
WATERS OF SELECTED AREAS IN THE PATUXENT RIVER FOR THE PERIODS FROM 1963 TO 1964 AND 1963 TO
1968. ALL VALUES ARE EXPRESSED AS mg L-1 (TABLE ADAPTED FROM FLEMER ET AL. 1970)

Salinity References
ppt N03-N NH3-N DIP TP chlorophyll al
Patuxent River
Lower Marlboro 0.1- 5.5 0.003-0.71 0.011-0.62 0.003-0.11 0.12-0.49 2.8-43.7 Flemer et al.
Queentree 8.4-15.6 0.0-0.17 0.02-0.25 0.003-0.11 0.02-0.38 3.0-59.8 1970

Patuxent River
Lower Marlboro 0.1-7.6 trace-0.19 0.006-0.03 3.0-45.0 Mihursky,
et al. 1967
Queentree 7.8-16.5 trace-0.004 0.003-0.04 1.0-10.0

1Chlorophyll a values corrected for degradation products in 1968 to 1970 but no correction applied to
1963 to 1964 data.

The total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) in the Patuxent during the
summer of 1970 averaged 0.36 mg L-1 at Lower Marlboro and the uncorrected
chlorophyll a level averaged about 43 mg L-1. At Queentree for the same
period, the DIN averaged 0.05 mg L-1 and chlorophyll a averaged 52 ug
L-._

The Patuxent River data and other studies discussed suggest that when
the total nitrogen approaches 1.0 mg L-1 in tidal-fresh to brackish
water, then the chlorophyll a levels are likely to reach 50 ug L-1, a
level of concern or, at least, a "danger" signal concerning aesthetics and
probable low levels of dissolved oxygen. The latter point requires more
information for a calibration to various environmental conditions. During
the summer, much of the nitrogen is incorporated into chlorophyll a related
organic material. The "danger" level of phosphate-phosphorus in
tidal-freshwater is probably near 0.10 to 0.15 mg L-1. The "level of
danger" of this nutrient form at higher salinities is less certain.

A-22

SECTION 4

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION AND NUTRIENTS

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has declined markedly in Chesapeake
Bay during the past 10 to 15 years (Flemer et al. 1983; Orth and Moore
1982). Factors related to the decline are discussed in the CBP
characterization report, Chapter 3, and in Kemp et al. (1982). Submerged
grasses in Chesapeake Bay generally are limited in their growth by the
availability of light (Wetzel et al. 1982). Thus, factors that affect the
amount of light that can penetrate the water column will affect the
well-being of submerged grasses. Two such factors are nutrients and
turbidity.

NUTRIENTS

High nutrient concentrations can hinder SAV growth through the
production of phytoplankton biomass. In addition, nutrients may encourage
the growth of epiphytes on grass leaf surfaces, decreasing light
availability (Twilley et al. 1982). Studies of experimental microcosms
(Twilley et al. 1982) indicate that nitrogen loads resulting in
concentrations of 0.7 mg L-1 initiate excessive epiphyte biomass,
phytoplankton growth, and stress of SAV. Phosphorus loads resulting in
concentrations of 0.15 mg L-1 are also stressful. Effects of nitrogen
and phosphorus loads on SAV biomass were shown in Figure 2. Boyntonl
suggests that nutrient concentrations may be deceptive in assessing effects
on SAV because epiphytes take up so much of the nutrients. He feels that
nutrient loads should be considered as well. From Figure 2 it can be seen
that nitrogen loads of 30 to 60 u mol per week and phosphorus loads of 2.6
to 6 u mol per week are sufficient to reduce SAV biomass.

These results are- further substantiated by a significant correlation
between the percentage of sites vegetated and the total nitrogen
concentration in Maryland (Figure 1). The percentage of sites vegetated
declined abruptly when total nitrogen concentrations exceeded 0.8 mg
L-1. There was no correlation between phosphorus and SAV, probably
because phosphorus concentrations in most segments are below critical
levels. Rank correlation of expected habitat and total nitrogen for the
entire Bay (Flemer et al. 1983) was also significant. The value of 0.60 mg
L-1 total nitrogen is suggested by these results as the highest
concentration that could be expected to support abundant SAV.

1Personal Communication: "Effect of Nutrient Concentrations on SAV,"
W. Boynton, University of Maryland, CBL, 1983.

A-23

SECTION 5

NUTRIENTS, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND FISHERIES

NUTRIENTS

Excess nutrients may result in excessive production of organic
material. This material must ultimately be oxidized, possibly resulting in
depletion of oxygen. Oxygen depletion is most serious in the summer
because increased temperatures cause increased oxygen utilization and
decreased oxygen solubility. Bottom waters are most sensitive to oxygen
depletion because the pycnocline prevents rapid reaeration. The extent of
salinity stratification, a function primarily of freshwater flow, will
determine the extent to which bottom waters can be reaerated from surface
waters.

Deeper waters, like the main channel of Chesapeake Bay, are most
sensitive to oxygen loss. This area has historically been subject to low
dissolved oxygen levels in summer, but the spatial and temporal extent of
low dissolved oxygen have increased in concert with increased nutrients
Flemer et al. 1983). In addition, anoxic waters (zero dissolved oxygen)
now occur regularly in summer, a rare phenomenon in the 1950's and early
1960's (Figure 7). Changes in dissolved oxygen profiles can be expected to
affect Bay resources, particularly benthic species such as oysters.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

Many factors other than nutrients affect dissolved oxygen profiles. To
understand these factors, the main channel of Chesapeake Bay was studied in
detail, as described in Flemer et al. 1983. This area has a good
historical record back to 1949 through data collected by the Chesapeake Bay
Institute of The Johns Hopkins University.

Data from two stations in CB-4 for 11 years between 1949 and 1980 were
analyzed. Results indicated that, in July, the difference between dissolved
oxygen concentrations above the pycnocline and those below the pycnocline
(A DO) were related to the extent of salinity stratification (fS) (Figure 8).
Thus, the greater the stratification is, the greater will be the difference
between dissolved oxygen concentrations above and below the pycnocline. This
relationship is independent of dissolved oxygen concentrations, and depends
only slightly on differences in oxygen solubility (Figure 8). It can be
concluded that stratification and the concentration of DO above the pycnocline
are the major factors controlling DO concentrations below the pycnocline in
this area of CB-4.

With this relationship it is possible to calculate the concentration of
dissolved oxygen above the pycnocline that is needed to sustain a desired
bottom concentration. For example, if S is 0.50, then the DO level will
be -0.50 (Figure 9). If the pycnocline extends to 8 meters, then

DO upper - DO lower = 049

8 J

A-24

Volume of water
(D with summer D.O.= 0.5 ml L-
4 --
0R~~~~~~~~ 4 - ~or less

cn
0 3 _

I -

0 III I _. 1I
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

Figure 7. Volume of water in Chesapeake Bay with low levels of dissolved oxygen,
1950 to 1980.

A-25

E
-.8

o - ADO=0.5AS�oo 0 +0, 22

-.6 C- r=0.87

-.4

-.2

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

AS/oo0.m-,

Figure 8. Oxygen decrease per unit salinity increase at stations 848E and
845F in July 1949 to 1980.

A-26

If the desired concentration below the pycnocline is 0.5 ml L-I, then the
concentration above the pycnocline must be at least 4.5 ml L-1.

RELATIONSHIP TO NUTRIENTS

Officer et al. (1983) have developed a model of the mid-Chesapeake
anoxia phenomena showing that a nominal benthic respiration rate of 2.0
02 m-2 day-1 is adequate to drive the dissolved oxygen level to zero
below the pycnocline. They concluded that the principal factor causing the
anoxic conditions appears to be historic increases in yearly phytoplankton
production which, in turn, are related to the increase in anthropogenic
nutrient inputs to be upper Bay. Significant changes in nutrient loads to
the Bay are not seen; however, increases in nutrient concentrations in the
water column and increases in the volume of anoxic water are apparent.

The process of nutrient recycling tends to amplify changes in the
nutrient load from external sources; that is, nutrients, once entering the
Bay, may be used several times before they leave the Bay. The CBP has
estimated the range of recycling that must occur in the Bay to support
observed levels of primary production. For the reach of the main Bay from
CB-1 to CB-5, the nutrient recycling rate varies with season (illustrated
in Table 4). Assuming that N and P are remineralized on the order of 3 to
5 times during the summer, we can now estimate the nutrient load reduction
necessary to achieve specified dissolved oxygen concentrations in deep Bay
waters.

The volume of low DO waters is 5 x 109m3. To raise that volume
from 0 to 2.8 mg L-1 (2.0 ml L-1), (2.8g)(5 x 109m3) is needed to
equal 14 x 103 tons 02. For the northern Bay (CB 1-5), every unit
addition of P from external sources will yield 4 units of P-based
production during summer, producing 4 x 106 units of carbon with a
potential oxygen demand of 2.5 x carbon (= 1000 units 0) or 500 units
02. To reduce the oxygen demand by 14 x 103 tons, P should be reduced
by 14 x 103 divided by 500 to equal 30 tons P. Similarly, for nitrogen,
the load to the Bay needs to be reduced by 14 x 103 tons divided by 60 to
equal 400 tons. It is probaby much more realistic to assume that only a
fraction of the carbon produced actually is totally oxidized (say 50
percent)', and that only a fraction (say 50 percent) of each nutrient is
utilized. In that case, 120 tons P and/or 1,600 tons N reduction would be
required to produce one aeration volume (from 0 to 2.0 ml L-1). The
computed reductions in nutrient loads are only 3 percent of the annual N
load and 11 percent of the annual P load from the Susquehanna River to the
Bay.

The point of the above exercise is to demonstrate that the DO content
of deep waters of the Bay is very sensitive to changes in external nutrient
supply. These small changes in external load cannot be detected by
existing monitoring programs. Further, these small nutrient additions need
not come from the Susquehanna River; they are such a small proportion that
they could be advected from further down Bay or from adjacent tributaries.
Finally, the CBP has no feeling for the importance of the timing of the
nutrient additions. It cannot be said that a load reduction of 120 tons of
P over the year is adequate or if all of the reduction must come, for
example, from the spring load. It can be concluded, however, that to
improve the deep water dissolved oxygen levels, nutrient inputs to the main
Bay must be reduced.

A-27

RELATIONSHIP TO FISHERIES

Nutrient-related food web shifts can affect the well-being of fish
species (Ryther 1954). Nutrient enrichment can also affect fish through
changes in dissolved oxygen profiles. Growth of oyster larvae ceases when
dissolved oxygen concentrations reach 1.7 ml L-1; adults can survive up
to five days at concentrations of 0.7 ml L-1 or less, but undergo
stressful anaerobic metabolism (Galtsoff 1964). Sublethal oxygen stress
can make oysters more susceptible to diseases.

As the volume of water containing low dissolved oxygen increases, the
depth at which oysters can survive becomes shallower. This results in loss
of potential oyster habitat. For example, if the depth of low dissolved
oxygen changed from 10 meters to 9 meters depth, approximately 221 million
square meters of potential oyster habitat would be lost from segment CB-4.
As indicated in Table 5, the area of Chesapeake Bay bottom covered by low
dissolved oxygen has increased since 1950; as a result there have been
significant losses of potential oyster habitat.

TABLE 4. ESTIMATE OF NUTRIENT RECYCLING FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY -- (CB 1-5).
ALL VALUES IN 106 LBS. DATA FROM SMULLEN ET AL. 1982

Minimum Recyclingi
Spring Summer Fall Winter
N P N P N P N P

Required to 110 15 250 34 140 19 55 8
Support Production
Entering Bay 108 7.4 59 12 55 4.5 78 6 4
In Bay 18 0.5 23 5 21 0.5 18 0.
Recycled 2 0 7.5 168 22 64 14 -41 1.
% Recycled 3 0 50

Maximum Recycling4

Required to 110 15 250 34 140 19 55 8
Support Production
Entering Bay 49.5 2.3 18 0.8 21 0.8 36 1.(
In Bay 18 0.5 23 5 21 0.5 18 0.'
Recycled 2 42.5 12.2 209 28.2 98 17.7 1 5.
% Recycled 38 80 83 82 70 93 1 73

1Assumes that all tributary nutrient loads from all sources reach the Bay.
2Required to Support Productivity (Entering + in Bay) = Recycled
3% Recycled = Recycled divided by required x 100
4Assumes that all tributary nutrient loads remain in tributaries and that
the only Bay source is the Susquehanna River.

A-28

TABLE 5. AREA OF CHESAPEAKE BAY BOTTOM AFFECTED BY LOW DISSOLVED OXGYEN
(DO) WATERS IN SUMMER; % = PERCENT OF BAY SEGMENTS CB 3, 4,
AND 5 IMPACTED

DO Level July 1950 July 1969 July 1980

ml L-1 m2x10l6 % m2x106 % m2x0l6 %

0.5 62.3 2.1 344.0 11.3 603 19.9
1.0 228.0 7.5 535.0 17.6 789 26.0
2.0 824.0 27.2 629.0 20.7 1196 39.4
3.0 1191.0 39.3 889.0 29.3 1417 46.7
4.0 1545.0 50.9 1455.0 48.0 2022 66.7

Dissolved oxygen is also important to the survival of finfish. Five
ml L-1 dissolved oxygen in surface waters is generally considered to be
the minimum requirement for most sensitive species. This value is
consistent with maintenance of 0.5 ml L-1 at the bottom, as previously
discussed. Lower oxygen concentrations may stress American shad, whose
LC50 is 3.6 ml L-1 (Kaumeyer and Setzler-Hamilton 1982). To maintain a
minimally diverse estuarine fishery, at least 2 to 3 ml L-1 should be
maintained (Thornton 1975).

A-29

SECTION 6

METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING DEGREE OF METAL CONTAMINATION

INTRODUCTION

Toxic substances may be naturally occurring materials, like lead,
copper, or crude oil, which have been added to the estuary in harmful
amounts by human activities. They may also include artificial materials,
like Kepone, which are synthetically produced. These organic and inorganic
materials may occur in bewildering varieties and forms in the Bay.
Considerably less information is available about the relationship between
specific toxic substances and their effects on Bay plants and animals, than
is known about the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.

To assess trends for the occurrence of metals in Chesapeake Bay, one
can use sediment cores which document changes over time. A sediment core,
analyzed for trace metals and with an established geochronology, can be
used to estimate trace metal inputs, assumming no diagenetic migration of
metals through the length of the core. Such an analysis must be conducted
carefully, for the burrowing activities of benthic. organisms in oxic
environments can disturb the sedimentary record, create an "artificial"
21OPb distribution, and influence trace metal patterns.

Several techniques have been devised to estimate the degree of
contamination of sediments by metals. Turekian and Wedepohl (1961)
developed data on the average concentration of trace metals in various
sedimentary rocks. often contamination in modern sediments is identified4
by the ratio of metal in the sample to metal in an average shale (or
sandstone); this ratio is termed the Wedephol ratio. The problem with this
technique is that there is no compelling evidence that natural James River
sediments, for example, should have the same concentration of a particular
metal as the average of all of the earth's shales. Other investigators
have chosen to normalize trace metal concentrations to some metal present
in sediments in such high concentrations that it is unlikely that
anthropogenic sources could influence it to a significant degree.

The metal frequently chosen to ratio against is iron. Unfortunately,
iron is relatively mobile after burial, and significant quantities can
migrate through sediment pore waters. Still other investigators suggest
normalizing the metal content of sediment samples to the grain size of the
sediment. There is usually a strong inverse correlation between sediment
size and metal content. Grain size, though, is only a rough indicator of
particle surface area, sediment organic content, and sediment mineralogy,
any or all of which are the probable cause of high metal concentration in
fine sediments.

Chesapeake Bay Program scientists have applied a different approach to
the estimation of the degree of metal contamination in Chesapeake Bay
sediments. By using pre-colonial Chesapeake sediments, the use of
potentially mobile metals like iron has been avoided; by measuring silicon
and aluminum, sediment grain size and mineralogy have been accounted for
simultaneously (sands are mostly quartz, and silts, (as size terms], and

A-30

I~~~~~~~(I

<4~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
No Octo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

(C1) I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........

4-14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.............
>14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... .

~~~~~~ No Doto~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

Figure 9. Degrees of metal contamination in the Bay based on the Contamination
Index (C I.

A-31

clays may be either quartz or clay minerals). A detailed discussion of the
rationale and assumptions used in developing the Contamination Index is
found in Flemer et al. 1983.

CONTAMINATION INDEX

The Contamination Index (Ci) for surface sediments by metals can be
developed by combining data on the anthropogenic concentration of
individual contaminants and summing these contaminant factors (Cf). The
Cf value for each metal is computed and all of the Cf values for a
given sediment sample are summed to produce the index of contamination,
CI:
n n Co _ Cp

n n C0 p
This method of characterizing estuarine sediments gives equal weight to all
metals, regardless of absolute abundance, and has no inherent ecological
significance. When this index is combined with bio-toxicity data, its
biological importance can be assessed. Where individual metal Cf's exceed
1.0, they contain specific metal concentrations that exceed natural
Chesapeake sediments by 100 percent. These Cf's are based on the
correlation of Si/Al and metal content. They should be interpreted as
departures from the natural, deep metal concentration. The correlation of
metals with Si/Al ratios should not be interpreted as causation. Controlling
parameters for metal concentrations may well be redox, pH, organic, or sulfur
species present.

A computer search was conducted for all available surface sediment metals
data in the Chesapeake and its tributaries. Values could be developed to
calculate contamination factors for each metal. The sum of these individual
contamination factors, that is, the degree of contamination, is plotted in
Figure 9. This illustration represents our best estimate, using all
available data, of the potential metal contamination, from anthropogenic
sources, of the surface sediments of the Bay and its tributaries. No data
exist near to shore, and large local increases should be expected close to
outfalls. These variations have not been indicated on Figure 9.

The Toxicity Index closely relates to the Contamination Index and is
defined as:
i =6 M1
TT= - . Cfi

i=l1 Mi

where Mi = the "acute" anytime EPA criterion for any of the metals,
but M1 is always the criterion value for the most toxic of the six
metals.

The "acute" anytime EPA criterion is the concentration of a material
that may not be exceeded in a given environment at any time. This value
may be different for different environments. The criterion values are
calculated by standardized procedures using data from in-house EPA studies
and from published scientific literature (U.S. EPA 1982b). The details of
the method are explained in Appendix D of Flemer et al. 1983.

A-32

The Toxicity Index was calculated for every station where the
Contamination Index was calculated. Each station was given an average
salinity value based upon its geographical location and available salinity
data (Stroup and Lynn 1963). Because the toxicity of metals is often
greater in freshwater than in salt wvater, each station was characterized by
its minimum salinity. Bottom salinities were used in every case.
Freshwater stations were those with salinities less than 0.5 ppt, and these
were assigned criterion values for freshwater at 50 ppm hardness. Brackish
stations were those with salinities between 0.5 and 5.0 ppm, and these were
assigned criterion values for freshwater with a hardness of 200 ppm.
Stations with salinities greater than 5.0 ppt were assigned criterion
values for salt water.

A contour map of Toxicity Indices using logarithmic intervals again
shows a high level of contamination in Baltimore Harbor, but with the
apparently associated high indices in the adjacent main Bay, restricted
largely to the axis of the Bay (Figure 10). Additionally, the sediments in
much of the lower James River are relatively uncontaminated by toxic
metals; only those sediments off Norfolk and near Portsmouth are highly
contaminated. Comparison of contour maps of C, versus TI reveals areas
* ~~~of similarity, as would be expected. in general, however, the Toxicity
Index map shows more details of structure and variation within an area than
does the C, map. Areas of greatest toxicity, such as Baltimore Harbor,
an area extending northward to the Susquehanna Flats, the Northeast River,
the lower Rappahannock, upper York, and the Elizabeth River, are also most
contaminated using the C1 method. In addition, the lower Patuxent River
and several smaller tributaries of the lower James have high Toxicity
Indices. Moderately high values of the TI occupy the central and upper
Bay main stem and lower reaches of most western shore tributaries, except
the James River. In general, this pattern follows the distribution of
finer sediments in Chesapeake Bay, which is not unexpected, as heavy metals
are associated with the silt and clay fraction of the substrate.

Though a contour map based on logarithmic intervals allows a general
analysis of metal contamination of the Bay's sediments, the Toxicity Index
at stations within a contour interval can vary greatly, especially within
the interval containing the highest values. Toxicity Indices for stations
in Baltimore Harbor range from 3.2 to 2,691.4 and reflect considerable
differences in the exr -ed toxicity of the sediments.

A- 33

D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOD NO DATA

O<Tm0l .

Figure 10. Toxicity Index of surface sediments in Chesapeake Bay.

A-34

SECTION 7

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This appendix provides a management focus on information used in the
development of a classification or ranking scheme of environmental factors
associated with the distribution and abundance of the biota. This approach
provides a mechanism to integrate information that characterizes the
requirements for growth, reproduction, survival, and migration of the
biota. Once a "target level" of an environmental factor (e.g., nutrients
and toxic substances in our analysis) is identified, then managers have a
better basis to decide if the factor should be controlled. Control implies
decisions regarding human use which inherently involves human value
judgements. in this context, scientific information is used to define
relational aspects among variables and management exercises the perogrative
of defining levels of use or application of terms such as good, bad, or
fair.

As a cautionary note, it is important to understand that the
relationships discussed in this chapter are largely correlative in nature.
There exists the possibility and, indeed, the probability, that under
different environmental conditions the relationships will change. It is
the nature of this change that future studies are likely to provide an
increased understanding.

In summary, Table 6 is provided for easy reference and a synthesis of
information described in the text. These "target levels" are offered with
the assurance that future work will improve their scientific basis. They
are preliminary and over-drawing their meaning and ignoring the substantial
uncertainty associated with them as guidance will only serve to deceive the
user.

It should be noted that little information is available to make
first-order estimates of the relationship between living resources, and
water and sediment quality factors. Under some circumstances, meeting
up-estuary target levels will benefit the down-estuary problem; however,
lower estury regions are also under the influence of more seaward regions
because of the two-layer circulation pattern in much of the Bay system.
Recognizing these constraints, the CbP has nonetheless made an attempt to
develop target criteria for nutrients and toxic substances. Table 7
provides the best estimate of the relationship between these criteria and
environmental quality objectives. Broad ranges between classes, as well as
the small number of classes, illustrates the lack of precision in setting
class limits. It is anticipated that both accuracy and precision can be
improved dramatically in the near future.

A-3 5

TABLE 6. SOME RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIVING RESOURCES, SYSTEM FEATURES,
NUTRIENTS, AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Environmental Variable

Resource Variable Toxicity Index Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients '

Diverse open water 5 mg L-1 0.6 mg L-1 - TN
fishery (tidal freshwater (3.6 ml L-1) 0.1 mg L-1 - TP
and oligohaline waters)

SAV1 (oligohaline to 0.6 mg L-1 - TN
mesohaline waters) 0.1 mg L-1 - TP

Oysters2 (mesohaline 2.5 mg L-1 0.35 mg L-1 - TN
waters of main-Bay) (1.8 ml L-1) 0.04 mg L-1 - TP

Minimially diverse 4 mg L-1 TBD
finfishery (tidal (2.9 ml L-1)
freshwater and
oligahaline waters)

Surface sediments Low (1.0)
(selected biota) Medium (1.0 to 10.0)
High (10.0)

York River-like 0.7 mg L-1 - TN
0.06 mg L-1 - TP

Note: approximately 6.3 mg L-1 DO (4.5 mg L-1) above the pycnocline is
required to maintain 0.7 mg L-1 DO (0.5 ml L-1) at the bottom of the
deep channel of the main Bay.

1Will require slight but yet undetermined reduction in levels of TN and TP in
tidal-freshwaters over 0.6 mg L-1 TN and 0.1 mg L-1 TP.

2Approximation based on the assumption that mid-1960's data represent a
nominal excursion of oxygen-limiting waters onto the mid-Bay shelf. This
estimate needs further calibration.

A-36

TABLE 7. A FRAMEWORK FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

Class Quality Objectives Quality TI TN TP

A Healthy supports maximum diversity Very low 1 0.6 0.08
of benthic resources, SAV, enrichment
and fisheries

B Fair moderate resource diversity moderate 1-10 0.6-1.0 0.08-0.14
reduction of SAV, enrichment
chlorophyll occasionally
high

C* Fair a significant reduction in high 11-20 1.1-1.8 0.15-0.20
to resource diversity, loss of enrichment
Poor SAV, chlorophyll often high,
occasional red tide or blue-
green algal blooms

D Poor limited pollution-tolerant significant 20 1.8 0.20
resources, massive red enrichment
tides or blue-green algal
blooms

Note: TI indicates Toxicity Index;
TN indicates Total Nitrogen in mg L-1;
TP indicates Total Phosphorus in mg L-1.

Class C represents a transitional state on a continuum between classes B
and D.

A-37

SECTION 8

LITERATURE CITED

Brehmer, M.L. 1967. Nutrient Assimilation in a Virginia Tidal System,
In: Proceedings of National Symposium on Estuarine Pollution, P.L.
McCarty and R. Kennedy, eds. Sanford Univ. California, Aug. 23-25,
1967. pp. 218-249.

Carpenter, J.H., D.W. Pritchard, and R.C. Whaley. 1969. Observations of
Eutrophication and Nutrient Cycles in Some Coastal Plain Estuaries.
210-221. Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, correctives. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

Flemer, D.A., D.H. Hamilton, C.W. Keefe, and J.A. Mihursky. 1970. The
Effects of Thermal Loading and Water Quality on Estuarine Primary
Production - Final Technical Report for the Period August 1968 to
August 1970. Submitted to the Office of Water Resources Research, U.S.
Department of Interior (NRI Ref. No. 71-6).

Flemer, D.A., G.B. Mackiernan, W. Nehlsen, V.K. Tippie, R.B. Biggs, D.
Blaylock, N.H. Burger, L.C. Davidson, D. Haberman, K.S. Price, and J.L.
Taft. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. E.G.
Macalaster, D.E. Barker, and M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 299 pp. +
Appendices.

Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin.
Fish. Bull. 64:1-480.

Herman, S.S., J.A. Mihursky, and A.J. McErlean. 1967. Cooperative
Zooplankton Investigations in the Patuxent River Estuary during the
Period July 1963 to February 1965. N.R.I. Ref. No. 67-59, Univ.
Maryland, Chesapeake biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD.

Heinle, D.R., C.F. D'Elia, J.L. Taft, J.S. Wilson, M. Cole-Jones, A.B.
Caplins, and L.E. Cronin. 1980. Historical Review of Water Quality
and Climatic Data from Chesapeake Bay with Emphasis on Effects of
Enrichment. Grant #R806189010. U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
Final Report. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Publication No.
84. Annapolis, MD.

Jaworski, N.A., D.W. Lear, Jr., and 0. Villa, Jr. 1972. Nutrient
Management in the Potomac Estuary. American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography Special Symposium. 1:246-273.

Jaworski, N.A. 1981. Sources of Nutrients and the Scale of Eutrophication
Problems in Estuaries. In: Estuaries and Nutrients, B.J. Neilson and
L.E. Cronin, eds. Humana Press, Clifton, NJ. pp. 83-110.

Kaumeyer, K.R., and E.M. Setzler-Hamilton. 1982. Effects of Pollutants
and Water Quality on Selected Estuarine Fish and Invertebrates: A
Review of the Literature. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for
Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland, Ref. No.
UMCEES 82-130 CBL.

A-38

Ketchum, B.H. 1969. Eutrophication of Estuaries. In: Proceedings of a
Symposium, Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Corrections.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 661 pp.

Officer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.L. Taft, L.E. Cronin, and M.A. Tyler.
Chesapeake Bay Anoxia: Its Origin, Historical Development and Possible
Ecological Significance. Submitted to Science 6/10/83.

Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1982. Distribution and Abundance of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay: A Scientific Summary. In:
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC. pp. 381-427.

Ryther, J.H. 1954. The Ecology of Phytoplankton Blooms in Moriches Bay
and Great South Bay, Long Island, New York. Biological Bulletin.
106(2):198-209.

Smullen, J.T., J.L. Taft, and J. Macknis. 1982. Nutrient and Sediment
Loads to the Tidal Chesapeake Bay System. In: Chesapeake Bay Program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G. Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and
M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. pp. 147-261.

Stroup, E.D., and R.J. Lynn. 1963. Atlas of Salinity and Temperature
Distributions in Chesapeake Bay 1952-1961 and Seasonal Averages
1949-1961. Graphical Summary Report 2. Chesapeake Bay Institute, The
Johns Hopkins University.

Thornton, L.P. 1975. Laboratory Experiments on the Oxygen Consumption and
Resistence to Low Oxygen Levels of Certain Estuarine Fishes. Master's
Thesis. University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 82 pp.

Turekian, K.K., and K.H. Wedepohl. 1961. Distribution of Elements on Some
Major Units of the Earth's Crust. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America. Vol. 72. pp. 175-192.

Twilley, R.R., W.M. Kemp, K.W. Staven, W.R. Boynton, and J.C. Stevenson.
1982. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in Experimental Estuarine Ponds
Containing Submerged Vascular Plant Communities. In: Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in Upper Chesapeake Bay. I. Experiments Related to
the Possible Causes of Its Decline. W.M. Kemp, ed. Grant No. 805932.
Final Draft Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Chesapeake Bay:
Introduction to an Ecosystem. 33 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Chesapeake Bay Program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G. Maclaster, D.A. Barker, and M.
Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
635 pp.

Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. The Scientific Basis of Lake and Stream
Eutrophication with Particular Reference to Phosphorus and Nitrogen.
Tech. Rpt. O.E.C.D., Paris DAS/CSI/68, 27:182 p.

A-39

Wetzel, R.L., R.F. vanTine, and P.A. Penhale. 1982. Light and Submerged
Macrophyte Communities in Chesapeake Bay: A Scientific Summary. In:
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC. pp. 568-630.

A-40

APPENDIX B

NUTRIENT SOURCES AND LOADINGS

Joseph Macknis
Mary E. Gillelan
Caren E. Glotfelty

CONTENTS

Figures. ..............................B-iii

Section

B-12
2 Land-Use Methodology and Data. ...............B1

3 Methodologies for the Costs of Point Source Controls. ....B-50
B-53
4 Description of the Chesapeake Basin Model ..........

5 Summary of Modeling Results for Existing Conditions. ....B-58

6 Methodologies for Estimating Point source Nutrient Loads and
Point Source Inventory Data. ................B-62

7 Phosphorus Ban Nutrient Load Reductions and Costs. .....B-67

8 Alternative Nutrient Controls. ... . ...........B-794

9 Estimated Costs and Percent Changes in Nutrient Loads for
Different Management Strategies ............... B80

10 Detailed Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads. . . ...B-97

11 Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow B-106

12 Literature Cited ..................... . B115

B-ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (mouth to Harrisburg) ............... B-2

Figure 2. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (Harrisburg to Sunbury) .............. B-2

Figure 3. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (Juniata sub-basin) ................ B-3

Figure 4. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (West branch) ................... B-3

Figure 5. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (above Sunbury) .................. B-4

Figure 6. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the West Chesapeake
basin .......................... B-4

Figure 7. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Eastern Shore
basin .......................... B-5

Figure 8. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Patuxent basin . B-5

Figure 9. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Potomac (above
the fall line) ...................... B-6

Figure 10. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Potomac (below
the fall line) ..... ................. B-6

Figure 11. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Rappahannock
basin .B-7

Figure 12. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Viakatank River
and Mobjack Bay ..................... B-7

Figure 13. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the York basin
(above the fall line) .................. B-8

Figure 14. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the York basin
(below the fall line) .................. B-8

Figure 15. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the James basin
(above the fall line) .................. B-9

Figure 16. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the James basin
(below the fall line) .................. B-9

Figure 17. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(mouth to Harrisburg) .................. B-15

Figure 18. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(Harrisburg to Sunbury) ................. B-16

B-iii

Figure 19. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(Juniata sub-basin) ..................B-17

Figure 20. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(West branch) ....................B-8

Figure 21. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(above Sunbury) ..................... B-19

Figure 22. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Eastern Shore
basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-20

Figure 23. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the West Chesapeake
basin .......................... B-21

Figure 24. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Patuxent basin B-22

Figure 25. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Potomac basin
(above the fall line) ................... B-23

Figure 26. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Potomac basin
(below the fall line) ................... B-24

Figure 27. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Rappahannock
basin .......................... B-25

Figure 28. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the York basin (above
the fall line) ......................B-26

Figure 29. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the York basin (below
the fall line) ...................... B-27

Figure 30. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Piakatank River
and Mobjack Bay ..................... B-28

Figure 31. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the James basin
(above the fall line) ................... B-29

Figure 32. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the James basin
(below the fall line) .................B-30

Figure 33. LANDSAT scenes used for land-use analysis ........ B-37

Figure 34. Chesapeake Bay basin model sub-basins above the
fall line ........................ B-38

Figure 35. Chesapeake Bay basin model sub-basins below the
fall line ........................ B-39

Figure 36. Location of EPA/CBP test watershed study sites: Pequea
Creek (A), Patuxent River (B), Occoquan River (C), Ware
River (D), and Chester River (E) ............. B-55

B-iv

Figure 37. Susquehanna River drainage basin and sub-basins above the
fall line ........................B-59

Figure 38. Potomac River drainage basin and sub-basins above the fall
line ........................... B60

Figure 39. James River drainage basin and sub-basins above the fall
line. ..........................B-6 1

B-v

TABLES4

Table 1. Population in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 2000 (in
Thousands) .B...... ......i

Table 2. Population in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 2000 (in
Thousands), by State. ..................B-10

Table 3. Population in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 2000 (in
Thousands), by Areas Above and Below the Fall Line . . . . B1

Table 4. Population in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 2000 (in
Thousands), by Areas Major Basin ............. B10

Table 5. Population in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 2000 (in
Thousands), by Areas Minor Basin .B-..il ...

Table 6. U.S. Forest Service Timber Surveys Conducted for Bay Area
States Between 1950 and 1980, and Used to Construct
Land-Use Trends .13.......... -13

Table 7. Estimated Land Use in Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950 to 1980 B 1-31

Table 8. Estimated Land Use in Major Sub-basins of Chesapeake Bay
Basin, 1950 to 1980 . .......... -32

Table 9. Estimated Land Use in Minor Sub-basins of Chesapeake Bay
Basin, 1950 to 1980. ...................B-33

Table 10. Estimated 'Land Use in Chesapeake Bay Basin, by State, 19504
to 1980. .........................B-35

Table 11. Chesapeake Bay Basin Land Area, by State .1.....3 -36

Table 12. Present (A) and Future (B) Land Use by Major Basin a-ad by
Reach (Above the Fall Line) and Coastal Sub-basin (Below
the Fall Line) in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, Based on4
LANDSAT Analysis .1...........3 . -41

Table 13'. Summary of Existing (1980) and Future (2000) Land Usage by
Major Basin .1............3 -46

Table 14. Reaches and Sub-basins (Illustrated in Figures 34 and 35)
Corresponding to Minor Sub-basins of Chesapeake Bay by
Basin .1.........3 ........B47

Table 15. 'Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1980, by Major River
Basin . ......... ........B48

Table 16. Breakdown of Cropping Practices by County in the Patuxent
River Basin .1........3 .......B49

Table 17. Summary of Test Watershed Characteristics and H-ydrology
Calibration Results (1.0 ha =2.47 ac) .1.....3 -56

BI-vi

Table 18a. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
of Nutrients from Nonpoint Sources Above the Fall Line in
the Susquehanna River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year
(March to October). ...................B-64

l8b. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
of Nutrients from Point Sources Above the Fall Line in the
Susquehanna River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year (March
to October). ......................B-64

Table 19a. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
p ~~~~~of Nutrients from Nonpoint Sources Above the Fall Line in
the Potomac River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year (March
to October). ......................B-65

19b. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
of Nutrients from Point Sources Above the Fall Line in the
Potomac River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year (March to
October). ........................B-65

Table 20a. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
of Nutrients from Nonpoint Sources Above the Fall Line in
the James River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year (March
to October). ......................B-66

2Ob. Simulated Loads (Lbs), Sources, and Delivery (Percentage)
of Nutrients from Point Sources Above the Fall Line in the
James River Basin in an Average Rainfall Year (March to
October). ........................B-66

Table 21. Inventory of Industrial Nutrient Dischargers to Chesapeake
Bay by Major Basin. ...................B-69

Table 22. Inventory of Municipal Nutrient Dischargers to Chesapeake
Bay by Major Basin. ...................B-72

Table 23a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the
Susquehanna River Basin. ................B-81

23b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Futu~e (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the
Susquehanna River Basin. ................B-82

Table 24a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the West
Chesapeake River Basin. .................B-83

24b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2.000)
L Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the West
Chesapeake River Basin. .................B-84

Table 25a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Eastern
Shore Basin. ......................B-85

B-vii

25b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)4
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Eastern
Share Basin. ......................B-86

Table 26a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Patuxent
River Basin. ......................B-87

26b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Patuxent
River Basin. ......................B-88

Table 27a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Potomac
River Basin. ......................B-89

27b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the Potomac
River Basin. ......................B-90

Table 28a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the
Rappahannock River Basin. ................B-91

28b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the
Rappahannock River Basin. ................B-92

Table 29a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the York River
Basin. .........................B-93

29b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the York River
Basin. .........................B-94

Table 30a. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Existing (1980)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the James
River Basin. ......................B-95

30b. Estimated Cost and Percent Change in Future (2000)
Nutrient Loads for Management Strategies in the James
River Basin. ......................B-96

Tab-I-e 31. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the
Susquehanna River Basin. ................B-98

Table 32. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the West
Chesapeake Basin . ...................B-99

Table 33. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the Eastern
Shore River Basin. ...................B-100

B-viii

Table 34. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the Patuxent
River. .........................B-101

Table 35. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the Potomac
River. .........................B-102

Table 36. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the
Rappahannock River Basin. ................B-103

Table 37. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the York
River Basin. ......................B-104

Table 38. Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for the James
River Basin. ......................B-l05

Table 39. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
f or the Susquehanna River Basin. ............B-107

Table 40. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the West Chesapeake Basin. .............B-108

Table 41. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the Eastern Shore Basin. ..............B-109

Table 42. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the Patuxent River Basin. ..............B-110

Table 43. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the Potomac River Basin. ..............B-111

Table 44. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the Rappahannock River Basin. ............B-112

Table 45. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the York River Basin. ................B-113

Table 46. Existing, Design, and Projected Municipal Wastewater Flow
for the James River Basin. ...............B-114

B-ix

SECTION I

POPULATION DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

METHODOLOGY

Population statistics were compiled for the years 1950 to 2000 for
the Chesapeake Bay basin and its major sub-basins. Historical
estimates (1950 through 1980) were derived from the U.S Population
Census. The following sources of data on population projections (1990
and 2000) include state estimates based upon the 1980 Census, unless
noted otherwise:

Delaware Office of Management, Budget, and Planning
District of Columbia Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce
Maryland Department of State Planning
New York New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Virginia Department of Planning and Budget
West Virginia Department of Economic and Community
Development

The state projections used have been approved by the EPA for use
in water quality management planning. Data for counties situated in
more than one sub-basin were converted to sub-basin level data in
proportion to the estimated county land area in each sub-basin; data
for Pennsylvania were aggregated to the sub-basin level by a more
accurate analysis by the state.

The data have been aggregated in the following tables:
Table I1-- Chesapeake Bay Basin Population, 1950 to 2000;
Table 2-- Chesapeake Bay Basin Population by State;
Table 3-- Chesapeake Bay Basin Population Above and Below the Fall Line;
Table 4-- Chesapeake Bay Basin Population by Major River Basin; and
Table 5-- Chesapeake Bay Basin Population by Minor Sub-basin.

Data in Table 5 have been plotted in Figure I through Figure 16 to
illustrate trends.

TABLE 1. CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN POPULATION, 1950 TO 2000 (IN THOUSANDS)

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

8,447.5 10,018.7 11,772.3 12,652.6 13,743.6 14,567.4

SU'SQUEHANNA (MOUTH TO HARRISBURG)

YEAR POP

1950 690.' 00

i960 821 .000

i970 /////////////////////////8.0

Z/////// / / / 938.iS
i 980 i 068. i 00

1 90/ i153.Coo

~oo i18i.400

.40 8so- 200

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 1. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna J
basin (,mouth to Harrisburg)

SUSQUEHANNA (HARRISBURG TO SUNBURY)

YEAR POP

1950 3// 386. 4000

1960 393.6000

i970 _____/////////////////// 412.8000

i1980 440.2000

1990 470.5000

2000 484.5000i

100 200 300 400 50S

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 2. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (Harrisburg to Sunbury)

B-2

SUSQUEHANNA (JUNiATA)

YEAR POP

i1950 /// //// 274. 100

i 960 283. 8000

i970 283.5000

i980 299.2000

i990 /////////////////////////////////// 314.7000

2000 321.6000

...... , ......I ...........I . . ..i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
POPULATION X 1000

Figure 3. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (Juniata sub-basin)

SUSQUEHANNA (WEST BRANCH)

YEAR POP

,, 1950 ~~,/////////// / 357.6000

i960 378.0000

i1970 // / / / /396.8000

|C- i~0 ////1980 / 430.7000

t990 459.9000

P>~ ~2000 473.3000

100 200 300 400 500

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 4. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (West branch)

B-3

SUSQUEHANNA (ABOVE SUNBURY)

YEAR POP

'970 AL~1f 1 437. 000

19804530

'990 1562.500

2000 16i9-200

400 800 1200 i 600
POPULATION X 1000

Figure 5. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Susquehanna
basin (above Sunbury)

WEST CHESAPEAKE-

YEAR POP

'1960 '1662-200

'1970 1860-000

1980 _____________1874.9004

1990 __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 925 .200

2000 i 1993. q00

600 1200 '1800
POPULATION X 1000

Figure 6. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the West Chesapeake
basin

B-4

EASTERN SHORE

YEAR POP

1950 292,7000

1960 ~~~~~~~~~~332. 4000

1.970 ~~~~~~~~~~356. 9003

I 980 ~~~~~~~~~~415. 9000

1990 ~~~~~~~~~~451 .7000

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 __________________ 485. 9000

I ~~~~~~~~~~100 200 300 400 500

POPULATION X 1030

Figure 7. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Eastern Shore
basin

PATU XENT

YEAR P OP

1.960 346. 5000

1970 ~~~~~~~~~~586. 9000

1980 ~~~~~~~~~~678. O000

1990 776. 2000

2000 861.1000

100 200 300 400 SOO 600 700 800 900

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 8. Population trends from 1950 to.,2000 in the Patuxent basin

B-5

POTOMAC CABOVE FALL LINE) -

YEA 1~ POP

195075.0

1960 971 .700

1i970 1 8 0

1990161.0

2000 1758.300

400 800 1200 1600

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 9. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Potomac (above
the fall line)

POTOMAC (BELOW FALL LINE)

YEARPO
4
1950~ ~ ~~/ 1 34 9.-2001

1960 /111100I11 1704. 800

i970 2209.200

1980 2255.000

1990 2464.400

2000 26352.800

GOO 1200 1800 24004

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 10. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Potomac (below
the fall line)

B- 6

RAPPAHANNOCK

YEAR POP

*950 SO 96.3000

960 /// 103.330

i970 115.0000

i97S ;<///////////// 14 9 9SO
'9S0 149 '000

i993008//// 183 3000

20S0 209S.'000

30 60 90 120 150 180 210

POPULATiON X 1000

Figure 11. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Rappahannock
basin

r PIANKATANK AND MOBJACK BAY

Y EAR POP

~~~~~~~1960 ~18.80000

I I
i980 26.0i5S5

i 990 35. 30000

C 20S3 35 � 3GCCC

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 12. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the Piakatank River
and Mlobjack Bay

B-7

YORK (ABOVE FALL LINE)

YEAR O

1960 47-1000

1.970 54.7000

1980 ~~~~~~~~~~~78.60000

1990 1120

200011.00

20 40 60 80 100 -120

POPULATION X 1000

Figure 13. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the York basin
(above the fall line)

YORK (BELOW FALL LINE
MIDPOINT
TYPE YEAR POP

S POPULATION 1950 36. 000

'1960 47-9000

1970 58. 2000

1980 75.50004

1990 9~~~~~~~~~~~0.6000

2000 102.8000

20 40 60 80 100 120

POPULATION X 1000

Figure L4. Population trends fromt 1950 to 2000 in the York basin
(below the fall line)

B-8

JAMES (ABOVE FALL LINE)

YEARpo

1960 _____________________ ~~~~~372 .1 i000

1.970 408.8000

980 ~~~~~~~~~~~469. 5000

.990 522.9000

200056.00

t00 200 300 400 Soo 600

POPULATION N 1000

Figure 15. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the James basin
(above the fall line)

JAMES (BELOW FALL LINE)

k ~~~~~~YEAR POP

1950 8~~~~~~~~~~~67-600

1960 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1143. 400

1970 i445. 900

1980 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1531 .500

i990) i634-SOO

2000 '1719-.400

400 800 1200 i 600

POPULATION )X 1000

Figure 16. Population trends from 1950 to 2000 in the James basin
(below the fall line)

B-9

TABLE 2. POPULATION IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1950 TO 2000, BY STATE

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
(in 000's)

New York 551.3 616.8 656.1 658.8 718.1 755.0
Pennsylvania 2613.7 2720.0 2877.4 3102.0 3312.0 3393.8
Maryland 2319.8 3074.9 3893.9 4187.9 4476.0 4727.4
Delaware 48.8 71.2 84.7 98.1 107.6 121.7
District of
Columbia 802.2 764.0 756.5 634.0 632.0 626.0
West Virginia 118.9 120.7 125.5 158.0 193.1 228.8
Virginia 1992.8 2651.1 3378.2 3813.8 4304.8 4714.7

Total 8447.5 10018.7 11772.3 12652.6 13743.6 14567.4

TABLE 3. POPULATION IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1950 TO 2000, BY AREAS ABOVE
AND BELOW THE FALL LINE

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
(in 000's)

Above the
Fall Line 4288.2 4715.2 5184.9 5732.3 6293.9 6649.8

Below the
Fall Line 4159.3 5303.5 6587.4 6920.3 7449.7 7917.6

Total 8447.5 10018.7 11772.3 12652.6 13743.6 14567.4

TABLE 4. POPULATION IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1950 TO 2000, BY MAJOR
RIVER BASIN

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
(in 000's)
Susquehanna 3096.7 3268.3 3468.8 3693.5 3961.2 4080.6
Eastern Shore 282.7 332.4 356.5 415.5 451.7 485.9
W. Chesapeake 1365.6 1662.2 1860.0 1874.9 1925.2 1993.9
Patuxent 195.6 346.5 586.5 678.1 776.2 851.1
Potomac 2106.8 2676.5 3397.6 3659.6 4065.8 4390.8
York-
Rappahannock 217.3 248.2 330.0 406.1 467.5
James 1206.3 1515.5 1854.7 2001.0 2157.4 2287.6

Total 8447.5 10018.7 11772.3 12652.6 13743.6 14567.4

B-10

TABLE 5. POPULATION IN CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1950 TO 2000 (IN THOUSANDS), BY
MINOR BASINS

Minor Basin 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Susquehanna
above Sunbury 1387.9 1391.9 1437.0 1456.3 1562.5 1619.8
West Branch 357.6 378.0 396.8 430.7 459.9 473.3
below Harrisburg 690.7 821.0 938.7 1068.1 1153.6 1181.4
Sunbury-Harrisburg 386.4 393.0 412.8 440.2 470.5 484.5
to Juniata 274.1 283.8 263.5 298.2 314.7 321.6
Eastern Shore 282.7 332.4 356.5 415.5 451.7 485.9
West Chesapeake 1365.6 1662.2 1860.0 1874.9 1925.2 1973.9
Patuxent 195.6 346.5 586.5 678.1 776.2 861.1
Potomac
above the fall line 757.6 971.7 1188.4 1404.6 1601.4 1758.0
below the fall line 1349.2 1704.8 2209.2 2255.0 2464.4 2632.8
Rappahannock
above the fall line 51.4 56.0 64.2 8U.1 107.2 123.8
below the fall line 44.6 47.5 50.8 63.8 75.8 85.6
York
above the fall line 43.8 47.1 54.7 78.6 101.2 119.7
below the fall line 36.1 47.9 58.2 75.5 90.6 102.8
Piankatank and
Mobjack Bay 17.9 18.8 20.3 26.0 31.3 35.6
James
above the fall line 338.7 372.1 408.8 469.5 522.9 567.7
below the fall line 867.6 1143.4 1445.9 1531.5 1634.5 1719.9

B-l11

SECTION 2A

LAND-USE METHODOLOGY AND DATA

It is difficult, if riot impossible, to derive precise land-use
statistics for the Chesapeake Bay basin. There is as yet no accepted
national system, and states and lower political sub-divisions tend to
collect land-use information only sporadically, using many different
methods. As with population, land use is rarely compiled by watershed.
(The exception is the Maryland Automated Geographic Information System
(MAGI) used by the State of Maryland).

Gaining a picture of past land-use trends is difficult because of the
lack of information prior to the early 1970's. Reliable information even
for the recent past is not consistently available throughout the
watershed. The first land-use mapp of the Bay was done experimentally by
the USGS as part of the CARETS project. This information was used by theI
Corps of Engineers in their existing conditions study but, unfortunately,
it does not exist for the whole basin. The figures are by county, and
there is some question about the accuracy of this data.

More recently, the USGS has mapped land use for all of the states in
the basin, but has only generated statistics for Pennsylvania, Delaware,
District of Columbia, West Virginia, and a small portion of Maryland. This
analysis is known as The Land Use and Land Cover System and is related to
an earlier system called LUDA.

Maryland has had a computerized land-use information system, MAGI since
1973. New York has had a similar system, LUNA. Virginia has had no state
land-use inventory. Pennsylvania has helped finance data analysis of the
UJSGS land Use and Land Cover System for state needs.

Although there is no consistent accounting of land-use trends in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin, several sources of information do indicate major
shifts in land use throughout the region. Statistics on agricultural
land-use have been collected using surveys and other methods by the Census
Bureau since the mid 1800's. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has been
conducting periodic state forest resource surveys since the 1940's. Because
there are some biases in the data from these sources, it is misleading to
compare them directly with data obtained from maps. These surveys are,
however, reasonable estimates and are internally consistent because data
have been collected using similar methods over time.

These two sources were used to develop a set of consistent, basin-wide
land-use statistics (on cropland, pasture land, forest land, and other
land) which indicate major shifts in land use. Data are reported by countyI
in the two sources described above. With the adjustment factors used in
the population analysis, data for each county that drains to more than one
sub-basin were disaggregated in proportion to the county land area in each
sub-basin.

Census of Agriculture data are collected every four or five years. For
this analysis, the 1949, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1978 records were used to
represent 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, and 1980, respectively. The land-use

B-12

r ~~data in the 1969 Census of Agriculture were collected using sampling
techniques that differed from other Census years, so this data set was not
used to look at trends. To construct trends, estimates were extrapolated
from adjacent. record years to represent agricultural land use in 1955,
1970, and 1975. Total cropland was calculated as the sum of two of three
census cropland categories, "cropland harvested" and "cropland not
harvested and not pastured," excluding "cropland used only for pasture."
This third land use was added to "woodland pastured"~ and "other pasture" to
represent total pasture land. Farmland reported in the Census and not
included in this analysis was contained in the categories "woodland not
pastured" and "other land." The "total cropland" and "total pastureland"
shown in the Census, therefore, would not agree with the CEP estimates.

The U.S. Forest Service has been conducting periodic state forest
resource surveys since the 1940's. Surveys conducted for the states in the
Chesapeake Bay basin are shown below in Table 6. Unfortunately, surveys
were not conducted on a regular basis as in the Census of Agriculture, so
surveys closest to 1955, 1965, and 1975 were chosen to represent these
years. For the trend analysis, it was assumed that 1950 forest cover was
equal to 1955 and 1980 forest cover was equal to 1975 data. For 1960 and
1970, estimates were made by extrapolating from 1955, 1965, and 1975 data.
Where no reliable Timber Survey or Census of Agriculture data existed,
missing figures were estimated by extrapolation.

TABLE 6. U.S. FOREST SERVICE TIMBER SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR BAY-AREA
STATES BETWEEN 1950 AND 1980, AND USED TO CONSTRUCT LAND-USE
TRENDS

CBP Analysis Year 1950 and 1955 1965 1975 and 1980

Maryland Timber Survey 1950 1964 1976
Pennslyvania Timber Survey 1955 1965 1978
Virginia Timber Survey 1957 1965 1976
Delaware Timber Survey 1972 1972
West Virginia Timber Survey 1975

Timber survey categories varied by state and year. They included total
commercial; private, public, and non-commercial; and total forest land.
* ~~Total forest land was used to indicate the percent forested land in the
trend analysis. For counties covering more than one basin, adjustment
factors (percent county land area in each sub-basin) disaggregated data to
the sub-basin level.

Historical forest and agricultural data were then summarized for each
I ~~county and sub-basin. The land in each county not accounted for by the
Census of Agriculture or Timber Surveys was placed in the category called
"1other land". This catch-all category may include residential, commercial,
other urban land uses, institutional land, wetlands, highways, idle, or
other types of land uses. For example, two sub-basins have high (above 10
percent) percentages of "other" land in 1950 -- the Eastern Shore (21.0
percent), which has extensive wetlands, and the West Chesapeake basin,
(14.7 percent) which encompasses the urbanized Baltimore and Annapolis

B- 13

region. The sub-basins which show the greatest increases in urban land
from 1950 to 1980 are also those which experienced the greatest population
growth (Potomac, Patuxent, and West Chesapeake).

Most of the increases in "other" lands between 1950 and 1980 are
assumed to be due to growth in primarily residential, commercial, and other
urban lands and, secondarily, to the establishment or expansion of military
bases, other Federal lands, universities, and other institutions occupying
large tracts of land. The tremendous growth of "other" land in the
Patuxent basin (3.4 to 35.4), for example, may be accounted for by
residential and commercial growth in the Laurel, Columbia, Bowrie, Crofton,
and Lexington Park areas, although expansion of institutional and public
lands has also played an important role. Further analysis is -needed to
determine how much land acreage was established, and when, for the
following (and compare this information with data of ground-breaking and
expansion of towns noted above): Patuxent Naval Air Station, Patuxent
Wildlife'Research Center, Bowie State College, Fort Meade, Agricultural
Research Center, Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Rocky Gorge, Tridelphia Dam,
etc. The Eastern Shore "other" land increased by only one-third (20.7 to
30.1); however, the total rose 10 percentage points. Further analysis
would help determine the primary land-use conversions in this area. In
summary, the "other" land-use category is assumed to indicate the relative
rates of urbanization throughout the Bay basin.

Historical land use estimates for cropland, pasture, forest, and other
land uses are presented in Table 7 through Table 10, as follows:

Table 7 --Estimated Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, 1950, 1955,
1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980;
Table 8 --Estimated Land Use in Major Sub-basins of the Chesapeake Bay,
1950 to 1980;
Table 9 --Estimated Land Use in Minor Sub-basins of Chesapeake Bay Basin,
1950 to 1980;
Table 10 --Estimated Land Use in Chesapeake Bay Basin, by State, 1950 to
1980; and
Table 11 --Chesapeake Bay Basin Land Area, by State.

In addition, trends in each of the minor sub-basins are plotted in Figure
17 through Figure 32.

B- 14

SUSQUEHANNA (MOUTH TO HARRISBURG)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 ./ ,/ .// j 27.8
1955 ////// 27.8
1960 ////J 28.8
1965 ///////J 29.8
1970 29.1
1975 /J 28.4
1980 // 28.4
PASTURE 1950 12.9
1955 12.5
1960 12.2
1965 11.5

1970 10.4
1975 9.3
1980 8.3
CROPLAND 1950 ix\\\\\\\\\ \1 46.5
1955 x\\\X\\\\\\ 44.7
1960 xX\\\X\\\\\\ 42.8
1965 \\\\\\\\\\ 41.8
1970 \\\\\\\ X X40.7
1975 X�\\X\\\\\\ 39.6
1980 x\\\\\\\\1 38.5
OTHER 1950 12.6
1955 14.8
1960 15.9-
1965 16.7
1970 19.6
1975 22.5
1980 24.7=

0 10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT

Figure 17. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(mouth to Harrisburg)

B-15

SUSQUEHANNA (HARRISBURG TO SUNBURY)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 o///////// J] 48.5
1955 '///////// J 48.5
1960 o ///////A 50.6
1965 07/////////J 52.8
1970 rf /////////J 51.6
1975 //////////J 50.5
1980 / ////// 50.5
PASTURE 1950 8.0
1955 7.7
1960 7.4
1965 6.8
1970 6.4
1975 6.0
1980 5.6
CROPLAND 1950 33.1
1955 31.5
1960 LXXXXN 29.8
1965 27.6
1970 26.9
1975 26.3
1980 \\\25.7
OTHER 1950 10.2
1955 12.1
1960 11.9
1965 12.6
1970 14.8
1975 16.9
1980 18.0
'�'''" "'*' ......I"' ... ...' ........I� ,"'"��1""' ',1,,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT

Figure 18. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(Harrisburg to Sunbury)

B-16

SUSQUEHANNA (JUNIATA)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 /////zz//A 62.5
1955 //r////// /J 62.5
1960 r//////// /j 65.2
1965 ////// ///A 67.9
1970 /////////J 67.8
1975 /////[/////J 67.8
1980 ///////////J 67.8
PASTURE 1950 11.3
1955 10.5
1960 9.7
1965 9.0
1970 8.3
1975 7.5
1980 6.8
CROPLAND 1950 21.3
1955 20.0
1960 18.6
1965 17.1
1970 16.4
1975 15.8
1980 15.1
OTHER 1950 4.7
1955 6.9
1960 N 6.4
1965 5.8
1970 7.2
1975 8.7
1980 10.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT

Figure 19. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(Juniata sub-basin)

B-17

SUSQUEHANNA (WEST BRANCH)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 74.2
1955 f////74.2
1960 r ////////78.6
1965 ////////j 82.9
1970 B1.2
1975 79.5
1980 o//j 79.5
PASTURE 1950 7.1
1955 6.2
1960 5.3
1965 4.6
1970 4.2
1975 3.8
1980 3.3

CROPLAND 1950 12.7
1955 11.7
1960 x 10.6
1965 N 9.8
1970 3 9.4
1975 9.0 -
1980 N 8.6
OTHER 1950 5.8
1955 7.7
1960 5.3
1965 2.5
1970 5.0
1975 7.5
1980 8.3
, ...... ....'' .....''1......................... . I'
0 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT

Figure 20. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(West branch)
B-1S

SUSQUEHANNA (ABOVE SUNBURY)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 5///////// /j 53.1
1955 5///////J 53.1
1960 ////f//////J 55.1
1965 //////////J 57.
1970 / ///// /////J .58.2
1975 ////////////J 59.2
1980 /7//////////J 59.2
PASTURE 1950 20.8
1955 18.9
1960 17.0
1965 14.6
1970 13.0
1975 11.3
1980 ~j' 9.7
CROPLAND 1950 , - 23.3
1955 21.8
1960 S\IXN 20.3
1965 18.8
1970 18.1
1975 17.4
1980 16.7
OTHER 1950 5 2.6
1955 6.0
1960 X 7.4
1965 9.2
1970 10.6
1975 11.9
1980 14.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT

Figure 21. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Susquehanna basin
(above Sunbury)

B-19

EASTERN SHORE

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 3'///////////| 37.7
1955 3'///////'///J 37.7
~~~~~~~1960 ' ' /' //1 38.4
1965 ~////////39.0 /
1970 / //3// ///7.7 I
1975 /// ///36.5
1980 ///////J 36.5
PASTURE 1950 8.2
1955 7.1
1960 6.0
1965 4.4
1970 3.5
1975 ] 2.7
1980 1 .9
CROPLAND 1950 . 3\\\\\\\\\ 3.2
1955 xXXXX\\\\\\ 33.5
1960 X\\\\\\\\\N 33.8
1965 i\\\\\\\\\\1 34,7
1970 X\\\\\\\\\N 33.6
1975 X\\\\32.5
1980 X \\X\\\\\\ 31.4
OTHER 1950 20.6
1955 21.4
1960 21.6
1965 21.7
1970 AAAJAAIJ 24.9
1975 28.1
1980 I30.1 4
......... ................... ..........'''.I'''.'''''' ,'.
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT

Figure 22. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Eastern Shore
basin

B-20

WEST CHESAPEAKE

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 42.2
195 //////// 42.2
1960 //////////I 41.8
1965 t///////// 41.3
1970 37.2

1980 33.0
PASTURE 1950 15.3
1955 mm 13.9
1960 ZE 12.6
1965 11.2
1970 9.2
1975 87.3
1980 5j s.3
CROPLAND 1950 27.8
1955 JL XXX 24.9
1960 22.0
1965 21.4
1970 18.8
1975 16.2
1980 : 13.6
OTHER 1950 14.6
1955 18.8
1960 % 23.5
1965 25.8
1970 34.6
1 975 43.3
1980 x 47.9

0 10 20 30 40 50
PERCENT

Figure 23. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the West Chesapeake
basin

B-21

PATUXENT !

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 /55.1 ;
1955 or> / / /// 55. 1
1960 53.3
1965 51.4
1970 //////// 47.4

1975 j/ ffff/J 43.5
1980 //////// 43.5
PASTURE 1950 16.6
1955 13.7
1960 10.8
1965 9.9
1970 8.5
1975 7.2
1980 5.9
CROPLAND 19S0 \x\\\> 24.6
1955 22.4
1960 S\\ N 20.2
1965 18.6
1970 17.4
1975 16.2
1980 SXN 15.0
OTHER 1950 3' 4
1955 8.6
1960 15.6
1965 20.0
1970 26.4
1975 32.9
1980 XXX 35.4
' ........I'''''''''1' ....I . , , I' ' , ....I . I' *
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT

Figure 24. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Patuxent basin

B-22

POTOMAC (ABOVE FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 ,' /////////j 48.7
1955 ///////// 48.7
1960 ////////// 49.3
1965 /////////j 50.0
1970 5//////// /] 53. 5
1975 5r/////////j 56.9
1980 5////////,//j 56.9
PASTURE 1950 25.5
1955 24.2
1960 23.0
1965 22.0
1970 20.8
1975 19.5
1980 18.3
CROPLAND 1950 22.7
1955 20.7
1960 ,- Y 18.6
1965 17.4
1970 17.1
1975 16.8
1980 16.5
OTHER 19o50 2.9
1955 6.2
1960 ~ 8.9
1965 10.4
1970 8.5
1975 x 6.6
1980 8.1
...... '"' ......""1 ......... ..." ' ....I," ,. ,,'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT

Figure 25. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Potomac basin
(above the fall line)

B-23

POTOMAC (BELOW FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 ///////////j 57.4
1955 /////////j 57.4
1960 5 >>//////1 56.4
1965 ////5///// 5.4
1970 ,//////////j s3.5
1975 /51.7
1980 /// //// / j 51.7
PASTURE 1950 15.3
1955 13.7
1960 12.1
1965 10.1
1970 9.3
1975 8.4
1980 7.6
CROPLAND 1950 19.5
1955 17.8
1960 16.1
1965 15.1
1970 14.9
1975 .3 14.7
1980 14.5
OTHER 1950 7.7
1955 11.0
1960 15.3
1965 19.3
1970 22.1
1975 25.0
1980 [CJ J 26.0
i'.' .....'.'.''"' I'"' '' ."." '.'.'.''."'' ........'.'...... . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT

Figure 26. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Potomac basin
(below the fall line).

B-24

RAPPAHANNOCK

LANDUSE YR PERCENT SUM

FOREST 1950 58.3
1955 58.3
1960 58.6

1~~~~~965 r m Jut /// j58.9
1970 .5
1975 6///////// 60.
1980 60.6
PASTURE 1950 16.5

1955 16.7
1960 16.9
1965 16.5
1970 15.5
1975 14.4
1980 13.1
CROPLAND 1950 18.3
1955 17.6
1960 16.8
X1965 16.3

1970 16.7
1975 17.2
1980 17.6
OTHER 1950 6.9
1955 7.4
1960 ^ 7 5
196s5 9 8.3
1970 8.0
1975 x 7.8
1980 8.4
''''1''..I. I &...... .. ......'
0 ln- 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT SUM

Figure 27. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Rappahannock
basin.
B-25

YORK (ABOVE FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 '/////////j 70.3
1955 '/ ////5/////j 70.3
1960 '/ //////////J 70.0
1965 69.8
1970 / ////////j 69.7
1975 '/ ///////// 69.6

PASTURE 1950 14.0
1955 12.9
1960 11.8
1965 12.5 ,
1970 11.3
1975 10.2 '
1980 9.1
CROPLAND 1950 15.2
19S5 13.3 A
1960 11.5
1965 10.7
1970 10.8
1975 10.9
1980 10.9
OTHER 1950 0.4
1955 3.3 4
1960 6.4
1965 6.8
1970 X 8.0
1975 S 9.1
1980 10.1 !

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PERCENT

Figure 28. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the york basin (above
the fall line)

B-26

YORK (BELOW FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 ////////// 68.0
1955 /////// //' 68.0
1960 70. 8
1965 ///////////j 73.7
1970 7// f ///// 72.6
1975 7///////// a 71.5
1980 '////////// 71.5
PASTURE 1950 7.2
1955 6.4
1960 5.6
1965 4.8
1970 4.2
1975 3.7
1980 3.2
CROPLAND 1950 13.2
1955 12.4
1960 S 11.6
1965 - 11.2
1970 .S 11.5
1975 S 11.9
1980 i 12.3
OTHER 1950 11.4
1955 13.1
1960 11.8
1965 10.2
1970 M 11.4
1975 12.6
1980 12.8
''''1''''1 ...., ...., ...., ' .... '. .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PERCENT

Figure 29. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the York basin (below
the fall line)

B-27

PIANKATANK AND MOBJACK BAY

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 r/////////J 59.1
1955 59.1
1960 ////////// 62.7
1965 //////////J 66.3
1970 8//////// 66.8
197S //////////J 67.4
1980 r'////////J 67.4
PASTURE 1950 4.5
1955 I 3.7
1960 2.8
1965 3.1
1970 X 2.7
1975 2.4
1980 2.1
CROPLAND 1950 15.5
1955 14.5
1960 13.6
1965 12.8
1970 13.3
1975 13.7
1980 14.2
OTHER 1950 20.7
1955 22.5
1960 20.7
1965 17.6
1970 16.9
1975 16.2
1980 16.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT

Figure 30. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the Piakatank River
and Mobjack Bay

B-28

JAMES (ABOVE FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 r'/////f///J 72.6
1955 O /F ////J 72.6
1960 o////////J 72.4
1965 s ////// //J 72.3
1970 '////////J .73.2
1975 /////////J 74.2
1980 //>// // 74.2
PASTURE 1950 20.1
1955 18.9
1960 17.7
1965 17.8
1970 16.7
1975 15.6
1980 14.4
CROPLAND 1950 12.4
1955 J 10.7
1960 N 9.1
1965 8.1
1970 _ 7.7
1975 7.4
1980 7.1
OTHER 1950 -5.1
1955 [ -2.3
1960 0.6
1965 J 1.7
1970 2.1
1975 2.6
1980 : 4.1
...... ....... '1 ......... .........
-20 0 20 40 60 80
PERCENT

Figure 31. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the James basin
(above the fall line)

B-29

JAMES (BELOW FALL LINE)

LANDUSE YR PERCENT

FOREST 1950 ///////// 64.6
1955 "/////////e/ 64.6
1960 ///////// 64.7
1965 64.8
1970 ///////63.1
1975 /t///t ////J 61.5
1980 //////61 .5
PASTURE 1950 j 6.2
1955 5.9
1960 5.7
1965 4.8
1970 4.1
1975 3.4
1980 2.7
CROPLAND 1950 14.4
1955 13.8
1960 13.2
1965 12.7
1970 M 12.7
1975 N 12.7
1980 M 12.7
OTHER 1950 14.6
1955 X15.5
1960 16.2
1965 17.5
1970 19.8
1975 22.2
1980 22.9
''1'1'' ....I....''...''.....'...'I '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT

Figure 32. Land-use trends from 1950 to 1980 in the James basin
(below the fall line)

B-30

TABLE 7. ESTIMATED LAND-USE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1950 TO 1980
(EXCLUDING NEW YORK DRAINAGE AREA)

Total Acres Land
in Area Use* 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

C.B. Basin C 21.1 19.5 17.9 16.7 16.2 15.8 15.4
Above the P 17.5 16.7 15.7 14.9 13.8 12.8 11.8
Fall line 27,600,000 F 59.0 59.0 60.5 62.1 62.5 62.8 62.8
O 2.4 4.8 5.9 6.3 7.5 8.6 10.0

C.B. Basin C 23.6 22.7 21.7 21.4 20.9 20.4 19.8
Below the P 10.6 9.4 8.1 6.8 5.8 4.9 4.0
Fall line 8,960,000 F 52.5 52.5 52.4 52.3 50.5 48.8 48.8
0 13.3 15.4 17.8 19.5 22.8 25.9 27.4

Entire C 21.7 20.3 18.8 17.9 17.4 17.0 16.5
C.B. Basin P 15.8 14.8 13.8 12.9 11.8 10.7 9.7
36,560,000 F 57.4 57.4 58.5 59.6 59.5 59.4 59.4
O 5.1 7.5 8.9 9.6 11.3 12.9 14.4

*C = Cropland, P = Pasture, F = Forest, 0 = Other Lands

B-31

TABLE 8. ESTIMATED LAND USE IN MAJOR SUB-BASINS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN,
1950 TO 1980.

Estimated Land
Basin Acreage Use* 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Susquehanna**
C 24.1 22.8 21.4 20.1 19.43 18.77 18.1
13,370,000 P 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.13 7.27 6.4
F 56.6 57.4 60.2 62.9 62.4 61.8 61.3
0 9.3 8.8 8.4 8.0 10.0 12.2 14.2
West Chesapeake
C 27.8 24.9 22.0 21.5 18.9 16.3 13.7
1,025,000 P 15.3 14.0 12.7 11.3 9.3 7.3 5.4
F 42.2 42.2 41.8 41.4 37.2 33.1 33.1
0 14.7 18.9 23.5 25.9 34.6 43.3 47.9
Eastern Shore
C 33.3 33.5 33.8 34.8 33.7 32.5 31.4
2,725,000 P 8.3 7.2 6.1 4.4 3.6 2.8 1.9
F 37.8 37.8 38.4 39.1 37.8 36.5 36.5
0 20.7 21.5 21.7 21.7 24.9 28.2 30.1
Patuxent
C 24.7 22.5 20.2 18.6 17.4 16.3 15.1
603,000 P 16.7 13.8 10.8 9.9 8.6 7.3 6.0
F 55.2 55.2 53.3 51.4 47.5 43.5 43.5
0 3.4 8.6 15.6 20.0 26.5 32.9 35.4
Potomac
C 22.1 20.2 18.2 17.0 16.7 16.4 16.1
9,027,000 P 23.3 22.5 20.8 19.7 18.5 17.4 16.2
F 54.6 51.0 44.8 38.6 47.3 56.0 64.7
0 7.2 8.8 8.4 8.0 10.0 12.2 14.2
Rappahannock
C 18.5 17.7 16.8 16.1 16.4 16.7 17.0
1,620,000 P 18.9 19.6 20.3 19.7 18.6 17.4 16.3
F 56.0 57.1 58.2 57.4 58.2 59.0 59.8
0 6.6 5.6 4.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9
York-Piankatank
C 14.4 13.2 11.9 11.3 11.5 11.8 12.0
1,950,000 P 9.9 9.0 8.0 8.0 7.2 6.5 5.7
F 66.4 67.6 68.8 70.0 70.0 70.1 70.1
O 9.3 10.2 11.3 10.7 11.3 11.6 12.2
James
C 12.8 11.4 9.9 9.0 8.7 8.5 8.2
6,324,000 P 17.6 16.6 15.5 15.5 14.4 13.4 12.3
F 71.0 71.1 71.3 71.4 71.6 71.8 72.0
0 1.0 1.0 3.3 4.1 5.3 6.3 7.5

C = Cropland, P = Pasture, F = Forest, 0 = Other Lands
**New York's Susquehanna drainage area not included.

B-32

TABLE 9. ESTIMATED LAND USE IN MINOR SUB-BASINS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
BASIN, 1950-1980

Estimated Land
Basin Acreage Use* 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Susquehanna
Above Sunbury (exclud- C 23.4 21.9 20.3 18.8 18.1 17.4 16.7
ing New York drainage) P 20.8 18.9 17.1 14.7 13.0 11.4 9.7
3,090,260 F 53.2 53.2 55.2 57.2 58.2 59.3 59.3
O 2.6 6.0 7.4 9.3 10.6 12.0 14.3

West Branch C 12.7 11.7 10.7 9.8 9.4 9.0 8.7
4,533,000 P 7.2 6.3 5.4 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.4
F 74.3 74.3 78.6 83.0 81.3 79.6 79.6
O 5.8 7.7 5.3 2.6 5.1 7.6 8.4

Juniata C 21.4 20.0 18.6 17.1 16.5 15.8 15.1
2,157,000 P 11.3 10.5 9.7 9.1 8.3 7.6 6.8
F 62.6 62.6 65.2 67.9 67.9 67.9 67.9
0 4.8 6.9 6.4 5.8 7.3 8.7 10.1

Sunbury to C 33.2 31.5 29.9 27.6 27.0 26.3 25.0
Harrisburg 1,527,000 P 8.0 7.7 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7
F 48.5 48.5 50.7 52.8 51.7 50.6 50.6
O 10.2 12.2 12.0 12.7 14.8 17.0 18.0

Harrisburg C 46.5 44.7 42.9 41.9 40.8 39.6 38.5
to Mouth 2,063,240 P 12.9 12.6 12.3 11.5 10.4 9.4 8.3
F 27.8 27.8 28.8 29.9 29.2 28.5 28.5
0 12.7 14.8 16.0 16.8 19.6 22.5 24.7

West Chesapeake C 27.8 24.9 22.0 21.5 18.9 16.3 13.7
1,137,050 P 15.3 14.0 12.7 11.3 9.3 7.3 5.4
F 42.2 42.2 41.8 41.4 37.2 33.1 33.1
0 14.7 18.9 23.5 25.9 34.6 43.3 47.9

Eastern Shore C 33.3 33.5 33.8 34.8 33.7 32.5 31.4
2,733,116 P 8.3 7.2 6.1 4.4 3.6 2.8 1.9
F 37.8 37.8 38.4 39.1 37.8 36.5 36.5
O 20.7 21.5 21.7 21.7 24.9 28.2 30.1

Patuxent C 24.7 22.5 20.2 18.6 17.4 16.3 15.1
603,870 P 16.7 13.8 10.8 9.9 8.6 7.3 6.0
F 55.2 55.2 53.3 51.4 47.5 43.5 43.5
0 3.4 8.6 15.6 20.0 26.5 32.9 35.4

(continued)

B-33

TABLE 9. (continued)

Estimated Land
Basin Acreage Use* 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
1980

Potomac C 22.8 20.7 18.7 17.4 17.1 16.8 16.5
Above fall 6,714,300 P 25.5 24.3 23.0 22.1 20.8 19.6 18.3
line F 48.7 48.7 49.4 50.0 53.5 57.0 57.0
0 3.0 6.3 8.9 10.5 8.6 6.6 8.2

Below fall C 19.5 17.8 16.1 15.1 14.9 14.7 14.6
line - 1,799,400 P 15.4 13.8 12.1 10.1 9.3 8.5 7.6
F 57.4 57.4 56.4 55.4 53.6 51.7 51.7
0 7.7 11.0 15.3 19.3 22.2 25.0 26.1

Rappahannock C 18.9 17.8 16.6 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.3
Above fall 1,039,530 P 25.1 27.1 28.9 27.8 26.4 25.0 23.6
line F 53.6 53.6 53.5 53.4 54.3 55.2 55.2
0 2.4 1.5 1.0 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.9

Below fall 583,620 C 17.6 17.4 17.2 17.0 18.0 19.0 19.9
line P 7.9 6.5 5.0 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.2
F 63.0 63.0 63.7 64.4 65.2 66.0 66.0
0 12.5 13.1 14.1 13.4 12.2 11.1 10.9

York C 15.2 13.4 11.6 10.8 10.9 10.9 11.0
Above fall 852,000 P 14.0 12.9 11.9 12.5 11.4 10.2 9.1
line F 70.3 70.3 70.1 69.8 69.8 69.7 69.7
0 0.5 3.3 6.5 6.9 8.0 9.1 10.2

Below fall 796,600 C 13.2 12.4 11.6 11.2 11.6 12.0 12.3
line P 7.3 6.5 5.6 4.8 4.3 3.8 3.2
F 68.0 68.0 70.9 73.8 72.7 71.6 71.6
0 11.5 13.1 11.9 10.2 11.4 11.6 12.9

Piankatank C 15.5 14.6 13.6 12.9 13.3 13.8 14.3
280,406 P 4.6 3.7 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.2
F 59.2 59.2 62.7 66.4 66.9 67.4 67.4
0 20.8 22.6 20.7 17.7 17.0 16.3 16.1

James C 12.4 10.8 9.1 8.1 7.8 7.5 7.2
Above fall 5,085,000 P 20.1 19.0 17.8 17.9 16.8 15.6 14.5
line F 72.6 72.6 72.5 72.3 73.3 74.2 74.2
0 -5.2 -2.3 0.7 1.7 2.2 2.7 4.1

Below fall 1,155,000 C 14.5 13.9 13.2 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8
line P 6.2 6.0 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.5 2.7
F 64.6 64.6 64.8 64.9 63.2 61.5 61.5
0 14.6 15.5 16.3 17.5 19.9 22.3 23.0

*C Cropland, P = Pasture, F = Forest, O = Other Land

B-34

TABLE 10. ESTIMATED LAND USE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, BY STATE, 1950-1980

Land Use* 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Maryland C 29.7 28.3 26.9 26.5 25.6 24.8 24.0
P 15.1 13.7 12.2 10.6 9.2 7.8 6.4
F 45.2 45.2 45.5 45.7 43.0 40.3 40.3
O 10.0 12.8 15.4 17.2 22.2 27.1 29.3

Pennsylvania C 24.7 23.3 21.9 20.6 20.0 19.3 18.7
P 12.0 11.1 10.2 9.2 8.3 7.5 6.6
F 57.0 57.0 59.6 62.2 61.8 61.3 61.3
O 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.0 9.9 11.9 13.4

Virginia C 15.7 14.3 13.0 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0
P 18.6 17.6 16.5 16.1 15.3 14.4 13.6
F 62.8 62.8 63.2 63.5 63.8 64.1 64.1
O 3.9 5.3 7.3 8.3 8.8 9.5 10.3

District of C 0.9 .5 0 0 0 0 0
Columbia P 0.5 .3 0 0 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 98.6 99.2 100 100 100 100 100

Delaware C 36.6 37.1 37.6 38.6 38.9 39.2 39.4
P 6.4 5.3 4.1 3.5 - - -
F - - - 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8
0 - - - 22.1 - - -

West Virginia C 14.1 12.3 10.4 9.4 9.1 8.7 8.4
P 28.2 27.3 26.4 25.2 23.2 21.3 19.3
F - - - - - 73.4 73.4
O -3.4 -1.1

New Yorkl C 20.5
P 5.9
F 60.5
0 13.1

1New York is not included in historical analyses; 1980 data based upon New
York
State LUNR inventory in Chemung and Susquehanna 303(e) River Basin Plans,
New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

C = Cropland, P = Pasture, F = Forest, O = Other Land

B-35

TABLE 11. CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN LAND AREA, BY STATE

State Total Acres Acres in Basin % State in Basin % Basin in State

Delaware 1,265,920 442,000 34.9 1.1
District of
Columbia 39,040 39,000 100.0 0.1
Maryland 6,138,880 5,931,000 96.6 14.6
New York 31,728,640 3,991,000 12.6 9.8
Pennsylvania 28,828,800 14,177,000 49.2 34.9
Virginia 25,535,360 13,758,000 53.9 33.9
West Virginia 15,374,000 2,231,000 14.5 5.5

TOTAL 40,569,000* 99.9

* 63,390 sq. miles

Methodology for Determining Present (1980) Land Use

The CBP set up a basin-wide computer model to estimate nutrient
loadings from nonpoint sources. Because nonpoint source loadings are
dependent on land cover and land-use, the CBP funded a study to estimate,
by sub-basin the acreage for approximately ten land-cover categories using
LANDSAT imagery (USGS Level I Land Cover Classification). The land cover
analysis was performed on the Eastern Regional Remote Sensing Application
Center (ERRSAC) Hewlett-Packard 3000 computer at Goddard Space Center. The
land-cover data set was developed using the Interactive Digital Image
Manipulation System (IDIMS) and Geographic Entry System (GES) software
packages.

The land-use categories identified were: forest, cropland with winter
cover ("low-till"), cropland without winter cover ("high-till"), pasture,
low-density (large lot) residential, medium density residential,
high-density (townhouse/garden apartment) residential,
commercial-industrial, and idle land (Figure 33 illustrates the aerial
coverage of LANDSAT scenes.). LANDSAT scenes used in the analysis were
photographed between 1977 and 1979 (April, May, and June were analyzed to
differentiate between minimum and conventional-tillage cropland) and are
assumed to represent 1980 land-use patterns. Ground truthing of the
LANDSAT data against other land-use data sets and field surveys suggest
that the data on land cover, including tillage practices, were reliable. A
detailed account of the LANDSAT analysis is described in the Chesapeake Bay
Model Final Report (Hartigan 1983).

The data were aggregated into sub-basin units (or "reaches") for use in
the basin model. Figure 34 and 35 illustrate the location of individual
sub-basins. Reaches can be grouped to correspond with the 17 minor
sub-basins used for the historical population and land-use trends
analysis. Table 12 tabulates present basin land-use acreage by reach
(above the fall line) and coastal sub-basin (below the fall line). Table
13 sums the figures in Table 12 to the major sub-basin level. Table 14 is
an example of how to aggregate sub-basins to represent the minor sub-basin;
data are presented elsewhere in the Appendices.

B-36

5C ~ ~ 5CA~

CHESAPEAKE SAY
BASIN

Figure 33. LANDSAT scenes used for land-use analysis
B-3 7

CHESAPEAKE SAY BASIN

MODEL SUJB-BASINS
AB3OVE FALL LINE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ir

LEGEND
~SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
---CHANNEL

Figre 4. hespeae By bsi moel ub-asis aoveth

fall~~~~~~~0 SOn

/90 mB-38

CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

MODEL SUB-BASINS

BELOW FALL LINE

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~znemiahci

An~~~~~~~~~~E acestj

-~~ SU~~~-~~ASI;L BO~~~~~flOAt =y
Figure 35. Chesapeake B ay a i o e u -b s n e o h

fall lin~~~~~~~~~~PCOOe
B- 39~.rat.

The CBP management study used the basin model to predict nutrient
loadings to the Chesapeake's tidal waters under present (1980) and future
(2000) conditions. In addition to estimating greater sewage treatment
plant loadings (based on population increases, primarily), future nonpoint
source loadings were generated by changing land-use data to account for
increasing development. To make a "worst case" future nonpoint source
load, all development expected to take place by the year 2000 (based on
population projections) was assumed to take place or, existing forested
areas. Because nutrient loading rates are least from forest land compared
to cropland or pasture, this assumption maximizes the increase in nutrient
loadings due to urbanization. Future (2000) land use data are presented in
Table 12(b) and Table 13; only the forest and urban categories differ from
the 1980 estimates.

A comparison between the LANDSAT and Timber Survey/Ce-nsus of
Agriculture estimates of present (1980) land-use is shown in Table 15.

This table indicates that the LANDSAT analysis consistently
overestimates cropland, with the exception of the Rappahannock, and pasture
land compared to the Census data, whereas the Census data overestimate
".other" lands. One explanation is that grassland not used for pasture was
probably included in the pasture LANDSAT category and in the "other"
category using census of Agriculture data. Likewise, other vegetated lands
not used for pasture or cropland could have been placed in these categories.

When "woodland or farms" (included in the CBP land use data base but
not reported here) is added to cropland plus pasture land, the percent
total agricultural land is much closer to the LANDSAT total for cropland
plus pasture land. It is possible that the resolution in the LANDSA'1
analysis was not high enough to separate small parcels of woodland from
cropland or pasture on farms-, however, it is equally possible for the error
to be in the Census data since the latter are based on survey data.
Nonetheless, differences as large as 10 percent for similar land uses
indicate that land-use data sets have their own biases; thus, one should be
cautious when comparing one set to another.

Another example of the inherent variability among land-use data is the
estimation of tillage practices on Chesapeake Bay cropland. The Maryland
Department of Agriculture compared data from the CBP/SCS Agricultural
Activities Report (Appendix C) on the extent of conservation-tillage
practices (minimum and no-till) in the Patuxent River basin with data from
a new SCS analysis, Cooperative Extension Service, and Chesapeake Bay
Program data, shown in Table 16. When compared to the CBP's LANDSAT data
on "high-till," or conventional-tillage, and "low-till," or
conservation-tillage, one finds even larger discrepancies (although the
LANDSAT estimates are strictly geared toward the degree of vegetative soil
cover, and not tillage, per se). The purpose of any land-use/land-cover
data set must be known, as well as the methods used to generate it, only
then can one begin to make valid comparisons.

B-40

TABLE 12. PRESENT (A) AND FUTURE (B) LAND USE BY MAJOR BASIN AND BY REACH (ABOVE THE FALL LINE) AND
COASTAL SUB-BASIN (BELOW THE FALL LINE) IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, BASED ON LANDSAT ANA-LYSIS.

12A. Prescnt Laml 6se

REACH FO!? FST II)I.F C-..T I LL M-..TI [.I. P ASTjuRE 1.1) ANTI__AC_ I FOIL.. I DOLE C IOP PASTIM URB IPAN I A C I FS

fkI I IA 53.47 A.m r I .7 6 2 1. n7 22. 38 n. AtA nom n. An 1 .32 53.47 ?22.8 3 22 .38 1. 32 1 6627 .2
P01120 57. 2 1 0.00 1.98 1 4.i3 24.31 0.00 0. 00 0.00 1.93 57.;)5 16.52 24.31 1.93 3 I7-i. 6
[0313r) 57.54 n. rm 2.rOl 21.18 l 5.?nr n.mAe (nn n.mA 4.nn 57.54 23.20 15.20 4.00 1 541 1.2
PC1140 59.48 0,00 1.89 20.83 12. 58 n.A? A An ^. on 5. Pr 5Q.4R 22. 7) 12.58 5.?:' 804n.8
UC Il113r 72. 61 A.nlN 4 .5r) 9. 24 In.9n n.mAr n .mA A.nAn 275 72.6 1 1 3. 74 l n.9f) 2. 75 93156 .8
feCl IM 80. 04 0.00c 0.92 6. 73 II1.65 0.00( 0.00 0.00 0.66 R0.04 7. 65 1 1.A5 n. A, 27 ^8. n
R 0 170 64.51I 0.00 3.07 21I.10 83.38A O.00 0.00n 0.00 2 .94 64. 51 24. 17 H. 38 P. 94 8n7n.4
P0118"- 59. 87 "N.mA 1.6 1 10P.12? I(,. A -.2?4 1.n5 n. n3 2 .47 59.87 2ri .73 114.6 1 2. 79 1 5?7A.4
PC119n 7r). 64 0. 00 1 .40 6. 75 19. 1 0.00 0.0 no0 2O .09 70. 64 R.215 10Q.1I2 2. 09 61 44.0
PCI I I - 7 4. 45 A.nr'n 1.67 R. 75 14. 19 A. m ^.m n~ n.94 7 4. 45 1".49 14 .19 'N.94 157n5.6
PCII II 37. 38 A.nn 5. - I 2A. -2 25.8$5 I.6'n n.42 Inm 3.r)2 3 7. 38 31 .63 25.85 5. 14 1 2r96 A
IW f11120 37.41 0.00 3.41 34.17 21.15 0. 77 0.08 0.21 2.80 37.41 37.58 I .1IS 3.R6 514S.6%
RCHI4n 37.41 rl. m 3.41 34.17 21.15 n.77 A. AR n. 21 2. R^ 37.41 37.58 21.15 3.86 2958. 4

COASTAL FOURST 1IDLF C...T! II-. M-T! lI. P Aq'rlf?F L_ L.OT M-DEN TIGyA Cj1 FOIL. 1)I.FE CROP PASTIME 11PRAN I A CRES.
SUB-BASITN
BolivM 27.83 0.0 4 .7 1 52 .94 14. 46 0.00( O.0 0.00r O.0 (OP7.0A3 57 .71 1 4.46 0.0 362. 4
COAF 1 54. AI A. on 4 .62 32.7.3 7. n7 ,. 29 n. 17 A. 17 n.94 S4. -1 37. 35 7. r7 I1.57 - 4n46.5
CO A SI4 54.ni n.mf( 4 .62 32 .7 3 7.n7 n. 29 0. 17 0. 17 0.94 5i4. 01 37 .35 7.07 1 .57 1 905.1)
CIFS 35.58 R~ 7.76s 47 .421 86 n. 24 A. n7 A. 14 r'. 19 35. 5R 5l. 17 9.A 1 ^.64 6 27. 4
CI IOP F 139. 72 0.00 3.18 '14.811 I n6 A -. 49 n. 13 r~. ?1 A. 1 39. 72 41. 99 I _.6'A^ I. -'0 1793.7I
NANVI' '9. 66 nwm 6.5q .3 5.5611 7.'-i7 n.20 N. 12 n. 37 n.43 49.66 42 n6 7 n7 1.21 51 'i. 2
P(CO~m 68.52? O.0 2.06 24.5') 4.')6 0. 32 0.06 0. 17 1. 31 68.5I 2 25l. 565 '. 6 1 .8R' 4479. A
Wl(,(AA SI.n nnn 8.58 26rS.36 7.98 1.79 n.97 P. 75 n58 5 1 .nn 34 .94 7 .98 6.n'i 1 275. H
NYF~~~~H 28.I 0. 00 4.40 Gl5.25 11 .3? 0.00W 0. 00 0.00n 0.52i R8.51 99. 69 11.32 n.5) RnQ.

*�N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EST CHESAPEAKE --------------------
COASTAL
SUB-BASIN FOP EST JI 0I~F ('JIL M.. -TITLI. PASIUPE LLT M-DEN III_(IA C_ I FOU-11DLE CRlOP PASTjQF 0118AN I ACREFS

COASF5 65.50 n. n n.4 A 11.32 13.5.3 6.26- 1.16 I.-7 n.76 65.S 9, 1.72 13.53 9.25 1321.7
COASI'6 37.59 fl.mA 3.n4 2 3. 33 3. Ii2 12.94 6.86 1) 4 3 3.n9 37.59 26.37 3.82 32.22) 308.2)
005T I 46.39 h. r 3.14 24.94 22. 68 1.9n n.57 ^.28 A. I 46. 39 28.n8l 22.68 2.859 4658.n
IIALTI 17.38 n.mA, 1.29 11.57 11.00 25.89 9.04 13.82 10.01 17.38 22~.8R6 11.00 58.76 1010.3
GIJNPC) 46.97 A. P 2.73 2 1. 51 19.76 2).613 2. 52 1.48 2.35 465.97 PAd 29 29. 76 8. 98 2701.2
PA FAP 39.66 n.mF, 1.92 21.39 22.82 4.76 2 .881 2.67 3.90 39.A6 23.31 PP. 8? 14.21 2 708. 4
SEVFIR 66.82 o.0) 2. 32 9.1 2 4.83 10.17 2.75 3.14 0.8 66.82, 11.44 4.83 16.91 376.4

RE ACH /
COASTAL FOREFST 'IDLF C-TI LI.L MT1`1I PASFIAIR [L-01.1 MDFN TilGA C-1 FOR jr).E CROP PASTURE tlIRRANI ACRES-.
SUB-BASIN
* AT 5.3. 10 0.0 .07 1 9.52 20.73 P. P0 I .72 0.62I; 0. 44 53. ln 2N. 59 2n. 73 5.8 222~:)7. 2
I-PATY 53. In I." I." 19 .52 2n. 73 2. 8n 1 .72 n. 62 n.44 5 3. 1n 2,1.19 2n .73 El. 6- 34Aei..3

(conthiped)

TABLE 12. (continued)

12B. Future Land Use.
Susquehanna

REACH FOREFST II)LF V_TJILL M-TILI. PASruRE I.-COT MDFN ViLA ('_I F(R-IDIE C RO0P PASTURP IIRRANI ACRES

RC!III 53.37 n. f, 3. 7 I 21.'n7 22. 38 r'.~A n. ~n nrm 1.42 53.37 22 .83l 22.38 I .4 16627.2
P (1 2n 57.01 0.00 1 .99 1 4.53 24. 31 . 0.00 0. .00 2.17 57.0! 16.51 24 .31 ;>.1I1 II 705. 6
RCI13rn 57.12 N.m nrl 9 2 1. 18 15.2in 'n~vr gn.r n.r. 4.42 57.12 23.26 IS .2n 4. 42 1 541 1.2
PCII4O 98.90 O.(X) I1.89 20. 83 12.9R rn.n? f%. n r..nns 5.77 5R.9'i 22.72 12.58 5.pn 8(4n~.8
PCI15r) 72.46 n. n 4 .5', 9.24 In.Qn n.nn n. A n.nn 2.9n 72.46 13. 74 ln.9n 2.9'n 9356 .8
RCII6O 79.95 0.00 0.9? 6.73 11.65 0.00 0.n0 0.00 0. 75 7 9. 95 7.65 11.65 ~. 7" 27~-R~.-
QCII7n 64.21) n. r1 3.,) 7 2I.In 8.3p ( onm n.nn n.nn- 3.24 54 .21 24.1 7 8.38 3.2.4 Hn7e).4
ICIIRq 59. 58 f.nnm 1.61 19.12 16.61 n.26 0.n6 0.nI 2.72 59.58 2n.7 3 16.61 3. n1 1521n.4
RC I90 70.41 0.00 1.40 6.75 19.1? O. 01) 0.00 0.00 2.32 7n.41 8.19 110.1I? 2.3' 6S144. r
Q0CI I n 74.37 IN.e 1.67 8.75 14.19 n.nn eN. er rN. rr l.(? 74. 37 I'n.42 14.19 I .n l))I57nli.6
W11II I(O 36.595 0.00 5.01 26. 62 25,.5 1 I . F6 0.49 O.1I2 ~ 3.51 36.55 31.63 25;. 5 5.91 12096.n
WN I I rn 36.83 n.m :1n.41 34.17 21.15 n.8 RH r.n9 n.24 3.22 36.8.3 37.58 21.15 4 .44 5)I 14.6l
RCIII140 37.41 0.1)0 3.41 34.17 21.15 0.77 0.0A (.;)I 2.80n 37.41 -37.58A 21.15 3.86 191)8. 4

�------------------- FASIFRN SHORE ----------------------
COASTAL
SUB-BASIN FORFST 'I D '_ C-T[I . M-TILL PASTIuRF I.LOT MDFN TH-_GA C-_ F(R-IDLE CROP PASTIIRE IIRIIANI ACK-.7
(/0 ')
fi(HEM 27. 83 n.-n 4 .71 52 .94 14.46 n. n ~. r n. n n.nn 27.83 51. 71 14 .46 e.nrl 3 62 .4
COA S Fl 53. 8! C.00y 4.62 32 .7 3 7.07 0. 33 0. 19 0. 19 1.06 53. Al 37. 35 7. n7 1. 77 4 rN4. 5
COAS['4 53. 76 rnm 4.42 32 .73 7.n7 o. 34 n. 2r n.2n I rNQ 5 3.76 37. 35 7 n7 I1.82 19r)5. 5
CaEST .35.37 WOO0 7.76 47 .41 8.61 0.32 0.9 0. 19 0.25r 35. 37 5'~. 17 8.61 0. 85 2627. 4
CII(PT 39. 39 n. rv% 3. 79 44 911 n. 6^ r64 n.17 ,. 37 n.25 39.39 48 .59 I( .6n 1.42 3793. 7
NANTI 49. 35 n., , 6.5n 3 5 .56 7. n7 n. 37 ei. 15 n. 47 ''. 54 49. 35 4?. rv 7 n7 I1.52 1 59.2
P((,(.A 68. 24 n. rv I e)6 24 .5N 4 n6 0. 37 0.07 0.20 1 .50 6R.24 25i.56 4.06 2. 14 44 79.0
VICOMP 4 9.96 n. rm 8.58 26.36 7. 98 P. r,9. 1. 14 3.292 n. IS 4 9.96 34 .94 7 .98 7.12? 1 275. 8
WYE 28. 51 rv) 4.4n 55.25 II1.32 n.mrv (.nnm f.nn r%.52 28. 51 59. 65 11 .3? 0.52 809.5

-�------NEST CIIFTSAPFAW ---------------------
COASTAL
SUB-BASIN FORPST IDLF C-7-I.L M-T11LI. PASMuRE L-LOT M_DFN TIll_GA C_ I FOR- I DIE CuOp PASTURE IIRRANI A C REFS

VOAc~r5 62. 33 n.mn n.4 r .11.32 1 3.53 9. 41 1 .56 1 .44 I n2 62. 33 11 .72 13 .53 12.42 1321 .7
C( v 5r6 39. 57 r' rnm 3.'n4 2 3. 33 3. 82 12. n5 6. 44 R.85 2.9^ 39. 57 216. 37 .3.82 3n.?4 3'8.2
COSTVII 45.835 .m 3.1 4 2 4.9 4 22.68 2.26 n. 68 n.33 n.12 45).85 28.08 22 .68 3. 39 4659.()
11AlF!r 22. 44 O. 0 !.?9 11.57 1.m 23.66 8. 26 1 2. 63 9. 15 '2. 44 12. 86 Il1. en 53. 7' I n~r. 3
OI'P) 46.29 n.mry 2.78 2 1.5 1. 19.76 2.83 2. 71 1 .59 2.53 46 .29 24 .29 19 .76 9.66 2791 .2
PA rAP 34. 13 n.my 1 .92 2 1. 39 22.82 6.61 4.00 3 .71 5.4? 34. 13 2-3. 31 22 .82 1 9.74 21708. 4
SEVERP 6 1.88 nm 2.32 9. 12 4.83 13. 14 3.595 4 .r I.!, I S1. F0 H1.44 4. 83 21.85 3VA.4

REACH/
COASTAL EOREST IDLE C_~~~~TIlI. M-111-1. PAS17IE L-1OT1 M-DEN TH- GA C-1I FIIOECO PASU1RI: 11RBANI ACRES
SUB-BASIN /O o�-)
WNIP~lAT 51 .95 (nn I n7 1 9.52 2n.73 3.4 3 2 .11 n. 76 n.54 51 .85 2n .59 2n.73 6.8`3 2227 .2
LPATX 51. 70 (.(O 1 .07 1 9 .5) PO.73 3.50 2. 15 0. 78 0.5i5 51. 7n 2n59 2n. 73 6.99 343n. 3

(conat inued)

TABLE 12. (continued) _ _______________

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----POTO?4 AC ------------------------
REACH/
COASTAL FOR EST' DIr.F CT I 1.L fT I L L PASrijrE7 L1or mDFN T-I1-GA C_ I FOR_ I DL CROP PASTIFrE IJRHANI ACRE FS
SUB-BASIN
10~I I el R0.84 0.00 0. 44 9. 65 11.3? O.00O O.0 (X l. 79 81-'. 4 6. n9 11 .32 1 .75 8569. 6
petI II7r 76. 28 'o~m 0.49 I 2.n7 I n. 70 r'. I n.ni v-,.o2 p.42 76. 28 12 .56 I'l .7n n.40 9955.2
R CFI 17 8 10. 84 0.00o 0. 44 5.6.5 11.32 0.00 O.00f 0. 00 I.761 80.84 IS.09 If1.3? 1 . 1r 79420.4
RC11IRn 57.8F7 n.rvr, 1.99 1 7.2;5 2I. 4 n.R/, A. n8 n.16 0.75 57.897 1 . 24 21 r)4 I1.95 1 611 5.2?
WCI 1 9.- eo. 49 O'.o 2~ .7n I15. 17 2n. 73 -. 28 r'.?5 n.27 n.12 6n. 48 I11. 87 2n.73 n .92 1 n~nA.8
IC112nn 59. 68 (.t)0 2.2 0 1 5. 56 2'2. 42 O. ?7 O.0(6 0.09 0.2~3 59.0O8II 17.5 2;).4? 0.655 90)75.2
PetI -Io In4 1. 3 n. nn 4.94 2 6.6/4 25. 74 n. 67 n. 39 n. 2^ -.39 4 1. -3 315 I2i5~9.74 1 .-5 634$i.8
RV1'2?n 41. 4n n.mry 2.7-2 1 9.8 2 25.66 6 .31 1 .6(4 0_.38 ?.07 41 .401 22-) 4 2-5.66 10.40 1i9,Q2.
A NA tf) Ili. 1 7 .-I n. ) 5 1 3. 1i3 17. 25 28.934 5. 4n 0. 64 6.1I? IH. 17 14. -%I 17.2 lin.'-ir Ft 3 .6
(C(,(( 62. 66 n.mn 1 .413 12.,)7 19. 9r 1.67 0. 76 0. 4? 1 .04 6 ?.6/6 1 3.5 ll19.9() 3.R9 3 863.14
POFO 54. 4: p%. rv .1 31 115.9n, 9. 4 3. 11 1. 32 1.49 54. 47 15. 23 115.9A 14.4lo I 173-. 5

�--------- ------- PAPPAIIANNOCK-YORK�---------------------
REACH!
COASTAL FOIPSTf IDIT. C-TII. 11 MTI 1- PASTJQE LLOT M-DV.N TH-GA C-1 FORILDLF CROP PASTIIRE IJIRIANI ACRES
SUB-BASIN
Il2o61 .42 n. nn r).09 IlI O, 26.21 O. o9 n.06 n. r2 n.12 61.4 2 12.nR 26 .21 I0.29 1 021 4. 4
1J?CII?13 5 74. 7 I 0.00O 2.61 I12P.34 9. 39 O. 30 0. 04 0. ^4 #'.57 7 4. 71 14 .95 9. 39 o.5 1644.8i
41 ~~Cf 124o 7 4. 71 f. nn 2.61 1 2.34 9. 39 n. 3' (.n4 n. r4 0.5i7 74 .71 1 4 .95 9. 39 n.95 22,1I.6
C'11250 71.69 0.00 1.97 II1.33 1 4. 91 0. 0? 0. 01 0. 01 0.06 7 1.69 1 3. 30 1 4. 91 n. I- 2 195. 21
J(1C11260 71. 69 (Y.00 1 .9 7 1 1.3 3 1 4. 91 0.0? 0. 01 (.(1 0.06 7 1.69 1 3.3(1 1 4.91 0.1in 472.3.?
GREAT 66. 32 n. On~ ?.rno I7.63 14. r5 O'. nn n. n n-." .A n.nn 66. 32 19.6(3 14.0 0.00 41 4.9
RAPPA 62. 2n n. rv 2.86 18F.713 15I.10 0.58) O. 28 0. 19 0.01 62.2 POI.l64 1 5.1I0 1.06 591 6. 1
IC OA c'IR 7 1.8F4 n. rv-. . -3 1 4.64 11.49 n. no n. n n o.,v n.r'r 7 1.84 I ') 67 f1.49 n." 2n Q3.4
YOR K 68.8F2 n. n 2. 16 1 7. iI. 87 n. n) 0.00r n.ovn n.n5 686.82 19 26 1 1.8 7 o.n5 5866 r)
P'IA NK 71. 74 0.00O 2.03 1 4.64 11. 49 0. 05 0. 00 0.00O 0.05 7 1 .74 16. 67 11 .49 0.10 ? 2482P.3

COASTAL FOUEST IDlY C-TI 1L M-TI 1L P ASTIRE ILOT MDFN TIIGA C_ I Fo IDE COP ATRE IHN C
SUB-BASINID-FC O -IE(RANICRc

lCI?()17n 8. 36 n. 0' 0.81 5.0 1 12.2 H 0.07 0.1I0 0.04 0.25 81 .44 5.8H? I 228 0.46 208"57.6
RC11I?8o 74. 74 n. rIVI n.43 7.656 16. n7 n. 28 n. 27 -.I16 ri.19 74 .74 83.09 16 n7 I.In 1 9187.2
RCII29n 65. 23 n.nl I .45 I10. 74 1 4. 62 4.8RI 0. 37 0.57 2.21 65. 23 12. 19 14.6? 7.96 3206.4
1?CI13 -, 68.595 ei 2. 27 1.3. 16 14. 72 ^~8 n.' -.0 l.l?2 68H.5l5 15. 43 14 .7 ? 1.3n 7686 .4
WCI131n 68.595 p.mW 2.27 1 3. 16 14 .12 0.08 0.06 0. 04 1.1I 68.5 15. 43 14.72 I .30 857.6
W3I132n 68. 55 A.mr~ 2.2 7 1 3. 16 14 .72 n.nfi n .6 n.04 1.12 68. 55 I 5. 43 1 4.7? 1 .30 57.6
COAST9 59. 19 O.O() 0.65 9. 76 14. on 2.71 7. 97 3. -9 2. 6r 59. 19 In. 4 1 14 . ^ IA. 4r 1933.7I
CIIICI( 56. 94 M.mn 2 .26 2n. 16 7.68 6.90 I1.87 2.56 1.03 56.94 23 n2 7.68 12.36 1 595. ?
FL-I ZA 33. 98 0.0 0f .67 F3.89 ?I21.59 R. 75 1.3.01 6. e3 7. *,R 33. 98 9 . 56 2 1. 69 34. 91 161.6
JAME-S 62. 68 ^. nn 2.6?) 2 4. n2 I n. R1 3. 28 2.o7 2.2~2 2.3n 6 2.68 Io .64 10.8 I 9.87 8 351.6
IJANSE' 5:3. 47 00. 00 4.46 22.51 IRF. 61 0.2?5 0.08 0.08R 0.594 53. 47 26. 97 18F.61 0. 95 1 348. 1

(continued)

TABLE_12. (continued)_______

------- �POTO MA r------------------------
R~EACH/
COASTALFO10.. 1O PAT1?ORANIA S
SUB-BASIN~I- oi? r. cr 11)11: C.T I .1. M..TI1 .1. P ASTIME L-1.01' 14j)N rFI...GA CI O.. IL CO ATR IM NI AME

l(1 1160 R0. 69 0.00o 0. 44 9.69 11 .3?) O.0on O.0 on0.0 1 I.90 80(.69 6.09 II 3 1.90 8969).6

RC'11 175 80. 73 0.00 0 .44 9i.6 11 .3? 0.00o O.00o 0I0 1.8 80. 73 6. 09 11I.3? I.R6 7942).4
RCI II fin 57. 6v n.o 1.99 1 7. _5 21. -4 ,. 99 n.,-^9 II. 1 n.8 9A 7.6 Xi 0.24 21 *n4 2.12 1 61195.2
?C1I I 9r 6). 2 9 n. r~ 2 .Ile 15. 17 20. 73 0.3-4 0. 30 033 0.1I9 60.2~9 17. 87 20.7 3 1.11 I10908.8R
[WII2rvn 5FI.12 n. m 2.2') 15.56 22.42 03R 0. 08 0. 13 0. 32 C9RA. w 17. R5 22 .42) 0.91 Q07). ?
RCII? I n 4n. 52 ',. n 4.94 26. 64 25. 74 ',81 ri. 5 ,. ?6 n.51 4 .g? 31.98R 29).74 P .16A 6348.8
R C'I12;)n 38.62 n. n) 2.72 1 9.92 25.66 8. o 2.8 nn r.49 2.62 38.6? 22.954 ?9. 66 13.1 8 5912 .8F
ANACO 15. 33 0.00 0.99 1 3. 13 17. 25 29.93 6. 76 In I6 .46 Ili.33 14. n8 17.2 55 3.14 813.6
WCC0 6,. In 0 r.1% 1 .48 2?. n7 19.9'n 2. 77 1. 26 "7n 1.7? 's. 13. 55 19. 9" 6.49 3863.4
I-'0FOM 93. 36 '-*~ 2.11 1 3.1 2 I9.9gn 9 .14 3.39 1 .4? 1.61 9 3. 36 1 1. ?3 1 -.g0 15.91 11730.9

-----------�-�--------.R APPAIIANNO('K-YR K���----------------------
REACH/
COASTAL FoRF1S'T IDLE C-TI I.L M-TILL. PAS;Tll[? LJ.LOT m2n3FN THGA C_ I FOR_ IDLE CMMI PASTIIRI3' IIRRAN I ACRF-S
SUB-BASIN
tz IMCI1230 961. 30 0.00 0 .99 11 .09 26.21 0. 13 0. 08 0.03 0.17 61. 30 52.08 26.21 0.41 102?1 4. 4
.is RCII?35~~~~~~q 73.1 AI P.n2.6 1 12.34 9.3 ^.9 n.r' nAr~ 1.11 73.81 14 .95 9.39 1.85 1644 .8
IWii?4r) 74. 31 h~ 2.61 1 2.34 9.39 0.43 0.0 0.06 0.81 74. 31 1 4. 95 9.39 1 .39) ;)O0I.6
110II2v) 'li 7 1 .64 el n 1.97 11.33 14.9 1 n. 3 n. n? A r0.',2 9 71.64 I 3 .3n 14 .91 v'. 1; 2195.2
RCIJ26n~ 7 1.63 n.n 1.97 1 1.33 14.9 1 n.3 .n? ',. n2 ',. 9 71.A3 I 3.3n 14 .91 fn.I6 471 1. 2
(31FIWA? 66. 32 oo 2 . on 1 7.63 14.n5 no n.'~ o ri" 66. 32 19. 63 14 .09 0.00Y 41 4.9
IIAPPA & 61.99 0.0 2.96 1 8. 7 $ I9.I1 .71 .39 n-.23 n..1 6 s1 .95 21.64 I9.1 I 1. 31 99I6e.1I
CO A riI' 71 .84 n. V'N 2 .03 1 4.64 11.49 n. er no on n on .rn 71 .84 I'j.6i 11 .49 (). n) )9 3. 4
YORK \ 68i. 2 n. no 2.16) 17.I) 1 1.97 o.n~O . 0.0 0. 00 O. 09 68R.82; 19.2?6 11 81 0.0(9 5f866.0
P I ANK' 7 I-14 rn.r no n3 14.64 11.49 r% - ',. ~ ,'. no rn. n 7 1.74 1 x.6A7 11.49 n.l" 2482. 3

REACH/I
COASTAL FOUIST ITDI.F C-TI IL M-TI Li. P ASTIRE VL-LO MEN TPi-_GA C_ 1 FOR-IDLE CROP PAS;TIIRFJ IIRRA'41 ACRE-S
SUB-BASIN
110127n 81. 33 n.ni0 not 5.01 12.28 ri.ri 0.11 0.04 0.27 RI1.41 9.F2 I12.28 0.49 20857.6
IlCII?80 74.9'4 rn.r rvr .4 3 7.656 16. ^7 o.33 n. 32 n. 19 n.46 7 4.9'4 8. -9 I's. 7 5.3n 19187.2P
RCII29r) 63. r5 rn. e 1 .45 I n. 74 14.62 6.13 n.47 o73 2.8? 63.n5 12 .1 9 14 .62 10.1 4 3206.4
PCII300 68. 39 0.00n 2.27 1 3.1 6 1 4. 72 0. n9 n. n7 n4 1.259 , H8.39 9. 4 3 14. 72 1.46A 7686. 4
RC1131IO 69. 3 9 0.00 2.27 1 3.1 6 1 4. 72 0.09 n. n7 '. n4 1.25 68. 39 15. 4.3 14 .7? 1.46 857.6
WV 13? n 683.39 0.no 2.2 7 1 3.1 6 1 4 .72 ri.n9 n.o`7 ri.M 1.25 68 .39 1 19.4 3 14 .72 1.46 971.6
('OAS.1'9 58.20 0.00 0.65 9.76 14.00 2,. 91 8.49 3.2 2R .76 98.20 In. 41 I 4. n" 17,39 1933. 7
CIIICK( 49. n2 n. n 2.26 2 A. 76 7.68 11.32 3 n7 4.2r% 1 .69 49.n2 23 .o2? 7 .68 2e).28 19595.2
ELIZA 33.51 n. r- A.'s7 B . 89 21.59 8. 87 13. 18 6. 11 7.1In 33. 51 9.956 21.59 39. 34 16i1I."6
JAMES 61.1 7 n. ry) 2.62 14.'-)2 In.al 3.78 2 .39 2.56 2.65 6 1.1 7 15 .64 10.81 11 .38 8357.6
NANS 9F 3.2 7 0. 00 4.46 22.91 18R.61s n. 3^ ,. In~ In n.65 9)3. 27 26. 97 18.6 1 1.19 1.348. 1

LEGEN4D TO TA;LE 12.

AGRI CULTURAL
CROP=CROP LAND
CTILL-CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
MTILL=MINIMUM TILLAGE
P ASTURFH=PASTURE
URBAN
L LOT=LARGE LOT
MDEN=MEDIUM DENSITY
TlGA=TOWJNHOUSE-GARDEN
C_I=CCTMIMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL
FOREST
FOREST=FOREST
FOR IDLE=FOREST+IDLE

B-45

TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF EXISTING (198Q) and FUTU�E (2000) LAND USAGE BY MAJOR BASIN.

BASIN TIME FOREST IDLE C-TILL M-TILL PASTURE L-LOT M-DEN TH-GA C-I FOR-IDLE CROP PASTURE URBAN ACRES

SUSQUEHANNA EXISTING 61.81 0.00 2.17 16.13 17.47 0.17 0.04 0.02 2.19 61.81 18.30 17.47 2.41 173440.0
FUTURE 61.54 0.00 2.17 16.13 17.47 0.17 0.04 0.02 2.19 61.54 18.30 17.47 2.68 173440.0
EASTERN SHORE EXISTING 50.16 0.00 4.77 35.98 7.53 0.38 0.16 0.35 0.66 50.16 40.76 7.53 1.55 24455.0
FUTURE 49.87 0.00 4.77 35.98 7.53 0.47 0.19 0.43 0.77 49.87 40.76 7.53 1.85 24455.0
WEST CHESAPEAKE EXISTING 45.20 0.00 2.37 20.60 19.33 5.41 2.38 2.44 2.28 45.20 22.97 19.33 12.50 13174.2
FUTURE 43.70 0.00 2.37 20.60 19.33 6.07 2.68 2.65 2.59 ,43.70 22.97 19.33 14.00 13174.2
POTOMAC EXISTING 61.58 0.00 1.90 14.21 18.16 2.10 0.68 0.39 0.99 61.58 16.11 18.16 4.16 90455.5
FUTURE 60.95 0.00 1.'90 14.21 18.16 2.41 0.78 0.44 1.15 60.95 16.11 18.16 4.78 90455.5
RAPPAHANNOCK-YORK EXISTING 67.01 0.00 1.94 13.87 16.79 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.12 67.01 15.81 16.79 0.39 35951.9
FUTURE 66.86 0.00 1.94 13.87 16.79 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.18 66.86 15.81 16.79 0.54 35951.9
PATUXENT EXISTING 53.10 0.00 1.07 19.52 20.73 2.80 1.72 0.62 0.44 53.10 20.59 20.73 5.58 5657.5
FUTURE 51.76 0.00 1.07 19.52 20.73 3.47 2.13 0.77 0.55 51.76 20.59 20.73 6.92 5657.5
JAMES EXISTING 72.59 0.03 1.26 9.20 13.74 1.05 0.72 0.55 0.88 72.62 10.46 13.74 3.19 65249.0
FUTURE 71.97 0,03 1.26 9.20 13.74 1.31 0.83 0.66 1.O2 72.00 10.46 13.74 3.81 65249.0
TOTAL EXISTING 62.58 2.09 15.78 16.48 0.96 0.3 0.30 1.92 17.87 16.48 3.07 408383.1
FUTURE 62.13 2.09 15.78 16.48 1.12 0.46 0.34 1.60 17.87 16.48 3.52 408383.1

ABOVE THE FALL EXISTING 64.66 15.99 17.32 2.04 322547.2
LINE FUTURE ' 64.35 15.99 17.32 2.34 322547.2

BELOW THE FALL EXISTING 54.82 24.95 13.31 6.93 85835.9
LINE FUTURE 53.81 24.95 13.31 7.93 85835.9

TABLE 14. REACHES AND SUB-BASINS (ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURES 35 AND 36)
CORRESPONDING TO MINOR SUB-BASINS OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

Reach or Sub-basin

Susquehanna
Above Sunbury 10, 20, 30, 40
West Branch 50, 60, 70
Sunbury to Harrisburg 80
Juniata 90, 100
Below Harrisburg 110, 120, 140
Eastern Shore See Table 12
Patuxent See Table 12
West Chesapeake See Table 12
Potomac
Above fall line 140, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200,
210, 220
Below fall line ANACO, OCCOQ, POTOM
Rappahannock
Above fall line 230
Below fall line GREAT, RAPPA, COAST 8
York
Above fall line 235, 240, 250, 260
Below fall line YORK
Piankatank - Mobjack Bay PIANK
James
Above fall line 270, 280, 290, 300, 310, 320
Below fall line CHICK, ELIZA. NANSE, JAMES,
COAST 9

B-47

TABLE 15. LAND USE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN, 1980, BY MAJOR RIVER BASIN

NVPDC/LanIdsat Census of AG/
Interpretation U.S. Forest Serv.
Susquehanna
Cropland 18.3 18.1
Pasture 17.5 6.4
Forest 61.8 61.8
Urban & Other 2.4 13.7
Eastern Shore
Cropland 40.8 31.4
Pasture 7.5 2.0
Forest 50.2 36.5
Urban & Other 1.5 30.1
West Chesapeake
Cropland 23.0 13.7
Pasture 19.3 5.4
Forest 45.2 33.1
Urban & Other 12.5 47.8
Patuxent
Cropland 20.6 15.1
Pasture 20.7 6.0
Forest 53.1 43.5
Urban & Other 5.6 35.4
Potomac
Cropland 16.1 16.1
Pasture 18.2 16.2
Forest 61.6 56.0
Urban & Other 4.16 11.7
Rappahannock
Cropland 15.5 17.0
Pasture 19.6 16.3
Forest 64.3 59.0
Urban & Other 0.6 7.7
York
Cropland 16.6 11.6
Pasture 13.1 6.2
Forest 70.6 70.6
Urban & Other 0.2 11.6
James
Cropland 10.5 8.2
Pasture 13.7 12.3
Forest 72.6 71.8
Urban & Other 3.2 7.7
Total
Cropland 17.9 16.5
Pasture 16.5 9.7
Forest 62.6 59.4
Urban & Other 3.0 14.4

B-48

TABLE 16. PERCENT BREAKDOWN OF CROPPING PRACTICES BY COUNTY IN IliL
PATUXENT RIVER BASIN

CBP/SCD SCS CES Average
~t ~ Anne Arundel
Conventional 40 60 40 47
Minimum 60 30 40 43
No-till 0 10 20 10

Calvert
Conventional 34 70 75 60
Minimum 66 20 5 30
No-till 0 10 20 10

Charles
Conventional 37 50 30 39
Minimum 60 40 60 53
No-till 3 10 10 8

Howard
Conventional 32 15 15 21
Minimum 0 10 0 3
No-till 68 75 85 76

Montgomery
Conventional 0 10
Minimum 30 20
No-till 70 70

Prince George 's
Conventional 20 60 70 50
Minimum 80 30 15 42
No-till 0 10 15 8

St. Mary's
Conventional 100 90 90 93
Minimum 0 0 0 0
No-till 0 10 10 7

CBP/SCD - Chesapeake Bay Program data from soil conservation
district worksheets
SCS - Soil Conservation Service data
CES - Cooperative Extension Service data

B-49

SECTION 3

METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING THE COSTS OF
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS

NUTRIENT REMOVAL AT POTWS

Nutrient removal costs for publicly-owned sewage treatment works
(POTWs) will be based on the Computer Assisted Procedure for the Design and
Evaluation of Wastewater Systems (CAPDET) Program. This program was
developed by the EPA several years ago, in coordination with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, to assist in preliminary wastewater treatment plant
design and cost-evaluation requirements. In July, 1980, the EPA
Construction Grants Program issued Program Operations Memorandum #80-3
which accepted CAPDET for the cost evaluation requirements in Step 1
facilities planning. It was described as representing a "state-of-the-art"
technique for preparations of facilities planning level cost estimates.

The scenarios that will be used for upgrading POTWs with nutrient
removal are:

1) Total Phosphorus = 2 mg L-l;
2) Total Phosphorus = 1 mg L-l; and,
3) Total Nitrogen = 6 mg L-1.

The costs will be presented in terms of: capital costs; operation and
maintenance (O&M); total present worth; and cost per household.

Costs based on flows have been developed by running CAFDET at various
flows from 1 million gallons per day (MGD) through 317 MGD. These values
are then used to generate the costs for each POTW. Specifics on the CBP
use of CAPDET follow:

1) To get upgrade costs, there were three CAPDET runs made for each
flow. These were: secondary, secondary with phosphorus removal,
and secondary with nitrogen removal. The costs for the secondary
plant were subtracted from the others to give upgrade costs for
nutrient removal.

2) Municipal upgrade costs for strategies applied to existing (1980)
loads are based on 1980 operational flow and municipal upgrade
costs for strategies applied to future (2000) loads are based on
projected year 2000 operational flows. However, actual upgrading
costs would be based on design flow because the entire facility
must be retrofitted, not only the operation portion. But design
flows have no bearing on nutrient loads and would prevent a
dollar-per-pound removed cost analysis. For example, Plant A and
Plant B each have design flows of 10.0 MGD. Plant A has an
operational flow of 4 MGD and Plant B has an operational flow of 8
MGD. If upgrading costs are based on design flow, both plants
would have the same retrofitting costs, yet the reduction in
nutrient loadings achieved would be twice as great at Plant B than
at Plant A. This would distort the dollar-per-pound-nutrient-
removed-present-value cost-calculation. Bay-wide, design flow is
30 percent greater than existing (1980) operational flow and
implementation costs for the effluent limitation strategies can be

B-50

expected to increase proportionately. Future (2000) flows are
projected to be seven percent greater than design capacity. This
indicates that additional secondary treatment beyond existing
design capacity will be required to accomodate future flows. The
cost to provide the additional secondary treatment is not included
in the future implementation costs of management strategies.

3) Household costs and 0 & M costs were estimated assuming Federal
construction grant funding. The CAPDET program default value was
changed from 75 to 55 percent to reflect the Federal grant
participation for FY 1985 and beyond. An argument could be made
that these costs should be developed without any allowance for
Federal funding.

4) The CAPDET program uses four different cost indices to update
costs (Engineering News Record (ENR), Marshall and Swift (M & S),
Large City EPA, and Pipe Cost). The ENR and M & S indices were
updated to March, 1982 costs in the EPA program. The other two
were not being updated and are, therefore, using 1977 default
values.

5) The phosphorus removal process in the CAPDET program consists of
adding a chemical coagulation step which includes an upflow
clarifier and a chemical (lime) feed system.

a. The program was run using alum instead of lime and the
capital costs were about 25 percent higher while the 0 & M
costs were about the same. The CBP will still use lime in
their cost analysis.

b. CAPDET uses a filter press for sludge dewatering.
Unfortunately, the costs for this unit process are developed
using parametric equations (i.e., only variable is flow).
Therefore, even though the phosphorus removal run shows a
greater quantity of sludge produced when compared to the
secondary plant, the costs for the filter press are the
same. The capital and O & M costs will, therefore, be about
5 to 10 percent too low in the CBP program.

6) The nitrogen removal process consists of adding
nitrification/denitrification to a secondary facility. The CBP
selected the suspended growth nitrification/denitrification
process.

Methanol Cost Adjustment

a. The January 1981 CAPDET User's Manual shows a 1977 methanol cost
of 150/lb (pp. 3 to 41),.but lists 90/lb elsewhere (p. D-3);

b. an earlier User's Manual showed a 90W/lb figure; and

c. the EPA Innovative/Alternative Technology Manual shows a September
1976 cost of 50i/gallon.

B-51

The CBP has concluded that the CAPDET program is erroneously reading the
unit cost input in terms of cents per gallon instead of cents per pound.
Therefore, the Program divides by a 5.9 conversion factor in calculating
methanol costs.

In addition, it was agreed to update the true methanol costs by the
EPA's Methanol Index which resulted in the following:
9.44
156 x 4.22 = 33.5/lb -- 1982 costs

Then, accounting for the error in the CAPDET program -

33.5~/lb x 5.9 = $1.98/lb.

The CBP used the final figure as the input to the CAPDET program to get
an answer that will be based on the 33.5/lb figure. These changes result
in an annual methanol cost of 117,959 dollars for I MGD plant as opposed to
the original 12,592 dollars. This increases the total 0 & M figure CAPDET
was using by 37 percent for the 1 MGD plant.

B-52

SECTION 4

DESCRIPTION OF CHESAPEAKE BASIN MODEL

The estimates of nutrient loadings from the Bay's tributaries are based
on results from a set of basin-wide computer models developed for the
Chesapeake Bay Program. The CBP basin-wide watershed model simulates
stream flows and the transport of point and nonpoint pollution loadings
(such as sewage treatement plant discharge and cropland runoff) frord river
basins and coastal watersheds to the Bay and its tidal tributaries. The
model routes these loads of nutrients and other substances down the
tributaries to the Bay, accounting for degradation of the pollutants along
the way. it is a lumped-parameter, continuous-simulation model in that the
model continuously calculates water quality processes throughout the
simulation period, using data that has been generalized for specific
regions. Comprised of three sub-models [hydrologic (rainfall), nonpoint
runoff, and tributary routing], the basin model calculates many processes,
including the following: infiltration rates, soil moisture storage
capacities, monthly variations in pollutant loading factors (such as
fertilizer applications), water temperature changes, dissolved oxygen,
sediment releases, and nutrient cycling and conversions.

HYDROLOGIC SUB-MODEL

This model is based upon a modified version of the Stanford Watershed
Model. It calculates the amount of rainfall converted to runoff, a
continuous record of soil moisture during and after rainstorms, and
sub-surface recharge of stream channels. Hydrologic simulations were run
using continuous hourly rainfall records for wet, dry, and average years.
During storm periods, rainfall is distributed among surface runoff and soil
* ~~moisture storage based upon infiltration rates and soil-moisture storage
capacities for upper and lower zones of soil profiles. Between storms,
water storage in the soil is reduced by evapotranspiration and stream
recharge, thereby freeing up soil-moisture storage capacity for the next
storm. The model's infiltration rates are based on sub-basin soil factors
such as hydrologic soil group, permeability, total water holding capacity,
and depth to restrictive layer. Both the infiltration rate and soil
moisture storage capacities are estimated from sub-basin data and refined
* ~~by calibrating the model with observed stream-flow records. Parameters
governing stream recharge from ground water are estimated from analyses of
observed hydrographs and refined during calibration.

NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADING SUB-MODEL

This model is a slightly modified version of the U.S. EPA's NPS Model
(U.S. EPA 1976). it runs on rainfall intensity records and on the
hydrologic sub-model's output of surface runoff and sub-surface flow
records.

For cropland, the model assumes that sediment generation and washoff
(i.e., soil loss) are the driving forces for loadings of all pollutants.
Cropland loadings of sediment, which are calculated from rainfall records,
are assigned sediment "potency factors" (i.e., ratio of pollutant mass to
sediment mass) to calculate loadings of other pollutants. The

B-5 3

representation of cropland areas is enhanced by several model features,
such as the capability to assign monthly vegetative cover percentages that
represent seasonal variations in exposed ground cover resulting from crop
growth and harvest, and the capability to simulate soil disturbance on
user-specified dates to account for tillage practices. For urban and
pasture land-uses, nonpoint pollution wash-off algorithms relate the
wash-off of accumulated pollutant loads to the simulated runoff rate in
each time-step. Accumulated pollutant loads at the start of a rainstorm
are calculated from the "daily pollutant accumulation rates" (lbs/ac/day)
assigned to each land-use classification to represent the buildup of
pollutants on the land surface and in the atmosphere (i.e., air pollution
between rainstorms). For the forest-land category, pollutant loading
calculations are based upon soil loss and potency factors as well as daily
pollutant accumulations, with the former more prominent during periods of
low leaf cover (i.e., fall and winter) and the latter more prominent during
periods of high leaf cover (i.e., spring and summer).

Nonpoint pollution loading factors, such as sediment potency factors
and daily pollutant accumulation rates, have been developed for the
Chesapeake Bay basin from model calibration studies with CBP test watershed
data and with several other monitoring studies (see Chesapeake Bay Basin
Model Final Report). Eleven of the 27 CBP test watershed sites used to
calibrate this sub-model are described in Table 17 and shown on Figure 36.
The model has the capability to use monthly variations in pollutant loading
factors. This feature permits a representation of variations in the
pollutant loading potential of cropland areas due to such factors as
fertilizer/manure applications, crop growth, crop harvest, etc.
Sub-surface flow loadings based upon user-specified concentrations are
added to hourly runoff pollution loadings and delivered to the outlet of
each sub-basin.

RECEIVING WATER SUB-MODEL

The hydrologic and nonpoint pollution loading sub-models are used to
calculate hourly runoff, sub-surface flow, and pollutant loadings delivered
to stream channel or reservoir by the tributary sub-basin. The receiving
water sub-model combines the hourly stream-flow and pollutant loadings from
the sub-basin models with daily point source loadings (see methodology to
estimate point source loadings, below), subtracts out water supply
diversions, and calculates daily pollutant transport and concentrations
throughout the stream and reservoir system.

While all pollutant loading calculations in the nonpoint pollution
loadings 8ub-model assume no pollutant decay or transformation, the
receiving water model simulates the major physical, chemical, and
biological processes that change the magnitude and form of pollutants being
transported downstream. The one-dimensional receiving water model is
operated on an hourly computation interval with the stream-flow and
pollutant loading records produced by the hydrologic and nonpoint pollution
loading sub-models as well as daily records of solar radiation, cloud
cover, maximum/minimum daily air temperature, dewpoint temperature, average
wind velocity, and precipitation/evaporation. Stream-flow transport is
handled with a form of kinematic wave routing, while pollutant transport
out of a given channel reach into a downstream channel reach is based upon
advection (i.e., transport of pollutant by movement of the parcel of water

B-5 4

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e

Figure 36. Location of EPA/CEP test watershed study sites: pequea
Creek (A), Patuxent River (B), Occoquan River (C), Ware
River (D), and Chester River (E)

B-55

containing it). Because the travel time through any reach is significantly
greater than the one-hour computational interval, plug-flow conditions and
negligible dispersion are assumed for pollutant transport calculations.

TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF TEST WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND HYDROLOGY
CALIBRATION RESULTS (1.00 ha = 2.47 ac).

REGRESSIONS OF SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOW VOLUMES
AREA MONITORED STORMS DAILY STREAM-FLOWS
LAND USE/SITE (acres) N Slope R2 N Slope R2

High-tillage cropland
Pequea # 3 115.2 15 0.76 0.88 492a 0.98 0.70
Ware # 7 16.2 7 0.72 0.99 -- -- --

Low-Tillage cropland
Occoquan # 2 26.6 8 0.98 0.98 ..
Occoquan # 10 25.8 7 1.03 0.99 ..

Pasture
Occoquan # 1 31.3 5 0.81 0.95 . .
Occoquan # 5 18.8 5 1.07 0.90 . .

Forest
Pequea # 2 128.0 18 0.70 0.62 222b 0.7 0.79
Occoquan # 9 75.8 7 1.11 0.95 -- -- --
Ware # 8 17.4 9 1.15 0.97 -- -- --

Residential
Pequea # 4 147.2 26 0.86 0.98 374c 0.96 0.84
Ware # 5 6.2 17 0.80 0.92 -- -- --

aMay 23, 1979 - September 26, 1980
bMay 23, 1979 - December 31, 1979
CMay 23, 1979 - May 31, 1980

These models were verified against water quality monitoring data
collected by the U.S. Geological Survey at the major points of freshwater
flow into the Chesapeake (i.e., the fall lines of the James, Potomac, and
Susquehanna Rivers). The stream-flows were calibrated and verified at all
USGS stations from 1966 to 1978; then, water quality concentrations were
calibrated from 1974 to 1975 and verified from 1976 to 1978 at USGS water
quality guages throughout the basin. As a final check, the regression
models developed from the two years of fall line monitoring by USGS were
used with simulated flows from 1974 to 1978 to check loads of pollutants.

Following the calibration and verification process, the models were
used for production runs to assess water quality impacts and management
options. A number of techniques were used to estimate the relative
contributions of point and nonpoint sources to the fall-line loadings (see
Chesapeake Bay Basin Model Final Report for more detail). Initial
production runs described existing (1980) and future (2000) conditions in

B-56

I ~~the Bay. The model also helped to identify the sources contributing to
water quality problem areas. In addition to these baseline production
runs, the effects of different point and nonpoint control strategies on Bay
water quality were tested. As a tool, water quality managers will be able
* ~~to use and refine the Chesapeake Bay mathematical model to develop
alternatives for more effective control policies for now and for the future.

B-5 7

SECTION 5

SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing (1980) nutrient loads to the fall line were simulated based on
1980 point source discharges, 1980 land use, and average year rainfall
conditions. Loadings from individual sub-basins within a major drainage
area can help to identify critical areas which contribute significant
portions of the fall line nutrient load. Figures 37, 38, and 39 delimit
sub-basins above the fall line within the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James
River basins. Tables 18, 19, and 20 accompany these figures and provide
detailed information on nutrient loadings from within each sub-basin. Each
table is divided into (a) nonpoint and (b) point sources and contains five
columns:

o Column A identifies the above the fall line sub-basins; 1

o Column B quantifies the percent of the area above the fall line
that is within the sub-basin;

o Column C presents the percent of washed-off nonpoint or point
source discharged load that is delivered to the fall line;

o Column D presents the percent of the total nonpoint or point
source fall line nutrient load coming from the sub-basin; and

o Column E presents the March to October nonpoint or point source
nutrient loads.

Columns C, D, and E are divided into nitrogen and phosphorus fractions.

An illustration of how to use the Figures and Tables may be helpful.
For example, Figure 37 illustrates that, above the fall line, the
Susquehanna River drainage area can be divided into four parts; the lower
Susquehanna, Juniata, West Branch, and North Branch. Table 18 a and b
correspond to Figure 37. Table 18 a shows that the lower Susquehanna
sub-basin (Column A) occupies 20 percent of the land area (Column B) and
accounts for 41 percent of the phosphorus and 36 percent of the nitrogen
(Column D) delivered by nonpoint sources to the fall line. in this case,4
82 percent of the phosphorus and 99 percent of the nitrogen washed from
nonpoint sources in the lower Susquehanna River is delivered to the fall
line (Column C). Column E is the March to October nonpoint loadings
expressed in pounds. Table 17b provides similar information for point
source loads. Tables 19 a and b correspond to Figure 38 for the Potomac
River and Tables 20 a and b to Figure 39 for the James River.

B-5 8

Susquehanna River Sub Basins
above the Fall Line

West Branch } North Branch
PA.

Harrisburg Lower
~Juniata ., � Susquehanna

MD.
s ~ t Baltimore

Washington D. D.

VA,

Richmold

Norfol
Figure 37. Susquehanna River drainage basin and sub-basins above the
fall line

B-59

Potomac River Sub Basins
above the Fall line

Lower Potomac

*Harrisburg

PA.

Upper tme
Potomac

Shenandoah
Nrok
Figure 38. Potomac Pcdver drainage basin and sub-basins above the fall
line

B-60

James River Sub Basins
above the Fall Line

Harrisburg

g ~~~~Batimoret

fir ~Washington t D. DEL.
Z~~ �
4~~~~
VPA.

Appalachian Ridge Piedmont Norfolk
and Valley
Figure 39. James River drainage basin and sub-basins above the fall
line
B-61

SECTION 6

METHODOLOGIES FOR ESTIMATING POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS
AND POINT SOURCE INVENTORY DATA

ESTIMATION OF NUTRIENT LOADS FROM INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES

Types of industrial activity with the potential to discharge the
nutrients TP, TN, TKN, and NH3 4 were identified through discussion with
state and EPA officials. The ~tandard Industrial Classification (SIC)
system, which classifies industries by their economic activity, was used to
assign codes to these discharges. Concentrations of nutrients expected to
be found in the effluent from dischargers within a selected SIC category
were obtained from the EPA's Effluent Guideline Division (EGD) and the
literature. Maryland's 1979 NPDES permit compliance monitoring data and
Virginia's DMR's were also reviewed for observed nutrient data. Industrial
discharge data were based on state DMR's or on NPDES permits. In some
cases, flow data were not available from the sources and so were estimated
from averages within a particular industrial activity.

State officials familiar with dischargers within their jurisdiction
reviewed the loadings assigned to specific dischargers for reasonableness
and completeness. These loadings were then incorporated into CBP estimates
of loadings from point and nonpoint sources. An inventory of industrial
nutrient dischargers to the Bay follows later in this section. Arranged by
major basin, the information presented includes: major basin (location),
facility name, NPDES number, state, and phosphorus and nitrogen load in
lbs/day (Table 21).

ESTIMATION OF NUTRIENT LOADS FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES

The basic strategy for estimating nutrient loads from municipal point
sources or publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), called for merging
computerized data bases and accessing state and facility effluent
monitoring data.

Although the merging of data bases generated an inventory of POTWs and
provided a substantial amount of information concerning their flow, level
of treatment, and location, it did not provide information concerning the
concentration of nutrients in effluents. To obtain this information the
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Office of
Environmental Programs (OEP), the Virginia State Water Control Board
(VSWCB), and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
were contracted. Each state staff was requested to provide 1980 data on
operational flow, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), five-day
biological oxygen demand (BOD5), and total suspended solids (SED)
concentrations for the POTWs larger than 0.5 MGD within their political
boundaries. The response from state staffs was very good, and the CBP data
base was updated. In cases where state information was incomplete, the
POTWs were contacted for the missing information.

Table 22 provides an inventory of municipal treatment plants located in
the Chesapeake Bay basin. Arranged by major basin, it indicates facility
name, 1980 flow, year 2000 projected flow, NPDES permit number, type of

B-62

treatment, and concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
conventional pollutants (BOD5 and TSS), and total residual chlorine (TRC)
obtained through this methodology. The values listed in Table 22 were then
used to calculate the nutrient load from municipal point sources.

B-63

TABLE 18a. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE)
OF NUTRIENTS FROM NONPOINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

NONPOINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage of Fall line
of basin washed load that total NPS fall nutrient load
area is delivered to line load from (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall Line indicated sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

West Branch 26 50 73 28 20 617,000 10,476,000
North Branch 42 27 61 27 33 595,000 17,285,000
Juniata 12 27 75 4 11 88,000 5,762,000
Lower
Susquehanna 20 82 99 41 36 904,000 18,857,000

TOTAL 100 46 77 100 100 2,204,000 52,380,000

TABLE 18b. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE)
OF NUTRIENTS FROM POINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

POINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage of Fall line
of basin discharge that point source fall nutrient load
area is delivered to line load from (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall line indicated sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

West Branch 26 11 - 5 - 35,000 --
North Branch 42 11 - 33 - 230,000 --
Juniata 12 16 - 5 - 35,000 --
Lower
Susquehanna 20 59 - 57 - 396,000 --

TOTAL 100 22 - 100 - 696,000 5,820,000

B-64

TABLE 19a. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE)
OF NUTRIENTS FROM NONPOINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

NONPOINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage NPS Fall line
of basin washed load that fall line load nutrient load
area is delivered to from indicated (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall line sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

Upper Potomac 57 65 86 45 55 327,000 8,217,000
Shenandoah 26 65 80 25 25 181,000 3,735,000
Monocacy 9 79 86 12 11 87,000 1,643,000
Lower Potomac 8 85 86 18 9 131,000 1,345,000

TOTAL 100 69 84 100 100 726,000 14,940,000

TABLE 19b. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE)
OF NUTRIENTS FROM POINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

POINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage of Fall line NPS
of basin discharge that point source fall load
area is delivered to line load from (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall line indicated sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

Upper Potomac 57 14 - 31 - 40,000 --
Shenandoah 26 8 - 19 - 24,000 --
Monocacy 9 32 - 39 - 50,000 --
Lower Potomac 8 68 - 11 - 14,000 --

TOTAL 100 17 - 100 128,000 --

B-65

TABLE 20a. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE) OF
NUTRIENTS FROM NONPOINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE JAMES
RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

NONPOINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage of Fall line
of basin washed load that NPS load from nutrient load
area is delivered to indicated (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall line sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

Appalachian 48 57 66 46 50 226,000 2,310,000
Ridge &
Valley

Piedmont 52 76 81 54 50 266,000 2,310,000

TOTAL 100 66 73 100 100 492,000 4,620,000

TABLE 20b. SIMULATED LOADS (LBS), SOURCES, AND DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE) OF
NUTRIENT FROM POINT SOURCES ABOVE THE FALL LINE IN THE JAMES
RIVER BASIN IN AN AVERAGE YEAR (MARCH TO OCTOBER)

POINT

A B C D E

Percentage Percentage of Percentage of Fall line
of basin discharge that point source fall nutrient load
area is delivered to line load from (lbs, Mar-Oct)
the fall line indicated sub-basin

Sub-basin Total P Total N Total P Total N Total P Total N

Appalachian 48 30 - 10 - 28,000 --
Ridge &
Valley

Piedmont 52 69 - 90 - 249,000 -

TOTAL 100 61 - 100 - 277,000 457,000

B-66

SECTION 7

PHOSPHORUS BAN NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS AND COSTS

INTRODUCTION
The phosphorus in municipal influent to POTWs occurs in several forms,
including phosphorus in suspended solids, polyphosphates, and
orthophosphates. Human excreta and food solids contribute the insoluble
suspended solid fraction and synthetic detergents contribute the soluble
polyphosphates. The soluble orthophosphates are mainly the hydrolysis
products of detergent polyphosphates, human wastes, and solids containing
phosphorus. Most of the insoluble forms of phosphorus can be removed by
conventional primary or secondary treatment processes. The soluble
fractions, however, are only partially removed and may be discharged into
receiving waters where they are available to support eutrophication unless
specific control technology is provided.

Phosphorus is used in modern synthetic detergents to bring about
conditions in the wash water which permit cleaning agents to work much more
effectively. Currently, the average phosphorus content in detergents is
about 6 percent. Prior to major reformulation efforts by the detergent
industry in the 1970's, the phosphorus content in detergents varied between
9 and 12 percent (Folsom-Oliver 1980). Limiting the concentration of
phosphorus to 0.5 percent by weight in detergent formulations (P ban) will
lower the amount of soluble polyphosphates contributed by synthetic
detergents to municipal influent wastewater, lower the effluent phosphorus
concentration and, in POTWs with phosphorus control, reduct sludge disposal
and chemical treatment costs. These benefits realized at POTWs must be
measured against costs borne by consumers attempting to maintain the same
level of cleaning with detergents containing phosphorus substitutes.
ESTIMATION OF CHANGE IN INFLUENT/EFFLUENT
PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
Influent phosphorus concentrations for municipal treatment plants in
the Hampton Roads Sanitation District and Metropolitan Washington, DC
averaged 9.1 mg L-1 and 8.3 mg L-1, respectively. For the purpose of
this analysis, the average of these two values, 8.7 mg L-1 will be
considered to be the average influent phosphorus for treatment plants in
the Chesapeake Bay area. The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) has
estimated the per capita consumption of detergent phosphorus to be 0.4
kg/capita/year. Based on this per capita consumption of phosphorus (MASS)
and water consumption of 133 gallons per capita per day (VOLUME), 2.2 mg
L-1, or 25 percent, (Concentration = MASS/VOLUME) of the total influent
phosphorus concentration is attributable to synthetic detergents. The CBP
estimates the 25 percent expected reduction in influent phosphorus will
translate into a 30 percent reduction in effluent phosphorus
concentration. This estimate is based on observations at Blue Plains
during the 1969 to 1979 time frame which indicated that biological
incorporation of phosphorus through the treatment process will remain the
same before and after a ban (Jones 1982).

B-67

SAVINGS AT POTWS

For plants already employing phosphorus control technology, a
phosphorus ban would have a minimal impact on phosphorus loadings.
However, it could be expected to lower annual chemical treatment and sludge
disposal costs.

Barth (1978) estimated that a 25 percent reduction in 0 & M costs would
be realized if influent phosphorus concentrations were reduced 50 percent.
Applying the ratio between influent phosphorus concentrations and 0 & M
savings, it is estimated that 0 & M costs for POTWs with phosphorus control
in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area would be reduced 15 percent. Jones
(1981) estimated annual 0 & M savings of 12,000 dollars per million gallons
treated at POTWs with phosphorus removal as a result of a phosphorus ban.
When Jones' estimates of savings are compared to total 0 & M costs for
phosphorus control at a 1 and 317 MGD treatment plant, they represent 9 and
23 percent, respectively, of 0 & M costs for phosphorus removal. Based on
these figures, the CEP estimated that a 15 percent reduction in phosphorus
0 & M removal costs would be realized with a phosphorus ban.

CONSUMER COSTS

According to a report prepared for the SDA (Folsom-Oliver 1980),
household cleaning costs will increase between 4.29 and 11.10 dollars per
household (2.7 persons) per year if a phosphorus ban is imposed. The
increased consumer costs arise from increased use of hot water, laundry
bleaches, and softeners to achieve similar cleaning/washing results. The
CBP used the average of this range of values (7.70 dollars) in calculating
annual consumer costs for residents of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

B-68

TABLE 21. INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL NUTRIENT DISCRARGERS TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, BY MAJOR BASIN

AUTRIFNT LnAD (TP,S/nAY)
MA J (R NPDFS - - - �~II~~I~__I
BASIN FACILITY NAME NUMBER STA7E PHOSPH1R!IS NITRfFN

PATUXEN FIRST MI) UTILITIES 22781 MC 9.1
PATUXEN JOHNS HOPKINS APPLTEn PflYSTCS LAR 2342 VC 9,2 24:6
PATUXEN MD AND VA MILK PRODUCERS 469 o r 47:3 44.5
PATIUXEN FEVAMAR CORP 2003 .r 32.1
POTOMAC ACME MARKETS ABRATTOIR 10669 PA 11,7 5.0
POTOMAC AVTEX FIBERS INC, FRONT ROYAL 2208 VA 472,o
POTOMAC PEVANS OYSTER Co 2097 VA 1.4 11'.
POTOMAC CPOMPTrN CO., !N~"SHFNAmrnAH PLANT 1899 VA 45.0
POTOMAC F T. DUPONT DE NEMOURS&CO-WAYNFS4ORO 2160 VA 347.9
POTOMAC GUNERAT, ELECTRIC CO - WAYNESBORO 2402 VA 5,4
POTOMAC MEPCK & Ce, INC 2178 VA 710,( 1744:n
POTOMAC ROCCO FARM Io9Do INmC 1902 VA 25.6 145,
POTOMAC ROCKTMCHAM PnulLTAY ALMA PLANT 1961 VA 9,6 192 2n
POTOMAC ROCKTNQF4A7f POULTRY-BROADWAY PLT 2011 VA 13 7 77.p
POTOMAC SHEN-VALLEY MEAT PACKERS, TNC. 1791 VA 22,6 11-7
POTOMAC VIRGINTA OAK TANNERY, TURAY 2267 VA 15,n
POTOMAC W C PYRON & SONS INC 53431 Pr 74MD
POTOMAC WAMPLrER FOODS INC 2313 VA 4:3 74:4
POTOMAC WD BYRON AND kOIJS INC 434 * 496,i
RAPP PARNHAPDT FARMS-MAIN, URRANNA 3123 VA 96.0
RAPP STANDARD PRODUCTS CO. TPJC. 3204 VA 167.3 200*3
SIISOIJHANNA AGFAY PETROLEUM CORPORATION 10906 PA 47 7
SUSO!THANNA ALLEM CLARK TNC 14524 O A 12.g . 8:
SUSQU1HAMNA AV7EX FIBERS TNC 8176 PA 3* A
SUSfQlHAVNA PETHLEHEM STEET, ~ORP LEBAnN 8290 P, 43n
SIJS01HAkNA PETILEHEM STEEL CORP WMSPORT 8575 PA 15,4
SU1SOURANNA PETHLEHEM STEEL-STEETLTON .303 PA 267.r,
SUSOUHAMNA CLARK PACKING CO INC 30596 PA ..34 14.4
SUS(tHRANNA FRFRLE TANNING CO-WFSTFIEr5O 9(00 PA 129.
SUSOTUHAWNA EMPIRE KOSHER POULTRY 7552 PA 37,8 214.7
SUSOIHAMNA EMPIRE KOSHER POULTRY, TUC. 10tl1 PA 1:9 10,9
SIIS1r14ANNA HARRITSBURG STFET, CO 8184 FA 496
SIISOPANNA ?M'ANVATA POULTRY CO"HFRPDON 0474 PA 2- 4 167.4
SUSOUHANNA STC STEEL TITANIUM METALS DIv 4164 PA 9 67.9
SU6SOUHANNA VICTOR F WEAVER INC 35092 PA 89:6 509s5
SU$0T!HAMNA WESTOVER LEATHER CO 7439 PA .

(CONTINUED)

TABLE 21. (CONTINUED)

NUTRIfNT rf)nn (CLS,'AY)
MAJOR N--ES- - �
BASIN FACILITY NAME NUMBER STATE PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN

E SHORE CONCORn FARMS, INC, 1589 Pr 22.4 127.4
F SHORE H V DREWER & SONS SEAFOOD 6009 VA 7.6 5(.9
E SHORE H4LLY FARMS P(IILTRY INr-TEMPERANCEVTVF- 4049 VA 53.8 305. 7
F SHORE LANCE C FISHEFR SEAFOOD CO, INC 5321 VA 2.5 1Q.A
E SHORE MARYLAND CHICKEN PROCESSORS 680 MP 12.8 72,8
F SHORE OLD SALT SEAFOOD CO, ,INVC 54551 MD 12.2 95.p
E SHORE SIJUUR3SV`LLE FROZEN FOOD LOCKERS INC 54933 MD 15:0 6.5
E SHORE W 0 WHTTELEY AND SONS 442 m. 7q 6 7,5
E SHORE WACHSBERG PICKLE WORKS 53601 PC 79:6 7,5
-IAMES AIXIED CHEM CORP HOPEWELL 5291 VA 175,0 6005.n
JAMES ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP 5312 VA 42.0 1467.n
JAMES PORDEN INC - SMITH DOUGLASS DIV 2941 VA 2 4 2.5%
JAMES RURLINFTON INDUSTRIES INC 4677 VA 167:0 ORn
JAMES CrC INTERNATIONAL, INC-BEST FOODS DIV 3140 VA 289.0 27.3
JAMES C OW RADISCHE CO WTLtLIAMSBURG �36 54' VA 65.5
JAMES E I DUPONT oF NtMOURS & CO 4669 VA 169:0' 3725,0
JAMES FTRESTONF SYNTHETIC HOPEWELL 3298 VA 34,0
JAMES HAMPTON ROADS ENERGI CnMPANY 53171 VA 235:q
o JAMES HOLLY FARMS POULTRY XT7, TNC, 4031 VA 3:0 ip.(
JAMES TNTERCCASTAr STEEL CORP, 61107 VA 34,q
JAMES TTT GWALTNEYs INC 2844 VA 634*2 272.7
JAMES J.H. MILES & CO INC 3263 VA 27.8 217.6
JAMES MORTON FROZEN F6ODS INC. 4626 VA 70.0 3on
JAMES NAVY NORFOLK SHIPYA6D 5215 VA 29.2 96.0
JAMES NEWPORT NEWS SHTPRUILDTIIG & DRY DOCK 4804 VA 23.4 76.8
JAMES NORFOLK SHTPBUTIDING & DRYDOCK CORP 4383 VA 3:3 Jose
JAMES PAMSEY & KELLEY INC 56413 VA 47,7
JAMES POYSTER CO 3174 VA 0:8 15.1
JAMES POYSTER CO 3174 VA 0,8 15.1
JAMES ROY5TER CO 3174 vA 0,8 15.1
JAMES POYSTER CO 31.74 VA 0,8 15.1
JAMES SMTTHFIELD PACKING CO 2879 VA 212.1 91.2
JAMES VIRGINIA CHEMICALS, INC. 3387 VA 244 0
JAMES VIRGINIA PACKING CO. 5207 VA 8.9
JAMES WEAVFR FERTILTZER CO., INC. 3875 VA 170.7

(CONTINUED)

-~~ -~~--.. - - - - - -- -~~----- -- - - --. - ~ _- -.-L-- a1a aI -- LIsI L " -a--a-- L Y.il l- a.--

TABLE 21. (CONTINUED)

RAJCN NoITRIENT LCIAD (T:;s/nAY)
RASIT FACTLTTY NAME NPR STATEH NTTPOGFIr'l

W CHESAP ALLIF) CHEMICAL- BALTTMORF 2186 Mr 2.1 41.A
W CHESAP B ETHLEHEM STEEL CORP RAATTMORF 1198 1195 37PR
W CHESAP PFITHLEHEM STEEL SPARROWS POINT 1201 P 1709,0 23046 o
W CHFSAP CONTINENTAL OIL RALTO PETRO PL 540 vrl 101.,
W CHESAP FASTERN STAIN4ESS STEEL CO 981 lr 41.q
W CHESAP FNVC CORP INDUSTRTAL CHEM DIV 799 P C 167:( 1 44.
w CHESAP OLUDDEN DURKEE PROENING HWY 1279 Pr 30.5 31ne
W CHESAP M AND T CHEMICALS INC 426 NT 0,8 19.1
W CHFSAP MTNEREC CORPORATION 56332 Pr 47.?
W CHFSAP OlITN CORP CHEMICALS GROUP lo15 NP 0.6 129 .
W CHFSAP OLIN CORP CHEMICALS GROUP 1(1 or 1.1 92.f;
W CHESAP SCM CORP-ADRIAN JOYCE WORKS 1261 PC 2 73 45,?
W CHFSAP SCM CORP-ADRIAN JOYCE WORKS 1261 v 124 459.
W CHESAP SCM COPPORATT O NICHPMTCAL/METALLtJRGIC.IIT 57657 Pr 0,8 15,�
W CHESAP WR GRACE DAVISON CHEM DIV 311 Mr 2,3 2203.O
YORK AMOCC CIL CO 3018 VA R.0 50 o
YORK THFSAPFAKE CORP 3115 Vt 198.0 6 PC

TABLE 22. INVENTORY OF MyUNICIPAL NUTRIENT DISCHARGERS TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, BY MAJOR BASIN

F JW(F,(;t) EFFLUENT' CLJlNl(FHTPAT Trihi (NGL

Ad OR NPDES flpPc
BASIN FACILITY NAME NU1MBER STATE POLICY TREAT, 1980 2000 PrD5 TSS TP TN TR

E SHORE BRIO~~GFVTITE STP '20749 PE SE(1AY 0.43 0,5 30, 3, .0 1P'9 l.00
R SHORE CAMPRTDCE WATF 21636 MT ) SFCnmDARY 4.40 8.1 6. 7,9 4.6 11,9 0.89
E SHORE CEN~~~IREVTIJLE WWT 20834 ~~~MD SECONDARY 0.22 0 3 30, 30.0 4.10 12.0 2.21
E SHORE CHARLESTIOWN INWT 21067 MD SECOtlOARY 0.18 0.0 30, 30,0 8.0 18,5 2.00
E SHORE CHESAPEAKE STP 20397 MI ) PRIMARY 0.12 0.3 140, 140,0' 8,0 14:,9 2.00
E SHORE C9FSTFRIOWll WWT 20010 N1D S FCO q1) fAR Y 0.38 0.9 17, 80.5 8.5 1 8 . 2.73
F SHORE CRrSFTEUD WWTP 20001 MD IC, r ) 1)AR Y 0.76 1.0 20. 37,1 4,4 6.. 9 ?.54
E SHORE DELMAR SEW SYS 2053? I1 MD SC U W1A R Y 0.50 0.6 33, 40 ,0 8.0 18.s 2.70
K SHORE r)F.NTON lW1TP 20494 m 1 SECON\DARY 0.27 0,5 3 0. .30, .0 8.0 1,R.9 i .31
E SHORE MrR- CO SAN iCIST 22667 M P SEUGD'IARY 0.21 0.,4 30, 30.0 8 .0 tR,5 2,00
F SHORE KASTEN WSL 20273 M D ' F SC N 1)A RY 1.8( 2.0 30. 90,0 9.6 10.2 1.64
E SHORE ELKTON WWTP 210681 NiD YES PRIMARY 0 . 80 2.7 79.) 76.5 7.0 24.8 3.5'3
F. SHOnRE F. FEFRAISRUR6 WW 20249 Rif D 8COrIDARY 0,60 0.8 6 5 . 115,0 8.0 I1P .' 1,13
E SHORE FRUJTTLAND WWTP 52990 M D S F ('Q D A RY 0.28 V.5 65. 115.0 8.5 18,5 3.10
E SHORE GFORCFTr-WN STP ?0797 DrW SFCONDARY 0,31 0,5 30, 30.0 8.0 jq,5 2,on
E~ SHORE GREENSBORO W W 202(0 MDl sPc(!-jApY 0.)6 0.2 30. 3 0.f 3 iP,0 8. 1R. 2.00r
F SHORE HOLLY ~~HALT. TERR S13 Mf(' N1OD A RY 0,14 0 .0 .3 0. 30 ,0 A.0 18,9 7,0
K SHORE HURTOCK WWATF 22730 MDl SECONfQAPY 1,10) 1,5 go. 67.5 3.5 13.s 1,6.1
E SHORE LAUREL SEWEPAGE 20125 PF E 5C (irID1)A PY 0.5$ 0.9 30. 30,0 8.,0 19 ,5 12: 0
E SHORE OMANCOCY STP 21253 VA PHIS REM 0,11 0,4 1. 1.7 1,-5 15. 0 2.00
E SHORE PnCOMOKE CITY W 22551 MD SF('fNnARY 1.10 2.0 77. 60.4 P.0 18.5 3,51.
E SHORE PRTNCFSS ANNE W 20656 1.D SFCONIDARY 0.27 0.7 30. 30,0 7.9 26:6 4.39
F SHORE ROCK HALL WVTP 2 03 03 MD SFCCOVf'AR Y 0.18 0:2 10, 90).0 ,0 1P.,9 4,2
FSHORE SAINT 2ICHAES 20?26 PID 3V0DR 0.1 05 3, 3P, I0 18, A ,09i
E SHORE SALJTSP-1IY vikTF 71I5 71 m S FC (I 9D A RY 3 .50 5.8 3 8, 1 7 ,3 .~ 6 2'q. p99
E SHORF SEAFORD STP 20265 DE 5ECUMDARY 0.64 0.9 10, 30,0 8,0 19,9 2.00(
9 SHORE SHARP'rTON WWTP 52175 Mn SECONDARY 0.11 0.1 30. 30,0 810 18,5 2.00
E SHORE SNOW HILL WWTP 22764 MD PRIMARY 0 .3 3 0,5 70, 7100 5,8 18, PC;
E SHORE TWIN CITIES 93221, ?41 SECONDARY. 0,28 0,2 30. 30,0 8.0 18:5 2.26)

JAMES ARM~Y PASE W P C 25208 VA PRTMARY 12,38 18,0 26. 23,2 5.6 27 P 2.06
JAMPES ASHTON CREEK UA 21.458 VA PRI'MARY 0 .2 3 0,0 65. 115.0) 8 .5 I1R " 2.0
J A MFS ROAT HARBOR W P 25283 VA PRUIARY 17.60 25.0 68, 31.8 3.5 25.1 1.80
JAMES BUENA VISTA STP 20991 VA PRIMARY 1.32 2,0 145. 52'.1 9.,5 20,.9 2.00
JAMES CPESAPEAKF-FLTZ 25275 VA SF.CO!IDARY 19,70 24,0 19, 28,5 6.1 18.5, 2,59
JAMES CHESTFR LOGOOnN 21466 VA PRIMARY 0,1.t 0.0 65, 1.15.0 8,5 1..9 2 .00
J A MES CTTFTCN FORCE S 22779 VA RECOMNDA R Y 0,72 2.0 26. 18.2 PO 1.8,9 2.00
IJAMES CnVTNCTCN STP 2 5 542 VA PRI'MARY I1.60) 3 .0 59. 27,5 q.5 2 0 .9 2.00(f
JAMRS DEEP CREEK LAGO 71920 VA PpjmARY 1.02 0.0 106: 41,6 9.520 R 2.02
JAMES FALLING CREEK S 24996 VA SECCINDARY 7,58 16,0 17. 31,0 5,5 21,0 1.56

TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)

FLOW (MCID) FFFLUPPIT CNr-NF[JTRATTrlM (MG/L)
MAJOR NPOES IIPCP - - - - - - "-t-------
BASIN FACILITY NAME NUMBER STATE POLICY TRFAT, 1980 2000 pO05 TSS TP T M TRC

JAMES f1OPEWETJL STP 25640 VA SEFrIUOARY 33.631 50.0n 2.1 50.8 1J.0 49.o 2,00
J A MES 1TAMFS RIVER W P 25241 VA SFCOAflARY 13,70 15,0 3, 10..6 -7.4 11.7 2.03
JAMES TJAMPERTS POTIJT 25259 VA PRIMlARY 20.63 35,0 q4, 40,3 4.5 1 P - 1.80
~JAMES IRFXTNCTCN STP 120567 VA PHOS REM 0.77 2 .0 6, 11,0 1,5 15.0 2.00
J A MES LYNCHRUPG STP '24970 VA SEcu-nDARY 11.55 15.0 I14. 11, RIO I8,9 1.97
JAMES MEAVOW CREEK< ST 25500 VA SFCOINDARY 3.2 6 00 3 0 30.0 ( 90 I1R. c 2.00
JAME~~ ~~I, NGRSCEKT251 VASONAY .6150 14, 15, 8, 1, 2.00
JAMES PETERSBURG STP 25437 VA SECONDARY 9.50 15.0 52. 20.0 6.2 ?n,� 1.94
JAMES PINNF-PS POINT 5 215003 VA PRIMARY 9.69 16.4 1.37. 66 4 9 .,. 20,8 2.3:4
JAMES5 RTCllMrNC STP 25402 VA SECONrDARY 61,03 70.:0 6. 7.5 5.8 7 .7 2.00
JAMES SMITHOFIIn LAGO 23R09 VA PRTHARY 0.24 0.5 F;4, 64.0 9. 208 2,1
JAMES SUFFOLK STP 23205 VA SECONDARY 1.40 0.0 30. 30.0 8.0 IRIS 2.00
JAMES WASHINGT!ON PLAN 21211 VA PRTMARY 0.55 0.0 71. 45 8 9.9 20,.8 1.95
JAMES WESTERN BRANCH 2 51232 VA PRTMARY 1.92 0.0 Q7. 55.3 9. 20,8 2.00
JAMES WTLbIAMSBUJRC W 25267 VA SECONDARY 8.904.9.4 12, 20,9 8.0 lR:5 1.90

PATUXEN BOWIE W1WTP 21628 MD SFCMrIDARY 2.50 3,3 20, 1.6.3 RIP 33.n 2.27
PATUXEN FORT MEADE WWTP 3280 m 1 SC n h )A R Y 3.20 3.2 30.I 30.0 P.( 1A.,9 F,50
PATUXEN MV CITY WWTP 23132 M 1 SECONDARY 0.70 2.6 10, 17.P 9.6 21.9 1,34
PATUXEN MD CORRECTIONAL '23957 M D SFCONDARY 0,85 0.I7 65, 115:0 8.I5 AA 0.42
PATUXEN PARKWAY STP 21.725 yjD SECONDARY 5.20 7.5 2. 2.8 2.0 14,o 2.04
PATUXEN PATUXENT WWTP 21652 MD SECONIDARY 3.60 9.6 9. 9.4 5.5 21.n 2,56,
PATUXEN SAVAGE WWTP 21547 M I, SECONDARY 7.5o 19.0 9, 1 .8 8.0 2 2,0 2.27
PATUXEN WESTERN BRANCH 21741 M D S ECON"D A RY 13.90 23.7 6, I.1 3.5 16:o 1.53

POTOMAC ALEXANDRIA STP 251.60 VA PHOS REM 26.96 5 4 0 23. 16,6 0.9 15,0 2.03
POTOMAC AGUIA RFGTONAL 60968 VA PRO)S RFM 0.90 3.:0 1I. 1 7,4 1.5 1 5'.0 2,00
POTOMAC ARtINGTCN CO WP 25143 VA P~rOS RFM 22.27 30.0 12. 13.5 3.1 1 R . 1.05
POTOMAC BELMCMT SEWAGF 25062 V A PROS REm 1.40 0.0 21., 12.0 1.5 15. 2.00
POTOMAC STAlIF PTLAINS PYP 0 1)C PRIMARY 27.60 0.I0 3 0 115.0 4.6 20.3 2.00
POTOMAC P1,lE PLAINS STP 21199 1)c PRO(S R~tl 317.00309,0 10, 15 I0 1.2 12,7
POTOMAC CHAN'PERSBRCJR IW '26091 PA Y FI C PPOS RFM 2.65 5.2 15. 515.0 1.5 15.0 2.00
POTOMAC CPARLPS TOWN ST 22349 WV SECONDARY 0,53 0,18 30, P0, I. 18I9 I 5 2.00
POTOMAC CLAT8CRNE RIJN S 28096 VA PRnS REM 0.81 0.0 19, 20.7 1.5 19,0 2.00
POTOMAC COLONIAL REACH 26409 VA SECONDARY 0,72 0.8 15, 19.0 8.0 l P 2,I0 0
POTOMAC CUMBERLAND IAWTP 2.1598 MD 5FCOMPTARY 9.10 10,0 3. 3.:7 4.1 15.3 0.3q
POTOMAC DAI-E SFRVTCE CO 24724 VA PROS REM 2.30 4 I0 6, 5.5 1.9 is 0 2.00
POTOMAC DALE SERVICE CO 24678 VA P14(S R EN 2.00 2.0 15. 15.0 1.5 ls:O 2600
POTOMAC DOGUiE CREEK CIS 25381. VA PtROS R KM 2.10 0.I0 14. (,5 1,5 19.0( 2 .0 0
POTOMAC DUMFRTFS SEWAGE 25097 VA PHOS RP.,Ni 0,80 0.0 t9. 14.') 1.5 I li 2.00
POTOMAC FFATHERSTONF SE 2507J VA PHn1s REM 0,96 0,0 15, 19.0 .9 'i , 2.1)0

(CONTINUED)

TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)

FLOW (M(rP) EFFFLUENiT CfINCFH1RA'rIrkfc~/.
~~~-r---w- ---- - - -------- -n---- ---
MAJOR NPDES tlPCp
BASIN FACILITY NAVE NUMBER STATE POLICY TREAT. 1980 2000 PCD5 IISS TP TM TRC

POTOMAC FTSI4ERSVTTrIjF ST 25291 VA PHOIS REM 0.60 2.1 7, 9. : 13.0o 2.0
POTOMAC FLATLTCK CS 26620 VA PPROS RF1M 0.36 0.0 15: 15.0 1.5 Is ,0 2.0
POTOMAC FORT PETRICK 0 MT ) SFC(NDARY 1.03 I,( 3, 30.0 7,0 15.0 2.0
POTOMAC FPF-DEPICK CITY 21610 MD SFCON~DARY 4.40 7.0 76. 26.6 9.3 29.A 3.8
POTOMAC FRONT ROYAL STP 62812 VA SECONDARY 1.34 2,0 IQ, 17.3 p.0 1P.5 2.0
POTOMAC GETTYSPURG RKGI 21563 PA SFCONDARY 1.39 1.5 30, 30.0 A.0 1A.9i 2.0
POTOMAC GREFNPRRAR c s 26603 VA PFJOS RFM 0.69 0.0 15. 15.0 1.5 15.n 2.0
PnTOMAC HAGFPSTOWN WP#' 21776 MI ) SECONDARY 5.74 P.0 18. 4-0.3 4.6 29.1 2.3
POTMAC HALFWAY SUBDIST 90214 MD CUPP 0.0 ,6 3. 2. 8. lfl 2.
POTOMAC ~IARTSDNBURG-RO3 60640 VA PHOS RFM 4.90 8.0 5, 7.4 1.5 15.0 2.0.
POTOMAC TNOTAN HEAD W14T 20052 MD SFCCONIARY 0.28 0.5 15, 15.0 6.0 15.0 12.0
POTOMAC KFYSEP TRT SYS 24392 WV PRTMARY 1.20 1.1 135. 265.0 9.5 90.R 2.0
POTOMAC UA PLATA VjWTP 20524 MOSECONDARY 0.20 0,3 15, 15.0 6.0 15,.0 1.9
POTOMAC TJFFSBUPC~ SAN SE. 21377 VA PROS REM 009O 2,5 10. 6.1 1.5 Is.0 2.0
POTOMAC LEONARDTOWN STP 24767 MI ) PRTMARY 0,25 0,9 135, 265.0 6,3 25:n 5.1
POTOMAC LIBEFRTA COUL SY 26344 VA PROS REM 0.32 0.0 15, 15.0 1.5 15.0 2.0
POTOMAC LTTTLF HUNTTVIG 25372 VA PHOS REM 4.20 0.0 II. 11.5 1.5 15.0 2.0
POTOMAC LOWER PCTCMAC S 25364 VA PfROS REM 29.20 54,0 7. 30.0 2,3 15.0 2.0
POTOMAC MA'NASSAS PARK N 28053 VA PROS RFM 0,21 0,10 15. 15.0 1.5 1-,.0 2.0
POTOMAC MARTTNSFURG S.T 23167 WV SECONDARY 2,26 5,0 3(. 30.0 8.0 s.5 2.00
POTOMAC MATTAWOMAN 21865 MD SECONPARY 2.20 5.0 5. 30.0 5.0 !,.an 0.3
POTOMAC MELPOSE SEWAGE 761.5R VA PHOS REM 0.*20 0,0 15, 15.0 1,5 15.0 2.0
POTOMAC MIDDLE CUT3 C.S. 26638k VA PROS REM 0.58 0.0 15, 1,5.0 1.5 15~.0 2.0
POTOMAC MOONEY STJP (OCC 275101 VA PHOS REM 6,20 12,0 3. 3.0 1. 5 15.0 2.00
POTOMAC NFABSCO SEWAGF 750R9 VA PPOS RFNM 1.25 0.0 20. 24.0 1,5 15'.0 2.0
POTOMAC OCCOQUAN SE.WAGE 26131 VA SFCONDARY 0.4,3 00 30. 30.0 8.0 lpP5 12.0
POTOMAC PF ILRNN279 mn SFCOMDARY 2.20 4,5 30, 30,0 57 lfl:~ 2.1
POTOMAC PISCATAWAY WWTP 21539 MD PROS REM 15.00 30,0 7, 6,5 0.7 29.4 1.3
POTOMAC SENFCA CREEK IN 21491 MD PHOS REM 4,70 0.0 1. '5.6 0.5 17.2 0,7
POTOMAC STAUNTON STP 2522.4 VA PROS REM 1,55 4,5 1,9, 15.0 1-.5 15.0 2,0
PnTOMAC STRASPURG STP '20311 VA PRIMARY 0.51, 0,7 296. 150.5 9,5 20.8 2.0
POTOMAC UPPER CU8 W P C 26646 VA PROS REM 0.19 0,0) 15, 15.0 1.9 15,0 2.0o
POTOMAC UPPER OCCOGUAN 24988 VA SECONDARY 7.25 10.9 0. 0.2 0,0 1A.1 1.2
POTOMAC TIPRC WWTP 21687 MO SECONDARY 22.40 21.6 r,5. 30,0 0.9 2.6 2.0
POTOMAC WARRENTCN STP 21172 VA PHOS REM 0.60 1,5 16, 18,3 I's Ili.0 2.0
POTOMAC WAYNESACRO STP 120621 PA SECOMI)ARY 0.81 1.6 30, 30,0 8.0 iR.9, 2.0
POTOMAC WAYNF'SRORO STP 251.51, VA PRIMARY 2.39 4.3 923. 30,3 815 18.q 2,0
POTOmAC WESTGATE PUMPOV 25399 VA SFCOnDAYj3q.0n . .61, .
POTOMAC WFSTMTNfTFR WWT 21831 MD SECONDARY 1,90 3.0 4, 6,8 6.0 22.0 2.2
POTOVAC WTNCHFSTER S T 251 I35 VPA PpOS REM 2.79 0,0 120i.4 1.51. .

(CONTINUED)

TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)

MAJOR MPDES uJPCR
R3ASTN FACILTTY NAMIE NIJmRF.R STATE PnLTCY TRFAT. 1980 2000 R005 T58 TP T'i TRC

RAPP C.1)TJPFPFR s '1 P 21059 VA SECONDJARY 1.38 3,0 30. 3Q0,( 8,0 1R.9 2.00
RAPP FREnERICKSBURG 25127 'VA SECO!IDARY 2.00 0.0 24, 25 8 8.0 18 .1 2.00
RAPP KTLMARNCCK STP 20788 VA SECONMDARY 0.20 0.2 20, 18.5 RIO iR,9 2.00
RAPP MvASSAPONAX REGI 2565P VA SEC(INVARY 1,3 0 3.(0 1.1 27 () RIO 18 .9- 2.00
RAPP RFEDVIlLIF STP 60712 VA SFC0OJDARY 0.20 0.2 26: 27,9 8.0 18.5 2.00
RAPP TAPPAHANNOCK ST 20265 VA PRIMARY 0.19 0.4 45. 37.0 8.'i 18:s 2.00

SIJSOUHAN ALTOONA EASTrERL 27014 PA PRnS REM 6,20 5.2 13. 9,0 8.0 I1R8,5 2,0
SUSnUHAN AT-TOCNA WESTrERL 27022 PA PROS REM 6,76 6.7 15, 7.0 1,5 15;. 0 '2.
SUSOUHAN ANNVTLLEI STP 21806 P A YES PHOS REM 0.87 0.9 15. 19.0 1.5 1,5.0 .0
SUSOUHAN ATHEN-S ~ ~AYR W 38 PRIMARY 1,09 2.1 135. 265,0 9,5 20,8 2,00
SUSOUHAN BATHEN-SAYRE WW 4 381 M'SFCO"3OARY 0.62 1.0 30, 30.0 8 .0 19.9 2.00
StUSOURAN AFDFCPD BnROl SI 22209 PA PHns REM 0.61 0.8 15, 15.0 1.5 15).0 2.00
S11SOUHAtN 'ARL-LFFONTF PON 20486; PA PRos REM 1,22 2.1 15. 19.0 1.5 I15,0 2. 00
SUSOU1HAMt BERWTCK STP 23248 PA PPTMARY 3,00 4.I0 1,35. 265.0 9.s 20.8 2,00)
SUS00HAN f3jN(; dOnH CITY 2 441 4 N y SECnOf)ARY 19.99 18.2 30, 300 8.0 1P.-, 2,
SIISQUHAN nLOOMSRURG SIT 271-71 PA SE2CONIDARY 2.15 4.2 30, 300 8.0 18.5 2.0f)
SUSQIIHAN CARLISLE POR0UCa 26077 PA YES SECOPIDARY 2.87 6:0 30. 30,0 8 .0 18.5 2.00
SUJSQIUAN CHEMUNG CO SD # 36986 M Y 8FCnNDARY 5 so 0.0 30, 30 ( 8.0 18. 2.0,0
SUSOU1HAN CREMI)NG COUNTY 357 42 NY PRIMARY 7.20 26.0 65, I115.:0 8.,5 18: 2 2. 00
SUSOUHAN ('LARKS SUMMIT S 28576 PA PmnS REm 0.80 1.3 15, 15,0 1.5 15.0 2.00
SIISQUHAM CLEARFIELra SK.W 2631.0 PA 87Cn:\lDARY 1.4 8 3,0 30, 30 0 A I0 18.5 2.00
SIJSQ0UHAN (,010r~MRA SEWAGE 261.23 PA YES PtinS REMA 1.29 2.0 15, 15,0 1.5 1I. 2.00?,
SUSOIJHAN CORNING WWTP 25721 NY P1405 REM 1,78 2.1 15, 19,0 1.5 1 i,0 2,00o
SIJSOtHANJ CORTLANC STP 27561 14Y PHOS REM 5.98 10.0 1.5, 15.0 1,5 19,0 2.00
SUSQUHAN CURWENSVULF ST 24759 PA PRIMARY 0.60 0.5 135, 2650() 9.5 20 9 2.00
SUSOUH-AN nALUAS AREA MON 2 62291 PA PH(IS REM 1.65 2:4 15, 15.0 1.5 19.0 2.00
SUSQUHAN DANVILLE STP 73531 PA SFCONnAPY 2.04 3.2 30. 30,0 8.0 1-,5 2.00
SIISOURAN DERRY TOWNSHIP 26484 PA Y F.IC PunS RpEM 1,71 5.0 15, 15.0 1.5 15.0 2,00
SUSGUHAm~ IDrOVFR TrWNISRIP 20826 PA YES P~rlS REM 1.92 3.2 15, 15.0 1'.5 19. 2,0
SUSQUH-AN EAST PENNSBORO 3 84 15 PA YES PHK1S RP:M 1,74 3.7 15, 15,0 1.5 19. 2.)0
SUJSQUHAN ELTZAP tITHTON S 213108 PA YES PROS R'M, 1.1s .3,0 is, 15 0 1,.5S S5. n 900
SUSQUHAN ENnICrT'! STP 27669 mY SFCONDA"RY 6.40 RIO 30, 30,0 8.0 l.5 2,(0
SUJSOUHAN EPHRATA STP 2,7405 PA Y F" SECONDARY 2.41 3.9 30.I 3 0,'1) R .0 A8, 2.00
SUSOUHAN ~HAMILTON WPC PL 20672 NYSCNAY .4050 30,0 8.0 18.5 2,00
SU SOUH AN HAMPI)FN TUIP WWT 2 87 46 PA YES PROS REM I.00 1,5 t5. 1,5.0 1.5 15,0 2.00
.SUSQUHAN HANQVFR-MCSHERR 26875 PA YES SFCONDARY 2.68 3 6 30. 30 0 8.0 1,9 2.00
SUSOIIHAN HARRISBURG 5, T 27197 PA YE~S PHnS REMA 2 0,45 30.9 25. 3 7.:0 1.5 15;.0 9,(0
USOIJSHAN HAZELTON SEWAGE 26921 PA SECONnARY 7.00 7. 6 16. 16,0 8.0 19 5 2.0
SUSQUHAN HTGPSPTRE BoRO 24040 PA Y FS PHROS REM 0.75 1.0 15. 15.0 1.5 19:0 20
I ~~~~~(CONTINUED)

TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)

FuOw (cmc) FFFTURN'T C0NC~thl'RATTnfl (G

MAJOR NPOES UPCP
BASIN FACILITY NAME NUMR,'FR STATE PnfICY TREAT. 1980 2000 RODS TSS TP TM' TRC

SIJS011HAM HOT1LTI-A-MAYSRC, B 2 3 493 PA Pir-is REM (9195 1.2 15, 15.0 1.5 15.0 2.0
SIISOUHAN HnTXrAVfASRURG R 23493 PA P p mPER 0,9 P 1.? 1.5, 1 5. 0 1.5 16.0 2.00
silSOlHAN fCRN~tilf WpCP 2 36 47 NY S!FCO'1DARY 2,70 4.0 30. 30,0 8.0 JR ,s 2.00
SUSOU1HAN HUNTINGr~nm sEW 26191 PA PRIMARY 1.85 1,9 135. 265,0 9,5 20.:1 2.00
SUSQUHANJFRY-R~l 76 PA SrCONDARY 2,30 3.I0 30', 30,0 . 186 20
SUSOTIHAN t7FRSEY SHORE ST 29665 PA SFCONDARY 0.60 0.8 30. 30.0 8.0 18. 2.00
SUSQUHAN KELLY SItP 28681 PA PROS REM 1,30 2.4 15, 15,0 1.5 isl~n 2,00
SUSOUHAN LJANCASTE.R AREA 42269 PA YpS P1rOS REM 2.85 12.0 15. 15.0 I's 16,0 2.0t
SUS011HAN LANCASTER NORTH 26719 PA YES SCOnNVARY 8,25 0,0 27I. 41,4 son 18,5 2.00
SUSGUHAN LANCASTER SOUTH 26743 PA YES SECONDARY 8.60 2q,6. 19, 20,7 P .0 1.8, 2,00
SUSGUHAN LJEBANON WWTP 27 3 16 PA YES PHOS RFM 5,50 6.6 7. 6,0 1. q.6 15. . On
SUSQURAN L~EMOlYNE SCRO MA 26441 PA YES PHOS REM 1,80 2.2 15. 15.0 1.5 .5 0 2.00
S115OUHAN LEWISP11r, STEP 21121 PA SECOnmARY 1,65 2.4 30, 30,0 8,0 18.6, 2.00
SUSQUIIAN t1FWTST0lN SEWAG 26280 PA 'SFCONDARY 1,42 2.4 30. 30.0 8.0 18,6 2, 00
STJSOUH4AN LUTITZ SAN STP 20320 PA YES PHOS REM 1,60 3.5 15, 15.0 1.5 1<60 2.00
SUSOUPAN LTTTLESTOWN SAN 2 1.229 PA PRIMARY 0,36 0,8 65. 119.0 8,5 A18,5 2.00
SUSOUIHAN VICK HAVEN CITY 25933 PA PHOS REM 3.30) 3.7 15. 15.0 1.5 150 2,.00
ONStSQU1HAN LOWER ALLEN TOW 2 7 t89 PA YES PROS RFM 1.96 5.9 15. 1.5,0( 1.5 1560 2.00
S115OUHAN fjOWFR LACKAWANN 26361 PA PROS REM 2,10 6.0 .11J, 7.0 1 .1. 160 ?.00)
SUSOUHAN MANNETM POROIIGH 20893 PA YEFS SECOrnDARY 0.94 1,2 30, 30,0 8.0 18.6 2.00
SUSQUHAN MARYSVILLJE TREA 21.571. PA YES SECONDARY 0.63 0,5 30, 30.0 8.0 18.6 2.00
SUSOrJHAN' MECRANIC'SPURc, S '2 0 885 PA YES SECONDARY 1,03 2,0 30.I 30.0 8.0 lR:5 2.00
S1350UHAN MTDDLFTCWN WPCP 20664 PA YES PROS REM 0.96 2.2 15. 15. 0 i's 16.0( 2.00
SUSOUHAN MTFFl.,UIJPRG WWT 28461. PA SFCOnDARY 0.70 0.2 30 I 30.() 8,0 98,6 2.00
SUSQUHAN MILUJRSPUPiP FOR 22535 PA YPS SEVONflARY 0.60 1. 30, 30,0 0.0 I8.6 2.00
SUSQUHAN MILL~ERSVILLE 80 26(420 PA YES SFCnN[)ARY 0.65 0.7 3 0 30,0 8.0 18,6 2,0
SUSOUHAN NILTC~l MA. '20273 Pk SFCONF)ARY 1.00 I 0 30, 340,0 8.0 18.6- 2,00
SUS011HAN MnSHA'NNCN VAITjE 37966 PA SErONvAPY 0.94 1.5 3 0 30(1,0 8.0 18,6 2.00)
SUSOUHAN MOUNT OCY STP 21067 PA YES PROS REM 0,88 1,7 1S. 15,0 1 .5- 15.0( 2. 00
SUSOUHAN NFW CUMEEPLAND 26654 PA YES P14OS RFM I1.1 1.2 15, 15.0 1.59 i. I., 2.00?,
SUSQUHAN NEW FREEDnm WTP 43267 PA YES PROS REM 0.69 1.3 15, 15.0 1.5 15,0 2.00
SUSQlJRAN NEW Hnf.LAND STP 21990 PA YES SECONDARY 0.61 III 3 0 I 30.0 8.0 18*5 2.00
SUSQUHAN NORWICH SIP 21473 NY y PRIMARY 1.72 2.0 135, 9E. 5 .0 9.6 20.8 2.0
StISOUHAN (INErN'rA WWT P TIyA 31151 NY SFCONDARY 3.00 4,I0 30. 30,0 8.0 18,6 2.00
SUSOUHAN nWFCO WPC Pl,,ANT 2,5799 N1Y SECONDARY 0,85 2.0 3 0 30,.0 8,10 18.9 ?.00)
SU)SOUPAN PENN STATF UNIV 26999 PA P14rOS REM 3,05 3.8 15, 15.0 1.5 �9,0 .00
SUSQUHAN PENN 70%NSHTP S 37150 PA YES PROS RFM 1,33 4.,2 15, 15.0 1. 16.05 2 .00
SUSQUHAN RICHFTELD SPRIN 31411 NY PPROS REM 0,55 0.3 is. 16.0 1.5 15S 2.00
-SUSOUHAN ROARING, SPRINGS 20249 PA SFCONVARY a.51 0,:5 30. 30.0 Ron 10,5 2.00
-SUSOX)HAN SCRANTON SEWER 26492 PA SECONDARY 21.20 23.8 3 0 30 0 8.10 19,5S 2.00
SUSQUHAN SFLINSGROVE S T 24791 PA SECONDARY 0,86 2.8 30. 30,0 08. 0 1A C 2,00
SUSQUHAN SHENANDOAH SENA 70 3 86 PA PHOS REM 0,80 2:0 15, 1 -.0 1.5 19,0 2,0(
SUSQUHAN SHIPPFNSblJRG ST 3 06 43 PA YES PHOS REM 1.21 2.7 15. 15.0 1.5 16.0 2.00

(CONTINUED)

TABLE 22. (CONTINUED)

PIFLOW (N-Go) EFFLIUENT CONCENTIRATIONr~ M/
MAJ OR NPDES ITC I P a. - --- � ----a --
RASTNT FACIIJTTY NAME NUMBER STATE PnLICY TREAT. 1980 2000 p005 TSS 'rP Tl TRC

SII1SQ11HANI -TnNFY WWTP 29771 N Y S FCONDl 0A PY 0. 83 1.7 30* 30.0 8.0 IR, S 9.(
SU)SQUHAN SPRTNC CRFFK PO 26239 PA plif-s RP-11 2.85 3.,0 15: 15.0 1.5 19.0: 2,.Q00
8118OUHAN SPRINOETTSBURY 26P08 PA YES p~ns ;?Fm 6.20 10.3 1.4 21 0 1.5 15.f 2.00
SUSQUHAN, SUNBURY SEW TRE 26557 PA SFCONnARY 2.30 3.5 301: 30.0 8.0 18.,s 2.00
SUSQUHAN SWATARA T'WP STP 26735 PA Y FS PHriS REM 2.80 5.2 15. 15,.0 1.5 15.n 2.00
StJS011HAN THROOP %WTP 27090 PA SECONDARY 2.98 5,0 30, 30,0 8.0 18.s 2.00
SUS0r1ffAN TCWANnA MIUNICIP 34576 PA SECOMDARY 0,68 1.0 30. 30.0 8.0 18,51 2.00
SUSGURAN TYRONE POROIJGH 26727 PA PHOS REMA 4.90 5.1 1.6 28.0 1.5 �5,0 2.00
SU1SOLJHAN WFLTSPOnR0 STP 21687 PA PRTMARY 0.76 0.6 1.35, 265i.0 9.5 20,8 7.00
SIJS01HAN, WFST FNr STP 27049 PA SECON DA R 3.-68 3.2 30 30. 8.g, 70
SUSO!'HAN WESTERN CLINTON 43893 PA PROS REMA 0.70 0.9 1 1.0 1.5 150 2.0
SUSQUHANJ WILL~IAMSPORT CE 27057 PA SECONDARY 6.10 9 7.4 15. 11.2 8 .0 18.9 2. 00
SIJSQ1JHAN WqYnMINr, VALLEY 26107 PA PRTMARY 40.00 40.0 116. 61.0O 9-.5 2n 9 2.00
SUSOURANT YORK WATER P)L~lj 26263 PA YES PHOS REM 16.25 26,0 15, 4.3.0 1.5 15.0 2.00

W CHFSAP ARERDFFN WWTP '2-1 563 M'D YES 914(15l REM 1.50 A.0 1.0 33. 4 . 10. 2.15
W CHFSAP ANN~APrlTS CTTY 21814 M F SFC011DARY 4,70 10.0 8, 83.6 4.5 208 1.50
WCHFSAP BACK PIVER WWTP 21555 " F YES ',;F C 0 .1)A RY lR0.6019500 20. 3 5 .9 5.6 14 1.77
WCHFSAP I3RnAD CREEK C.S 23141 Mn1 SFCOMDARY 0.22 0.0 3 0. 30.,0 . 0 1 P.. 1.65
W CHFSAP BROAVNFCK WWTP 21644 MDl YES 8 FCO N VA PY 2.10 4.0 8, 9 2 4,5 15.6 2.69
W CHRSAP BR0ADWATER WVITP 24350 M D SFCONVARY 0.40 1,0 3. I1S50 2.0 14.9 1.1
W CHESAP CHESAPEAKE HEAC 20281 M 0 SECONDARY 0.12? 0.3 3 0, 30,0 (8.0 18.5 2.00
W CHFSAP CQNGOLEUFfM 1384 MD SECONDARY 0.35 0,3 17. 30.0 P.0 15.n 2.02
W CHFSAP COX CPK WWTP 21661 M D YES SECONDARY b,40 19,2 79, pri,5 7.0 27.4 1.91
W CHESAP CRnWNSVIILY,E HOS 2 36 63 MiD SECONIUARY 0.15 0.3 3o0. 3(, . 85 11
W CHFSAP EnGEWOOC ARSENA 21279 M ( YES P~fish REMA 0.97 1.0 10, 3 0 .0 4.0 1 Al. 1 6.84
W CHESAP'FREFDr-M DTSTRIC 21517 M D SECONI)ARY 0.80 3.0 9. 13.2 6.8 6 5 0.40
W CHFSAP HAVRE DE GRACF~ 20702 M D YS PRIMARY 1.10 1.9 1~55 3 9.0 915 ?Q 5 7.00
W ('HESAP JflPPATOIWNE 7.2539 kqD SFCONDARY 0159 0.7 3 0 300 7.0 18, q l.24
W CHEFSAP MD CQRRFCTIONJ C 27405 MD SECONDARY 0,47 0.4 47, 30.0 15.0 3 2 0 1.a55
W CHESAP PATAPSCC WW TRT 21601, m D YES PRIMARY 30:00 76.0 157. 1,13.8 6.5 1 r .- 5 .2 2
W CRF4SAP PFRRYVIltfjF 101TP 20613 m D YES S :C0~- 0.73 1.6 30. 30,0 8,0 IQ~ 9 .75
W CHESAP PRINCF FRFDFRTC 51381 m r) S FCCrJlD ARPY 0.14 0.1 15, Is.() 1.5 Is' n 2 .0 0
W Ct4FSAp RISTING SU)N STP 2. 7026 Smn SE'o 1 AR Y 0.17 0.,3 30. 30.0 8l.0 () lp 7.66
W CHFSAP SODn RIJN WWTP 21709 mn YES PHOS REM 2.90 10.0 21. 19.7 1.5 25,0 1'.1.
W CHEFSAP WOODLAND BEACH 23051 MD S;'CONDARY 0.56 0.0 go 9.6 6. 17or,.7
W CHESAP NORTHEAST 22594 MD SEC'ONDARY 0.0 2.0 30. 30.0 7511 .0
- mmvw~~~~~~~~~~~ ~(CONT INUED)

TABLE 22. (cONTINUED)

FLOW UCIcD) FFFtUFNT CO'ClCF0TRATrfN (MG/

MAJOR NPDFS ipCep
BASIN FbCILTTY NAME NUMBER STATE POLICY TREAT, 1980 2000 POD S TSS TP TN TR

YORK ASHLAND STP 24899 VA PRIMARY 0.75 1,2 30. 30.0 6.6 IP.0 l*
YORK DOSWELL STP 29521 VA PHOS REM 0.52 1.0 15. 15.0 1,5 15.0 2.
YORK YORK TREATMENT PLANT ? VA SECONDARY 0.00 15. 30:0 8.0 lRp 2.
YORK WEST POINT SEWE 22195 VA PRIMARY .412. 2,R.8 8.5 1 2.

SECTION 8

ALTERNATIVE NUTRIENT REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY (BIOLOGICAL)

Biological phosphorus removal provides an alternative to chemical
treatment methods. It can be developed in activated sludge systems by
cyclically subjecting the mixed liquor to anerobic (lack of nitrate,
nitrite, or oxygen) and aerobic (presence of oxygen) conditions. Although
factors affecting biological phosphorus removal are not completely
understood (i.e., biological phosphorus removal mechanisms), effluent
concentrations of 1 to 2 mg L-1 phosphorus are obtainable. None of the
three biological phosphorus proprietary processes described below are
generically classified as Innovative/Alternative processes by the U.S.
EPA. Due to significant engineering costs, biological phosphorus removal
is not recommended for plants discharging less than 5.0 MGD.

THE ANEROBIC/OXIC SYSTEM

The Anerobic/Oxic System relies on the concept of luxury phosphorus
uptake by which certain sewage organisms are induced to store large amounts
of polyphosphate. By wasting a portion of the organisms, phosphorus is
removed from the wastewater. Any activated sludge process can be modified
to incorporate the Anerobic/Oxic process. The process is relatively new,
but operation of pilot plants in Allentown, Pennsylvania: Rochester, New
York: and Largo, Florida have been very successful. Currently, a pilot
plant is scheduled to go into operation in July 1982 at the Patapsco
wastewater treatment plant. The Cox Creek POTW and several facilities
administered by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission are also
considering the Anerobic/Oxic process. In addition to phosphorus removal,
the Anerobic/Oxic process can accomplish biological denitrification.

PHOSTRIP

"Phostrip" is a combined biological-chemical precipitation process
based on the use of activated sludge micro-organisms to transfer phosphorus
from incoming wastewater to a small concentrated sub-stream for removal by
chemical precipitation. The chemical-phosphorus reaction is pH dependent
rather than stoichiometric. Therefore, the quantity of the chemical (lime)
* required is related more to the quantity of liquid treated than to the
quantity of phosphorus contained in the liquid. Phostrip is a relatively
new developement in municipal wastewater treatment. Large scale
evaluations conducted at Seneca Falls, New York; and Reno/Sparks, Nevada
have been favorable. Phostrip offers a dramatic saving in operating costs
as a result of the reduced chemical requirement and sludge disposal costs.

BARDENPHO

The Bardenpho Process is an activated sludge process designed to
accomplish both biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Phosphorus is
removed from the system in the waste sludge, yielding effluent phosphorus
concentrations of 1 to 2 mg L-1. The process was developed in South
Africa in the early 1970's and is currently employed at plants in Palmetto,
Florida and Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.

B-79

SECTION 9

ESTIMATED COSTS AND PERCENT CHANGES IN NUTRIENT LOADS FOR
DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Tables 23 through 30 provide detailed information on nutrient reduction
costs for management strategies applied to existing (1980) and future
(2000) nutrient loads. Table numbers followed by the letter "a" address
existing loads, and table numbers followed by "b" address future loads.
For each strategy tested, the tables provide information on the estimated
percent change in nutrient loads; the capital, 0 & M, and present-valueI
costs; the present-value cost to remove one pound of nutrient; and the
estimated monthly increases in household costs pursuant to implementation
of the strategy.

B-80

TABLE 23a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGHENT STRATEGIES IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 58,200,000 2,900,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 0 & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M $/lb removed $/lb removed S/Household/Month

P Ban + 4 - 4 0 10.15 105.4 N 29.47 0.62
3.2* 33.2* increases
TP = 2 +19 -14 71.3 11.3 188.7 N 15.44 2 - 5
increases
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -17 71.3 12.5 201.4 14.07 2 - 5
TN = 6 +12 226.1 53.2 779.1 N 6 - 10
increases
Level Two -1 -16 0 .45 4.65 0.26 0.34 0
TP=2 + Level Two
+18 -29 71.3 11.75 191.8 N 7.66 2 - 5
increases
Mason-Dixon ? ? 15.7 109.0 ? ? 0
Level 2 + Level 3**
-5 22 ? ? ? ? ? 0

*0 & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.
**Level 2 basin-wide and Level 3 in lower Susquehanna only. Calculated from deliver ratios.
1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of 0 & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 23b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 55,900,000 3,882,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 O & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Exist/Future Exist/Future
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load 0 & M S/lb removed $/lb removed $/Household/Month

Existing 0/-4 0/+32
Future TP=i, TN=6
TP=l -13/-34 101.4 17.8 286.9 N 7.40 2 - 5
TN=6 +18/+22 340.7 82.2 1,194.8 increases 6 - 10
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+22/+27 -23/-41 101.4 16.6 273.3 N 5.77 2 - 5
increases
UCBP Policy 0/+4 0/-24 19.8 3.46 55.7 N 2.07 2 - 5
increases

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55. petcent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of 0 & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 24a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE WEST CHESAPEAKE BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 15,984,000 2,391,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 O & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & DM $/lb removed $/lb removed $/Household/Month

P Ban 0 -19 0 5.1 53.0 3.85 0.62
1.9* 19.7*
TP = 2 0 -43 58.3 9.1 132.9 4.96 2 - 5
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -51 58.3 11.5 177.8 4.90 2 - 5
TN = 6 -49 124.4 38.5 524.4 2.23 5 - 10
Level Two - 2 -2.0 0 0.40 0.38 0.05 0.23 0
TP=2 + Level Two
- 2 -45 58.3 9.14 153.3 18.54 4.78 2 - 5
UCBP Policy 0 -41 56.1 9.0 149.61 5.04 2 - 5

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
co 5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 24b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE WEST CIIHESAPEAKE BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 19,767,000 3,524,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 0 & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Exist/Future Exist/Future
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M S/lb removed $/lb removed S/Household/Month

Existing 0/+23 0/+46
Future TP=1, TNe6
TP=l -42/-60 80.8 16.7 254.11 3.98 2 - 5
TN=6 -14/-30 170.7 52.8 718.9 4.04 6 - 10
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+22/-1 -28/-51 80.8 16.0 247.4 4.63 2 - 5
UCBP Policy +23/0 -23/-47 74.8 15.6 237.0 4.75 2 - 5

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
tWd ( year 245 day)
00

IABLL UZa. tbliMAlrIU LUUb ANU rLKLLNI ULIANUL IN L.AiblLNl (ITOU) NUT''KLLN' LUAOINUS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE EASTERN SHORE BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 8,741,000 833,000

P Ban 0 -9 0 1.13 11.8 5.26 0.62
0.17* 1.8*
TP = 2 0 -14 6.4 0.88 15.61 0 5.85 3 - 5
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -15 6.4 1.1 17.9 4.97 3 - 5
TN - 6 -7 11.9 2.4 36.9 2.04 7 - 10
Level Two -7 -14 0 0.14 1.44 0.08 0.41 0
TP=2 + Level Two
-7 -25 6.4 1.02 17.0 0.98 2.73 3 - 5

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of 0 & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 25b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE EASTERN SHORE BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 9,281,000 1,016,000

Existing 0/+6 0/+22
Future TP=1, TN=6
TP=l - 4/-21 11.3 1.94 31.4 4.93 3 - 5
TN=6 0/-5 20.0 4.5 66.6 4.38 7 - 10
Future TP=2 + Level 2
0/-6 -13/-28 11.3 1.79 29.9 1.79 3.49 3 - 5
Future Level 2 + P ban**
-1/-7 -8/-24 0 1.47 15.3 0.82 2.07 0.62

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.
**Extrapolated
1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
OO ( year 245 day)
oa

TABLE 26a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENI' STKALEGILS LN lU PATIUXANI KIVLK BAb1N

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
load1 (N) (P)
(lbs) 2,493,000 478,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 O & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M $/lb removed $/lb removed $/Household/Month

P Ban 0 -10 0 1.85 19.32 14.08 0.92
0.39* 4.05*
TP = 2 0 -55 14.9 2.3 38.7 4.94 2 - 4
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -64 14.9 2.6 41.9 4.58 2 - 4
TN = 6 -30 24.7 6.6 93.8 4.21 6 - 8
Level Two - 1 -1 0 0.007 0.07 0.14 0.46 0
TP=2 + Level Two
- 1 -55 14.9 2.3 38.8 4.92 2 - 4

'O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 26b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CIIANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGEENT STRATEGIES IN THE PATUXENT RIVER BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 3,332,000 851,000

Existing 0/+34 0/+77
Charette (1987)
-57/-68 -63/-79 36.3 9.2 135.2 3.22 4.64 8 - 11
Future TP=1, TN=6
TP=1 -54/-74 25.4 4.6 73.2 3.91 2 - 4
TN=6 -19/-40 48.8 12.3 176.6 4.49 6 - 7
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+36/+ 2 -37/.65 25.4 4.01 67.0 4.09 2 - 4

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

lBased on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

-- .----- ----a--a3 ~

TABLE 27a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 35,077,000 2,866,000

P Ban +1 - 5 0 9.94 103.3 24.24 0.62
4.80* 49.9*
TP = 2 +3 -12 40.5 2.5 66.5 N 6.30 2 - 6
increases
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -22 40.5 7.2 115.2 6.02 2 - 6
TN = 6 -21 312.2 92.4 1,272.4 5.81 6 - 10
Level Two - 1 -4 0 0.20 2.13 0.15 0.57 0
TP=2 + Level Two
+ 2 -17 40.5 2.7 68.5 N 4.79 2 - 6
increases

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
bd landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers (t2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
V)0 5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 27b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 36,864,000 4,717,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 O & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Exist/Future Exist/Future
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions t's) (-annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M S/lb removed $/lb removed S/Household/Month

Existing 0/+5 0/+65
Future TP=1, TN=6
TP=l -14/-48 49.2 8.8 140.3 2.08 2 - 4
TN=6 -18/-22 330.0 92.6 1,581.0 6.49 6 - 7
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+15/+9 - 3/-41 49.2 7.8 130.2 N 2.26 2 - 4
increases

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 28a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGPENT STRATEGIES IN THE RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(Ibs) 2,945,000 278,000

P Ban 0 -4 0 0.40 4.2 13.94 0.62
0.07* 0.7*
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -17 2.97 0.5 8.3 5.83 4 - 5
TN = 6 -6 5.82 1.0 16.3 3.28 8 - 9
Level Two -2 -5 0 0.033 0.35 0.21 0.82 0

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

1Based on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 28b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 2,809,000 282,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 0 & tf3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Exist/Future Exist/Future
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $'s) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M t/lb removed $/lb removed S/Household/Month

Existing 0/-5 0/+1
Future TP=1, TN=6
TP=1 -13/-14 4.26 0.72 11.7 10,26
TN=6 - 5/0 7.7 1.6 24.3 5.51
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+ 4/+9 -12/-13 4,26 0.67 11.2 N 10.03
Future Level 2**
- 2/-3 - 4/-5 0.35 0.82

*O & D savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.
**Extrapolated
1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 peyqcet Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

- -h - - 3.* s *-..a... ~ a~ t~ an. - - a - - a

- - - - - - -- - - - - - .- - - --V.- - -

TABLE 29a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE YORK RIVER BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 2,329,000 221,000

P Ban 0 -6 0 0.5 5.2 14.11 0.62
O* O*
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 0 0
TN = 6 0 0
Level Two -3 -8 0 0.049 0.51 0.2 0.40 0

*0 & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

lBased on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
( year 245 day)

TABLE 29b. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN FUTURE (2000) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN THE YORK RIVER BASIN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
load1 (N) (P)
(lbs) 2,368,000 247,000

Strategy Percent Change in Capital Cost2 O & M3 Present Value4 Present Value5
Exist/Future Exist/Future
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions V's) (annual) (capital + 20 yr) Nitrogen Phosphorus
Load O & M $/lb removed $/lb removed S/Household/Month

Existing 0/+26 0/+122
Future TP=1, TN=6
TP=i +18/-47 5.95 1.11 17.5 2.57
TN=6 + 8/-14 11.3 3.15 44.0 3.66
Future TP=2 + Level 2
+24/-2 +25/-44 5.95 0.97 16.0 10.73 2.51
Future Level 2 + P ban
+77/-35 0 0.76 7.88 2.65

*O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.
**Extrapolated
1Based on year 2000 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 Rercent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling.
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
5Present value/[future load * percent change in future load * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
'.0 ( year 245 day)

-X_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e -,-.- I __

TABLE 30a. ESTIMATED COST AND PERCENT CHANGE IN EXISTING (1980) NUTRIENT LOADINGS FOR MANAGMENT STRATEGIES IN TIlE JAMES RIVER BASIN

Existing Nitrogen Phosphorus
loadl (N) (P)
(lbs) 20,505,000 3,791,000

P Ban 0 -18 0 5.48 56.9 2.82 0.62
2.29* 23.8*
TP = 2 +2 -44 83.5 11.9 207.1 4.13 2 - 5
TP = 1, TN = 6
TP = 1 -55 83.5 15.3 242.2 3.88 2 - 5
TN = 6 -30 153.7 41.9 589.7 3.22 6 - 10
Level Two 0 -1 0 0.09 1.0 1.13 1.06 0
TP=2 + Level Two
0 -45 83.5 12.0 208.2 4.09 2 - 5

O & M savings realized by POTWs if required to meet a phosphorus effluent limit.

lBased on 1980 point source loadings, land use, and average year rainfall conditions, March to October.
2Cost to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phosphorus -- chemical addition)
(nitrogen -- nitrification/denitrification). Source: CAPDET.
3Includes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 percent Federal funding, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/capita).
4Capital costs + 20 years of O & M calculated with discount rate at 7.25 percent.
bd 5Present value/[existing load * percent change * (365 days * Mar-Oct) * 20 years]
%O ( year 245 day)
Lm

TAHBLE 3-0b. ESTUtIATED 'COST AND PERCVNT ICHANGE IN FTUPOHE (2-000) NUtTRIENT LOADINGS 'FO NANAGHEN,1T STIMATEGIES IN THE JAHMES RIVER HAS IN

Future Nitrogen Phosphorus
load1 (N) )
fibs) 25,102,~000_ 3,007,600

Strategy Percient Change In Capital Cost2 0 s 43 presentVue rst Value05
Exisat//uture Exist.IFuture
Nitrogen Phosphorus (millions $1s) (annual) (capital + '20 yr) Nitrogen Phosph'orus
Load 0 & t/lb removed S/lb reffoveda /,Hous e h~o do n th

Existing0/2 013
Future TP-1, 914=6
TP-l -961116.6 21,4 339.2 306"a 2 5
TN=b -24,1-33 '216.5 610.8 847.7 2.9 7 6 10
Future TP-2 + level 2
+2310 -411-316 116.8 16.7 290~.3 3.3,4 2 -
Future Level 12 + P1 ban
01+22 + 31-21 06

0 1 saing re lie by POTl~a it required to meet a phosphorus effluent ILmit.
*Extrapolated
1l~aaed on year 2000 point soiurce loadings;, land use, and average year raintall conditions, Nareb to Octobjer.
20oat to upgrade existing secondary treatment plant to provide nutrient removal (phesphoros -- chemical addltiun)
(nitrogen -- nitrificatioelde~-nitriitiatlon). Source. CAPUET.
hincludes chemicals, power, materials, labor, ammoritization of capital cost with 55 terc~ent Federal 'fundIng, and sludge disposal by
landfilling. Annual P ban costs are those borne by consumers ($2.74/czapita).
4Capitsl costs + 20 years of 0 &M calculated with discount rate at 7.225 p~ercent.
5Preseot valueljexisting load *perc-ent change *(36'5 daybs *Mar-Oct) *20 years)
(yea r 245 day)

~~~- - - - - -~ - -~ .-- - --A.

SECTION 10

DETAILED POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS

in addition to summarizing information presented in Tables 5 and 6 of
main text, Tables 31 through 38 indicate what percent of the basin's total
nutrient load comes from above or below the fall line and the percent
attributable specifically to industrial and municipal point sources.
Actual stream-flow volumes (inches) that were simulated by the Chesapeake
Bay watershed model during different rainfall conditions are also presented.

B-97

TABLE 31. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 2,070,000 100 0 0 2,070,000
Average 2,900,000 100 0 0 2,900,000
Wet 6,300,000 100 0 0 6,300,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+ M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 17 7 24 0 0 17 7 24
Average 16 7 23 60 17 77 0 0 16 7 23 60 17 77
Wet 8 4 12 77 11 88 0 0 8 4 12 77 11 88

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 47,300,000 100 0 0 47,300,000
Average 58,200,000 100 0 0 58,200,000
Wet 105,000,000 100 0 0 105,000,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I Mt COC+0 M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 9 1 10 - - 90 0 0 9 1 10 - - 90
Average 9 1 10 85 5 90 0 0 9 1 10 85 5 90
Wet 5 1 5 91 4 95 0 0 5 1 5 91 4 95

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial 0 - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
Susquehanna: Dry, 8.7; Average, 11.7; Wet, 17.7.

B-98

TABLE 32. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE WEST CHESAPEAKE BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 0 0 2,173,000 100 2,173,000
Average 0 0 2,391,000 100 2,391,000
Wet 0 0 3,045,000 100 3,045,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I M I C O C+O

Dry 0 0 91 2 93 - 7 91 2 93 - - 7
Average 0 0 83 2 85 8 7 15 83 2 85 8 7 15
Wet 0 0 66 1 67 25 8 33 66 1 67 25 8 33

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 0 0 13,594,000 100 13,594,000
Average 0 0 15,984,000 100 15,984,000
Wet 0 0 22,084,000 100 22,084,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 0 0 72 13 85 - - 15 72 13 85 - - 15
Average 0 0 61 11 72 20 8 28 61 11 72 20 8 28
Wet 0 0 44 8 52 40 8 48 44 8 52 40 8 28

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial O - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
West Chesapeake: Dry, 2.6; Average, 6.9; Wet, 15.7.

B-99

TABLE 33. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE EASTERN SHORE BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 0 0 760,000 100 760,000
Average O 0 833,000 100 833,000
Wet O 0 2,117,000 100 2,117,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 0 0 34 10 44 - 56 34 10 44 - - 56
Average 0 0 31 9 40 50 10 60 31 9 40 50 10 60
Wet 0 0 12 4 16 79 5 84 12 4 16 79 5 84

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 0 0 7,191,000 100 7,191,000
Average 0 0 8,741,000 100 8,741,000
Wet 0 0 20,901,000 100 20,901,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 0 0 10 3 13 - - 87 10 3 13 - - 87
Average 0 0 8 2 10 83 7 90 8 2 10 83 7 90
Wet 0 0 3 1 4 92 4 96 3 1 4 92 4 96

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial O - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
Eastern Shore: Dry, 5.3; Average, 8.2; Wet, 15.4.

B-100

TABLE 34. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE PATUXENT RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 344,000 73 130,000 27 474,00
Average 328,000 69 150,000 31 478,000
Wet 383,000 57 286,000 43 669,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Pall Line Below the Fall Line- TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I 1i C O C+O M I +I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 88 4 92 - - 8 74 5 79 - 21 83 5 88 -
Average 86 4 90' 7 3 10 65 4 69 19 12 31 79 4 83 10 7 17
Wet 73 3 76 19 5 24 34 2 36 51 13 64 56 2 58 33 9 42

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 1,268,000 57 965,000 43 2,233,000
Average 1,118,000 45 1,313,000 55 2,493,000
Wet 1,780,000 39 2,813 ,000 61 4,593,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS N:S PS NPS PS NPS p
M I MI C O C+O M i M+I C O C+O Mi I I C O C+O

Dry 69 2 71 - - 29 47 1 48 - - 52 60 1 61 - 39
Average 63 2 65 29 6 35 34 1 35 55 10 65 48 1 49 43 8 51
Wet 40 1 41 53 6 59 15 1 16 75 9 84 25 1 26 66 8 74

LEGEND
PS Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial O- Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
Patuxent: Dry, 3.9; Average, 6.1; Wet, 16.2.

B-Oi 0

TABLE 35. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 717,000 27 1,940,000 73 2,657,000
Average 854,000 30 2,012,000 70 2,866,000
Wet 2,370,000 46 2,779,000 54 5,149,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C 0 C+O

Dry 21 6 27 - - 73 81 1 82 - - 18 62 5 67 33
Average 11 4 15 52 33 85 78 1 79 10 11 21 54 5 59 23 18 41
Wet 5 2 7 72 21 93 56 1 57 31 12 43 31 3 34 50 16 66

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 13,800,000 44 17,807,000 56 31,607,000
Average 16,600,000 47 18,447,000 53 35,077,000
Wet 39,100,000 61 25,067,000 39 64,167,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I COC+O M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M4+I C 0 C+O

Dry 7 3 10 - - 90 76 1 77 - - 23 46 2 48 - 52
Average 7 3 10 83 7 90 73 1 74 17 9 26 42 2 44 48 8 56
Wet 7 3 10 84 6 90 54 1 55 37 8 45 27 1 28 66 6 72

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial 0 - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
Potomac: Dry, 5.1; Average, 6.3; Wet, 13.8.

B-102

TABLE 36. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE RAPPAHANNOCK
RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 107,000 47 119,000 53 226,000
Average 104,000 37 174,000 63 278,000
Wet 285,000 37 486,000 63 771,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry .73 .27 1.0 - - 99 54 35 89 - - 11 30 17 47 - - 53
Average .73 .27 1.0 58 41 99 37 24 61 27 12 39 25 14 39 39 22 61
Wet .73 .27 1.0 75 24 99 13 9 22 69 9 78 9 5 14 71 15 86

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 1,530,000 71 615,000 29 2,145,000
Average 1,600,000 55 1,345,000 45 2,945,000
Wet 3,710,000 45 4,505,000 55 8,215,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

kt~~ ~ Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C 0 C+O M IM+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 10 0 10 - - 90 35 2 37 63 12 5 17 83
Average 10 0 10 72 18 90 16 1 17 73 10 83 9 4 13, 72 15 87
Wet 10 0 10 78 12 90 4 1 5 89 695 5 2 7 84 9 93

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial O - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
Rappahannock: Dry, 5.1; Average, 5.0; Wet, 12.5.

B-103

TABLE 37. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR THE YORK RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 66,500 44 85,000 56 151,000
Average 78,000 35 143,000 65 221,000
Wet 332,000 44 457,000 56 759,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I 14+I C O C+O

Dry 7 0 7 - - 93 25 59 84 16 24 26 50 50
Average 7 0 7 74 19 93 15 35 50 40 10 50 17 18 35 59 6 65
Wet 2 0 2 86 12 98 5 11 16 68 8 84 5 5 10 76 14 90

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 693,000 50 693,000 50 1,386,000
Average 816,000 35 1,513,000 65 2,329,000
Wet 2,720,000 35 4,963,000 65 7,683,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C O C+O MIM+I C O C+O M I M+I C O C+O

Dry 10 0 10 - - 90 8 26 34 - - 66 10 12 22 - - 78
Average 10 0 10 78 12 90 3 12 15 76 9 85 6 7 13 77 10 87
Wet 10 0 10 82 8 90 1 4 5 90 5 95 3 4 7 87 6 93

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial 0 - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
York: Dry, 4.4; Average, 5.4; Wet, 13.2.

B-104

TABLE 38. POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS FOR T{E JAMES RIVER BASIN

A. PHOSPHORUS

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall* Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 657,000 18 2,915,000 82 3,572,000
Average 768,000 20 3,023,000 80 3,791,000
Wet 1,517,000 31 3,453,000 69 4,970,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M II CM O C+O M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I CO C+O

Dry 39 6 45 - - 55 81 15 96 - - 4 72 14 86 - - 14
Average 31 5 36 46 18 64 78 15 93 3 4 7 68 13 81 12 7 19
Wet 18 3 21 63 16 79 68 13 81 14 5 19 53 10 63 29 8 37

B. NITROGEN

1. Pounds (March through October) and Percentage of Total Load from Above
and Below the Fall Line.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall Pounds % of Total Pounds % of Total

Dry 3,872,000 22 13,799,000 78 17,671,000
Average 5,076,000 25 15,429,000 75 20,505,000
Wet 11,070,000 36 19,609,000 64 30,679,000

2. Percentage from Point and Nonpoint Sources.

Above the Fall Line Below the Fall Line TOTAL
Rainfall PS NPS PS NPS PS NPS
M I M+I C 0 C+O M I M+I C O C+O M I M+I C 0 C+O

Dry 9 1 10 - - 90 65 23 88 - - 12 53 18 71 - - 29
Average 9 1 9 73 18 91 58 21 79 15 6 21 46 16 62 29 9 38
Wet 8 1 8 78 14 92 46 16 62 32 6 38 32 11 43 49 8 57

LEGEND
PS - Point Sources NPS - Nonpoint sources
M - POTW or municipal wastewater C - Cropland
I - Industrial 0 - Other

*Simulated stream-flow volumes (inches): March-October.
James: Dry, 5.6; Average, 7.4; Wet, 13.6.
Appatomox: Dry, 3.3; Average, 4.2; Wet, 10.3.

B-105

SECTION 111

EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW

Point source effluent strategies were applied only to those POTWs with
flows greater than I MGD. To provide a better feel for the number of
facilities and the volume of waste water subject or not subject to these
strategies, Table 39 through Table 46 present flow information in terms of
POTWs with flows greater than or less than I MCD. Future and design flows
are also included. In addition, existing (1980) flow-weighted mean
effluent of total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations and the
average size of the facility within each basin are also presented in these
tables.

B-106

TABLE 39. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000
POTWs Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected
# flow # flow # floux w flow # flow # flow flow flow # flow

Flow 1 MGD 60 32 47 26 44 22 0 0 0 O 0 0 60 32 47 26 44 22
Flow 1 MCD 58 284 71 399 74 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 284 71 399 74 445

Total 118 316 118 425 118 467 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 316 118 425 118 467

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 17.55
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 25.83
Average Flow = 2.67

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

CO
0

TABLE 40. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE WEST CHESAPEAKE BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000
POTWs Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected
# flow # flow # flow # flow # flow # flow # flow # flow # flow

Flow 1 MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 18 6 17 6 21 6 18 6 17 6
Flow 1 MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 228 10 321 9 321 7 228* 10 321 9 321

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 234 28 327 28 327 28 234* 28 327 28 327

*includes 100 MGD of treated effluent transfered to and discharged by Bethlehem Steel.

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 19.27
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 25.72
Average Flow = 8.34

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

I
O
Ox

TABLE 41. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE EASTERN SHORE BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000
POTWs Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected
# flow # flow # flow #i flow # flow # flow # flow # flow #i flow

Flow 1 MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 9 43 11 43 13 44 9 43 11 43 13
Flow 1 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 6 23 6 22 5 12 6 23 6 22

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 21 49 34 49 35 49 21 49 34 49 35

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 16.80
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 6.16
Average Flow = 0.43

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

TABLE 42. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE PATUXENT RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

Flow 1 MGD 4 2 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 2 1
Flow 1 MGD 5 22 5 34 7 46 1 14 1 30 1 24 6 36 6 64 8 70

Total 9 24 9 36 9 47 1 14 1 30 1 24 10 38 10 66 10 71

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 18.68
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 5.34
Average Flow = 3.78

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

TABLE 43. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

Flow 1 MGD 40 11 37 13 34 12 26 8 23 9 24 9 66 19 60 22 58 21
F l o w 1 M G D 1 6 6 9 1 8 9 6 2 1 1 0 0 1 7 4 7 1 2 0 8 9 1 1 9 5 6 7 3 3 5 4 0 3 8 9 8 7 4 0 667

Total 56 80 55 109 55 112 43 479 43 900 43 576 99 559 98 1009 98 688

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 13.99
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 1.95
Average Flow = 5.64

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

TABLE 44. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED HUNtCIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR THE RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000 1980 1980 2000
POTWs Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected Operational Design Projected
# flow # flow # flow f# flow # flow floflow flow # flow

Flow 1 MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1
Flow 1 MGD 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 9 2 5 3 4 3 12 3 8

Total 1 1 1 3 1 3 7 4 7 10 7 6 8 5 8 13 8 9

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 17.57
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 6.28
Average Flow = 0.67

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

TABLE 45. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR TIE YORK RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

Flow 1 MGD 4 3 3 2 3 3 7 1 7 1.5 6 1.3 10 3 10 3.5 9 4.1
Flow 1 MGD O 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 16.2 1 1 1 3 3 18.6

Total 4 3 4 5 4 5 7 1 7 1.5 8 17.5 11 4 11 6.5 12 22.7

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 17.83
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 6.97
Average Flow = 0.35

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (MGD)

TABLE 46. EXISTING, DESIGN, AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW FOR TIlE JAMBS RIVER BASIN

ABOVE THE FALL LINE BELOW THE FALL LINE TOTAL

Flow 1 MGD 4 2 3 2 2 1 8 1 9 2 8 2 12 3 12 4 10 3
Flow 1 MGD 5 20 6 47 7 42 14 219 13 279 14 308 19 239 19 326 21 350

Total 9 22 9 49 9 43 22 220 22 281 22 310 31 242 '31 330 31 353

1980 Flow-weighted Mean Values

Effluent total nitrogen concentration (mg L-1) = 19.84
Effluent total phosphorus concentration (mg L-1) = 5.48
Average Flow = 7.82

LEGEND
# - Number of POTWs
Flow - Millions of gallons per day (NOD)

I-

SECTION 12

LITERATURE CITED

Barth, E.F. 1978. Trends in Phosphorus Removal Technology for Municipal
Wastewater Facilities. National Meeting American Chemical Society.
Miami, FL. Sept. 10-15. 5 pp. + Figures.

Folsom, J.M., and L.E. Oliver. 1980. Economic Analysis of Phosphate
Control: Detergent Phosphate Limitations versus Wastewater Treatment.
Glassman-Oliver Economic Consultants, Inc. Washington, DC. 103 pp.

Hartigan, J.P., E. Southerland, H. Bonucelli, A. Canvacas, J. Friedman, T.
Quasebarth, K. Roffe, T. Scott, and J. White. 1983. Chesapeake Bay
Basin Model Final Report. Northern Virginia Planning Distric
Commission. Annandale, VA.

Jones, Edgar R. 1981. Phosphorus Ban -- Projected Cost Savings at Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. Washington, DC.

Jones, Edgar R. 1982. Workshop on Biological Phosphorus Removal in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Annapolis, MD.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Computer Assisted Procedure for the
Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET).
program User's Guide. Environmental Engineering Division,
Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Modeling Nonpoint Pollution
from the Land Surface. (EPA-600/3-76-083). Athens, GA. 280 pp.

B-115

APPENDIX C

AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES REPORT

Mary E. Gillelan
Thornton H. Secor
Wayne Grube
David Doss
John Mank

CONTENTS

Figures .................... C-iii

Tables .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .
Tables.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C-iv

Section

1 Summary of Agricultural Activities in Maryland and
Pennsylvania ........................ C-1

2 Agricultural Activities and Trends by River Basin .... .. C-11

3 Control Options ... C-38

4 Administrative Alternatives ................. C-41

5 Literature Cited ......................C-48

Attachment

1 Maryland Resources Conservation Act Executive Summary . . . . C-i-1

2 Pennsylvania Resources Conservation Act Executive Summary C-2-1

3 Chesapeake Bay Program District Worksheet .......... C-3-1

c-ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. Comparison of TN and TP applied to toal harvested cropland
in the Chesapeake Bay drainage areas of Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland from 1950 to 1980, and total
harvested cropland in the Chesapeake Bay basin from 1955
to 1980 .........................

TABLES

Table 1. Estimates of Tillage Practices in the Maryland and
Pennsylvania Portion of the Chesapeake Bay Basin ..... C-4

Table 2. Ranges of Recommended Rates of Fertilizer Application for
Various Crops in Maryland ................ C-7

Table 3. Commonly Applied Agricultural Chemicals ......... C-9

c-iv

AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES REPORT

PREFACE

The Chesapeake Bay drainage basin covers 64,000 square miles.
Agricultural activities vary greatly over an area this large, making the
description of land use and the assessment of conservation needs a complex
task. The Chesapeake Bay Program reviewed available literature and found
no consistent accounting of agricultural activities that was both detailed
enough to apply to a particular river basin and broad enough to cover the
* ~~Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia region of the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay
Program enlisted the help of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil
* ~~Conservation Service to collect information from Soil Conservation
Districts on the agricultural activities and conservation needs of farmland
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Program needed this information for a
number of purposes.

The main purpose of this project was to learn how the types of crops
grown, tillage and conservation practices used, and the amounts of
fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides applied, varied across each river
* ~~basin. This information was needed to refine the agricultural-runoff
* ~~component of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Bay-wide computerized watershed
model that simulates nutrient loadings to the Bay from upland point and
nonpoint sources.

The second purpose of this effort was to provide informjation on a) what
the agricultural community perceives to be the soil conservation needs in
p ~~each area of the Bay watershed, b) what types of conservation farming
practices would address these needs and what would be the cost, c) what are
the trends in land-use conversions, types of crops grown, tillage
practices, etc., and d) what the community believes are the major obstacles
to achieving a greater degree of conservation. Answers to all these
questions were needed to develop balanced management strategies designed to
reduce point and nonpoint pollution in problem areas of t1>? Bay.

All of these data were collected by worksheets sent out by the Soil
Conservation Service to each of its soil conservation district field
offices -- 35 Pennsylvania districts and 24 Maryland districts -- that lie
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (unfortunately, Virginia districts
could not be included in the survey). The "District Worksheet" (Attachment
C) was designed by a group comprised of members representing the following
agencies:

o Chesapeake Bay Program

o Soil Conservation Service (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
branches)

o U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (Maryland branch)

* o~~~ Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee

o University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service

c-v

o Maryland Department of Agriculture

o The Kent and Howard County, Maryland Soil Conservation Districts

To assist the Chesapeake Bay Program in interpreting the worksheet
returns and to write a report summarizing the findings, the Soil
Conservation Service entered into an interagency agreement with the
Chesapeake Bay Program. The tasks in the agreement included a)
administering the survey, b) providing responses to the Chesapeake Bay
Program to summarize by sub-watershed, and c) writing a report that:

o summarized the agricultural activities, trends, and conservation
needs from the worksheets (Section 2)

o described technical soil-erosion control alternatives that are
representative of available conservation practices in terms of
reducing soil loss and agricultural pollutant loadings (Section
4), and

o assessed administrative policy alternatives designed to increase
soil conservation on farmland (Section 5).

The following is a compilation of the separate reports submitted by the
Maryland and Pennsylvania Soil Conservation Services (USDA 1982a, USDA 1982b).

c-vi

SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN
MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA

OVER VIEW OF SOIL EROSION

Loss of soil can be attributed to natural as well as human factors. As
r ~~the cost of production increases, farmers till as much of their land as
possible. Some of this land is of marginal quality, posing erosion
hazards. Poor land use, a lack of conservation practices, and soil
limitations contribute to erosion. Poor farming practices and erosion
continue due to lack of adequate financial assistance, economic incentives
for practicing conservation, and a knowledge of the benefits of proper land
management.

Average annual soil losses throughout the Chesapeake Bay Basin are in
the range of 6 to 8 tons/acre/year for most crops. Notable exceptions to
this are tobacco and truck crops where the losses can range from 20 to 25
tons/ac/yr. The tolerable soil losses in the basin range from I to 5
tons/ac/yr with the vast majority of the soils in the 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr
range.

The title of the soil loss equation is a misnomer because in reality it
is a soil movement equation. It is not an equation to predict the amount
of soil that leaves a field or how much of that soil is delivered to a
waterway, stream, river, or the Bay. It is a measure of the soil that is
moved within a field and what effect that movement will have on the
productive capacity of that field or part of the field. Tolerable soil
loss is defined as the amount of soil that can be lost and still maintain
the productive capacity of agricultural land for sustained use. The soil
forming factors of climate, topography, organic matter, and parent
material, all acting together through time, will develop soils at this rate
* ~~and, therefore, productivity will be maintained.

'hie amount of sediment delivered to streams, rivers, and the Bay is
different from soil loss. Although dependent on the soil loss yields from
fields, sediment delivery yield is also dependent on watershed size,
proximity to watercourses, topography, and soil particle size.

Maryland

Cropland and pasture land in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeak~e Bay
basin were 24.0 percent (1,425,000 acres) and 6.4 percent (380,000 acres),
respectively, based on the 1978 Census of Agriculture. Soil loss from
cultivated cropland is occurring in Maryland at an average annual rate of 7
* ~~tons/ac/yr (SCS 1977). Erosion results in sediment damage to adjacent land
and waterways and to Chesapeake Bay. As a result of this depletion of soil
resources., the productivity of agricultural land is reduced. According to
the estimates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 1977 National
Resources Inventory, erosion is a primary threat on approximately 1.1
million acres of Maryland crop and pasture land. The problem of wind
erosion also effects 39,000 productive acres.

C-i

Pennsylvania

There are approximately 13 million acres or 20,800 square miles of
drainage area located within Pennsylvania in the Susquehanna River Basin
portion of Chesapeake Bay. The land use is 61 percent woodland, 23 percent
cropland, 5 percent pastureland, and 11 percent urban and other land.

Although cropland is about one-fourth of the total acreage, it accounts
for over two-thirds of the soil loss. Soil movement by sheet and rill
erosion from farmland and woodland is estimated at 31 million tons of soil
annually within the Susquehanna River Basin of Pennsylvania. of this
total, 21 million tons of soil are eroded from cropland at an average loss
of 7.4 tons/ac/yr; 5 million tons from pastureland and other lands at an
average loss of 2.4 tons/ac/yr; and 5 million tons from woodland at an
average loss of 0.6 tons/ac/yr.

The soil loss from cropland in the Susquehanna River Basin is 34
percent higher than the entire Pennsylvania state average of 5.5 tons/ac/yr
f or cropland. The reason for this increase within the Susquehanna River
Basin is the concentrated acreage of intensely cultivated cropland in the
sub-basin downstream from Harrisburg. The maximum allowable soil loss
("T") on typical Pennsylvania soils is 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr. The annual soil
loss from pastureland and woodland are at or below the state averages of
2.6 and 1.0 tons per acre, respectively.

OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL TRENDS

Agriculture in the basin has changed from a labor-intensive to a
capital-intensive activity. The change has resulted in an increase in the
size of individual farms. Additional land was not available for expansion,
so smaller farm operations were absorbed into other units. The result is a
decrease in the number of farming units in the basin. The farm numbers
have been steadily decreasing since reaching the peak early in this
century. For example, the number of farms in Pennsylvania is less than
one-half the total in 1954, according to the Pennsylvania Analytical
Summary, USDA 1977. Although the rate of decline has slowed, projections
to the year 2020 are that the number of farms will continue to decrease to
about one-half the present number.

As the number of farms has decreased, the average size of farms has
increased about two-fold. The trend toward larger size farms will continue
in the future. The rate of increase in average farm size will not be as
rapid, however, as in the past. The opportunities for off-farm jobs is
significantly affecting the number of farms being used as only rural
residences.

Basin-wide, fewer conservation practices are applied to leased land
because operators cannot recover their investment with short-term leases.
The amount of farmland leased will increase as the number of farms continue
to decrease and farm units increase. This poses a major conservation
threat, as less conservation is applied on leased land than owned land.

Like farm numbers, the total land area committed to farming has
declined. This is largely due to the continual conversion of farmland to
urban or non-farm uses. This decrease is primarily in the cropland

C-2

acreage. In Pennsylvania, over 52,000 acres and, in Maryland, over 62,000
acres of cropland are irretrievably lost annually to non-agricultural uses
such as residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation.

Unfortunately, the land that is best suited for agriculture is also the
land best suited for these other uses. Agriculture is often forced to less
r ~~desirable, fragile land, which is less suited to cropping and, when farmed,
requires more energy and causes greater threats to conservation. Thus,
programs aimed at preserving prime agricultural land, in effect, reduce the
potential for increased agricultural runoff pollution.

Over the past 10 years, intensified cropping systems, such as double
cropping of corn, small grain, soybeans, and the use of cover crops, have
become more common and are expected to increase as agricultural land is
converted to non-farm purposes. Increases in the use of these systems will
be for economic reasons. For example, the profit margin is greater when
the double cropping system is used because there is the opportunity for a
third crop in two years. An additional economic advantage of double-
cropping is that risks are spread over a number of crops. Double-cropping
systems using tomatoes, cabbage, and potatoes are increasing. Cover crops
are another example of an intensified cropping system which is used for
economic reasons. Cover crops take up fertilizers in the winter which are
then recycled in the following season as the crops decay, resulting in more
efficient fertilizer usage. This system also controls runoff of
fertilizers and sediment.

Fortunately, conservation tillage is expected to gain widespread
acceptance as the preferred tillage on about 60 percent of Pennsylvania
cropland, and 80 percent of Maryland cropland by the year 2000.
Conservation tillage is a practice where the crop is planted directly into
the ground with either minimal or no disturbance to the soil surface with
2,000 pounds of residue left on the soil surface. These practices are
called minimum till and no-till respectively. The present extent of
conservation tillage at the sub-basin level is shown in Table 1. These
estimates were developed from district worksheet responses of tillage
practices associated with major cropping systems; they are considered
accurate plus or minus 10 percent.

There are three reasons that explain why conservation tillage will not
become any more widespread. This tillage system is not acceptable on
low-lying wet soils because the litter on the soil surface in the spring
retards the warming of the soil, slowing seed germination, which in turn,
reduces yields. With drainage practices, however, conservation tillage is
feasible in these areas. Lack of soil warmth for seed germination without
conventional turning of the soil may also be a limiting factor in cooler
northern areas. A second reason is that in mountainous areas, part-time
farming and the need for farmers to own conventional equipment makes it
less feasible for farmers to purchase additional equipment. Third, in the
tobacco growing regions, the chemicals farmers need to practice
conservation tillage have not yet been developed; therefore, conventional
tillage is necessary for adequate weed control.

Conservation tillage is an excellent conservation practice, but it
alone cannot reduce soil losses to the tolerable limits. This fact is
obvious from~ the analysis of soil losses in the river basin summaries that

C-3

TABLE 1. ESTIMATES OF TILLAGE PRACTICES IN THE MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA
PORTION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

Sub-basin
%Conventional Tillage %Conservation Tillage
Susquehanna

Mouth to Harrisburg 20-30 70-80
Harrisburg to Sunbury 30 70
Juniata River Basin 50 50
West Branch 90 10
Above Sunbury 75 25

Potomac (Maryland Only)

Northi Branch 100 0
Harpers Ferry to
Little Falls 50 50
Below Little Falls 25-40 60-75

Patuxent

Aboelo Fall-line 2 5 -40 65-75
ABeove Fall-line 3 0 -40 60-70

West Chesapeake 65 35

Chester, Sassafras,
and Elk Rivers 20-30 70-80

Middl e-Lower
Eastern Shore 30 70

follow. Farmers often believe it is the cure-all practice. This trend of
relying too heavily on conservation tillage alone will continue unless a
vigorous information campaign is launched. In addition to staff needed for
the information campaign, technical staff will be needed to service farmer
demands, and a source of funding will be needed to apply the additional
needed conservation practices.

Conservation practices such as strip-cropping, diversions, and
waterways will be applied to the land at approximately the same rate each
year as they are now in Maryland, but are expected to increase in
Pennsylvania as more land is devoted to growing intensive row crops. The
installation of animal waste systems is anticipated to increase.

Tobacco production is presently in an uncertain state as problems of
mechanization, marketing, and price fluctuations affect the growth of the
industry. Tobacco has traditionally been a high cost labor intensive crop
to grow. In 1981, a number of machines were introduced that would

C-4

mechanize harvesting the crop. Although these machines are presently in
their infancy, the changes are here.

The future of the tobacco industry in southern Maryland is difficult to
predict. Changes are happening rapidly after a long history of stability.
In the past, Maryland tobacco was one of the few tobacco crops in the
United States that was not under acreage allotments. Within the past few
years, farmers in North Carolina have started to grow Maryland-Type 32
tobacco to the extent that in 1981 they grew one-third as much as
* ~~~Maryland. Because their crop matures earlier, it is marketed earlier.
* ~~~However, in 1982, the Federal government required that Maryland-Type 32
tobacco acreage be counted against the allotments. It is difficult to
predict the effect this will have on the price Maryland farmers receive.
Price influences profits which influence the acreage planted.

The only stabilizing factor in the tobacco industry within Pennsylvania
is that, traditionally, the Amish community has concentrated on growing
tobacco using family farm labor. Even so, tobacco cropland is anticipated
to decrease in the Pennsylvania sub-basin below Harrisburg.

In Maryland, it is expected that there will be a slight reduction in
the number of livestock; in Pennsylvania, however, the total number of
livestock is anticipated to remain constant or show slight increases.
Although the number of animals might not be reduced significantly, the
distribution will be changed. They will be concentrated on fewer farms and
concentrated in feedlots. The reduction in livestock on the eastern shore
of Maryland has already been significant. In Pennsylvania, swine, chicken,
and turkey production is expected to increase in the future. Sheep
production is decreasing while horse and cattle populations remain constant.

The use of irrigation will increase. This is especially true for the
eastern shore of Maryland where there is an ample supply of water and the
land is flat. The great majority of the new systems will be center
pivots. Along with the expansion in the numbers of new systems, farmers
will increase the use of fertigation. Fertigation is a technique to apply
liquid fertilizers through the irrigation system. By utilizing fertigation
the farmers can increase yields by timing the application of fertilizer
more closely to the needs of the crops.

The use of fertilizers and herbicides has, and will continue to,
increase throughout all parts of the basin. Figure I includes state-wide
fertilizer consumption trends for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The use of nitrogen appears to have substantially increased in the past 30
years, while that of phosphate has remained relatively constant.

Fertilizer is applied to farmland according to the needs of the crop
and the farmer's goal as to crop yield. The rate of application is best
determined by annual soil testing. In the absence of a soil test, farmers
follow Extension Service recommendations for a given crop. Table 2
summarizes recommended rates for Maryland, which are very similar to
Pennsylvania rates. In general, farmers do not apply more than the
recommended rates as fertilizer is one of the most expensive production
imputs. Relatively higher application rates are used on farms managed for
high yields; for example, an additional 30 lbs of N and K(20 and 15 lbs of
P205 is recommended to achieve an additional 25 bushels of corn (1982

c-5

170

160 X-
x

150 -X

140

Total p X
130 X

120

110

100
Harvested
Cropland
Tons of Acreage
Fertilizer90 Areage
Applied Chesapeake

x 1,000 ) 80 Basin
X ( x 1,000,000 )

Total N
60
X
50 - - X
Cropland

X 6

- 5

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

C-6

TABLE 2. RANGES OF RECOMMENDED RATES OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR VARIOUS
CROPS IN MARYLAND. VALUES FOR PENNSYLVANIA ARE VERY SIMILAR
(BASED ON 1980 FERTILIZER APPLICATION RATES, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND, COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

Crop Pounds Per Acre Recommend Rates

N P205 K20
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
Corn for Grain 85 - 120 80 80
Corn for Silage 85 - 120 90 - 120 120 - 165
(No-till Corn - add 40 lbs of N to above rates, broadcast application)
Small Grains 0 - 60 0 - 60 0 - 60
Soybeans 0 - 60 40 - 60 40 - 60
Hay, Pasture, Silage
New seedings 0 - 40 60 - 170 60 - 260
Maintenance 0 - 50 40 - 70 50 - 210
Rye for Grazing 100 50 50
MANURE
[If manure is applied, for each ton applied, deduct the following
amounts (lbs) of N, P205, and K20.]

Cattle Manure 5 - 10 3 3
Poultry Manure 25 - 50 20 10

(Note: lower N-values are for fall- and winter-applied manure. The higher
N-values are for spring-applied, properly protected, and stored manure.)

C-7

Agronomy Guide, Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture
Extension Service).

Manure is often used in addition to commercial fertilizer; ideally,
commercial fertilizer should be reduced relative to the amount of manure
applied, as shown in Table 2. Frequently, however, in regions with many
livestock operations, animal waste management is inadequate, and excessive
application rates are evident.

Herbicide usage will also increase in proportion to the increase in
conservation tillage. Pesticides (which include herbicides) are applied
throughout the basin in accordance with cooperative Extension Service
recommendations and in accordance with label directions. All farmers
applying pesticides have attended training sessions certifying them to
apply pesticides. Table 3 includes the most commonly applied pesticides
and recommended application rates. (Appendix B of this document contains
information on the relationship between pesticides and Bay water.)

OVER VIEW OF AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Agricultural programs in the Chesapeake Bay basin occur at the Federal,
state, and local levels. A detailed account of water quality management
activities, with respect to agriculture, are present in the main text of
this document; however, a number of special programs should be noted.

The USDA/EPA Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) includes three projects in
the Chesapeake Bay basin. One of the primary objectives of RCWP is to test
the effectiveness of selected best management practices (BM~s) in reducing
agricultural pollutant loadings. In Pennsylvania, the Conestoga Headwaters
Rural Clean Water Project located in south-eastern Pennsylvania, (primarily
in Lancaster County with portions in Lebanon, Berks, and Chester Counties)
was selected in 1981 as a water quality project under the RCWP. The program
provides approximately 2 million dollars in accelerated financial and
technical assistance to owners and operators to install and maintain BMPstto
control agricultural nonpoint pollution for improved water quality. The
Double Pipe Creek watershed in Carroll County, Maryland is a 3.6 million
dollars RCWP project to improve water quality in this area -- the
top-ranked, state-wide, potential critical area. The Nansemond-ChuckatuckI
watershed, which drains to the lower James River in Virginia, has also been
targeted for approximately 2 million dollars by the RCWP.

While these three RCWP projects are directed to improve local water
quality problems, their relative impact on Chesapeake Bay water quality is
probably fairly low. Larger watersheds need to be assessed to reduce
nutrients and sediment entering tidal waters. The proposed SCS Mason-Dixon
Erosion Control project would target conservation assistance to the
22-county Piedmont region of south eastern Pennsylvania and central
Maryland. The proposed 1984 SCS budget includes 300,000 dollars for the
Maryland SCS office and 400,000 dollars for the Pennsylvania SCS office for
technical assistance in this area.

In addition, each state has an approved Section 208 agricultural plan.
Potential critical watersheds for sediment, animal waste, or nutrients have
been identified (Appendix E, this document). Generally, plans call for
targetting technical assistance and cost-sharing funds to these regions;

C-8

TABLE 3. COMMONLY APPLIED AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS (SOURCES: 1981 PEST
CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIELD CROP, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE)

Crop Chemical Application Rate)
(per acre)

Corn (conventional) Atrazine 1-2 lb.
Simazine 1-2 lb.
Roundup 1.5-4 lb.
Furidan 12 lb.

Corn (no-till) Same as above, but with
Paraquat 1 qt.

Soybeans (conventional) Lasso 2-4 qt.
Lorox 0.6-2 lb.
Fluralin 1-2 pt.
Sevin 0.6-1.3 lb.

Soybeans (no-till) Lorox 1-2 lb.
Paraquat 1 qt.
Sevin 0.6-1.3 lb.

Tobacco Disyston 27 lb.
Diazinon .75 pt.
Sevin 2 lb.

Small-grain Banvel .25-1.5 pts.
Dylox 1 lb.
Cygon 400 43-54 lb.

C-9

however, implementation of the plans has been hampered by a lack of
adqeuate funding for implementation. For example, in Maryland, the SCS
estimates that 24 million dollars is needed to address water quality
problems in the top three critical watersheds only. Maryland soil
conservation districts estimate that 20 soil conservationists and 35
technicians (at a cost exceeding I million dollars per year) would be
required to assist 40 percent of the operating units in all critical areas
with the development of a conservation plan.

At the local level, soil conservation districts provide technical
assistance and administer BMP cost-sharing funds. In general, funding
shortages prevent districts from achieving conservation goals. For
example, Maryland's 24 soil conservation districts assisted agricultural
landowners with soil conservation on 23,200 acres of crop and pasture land
in 1980. At this rate, it would take 197 years to protect the 1.1 million
acres of farmland needing treatment. The State of Maryland appropriated 10
million dollars in 1982 for cost-sharing of conservation practices; this
funding will help in the areas needing immediate treatment, but much work
will still remain to be done.

C-10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SECTION 2
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND TRENDS, BY RIVER BASIN

SUSQUEHANNA-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE TO HARRISBURG

The Chesapeake Bay Program research concluded that this area, located
in the Piedmont phisiographic region, contributes a large percentage of the
nonpoint source nutrient loading to the upper Chesapeake Bay. The greatest
percentage of cropland in any Chesapeake Bay sub-basin is found here -- 38
percent of the land is used for crops. The area also supports a large
number of cattle and other animals.

There have been many projects initiated in his sub-basin to address the
conservation needs. These include the Mason Dixon Project, the Conestoga
Headwaters Rural Clean Water Project, and a new study completed by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources entitled An Assessment
of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Selected High Priority
Watersheds in Pennsylvania (June 1983). The programs were described in
Section 1.

Continuous corn as a cropping system is used on about 25 percent of the
cropland throughout the sub-basin. In general, this rotation is used on
slopes of from 3 to 8 percent. Minimum tillage is used on 60 percent with
the residue left, no-till planting on 10 percent with residue left, and
conventional tillage practices on 30 percent with the residue removed. The
average annual soil loss for this system is about 10 tons/ac/yr. The
allowable soil losses ("T" values) average 4 tons/ac/yr.

A cropping system of corn, small grain, and hay is used on about 25
percent of the area. Corn, oats, wheat, and hay is used primarily in
Schuylkill County on 70 percent of the cropland. Slopes of 3 to 12 percent
are used for this rotation. Minimum tillage is used on about 80 percent
with the crop residue left; conventional tillage is used on 20 percent with
the residue removed. Average annual soil loss for this rotation is about 5
tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr.

Rotations with 2 years of corn, oats, or wheat, and 2 or more years of
hay or 2 years of corn and 2 or more years of hay are devoted on about 60
percent of the area, particluarly where dairy farming is prevalent. These
roatations occur on slopes of from 3 to 18 percent. Minimum tillage is
used on about 75 percent with the residue left. Conventional tillage is
used on 25 percent with residue left. ~The average annual soil loss is
about 6 tons/acre. The "T" values average about 3 to 4 tons/acre.

Other specialty crops are substituted in the rotations on about 10
percent of the sub-basin. Tobacco is used in Lancaster County on about 30
percent of the cropland using 3 years of corn, tobacco, and winter small
grains as a rotation. This rotation occurs on slopes of from 3 to 8
percent. About 80 percent of the rotation is minimum tillage with residues
left and 20 percent is conventional tillage with residue removed. Tobacco
is a conventional tillage row crop. The average annual soil loss is about
14 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 4 tons/ac/yr.

C-1i

Soybeans are grown in rotation, primarily in York County as a cash crop
on about 75 percent of the cropland. In addition, small acreages of
soybeans are grown in Adams and Dauphin Counties. Slopes vary from 3 to 8
percent. The cropping system of corn, small grain, and soybeans is
generally minimum tilled with residues left. In some cases, winter small
grain is seeded with the soybeans as a cover crop and left with the residue
over winter. The average annual soil loss is about 6 tons/ac/yr. The "T'
values average about 4 tons/ac/yr.

Animal units are evenly distributed within the sub-basin. The highest
concentrations are in York and Lancaster Counties. The total amount Of
cattle in the sub-basin is about 346,900 animal units. Pigs amount to
342,700 units, and chickens to 9,489,000 units. Sheep and horses are
concentrated in York and Lancaster Counties totaling 11,900 and 10,500,
respectively. The turkey population is about 78,600 birds.

Terraces, grassed waterways, tile drainage, and contour strips are the
most commonly applied conservation practices on land devoted to growing
continuous corn and corn in rotation. Soil management practices followed
include chisel plowing, minimum tillage on about 60 percent, and no-till on
about 10 percent of the acreage cultivated for corn. About 30 percent of
the corn grown is prepared by conventional plowing. Small grain, soybean,
and hay crops are generally grown on land protected with contour strips,
diversion, and tile drainage. Tobacco land is generally protected during
the winter months with small grains or grass cover crops,

Conservation plans are needed in about 50 percent of the farms in the
sub-basin. Greater efforts are needed to increase the amount of plans
being completely followed above the current 15 percent. Although 704
percent of the conservation plans are partially followed, more effort needs
to be directed toward raising the participation on these plans to an active
status. The amount of conservation plans not being followed at all is
anticipated to remain below the 15 percent level.

Agricultural land leased by farm operators accounts for about one third
of the farmland devoted to crop production. Of this amount, about 10
percent is being farmed with conservation practices according to a
conservation plan.

About 20 percent of the cropland is in need of grassed waterways,
minimum tillage, no-till, contour strip-cropping, and conservation cropping
systems to meet the T plus 5 level of soil loss. To achieve the T plus 2
soil loss level on the 25 percent of the cropland in need, practices
including diversions, no-till, strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed
waterways, and conservation cropping systems are required. To achieve 60
percent of the cropland within the allowable soil loss ("T" value),
terraces are needed in addition to all the above listed practices for
treatment.

About 10 percent of the pastureland is in need of practices, including
contour strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed waterways, diversions,
fencing, spring developments, watering facilities, and rotational grazing
to achieve the T plus 2 level of soil loss reduction.

Approximately 60 percent of the animal units in the sub-basin are in
need of animal waste management systems. Controls necessary for properly

C- 12

storing and handling the manure wastes include manure storage facilities
and safe disposal of wastes.

Practices such as terraces, waterways, and diversions are needed to
control surface runoff from waste disposal areas. In addition, management
practices such as minimum or no-till farming, conservation cropping
systems, and hay plantings are needed in the disposal area.

Feedlots present a special problem because of the heavy concentrated
use by livestock. Measures such as fencing stream banks, diverting runoff
with diversions, and safe water disposal from buildings are essential to
control manure waste on feedlots.

In the future, the total acreage devoted to agriculture will decrease
as more land is converted to developing areas. hay and tobacco acreages
are expeited to decrease as more cropland is converted to increased corn,
small grain, and soybean production. The intensification brought on by the
double cropping will result in an increase of winter cover. The amount of
farmland prepared by minimum tillage and no-till farming is expected to
increase in this sub-basin to nearly 80 percent by the year 2000. The use
of fertilizers and pesticides will increase with the use of conservation-
tillage practices. The application of conservation practices such as
terraces, grassed waterways, contour strip-cropping and animal waste
systems are also expected to increase. There is a trend for increased
acreage on fewer farms and an increased number of leased farmlands. Cattle
* ~~~number is expected to remain constant but will be concentrated in a smaller
area. Swine, turkey, and chicken production is increasing.

A recent report (June 1983) was released by the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, entitled
An Assessment of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Selected High
Priority Watersheds in Pennsylvania which proposed a number of
recommendations for this area based on detailed studies. The following
recommendations apply to ten small watersheds studied in the lower
Susquehanna region. In general, soil conservation districts in these ten
watersheds whould establish realistic time frames in which to accomplish
the goals that are applicable to their watersheds). They should seek the
assistance of their cooperating agencies and/or private agricultural
organizations to accomplish these goals.

To address the identified water quality problems associated with
agricultural pollution, Conservation Districts should:

1. Establish a system to maintain an accounting of cooperators to
show the status of conservation plans and plan implementation
activities in each Conservation District. The system needs to
record regular contracts and an updating of land-use activities.
The use of a data management system utillzing computers should be
considered.

2. Increase the rate of implementation of conservation plans,
especially on rented land. Some of the most serious issues
associated with implementation of plans and application of
conservation practices are the problems associated with rented
land. Following is a list of suggestions to improve the situation:

C- 13

a. Long-term leases requiring conservation farming should be
promoted and lists of owners and operators of rented land
should be established for districts to facilitate the
acceptance and use of leases.

b. A program explaining the economic and environmental benefits
of conservation management should be addressed to both
land-owners and the renting farmers.

C. Federal, state and local governments should consider4
providing tax incentives for conservation programs.

d. Additional conservation practice cost share incentives from
state or Federal governments should be provided.

e. A cross-compliance program should be established whereby
those farmers participating in either Federal or state
assistance programs will be required to implement
agricultural pollution control programs for the farm.

f. Local governments should be encouraged to enact and enforce
ordinances for the prevention of off-site damages from
accelerated erosion and uncontrolled runoff as authorized by
the Clean Streams Act, Title 25, Department of Environmental4
Resources, Chapter 102, Erosion Control Rules and
Regulations. this local involvement should augment the
current regulatory program of the Department.

g. Land-owners who rent their land to farmers should be
encouraged to select farmers who will implement best
management practices.

3. Initiate a coordinated program to explain to farmers the benefits
of conservation tillage. Tours, demonstration projects and
no-till planter rentals are examples of initiates that could be
undertaken.

4. Seek funding, in conjunction with DER, for increased technical
assistance to implement the planning and installation of
conservation practices. (-The new matching grants to conservation
districts through the state program contined in the 1981 Farm Bill
authorizes the USDA to provide 15 to 25 percent of the grants to
state conservation agencies for this purpose.)

5. Provide priority planning assistance to areas with either high
soil loss and/or high concentration of livestock.

6. Work to improve stream banks with protective devices such as
filter strips and maintenance-of riparian vegetation. Owners and
renters should be informed through various educational programs of
low-cost methods to stabilize the banks and prevent pollutants
from entering the water. Streams should also be protected from
livestock access by means of offstream, watering devices, stream
fencing, or improved crossings.

7. Encourage the continuation of research on the development of
soil-testing procedures, especially a reliable soil nitrogen test,

C-14

by the Pennsylvania State University so that more accurate and
meaningful application recommendations can be provided to farmers.

S. Develop a nutrient management educational program as a joint
effort of Conservation Districts, Pennsylvania Association of
Conservation District Directors, Inc., Cooperative Extension
Service, Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. This educational program, directed at farmers, should
encourage balanced application of manure and/or commercial
fertilizers. Manure, soil, and plant tissue testing should be
used to achieve balanced application.

9. Encourage accelerated research on marketing and utilization of
excess nutrients produced on farms. A potential exists to create
a new industry through the marketing of these nutrients.

10. Pursue funding of a water testing program to determine the nature
and extent of contaminants associated with agricultural activities.

Second Priority

1. Increase the percentage of cooperators in the ten high priority
watersheds studied. Districts could facilitate this goal through
activities such as personal visits, newsletters, and tours.

2. Explain farm management techniques that control erosion and
nutrient losses by utilizing low-cost practices such as strip and
contour cropping, winter cover, and green manure crops.

3. Promote the establishment of a higher cost share assistance
program for animal waste handling and storage structures. The
initial high costs of these practices and the public water quality
benefits achieved justify the expenditure of such public funds.

4. Monitor construction of animal waste storage structures to prevent
future ground-water pollution. Conservation districts should
encourage local municipal governments to require inspection of
these facilities and/or installation of monitoring wells when site
conditions warrant.

5. Direct an information transfer program to mushroom growers,
explaining the proper methods to dispose of spent mushroom soil to
avoid runoff problems.

6. Initiate an educational program explaining renovation,
maintenance, and runoff-control techniques for pasture
improvement. New cost share incentives should be explored.

7. Promote the installation of stormwater control practices to
protect livestock housing or loafing areas from runoff. Both
technical and financial cost-share assistance should be provided
to improve or relocate livestock housing or holding areas.

8. Promote expansion of the current educational program of the
Cooperative Extension Service and the PA Department of Agriculture

C-15

to emphasize proper handling and application of herbicide and
pesticide materials. Integrated pest management shiould be a part
of the farmers' program.

While the conservation districts provide the catalyst to implementing
the above recommendations at the local level, the Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation will incorporate these recommendations into its annual plan of
operations for watershed and nonpoint agricultural programs. Priorities
for implementing the recommendations will be based on the first priority4
recommendations, goals set by the conservation districts and water quality
programs of the Department of Environmental Resources. Establishing a time
frame for implementing each recommendation is difficult, since many of the
recommendations are of a long-term nature requiring a continual educational
process and many are also dependent on the involvement of one or more
different agencies or organizations and their specific programs. It is the
intent of the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation to maintain regular4
contact with those agencies and organizations which have programs relative
to the recommendations and to foster those programs based on the available
resources of the Bureau.

In light of the results of the Chesapeake Bay Study and with similar
results identified in this assessment, the Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation further recommends that this assessment process be continued
in the high and medium priority watersheds identified in Pennsylvania's 208
Plan, especially the Susquehanna River Basin, to identify the specific farm
management practices which have the potential for causing nonpoint source
pollution. Also, new studies, as identified in the individual watershed
reports, should be initiated to investigate the presentce and/or effects
nutrients and pesticides may have on both surface and sub-surface water
supplies as well as the cost benefits of conservation tillage and other
best management practices.

SUSQUEHANNA -HARRISBURG TO SUNBURY

The section of the Susquehanna sub-basin which lies between Sunbury and
Harrisburg is physiographically in the Appalachian Ridge and Valley
region. Coal mining is an important land-use activity. Cropland
represents a high percentage (25.7 percent) of the land area. Pastureland
is found on 5.7 percent of the land.

Continuous corn as a cropping system is used on about 15 percent of the
cropland throughout the sub-basin. In general, this rotation is used on
slopes of from 3 to 8 percent. Chisel plowing is used as a minimum tillage
practice on areas with the crop residue removed. Minimum tillage accounts
for about 60 percent of the corn acreage. No-till planting is used on
about 10 percent with the residue left. Conventional tillage practices are
used on 30 percent with the residue removed. The average annual soil loss
of this system is about 8 tons/ac/yr. The allowable soil losses ("T"
values) average 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr.

Cropping systems of corn, oats, wheat, and hay or corn, small grain,
and hay are used on about 15 percent of the area. Slopes of 3 to 12
percent are used for these rotations. Minimum tillage is used on about 75
percent with the crop residue left. Conventional tillage is used on 25
percent with the residue left. Average annual soil loss for these

C- 16

rotations is about 5 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 to 4
tons/ac/yr.

Rotations with two years of corn, oats, or wheat, and two or more years
of hay or two years of corn, and two or more years of hay.are devoted on
about 60 percent of the area, particularly where dairy farming is
prevalent. These rotations occur on slopes of from 3 to 18 percent.
Minimum tillage is used on about 75 percent with the residue left.
Conventional tillage is used on 25 percent with residue left. The average
annual soil loss is about 6 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 to
4 tons/ac/yr.

Other specialty crops are substituted in the rotations on about 10
percent of the sub-basin. Cabbage, potatoes, and small grain are grown in
rotation primarily in Schuylkill County. This rotation occurs on slopes 3
of from to 15 percent. Conventional tillage with residue removed is used
with this rotation. The average annual soil loss is about 6 tons/ac/yr.
The "T" values average about 3 tons/ac/yr.

Generally, soybeans are grown as a cash crop in rotation with corn,
small grain, soybeans or with corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay with minimum
tillage and residue left. Slopes vary from 3 to 15 percent. In some
cases, winter small grain is seeded with the soybeans as a cover crop and
left with the residue over winter. The average annual soil loss is about
12 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 tons/ac/yr.

Animal units are evenly distributed within the sub-basin. The total
amount of cattle in the sub-basin is about 152,300 animal units. Pigs
amount to 78,100 units and chickens to 1,414,200 units. Sheep and horses
totaling 13,200 and 2,600, respectively are located within the sub-basin.
The turkey population is about 75,800 birds.

Terraces, grassed waterways, tile drainage, and contour strips are the
most commonly applied conservation practices on land devoted to growing
continuous corn and corn in rotation. Soil management practices followed
include chisel plowing, minimum tillage on about 60 percent, and no-till on
about 10 percent of the acreage cultivated for corn. About 30 percent of
the corn grown is prepared by conventional plowing. Small grain, soybean,
and hay crops are generally grown on land protected with contour strips,
diversions, and tile drainage. Cabbage and potato acreage is generally
farmed using winter small grain, grassed waterways, and contour
strip-cropping for protection.

Conservation plans are needed in about 40 percent of the farms in the
sub-basin. Greater efforts are needed to increase the amount of plans
being completely followed above the current 20 percent. Although 75
percent of the conservation plans are partially followed, more effort needs
to be directed toward raising the participation on these plans to an active
status. The amount of conservation plans not being followed at all is
anticipated to remain below the 15 percent level.

Agricultural land leased by farm operators accounts for about 30
percent of the farmland devoted to crop production. Of this amount, about
20 percent is being farmed with conservation practices according to a
conservation plan.

C-17

About 25 percent of the cropland is in need of grassed waterways,
minimum tillage, no-till, contour strip-cropping, and conservation cropping
systems to meet the T plus 5 level of soil loss. io achieve the T plus 2
soil loss level on 50 percent of the cropland in need, practices including
diversions, no-till, strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed waterways, and
conservation cropping systems are required. To obtain 75 percent of the
cropland within the allowable soil loss ("T" value), terraces are needed in
addition to all the above listed practices for treatment.

Less than 10 percent of the pastureland is in need of conservation
practices, including contour strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed
waterways, diversions, fencing, spring developments, watering facilities,
and rotational grazing to achieve the T plus 2 level of soil-loss
reduction. In addition, less than 10 percent of the pasture is in need of
management practices to meet the "T" allowable soil loss level.

Approximately 60 percent of the animal units in the sub-basin are in
need of animal waste management systems. Controls necessary for properly
storing and handling the manure wastes include manure storage facilities 4
and safe disposal of wastes.

Feedlots present a special problem because of the heavily concentrated
use by livestock and their close proximity to water courses. Measures such
as fencing stream banks, diverting runoff with diversions, safe water
disposal from buildings, rock riprap along stream banks, grass borders and
filter strips along streams, holding ponds, lagoons, and relocation of
facilities are essential to control manure waste on feedlots.

The outlook for the future is for an increased application of
conservation practices, including the use of terraces, minimum and no-till
farming, grassed waterways, winter cover, and contour strip-cropping. As
corn and small grain production increases, hay-land area is expected to4
drop.

While the total acreage devoted to agriculture will decrease as more
land is converted to developing areas, the average size of each farm is
increasing as farms consolidate. The trend toward leasing of farmland on a
short-term basis will be accompanied by a decrease in application of
conservation practices on these lands. The total number of cattle is
expected to remain constant and will be in fewer herds with larger numbers
of animal units per herd. Meanwhile, production of swine, chickens, and
turkeys is on the increase. Installation of animal waste systems is
increasing.

Future use of fertilizer is expected to increase with more phosphate
fertilizers used for grain crops, and a rapid increase in the use of
nitrogen fertilizer resulting from increased use of no-till farming
methods. Use of pesticides will increase proportionately to the increase
in no-till farming.

C- 18

SUSQUEHANNA-JUNIATA BRANCH

The Juniata sub-basin lies in the Appalachia Ridge and Valley
physiographic region. Continuous corn as a cropping system is used on
about 20 percent of the cropland throughout the sub-basin. In general,
this rotation is used on slopes from 2 to 10 percent. Minimum tillage with
residue left is used on about 50 percent of the corn acreage. Chisel
plowing is used increasingly for minimum tillage. The average annual soil
loss for minimum tillage of continuous corn is about 5 tons/ac/yr. The
average allowable soil loss ("T" value) for this land is 4 tons/ac/yr.
Conventional tillage practices are used on 50 percent of the cropland with
the residue removed. The average annual soil loss for this system is about
10 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average 4 tons/ac/yr.

The cropping system of corn, oats or wheat, and hay is used on about 20
percent of the area. Individual crop sequences vary from corn, oats, and
hay to two years of corn, and oats, and two years or more of hay. Slopes
of 3 to 15 percent are used for this rotation. Conventional tillage is
commonly used with the residue removed. Average annual soil loss is about
5 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 tons/ac/yr.

Cropping systems using corn and hay are common on about 60 percent of
the area. Crop sequences vary from one year of corn and one year of hay to
four years of corn and four years of hay. These rotations occur on slopes
of from 3 to 18 percent. Conventional tillage is used on about 50 percent
with the crop residue removed. The average annual soil loss is about 8
tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 tons/ac/yr. Minimum or no-till
farming is used on the remaining 50 percent of the cropland with residues
left. The average annual soil loss for this tillage is 3 tons/ac/yr. The
"T" values average about 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr.

Animal units are evenly distributed within the sub-basin. The total
amount of cattle in the sub-basin is about 130,000 animal units. Pigs
amount to 45,000 units and chickens to 1,582,000 units. Sheep and horses
totaling 6,000 and 1,800, respectively are located within the sub-basin.

Diversions, grassed waterways, tile drainage, and contour strip-cropping
are the most commonly applied conservation practices on land devoted to
growing continuous corn and corn in rotation. Small grain and hay crops
are generally grown on land protected with contour strip-cropping,
diversions, and tile drainage.

Conservation plans are needed in about 50 percent of the farms in the
sub-basin. Greater efforts are needed to increase the amount of plans
being completely followed above the current 20 percent. Although 65
percent of the conservation plans are partially followed, more effort needs
to be directed toward raising the participation on these plans to an active
status. The amount of conservation plans not being followed at all is
anticipated to remain below the 12 percent level.

Agricultural land leased by farm operators accounts for about 25
percent of the farmland devoted to crop production. Of this amount, about
30 percent is being farmed with conservation practices according to a
conservation plan.

C-19

About 12 percent of the cropland is in need of grassed waterways,
minimum tillage, no-till, contour strip-cropping, and conservation cropping
systems to meet the T plus 5 level of soil loss. To achieve the T plus 2
soil-loss level on the 30 percent of the cropland in need, practices
including diversions, no-till, strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassedI
waterways, and conservation cropping systems are requried. To achieve 50
percent of the cropland within the allowable soil loss ('T" value),
terraces are needed in addition to all the above listed practices for
treatment. Less than 10 percent of the pastureland is ini need of fertility
and reseeding practices to meet the T plus 2 and "T" allowable soil loss.

Approximately 45 percent of the animal units in the sub-basin are in
need of animal waste management systems. Controls necessary for properly
storing and handling the manure wastes include manure storage facilities
and safe disposal of wastes.

Looking to the future, the trend is for a decrease in acreage devoted
to agriculture. Hay and small grain acreage is decreasing while corn
acreage is increasing. Cropping systems will become more intensified with
row crops. The average size of farm acreage is increasing as is the number
of leased farmlands. Fewer cattle herds are anticipated with larger
numbers of animal units per herd.

The application of conservation practices, including diversions,
minimum and no-till practices, grassed waterways, contour strip-cropping
and installation of animal waste systems is on the increase. lMore farmers
will leave crop residues on their fields over winter, and the use of
fertilizers and pesticides will increase as conservation tillage practices
are more widely used.

SUSQUEHIANNA - WEST BRANCH

The West Branch of the Susquehanna River encompasses both Appalachian
Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau physiographic features. It is
the most forested of all Susquehanna sub-basins, and contains the least
amount of cropland (8.7 percent) due to the steeper slopes. Coal mining is
prevalent.

Continuous corn as a cropping system is used on about 10 percent of the
cropland through the sub-basin. In general, this rotation is used on
slopes of from 0 to 18 percent. Chisel plowing is used as a minimum
tillage practice on areas with the crop residue removed. Minimum tillage
accounts for about 80 percent of the corn acreage with residue left.
Conventional-tillage practices are used on 20 percent of the acreage with J
the residue removed. The average annual soil loss of this system is about
12 tons/ac/yr. The allowable soil losses ("T" values) average 4 tons/ac/yr.

A cropping system of two or more years of corn, and three or more years
of hay are used on about 15 percent of the area. Slop'es of 0 to 15 percent
are used for this rotation. The average annual soil loss of this system is

C-20

about 6 tons/ac/yr. The allowable soil losses ("T" values) average 3
tons/ac/yr.

Cropping systems with two years of corn, oats, or wheat, and two or
more years of hay are used on about 70 percent of the area, particularly
where dairy farming is prevalent. These rotations occur on slopes of from
3 to 15 percent. Conventional tillage is used with the residue removed.
The average annual soil loss of this system is about 6 tons/ac/yr. The
allowable soil losses ("T" values) average 3 tons/ac/yr.

Other specialty crops are substituted in the rotations on about 5
percent of the sub-basin. A rotation of one or two years of potatoes and
oats are grown primarily in Potter and Cambira Counties. These rotations
occur on slopes 0 to 10 percent. Conventional tillage is used with
residues left. Rye is used as a cover crop where residues are removed.
The average annual soil loss of this system is about 6 tons/ac/yr. The
allowable soil losses ("T" values) average 3 tons/ac/yr.

Some soybeans are used in Lycoming, Montour, and Northumberland
Counties as an alternative cash crop for corn in the rotations. Generally,
crop sequences include corn and/or soybeans, oats, wheat, and four years of
hay in Lycoming County; corn, soybeans, oats, and hay in Montour Couinty;
and corn, small grain, and soybeans in Northumberland County. Slopes vary
from 0 to 10 percent. In some cases, winter small grain is seeded with the
soybeans as a cover crop and left with the residue over winter. The
average annual soil loss is about 8 tons/ac/yr. The allowable soil losses
("T" values) average 3 tons/ac/yr.

Animal units are evenly distributed within the sub-basin. The total
amount of cattle in the sub-basin is about 104,300 animal units. Pigs
amount to 42,600 units and chickens to 431,500 units. Sheep and horses
totaling 7,300 and 3,200, respectively are located within the sub-basin.

Diversions, grassed waterways, tile drainage, and contour
strip-cropping are the most commonly applied conservation practices on land
devoted to growing continuous corn and corn in rotation. Small grain,
soybean, and hay crops are generally grown on land protected with contour
strip-cropping, diversions, and tile drainage. Potato acreage is generally
farmed using winter small grain, grassed waterways, and contour
strip-cropping for protection.

Conservation plans are needed in about 45 percent of the farms in the
sub-basin. Greater efforts are needed to increase the amount of plans
being completely followed above the current 15 percent. Athough 70 percent
of the conservation plans are partially followed, more effort needs to be
directed toward raising the participation on these plans to an active
status. The amount of conservation plans not being followed at all is
anticipated to remain below the 10 percent level.

Agricultural land leased by farm operators accounts for about 30
percent of the farmland devoted to crop production. Of this amount, about
35 percent is being farmed with conservation practices according to a
conservation plan.

C-21

About 15 percent of the cropland is in need of grassed waterways,
minimum tillage, contour strip-cropping, and conservation cropping systems
to meet the T plus 5 level of soil loss. To achieve the T plus 2 loss
level on the 30 percent of the cropland in need, practices including
diversions, strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed waterways, and
conservation cropping systems are required. To achieve 60 percent of the
cropland within the allowable soil loss ("I" value), terraces and no-till
farming are needed in addition to all the above listed practices for
treatment.

In the future, the total acreage devoted to agriculture will decrease
as more land is converted to development. In Clearfield County, widespread
strip-mining is occurring, which returns only 15 percent of the land to
cropland. Small grain and hay acreage is expected to decrease as corn,
vegetable, and soybean production increases. Cropping systems will become
more intensified with row crops, and farmers will leave crop residues on
their fields over winter. The increased use of rye as a winter cover for
vegetable crops is anticipated.

With the increase in no-till, farming, there will be an increase in the
use of fertilizers and pesticides. Total use of phosphate fertilizer will
increase, especially for grain crops, but not as rapidly as use of nitrogen.

Farming operations are becoming more specialized. Chicken, cattle,
sheep, and horse production is expected to remain constant, though the
trend will be for larger numbers in fewer locations. Swine production is
decreasing.

There is a trend toward leasing of farmland. These lands are therefore
less likely to keep pace with the application of conservation practices
since operators are unable to recover their investment.

The number of actively followed conservation plans is decreasing though
the application of conservation practices, such as use the of diversions,
minimum and no-till methods, grassed waterways, contour strip-cropping, and

installation of animal waste systems, will increase.

C-2 2

SUSQUEHANNA-MAIN STEAM ABOVE SUNBURY

Of all Susquehanna sub-basins, this section in the Appalachia Plateau
physiographic region contains the highest percentage of pastureland (9.7
percent); 16.7 percent of the land is devoted to crops.

Continuous corn as a cropping system is used on about 15 percent of the
cropland throughout the sub-basin. In general, this rotation is used on
slopes of from 3 to 10 percent. Minimum tillage with residue left is used
on about 50 percent of the corn acreage. Chisel plowing is used
increasingly for minimum tillage. The average annual soil loss for minimum
tillage of continuous corn is about 5 tons/ac/yr. The average allowable
soil loss ("T" value) for this land is 3 tons/ac/yr. This minimum-tillage
system is used more commonly in the lower portion of the sub-basin.
Conventional tillage practices are used on the remaining 50 percent of the
cropland with the residue removed. The average annual soil loss for this
system is about 12 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average 3 tons/ac/yr. This
type of tillage is most commonly used in the upper reaches of the sub-basin.

A cropping system of corn, small grain, and hay is used on about 40
percent of the area. Individual crop sequences vary from corn, oats, and
hay to two years of corn, and oats, and four years of hay. Slopes of from
3 to 20 percent are used for this rotation. Minimum tillage is used on
about 20 percent with the crop residue left. Conventional tillage is
commonly used on 80 percent with the residue removed. Average annual soil
loss for this rotation is about 5 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about
3 tons/ac/yr.

Cropping systems using corn and hay are common on about 35 percent of
the area. Crop sequences vary from one year of corn and one year of hay to
four years of corn and four years of hay. These rotations occur on slopes
of from 3 to 18 percent. Minimum tillage is used on about 25 percent and
conventional tillage on 75 percent. The residue is removed on about 40
percent and left on 60 percent of the cropland. The average annual soil
loss is about 7 tons/ac/yr. The "T" values average about 3 tons/ac/yr.

Other specialty crops are substituted in the rotations on less than 10
percent of the sub-basin. Cabbage, potatoes, and tomatoes are grown in
rotations of vegetable, small grain, and hay primarily in Luzerne and
Schuylkill Counties. This rotation occurs on slopes of from 3 to 10
percent. Conventional tillage with residue removed is used on about 80
percent. The average annual soil loss is about 7 tons/ac/yr. The "T"
values average about 3 tons/ac/yr.

Animal units are evenly distributed within the sub-basin. The total
amount of cattle in the sub-basin is about 165,200 animal units. Pigs
amount to 33,600 units and chickens to 730,000 units. Sheep and horses
totaling 6,000 and 7,700, respectively are located within the sub-basin.

Diversions, grassed waterways, tile drainage, and contour
strip-cropping are the most commonly applied conservation practices on land
devoted to growing continuous corn and corn in rotation. Small grain and
hay crops are generally grown on land protected with contour
strip-cropping, diversions, and tile drainage. Vegetable crops are
generally farmed on land protected by contour farming, strip-cropping, and
tile drainage.

C-23

Conservation plans are needed in about 35 percent of the farms in the
sub-basin. Greater efforts are needed to increase the amount of plans
being completely followed above the current 25 percent. Although 60
percent of the conservation plans are partially followed, more effort needs
to be directed toward raising the participation on these plans to an active
status. The amount of conservation plans not being followed at all is
anticipated to remain below the 20 percent level.

Agricultural land leased by farm operators accounts for about 30
percent of the farmland devoted to crop production. Of this amount, about
50 percent is being farmed with conservation practices according to a
conservation plan.

About 20 percent of the cropland is in need of grassed waterways,
minimum tillage, contour strip-cropping, and conservation cropping systems
to meet the T plus 5 level of soil loss. To achieve the T plus 2 loss
level on the 40 percent of the cropland in need, practices including
diversions, strip-cropping, tile drainage, grassed waterways, and
conservation cropping systems are required.

To achieve 60 percent of the cropland within the allowable soil loss
("T" value), terraces and no-till farming are needed in addition to all the
above listed practices for treatment.

Less than 1.0 percent of the pasture is in need of diversions, grassed
waterways, fencing, tile drainage, and watering facilities to meet the T
plus 2 and "T" allowable soil loss.

The trend for the future is for a decrease in agricultural land as land
is converted to developing areas. There is an increase in the number of
leased framlands. Hay-land acreage is expected to drop while land in corn,
small grain, vegetables, and soybean production is on the increase. lMore
farmers will leave crop residues on their fields over winter as the use of
minimum and no-till methods increase. Winter small grains will provide
more winter cover as they will be used in the rotation of crops.

With the increase in no-till farming will be an increase in the use of
fertilizers and pesticides. The use of nitrogen fertilizer is expected to

C-24

increase rapidly- Total use of phosphate fertilizer will increase,
especially for use on grain crops.

There will be no significant changes in livestock numbers, though the
trend will be for concentration of animals in larger groups.

The number of actively followed conservation plans is decreasing,
though the application of conservation practices, such as the use of
0 ~~~ diversions, minimum and no-till methods, grassed waterways, contour
strip-cropping and installation of animal waste systems, will increase.

SUSQUEHANNA AND BUSH RIVERS

This drainage area includes both the Bush River basin in harford County
and those portions of Harford and Cecil Counties which drain into the
Susquehanna and upper Chesapeake Bay. Octoraro Creek in Cecil County
drains a portion of Lancaster and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania.
Conservation-tilled continuous corn is grown on approximately 35 percent ot
the cropland in these watersheds. Most of this corn is planted on slopes
of from 3 to 8 percent, but some is planted on land with slopes of up to 15
percent. Average soil losses are from 4 to 8 tons/ac/yr, but losses can be
as high as 11 tons. Very little land in these watersheds is conventionally
tilled. Double cropping of corn., small grain, and soybeans is practiced in
the Maryland portion on about 20 percent of the land. Rotations containing
hay are practiced in these watersheds on 20 percent of the land and are
usually one or two years of corn followed by small grain, and then 3 to 5
years of hay. Soil losses with this rotation generally meet the tolerable
loss of 4 tons/ac/yr.

Animal populations are not evenly distributed throughout the
watersheds. Only 6,000 head of cattle are in the Connowingo to the
Havre-de-Grace drainage area of the Susquehanna and 4,500 in the Blush River
sub-basin; the segment of the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania from Columbia,
Pa. to Connowingo has many more cattle. Typically, the conservation
practices in place are grassed waterways, diversions, strip-cropping,
winter cover, and conservation tillage.

About 75 to 80 percent of the farmers in these sub-basins have plans.
Statistics on implementing the plans vary between harford and Cecil
Counties. Only about 15 percent of the farmers in Cecil County have fully
implemented plans, whereas 50 percent are implementing them in Harford
County. About 15 percent are not followed at all. The farmers are leasing
about 35 percent of their cropland.

Cropland in this region needs move of the same practices the farmers
are presently applying, including conservation tillage, diversions,
strip-cropping, waterways, animal waste management systems, spring
developments, and fencing.

Pastureland is scattered throughout the watershed but more and more
operations are converting to confined feedlots. Emphasis needs to be given
to locating new feedlots away from streams and diverting and treating the
runoff, if necessary, before discharging it into the streams.

C- 25

Future trends in this segment include a gradual decrease in the number
of farms due to a moderate pressure from the urban segment. Cropping
systems will intensify greatly and many of the dairy operations will change
to the raising of feed grains. With this conversion will come an increase
in the amount of land in conservation tillage with a corresponding increase
in the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Equipment size will also
increase, bringing on a decrease in some of the conservation practices
already in place.

WEST CHESAPEAKE, PATAPSCO, JONES FALLS, GUNPOWDER, AND BACK RIVERS

These watersheds along the western shore of Maryland are all
experiencing moderate to heavy pressures of urbanization from either the
Baltimore or Washington metropolitan areas. As in other watersheds
experiencing these pressures, the tendency of the farmer is to intensify
his cropping system. He is forced to lease land at high rent values and
feels agriculture is insecure in the region. This feeling of impermanance

leads to less conservation of the land.
Continuous corn with minimum tillage and residues left after harvesting
is the dominant cropping system in the West Chesapeake and Patapsco
basins. This cropping system is used on 45 percent of the cropland in
these watersheds, whereas it is followed on only 20 percent of the cropland
in the Gunpowder basin. The slope of the land on which this rotation is
practiced is generally from 5 to 15 percent with the resulting soil losses
ranging from 5 to 10 tons/ac/yr and averaging 6 to 7 tons. The tolerable
limit is 3 to 4 tons. Double-cropped corn, small grain, and soybeans are
grown on approximately 15 percent of the cropland in the West Chesapeake
and Patapsco, whereas it occupies about 50 percent of the cropland in the
Gunpowder. With this rotation, the soil losses are in the range of 5 to 6
tons/ac/yr, which is still above the allowable 4 tons. Other rotations
include the following: corn, small grains, followed by 2 to 4 years of hay
under conventional tillage on 25 percent of the land in the Patapsco,
yielding 5 to 7 tons of soil loss; tobacco under conventional tillage on 35
percent of the cropland in the West Chesapeake, yielding 12 tons of soil
loss and truck crops on less than 10 percent of the cropland in the
Patapsco and Gunpowder, yielding soil losses of from 6 to 10 tons/ac/yr.

The animal distribution in these watersheds is insignificant except in
the upper reaches of the Patapsco in Carroll County. Even there the
density of livestock is not significant.

Conservation practices applied in these watersheds are limited to
conservation tillage and cover crops with limited amounts of grassed
waterways, cross slope farming, strip-cropping, and drainage on the flatter
slopes.

Fifty percent of the farmers in the Gunpowder and Patapsco watersheds
have conservation plans. Of these, approximately 10 percent follow them
completely and 20 percent do not follow them at all. In the West
Chesapeake, however, only 40 percent have plans, but 25 percent are
following them entirely. Here again, 10 percent do not follow them at all.

Leasing of land is commonplace in the Gunpowder and Patapsco watersheds
with the farmers leasing approximately 40 percent of the land they

C- 26

operate. In contrast, only 15 percent of the cropland is leased in the
West Chesapeake. Even here, however, competition is keen between the
p ~~farmer and the developer.

A need exists to apply more conservation on the land. This
intensively-cropped land needs more conservation tillage, waterways,
diversions, and strip-cropping to meet tolerable soil losses.

Pastureland and animal waste are of no signifance in the West
Chesapeake basin. In the Patapsco and Jones Falls basins, as in the
Gunpowder and Bush basins, the concern is in the upper reaches in Carroll
and Harford Counties. Here, animal waste management systems, spring
developments, pasture and hay-land planting and management, livestock
watering facilities, and fencing are needed.

Future trends in these watersheds will be continued pressure on the
agricultural land from the urbanizing activities. Again, it is difficult
to predict how much agriculture will remain in these watersheds by the year
2000. What remains will be small patch farming or highly mechanized cash
grain farming that relies heavily on leased land. Pesticide and fertilizer
use will increase as more land is converted to conservation tillage.

CHESTER, SASSAFRAS, AND ELK RIVERS

The upper Eastern Shore varies from the lower shore in that the
topography is more varied. Average slopes in these basins range up to 8
percent, resulting in more erosion on the intensively-cropped fields.
Although drainage is an important practice in the Chester, it is relatively
insignificant in the other two watersheds. Erosion control and animal
waste management are more significant.

Noteworthy in the Elk watershed is a special Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) project on Little Northeast Greek. The project has
accelerated funding to control sediment and runoff from animal waste. Of
concern, however, is the farmer' s inability to contribute his share of the
cost.

Continuous corn with conservation tillage and the residues left is
grown on about 20 percent of the cropland in these watersheds. With the
slopes of up to 8 percent, soil losses range from 5 to 8 tons/ac/yr
compared to a tolerable level of 3 to 4 tons. Corn and soybeans are grown
on an additional 30 percent of the cropland, utilizing conservation tillage
and leaving the residues. The soil losses and tolerable limit with this
cropping system are approximately the same as for continuous corn. Forty
percent of the cropland is double-cropped, with corn followed by small
grain and then soybeans in the second year. Soil losses with this system
vary from 4 to 6 tons/ac/yr compared to the tolerable level of 3 to 4
tons. The remaining cropland is either in conventional-tilled corn or
soybeans, or in a rotation of one or two years of corn followed by 3 to 5
years of hay. Soil losses with these cropping systems would be 8 and 2
tons/ac/yr, respectively.

The number of livestock are not significant in the Chester basin but
are significant in the Sassafras and Elk. Animal distribution is uniform
by watershed, but density increases in the Sassafras and is more dense in
the Elk.

C-27

In addition to a preference for conservation tillage, most farms have
ponds for livestock water. Drainage ditches and sub-surface drains have
been installed in the poorly-drained soils to render them suitable for
cropping. Other common practices include grassed waterways, contour and
cross-slope farming, contour and field strip-cropping, diversions, critical4
area planting, spring development, rotation grazing, pasture and hay-land
planting and management, and animal waste management systems.

Sixty percent of the farms in the Chester watershed have conservation
plans, whereas 80 percent in the Sassafras and Elk watersheds have plans.
In all three watersheds, about one-fifth of those having plans do not
follow them at all and only 10 to 15 percent follow them completely. The
remaining plans are in various stages of implementation.

Farmers in these watersheds are leasing about one-third of the land
they crop. In general, there is not a conservation plan on leased land and
it is farmed more intensively than the land farmers own. Soil losses on
this land would be 2 to 3 tons per acre higher than the land they own.

Needed practices are more of the same that have already been
installed. Emphasis needs to be placed on conservation tillage,
diversions, waterways, strip-cropping, spring development, and animal waste
management systems. Animal access to streams and the close proximity of
feedlots and barns to streams presents a problem that is difficult and
expensive to correct.

Future trends in these watersheds will be a continued conversion from
dairy herds to cash grain farming. Increased double-cropping of corn,
small grains, and soybeans will be significant. Equipment size will
increase, as will the use of fertilizer and pesticides. The acreage
operated by farmers will increase with a heavy reliance on leased land.
Irrigation, fertigation, and drainage will increase in the Chester River
basin.

LOWER EASTERN SHORE, INCLUDING THE POCOMOKE, NANTICOKE, AND
CHOPTANK RIVERS, AND EASTERN BAY

The lower Eastern Shore of Maryland is characterized by low-lying land
and intensive farming. Lack of drainage is the major conservation problem
and locating and constructing suitable drainage outlets is the major
concern. The majority of the cropland is on flat terrain with slopes of
only I to 2 percent. Erosion, therefore, is not of major concern and
predicted soil losses are only from 1 to 3 tons/ac/yr. The coarse
fragments and even some of the fine-particle sediments are normally settled
out in the ditches before they reach the Bay.

Corn and soybeans are the dominant crops in these watersheds. Minimum
tillage is rapidly gaining acceptance on the land suited for it. Its use
is widespread on the well-drained soils but limited on the poorly-drained
soils. This is due to the fact that the surface litter shades the cold wet
soil, preventing it from warming up in the spring and thus delaying4
germination. Approximately 45 percent of the land is in a corn and soybean
rotation, utilizing conservation tillage and leaving the residues. Another
30 percent of the land is in the same rotation with conventional tillage.
Double-cropping of corn, small grains, and soybeans using conservation

C- 28

tillage is practiced on an additional 20 percent of the land. The
remaining 10 percent of the land is in truck crops or in a rotation of
soybeans and small grains. Soil loss is not of concern. Even the most
intense rotations are within the tolerable limits, having soil losses of
only 3 tons/ac/yr.

Livestock numbers are small in these watersheds and should not be
considered as a source of pollution. There are, however, poultry and hog
operations which, in localized situations, can cause animal waste
problems. Nitrate pollution to ground-water from these operations needs to
be of particular concern.

The principal conservation practice applied on the lower shore is
drainage, both open ditch and sub-surface drains. Many ponds have also
been constructed for irrigation, recreation, and for fish and wildlife.
Field borders and vegetative buffer strips have also been planted to
prevent sediment from entering the drainage system.

Seventy to seventy-five percent of the more than 2,700 farms in these
watersheds have conservation plans. Ninety percent of these plans are at
least partially applied with figures varying widely as to how many are
followed entirely.

The farm units here are also growing in size to remain economically
competitive and, therefore, there is a need to lease land. It is estimated
that approximately 40 percent of the cropland is leased. Since this land
is flat, the leased land does not cause the sediment problems as is
evidenced in the Piedmont and in the rolling, hilly, or mountainous land.

As discussed earlier, the main conservation needs are drainage and the
vegetative filter strips associated with the ditches. Additional pra~ctices
needed are conservation tillage, windbreaks, and cover crops. Irrigation
is becoming more widespread and its use will continue to expand.

Pastureland is sparse due to the few number of livestock, but animal
waste structures and systems are needed for the hog and poultry
enterprises. The number of broilers and hogs continues to increase.

It is expected that there will be a continuing emphasis on drainage in
these watersheds to improve cropland. With drainage, the cropping systems
will intensify, and more filter strips will be applied to prolong the
useful life of the ditches. Other future trends include larger farm
equipment and increased amounts of fertilizer and pesticides used as
farmers in these watersheds convert to more conservation tillage.
Irrigation and fertigation will also increase. The size of farming
operations will also increase with more reliance on leased land.

PATUXENT - UPPER BASIN

This segment lies in the Piedmont physiographic region. As in the
Little Falls to Woodbridge segment of the Potomac, this segment is
experiencing rapid urban growth and tremendous pressure exists to convert
agricultural land to non-farm uses. Here too, the farmer is forced to
lease from speculators and developers rather than from retired farmers.

C-2 9

Approximately 75 percent of the cropland is in continuous corn.
Conservation tillage is followed on all of this land with the exception of
about 10 percent planted by conventional tillage with the residues left.
One fourth of the continuous corn acreage is harvested for silage, followed
by a fall cover crop planted by conservation tillage. About 10 percent of
the cropland planted to continuous corn has the residues removed and no
cover crop planted over the winter. Other rotations cover the remaining 25
percent of upper basin cropland and consist of one year each of corn and
small grain followed by 2 to 4 years of hay; a two year rotation of corn
followed by small grain, and a rotation of 2 to 3 years of soybeans,
followed by 2 to 3 years of bay.

Cropland slopes vary from 3 to 15 percent with approximately half being
in the 3 to 8 percent range and the other half being in the 8 to 15 percent
range. The more intensive cropping systems tend to be on the flatter
slopes. Average soil loss runs from 5 to 7 tons/ac/yr for all rotations
except the conventional-tilled corn, residues left, and conservation-tilled
corn, residues removed. These systems yield a soil loss of 20 to 22
tons/ac/yr. The tolerable soil losses range from 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr.

Few animals remain in this portion of the watershed in Montgomery
County; those that do are concentrated in the extreme upper portion of the
watershed. Likewise, in Howard County, the animal density increases in the
upper portion of the watershed. The primary conservation practices used
are conservation tillage and grassed waterways with limited strip-cropping
in Howard County. Forty to forty-five percent of the farms have
conservation plans but, as in the other urban areas, they are extremely
out-of-date. This is reflected by the fact that only about 10 percent of
them are followed in their entirety. Eighty percent of the farmers are
following the plans to varying degrees.

Leased land plays a major role in these two counties, supplying about
60 percent of the cropland farmers use. Again, the leases are short-term
and the price is high. The only practice applied to this land is
conservation tillage but, occasionally, natural drainage-ways are left in
sod.

Needed on cropland are rotations that include hay, strip-cropping,
diversions, and waterways. On the limited pasture acreage, rotation
grazing and spring developments are needed. Animal waste management
systems are needed on most of the dairy farms in Howard County but only on
a limited number in Montgomery County.

Future trends in this segment will be for a continued pressure on
agricultural land from developers and speculators. It is difficult to
speculate as to whether there will be any agriculture remaining by the year
2000 other than isolated farms. The few farms remaining will be highly
automated, relying heavily on leased land. Herbicide and fertilizer use
will increase as this land is converted to more conservation tillage.

PATUXENT - LOWER BASIN

In contrast to the upper portion of the watershed, this river segment
consists entirely of soils of the coastal plain. It is the heart of the
tobacco industry in Maryland, growing approximately 50 percent of the

C-30

state's tobacco. The remaining 50 percent is also grown in southern
Maryland but in that portion draining to the Potomac.

Although tobacco is not the major crop of the area, it has high average
soil losses and therefore is significant. Of importance is the fact that
chemicals are not presently available for the tobacco farmer to apply
conservation tillage. Thus, the only way to reduce the losses is to
construct the more expensive engineering practices or to take land out of
production. 'Unfortunately, many of these farmers own limited acreage and
need all of their land for production. In addition, the majority of these
* ~~farmers find it necessary to work off the farm to supplement income.
* ~~Tobacco is grown on 30 percent of the cropland in this river segment. It
is conventionally tilled and a cover crop is planted on virtually all of
the acreage. The tobacco is rotated with small grains when land is
available.

Continuous corn is grown on about 50 percent of the cropland in this
segment. Conservation tillage is widely accepted and virtually all of the
continuous corn is planted in this manner. Approximately 15 percent of the
corn is in a 2-year rotation with soybeans, with both crops planted by
conventional tillage. The remaining cropland is either double-cropped
corn, small grain and soybeans, or continuous soybeans.

The average slopes on cropland in this segment are from 6 to 8
percent. This, coupled with the intensity of the cropping systems, results
in soil losses ranging from 5 to 20 tons/ac/yr. The higher figures are,
for the most part, on tobacco land. The tolerable soil loss ranges from 3
to 5 tons/acre/year. Animal populations in these counties are extremely
small and should not be considered as a source of pollution.

Strip-cropping and grassed waterways are the most commonly used
conservation practices. However, the number of acres treated is relatively
small. A substantial increase is needed in the application of conservation
practices to bring soil losses to within tolerable limits. The practices
needed most are: diversions, sod waterways, and strip-cropping. Rotations,
including hay, are needed for tobacco but may not be economically feasible.

Approximately 40 percent of the farms in this segment of the Patuxent
have conservation plans. This low percentage is explained when an analysis
is made of the definition of a farm. The Census of Agriculture defines a
farm as any place from which 1,000 dollars or more of agricultural products
was sold or normally would have been sold. This definition could include a
farmer growing less than one half an acre of tobacco. Many farmers grow
just a few acres, and they don't have conservation problems (i.e., are not
district cooperators and do not seek conservation plans) Of the
cooperators, 15 to 20 percent follow their plans completely while about the
same number do not follow them at all. This leaves the majority of farmers
implementing them in varying degress.

Approximately 30 percent of the cropland is leased. The leases are
usually short-term so that farmers have little incentive to apply
conservation to the land.

Trends in this segment are somewhat difficult to predict. Tobacco
faces the same uncertainties of out-of-date markets and mechanization as

C-3 1

described in the lower Potomac segments. Cash grain operations will
increase in acreage and will rely heavily on leased land. Fertilizer and
pesticide use will increase as the farmers convert to conservation
tillage. The size of equipment will not increase substantially on the land
farmed in tobacco but will on land farmed for cash grains.

POTOMAC RIVER, NORTH BRANCH

Agriculture as a pollutor on this river basin segment is masked by the
acid runoff from both active and abandoned coal mines. Also, agriculture
is less intense here than anywhere else in Maryland.

The Soil Conservation Service is working to clean up pollution from the
mines. The Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), administered by SCS and
funded through the Department of Interior, is a program to reclaim existing
abandoned mines and eliminate them from being a source of sediment and acid
water. To date, three mines have been reclaimed with two more planned.
Because the budget for the program is limited, only the surface of the
problem is being scratched.

The active mining program falls under the Surface Mine Reclamation Act
of the State of Maryland. This program adequately addresses sediment
control and discharge of acid water during mining. Soil Conservation
Districts review all plans for sediment control.

The cropping systems in this segment are not intense. Very little
continuous corn is grown. Most commonly the rotation is one or two years
of corn followed by a small grain and then followed by 3 to 5 years of
hay. Tillage is for the most part by conventional means.

Although the rotations are not intense, the slopes are steep ranging
from 5 to 25 percent resulting in soil losses averaging 5 to 6 tons/ac/yr.
Tolerable soil losses are from 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr.

Most of the farmers in this segment are part-time operators with the
majority of their income earned off the farm. Part-time farmers tend to
expend little on lime and fertilizer which results in over-grazed pastures
and low animal unit densities. Although the pastures are over-grazed, the
soil losses, in most instances, fall within the tolerable limits.

Few dairy herds remain in this segment. The rugged topography limits
crop production. Unable to expand to compete, those operations have
either converted to less intensive beef operations or have reverted to
woodland. Animal waste is not a problem because of the low animal density.

Conservation plans have been written on only a small portion of the
farms in this segment. The plans, however, are on the active farms, the
larger areas, and the farms having problems. The conservation problems are
being addressed in this area. Statistics on conservation plans and plans
implemented are misleading in this segment because many of the plans are
for woodland or part-time operations.

Leased land varies widely by county ranging from about 5 percent in
Garrett County to about 20 percent in Allegany County.-

C-32

Conversion to conservation tillage will probably be slow in this
segment. The farmers have a continuing need for conventional equipment for
hay-land and pasture planting. Because the operations are small, the
farmers cannot justify owning two sets of equipment. Even when low cost
no-t~ill pasture seeding equipment becomes available, the conversion will be
slow.

Additional practices are needed on cropland to meet the tolerable
limits of 3 tons/ac/yr. Practices such as strip-cropping, waterways, and
diversions are needed. For pasture, the principal practices needed are:
liming, fertilizing, rotational grazing, pasture management, and spring
development. In woodland, timber stand improvement and sediment control
during harvest are also needed.

The trends in this segment vary from state-wide trends in that there
will not be an intensification of cropping systems. In this segment the
equipment will not become larger; there is not a reliance on leased
land,and conservation tillage will not become commonplace. The farms will
continue as part-time farms with the owners earning a substantial portion
of their income off the farm.

POTOMAC RIVER -MAIN STEM FROM NORTH BRANCH TO
LITTLE FALLS (INCLUDING MONOCACY)

This river segment drains one of the most intensively-farmed dairy
regions of the state. Conservation programs are active on farms in these
sub-watersheds with a substantial amount of conservation practices
established. No-till and minimum till are practiced on the cropland and
strip-cropping and waterways are commonplace. High priority has been
established in the soil conservation districts to design and install all
requests for assistance.

Noteworthy in this sub-watershed are two programs in addition to the
traditional soil conservation program. The programs are aimed particularly
at controlling sediment and animal waste runoff from agriculture.

First is the Rural Clean Water Project (RCWIP) on Double Pipe Greek in
Carroll County in the headwaters of the Monocacy basin. This joint
USDA/EPA undertaking is an approximately 4 million dollar project and
covers approximately 100,000 acres.

The second project is an SCS PL-566 Watershed Protection project an
Seneca Creek in Montgomery County. Although not yet operational, the
planning for this project is complete. The project will be implemented in
conjunction with the construction of an emergency water supply reservoir on
Little Seneca Creek by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.

Approximately half of the cropland in this segment is in continuous
corn with either no-till or minimum till being practiced. The residues are
left on the land when corn is planted for grain while a cover crop is
planted on the land when corn is produced for silage. Other cropping
systems include rotations of two years of corn, followed by small grains
and then 3 to 5 years of hay. In these systems, approximately 50 percent
is planted by conventional-tillage methods and 50 percent is planted using
some form of conservation tillage.

C-33

The average slope of most cropland is in the 3 to 8 percent range
although a small percentage will be in the 8 to 15 percent range. The
application of conservation tillage has reduced average annual soil loss to
5 to 7 tons/ac/yr. Additional practices needed to reduce soil loss down to
the tolerable 3 tons/ac/yr are strip-cropping, diversions, waterways, and
contour farming.

The high number and concentration of animals in this segment calls for
special planning to control animal waste. Waste management systems plans
are needed for most of the dairy operations. The plans address the proper
handling of waste from its generation to its storage, and the application
to the fields at rates to match crop needs. They also match timing of
application to minimize the threat of runoff. The manure is not applied to
frozen ground or in floodplains when the risk of flooding is high.

Estimates for the number of cattle in this segment vary from 150,000 to
200,000 with fairly even distribution throughout. The cost of installing
the needed animal waste storage facilities varies, but best estimates are a
mimimum of 6 million dollars.

Although there are constant pressures in this segment to convert active
farmland to mini-farm and non-farm uses, the problems here are not of the
same magnitude as in the Washington and Baltimore areas. In fact, the
agricultural portion of Montgomery County is now in an exclusive
agricultural zone utilizing transferable development rights. Also, more
land has been purchased in Carroll County under the State Agricultural
Preservation Program than in any other county in the state. This leads to
a relative permanence of agriculture.

In this basin, approximately 60 percent of the farmers have
conservation plans and the plans are more closely followed than in any
other Maryland river basin. About 25 percent of the plans are followed in
their entirety. However, about 10 to 15 percent are not followed at all.
The plans in this segment are probably more current than any in the
watershed because an active program of conservation planning has been
followed in these counties for many years.

Although there is not a great amount of leased land (15 to 20 percent)
in this segment, the problems associated with leased land exist. The
situation here, however, is usually due to retired farmers leasing to other
farmers rather than speculators or developers leasing to farmers. In this
situation the lessor better understands the farmer's situation. Because of
the short-term leases, however, the farmer does not have the incentive to
apply conservation and his capital outlays are usually only for fertilizer
and perhaps lime.

Trends in this segment will be a decrease in the number of dairy herds
but with an increase in the herd size on those remaining. The number of
cattle will remain constant. The farms will become more automated and
cropping systems will intensify. More animal waste management systems will
be installed and the efficient use of manure will be practiced. Some of
the existing conservation practices will be removed to accomodate the
larger equipment. Leasing of land will be more prevalent.

C-34

POTOMAC RIVER -LITTLE FALLS AND SOUTH TO WOODBRIDGE

This river segment contains the urban and urbanizing Washington
metropolitan area. These urbanizing activities are infringing on the
agricultural lands. The farmers in this area are unable to compete for
land with the developers and speculators and as a result cannot expand
their operations as needed to keep economically viable units. The only way
to be competitive is to rent from speculators on a short-term basis and to
intensify their cropping systems.

The high percentage of the continuous cropland in this reach of the
Potomac reflects the concerns above. Of the almost 1,100 farms, 70 percent
of the cropland is in continuous corn and another 5 percent of the cropland
is in continuous tobacco. Fortunately, the use of no-till or minimum
tillage systems is widespread with much of the corn acreage in one of these
tillage systems. For tobacco, however, the chemicals are not currently
available for farmers to utilize this practice; therefore they plow, disc,
and cultivate to produce the crop. The remaining 30 percent of cropland is
planted to various rotations of corn, small grain and hay (25 percent), or
soybeans for one or two years followed by 2 to 4 years of hay (5 percent).
Minimum tillage is followed on much of this acreage the years it is
cropped, but a seedbed is prepared in the years it goes to hay.

The average slope on the crop fields is from 4 to 15 percent; about
equally divided in the slope categories 3 to 8 and 8 to 15 percent.
Average soil losses are estimated to be 6 to 8 tons/ac/yr on all crops
except tobacco which is estimated at 20 tons/ac/yr. The tolerable soil
loss is 3 tons/ac/yr.

This segment has virtually no animals and therefore pollution from
animal waste should not be considered..

The most typical conservation practices applied in this segment are
conservation tillage, either no-till or minimum tillage, and sod
waterways. To reduce soil loss to within tolerable limits, practices such
as conservation tillage, strip-cropping, crop rotations, diversions,
contouring, and sod waterways are also needed. High incentives will need
to be offered to get conservation on the land in this segment because of
the high cost of land and the impermanance of agriculture.

Approximately 40 percent of the farmers in this segment have
conservation plans but most are not current. With the passage of the
Maryland Sediment Control Law in 1970, the activities of SCS and SCD turned
toward the urban programs. The agricultural program has suffered as a
result because no new staff was provided. Of the farmers with conservation
plans, only about 10 percent of them follow them completely. Seventy-five
percent follow them to varying degrees. This is a reflection of
out-of-date plans and a lack of an adequate follow-up system because of the
lack of staff.

Leasing of agricultural land is commonly practiced in this segment.
For the most part, land is leased for the short-term (I yr) and at a high
cost. This is true more so in this segment than any other segment in the
basin. The situation of high rent and short-term is not conducive to
applying conservation practices to the land. Few long-term conservation

C-35

practices or practices which convert cropland to other uses are applied.
Fortunately, conservation tillage is gaining widespread acceptance arid is
being applied on more and more of this land.

Needed practices in this segment are more conservation tillage,
waterways, strip-cropping, diversions, contour farming, and crop
rotations. Pasture management and animal waste management are not problems
in this segment.

Future trends include continuing pressures on the use of land for
agriculture. A decrease is expected in both the numbers of farms and the
acreage of cropland. The future of the tobacco industry is uncertain due
to new competition from other states and new mechanization in harvesting.
Production of feed grains will remain but much of this will be on land
leased from developers and speculators. The size of equipment will
increase as will the amounts of fertilizer and herbicides applied.

POTOMAC RIVER - WOODBRIDGE TO MOUTH - MARYLAND SIDE

Conversion from conventional to conservation tillage has not occurred
in this segment of the river basin. The major obstacle to conversion is
that many of the farmers are tobacco farmers and they need conventional
equipment for growing that crop. They cannot justify owning two sets of
equipment. This segment, plus the lower Patuxent, is the heart of the
tobacco growing region in Maryland. Fifty percent of the tobacco grown in4
the State of Maryland is grown in the drainage area of this segment.

Cover crops are applied to virtually all tobacco land. The residues
are left on corn and soybean ground. Approximately 25 percent of the
cropland in this segment is in tobacco with 50 percent in corn and the
remaining 25 percent in soybeans. There is little pastureland and waste
management is not a problem.

Average slopes are in the 3 to 8 percent range, but cropping occurs on
slopes up to 15 percent. Soil losses for corn and soybeans average 6 to 8
tons/ac/year, while on tobacco they are as high as 20 to 25 tons. The
tolerable limits are 3,to 4 tons. There are over 2,400 farms in this
segment, of which about 40 percent have conservation plans. Many of these
plans are also out-of-date. Only 15 to 20 percent are followed in their
entirety, and about the same percentage of plans are -not followed at all.

Leasing of land is not as prevalent in this segment as it is in the
upstream Metropolitan Washington area segment. Still, however,
approximately 20 to 25 percent of the land is leased. Development
pressures are strong in Charles County and those farmers face the same
problems of high rent and short-term leases.

The need for conservation on cropland includes more conservation
tillage on corn and soybean ground. Diversions, waterways, contour
farming, strip-cropping, and longer rotations are also needed. The acreage
in pasture and the number of animals in this segment are insignificant.

C-36

Pressures from development, especially in Charles County, will irncrease
inthis segment in the future. The same uncertainties of the tobacco
industry are the same as in the segiment to the north. The average size of
a farm will not increase substantially, but the size of the cash grain
operations will increase. The majority of land under cultivation will be
leased. Conservation tillage will increase on all land, except where
tobacco is grown, unless a break-through in technology occurs.

C-37

SECTION 3

CONTROL OPTIONS

Average annual soil losses throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin are in
the range of 6 to 8 tons/ac/yr for most crops. Notable exceptions to this
are tobacco and truck crops where the losses can range from 20 to 25I
ton/ac/yr. The tolerable soil losses in the basin range from I to
ton/ac/yr with the vast majority of the soils in the 3 to 4 tons/ac/yr

Average reductions in soil loss of approximately 4 tons/ac/yr are
needed on all crops except tobacco and truck crops. Currently, in
Maryland, some form of conservation tillage is being practiced on about 60
percent of the cropland. Predictions are that by the year 2000, it will be
practiced on 80 percent of all cropland and on 90 percent of the corn,
small grain, and soybeans. In Pennsylvania, conservation tillage or
no-till is presently practiced on about 45 percent of the cropland. It is
predicted that by the year 2000, 60 percent of the cropland will be
receiving no-till and conservation tillage. To qualify as conservation
tillage, a minimum of 2,000 pounds per acre of crop residue needs to be
maintained on the surface after planting. This increase will produce a net
average reduction of I ton/ac/yr. Conservation tillage is not applicable
to tobacco, vegetables, and truck crops because the chemicals are not yet
available to control the weeds without injuring the crops.

Cost effectiveness of practices to reduce soil loss is difficult, if
not impossible, to predict. Individual practices are planned and installed
as part of cropping systems. The systems vary from the installation of one
or two conservation practices to the installation of many practices.
Systems vary from farm to farm and from field to field. Unlike tangible
products, such as sewage treatment plants where greater treatment
effectiveness translates into higher costs, in agricultural conservation
systems, some of the least costly conservation practices can be the most
effective. Conservation tillage is a prime example. it has low cost and
the benefit is high.

Levels of treatment to meet a soil loss reduction can, however, be
discussed in general terms. For example, if the present soil losses are 4
tons/ac/yr over the tolerable loss (T.), or at T plus 4 level, then the
losses can be reduced to T plus 2 and T. Generally speaking, they are
categories of conservation practices that will accomplish each level of
reduction.

As discussed, then T plus 3 level can be reached as farmers expand the
use of conservation tillage, which, on the average, will reduce soil loss
by I ton/ac/yr. The operating costs of. conservation tillage are less than
costs for conventional tillage, and by helping to maintain a productive
soil base, conservation tillage is a benefit to the farmer. However, he
does have to purchase new equipment. Some farmers will purchase this
equipment ahead of their replacement schedule but many will delay purchase
until the time when the old equipment wears out or becomes outdated.

Reductions below the T plus 3 level are generally costly. The cost to
apply strip-cropping is high because this practice takes land out of crop

C-38

production and puts it into hay, which does not always have a market. This
practice is an option on some dairy farms but is not a viable option for
most grain farms. Also, with rotations intensifying, use of this practice
is expected to decrease.

installation of filter strips is a practice gaining acceptance. This
practice has no effect on changing soil loss, but it traps a percentage of
the sediment before leaving the fields and prevents it from getting into
the streams. The cost is the per acre cost of seeding and the cost of land
lost from production.

Use of grassed waterways is another practice that does not reduce the
calculated soil loss of a field. Waterways are either constructed or
natural drainage-ways left out of cultivation and seeded to a close-growing
grass. The purpose of a waterway is to carry stormwater safely off the
field. it traps some sediments in the process when the grade is flat and
the velocity is low. They are also constructed as outlets for diversions
and terraces. Costs vary from a per acre seeding cost for natural
waterways to a cost for construction of the waterway plus the seeding
cost. Land is also lost from production.

Contour farming is a practice that does reduce soil loss. True
contouring is becoming less popular as the size of equipment becomes
larger. Cross slope farming is used when true contouring is impractical.
All of the above, except contouring and cross-slope farming, have a cost of
land taken from cropping.

To reach the tolerable soil loss (T) requires a unique combiniation of a
number of the above practices in addition to practices such as diversions
and terraces. Diversions take land out of production and terraces,
although they do not take land out of production, are suited to only a
limited number of acres. With the advent of larger equipment, it is
important to have these as parallel as possible, but to do this the land
has to slope uniformly. Cut and fill terraces are installed in
Pennsylvania to maintain uniform spacing and alignment. Although this
technique increases the cost, it will make the terrace system more useable
and practical for farmers. The costs for diversions are the costs of
construction, the seeding costs, and the cost of land removed from
cropping. The costs of terraces are related primarily to the costs of
construction.

Another method of control is not to be concerned as much with meeting
the T level as it is concerned with preventing the sediments from entering
the water. This is sediment control versus erosion control, and does not
protect the agricultural land base. it must be recognized that when
sediment control is undertaken, there are no benefits accrued to the
farmer. The benefits are to the downstream water-user. Farmers often
suggest that because the benefits are to the public, the costs should be
borne by the public. A combination of sediment control and erosion control
is probably needed on lands where erosion rates are high, such as on
tobacco and truck cropland, as well as on fragile cropland in grain.

Sediment control practices include sediment basins, sediment traps, and
filter strips. The basins and traps are expensive to install and have high
operation and maintenance costs. Inspection is required to ensure that the
basins are cleaned out to operate at their designed trap efficiency.

C-39

Animal waste management systems are needed on an estimated 50 to 60
percent of the livestock, hog, and poultry operations in the basin.
Systems can be simply the planning or the timing of manure application to
minimize its runoff and the planning of application rates to meet the crop
needs. In many instances, however, more complex systems are needed. These
can consist of storage facilities, traps, lagoons, pumps, pipes, and
special handling equipment. Costs of these systems can vary from 15,000 to
100,000 dollars and more.

In Maryland, the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC) estimated the
cost of adequately carrying out the present agricultural and urban sediment
control programs and to implement the 208 program. Estimates for technical
assistance alone amounted to over I million dollars per year. Implementing
best management practices in the top three priority areas would cost 24
million dollars over a 10 year period. An estimated 11.6 million dollars
in Federal cost-sharing funds will be available over the next 10 years in
current Federal programs that provide assistance in the application of
practices that relate to water quality. These funds require matching local
funds ranging from 25 to 40 percent. The matching required funds are
estimated from between 3 to 8 million dollars. This indicates a shortage
of 3.6 to 7.6 million dollars over the next 10 years. The new State of
Maryland 10 million dollar agricultural cost-share program should help to
alleviate conservation needs in at least the top three critical areas.

Soil conservation districts will concentrate available resources in the
critical areas. However, the amount of assistance currently obtainable,
both cost-sharing and technical, is not sufficient to meet all the goals of
the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Program.

C-40

SECTION 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

Congress, in its concern about the condition of the nation's basic
non-federal resources, passed the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act
of 1977 (RlCA). in the Act, Congress asked the Secretary of Agriculture
three basic questions:

1. What are the resource problems?
2. H-ow do you propose to solve these problems?
3. -What are the expected results of your solution?

The Problem

The Secretary conducted an appraisal to determine the status,
condition, and trends of the nation' s soil, water, and related resources.
The 1980 RCA Appraisal showed that conservation problems threaten to reduce
agricultural productive capacity and increase production costs. Specific
findings of the Appraisal include:

o Much agricultural land is eroding faster than the soil can rebuild
itself through natural processes. Unless corrective actions are
taken, the acreage of this excessively eroding land will increase
further.

o Floods threaten human life, property, livestock, and crops in
upstream watersheds. The likelihood is for greater damage in the
future.

o Depletion of ground water threatens the continuation of irrigated
agriculture in extensive areas of the west, and isolated areas in
the east, such as the orchard areas in south-central Pennsylvania.

o Deterioration of water quality limits potential use of water for
irrigation, municipal and industrial supply, fish and wildlife
habitat, and other purposes.

Alternative Strategies

To accomplish the objectives proposed for each resource area,
alternative approaches for carrying out the activities have been examined.
Any of these strategies or a combination of them could be used in future
programs. Some could be tested in a specific area for a period of time to
determine their effectiveness. Regional and state differences in
governmental administration, laws, tax structures, land-use controls, and
social and economic structure will effect a given conservation strategy.

A key test of the alternative strategies is whether or not they
effectively achieve conservation objectives. The full range of strategies
runs from no Federal action to complete regulation. The strategies
presented below are thought to be consistent with the intent of the RCA and
are offered for consideration and comment.

C-4 1

Natural resource problems tend to be caused by the failure of
established institutions to reflect the full social value of soil and water
resources to those who use them. Commodity markets offer financial rewards
to farmers for the production of crops and livestock. The dependence of
farmers on those markets for income tends to force them to maximize the
production of marketable commodities over the near-term. Expenditures for
the conservation of soil and water resources in general produce few
near-term benefits, if any. Therefore, the market offers no near-term
rewards to farmers for the conservation of soil and water resources.
Consequently, farmers tend to emphasize near-term production for current
income at the expense of the social value of natural resources.

Before and during the Great Depression, few substitutes for natural
fertility were available. Consequently, farmers practiced conservation to
prevent yield reductions. over the past 40 years, commercial fertilizers,
pesticides, new plant varieties, and the intensive use of multi-row4
equipment have tended to reduce farmer's near-term motivation to practice4
soil and water conservation. Increases in land prices and in the variable
costs of production have tended to reduce net income margins on a per acre
basis. This requires relatively more land to maintain a given level of net
farm income. Widespread leasing of farmland, speculation in land, and
other changes in land tenure suggest that reliance on a close family
attachment to land as a motivation to conserve may not be appropriate or
effective. Between 2 and 3 percent of all agricultural land changes
ownership annually. Over half of all agricultural land has changed
ownership since 1960.

In summary, farming today is a business requiring the investment of
time and money resources to achieve maximum return on that investment. The
incentive to conserve must fit into the plan of investing in resources and
reaping benefits.

Given the issues above which tend to limit the extent of conservation,
seven strategies were presented for organizing and delivering conservation
programs at the national level: redirecting present programs, cross
compliance among USDA programs, regional resource projects, State
leadership, regulatory emphasis, conservation performance bonus, and
natural resource contracts. Farmers, conservation districts, and farm
organizations viewed these strategies with varying degrees of acceptance
ranging from a totally non-acceptable regulatory program to the preferred
voluntary program with increased incentives. From these seven strategies,
the USDA put together a preferred program, Alternative I -- continuation of
current program trends and alternative 2 -- redirection of Federal programs.

USDA Preferred Programs---
Based upon the responses to the seven strategies, the USDA developed a
preferred program that establishes clear national priorities for addressing
problems associated with soil, water, and related resources over the next
five years. The highest priority of the preferred program is reduction of
soil erosion to maintain the long-term productivity of agricultural land.
The next highest priority is reduction of flood damages where risks are
highest in upstream areas. Water conservation and supply management, water
quality improvement, and community-related conservation problems have next
priority. Fish and wildlife habitat improvement and organic waste
management are an integral part of solutions to these problems.

C-42

This program strengthens the existing partnership among land-owners and
users, local and state governments, and the Federal government. Through
this partnership the program:

o Provides Federal matching block grants to states by reducing
Federal conservation program funds.

o Provides for a Local Conservation Coordination Board made up of
representatives of the conservation district, county Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committee, extension advisory
committee, and other interested parties. This board will appraise
local conditions and needs and develop a program through existing
local, state, and Federal institutions. The local board will
identify critical resource problem areas and set priorities for
action to achieve program objectives.

o Provides for a State Conservation Coordinating Board, with members
appointed by the Governor, to appraise overall state resource
* ~~~~conditions and needs. This board will build on local programs in
identifying state-wide critical problem areas, setting priorities,
and developing the state program.

o Establishes a USDA National Conservation Board to advise the
Secretary of Agriculture on conservation matters.

o Bases state and Federal cooperative conservation actions on an
agreement between each Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Continues or initiates actions to:

0 Target an increased proportion of USDA conservation program funds
and personnel to critical areas where soil erosion or other
resource problems threaten the productive capacity of soil and
water resources.

o Emphasize conservation tillage and other cost-efficient measures
for reducing soil erosion and solving related problems.

o Evaluate tax incentives as an inducement to increased use of
conservation systems.

o increase emphasis on technical and financial assistance to farmers
and ranchers who plan and install any needed cost-efficient
conservation system.

o Target USDA research, education, and information services toward
problems that impair agricultural productivity, while continuing
basic research into the causes and cures of resource degradation.

o Set up pilot projects to test new solutions to conservation
problems.

o Require land-owners to have a conservation plan in order to be
* ~~~~eligible for Farmers Home Administration loans (cross-compliance).

C-4 3

o Minimize conflicts among features of USDA farm programs that limit
achievement of conservation objectives.

o Strengthen collection and analysis of resource data.

o Evaluate and analyze conservation progress.

o Expand the use of long-term agreements in providing conservation
assistance to farmers or ranchers.

Alternative I -- Continuation of Current Program Trends---

Current trends in the USDA soil and water conservation programs would
continue with this alternative. These trends, if continued, would result
in lower funding and further degradation of soil, water, and related 4
resources.

Alternative 2 -- Redirection of Federal Programs---

The USDA would redirect its programs with this alternative so that it
would target a larger share of its assistance to solving critical resource
problems. Resource conditions would at best improve only slightly from
what they are now.

Conclusions

The Secretary rejected these alternatives as too weak to solve the
problems and unresponsive to public opinion.

of the preferred program and the two alternative programs presented,
Maryland respondents showed most support for the Secretary's preferred
program, with changes. About 71 percent supported the preferred program
compared to 36 percent for Alternative I (Continuation of Current Trends)
and 24 percent for Alternative 2 (Redirection).

Comments show respondents did not like all aspects of the preferred
program. They opposed block grants (unless accompanied by additional
funding) and the creation of new local, state, and national coordinating
boards. They were divided on the issues of targeting and having local
boards identify and solve critical problems. An overwhelming majority of
respondents felt that Federal funding for conservation should be increased
over that called for in the program alternatives. They felt that erosion
would increase and the resource base degrade if Federal conservation
assistance was reduced in Maryland.

Those who supported Alternative I thought current programs were
effective and should be improved through increased funding and the
legislative process. Comments on Alternative 2 varied considerably from
support to opposition.

In Pennsylvania---

Alternative 1, Continuation of Current Program Trends-, was supported by
60.3 percent of those individuals responding on the response form. In
addition, 173 narrative comments were processed and indicated, by an 88.4

c-44

percent margin, support for the continuation of current programs. Thi s
support was further qualified by 47 commenters favoring continuing present
programs with additional money, and 75 voting continuation with no
qualifying factors. A small number favored continuation but suggested that
program refinement was needed.

The preferred program was opposed by a majority of respondents.
Approximately one-third of the respondents, 729 persons, supported this
alternative with 28 qualifying their support with the formation of no new
committees and grants being funded from new or additional monies.
Narrative commenters were critical of this alternative, citing the
unnecessary formulation of new boards, duplication of services, and a
discriminatory posture the alternative takes toward the northeast. There
is a general opinion that the soil loss criteria for targeting does not
adequately address or consider the fragile soils of the northeast and would
have detrimental impacts on this region. There was also concern that
states could not handle program responsibilities as well as the Federal
government.

Alternative 2, Redirection of Federal Programs, was opposed by 52.7
percent of the respondents. There were 31 percent supportive of this
k ~~ alternative and 16.4 percent were neutral. In evaluating this alternative,
there were very few comments and no clear indication of why or how
respondents took the position they selected.

The National Association of Conservation Districts, representing
conservation districts nation-wide, supported the preferred program with
reservations. Their opinion is that state associations, state conservation
committees, and local Soil Conservation Districts are already in place and
no new committees are needed. if block grants are given, it should be
funneled through these groups. They also feel the grants should be from
new money.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA

Presently the USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) has cost-share programs to share costs on the installation
of conservation practices. This program has limited funds authorized by
Congress and has a 3,500 dollars limitation on payment to any farmer each
year. This limitation has been in effect for a number of years. The cost
of installing the practices has risen dramatically over these years.
Although the program can theoretically pay up to 75 percent of the cost,
the 3,500 dollar maximum prevents this from happening. 'This is especially
true for animal waste management systems where the costs range from 15,000
dollars to over 100,000 dollars per system. Annually, members of Congress
have tried to get this limitation removed as well as trying to get the
total appropriation increased. These efforts have been unsuccessful. At
best, the program has maintained a constant level from year to year.
Renewed efforts are needed at the national level to increase the minimum
cos t-share payments.

C- 45

State Cost-Share Program

The 1982 session of the Maryland General Assembly passed a state cost-
share bill authorizing expenditures of 500,000 dollars per year for a 10-
year period for the installation of the best management practices. The
program is supplemental to the Federal ASCS program. It would authorize up
to 87 percent of the cost of establishing eligible practices not to exceed4
5,000 dollars per operating unit per year. This cost-sharing program would
be implemented at the soil conservation district level. Pennsylvania does
not have a state cost-share program.

OTHER PROGRAMS

The Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee and the Pennsylvania
State Conservation Commission, representing soil conservation districts and
state agricultural leaders, support the following programs:

Tax Incentives

To investigate methods for financial assistance such as low interest
loans and tax incentives for the installation of conservation practices.
It is felt that low-cost money would stimulate the application of
conservation practices.

Agricultural Land Preservation

To actively promote and support State Agricultural Preservation
Programs. Farmers in Maryland have been active in forming agricultural
districts, but more money is needed for the state to purchase development
rights on agricultural land.

Technical Assistance

To provide assistance necessary for districts to develop a
farm-conservation plan on each farm in the two states. This assistance
will require substantial increases in funding to conservation districts.
Sources of this funding are not identified at present.

Drainage -- Maryland

To advocate increased cost-sharing for maintenance of ditches as
allowed under Section 8 of the Agricultural Code of Maryland. Improved
drainage allows farmers to change from a rotation of continuous soybeans to
a corn/soybean rotation or a double-cropped corn/small grain/soybean
rotation. Both reduce soil losses.

Other alternative strategies that may be considered are:

Conservation Planning

Conservation plans could be required on all agricultural land in the
basin. The plans could be written by the farmer, an agricultural4
consultant, the SCS, or the SCD. The plans would need to be approved by
the SCD. Once approved, additional technical help would be needed for
application of the practices.

C-46

Leased Land

Lack of conservation on leased land is of major concern in the basin.
One potential solution is to disallow agricultural preferential taxes
unless the land has sound conservation practices and allowable soil loss
limits are being achieved. Care has to be exercised that the owner, rather
than the user, pays the costs of applying the conservation.

Regulatory Program

A regulatory program for agriculture has generally been discarded as an
ineffective means to accomplish the objective. It is felt that with
adequate staffs and appropriate cost-sharing, conservation could be applied
to 90 to 95 percent of the land. Should a regulatory program be
established, it is felt that an advisory relationship would be established
between the farmer and the agricultural agencies. in addition, it is also
felt that large sums of money would be required to hire inspectors for
enforcement. Agricultural leaders are convinced that this money would be
more wisely invested in cost-share programs.

C-47

SECTION 5
LITERATURE CITED

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1983. An Assessment
of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in Selected High Priority
Watersheds in Pennsylvania.

Tenessee Valley Authority. 1980. Fertilizer Summary Data. National
Fertilizer Development Center.

University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service. 1980. Recommended
Fertilizer Application Rates.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. Resources Conservation Act:
Executive Summary. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982a. Soil Conservation Service (Maryland
Branch). Agricultural Activities Report. 50 pp + Appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982b. Soil Conservation Service
(Pennsylvania Branch). Summary of Sub-basin Data. Susquehanna River
Basin, Pennsylvania Interagency Agreement. 32 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Program Report and Environmental
Impact Statement. Revised Draft. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Soil Conservation Service. NaturalI
Resources Inventory. Washington, DC.

C-48

ATTACHMENT I

MARYLAND
USDA 1982 Resources Conservation Act
Executive Summary - Maryland and Washington, DC

This report is based on 1,271 responses received in the state of Maryland during
the November 1981-January 1982 RCA public response period. These were responses
to the Secretary of Agriculture's Preferred Program for conserving the Nation's
soil and water resources. The Program is described in the USDA publication,
"1981 Program Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Draft".

Analysis of the responses show that the majority of respondents, 73 percent,
are affiliated with a group that has a stake in the final program. About 27
percent were agricultural organization members, 15 percent, local or state
government employees or officials; 9 percent, USDA employees or officials;
9 percent, environmental orgamnization members; 6 percent, conservation district
board members; 5 percent, county ASC committee members; 2 percent, federal
employees or officials other than USDA; and 26 percent, individuals. About
53 percent were farmers.

of the three alternative programs presented, respondents showed most support
for the Secretary's preferred prgram, with changes. About 71 percent supported
the preferred program compared to 36 percent for Alternative I (Continuation
of Current Trends) and 24 percent for Alternative 2 (Redirection).

Comments show respondents did not like all aspects of the preferred program.
They opposed block grants (unless accompanied by additional funding) and the
creation of new local, state, and national coordinating boards. They were
divided on the issues of targeting and having local boards identify and solve
critical problems. An overwhelming majority of respondents felt federal funding
for conservation should be increased over that called for in the program
alternatives. They felt that erosion would increase and the resource base
degrade if federal conservation assistance was reduced in Maryland.

Those who supported Alternative I thought current programs were effective and
should be improved through increased funding and the legislative process.
Comments on Alternative 2 varied considerably from support to opposition.
Reaction to each of the preferred program features follows:

Feature I -- A strong majority favored setting clear national priorities.
The majority agreed that erosion and flood control should be
national priorities. Some felt national priorities should be
balanced with local needs and suggested other resource problems
be considered high priority as well.

Feature 2 -- There was strong support for strengthening existing partnerships
among landowners and users, local, and state governments, and
the Federal government.

Feature 3 --The majority of respondents opposed block grants. Comments show
they favored the concept, but objected to funding grants by
reducing current conservation programs.

Feature 4- Respondents rejected the idea of creating local coordinating 1
boards. They felt existing local conservation districts should
assume this function.

Feature 5.-- Although a small majority supported having local boards identify
and set priorities for critical resource problem areas, comments
show respondents felt conservation districts should have this
function since they were already doing this.

Feature 6 --Respondents opposed the creation of a new state conservation
coordinating board. They felt this should be handled by the
existing State Soil Conservation Committee.

Feature 7 --Respondents opposed creating a national coordinating board.
They felt the role of this board had not been clearly defined.

Feature 8 --A majority favored cooperative agreements between the Governor
and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Feature 9 --Respondents endorsed the idea of closer cooperation and budget
coordination among USDA agencies.

Feature 10-- Respondents were divided on the issue of targeting funds and
personnel to critical problem areas. Comments show they felt
targeting should be done with additional funding.

Feature 11-- Respondents supported emphasizing cost-effective conservation
measures.

Feature 12-- Using tax incentives as inducements for practicing conservation
received strong support.

Feature 13-- Respondents strongly supported USDA emphasizing assistance for
planning and installing conservation systems.

Feature 14-- Targeting research and education toward conservation problems
that impair productivity received strong support. Those who
commented thought information and education programs should
be improved and funded.

Feature 15-- Respondents supported the-idea of pilot projects.

Feature 16-- A slim majority supported the idea of cross compliance for FmHA
borrowers. Those who commented felt plans should be implemented
and be required for all USDA programs.

Feature 17-- Respondents favored evaluating and analyzing conservation
progress.

Feature 18-- A large majority supported minimizing conflicts among USDA
f arm programs.

Feature 19-- Respondents supported strengthening data collection and analysis.

Feature 20-- Respondents supported expanding the use of long-term agreements.

All 39 responding districts opposed this feature as a duplication of the State
Conservation Commission as established under Pennsylvania law. All farm
organizations opposed while government was divided, four in favor and seven
opposed.

Opposed were 73.3 percent of the individual respondents, citing similar reasons
as conservation districts.

7. Establishing a USDA national conservation board which advises the Secretary
of Agriculture.

State and local governments, including conservation districts'. expressed heavy
opposition to this feature as too political, bureaucratic, and lacking purpose.

Individuals opposed this feature by 58.5 percent for the same reasons as
presented by governmental units.

S. Basing cooperative actions on an agreement between each Governor and the
Secretary of Agriculture.

Approximately one-fourth of those responding, both groups and individuals, were
neutral on this issue. The USDA-Governor agreement is weakly opposed without
a majority for or against this feature.

9. Providing closer cooperation and budget coordination among USDA agencies with
conservation program responsibilities.

All groups and individuals heavily supported this feature.

10. Targeting more USDA funds and personnel to areas where erosion or other
conditions threaten the productive capacity of soil and water resources.

All groups and individuals supported this feature to varying degrees. A general
concern was voiced that targeting could be discriminatory against Pennsylvania
and the Northeast. The criteria for targeting does not give consideration to
the fragile soils of the Northeast and other factors like nearness to markets
and population.

11. Emphasizing the conservation measures that are most cost-effective in
reducing erosion.

All groups and individuals heavily supported this feature. They did cite a
need for management systems, future study of effects and additional financial
incentives.

12. Evaluating tax incentives as an inducement to increase use of conservation
systems.

All groups and individuals heavily endorsed tax incentives as encouraging soil
and water conservation application.

c-1-3

Respondents also volunteered comments on other resource topics not specifically
covered in the program alternatives. Significant numbers of respondents felt
that water management (drainage), preservation of prime farmland, urban
conservation, and water quality should receive consideration in USDA programs.

Respondents who commented on the RCA process felt that the questionnaire was
biased and was constructed to elicit the comments USDA wanted. others felt
the documents were also biased and did not present enough objective information.

Many of the comments volunteered by respondents concerned funding of programs.
Most felt that conservation programs were not adequately funded and that
funding should be increased.

c-1-4

ATTACHMENT 2

PENNSYLVANIA
USDA 1982 Resources Conservation Act
Executive Summary - Pennsylvania and Washington, DC

This report is based on 2,291 individual and 71 group and governmental unit
responses received in Pennsylvania during the November 1981-January 1982 RCA
public response period. These were responses to the Secretary of Agriculture's
preferred program for conserving the Nation's soil and water resources. The
program is described in the USDA publication, "1981 Program Report and
Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Draft".

The Preferred Program, was opposed by a majority of respondents. Approximately
one-third of the respondents, 729 persons, supported this alternative with
28 qualifying their support with the formation of no new committees and grants
being funded from new or additional monies. Narrative commenters were critical
of this alternative, citing the unnecessary formulation of new boards, duplication
p - ~~of services, and a discriminatory posture the alternative takes toward the
Northeast. There was also concern that states could not handle program respon-
sibilities as well as the Federal government.

There is general opinion that the soil loss criteria for targeting does not
adequately address or consider the fragile soils of the Northeast and would have
detrimental impacts on this region.

Alternative 1, Continuation of Current Program Trends, was supported by 60.3
percent of those individuals responding on the response form. In addition,
F ~ ~~173 narrative comments were processed and indicated by an 88.4 percent margin
to support continuation of current programs. This support was further qualified
by 47 commenters favoring continuing present programs with additional money,
and 75 voting continuation with no qualifying factors. A small number favored
continuation but suggested program refinement was needed.

Alternative 2, Redirection of Federal Programs, was opposed by 52.7 percent of
the respondents. There were 31 percent supportive of this alternative and
16.4 percent were neutral. in evaluating this alternative, there were very
few comments and no clear indication of why or how respondents took the
position they selected.

FEATURES OF PREFERRED PROGRAM

1. Establishing clear national priorities for addressing conservation
problems.

Of 2,130 individual responses, 80.1 percent supported the establishment of
national priorities. Twenty-eight of 31 conservation districts backed this
feature. State and local governments supported this concept by a nine to
one response.

c-2-1

TABLE 2.1 PUBLIC RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVES (Pennsylvania 1981-1982)

Strongly Strongly
Alternative Support Support Neutral Oppose Oppose Opinion

Preferred Program--Redirection 237 / 492 145 291 833 293
Plus Expanded Roles for Local 11.9 24.6 7.3 14.6 41.7
and State Governments

Alternative 1--Continuation of 687 521 261 381 154 287
Current Program Trends 34.3 26.0 13.0 19.0 7.7

Alternative 2--Redirection of 178 385 298 503 456 471
Federal Program 9.8 21.2 16.4 27.6 25.1

1/ Top line - number; second line - percentage

C-2-2

2. Strengthening the existing partnership among landowners and users, local
and State governments, and the Federal government.

Thirty-seven of 41 State and local governments, including conservation
districts, supported strengthening the existing partnership. of 2,120
I ~ ~individual responses, 69 percent supported this feature. Of 63 written
comments, 84 percent felt control of soil and water conservation programs
should be at the local level. Sixteen of 28 comments on conservation
districts stated that districts did involve the public, set priorities and
identify problem areas.

3. Providing Federal matching block grants to states by reducing Federal
conservation program funds.
Overall response by individuals opposed block grants by 78.7 percent. Thirty-
two of 40 conservation districts opposed block grants, but 27 opposed unless
there was new money for grants. Five of six farm organizations and five units
of State and local governments took a similar position. Three farm organizations
and five units of government felt that Pennsylvania could not afford its share
of the matching block grants.
4. Providing for a local conservation coordinating board, make up of represen-
tatives of the conservation district,- county ASC committee, Extension Advisory
committee, and other interested parties.

The 39 responding conservation districts and all responding farm organizations
were unanimous in their opposition to local conservation coordinating committees.
Local and State governments were evenly split in support and opposition. of
2,147 individuals replying, 63.9 percent opposed. Written comments from groups
and individuals indicated this responsibility is being done by conservation
districts as stipulated by Pennsylvania law and would increase bureaucracy
and red tape.

5. Having the local board identify critical resource problem areas, set
priorities for action, and develop the local conservation program.

opposing this feature were 53.6 percent of the individual responses. Of 65
written comments, 37 expressed the opinion that this was already accomplished
by conservation districts and/or ASC committees.

6. Providing for a State conservation coordinating board, appointed by the
Governor, that identifies State critical problem areas, sets priorities, and
develops the State conservation program.

opposed were 73.3 percent of the individual respondents, citing similar reasons
as conservation districts.

C-2-3

7. Establishing a USDA national conservation board which advises the Secretary
of Agriculture.

State and local governments, including conservation districts, expressed heavy
opposition to this feature as too political, bureaucratic, and lacking purpose.

individuals opposed this feature by 58.5 percent for the same reasons as
presented by governmental units.

8. Basing cooperative actions on an agreement between each Governor and the
Secretary of Agriculture.

Approximately on-fourth of those responding, both groups and individuals,
were neutral on this issue. The USDA-Governor agreement is weakly opposed
without a majority for or against this feature.

9. Providing closer cooperation and budget coordination among USDA agencies
with conservation program responsibilities.

All groups and individuals heavily supported this feature.

10. Targeting more USDA funds and personnel to areas where erosion or other
conditions threaten the productive capacity of soil and water resources.

All groups and individuals supported this feature to varying degrees. A
general concern was voiced that targeting could be discriminatory against
Pennsylvania and the Northeast. The criteria for targeting does not give
consideration to the fragile soils of the Northeast and other factors like
nearness to markets and population.

11. Emphasizing the conservation measures that are more cost-efficient in
reducing erosion.

All groups and individuals heavily supported this feature. They did cite a
need for management systems, future study of effects and additional financial
incentives.

12. Evaluating tax incentives as an inducement to increase use of conservation
systems.

All groups and individuals heavily endorsed tax incentives as encouraging soil
and water conservation application.

13. Emphasizing USDA assistance to farmers and ranchers for planning and
installing conservation systems.

All State organizations, including districts, strongly prefer this feature.
Individuals provided 86.1 percent support for planning and installing
conservation systems.

14. Targeting USDA research and education services toward conservation problems
that impair agricultural productivity.

All groups and individuals provided heavy support to this feature.

C- 2~4

15. Setting up pilot projects to test new conservation methods.

Individuals supported by 72.8 percent while state-wide groups gave this feature
81.8 percent endorsement.

16. Requiring landowners to have a conservation plan in order to be eligible
for Farmers Home Administration loans.

The 2,000 plus individuals responded with 59.3 percent support. Conservation
districts and State and local governments supported by 88.8 and 70 percent,
respectively. The feature was opposed by agricultural organizations and
academic institutions. Comments included: (1) conservation plans must be
implemented; (2) expand to all USDA conservation programs; (3) conservation
programs remain voluntary; (4) not uniform in effects on types of agricultural
operations; and (5) places unfair financial hardship on young persons getting
started in agriculture.

17. Evaluating and analyzing conservation progress.

This feature has strong support from all groups and individuals (75.7 percent),
but contains no clear direction for implementing.

18. Minimizing conflicts among features of USDA farm program that limit
achievement of conservation objectives.

Individuals supported by 78.4 percent. Conservation districts endorsed 28 to
one and other state-wide groups provided a 43 to one support margin.

19. Stengthening data collection and analysis for identifying conservation

All individuals and groups provided support for this feature. Those actively
engaged in farming provided a lesser degree of support and indicated a desire
that funds be spent to assist in conservation practice application rather than
in studies.

20. Expanding the use of long-term agreements between USDA and farmers and
ranchers.

Although all groups supported, this feature has a heavy neutral vote. Over
50 percent of the responding districts were neutral (15), the remaining
districts did support the feature 12 to 1. Almost one-fourth of the individuals
were neutral on long-term agreements as were 37.5 percent of state-wide
groups.

C-2-5

TABLE 2.2 FEATURES OF PREFERRED PROGRAM, PENNSYLVANIA 1981 - 1982

Features of Preferred Program Strongly Strongly
Pennsylvania 1981 - 1982 Support Support Neutral Oppose Opposed Opinion

1. Establishing clear national 1,130 577 125 132 167 160
priorities for addressing 53.0 27.1 5.9 6.2 7.8
conservation problems.

2. Strengthening the existing 794 670 334 135 187 171
partnership among land owners 37.5 31.6 15.8 6.4 8.8
and users, local and State
governments, and the Federal
government.

3. Providing Federal matching 97 157 199 371 1,306 161
block grants to states by 4.6 7.4 9.3 17.4 61.3
reducing Federal conserva-
tion program funds.

4. Providing for a local conserva- 304 370 101 249 1,123 144
tion coordinating board, made 14.2 17.2 4.7 11.6 52.3
up of representatives of the
conservation district, county
ASC committee, Extension
Advisory committee, and other
interested parties.

5. Having the local board 469 396 126 270 873 157
identify critical resource 22.0 18.6 5.9 12.7 40.9
problem areas, set priorities
for action, and develop the
local conservation program.

6. Providing for a State conserva- 127 262 180 419 1,143 160
tion coordinating board, 6.0 12.3 8.4 19.7 53.6
appointed by the Governor, that
identifies State critical
problem areas, sets priorities,
and develops the State conserva-
tion program.

7. Establishing a USDA national 152 335 389 362 874 179
conservation board which 7.2 15.9 18.4 17.1 41.4
advises the Secretary of
Agriculture.

(continued)

C-2-6

TABLE 2.2

Features of Preferred Program Strongly Strongly
Pennsylvania 1981 - 1982 Support Support Neutral Oppose Opposed Opinion

8. Basing cooperative actions 292 438 483 328 548 202
on an agreement between each 14.0 21.0 23.1 15.7 26.2
Governor and the Secretary
of Agriculture.

9. Providing closer cooperation 813 908 185 75 142 168
and budget coordination among 38.3 42.8 8.7 3.5 6.7
USDA agencies with conserva-
tion program responsibilities.

10. Targeting more USDA funds and 549 765 158 273 390 156
personnel to areas where erosion 25.7 35.8 7.4 12.8 18.3
or other conditions threaten
the productive capacity of soil
and water resources.

11. Emphasizing the conservation 921 918 108 54 126 164
measures that are most cost- 43.3 43.2 5.1 2.5 5.9
effecient in reducing erosion.

12. Evaluating tax incentives as 1,011 715 158 86 144 221
and inducement to increased use 47.8 33.8 7.5 4.1 6.8
of conservation systems.

13. Emphasizing USDA assistance 1,090 736 115 53 125 218
to farmers and ranchers 51.4 34.7 5.4 2.5 5.9
for planning and instal-
ling conservation systems.

14. Targeting USDA research and 858 820 194 95 140 184
education services toward 40.7 38.9 9.2 4.5 6.6
conservation problems that
impair agricultural product-
ivity.

15. Setting up pilot projects 767 776 293 125 157 221
to test new conservation 36.2 36.6 13.8 5.9 7.4
methods.

16. Reducing landowners to have 736 532 397 219 256 191
a conservation plan in order 34.4 24.9 18.9 10.2 12.0
to be eligible for Farmers
Home Administration loans.

(continued)

C-2-7

TABLE 2.2

Features of Preferred Program Strongly Strongly
Pennsylvania 1981 - 1982 Support Support Neutral Oppose Opposed Opinio

17. Evaluating and analyzing 670 915 283 88 139 253
conservation progress. 32.0 43.7 13.5 4.2 6.6

18. Minimizing conflicts among 759 894 273 59 123 237
features of USDA farm
program that limit achieve-
ment of conservation
objectives.

19. Strengthening data collec- 640 796 343 162 169 181
tion and analysis for 30.3 37.7 16.3 7.7 8.0
identifying conservation
problems.

20. Expanding the use of long- 487 659 506 190 281 210
term agreements between 22.9 31.0 23.8 8.9 13.2
USDA and farmers or ranchers.

Top line - numbers; bottom line - percentage

C-2-8

STATE SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES ACT

The'State of Pennsylvania does not have a financial or cost-share program to
aidein the application of soil and water conservation practices.

The State does provide financial assistance to conservation districts in
employment of personnel, acquisition of landrights under Public Law 566, the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, and has in the past, financially
supported the soil survey program.

RCA grant monies in 1979-1980 were used by the State Conservation Commission to
prepare a State Conservation Plan, "Directions for the 80's". These funds
were also provided to 10 conservation districts to update long-range programs
and another 11 districts to make special resource studies.

CONSERVATION ETHIC AND ATTITUDES

Responses implied that conservation of soil should be as high a national priority
as defense. Another thought was that conservation plans were invaluable, but
to achieve full value, needed to be implemented on the land.

There was also a concern over the credibility of USDA since the preferred program
and other alternatives did not reflect earlier public inputs into RCA and may
have influenced the number of responses during this response period.

CURRENT USDA CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES

In fiscal year 1981, SCS provided soil and water conservation assistance to
24,400 land users and 1,229 units of government, in cooperation with conserva-
tion districts. Assistance was provided through programs such as Resource
Conservation and Development (RC&D), Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP),
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), Soil Survey, River Basins, Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention, Rural Clean Water Program, Emergency Watershed
Protection, Inventory and Monitoring, education and information, and Conservation
Operations (assistance to conservation districts).

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSES

A total of 2,291 individuals provides comments on the Secretary's preferred
program and other alternatives.

in addition, 71 groups responded. This included 40 conservation districts, I
unit of Federal government, 8 units of State government, 13 units of local
government, 6 farm organizations, 2 environmental groups and I academic
institution.

Unfortunately, there was no clear posture by State government regarding RCA
and the preferred program since no responses were received from the Governor
or the two departments involved with natural resources, Department of
Environmental Resources, and Department of Agriculture.

C-2-9

GENERAL COMMENTS

Thoughts expressed included lack of public understanding of RCA, USDA didn'tt
listen to the pubblic, questionnaire was biased, equal treatment for all
responses and giving public opportunity to comment is a help. Five units of
government and four conservation districts charged that the response form was
biased.

C-2-l0

ATTACHMENT 3

DISTRICT WORKSHEET

Field Management

The purpose of the following section, Field Management, is for you to generalize
what are the most prevalent "cropping systems", defined by three main factors--
crops, tillage, and winter cover--and to describe the general fertilizer,
herbicide, and conservation practices which characterize each cropping system
in your district.

At first, it may seem impossible to aggregate the infinite combinations of
farming practices in your district into a small number of cropping systems.
It can be done, however, to provide an estimate of represententive farming
activities for a given area; for a survey covering about 64,000 square miles,
generalizations must be made.

I ~~Because data on the distribution of crops, tillage, and winter cover will be
used to determine agricultural runoff loadings to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries, it is necessary to collect cropping system data by watershed,
or by sub-basins (about 60 sub-basins cover the entire drainage area of the
Chesapeake Bay). The sub-basin(s) in your district are delineated on the
map provided.

It may be helpful to review the cropping systems described in the example
worksheet. These are not meant to represent any specific area in the Bay
region but instead are meant to provide you with an example of typical
cropping systems broken-down by sub-basin.

To assist you in putting together the prevalent cropping systems in your
district, we suggest that you work through the following process:

--On a separate piece of paper, write doem the crops grown in your district.

--What are the typical crop rotations?

--For each crop rotation, what is the major tillage practice used:
conventional, minimum, or no-till?

--For cropland with each rotation, is residue generally left in place over
the winter, or is it incorporated or removed?

You may work up a chart like the one shown on the following page:

C-3-1

Crops Rota tions Tillage Cover (Sub-basin #

Corn Continuous Corn 75% minimum-till Residue left (1,2,3)

Soybeans 25% conventional

Rye

Tobacco Corn/Rye/Soybeans 100% minimum--till Cover crop (rye) - yr1
Residue left -yr 2
(1, 2, 3)

Tobacco 90% conventional Residue removed (1,2)

10% minimum

--By now, you may have a list of five or ten cropping systems that are the
most prevalent cropping systems in your district. If any of them take up
10% or less of the cropland in your district, eliminate them.

--Next, refer to the map provided. As noted above, the sub-basins of your
district are outlined and labeled. Some districts fall entirely within a
sub-basin; others lie across several sub-basins. For reporting purposes,
we would like you to estimate how the cropping systems that you describe
are distributed among these sub-basins, in terms of percent of the total
cropland in that sub-basin (see Question #1 below).

--This information will be used along with other data to estimate the nutrient
loadings from agricultural runoff. For this reason, we would like some
idea of the range of slope where each cropping system may be found. Also,
your estimation of the soil losses from cropland in your district is no
doubt better than any estimate we could make; please include, as best you
can, the average annual soil loss to be expected from each cropping system
in each sub-basin and the recommended "T" values for those lands. A chart
to fill in this data is included in Question #1, Cropping System Information.

NOTE: For your convenience, a sample worksheet has been filled out to indicate
the kind of answers we would like. Please look it over before beginning
the worksheet. It is located at the back of this package.

C-3-2

In the spaces below, please describe the most prevalent cropping systems in
your district.

Crops Tillage Winter Cover

System I

System 2

System 3

* ~~System 4

System 5

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW SHOULD BE FILLED OUT SEPARATELY FOR EACH CROPPING
SYSTEM LISTED ABOVE

Cropping System Information

Cropping System 1

Description:

Crops Tillage Cover

1. For this cropping system, complete the chart below with the following
information:

p ~~a) What percent of the cropland in Sub-basin I has this general system?
Sub-Basin 2? Sub-Basin 3? Etc.

b) For each sub-basin, indicate the range of slope where this system
occurs.

c) What is the average soil loss from cropland where this system is used?

I ~~d) What is the recommended "T" value for these lands?

Sub-Basin % Cropland Avg. Slope Avg. Soil Loss Recommended "T" Value

C-3-3

2. Planting and Harvesting Dates

For the crops grown what are the approximate planting and harvesting
dates?

Crop Average Planting Date Average Harvesting Date

1 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2

3. Tillage Practices

in the chart below, state how often plowing, disking, or cultivating
takes place and the approximate dates of each.

Number of Times/Yr. Average Dates for Each

Plowing

Di sking

Cultivating

4. Fertilizer Usage

What is the typical fertilizer usage associated with this system? (Potassium
is not included since it does not cause water quality problems.)

a) How many applications of nitrogen and phosphorus are applied in one
season? Show approximate dates in each application.

b) How many pounds are applied in each application?

c) Briefly describe the method of Application.

C-3-4

Nitrogen Phosphorus Method
(N) (P 0) of
Application Date (lbs/Acre) (lbs/Acre) Application

* ~~~1

5. Manure

If manure is spread over cropland with this system, answer the following
questions:

a) What type of manure is applied?

b) Estimate the amount that is applied annually per acre.

c) How often is it applied (daily, monthly, seasonally, once/year)?

d) Describe the method of application:

6. Herbicide and Pesticide Usage

Please fill out the chart on the following page as described:

a) For each crop, what are the typical herbicides/pestcides applied to
fields with this system.

b) At what rates are they applied? Give dates for each application and
describe the method used.

C-3-5

Crop Type Application Date Pounds/Acre Method

7. Present Conservation Practices

Describe the conservation practices that are typical to this system in
your district (e.g. contours, terraces, stripcropping, field borders,
diversions, grassed waterways, impoundment ponds, tile drainage, surface
drainage ditches, etc.). You may want to indicate the slopws and/or
sub-basin on which they are located.

8. Other Comments

Additional comments that further explain this cropping system:

C-3-6

CONSERVATION PLANNING AND NEEDS

F ~~The previous section on field management will help us understand just how far
we have come along in terms of soil conservation. The following section is
designed to summarize the extent to which more conservation practices are
needed in your district.

Soil conservation has made great strides in keeping productive soils in place
on farmland and out of streambeds. Today, however, approximately half of all
sediment entering streams and rivers comes from agricultural runoff. There are,
no doubt, fields in your district which you believe are losing too much soil.
There also may be-some water quality problems caused by animal wastes. However,
practices' that will reduce soil loss or control animal waste runoff have not
* ~~been applied, for one reason or another.

Depending on the severity of existing soil losses and depending on the extent
0 ~~ to which these losses are causing water quality problems, the costs to reduce
soil loss to levels as low as the recommended *T" value may be prohibitive.
For this reason, we have asked for the practices needed to achieve three levels
of soil-loss reduction:

a) The highest level of soil-loss reduction
--to meet the recommended "T" value.

b) The intermediate level of reduction
--to reduce soil-loss to a level just above "T", or "T" + 2 tons/acre.

c) The lowest level of reduction
--to reduce soil-loss to "T" + 5 tons/acre.

To develop large scale plans for the improvement of water quality, the Chesapeake
* ~~Bay Program (CBP) will generate a number of options, or management alternatives.
The information produced from the following section will enable CBP to develop
a set of management alternatives to reduce the impact of agricultural runoff on
water quality. This worksheet will give estimates of the amount of farmland
requiring remedial measures, and a range of solutions that address the problem
to varying degrees. The costs to implement each solution alternative can be
developed to help planners weigh the cost-effectiveness of one solution alternative
compared to another.

Cost-effectiveness comparisons of agricultural control alternatices versus
alternatives to control pollution from other sources (urban, industrial, municipal)
can also be done. For example, planners may find that in a particular sub-basin
of the Bay, it is more cost-effective to apply a medium-level of treatment to
farmland (soil-loss reduced to "T" + 2 tons!/acre) than to upgrade a sewage treatment
plant; in other words, per dollar, a greater reduction is nutrient loadings can
be achieved by applying the medium-level agricultural than by upgrading the
treatment plant.

C- 3-7

The questions that follow are broken out into the following categories:

Conservation Planning

- Farm Plans4
- Leased Lands
- Agricultural Trends

Conservation Needs

- Cropland
- Hay and Pastureland
- Animal Wastes
- Feedlots, Barnyards, and other Problem Areas

You are not expected to answer the following questions for individual sub-basins,
except where specified; please estimate your responses on the district-level
based on your working knowledge of the area.

Conservation Planning

Farm Plans

1. How many farms are there in your district?

2. What percent of them have conservation plans?

3. What percent of the plans are followed entirely?

partially?

not at all?

Explain why these values are high or low:

4. How would you increase conservation on the land?

C-3-8

Leased Lands

1. Approximately how much farmland is leased?_____

2. Are leased lands in your district farmed any differently than non-
leased farmland? if no, go to the next section.
If yes, describe the differences:

3. What percent of leased lands, in terms of acreage, have conservation
plans? If a significant number lack plans,
explain reasons for the low percentage and suggest mechanisms to improve
conservation practices on these lands.

Agricultural Trends

Briefly describe the agricultural trends in your district from World War II
to present and trends you expect in the next 20 years for the following items:

1. Conversion of farmland to other uses.

2. Conversion of marginal lands into farmland.

C-3-9

3. Tillage practices.

4. Type of crops grown.

5.Farm machinery.

6. Average size of farm operation.

7. Chemical usage.

S. irrigation.

C-3- 10

9. Livestock and poultry operations.

10. Policy and resource levels for soil and water conservation.

i1. Others.

C-3-11

Conservation Needs

Cropland

1. How much farmland in your district needs additional treatment to achieve
"T" + 5 tons/acre, "T" + 2, and "T"?

"T + 5 tons/acre?

"T" + 2 tons/acre?

"T" tons/acre?

2. What are the most common conservation practices you recommend to reduce
the soil-loss to "T" + 5, "T" + 2, and "T"? What are the total costs?

Practice Total Cost

"T" +5

"T" + 2

"T"+2

Hay and Pastureland

1. Is there a significant amount of soil-loss from hay and pastureland in
your district? If so, what percent of these lands
need additional treatment to meet:

a) "T" + 2 b) "T"

C-3-12

2. What remedial measures would you recommend to reduce soil-loss on these
lands, and what would be the total cost to apply them?

Practices Total Cost

"T" + 2

r~~~T

Animal Wastes

1. Fill in the table below to show how many and what kind of livestock
and poultry are in your district and approximately what percent of
them are located in each sub-basin.

Type Number %In Sub-Basin I In Sub-Basin 2 %In Sub-Basin 3

Cattle

Pigs

Sheep

Horses

Chicken

2. Is there a problem in your district concerning animal wastes?____ if
so, for what percent of the animals in your district are animal waste
contrls needed? . If this percent varies signifi-
cantly among the sub-basins in your district, what percent of the animals
t ~~~need controls in each sub-basin?

C-3-13

Sub-Basin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
Sub-Basin 2

Sub-Basin 3

3. Specify the animal waste controls that are needed and the total cost to
implement them.I

Practices Total Cost

Feedlots, Barnyards, and other Problem Areas

1. Are there any other significant problems associated with feedlots,
barnyards, or other problem areas in your district?
If yes, describe the extent of the problem, the remedial measures
needed, and the total cost.

Problem Remedial Measures Needed Total Cost

C-3-14

I
I

4
i

) APPENDIX D

TOXIC COMPOUNJDS
I;

I1
I

r Daniel Elaberman

b ~~~~~~~~~~Gail B. Mackiernan

CONTENTS

Figures ............................... D-iii

Table s ................................ D-iv

Section

1 Chlorine .......................... D-1

2 Biological Monitoring .................... D-9

3 Fingerprint File ...................... D-14

4 Data to Calculate Metal Loads. .............. D-16

5 Methods for Calculating Copper Loadings from Anti-Fouling
Paints ........................... D-18

6 Industrial Metal Loads for 1980 ............... D-21

7 Literature Cited ...................... D-25

D-ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. "Fingerprint" and mass spectrograph showing phenanthrene . D-15

2 D-iii
i ~~~~~~~~~~~D-iii

TABLES

Table 1. Toxicity of Municipal Effluents ............. D-11

Table 2. Toxicity of Industrial Effluents ............ D-12

Table 3. Toxicity of Commercial Electric Power Generating Plant . D-13

Table 4. Data Necessary to Calculate Loadings of Metals for Urban
Areas .......................... D-17

Table 5. Two Methods for Calculating Loadings of Copper from
Anti-Fouling Paints ................... D-19

Table 6. Industrial metal Loads for 1980 ............ D-22

D-iv

SECTION I

CHLORINE

INTRODUCTION

Chlorine has been used since 1902 as a means of disinfecting
drinking water, and is considered one of the major factors reducing
the incidence of water-borne disease in this (and other) countries
(Greenberg 1980). Although not all human pathogens are equally
sensitive to chlorine, it is still the disinfectant of choice because
of its effectiveness, low cost, and ease of application. Furthermore,
free chlorine has a relatively short residual time in ambient water,
and is-considered of low toxicity to man at concentrations used in
drinking water treatment (Sugam and Helz 1977).

However, chlorine is a powerful oxidizing agent arid biocide. In
* ~~~recent years concern has grown about the use of chlorine because of
potential (or demonstrated) adverse environmental impacts and because
of the formation of chlorinated organic compounds which may represent
a human health hazard (Jolley 1975). One result of this concern has
been a widespread reassessment of chlorine use, including the amount
used, timing, or possible alternatives.

Fate and Effects

Three major uses of chlorine today are disinfection of drinking
water, disinfection of municipal and industrial wastewaters, and as an
antifouling biocide within the heat exchange systems of steam electric
generating plants. The latter two uses impinge directly on the
estuary, and will be discussed below.

Present concern over use of chlorine has been generated by
considerable work in the past 15 years on the toxicity and potential
environmental effects, and on the chemistry of chlorine and toxicity
of reaction products. A series of conferences on water chlorination
have been summarized in three volumes published by Ann Arbor Science
Press (Jolley 1978, Jolley et al. 1978, Jolley et al. 1980). These
proceedings give an excellent overview of current research and
findings on a variety of topics relating to chlorine use. Several
conferences on chlorine use have been held in the Chesapeake Bay area
(especially Block and Helz 1977, Chesapeake Bay Foundation 1982), and
a number of review and summary reports have been issued by Bay
research organizations and state institutions (e.g., Sugam anid Helz
1977, Ball et al. 1981). A great deal of research on chlorine (and
alternative biocides) has been sponsored in the Bay region by state
and Federal agencies and other institutions; topics include the
chemistry of chlorine in fresh and estuarine water, toxicity to a
variety of native organisms, community effects, formation of reaction
products, and toxicity and chemistry of alternatives to chlorine.

Environmental effects demonstrated (or postulated) include acute
effects on organisms passing through power plant condenser systems
where elevated temperatures exacerbate the situation (e.g., Burton et

D-l

al. 1979) or near-field effects due to exposure to the effluent plumes
from chlorine dischargers (Bellanca and Bailey 1977). Laboratory
studies have shown sensitivity to relatively low concentrations of
chlorine on the part of eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish (e.g., Morgan
and Prince 1977), oyster and clam larvae (e.g., Roosenburg et al.
1980a, 1980b)), zoo- and phytoplankton (e.g., Heinle and Beaver 1977,
Heinle and Beaver 1980; Mackiernan et al. 1978), and many other
organisms (e.g., Roberts et al. 1975). Exposure to low levels of
chlorine has produced community changes in phytoplankton and benthic
organisms in microcosms (Sanders and Ryther 1980, Sheridan and Badger
1981). Avoidance of chlorinated effluents by migrating fish -- and
thus potential blockage of spawning runs -- has been postulated (e.g.,
Tsai 1970, Meldrin and Fava 1977). Most of these effects have been
demonstrated under controlled conditions; showing similar impacts in
the field has been less simple.

One difficulty is the complex behavior of chlorine in fresh and
estuarine waters (Sugam and Helz 1977, Helz et al. 1980, Helz 1981).
Briefly, in fresh waters, free chlorine reacts with water to form
hypochlorous and hypochloric acid. These react rapidly with ammonia
and organic amines to form chloramines. Together, these compounds
constitute "total residual chlorine" (TRC). Measured values of TRC
are usually less than the amount of chlorine added as a dose, the
difference being due to the chlorine demand of the water (Helz 1981).
The magnitude of chlorine demand depends on time elapsed, dose,
temperature, and characteristics of the receiving water (Helz 1981).
Chlorine is also lost through dissipation to the atmosphere. Slower
reactions may form a variety of chlorinated products with organic
material, metals, nitrite, etc. (Helz 1981). In estuarine and sea
waters, which contain significant amounts of bromide (and some
iodide), a different pathway exists. Bromide is rapidly oxidized by
chlorine to form hypobromous and hypobromic acids; these are also
oxidative and biocidal compounds (Helz 1981). The oxidants formed by
the chlorination of saline water are collectively termed
"chlorine-produced oxidants" (CPO). Bromamines and, eventually, a
variety of brominated organic and other compounds are formed (Helz
1981). This is the dominant pathway for chlorine added to water of
about 5 ppt salinity and above (Helz 1982). All of these reactions
can lead to the formation of some toxic halogenated compounds, the
exact nature of which depends on the chemical composition of the
treated water, as well as such variables as pH, temperature, and
salinity (Helz 1982). (A detailed discussion of the formation,
composition, and effects of these secondarily-produced compounds are
contained in the water chlorination series cited above.) Free
chlorine, TRC, and CPO are rapidly dissipated in the environment, and
concentrations soon fall below the level of detection of most
routinely used instrumentation. However, toxic effects have been
demonstrated in the laboratory at concentrations at or below the usual
"level of detection." Environmental consequences of such low
concentrations remain unclear.

Current Programs and Strategies for Reduction of Chlorine

Because of the demonstrated toxicity of chlorine to estuarine
organisms, and the potential harm to the environment, there has been a

D-2

reassessment of the use of chlorine in the Bay area. There has been a
move toward reduction of chlorine residuals, site-specific evaluations
of use of chlorine, and consideration of environmental effects in
siting and permitting of dischargers. Impetus has come from the
Federal government, chiefly through the EPA, but also from the USF&WS,
the NMFS, from strong commitments from both Maryland and Virginia, and
from many parts of the private sector. Control strategies focus on
three approaches: 1) reduction or elimination of chlorination (the
latter also implies use of no biocides); 2) use of alternative
biocides; and 3) reduction of the impact of effluents, including
dechlorination.

In a national survey conducted by the Virginia State Water Control
Board, Maryland was identified as one of two states that was doing the
most to reduce the use and impacts of chlorine through a variety of
approaches.1 Presently, a Disinfection Task Force has been formed
in Virginia to assess the use of chlorine, and to make recommendations
to the state on the use of this and other biocides (VA SIGB 1983b).

Both Maryland and Virginia have existing quidelines for discharges
of chlorine in municipal and industrial effluents. This may be
specified by an NPDES permit or a consequence of a receiving water
quality standard. In Maryland, the discharges of chlorine to natural
trout waters are prohibited, and discharges to class 4 waters
(recreational trout waters) cannot exceed effluent concentrations of
0.02 mg L-i, with a maximum of 0.002 mg L-1 allowable in the
receiving water; the maximum concentration allowable in effluents
discharged to other waters is 0.5 mg L-1. The latter concentration
limit may be reduced in discharge permits depending on particular
aspects of the receiving water (e.g., nearness to an important
spawning area, etc.) (MD OEP 1983). In Virginia, permitted chlorine
residuals in effluents for STPs discharging to shellfish waters are
1.5 to 2.5 mg L-l, for other waters 1.0 to 2.0 mg L-1. An
"anytime" maximum of 4 mg L-1 in the effluents of STPs is specified
in NPDES permits (VA SWQB 1983). At least a 1:20 dilution at the
point of discharge is recommended to reduce residual chlorine levels
to approximately 0.02 mg L-1 in nearfield receiving waters (Select
Interagency Agency Taskforce on Chlorine 1979). Both Maryland and
Virginia have ongoing programs dealing with chlorine use in STPs;
these will be discussed in the section on "current programs." In both
Virginia and Maryland, industrial dischargers of chlorine have
permitted effluent limits identical to that of municipal STPs; the
difference is that, in Virginia, no exceptions to these limits are
allowed in permits, as is the case with municipal STPs. Very small
dischargers are currently not closely regulated, except that a fecal
coliform limit exists for wastewater from seafood processors in
Maryland. There is some effort underway to reduce or improve chlorine
use at these plants; this will be discussed below.

Steam-electric power plants are currently licensed to have
effluent limitations of 0.2 mg L-1, or less, at the point of

1Personal communication: "Chlorine Control Strategies in Various States",
A. Pollack, VA. State Water Control Board, 1983.

D-3

discharge as a 24-hour average, with a 0.5 mg L-1 maximum allowed for
some (in Maryland, class 1 or 2 waters). Current rewriting of discharge
permits requiring BAT will probably result in maximum effluent limitations
of 0.2 mg L-1 TRC.2

Reduction (or Elimination) of Chlorination--
Reduction of chlorine use presents different problems for sewage
treatment facilities (where a public health concern exists) than for power
plants. In both cases, however, decreasing chlorine use has to be balanced
against perceived needs of the user.

Strong differences of opinion exist as to the necessity of disinfecting
effluents of STPs. It is often cited that in many European countries,
chlorination of secondarily-treated wastewaters rarely occurs (Coughlan and
Whitehouse 1977, Garnett 1982). However, in the opinion of local state
agencies concerned with public health, disinfection of effluents discharged
to natural waters remains a necessity (MD OEP 1982, Oliveri 1982).
Recommended strategies to reduce chlorine include a site-specific
evaluation to determine if public health risk necessitates disinfection, or
whether seasonal disinfection or no disinfection is possible (MD OEP
1982). This evaluation would be based on the quality of the receiving
water or its potential uses.

STP Case Study: Operation DO-IT--
In 1977, a Chlorine Residual Control Advisory Committee in Maryland
recommended that the best first step in reducing chlorine residuals would
be to improve and upgrade existing treatment facilities (Silberman and
Kruse 1977). In the same period, concern grew over the potential effects
of chlorine on spawning anadromous and semianadromotns fish. In 1981, the
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of
Natural Resources joined together in a project called Operation DO-IT
(Disinfection-Optimization-Innovative Techniques) to improve existing
chlorination facilities and to reduce the amount of chlorine discharged to
fish spawning areas (Garreis and Parrish 1982). Forty wastewater treatment
plants were identified by DNR as potentially impacting spawning fish.
These were examined by a special team, and a case-by-case assessment made
of needed modifications to the chlorination facilities. Twenty-two plants
(55 percent) were found to require some modification. The team worked with
the plant owner/operator to make on-site modifications and to help
implement improved operation procedures. Deficiencies which were
identified and corrected included inadequate chlorine diffusers, poor
location of diffusers, over-dosing, and poor control of flow.
Effectiveness of the modifications and the subsequent achievement of good
disinfection were measured by coliform levels remaining in the final
effluent (Garreis and Parrish 1982). Costs for operation DO-IT ranged from
75.00 to 245.00 dollars per plant.

In plants where modifications could not reduce effluents to the
desired 0.5 mg L-1 TRC, temporary dechlorination equipment was
installed. Details of this project, Operation TIDE, are discussed later in
a section on dechlorination. Together in the first year, DO-IT and TIDE
reduced chlorine residuals by an average 66 percent in nine river basins.

2Personal Communication: "Chlorine Effluents at Virginia Power Plants,"
M. Brehmer, VEPCO, 1983.

D-4

In some areas, over 90 percent reduction occurred. A major positive result
was that these projects focussed the plant operators' attention on the
problem, and achieved excellent cooperation between treatement plant owners
fnd the state (Garreis and Parrish 1982). This is emphasized by the point
that in 1983, when no state funding was available for the projects, all but
two STPs of the original 40 continued to participate.3

Industrial Case Study--
A private sector initiative to reduce chlorine use at seafood packing
houses in Virginia was begun by Morgan and Sons, Inc., a seafood company of
Weems Virginia, in conjunction with Duboise Corp. and other interested
parties. A series of meetings was held with plant managers to familiarize
them with alternatives to chlorine use for sterilizing their facilities
during seafood processing. Some 22 houses (out of 227 in Virginia) are now
using these alternative methodologies. Although initial set-up costs per
house were relatively high, after several years the savings have been
considerable due to increased effectiveness and efficiency.4

Power Plants--
Power plants usually initiate chlorination in mid-May when biofouling
becomes a problem. This is after major fish spawning runs. However, there
is still some concern over the biological effects of power plant effluents
(VA DTF 1982). The major difficulty in reducing chlorination for plants
where significant biofouling occurs is the increased maintainence costs and
downtime (Roig, 1982 ). It is estimated that cleaning a fouled unit at a
larger plant (e.g., Chalk Pt. or Wagner) requires 3 to 5 days at a cost of
150 to 300 thousand dollars a day (Roig 1982 ). In some areas, where
chlorine discharges are thought to have negative impacts, the use of
cooling towers rather than once-through cooling is possible. For example,
the Vienna plant on the Nanticoke, discharging into a major striped bass
spawning area, has replaced its once-through units with a cooling tower.
Whether further reduction in chlorine use at Bay power plants can occur is
problematic. Alternatives have been investigated, however (Helz and
Kosak-Channing 1980).

Whether or not chlorination is used, most plants use Amertap, a
mechanical abrasive process using rough sponge balls circulating in the
cooling water. For some major facilities (e.g., Calvert Cliff NPP) Amertap
and other mechanical methods are sufficient. A variety of alternative
nonchemical or mechanical techniques have been suggested for the control of
fouling (Garey 1980, Burton and Hall 1982). Some of these (such as heat)
are successfully used on the West Coast; however, few plants can be
retrofitted for this capability (Garey 1980). This should be considered in
future plant design, however.

Use of Alternative Biocides

Substitute biocides investigated for sewage treatment plants include

3Personal communication: "Operations DO-IT and TIDE in 1983", M. Garreis,
MD OEP, 1983.

4Personal communication: "Cost and Effectiveness of Alternative
Disinfection Methodologies", C. Morgan, Morgan and Sons, Inc., 1983.

D-5

BrCl (bromine chloride), H202 (hydrogen peroxide), 03 (ozone), and
ultraviolet light. The first three could also be used for antifouling in
power plants. They are also strong oxidants and, hypothetically, could
behave similarly to chlorine in estuarine water (Helz and Kosak-Channing
1980). The advantages of ozone in freshwater are that it degrades very
quickly (Schlimme 1982); but, in estuarine waters, it reacts with bromide
to form a variety of halogenated compounds (Helz et al. 1978). Results of
toxicity studies indicate that these ozone-produced oxidants are similar to
CPO in their effects on oyster and striped bass larvae (Stewart et al.
1979, Hall et al. 1981). BrCl has probably received the greatest attention
as an alternative disinfectant. The major advantage of BrCl is that decay
of its residuals is much more rapid than chlorine, eliminating the need for
dechlorination prior to discharge (LeBlanc 1982). This also creates a
disadvantage, because as the quality (i.e., clarity, low concentration of
suspended solids and organics) of the STP effluent declines, more BrCl is
needed to achieve satisfactory disinfection (LeBlanc 1982). Roberts and
Gleeson (1978) found BrCl to be two to four times less toxic than chlorine
to a variety of endemic Chesapeake Bay species. An in situ study at
Morgantown SES found no significant differences between the survival of
estuarine fish exposed to very low BrCl or C12 concentrations (levels
sufficient to control biofouling in the condensor tubes)(Linden and Burton
1977). Ultraviolet light requires a very clean effluent to be effective
but has the advantage of producing no chemical residues, and can also be
less expensive to operate than conventional chlorination equipment (Alpert
and Bonomo 1982).

Current Programs

At the present time, Maryland is using alternative biocides at a number
of sewage treatment facilities: approximately 10 percent of plants use
ultraviolet light (mostly freshwater), and one small plant is using BrCl.
A relatively large (8 MGD) plant also tried BrCl, but had problems with
finding a consistent supply of the chemical, and in achieving consistent
disinfection results. It has since returned to
chlorination-dechlorination.5

In Virginia, promising tests have been made on the efficacy of BrCl by
the Hampton Roads Sanitary Commission (LaBlanc 1982). This and other
alternative biocides are being evaluated by the ongoing Disinfection Task
Force.

Techniques to Reduce the Impact of Effluents--
A number of techniques have been proposed to reduce the impacts of
chlorinated effluents: seasonal disinfection, holding lagoons, and
dechlorination. The latter has received the most attention. Neither
Maryland nor Virginia presently permit seasonal disinfection, but many
other states have seasonal discharge permits.6 This strategy is being
investigated by both states as a possibility for waters where only seasonal
public health concerns may arise (e.g., swimming and boating). Holding

5Personal communication: "Use of Akterbatuve Biocides in Maryland." M.
Garreis, MD OEP. 1983.

6Personal communication: "Seasonal Discharge Permits for Chlorinated
Effluents in MD and VA." A. Pollack, VA SWCB. 1983.

D-6

lagoons, land disposal of effluent, and similar techniques are discussed by
Wheeler (1982). Many have been funded under the EPA's Innovative
Alternative Program.

Dechlorination is currently used in about 35 percent of Marylands'
STPs; Virginia has two small plants now operating with dechlorination, and
three major STPs coming on line shortly. Although dechlorinated effluents
still possess residual toxicity compared to controls (Hall et al. 1981);
this toxicity is significantly less than that caused by TRC. This residual
toxicity may be due to the production of halogenated organics before the
dechlorination step. Effects of the addition of another chemical (usually
SO2) to the effluent/water are as yet unknown (Greene 1982).

Case Study: Operation TIDE--
Operation TIDE (Temporary Installation of Dechlorination Equipment),
was coupled with the previously described Operation DO-IT in a joint effort
by Maryland DHI1H and DNR to reduce chlorine residuals from STPs discharging
to major estuarine and freshwater fish-spawning areas (Garreis and Parrish
1982). After an upgrading of facilities under DO-IT, those plants where
residuals still did not meet the desired 0.5 mg L-l TRC level had
temporary dechlorination facilities installed. In addition, plants which
had holding lagoons were encouraged to draw down water levels in advance of
the project and to hold effluents for 30 to 60 days depending on the
reserve capacity available (Garreis and Parrish 1982). During the peak of
spawning (April 15 to May 15), no discharge from these lagoons occurred.
Operation TIDE involved 34 of the original 40 plants, six of these had
holding lagoons. Dechlorination equipment (sulfur dioxide or sodium
metabisulfite) was installed at the remaining 28 wastewater treatment
plants.

As discussed previously, Operations DO-IT and TIDE resulted in an
overall reduction in total chlorine residuals discharged by some 66
percent. This represents the time period from April 1 to June 1, 1981.
Not all plants were able to install equipment by April first; therefore,
100 percent reduction was not achievable at all locations (Garreis and
Parrish 1982). Project costs for TIDE ranged from a low of 250 dollars to
a high of 4,000 dollars per plant; total costs for TIDE were 26,700 dollars
in 1981. The WSSC absorbed the cost of installing and operating
dechlorination facilities at three major plants.

In 1982, Operation TIDE was emphasized as the modifications installed
under DO-IT were still in place. In 1983, 38 of the 40 plants are still
participating although state funds are no longer available.

Whether DO-IT and TIDE will result in significant improvement in fish
spawning and recruitment has not yet been determined. The year 1981 was a
poor year; 1982 was a relatively good year for recruitment of freshwater-
spawning species. Data in succeeding years may help evaluate the
contribution of these innovative programs.

Other Current Programs--
Field evaluations of the effects of chlorination/dechlorination and
chlorination versus ultraviolet light treatment have been proposed by both
Maryland and Virginia. These will involve monitoring changes taking place
in the receiving environment when sewage treatment plants switch from

D-7

chlorination to ultraviolet disinfection, from chlorination to
dechlorination (or cease dechlorinating), when plants cease operation, and
when plants begin operation in an area previously not exposed to STP
effluents. Such field manipulations will enable managers to evaluate
different disinfection procedures, as well as the magnitude, nature, and
time-scale of environmental responses.

D-8

SECTION 2

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

The CBP recommends that a biomonitoring protocol be included in the
NPDES permitting system. A biomonitoring program can be used for
controlling those toxicants which pose environmental dangers to the aquatic
environment. The advantages of developing this new program are;

o it is not limited to priority pollutants,
6 0~~~~~ it considers synergistic effects,
o it is not bound by control technology, and
o it is a reasonable indicator of toxicity in the receiving water.

0 ~~~ BASIS FOR BIOMONITORING

Biological toxicity testing can overcome many of the limitations which
have prevented the effective control of potentially harmful effluents.
Developing a framework to better control toxicants is a major objective of
the Chesapeake Bay Program. Individual or combinations of complex chemical
compounds which pose a hazard to human and aquatic health must be rapidly
identified and limited to safe concentrations. Regulations of specific
substances must be based upon known harmful biological effects observed in
the environment.

Toxicity-based permits can overcome the limitations of both Best
Available Technology (BAT) controls and receiving water quality standards.
Current discharge limits for industrial effluents based on BAT do not
recognize all toxicants in the waste stream. The weakness of laboratory-
based water quality standards is that they cannot consider all ot the
natural variations in aquatic environments or local water quality, nor do
they take' into account effects due to the presence of multiple toxicants,
as occurs in many effluents. For these reasons effluent toxicity testing
can provide a more inclusive and realistic assessment of the constituents
in wastewater and their potential for harm in the environment.

CASE STUDY: THE MONSANTO PROTOCOL

The protocol developed by Monsanto Research Corporation (MCR) (Wilson
et al. 1982) can be used to identify those industrial and municipal
effluents which pose the most significant danger to aquatic life. It
involves a series of progressively more sophisticated tests and is designed
to identify the most "harmful" effluents from a scan of dischargers.
Therefore, those effluents which contain a substance, or a combination of
substances, which is acutely toxic to aquatic species, bioaccumulative, and
contains significant quantities of organic compounds is immediately
recognized. Effluents which do not indicate an immediate danger to aquatic
health can be investigated to the level required under the pollution
control requirements of current legislation.

Sediment analysis can also be used to investigate the impact of a
particular source on a local or regional environment. Researchers found
correlations between compounds in proportional amounts for most
sediment/effluent pairs that were tested. These sediment analyses alone

D- 9

are not particularly useful for evaluating existing discharges but are good
indicators of the adsorbtion and accumulation of compounds in the sediments.

The basic, intermediate, and advanced stages of effluent analysis used
in the Monsanto toxicity protocol are shown in Chapter 4. This decision
tree is used to evaluate the toxic effects to aquatic species, the presence
of bioaccumulative compounds, and significantly high concentrations of
organic compounds. The sequential extractions and bioassays also serve to
identify the substances), or class of substances, responsible for the
observed toxicity.

The results of the tests for the acute toxicity to aquatic species from
municipal and industrial effluents are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Further
details are included in Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis (Bieri et al. 1982) and in Wilson et al. 1982.

D-l0

TABLE 1. TOXICITY OF MUNICIPAL EFFLUENTS (WILSON ET AL. 1982)

Plant Toxicity High Organic Content High Bioaccumulative Content
Code Type State Rating Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause

B 141 S STP MD High ammonia, Cr, yes chlorinated yes substituted
organics aromatics naphthalenes

C 150 D STP VA Mod, chlorine, yes ? yes chlorinated
metals benzenes

C 155 D STP VA High chlorine, yes substituted no -
ammonia benzenes

C 156 D STP VA Mod chlorine, yes chlorinated yes dichlorobenzene
metals hydrocarbons pentachlorophenol,
dichlorotoluene
C 158 D STP VA Low chlorine, no - - no -
metals

C 161 D STP VA High chlorine, yes substituted yes chlorinated
metals, benzenes benzenes and
organics toluenes

C 164 D STP VA High chlorine, yes acrylonitrile no
acrylonitrile

C 169 D STP VA Mod. ammonia yes ? no -

TABLE 2. TOXICITY OF INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS (WILSON ET AL. 1982)

Plant Toxicity High Organic Content High Bioaccumulative Content
Code Type State Rating Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause

A 101 I VA None - no - no --
A 109 I VA Mod. ammonia, Cr yes amines yes chlorinated
cyclohexenes
B 111 D I VA None - yes - no -
B 112 D I VA Mod. metals no - - yes carbazole, bi-
phenyl, chloro-
phenols, PNAs
B 113 D I VA None . . . .
B 119 D I VA Mod. Cu, chlorine yes phenol & alcohol yes biphenyl and
based organics unknowns
B 124 D I VA Mod. chlorine, yes chloroform no - -
metals, cyanide
B 126 S I MD High Cd, ammonia no - - no - -
B 133 S I MD Mod. ? yes ? no --
B 142 S I MD High cyanide, Cu, yes chlorinated no - -
organics aromatics
B 143 S I MD Mod. Mn no - no --
B 147 S I MD Mod. Cd, Cu no - no --
B 149 S I MD High Cr, Pb yes chlorophenols yes biphenyl substi-
tuted naphthalenes
C 151 D EPG VA Mod. chlorine, no - - no - -
metals
C 153 D I VA None - no - no - -
C 154 D I VA High Cr, Pb no - no - -
C 157 D I VA Low ? yes ? no - -
C 159 D I VA Mod. ammonia no - no - -
metals
C 160 D I VA None - no - no - -
C 169 S I MD High Cr, chlorinated no - - no - -
hydrocarbons

- - not applicable
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
I Industrial Source
EPG Electric Power Generation
? unknown

TABLE 3. TOXICITY OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING PLANT

Plant Toxicity High Organic Content High Bioaccumulative Content
Code Rating Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause Yes/No Possible Cause

C 151 D Mod. chlorine, no no
metals

- - not applicable
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
I Industrial Source
? unknown

i.)

SECTION 3

FINGERPRINT FILE

FINGERPRINTING USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY

To identify and control hazardous toxicants in the environment, it is
necessary to use analytical techniques which can detect the presence of
known and unknown compounds that may be present in quantities which are
sufficient to cause environmental harm. Typically, these screening
techniques can be used to gather baseline data or search for the possible
cause of an observed event.

When effluent, sediment, or tissue samples containing unidentified
compounds pass through the gas chromatograph column and detector, each
individual compound is identified by its "retention time." Compounds of
low molecular weight pass through relatively faster than more complex,
heavier compounds. The final pattern of peaks on the chromatogram reveals
both the compounds present and their quantity. Figure I shows a typical
chromatogram of Chesapeake Bay sediment.

Fingerprinting techniques developed by CBP investigators modify basic
gas chromatographic techniques and eliminate many of the common problems
associated with identification using mass spectrometry (Bieri et al. 1981,
1982). For example, sediment samples rarely exhibit a "clean"
fragmentation pattern but instead a dense, overlapping series of peaks that
are difficult to quantify. The results of a comparison with the mass
spectral data files rarely show perfect matches and spectra can be masked
within an unresolved envelope. Therefore, interpretation by highly skilled
chemists is necessary to determine what constititues a successful match.
Additionally, retention times vary significantly between different
instruments and even between different chemists on the same instrument.

One important modification recommended by the CBP involves co-injection
of marker compounds with the sample. By including these normalized
identifiers, a relative retention number can be tagged to other peaks in
the sample. This eliminates differences created by using straight
retention times that have been developed and interpreted on different
instruments. Search procedures for known compounds during GC/MS analysis
are simplified and the very large number of unknown compounds can be noted
and logged for future reference. Identification and separation of peaks is
substantially improved by the use of capillary column CC/MS instead of
packed column GC/MS. The sum of tagged peaks, representing known and
unknown compounds, is termed a 'fingerprint'.

These procedures allow investigators not only to search for compounds
beyond those specifically permitted or known to exist, but to place that
particular fingerprint into a more comprehensive analysis of changes over
time and geographic area. A computer program designed to compare
chromatograms, determine concentrations, and scan for specific compounds
(based on specific retention times) was developed to facilitate analysis.
Details of analytical procedures and computer programs can be obtained from
Bieri et al. 1981 and 1982. This approach allows, for example, a "search"
of filed effluent chromatograms for those showing certain compounds
identified from the analysis of sediments or animal tissues.

D-14

Phenanthrene
A X

0 5 t0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Gas Chromatograph or "Fingerprint" showing location of phenathrene.

0 50 100 150 200

Mass Spectrograph of Phenathrene.

Figure 1. "Fingerprint" and mass spectrograph showing phenanthrene.

D -15

SECTION 4

DATA TO CALCULATE METAL LOADS

D-16~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TABLE 4. DATA NECESSARY TO CALCULATE LOADINGS OF METALS FOR URBAN AREAS
(BIERI ET AL. 1982a)

A. Average metal loading (mg L-1) for urban areas.

Pb Zn Cu Mn Fe Cr Cd Ni

LLSF1 .11 .09 .016 .035 2.47 .021 .01 .059
MDSF2 .21 .096 .016 .023 1.34 .018 .009 .028
THGA3 .26 .123 .019 .057 1.78 .017 .001 .025
Comm-Ind4 .39 .22 .025 .027 2.50 .017 .004 .044

B. Acreage and runoff volumes for Baltimore, Norfolk, and Washington, DC

Baltimore Norfolk Washington, DC
acres vol. runoff acres vol. runoff acres vol. runoff

LLSF 47,411 7.09 31,661 7.22 120,987 6.79
MDSF 19,131 11.49 11,068 11.71 29,828 11.01
THGA 20,920 19.54 11,317 19.92 16,869 18.72
Comm-Ind 13,309 29.29 12,448 29.86 22,280 28.06

C. Example: Pb loading at Baltimore

Acres Vol. runoff Avg. Pb loading Conversion Total
in/acre-l/yr-l mg/L-l factor (lbs/day)

LLSF 47,411 7.09 .11 7.27X10-4 26.9
MDSF 19,131 11.49 .21 7.27X10-4 33.2
THGA 20,920 19.54 .26 7.27X10-4 77.1
C-I 13,309 29.29 .39 7.27X10-4 110.3

247.5

1Large lot single family residential (0.1 - 2.0 D.U./acre)
2Medium density single family residential (2.0 - 8.0 D.U./acre)
3Townhouse/garden apartment (8.0 - 22.0 D.U./acre)
4Commercial Industrial

D-17

SECTION 5

METHODS FOR CALCULATING COPPER OFFLOADINGS
FROM ANTI-FOULING PAINTS

D-18

TABLE 5. TWO METHODS FOR CALCULATING LOADINGS OF COPPER FROM ANTI-FOULING
PAINTS

A. Total pounds of copper applied to registered boats

1. Analysis of Registration Data

Total # boats in less than 16-26 ft greater than
State Year Registration tidewater 16 ft. 26 ft.

MD 1981 134,105a 133,074c 61,310d 57,111d 13,569d
VA 1982 139,694b 65,000 33,150 28,600 2,600

2. Total number of non-aluminum boats which require anti-fouling paints

State Less than 16 ft. 16 - 26 ft. greater than 26 ft.

MD 35,516e 52,637e 13,268e
VA 19,227f 26,312f 2,548f

Total 54,743 78,949 15,816

3. Anti-fouling paint (and copper) application rates

Less than 16 ft. 16 - 26 ft. greater than 26 ft.

Number of boats 54,743 78,949 15,816
Avg. gal. per year .25 .50 1.5

Total gallons 13,685 39,475 23,724
at 4.6 lbs/Cu/gal.l 62,951 181,585 109,130

TOTAL lbs/Cu/Yr. 353,666
TOTAL lbs/Cu/day 969

B. Total Copper necessry to maintain 10 ug/cm2/day and leaching
rate and prevent fouling

Number of boats leaching rate2 Total
Size in Md and VA Avg/ft2/ship (lbs/ft2/day) lbs/day

less than
16 feet 54,743 100 2.0 x 10-5 109

greater than
16 feet 94,765 200 2.0 x 10-5 379

488g

D-19

Footnotes to Table 5

aMD registration

bVA registration

CAll boats in hD except 1,031 in Garrett County

dNumbers from Maryland registration data

eAluminum hulls removed from calculation (from MD registration data).

fSame percent used for VA

1Young et al. 1979

210ug/cm2/day x 2.2 x 10-8 lbs/lOug x .00108 ft2/cm2 = 2.0 x
10-51bs/ft2/day.

gA leaching rate of 488 lbs of copper per day requires the application of
106 gallons of paint per day or 38,690 gallons per year.

D-20

SECTION 6

INDUSTRIAL METAL LOADS FOR 1980

D- 21

TABLE 6. 1980 INDUSTRIAL METAL LOADS TO CHESAPEAKE BAY

VA J P R - NPL1~FS�-----------------------------------------
FIASTM FACILTTY N101K mljlp'PR STATE. CAnPMIIIm C~1RflI-111W. COPPF.4 1.1 I'A P 7, T !C

F .43 I'P F IPI-M ARVA P.T. VI tENA 19 ~in D ,10*o *0
r: FOP ETJ:ClRP-TPERV TMC( I ofl7 Pi 0.0 0 0,0 0.1n10 0
511nPRE rATT1'f\Ar CAN CDRll CAMPJTD~CF 99(i 1 o 08 3 0,l o.n 0.0
IF, S P l PF IWlOR C'VRr-PATIlr! 541 7P fl 1 0 01) 0 .00 0.0 , (r0(lo0
F SfrRE 13(l0 PTV T T 111,'P , 1-IC3 3 A7 1q) 0,00 0.00 . 0.02C~ 0,0 (0.
F SMORF, TF'lrJEC7 CHFNLCATS PI~C 3 O n I .29 3 .751.AI3

1IIA M S Al.! fflF CHFM CORP IMfpEVFY'llT 5 2. ( V1A 0.16 4 .74 o.s44 I.Pt
II Al FS AlfTITr CHF:MTCAT, bfRP 5 31 2 ~ItA 0.01 0 .25? 0,4 ( .oin4
JAF. AT1,AN1rTC CpRF(Sr1Ttl(; CC TMC 4 1 89 'I 0.0 k.01. 0.08 00 022
J A M S Cp-j'RA!j (IT[, AsPRMALT CCRP 9 43 30 V A 0 , 00 00 0,0 (,00 0 AA0
1A MES E; T ppmw ro T,, MNriIIps & cri 4669 itA 0.5 1-40 0,27 7,5
JAI'TKS F T CTI~~~flr~~T Tm: ~~jEN~h1RS ~~v CO 4880 VA 0.00 0,01 0.00 .2o
41 MP:15 FXXCNi Crlpp-pTCHM(lMQ ASPOlAT.' TF~ 5 6 146 VA 00 0 . 01 0.o() (,000.0
IAMFES FTRES'TONF' SYNTMETI.TC 1. HrP F tl 3298 9 V1A 000(1 n0,05 0,1 0.0 0,0
NI F. s GFOE'RAT, MFTATS TECH-6nUGTSC 591 V 01'2 0 '5i6 0 4 1 0 0 r
JAMPS MAIPI'rr' PrIAflS FO'ERGY CO"PANY 5 3 71 VA 0,0 0.I39 0 (06 0.3
J A -OPS TN\TA-PoTri, TINC 5520 VA 0.0 n,0 ( ,(1 (:(OI 0010
J A,-'~ S HAR(X TNIC 5 09)62 'IA 0 ( *0000 o0 (0.00o
II A M F"q ATr.. CYT]NIDER GAS DIV C~llEMFTRrl 3(,R9 IIA 0,00 .101 (i0
0AMES IJAVAL SUIPPLJY CENTER CRA14FY FI\C 5 4 87 VA 1 J8 7 9 i 4.14 0,.51?
J A ~lFS "MAY NflPF'rlK SHIPYARD 52915. IfA 4.:7 3 11.272 1 6 .' 2 .36 1
I A F.9 "F W P 0 T NEWS SHTPRIITbfXTiG & F)R 4110 4 VA 3.92 9.16?2 1 3 P7 2 .7 1 *
IWAFS M(RF01 K 5HJPnllTl.0Thl(3 g IDPYMfICK 4183 I VA 0 . 63 1 .50 2.22 0 .3) 1*
JAMES NU)FM K S8P&lTT( 1MDY[MCK 4391 V1A 0.12 0 .2 8 (41 0.06
.1 A ki !'PS2Y SHP I-,fli n DT OC 4 4 05 VA 0.102 03 10
17 A F. PU P Ti I A H-Fti'lE� CORP 30(4 2 ifA * ,(60 : I*13 P*
Fs PA14SL-Y & V-It.IJY TiNC 5 64 1.3 VA .0 .7 01 (i 0 0.1
0 A P.S RFGTr~hlAL FMTERWPRISES I tC 563 50 V A 0 .00 0 0 1 00 o 0 o r
,IA MF PPYNCI J).5 ?V.P:TAT, CONIP/\NY SMr1r4T P 5 0 1 6 ifA 0 .4 6 0.441 24 1 2, 3. - 1
ty A MES PnySTfFRp CC) 31714 11 A 0 . 02 ( n04 0,012 0 0
J A NiS 's i . L F R G(J.PPE CORP 2R7 PV 1A C) . 000 0 .600
JrAf.s THF 11 G 1VJTI-S(O Crll~p 214 P h A 9 71, 06 fin~ 1I�-
J A ~ FS IFPCO CPFlF'1;3F]~F'I 4 FT AA7. ,3:i f ,
JA 'F. IVIT'c.ITA FIIFCTRTC W~in Pi'wFP, CO 5 53 d4 11A 0 0,0 ,0

(continued)

row"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- - -- -

TABLE 6. (continued)

M~~~~~~~~~~d~~~~ r, F ------------------------
p AST I FACU.T TY flAPI PItlP1IET. STATE CADHIM1TI Cri~PflMT([1W CM-pPER bP'A.) 7 T PIC

PATIjYFM~ PnTOMA(' FT CT1 pnIwFR rn&MPA(t'Y 5 4Pi3 6 n ('013 0 0 6
Po f ITVA C mINFPAt, PT(;f1'Fr1TS CORD' flLTVIIII. 3425 'IDl o0O n I *no 0,00 u OR1*9
Prfr'A PFPCO PSTWA PVR 4P JA 0 2I ie $oQ
Pf-TnmAC PFPCV CfPATK F'fllMT 9.65 � p 0 0 0 25.II0 (in
PrIT(MAC PrTCMAC F:TFCI'PTC Pnllkipp cOMPAjY 56 9 2 8 tI p ( 001 0 ( 0 3,0On
PnTOMAC cSrj'UTF.PN "ARYLArID nnOp TRF'Ai io 51 79q I'l f)o 0 0 3 0 , 17 0' 0)5 0
POTOM AC VFPCO pOSUmi PnjMT 2 07 1 'A 2,00 1 ,00

RAPP ARR(1WPEAD A.SSUCIATES TIMC, 3 0 1 VA o 002 (.OR 0.0 0,01 0~ 6
W C IPS A P A 7. POGrcp T ir 53872 V' 0,0 00 0.no
W CMFSAP A-t PUATTN, CO 54 992 to o:~ -O.) o~oo:
W H FUS AP ALLTEr. CHFE1 CCrIP-AGPTC flT 252 MD I .106 0.3 ,00 0
W C 14 F SAP A11TE tirC IjF'CAj.,- PAI-TIMlRFp 21 P6 I,3 :.I I .q 0 . 9 9 12. 61 3. m
wi r$JFAP ATMAG C,1FM- PAT 1, f VPF 3 41 7 V, 0,07 - 0.329 0 . 23 0,03 fl.9
1- C 1FS A P AMFPTCAN n r,1. CO F4T.T-Ff!fRKPE F 398 1 PAIN ('O on0 0,0 c. 16
V]1 CIIFSAP Asors ~1111U) & SONI JNC 5296-5 5 V.: 0 (00n (1.(I 0, 0,0 f)o
W CH!FSAPI ASzAPC(I vic. 4I3 (. 0,05 0 o05 1 33.0 '.5 n
V) CHFISAP RATA 50Filf, CO TNC FAUCAMI) I '131 o(00 ,0 ,0) 00
14rt4p RS A P JjFfTY CCR,p, T14. 546r66 0'r 0,0 In0 0,4.or,0
W CHFSAP PFTPLFIIFM sITEfr COPP SPARPOI" P 1201 I,' 6 4.0 0 216 4 . 0 (66.0 0 301. 90 5>
W CRE-SAP JAFTH11;1P~r-M ST'Ej, CnRp; Sl-ARPrfW I 1. (I PA P 0,0 9"0 0,9 4 0 3 ( .e
(1 CF'SA P RFTHTFIU, ri TFFI,-TAf\KF', C.F'AM. 2275 Fin n,0() 0,0 0.0 (,0 0.00
WCFIFSAP PngE CAT.VEPT c-Tpi'FS 1 3 91) 111 0 (.0 ,
IN CI1FSAP IiGFF CRAmp 51 1 0 l
V] C ,FSAP IiG&F 0O11trJ STTWET 1 4 90 Pi 1) 0,0 s,3~ 00
V] C FS API C PF IFT AT S Cf'R P I17 7 ")11 0 0:0 (3 0.I()11 I 35
W C14 F SA P C.PFSApF.KF' PARK TPC 2852. I'l 0 0 1 (I.0(2 0,012 O0. 0,0
W CPP'SA P CHF:V Prfl'i1. A SIIC . 'I 4 9 nf 00I (1'.21 ( 0.04 IF.I
w Ci-ESAp rowrIfIEPTA1. CAN CO TMC 16 5fl7SI 1) 00 ( ' 12 0,O II <1
W CHF'SAP C01'ITrIMPAL 01. PAT,Tn PETR PTI ,1, 41) 1) 0,04 1 .05R 3 1.41*0
W C i CHESA P CRoWN CrPI' & SFAT. CO TNC WIT 10 116~ 'Fn 0,00 0Of 0,0 6 9 0.(
WCHWSAP WI'TCH4 107-Y.IC.. I 2 91 nI' 0 .0 (0
t,, CP4PSAP FA;P'~rTj, Cl.-DI)V. xF.',Aj'P1RCF' WfOlf) 515 I Or) t n ~ o
W CHFS A P Fl PF.5Tf1N' PA.SITICS Cr1 * FT PESTn j(. 9 I3Y. ~1f 0 :0 o r) Or' I (I 0 ) I N n:no
w CIF'SAP Ft'C COVP I THMISTO TAT. (lIEM OnTI 2q9 A?. 0,0 (5 1 41 r.2.5 2 , ')6(
10 CHFSAP JS YCIMV CnrWPANY-PAITI1JRF' 1106.6 ?~D 0,00 0.02 I ,00 (i.01 00
, Cr ws DP KATSPQ 8 AT1lMU-IM HI-1ALETf-I1RPF ~,KS 4177 F, 0,0 ( I .80 24.55s 4 ,Ed 12.1
w C11F s ' p YATSEP MA!?"UNINU 1S, IIMA 485 mO 0,4 Oi 0,5 6 (I ,05
V' CPP ShP I<FW''F(7TT RFP'j II PIG COPP PAY,,rfi 50 n'l 0 .Y 05 3 1.5 2.H4 5:~
1- C II F;A P K FY 5 TV IF A WT fIMI IT I V PT ) ArT I ? 20 4 A P A 0,04 ,1)7 0,3 I,1)o 1
NCH( FSAP Kf)PPIPWS CO file( RArT, iLAfT 12H r0,0 .10 ,((.000
(continued)

TABLE 6. (continued)

li AST~ FACT LTTY MAMF rjiiMR.F. STATF CAr'llI IJM CIAPOIFI It' COPPF R I.YAr 7TOC

W C.11SAP KCPP~F'S Cf l TIC-4ETALj PROD) DTV 1911 P4D O)0 .1 . 4 0 0,.,i 1C 0,3
W IF SA P .1?UPYLAIfl STFFJJ, flRlijo(1 MPAIJY 5 4 9 MD 0,0in 0 0 (00 0.00 .O
14 CIIFSAP Mfl S~lTPP[,rPG&PlYrDCK CO COPP 1 39'2 :0 001 'I.02 *0 ',or,0
WClIFSAP'S! Cr.PP PEOCF1 Pr11.AVIT U'OrAlY) j 25 9 9, lbp 1 6 ,4�~,))o
14 ( 14 S A D SCY- CnrPV-A niRA r4 .1YC (.OR( I (1 ' 0.00*0 *
W flU. 5JP SCt- CflPP.-,T HFT.-ErA PLAtNT 1 2794 &.11) 0 0 4 0.29 ~ 1.3 1 7 o,
W CHlF'S AP S3CIlRTTY rnTI~CC 552 'of 0.5014. ,) 4
WClIFESP STI'C[.AIR & VIALFT(J, CO1 .IC 15 :l 000, 0 0,
WCHF SAP 11MI'ON CA1RP T~ IA'T0 91AM N' 0,000000) 0.000
W~ C1F.SAP IMIt'(fIN CAPPTI"V. CrlRPOlRATI.0PN TX-lD 5 41. 01 ?if) 00 0,0 0(n,0 00 ,A
N) C 14FS A P I.-R CR ACE P Al ITSil" CHF'1 PT r 1.1 -l 0 5 4 3,0 0, (I .11 22 1; 0 4

YoTK A"0cnl nil. ci~ .10T I A 0.17 4 P9 0*s lk) A
YORK 11 A CL~ARK F& S0.1? INC 5 198 VA 0,00 '100 00 jfi ~ 00

SECTION 7

LITERATURE CITED

Alpert, M.E., and J.D. Bonomo. 1982. Economic Aspects of Alternative
Modes of Disinfection. In: Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake
Research Consortium, eds. 1982. Preceedings of a Conference on the
Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg,
VA. 212 pp.

Bellanca, M.A., and D.S. Baily. 1977. Effects of Chlorinated Effluents on
the Aquatic Ecosystems of the Lower James River. J. Water. Pollut.
Control Fed. 49:639-645.

Bieri, R., O. Bricker, R. Byrne, R. Diaz, G. Helz, J. Hill, R. Huggett, R.
Kerhin, M. Nichols, E. Reinharz, L. Schaffner, D. Wilding, and C.
Strobel. 1982a. Toxic Substances. In: Chesapeake Bay Program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G. Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and
M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. 635 pp.

Bieri, R.H., P. DeFur, R.J. Huggett, W. MacIntyre, P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and
C.W. Su. 1981. Organic compounds in Surface Sediments and Oyster
Tissue from the Chesapeake Bay. Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,
Gloucester Point, VA. 155 pp.

Bieri, R.H., P. DeFur, R.J. Huggett, W. MacIntyre, P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and
C.W. Su. 1982. Organic Compounds in Surface Sediments from the
Elizabeth and Patapsco Rivers and Estuaries. Final Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA. 136 pp.

Block, R.M., and G.R. Helz, eds. 1977. Proceedings of the Chlorination
Workshop. U. of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. March
15-18, 1976. Ches. Sci. 18(1):97-160.

Burton, D.T., L.W. Hall, Jr., S.L. Margrey, and R.D. Small. 1979.
Interactions of Chlorine, Temperature Change ( T), and Exposure Time
on Survival of Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) Eggs and Prolarvae. J.
Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 36(9):1108-1113.

Burton, D.T., and L.W. Hall, Jr. 1982. Alternatives to Chlorination for
Controlling Biofouling in Cooling Water Systems of Steam Electric
Generating Stations. pp. 157-169. In: Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982. Preceedings of a
Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981.
Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay,
Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982. Preceedings of a
Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981.
Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

D-25

Coughlan, T., and J.W. Whitehouse. 1977. Aspects of Chlorine Utilization
in the United Kingdom. Chesapeake Sci. 18:102-111.

Garnett, P.H. 1982. A Challenge to Chlorination. pp. 57-69. In:
Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds.
1982. Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in
Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Garreis, M.J., and W.F. Parrish, Jr. 1982. Operation DO-IT and Operation
TIDE: Controlling Chlorine in the Environment. 1981 Program Office
Environmental Programs. MD. Dept. Health and Mental Hygiene.
Baltimore, MD. 10 pp.

Gary, J.F. 1980. A Review and Update of Possible Alternatives to
Chlorination for Controlling Biofouling in the Cooling Water Systems of
Steam Electric Generating Stations. In: Water Chlorination:
Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. R.L. Jolley, W.A.
Brungs, and R.B. Cummings, eds. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, MI. pp. 453-367.

Greenberg, A.E. 1980. Chlorination of Drinking Water -- Public Health
Perspectives. pp. 3-10. In: Water Chlorination: Environmental
Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. R.L. Jolley, W.A. Brungs, and R.B.
Cummings, eds. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. pp.
453-367.

Greene, D.J. 1982. Dechlorination of Wastewater. State-of-the-Art
Discussion. pp. 98-100. In: Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake
Research Consortium, eds. 1982. Preceedings of a Conference on the
Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg,
VA. 212 pp.

Hall, L.W., Jr., G.R. Helz, and D.T. Burton. 1981. Power Plant
Chlorination -- A Biological and Chemical Assessment. Ann Arbor
Sceince Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 237 pp.

Heinle, D.R., and MoS. Beaven. 1977. Effects of Chlorine on the Copepod
Acartia tonsa. In: Proceedings of the Chlorination Workshop. R.M.
Block, and G.R. Helz, eds. Chesapeake Sci. 18(1):140.

Heinle, D.R., and M.S. Beaven. 1980. Toxicity of Chlorine-Produced
Oxidants to Estuarine Copepods. In: Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays.
A.L. Burkemia, Jr., and J. Cairnes, Jr., eds. ASTM, STP. No. 715.
pp. 109-130.

Helz, G.R., R.Y. Hsu, and R.M. Block. 1978. Bromoform Production by
Oxidative Biocides in Marine Waters. In: Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide
Oxidation Products of Organic Materials. R.G. Rice, J.A. Cotruvo, and
M.E. Browning, eds. The International Ozone Institute. Westburg, CT.
1978.

D-26

Helz, G.R., A.C. Sigleo, and C.A. Hill. 1980. Mechanisms of Chlorine
Degradation in Estuarine Waters. pp. 387-394. In: Chlorine -- Bane
or Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982.
Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. hay
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Helz, G.R. 1982. Chlorine Chemistry. pp. 19-25. In: Chlorine -- Bane
or Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982.
Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Jolley, R.L., ed. 1978. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects, Vol. 1. Ann Arbor Science Publ. Ann Arbor, MI.

Jolley, R.L. 1975. Chlorine-Containing Organic Constituents in Sewage
Effluents. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 47:601-618.

Jolley, R.L., H. Grochev, and D.H. Hamilton, Jr., eds. 1978. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 2. Ann
Arbor Science Publ. Ann Arbor, MI.

Jolley, R.L., W.A. Brungs, and R.B. Cumming, eds. 1980. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. Ann
Arbor Science Publ. Ann Arbor, MI.

LeBlanc, N.E. 1982. Bromochlorination. pp. 113-122. In: Chlorine--
Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982.
Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. Hay
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Liden, L.H., and D.T. Burton. 1977. Survival of Juvenile Atlantic
Menhaden (Brevoo tyrannus) and Spot (Leiostomus xanthu) Exposed to
Bromine Chloride and Chlorine-Treated Estuarine Water. J. Environ.
Sci. Health. A12:375-388.

Mackiernan, G.B., D.R. Heinle, and S. Van Valkenburg. 1978. Effects of
Chlorine-Produced Oxidants on the Survival and Growth of Estuarine
Phytoplankton. Final Report to Maryland Department of Natural
Resources Power Plant Siting Program. April 1978.

Maryland Office of Environmental Programs. 1983. Water Quality Standards
for Discharge of Chlorine to Tidal and Non-tidal Waters. MD DH1iH.
Baltimore, MD.

Maryland Office of Environmental Programs. 1982. Disinfection: A Public
Health Necessity. Draft Report. Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Baltimore, MD. 46 pp.

Meldrin, J.W., and J.A. Fava, Jr. 1977. Behavioral Avoidance Responses of
Estuarine Fishes to Chlorine. Chesapeake Sci. 18:154-157.

D-27

Morgan, R.P., and R.D. Prince. 1977. Chlorine Toxicity to Eggs and Larvae
of Five Chesapeake Bay Fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106(4):380-385.

Olivieri, V.P. 1982. Disinfection of Sewage Effluent. The American
Approach. pp. 70-80. In: Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake
Research Consortium, eds. 1982. Preceedings of a Conference on the
Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg,
VA. 212 pp.

Roberts, M.H., Jr., and R.H. Gleeson. 1978. Acute Toxicity of
Bromochlorinated Seawater to Selected Estuarine Species with a
Comparison to Chlorinated Seawater Toxicity. Marine Environ. Res.
1:19-30. 4

Roberts, M.H., Jr., R.J. Diaz, M.E. Berde, and R.J. Huggett. 1975. Acute
Toxicity of Chlorine to Selected Estuarine Species. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can. 32:2525-2528.

Roig, R. 1982. Chlorine Use at Power Plants. June 16, 1982.
Memorandum: MD DNR, Energy Administration. Annapolis, MD. 4 pp.

Roosenburg, W.H., J.C. Rhoderick, R.M. Block, V.S. Kennedy, and S.R.
Gullans, S.M. Vreenegoor, A. Rosenkranz, and C. Collete. 1980a.
Effects of Chlorine-Produced Oxidants on Survival of Larvae of the
Oyster Crassostrea virginica. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3:93-96.

Roosenburg, W.H., J.C. Rhoderick, R.l. Block, V.S. Kennedy, and S.M.
Vreenegoor. 1980b. Survival of Mya arenaria Larvae (Molluscea:
Bivalvia) Exposed to Chlorine-Produced Oxidants. Proc. Nat. Shellfish.
Assoc. 70:105-111.

Sanders, J.G., and J.H. Ryther. 1980. Impact of Chlorine on the Species
Composition of Marine Phytoplankton. pp. 631-639. In: Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. R.L.
Jolley, W.A. Brungs, and R.B. Cummings, eds. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. ;

Schlimme, D.V., Jr. 1982. The Useof Chlorine and Potential Alternatives
in the Tri-State Vegetable Processing Industry. pp. 153-156. In:
Chlorine -- Bane or Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds.
1982. Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in
Estuaries. May 27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Select Interagency Taskforce on Chlorine. 1979. Summary Report of the
SITC. 1973-1974.

Sheridan, P.F., and A.C. Badger. 1981. Responses of Experimental
Estuarine Communities to Continuous Chlorination. Estuarine Coastal
Shelf Sci. 13:337-347.

Silberman, H., and C.W. Kruse. 1977. Chlorine Residual Control Advisory
Committee Report to the Maryland Water Resources Administration.
January, 1977.

D-28

Stewart, M.E., W.J. Blogoslawoski, R.Y. Hsu, and G.R. Helz. 1979.
By-Products of Oxidative Biocides: Toxicity to Oyster Larvae. Marine
Pollution Bull. 10:166-169.

Sugam, R., and G.R. Helz. 1977. The Chemistry of Chlorine in Estuarine
Waters. Report to MD DNR, Power Plant Siting Program. Annapolis, MD.
203 pp.

Tsai, Chu-Fa. 1970. Changes in Fish Populations and Migration in Relation
to Increased Sewage Pollution in Little Patuxent River, Maryland.
Chesapeake Science. 11(1):34-41.

Virginia Disinfection Task Force (DTF). 1982. Minutes of Montly Meetings,
Dec. 2, 1982. VA State Water Control Board, Richmond, VA.

Virginia State Water Control Board. 1983. Guidelines for Chlorine in
Industrial and Municipal Effluents. VA State Water Control Board,
Richmond, VA.

Wheeler, J.F. 1982. Disinfection in Wastewater Treatment Under the EPA's
Innovative Alternative Program. pp. 123-132. In: Chlorine -- Bane or
Benefit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium, eds. 1982.
Preceedings of a Conference on the Uses of Chlorine in Estuaries. May
27 and 28, 1981. Fredericksburg, VA. 212 pp.

Wilson, S.C., B.M. Hughes, and G.D. Rawlings. 1982. Toxic Point Source
Assessment of industrial Dischargers to the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
Phase III. Protocol Verification Study. EPA-68-02-3161. Monsanto
Research Corporation, Dayton, OH. Vol. 1 and Appendix A.

Young, D.R., G.V. Alexander, and D. McDermott-Ehrlich. 1979.
Vessel-Related Contamination of Southern California Harbors by Copper
and Other Metals. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol 10. pp. 50-5u.

D-29

APPENDIX E

EXISTING CONTROL PROGRAMS

Mary E. Gillelan
Harry W. Wells, Jr.
Caren E. Glotfelty
Jerry Hol 1 owel 1
John Roland

CONTENTS

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-iii

E-iv
Tables ................................

Section
E- 1
1 Federal Control Programs ..................

2 State Water Quality Programs ................E-20

3 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Problem Areas and Ongoing
Water Quality Management Projects in Chesapeake Bay Region by E-53
State ............................

E-i53

FIGURES

Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency organizational
chart ....................... E-6

Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional offices . . E-7

Figure 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III
organizational chart .................. E-8

Figure 4. Maryland Office of Environmental Programs organizational
chart .......................... E-23

Figure 5. Maryland Department of Natural Resources organizational
chart ..........................

Figure 6. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
organizational chart ...................E-35

Figure 7. Virginia State Water Control Board organizational chart E-45

Figure 8. Virginia Marine Resources Commission organizational
chart .........................

Figure 9. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Maryland E-60

Figure 10. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Pennsylvania. E-70

Figure 11. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Virginia . � E-76

Figure 12. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in West Virginia E-81

Figure 13. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Delaware � E-84

TABLES

Table 1. State Water Quality Standards -- Class Designation and
Numerical Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4

Table 2. Summary of Existing State Water Quality Control and
Resource Management Activities Affecting Chesapeake Bay . E-13

Table 3. State Water Quality Standards -- Class/Use Designations E-21
E-28
Table 4. Maryland Programs for Controlling Major Nonpoint Sources E-28

Table 5. Regulations and Standards of Pennsylvania Department of
E-37
Environmental Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E37

Table 6. Summary of Water Pollution Control Use -- Factor Ratings . E-41
E-54
Table 7. Information Sources for Nonpoint Source Maps and Tables E54

Table 8. Nonpoint Source Problem Areas in Maryland and the District
of Columbia ......................E-56

Table 9. Summary of Maryland and the District of Columbia Nonpoint E-61
Source Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E-64'
Table 10. Nonpoint Source Problem Areas in Pennsylvania ...E-64
E-71
Table 11. Summary of Pennsylvania's Nonpoint Source Projects . . . .

Table 12. Nonpoint Source Problem Areas in Virginia . . . . . . . E-73

Table 13. Summary of Virginia's Nonpoint Source Projects . .. . E-77

Table 14. Nonpoint Source Problem Areas' in West Virginia . . . . . . E-79

Table 15. Summary of West Virginia's Nonpoint Source Projects . . . E-82

Table 16. Nonpoint Source Problem Areas in Delaware . . . . . . . . E-83

Table 17. Summary of Delaware's Nonpoint Source Projects . . . . . . E-85

E-iv

SECTION I

FEDERAL CONTROL PROGRAMS

Major revisions were made during the 1970's to Federal legislation and
administrative procedures applicable to water use and pollution control.
Enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, and other legislation
fundamentally altered national policy and the traditional division of
resource management responsibilities between the Federal and state
governments.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) were established, in part, to consolidate
administrative oversight and resource protection responsibilities within
the Federal government. Authorization for the CEQ and the EPA also
established Congress' intent to clarify responsibility for environmental
protection through implementation of new, uniform, technology-based
performance standards applicable to all industrial and municipal
discharges, regardless of location.

Since 1972, the EPA has had responsibility for regulating municipal and
industrial activities that pollute or alter the quality of water
resources. The FWPCA (PL92-500) and the 1977 Clean Wa-ter Act Amendments
(CWA; PL95-217) raised the level of Federal funding for construction of
publicly-owned waste treatment works (POTWs), elevated water quality
planning especially for nonpoint source control, to a new level of
significance; emphasized public participation in the water management
decision-making process; and created the regulatory mechanism requiring
uniform, technology-based effluent limitations, or more stringent
limitations if required, to meet state water quality standards. As a means
of enforcement, the FWPCA established a national permit system for use in
regulating all municipal and industrial discharges.

Congress established mandatory treatment requirements to be met by all
industries and municipalities within specific time frames. in addition, a
national clean water objective, the restoration and maintenance of the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters was
established, and water pollution control goals and policies were identified.

-The goals established by the 1972 FWPCA are:

o to reach, "wherever attainable," a water quality that "provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife" and "for recreation in and on the water" by July 1,
1983; and,

o to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by
1985.

The policies are:

o to prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts;

E- 1

o to provide Federal financial assistance for construction of
publicly-owned treatment works;

o to develop and implement area-wide waste treatment management
planning which addresses both point and nonpoint source pollution;

o to mount a major research and demonstration effort in wastewater
control and treatment technology; and

o to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities
and roles of the states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate
pollution.

These goals and policies remain in effect today. in addition, the 1977
CWA expanded the role of the states by providing for management delegation
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program
(NPDES) and the POTW construction grants program, both described below.
Congress also up-graded programs authorizing Federal financial support for
state pollution control programs and emphasized the need for cooperative
efforts among all levels of government so that comprehensive pollution
control solutions could be put in place.

Currently, the EPA and individual states establish management
priorities and pollution control objectives annually during the state-EPA
agreement negotiation process. These agreements cover all delegated
program activities, identify how states will manage Federal pollution
control grants, and establish how management responsibilities will be
divided between the state and the EPA regional office. The regulatory
basis and tasks in water pollution control established by the Clean Water
Act are as follows:

o Industrial and Municipal Effluent Limitations

Uniform, technology-based effluent limitations applicable to all
industries and municipalities are developed by the EPA. Municipalities
are required to meet secondary treatment standards, as defined by the
EPA. Industrial control requirements depend on the chemical
characteristics of effluent streams for particular industrial
categories.

The discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts is prohibited.
Conventional pollutant discharges and special nonconventional
discharges are subject to the best technological controls available at
reasonable costs. The EPA determines available control technologies
and develops control guidelines which are used to develop effluent
limitations for every discharge.

o The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

All industrial and municipal discharges must obtain a NPDES
permit. The EPA administers the NPDES, but states are authorized to
assume responsibility for the program. The NPDES permits are issued
every five years and are subject to immediate revision if the
characteristics of a discharger's wastes change significantly. The
NPDES permits establish the levels and types, of pollutants that can

E- 2

legally be discharged, specify monitoring and reporting requirements,
and may list facility management practices ("Best Management
Practices") and contingency plans designed to minimize runoff.
Effluent limitations listed in the NPDES permit are expected to prevent
a discharge from causing violations of state water quality standards.

o Water Quality Standards

The EPA develops criteria for water quality that are used as
guidance by the states in the development of water quality standards
and stream-use designations.

These criteria address total water quality -- chemical, physical,
and biological characteristics, and the factors necessary for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. States,
at least every three years, are required to review and adopt water
quality standards for their waters. The EPA reviews the standards to
ensure that criteria used by the states are at least as stringent as
the Federal criteria. States have authority to adopt criteria more
stringent than EPA's. A summary of water quality standards in the
Chesapeake Bay basin is shown in Table 1.

o Dredge and Fill Permit Review

The EPA, or delegated states, reviews permit applications for
dredge or fill projects before the permits are approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Conditions can be placed in permits to minimize
environmental degradation. All dredge and fill proposals are regulated
under the CWA permit program except normal farming, ranching, and
silvaculture activities that do not cause permanent changes to a
waterway.

o Water Quality Management Grants

Numerous Federal grants are authorized by the CWA for use by
state, local, and regional agencies in their water pollution control
programs. The grants are subject to Congressional appropriation for
specific categories of water pollution control activities, including
research and development, construction of public wastewater treatment
systems, area-wide water quality planning, training of pollution-
control professionals, monitoring, and program support for state
pollution control administrative agencies. The major grant categories
administered by the EPA under the CWA are:

o Area Wide Waste Treatment Management (Section 208) Grants

The EPA is authorized to make grants to a state agency.,
regional agency, or qualified local planning agency for the
development of area-wide waste treatment management plans,
generally called 208 plans. The plans include an identification
of existing point or nonpoint pollution sources and describe
technological needs and institutional arrangements for eliminating
or reducing pollutant loadings to waterways within the planning
area. The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to assist
planning agencies in the development of water quality management

E-3

TABLE 1. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS -- CLASS DESIGNATION AND NUMERICAL CRITERIA

DO mg L-1 Fec. Col. Bact. Turbidity NTU Tot. Res. Max.
Class Description of waters min. daily av. pH max. �C max. MPN/100 ml Max. Mon. Avg. Chlorine mg L-

VIRGINIA

I Open ocean 5.0 -- 6.0-8.5 -- 200 (Special standards set for some
II Estuarine (Tidal water-
coastal zone to fall 14 (in areas cap. specific waters.)
line 4.0 5.0 6.0-8.5 -- of prop. shellfish)
III Free flowing streams
(coastal and Pied-
mont zones) 4.0 5.0 6.0-8.5 32 200 (Special standards set for some
IV Mountainous zone 4.0 5.0 6.0-8.5 31 200 specific waters.)
V Put and take lake
trout waters 5.0 6.0 6.0-8.5 21 200 (Special standards set for some
VI Natural trout waters 6.0 7.0 6.0-8.5 20 200 specific waters.)
VII Swamp water ( . . . case-by-case determinations will be made . . .)

MARYLAND

I Water contact recreation
and aquatic life 5.0 -- 6.5-8.5 32 or ambient 200 150 50 --
II Shellfish harvesting 5.0 -- 6.5-8.5 32 or ambient 14 150 50 --
III Natural trout waters 5.0 6.0 6.5-8.5 20 or ambient 200 150 50 0.002
IV Recreational trout waters 5.0 6.0 6.5-8.5 23.9 or ambient 200 150 50 0.002

PENNSYLVANIA

WWF Warm water fishes 4.0 5.0 6.0-9.0 87 OF 200 -- -- --
TSF Trout stocking 4.0 5.0 6.0-9.0 87 OF 200 -- -- --
(Feb. 15 - July 31) 5.0 6.0 6.0-9.0 74 OF 200 -- .. _

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

A Primary contact recreation 6.0-8.5 200 More than 20 NTU
above ambient
B Secondary contact
recreation - -- 6.0-8.5 -- 1000
C Aquatic life and water
oriented wildlife 5.0 4.0 6.5-8.5 32.2 -- More than 20 NTU 0.01
above ambient
D Raw water source for
public water supply -- -- 6.0-8.5 --- 1000
E Navigational use -- -- 6.0-8.5 -- 1000

Note: State-wide standards for toxic compounds and nutrients are limited.1 Only Pennsylvania has a state-wide nutrient
standard of max 10 mg L-1 nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen. However, in all three states and the District of
Columbia there are some nutrient and toxic compound standards under certain conditions in specific waters (see
state-wide lists).

plans. The Department of Agriculture, acting through the Soil
Conservation Service, is authorized to enter into agricultural
cost-sharing agreements with farmers that adopt noripoint pollution
control measures recommended in area-wide water quality management
plans. Comprehensive area-wide waste treatment management plans
must be approved by a state's governor and be consistent with
river basin plans (Section 303e plans), also developed by the
state.

o State Administrative Grants

General program support grants are used to monitor water
quality, classify waters, and inventory point and nonpoint sources
of pollution. States are required to report biannually on
progress in meeting clean water objectives.

o Grants for Construction of POTWs

The CWA authorizes annual appropriations to be divided among
the states and used for planning, design, and construction of
municipal sewage treatment systems. More than 30 billion dollars
have been appropriated for POTW construction since 1972. Broad
categories of municipal sewage treatment needs are eligible for
Federal financial assistance, including construction of basic
treatment facilities, collection systems, interceptor sewers, and
on-site or decentralized treatment systems. The Federal
government provides up to 75 percent of design and construction
costs for conventional local sewage treatment systems. Up to 85
percent of costs are paid by the Federal government for
1.alternative"~ or "innovative"~ treatment systems. The Farmers Home
Administration and Economic Development Administration also
provide grants and loans for wastewater treatment system
construction.

o Construction Management Assistance Grants

States that assume responsibility for managing the municipal
wastewater treatment construction grants program are eligible for
management assistance grants. The management assistance grants are
used for day-to-day program operations, including project design
reviews and establishment of construction priorities within the
state.

Other Federal agencies have legislative responsibilities for wildlife
protection, water development, and Federal land management (Department of
Interior); approval of state coastal zone management programs and marine
fisheries management plans (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration); and oil and hazardous material coastal spill response
(Department of Transportation -- Coast Guard).

The EPA also administers other programs designed to protect and enhance
the quality of environmental resources. Land-based disposal of hazardous
and conventional wastes are regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. Ocean disposal of wastes are regulated under the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. The Safe Drinking tWater Act is

E-5

U.". ENJVIHONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ADMINISTRATOR

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATORj
INSPECTOR GFNERAL
CHIEF OF STAFF

EMERGENCY REPONSE SUBSTACES RESEARCOFFICE AF DEVLOP EN
OFFI CE O CEF OFFIC E F LL SCIECE ISOR OFFICE OF TE ALLR OFFICE O F OFFICE A DOFFICE OF OF lICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL DISADVANTAGED 80ARO GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATION PUBIC AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL C EUERAL
LAW JIJDGES RIGHTS RIGHTS UTILIZATON LIAISON I acTIV TRI S ACTIVIT I S

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATON _ C O
FOR POLICY AND RESOURCE s F ADMNTA
WATER&PROGRAMiANDAREMEDIALERADIATION PROGRAMS TOXIC SUBSTANCFS MENTAL PROCESSES AND
MANA9EMENT LF A COUNSE NT

| OFFICE OF 1 OFFiCE OF D OFFICE OF CE Of
STANDARDS AND
COMPTROLLER ReGULATDNS GENERAL COiNSE L ENFOiCEMENT

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
POLICY ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
AND EVALUATION

ASSISTANT AOMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT AOMINISTRATOR | | ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR I | ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR | | ASSISTANT ADMINIStRATOR
FOR ADMINISTRATION FOR WATER FOR SOLID WASTE AND FOR AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION FOR PESTICIDES ANO TOXIC I I FOR
EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBSTANCES RESEARCH AND DE VERLOPMENT

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFIE OF OFFICE OF AIR OUAITY OFFICE OF PESTICIES OFFICE OF MNITORING
P ERSONNEL AND WATER ENFORCEMENT KWASTE PR ANDS A ND TOXIC SUSTANCE S SYSEMS
ORGANIZATION A ND PERMITS EN FORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT UALITY ASSURANCE

l OFFICE OF I I r OFFICE OF I OO FFICE OFFICE OF MOBILE U l iFFICE OF O I OFFlCE Of ENVIRON-
FISCAL AND CONTRACTS WATER REGULATIONS I SOLID WASTE I SOURCES PESTICiE PROGRAMS MENTAL ENGINEERING
MANAGEMENT ANDSTANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

I FICE OF MANAGEME111 OFFICE OF F , OFFICE OF EMERGkNCY OFFICE OF OFF ICE OF ENVIRON |
AINFORMATION AND L DIWA TER PROGRAM ND REMEDIAL OFFCE
IFOERMATIONS ANDSPONE AM RADIATION PROGRAMS EFFECTS RESEARCH

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION DRINKING WATER HEALTH RESEARCH
CINCINNATI

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.

! 1 - - , I _, � "- I . i I[
REGION jI REGION II REGION Vll REGION I V
|80STON || NEW YORK ||~PHILADELPHIA| |ATLANrA CHICAGO DALLAS ANSASCIT DENVER SAFRAC SEATTL

Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency organizational

rhnrt

REGIONAL OFFICES

THE ADMINISTRATOR

I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~I I I I
REGION I REGION III REGION V REGION VII REGION IX
BOSTON PHILADELPHIA CHICAGO KANSAS CITY SAN FRANrISCO

JIu ~ REGION 11 REGION IV REGION VI REGION VIII REGION X
NEW YORK ATLANTA DALLAS DENVER SEATTLE

Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional offices

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

I DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMIN.

r- - ....... I
I~~~~~~~~~~~ I
OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL IOFF. OF ASSISTANT
REGIONAL COUNSEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS & INTERGOVERNMENTAL LIAISON IREGIONAL ADMIN. FOR
LPOLICY & MANAGEMENT

ASST. REGIONAL ASST. REGIONAL PERSONNEL MGMT. OFFICE OF
COUNSEL AIR f COUNSEL SOLID BRANCH COMPTROLLER
BRANCH WASTE & EMERGENCY
RESPONSE BRANCH

ASST. REGIONAL ASST. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT
COUNSEL WATER COUNSEL GRANTS, ADMINISTRATION BCH.
BRANCH CONTRACTS

I I I I
WATER MGMT. AIR & WASTE MGMT. ENVIRONMENTAL SERV.
DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION

Figure 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III
organizational chart

used to establish quality standards for potable water, prescribe treatment
techniques, establish monitoring and performance standards for sub-surface
disposal of wastes, and approve aquifer protection petitions. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
establishes a fund for the clean-up of abandoned hazardous waste sites.
The Clean Air Act is used to regulate air emmissions and enforce state
clean air implementation plans. All EPA programs are managed according to
policy guidelines established by the agency Administrator in Washington.
Within the headquarters offices, major program priorities are identified by
Assistant Administrators responsible for specific legislative mandates (see
Figure I for current headquarters organizational chart). Although policies
and program priorities are established in EPA's Washington offices, program
F ~~management is accomplished by Regional Administrators located in 10 cities
throughout the continental United States. In addition to "line management"
responsibilities, the 10 regional administrators are authorized to
negotiate environmental management, delegation, and other administrative
agreements involving the use of Federal environmental protection funds with
r ~~individual states. The three states involved in management of the-
Chesapeake Bay are located in EPA's Region III. The Regional Offices are
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see Figures 2 and 3 for regional
organization).

As mentioned previously, the EPA administers a variety of legislation,
all of which is focused primarily on the protection or enhancement of the
environment. Although there are several national programs authorized by
Congress involving Federal management of land usage, Federal jurisdiction
is limited to management of lands owned by the U.S. government. There
currently are no Federal laws authorizing general Federal land management
programs.

The CBP has produced a directory of Federal, state, and local agencies
that administer programs which directly affect Chesapeake Bay environmental
quality. The following Federal agencies also are involved to some extent
in environmental management, as defined and limited by specific legislative
authorization:

o Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has
resulted in a dramatic modification of all Federal agency
responsibilities, for the act mandated a comprehensive environmental
review of all major Federal actions significantly affecting the human
environment. This review was to take place early enough in the agency
decision-making process to influence the outcome of Federal agency
deliberations. However, this is not the only Federal environmental
review statute. Some thirty other Federal statutes impose
environmental requirements on Federal activities. Traditionally
mission-oriented agencies can no longer manage their area of concern by
their own professioal standards. They must satisfy air and water
quality standards, be aware of how state coastal zone management plans
affect their mission, take account of the Corps of Engineers
requirements for wetlands and water course areas, identify endangered
species and their habitats, and prepare environmental impact statements
for all major Federal actions.

E- 9

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was designed toI
incorporate environmental considerations into Federal agency
decision-making. The basic idea was to require agencies to explore,
consider, and publicly describe the adverse effects of their programs. i
The assumption was that those programs would be revised in favor of
less environmentally damaging activities. The vehicle for achieving
this was the "action-forcing" provision of NEPA which requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on every major
Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The CEQ
reviews the EIS and generally is responsible for coordinations of
Federal activities.

o Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

The CZMA was enacted in 1972 to encourage state governments to4
develop and implement land and water resource management programs for .
their coastal areas. The objective of these programs is to establish
comprehensive and coordinated management to assure the orderly and
environmentally sound development of coastal areas. The Federal
government provides financial assistance to the states to develop and
implement these programs if the states meet the guidelines established
for program approval. These guidelines are rather broad and basically
require the state to establish a process for making decisions on
coastal resource use, rather than requiring any specific substantive
decisions.

Once a state has an approved program, all Federal,
Federally-assisted, or licensed projects must be certified as
consistent with the state program before they can go forward. Although
this looks like a potentially powerful mechanism for state governments
to control Federal action, several exceptions can be made from the
consistency requirement. If the project or license is necessary in the
interest of national security, consistency will not apply. The
Secretary of Commerce also can override a finding of "inconsistency" if
the proposed action meets the broad objectives of the CZMIA, satisfies
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the FWPCA, the adverse impacts
are outweighed by the benefits to the nation, and there is no
reasonable alternative to the action.

o Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)

One of the oldest environmental review statutes is the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. It has had a substantial impact on the
planning and development of certain types of Federal projects,
particularly Army Corps of Engineers (COE) dam projects. it applies to
Federal licenses and permits and basically to any Federal agency
activities that would affect the water of the United States. The
agency preparing the action must consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) concerning the conservation of wildlife.

o The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The ESA is a recent addition to the area of environmental review
statutes. The key provision is Section 7, which requires all Federal
agencies to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the

E- 10

continued existence of endangered or threatened species and their
habitats. The administration of this law is divided between the FWS
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), with NMFS being
responsible for marine species.

o Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)

The MPRSA authorizes the Department of Commuerce to designate
various areas as marine sanctuaries. These areas must be of important
conservation, recreation, ecological, or aesthetic value in ocean,
estuarine, or Great Lakes waters. Designated sanctuaries are to fall
within one or a combination of five different classifications: habitat
areas, species areas, research areas, recreational and aesthetic areas,
and unique areas.

Before a sanctuary is designated, the Secretary of Commerce is
required to consult with various Federal agencies, including the
Secretary of interior. However, these other agency viewpoints are not
binding on Commerce. Once designated, Commerce has the authority to
veto any Federal permits or licenses that would adversely affect the
sanctuary. The MPRSA also contains a ban on ocean disposal of
hazardous wastes which will degrade the marine environment. The EPA
administers the ocean dumping provisions through issuance of permits
for certain types of ocean dumping activities.

o The National Historic Preservation Act (NI{PA)

This act established the National Register of Historic Places and
requires Federal agencies to consult with the newly created Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation whenever Federal projects could have
adverse impacts on historic or archaeological sites. This would apply
not only to sites that are on the register but also to those that are
eligible for listing

o The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)

The purpose of the OCSLA is to regulate the granting of mineral
leases on the OCS by the Federal government.

o The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The USDA has been engaged in erosion-prevention efforts since the
1930's through local soil conservation districts, the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, and others to reduce the problem. These
programs, originally intended primarily for soil conservation, now
serve as the basis for water quality protection efforts in agricultural
areas.

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), as a branch of the USDA,
provides District Conservationists and other Federal employers who work
side-by-side with state and local officials. They provide outreach and
technical assistance to farmers for pollution control, which includes
the design of site-specific pollution control measures. The SCS
produces many of the basic handbooks and specifications used by state
conservation districts in their day-to-day work of farm plan

E- 11

development and sediment and erosion control plan review. in addition, the
SCS performs research and development in pollution-control technology and
carries out watershed management and other special studies. The SCS
provides national inventory and monitoring studies as a resource base on a
regular basis.

Another branch of the USDA is the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS). Through its national and state Agricultural
Conservation Program, the ASCS provides cost-share opportunities and
financial incentives to farmers initiating practices covered by the program.

E- 12

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF EXISTING STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

A. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

District of Columbia: Administered by the Department of Environmental
Services (Bureau of Air and Water Quality)

Maryland: Administered by the Office of Environmental Programs,
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Water
Management Administration for municipal discharges,
and Waste Management Administration for industrial
discharges)

Pennsylvania: Administered by the Department of Environmental
Resources (Bureau of Water Quality Mangement)

Virginia: Administered by the State Water Control Board

All discrete (point source) discharges are regulated under the NPDES, which
has been delegated by EPA to each of these states. Included are industrial
waste treatment facilities, and publicly and privately owned sewage treatment
works. Dischargers must use Best Practicable Treatment Technology, be
consistent with Area-wide Water Quality Management ("208") Plans, and meet
State Water Quality Standards (see Table 1).

Special effluent limitations on phosphorus or nitrogen discharges have
been set by each state for particular areas of the Bay or its tributaries
as follows:

District of Columbia: No phosphorus or nitrogen limitation policy.
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Limits
are:

Dates 7-Day 30-Day
-1
mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4/1-10/31 2.4 3.6
11/1-3/31 5.0 7.5

Total Phosphorus 0.22 0.33

Administered by the Department of Environmental Services
(Bureau of Air and Water Quality)

(continued)

E-13

TABLE 2. (Continued)

Maryland: Upper Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Policy: Effluent
limit of 2.0 mg L -1 phosphorus for all waste-water
treatment facilities discharging more than 0.5 MGD
above the Gunpowder River and more than 10 MGD
between the Gunpowder and Choptank Rivers.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Susquehanna River Discharge Policy:
At least 80% removal of phosphorus by all new or
modified waste-water treatment facilities to main-
stem or tributaries below Juniata River.

Virginia: Special water quality standards for nitrogen and
phosphorus have been set by Virginia for tidal
embayments of the Potomac River, in the Washington,
DC area, the Chickahominy River, and the Lynnhaven
River.

B. CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS

District of Columbia: Administered by the Department of Environmental
Services (Bureau of Air and Water Quality)

Maryland: Administered by the office of Environmental Program
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Water
Management Administration)

Pennsylvania: Administered by the Department of Environmental Res,
(Bureau of Water Quality Management)

Virginia: Administered by the State Water Control Board

The allocation of Federal Construction Grant Funds for planning, design, an(
construction of POTWs is managed by each of the states although final
regulatory authority is held by EPA, Region III. POTWs must be consistent
with Area-wide Water Quality Management ("208") Plans, and meet State Water
Quality Standards (see Table 1) and special effluent limitations (see NPDES
above) Priorities for the allocation of funds are set by each state, using
the following general criteria:

(continued)

E- 14

TABLE 2. (Continued)

District of Columbia: 1. Impairment of water uses from existing municipal
discharges.
2. Extent of resulting improvements of surface and
ground-water.
3. Completing system for a phase previously awarded.
4. Population served.
5. Specific category need addressed.

Maryland: I. Needs category and purpose--type of facility
improvements.
2. Stream segment severity--existing quality.
F ~~~~~~~~~3. Project benefit--water quality and health.
4. Population affected.
5. Special program goals.

Pennsylvania: 1. Water pollution control factors.
2. Stream segment priority.
3. Population affected.

Virginia: 1. Public health impacts.
2. Severity of effect on water quality.
3. Population served.
4. Need to preserve existing high quality waters.

C. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL

District of Columbia: Local program administered by Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs (Flooding and Erosion Control
Section). Regulatory requirement applied to erodible
material exposed by any project activity, with permits
for all projects and plans for projects more than 50
sq. ft. and/or $2500.

Maryland: Responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources
(Water Resources Administration). State law requires
sediment and erosion control measures for all con-
struction activities. Certain aspects of program are
delegated to local jurisdictions, with state oversight.

(continued)

E-l 5

TABLE 2. (Continued)

Pennsylvania: Administered by the Department of Environmental Resources,
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation. Regulatory
requirement for persons engaged in earth-moving
activities to maintain control measures, with
permits required for activities involving more than
25 acres.

Virginia: Responsibility of Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Counties and cities must adopt and enforce state E. &i
S. Standards, or develop their own, which must be at
least as restrictive as state standards. State provides
oversight.

D. AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF CONTROL

District of Columbia: Not applicable

Maryland: State Agricultural Cost-Sharing Program (enacted in
1982) administered by the Department of Agriculture
and office of Environmental Programs, Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene. Critical watersheds and
appropriate practices needed identified in State-wide
208 Plan for Agricultural Runoff, administered by
State Soil Conservation Committee. Soil Conservation
districts promote development of voluntary soil
conservat ion plans.

Pennsylvania: State regulations require all farms to have conservation
plans. In practice, however, program is voluntary.
Conservation plan development for farms by Soil Conserva-
tion Districts. Best Management Practices for manure
management identified by Department of Environmental
Resources. Priority watersheds needing control identifies
in State Agriculture and Earthmoving ("208") Plan, admin-
istered by the Department of Environmental Resources.

Virginia: Voluntary program of compliance with Best Management
Practices developed by the State Water Control Board
(SWCB). Soil Conservation Districts provide technical4
assistance. Priority watersheds needing control have
been identified by the SWCB, Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, and the US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.

(continued)

E- 16

TABLE 2. (Continued)

E. URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL

District of Columbia: Local program administered by the Department of
Environmental Services. Maintains street sweeping
and catch-basin cleaning.

P ~~Maryland: State-wide storm-water management law (aimed at both
quantity and quality of runoff) enacted in 1982,
administered by the Department of Nautral Resources,
Water Resources Administration. Counties must enact
stormwater management ordinances (by 7/84) that are
at least as strict as state guidelines to be developed
by 6/83.

Pennsylvania: Storm water management program administered by the
Department of Environmental Resources (Bureau of
Dams and Waterway Management). Counties must prepare
watershed plans. Localities must adopt implementing
ordinances. Both plans and ordinances are to address
quality as well as quantity of stormwater runoff.

Virginia: State-wide voluntary program of compliance with Best
Management Practices. Localities have option of
requiring control. State-wide stormwater management
law enacted in 1982 and is administered by the State
Soil Conservation Commission.

F. SHELLFISH SANITATION

District of Columbia: Not applicable

Maryland: Responsibility of the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene (Water Management Administration). Establishes
regulatory standards, monitors shellfish growing areas,
and closes areas unsafe for the taking of shellfish.

Pennsylvania: Not applicable

Virginia: Responsibility of the Department of Health (Bureau
of Shellfish Sanitation). Established regulatory
standards, monitors shellfish growing areas, and
closes areas unsafe for the taking of shellfish.

(continued)

E- 17

TABLE 2. (Continued

G. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

District of Columbia: Local program development begun by the 'Department
of Environmental Services (Bureau of Air and Water4
Quality) and Department of Recreation.

Maryland: Department of Natural Resources (Tidewater
Administration) regulates the taking of fish, licenses
commercial and recreational fishermen, and coordinates
an extensive oyster culture program.

Pennsylvania: Fish Commission administers fishing and boating laws4
and is responsible for propagation and protection of
fish life.

Virginia: Marine Resources Commission manages public oyster
grounds and leases state-owned bottom to private
shellfish growers. Licenses commercial and
recreational fishermen.

H. WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

District of Columbia: Not applicable

Maryland: Dredging and filling of public and private wetlands4
are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources
(Water Resources Administration).

Pennsylvania: Administered by the Department of Environmental
Resources, Bureau of Dams and Waterways Management.

Virginia: State Wetlands Act authorizes localities to establish
local Wetlands Boards to regulate activities affecting
wetlands. oversight by Marine Resources Commission.

I. DREDGING, FILLING, AND DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT

District of Columbia: Administered by the Department of Environmental Services
(Bureau of Air and Water Quality). While final authority
is held by the Army Corps of Engineers, the District
performs many of the program activities.*

(continued)

*Enabling legislation for delegation is pending before the District of Columbia
Corporation Council; passage by the City Council and signing by the Mayor is
expected later in 1983.

E- 18

TABLE 2. (Continued)

Maryland: (See Wetlands Management above.) The Department
of Natural Resources jointly processes state
wetlands permit applications and those required
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Office of
Environmental Programs, Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene (Water Management Administration)
issues Water Quality Certificates for these permits.

Pennsylvania: Not applicable

Virginia: Responsibility of the Marine Resources Commission,
which jointly processes state permit applications and
those required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The State Water Control Board issues Water Quality
Certificates for these permits.

E-19

Section 2

STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia (DC) have
established state programs to control discharges of pollutants and to protect
and enhance the quality of their waters, including the Chesapeake Bay. These
states also have fisheries and wetlands management programs, which are
concerned indirectly with Chesapeake Bay water quality. Table 2 summarizes
the major existing state programs. A more detailed discussion of Federal
authorizing legislation and individual state programs can be found in
Appendix B.

All three states and DC have been delegated authority by the EPA for
administration of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The
primary difference among each state's program is the extent of treatment
dischargers must provide to comply with individual state water quality
standards. Standards are set by each state, and approved by the EPA. Each4
jurisdiction classifies its waters by use or by class, and each category
has its own set of water quality standards. The use/class designations
are different for each jurisdiction, with Virginia' s being primarily related
to the physical characteristics of the waters, and Maryland's being related
to water uses. Pennsylvania's use/class designations are also related to
anticipated water uses, but define a greater variety of uses (see Table 3).

All three states and the District also allocated Federal construction grants
for publicly-owned sewage treatment works. Each jurisdiction allocates its
funds according to a priority rating system, established by the state and
approved by the EPA. The priority systems have been summarized in Table 2.
Maryland gives approximately equal weight to pollution abatement, protection
of water uses, type of facility improvement, and "special program goals".
Pennsylvania's system is structured to support water-use objectives established
by the state. Virginia sets priorities based on public health impacts, water
quality conditions, population, and maintenance of existing high quality waters.
The District's system ranks water-use protection and improvement of surface
and ground water quality above completing the system for a phase previously
awarded, the population to be served, and the specific category needed. Current
state projects dealing with nonpoint source problems that are funded through
EPA Region III's 208 program are included in Sectin 3 of this appendix along
with maps showing problem areas.

All three states and DC have erosion and sediment control programs. Virginia's
is delegated to local jurisdictions (where local jurisdictions do not assume
responsibility, the state does); Maryland's is partly state, partly local;
and Pennsylvania's is completely a state responsibility.

Agricultural runoff control is voluntary in all three states, although
Pennsylvania regulations require farm conservation plans. In addition, all
three states have worked with the Soil Conservation Service and identified

E- 20

TABLE 3. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CLASS/USE DESIGNATIONS

VIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA

I Open Ocean CWF Cold-Water Fishes
II Estuarine (Tidal Water--Coastal WWF Warm-Water Fishes
Zone to Fall Line) NF Migratory Fishes
III Free-Flowing Streams (Coastal PWS Potable Water Supply
Zone and Piedmont) IWS Industrial Water Supply
IV Mountainous Zone LWS Livestock Water Supply
V Put and Take Trout Waters AWS Wildlife Water Supply
VI Natural Trout Waters IRS Irrigation
VII Swamp Water B Boating
F Fishing
MARYLAND WC Water Contact Sports
E Esthetics
I Water Contact Recreation and HQ High Quality Waters
Aquatic Life EV Exceptional Value Waters
II Shellfish Harvesting N Navigation
III Natural Trout Waters
IV Recreational Trout Waters

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

A Primary Contact Recreation
B Secondary Contact Recreation
C Aquatic Life and Water-Oriented Wildlife
D Raw Water Source for Public Water Supply
E Navigational Use

watersheds with a high potential for agricultural pollution. These areas
have been targeted for soil conservation funding. The USDA/EPA Rural Clean
Water Program has funded grants to reduce agricultural runoff in three
small watersheds, one in each state. The Maryland General Assembly passed
* ~~a 5 million dollar cost-sharing program in 1982 for the implementation of
* ~~agricultural runoff control practices.

Virginia has a voluntary program for urban runoff control.
Pennsylvania and Virginia have enacted a mandatory stormwater management
law that includes provisions for water quality, although funds have not
been appropriated. The Maryland legislature has enacted a stormwater
runoff law which the state is now beginning to implement. This law
consists of enabling legislation which requires counties and municipalities
to enact stormwater management ordinances by July 1, 1984. The state is
developing regulations and guidance regarding requirements; this effort
will be completed by July 1, 1983. The District of Columbia government
administers a local program that includes street sweeping and catch basin
cleaning. In addition to state efforts, regional water quality agencies
(such as Baltimore's Regional Planning Council, Washington Council of

E- 21

Governments, and Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency) are helping state and
local governments develop solutions for stormwater runoff problems.

Virginia and Maryland have similar programs for shellfish sanitation
and Bay fisheries management. Wetlands management is a local
responsibility in Virginia and a state responsibility in Maryland.
Dredging, filling, and dredged material placement programs are similar in
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Shellfish and wetland
programs in Pennsylvania are not applicable to the Bay.

MARYLAND CONTROL PROGRAMS

Maryland's portion of the Chesapeake Bay encompasses the open Bay and
its tributary estuaries which lie north of Smith Point at the mouth of the
Potomac River. The Potomac River itself lies entirely in Maryland, except
for its southern tributaries (the Virginia-Maryland boundary crosses from
headland to headland) and the portion within the District of Columbia.
Maryland's boundary with Virginia crosses the Bay from Smith Point through
the middle of Pocomoke Sound on the Eastern Shore.

In Maryland, responsibility for water quality and water resource
management is shared by the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) in the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The Department of Transportation, the Department of State
Planning, and the Department of Agriculture have limited responsibilities.
From 1970 to 1980, the over-all authority and responsibility for planning,
regulation, monitoring, and research affecting the water quality and
ecology of the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay resided in the
Department of Natural Resources.

Maryland's environmental regulatory programs were reorganized in 1980,
through a transfer of water quality and waste management programs from the
Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, where a new Office of Environmental Programs was created. As a
result of the reorganization, the major programs which regulate water
quality are administered by the Office of Environmental Programs; the
Department of Natural Resources continues to administer the state water
resources management programs. An organizational chart for the office of
Environmental Programs is shown in Figure 4, and for the Department of
Natural Resources in Figure 5.

Two administrations in the Office of Environmental Programs are
responsible for activities which affect and maintain Chesapeake Bay water
quality. The Water Management Administration establishes water quality
standards and approves county water and sewer plans, area-wide waste
management ("208") plans, sewage treatment plant discharge permits, and
construction grants for publicly-owned treatment works. The OEP also
establishes standards for on-site sewerage and community water supplies.
Water quality monitoring programs are administered by the Water Management
Administration. The Waste Management Administration within OEP develops
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for industrial
facilities and administers permit programs for land disposal of hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes. Each of the two OEP administrations is
authorized to undertake facility inspections, compliance monitoring, and
enforcement activities.

E- 22

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE

I SECRETARY

I
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
ASSISTANT SECRETARY I

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GROUPL_
ICHIEF(SINE
iSCIENCES AND HEALTH ADVISORY GROUP!
JPLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP ICHIEF
ICHIEF

tb j I II
AIR MANAGEMENT WATER MANAGEMENTI WASTE MANAGEMENT i COMMUNITY HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION I ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT PROGRM,
DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR J ADMINISTRATOR

!~~~~~ I I !!Ii

TECHNICAL ENGINEERING PLANNING & INSPECTION & MUNICIPAL TECHNICAL SERV. ENFORCEMENT I
SERVICES PROGRAM, EVALUATION COMPLIANCE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, PROGRAM,
PROGRAM, ADMINISTRATOR PROGRAM, PROGRAM, GRANTS & ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTATOR ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR PERMITS
PROGRAM,
ADMINISTRATOR

Figure 4. Maryland Office of Environmental Programs organizational
chart

{I~ -"~ � SECRETARY

LEGAL AND ADVISORY BOARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD OF REVIEW AND
REVIEW COMMISSIONS

Igo~ | ~DEPUTY SECRETARY

ASSISTANT ASSISTANT
SECRETARY l SECRETARY
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT MATTERS
DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
LICENSING AND ASSISTANCE FISCAL AND
p.. CONSUMER PERSONNEL SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES AND INFORMATION SERVICES

WATER MARYLAND CAPITAL
RESOURCES ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS TIDEWATER
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION SERVICE ADMINISRATION ADMINISTRATION

MARYLAND NATURAL MARYLAND MARYLAND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE FOREST AND GEOLOGICAL
TRUST POLICE ADMINISTRATION PARK SURVEY
SERVICE

Figure 5. Maryland Department of Natural Resources organizational
chart

Several administrations in the Department of Natural Resources manage
various aspects of Chesapeake Bay resources, including fisheries, wetlands,
wildlife, erosion and sediment control, and emergency response to spills of
oil.

The Water Resources Administration (WRA) includes regulatory programs
applicable to activities affecting water quality such as sediment control,
surface mining, small ponds, flood control, waterway construction and
obstruction, dam safety, dredging and filling of private wetlands, and
stormwater management. The WRA is also responsible for oil control. The
WRA conducts water supply planning and issues water appropriations permits.

The Tidewater Administration of the DNR is responsible for several
programs which are applicable to the tidal waters and adjacent areas,
including coastal resources management (including the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Program), enhancement of tidal fisheries, and improvement of
navigable waterways through specific projects.

The DNR's Wildlife Administration regulates hunting and manages
wildlife populations and habitats.

The Wetlands Administration regulates and develops permits for the
dredging and filling of state-owned wetlands.

The DNR is primarily a regulatory and resource management agency. It
also includes the Maryland Environmental Service, however, which constructs
and operates wastewater treatment plants and potable water treatment and
supply facilities.

Several other state agencies administer programs which affect the
Chesapeake Bay. The Department of Natural Resources runs the Power Plant
Siting Program, the Department of Transportation includes the Port
Administration, and the Department of Agriculture regulates pesticides and
participates in the planning of controls for agricultural sources of
pollution.

The programs mentioned above were developed in response to state and
Federal legislation as well as public concern. In addition to these
programs, there are several state-mandated programs that are administered
at the local level. Sediment and flood control, for example, are
activities managed by local government agencies in accordance with state
standards.

Water Quality Management Activities

The following discussion is organized around the types of activities
and facilities which may cause or alleviate water quality problems in the
Chesapeake Bay. Each section briefly mentions the responsibilities and
programs of the various governmental units concerned with the specific
problem.

Water Quality Standards---
The state's water quality standards are set and updated by the Water
Management Administration, OEP. The standards are set by stream segment,
and define the designated uses of the waters and the water quality criteria

E- 25

set to protect those uses. The water quality criteria used include
coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity, toxicants, and
residual chlorine. The four water-use classes established for Maryland
are: Class I -- Water Contact Recreation and Aquatic Life; Class II -- I
Shellfish Harvesting Waters; Class III -- Natural Trout Waters; and Class
IV -- Recreational Trout Waters.

Effluent limitations are established in NPDES permits for all
discharges which, according to guidance and engineering judgement, are
designed to ensure compliance with existing water quality standards. In
the upper Chesapeake Bay, an effluent limit of 2.0 mg L-1 of phosphorus
exists for all sewage treatment plants discharging more than 0.5 million
gallons per day (MGD) north of Baltimore or discharging more than 10 MGD
between Baltimore and the Bay Bridge.

Industrial Waste Discharges---
Permits for discharges required under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) are issued by the Waste Management Administra-
tion, QEP, for industrial waste, and by the Water Management Administration,
OEP, for sewage treatment plants.

Industrial dischargers must use best practicable control technology,
and proposed discharges must be consistent with the state's water quality
standards. Permit issuance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement of
permits is carried out by the Waste Management Administration, GEP.

Publicly-Owned Sewage Treatment Works---
The Water Management Administration also issues NPDES permits for
publicly-owned sewage treatment plant discharges. In addition, sewage
treatment plants must comply with county water and sewer plans, which are
prepared at the county level, and approved by the Water Management
Administration. The Water Management Administration monitors all permitted
sewage treatment plant effluents at least monthly, in cooperation with
county health departments. The majority of sewage treatment facilities are
owned and operated by local county and municipal agencies. Local treatment
works may apply for Federal funding under Section 201 of the CWA, which
provides up to three-quarters of planning, design, and construction costs.
The Federal share will be reduced to 55 percent after October 1, 1984. The
Water Management Administration, OEP, is the lead agency for implementation
of the 201 program in Maryland and oversees plant planning and construction.

The Water Management Administration also administers a state grant
program which provides up to 12.5 percent of publicly-owned sewage
treatment facility construction costs. The Health Hazard Abatement Grant
Program, which funds sewage treatment facilities needed to eliminate health
risks due to failing on-site sewage treatment systems, is also administered
by the Water Management Administration.

The Maryland Environmental Service, DNR, also owns and maintains sewage
treatment facilities and hazardous waste facilities. Both the DNR and the
OEP may order the Maryland Environmental Service to intervene if locally
operated treatment facilities fail to comply with state standards.

Privately-Owned Sewage Treatment Works---
The Water Management Administration also regulates the construction and

E- 26

operation of individual sewage disposal systems and requires provision of
treatment facilities prior to construction of subdivisions.

On-Site Sewage Disposal---
individual septic system construction is regulated by the Water
Management Administration through county health departments. County water
and sewer plans document septic failures attributable to small lots, high
water tables, poor percolation, and steep slopes.

Area-wide Waste Management Planning--
The Water Management Administration, OEP, has primary responsibility
for the formulation of area-wide waste management plans required by Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, except in the Baltimore and
Washington metropolitan regions, where the responsibility was delegated to
the Regional Planning Council and the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, respectively. The State Soil Conservation Committee,
Department of Agriculture, works with the Water Management Administration
P ~~~~in the preparation and implementation of the state-wide Agricultural 208
Plan for the control of sediment and animal waste. Table 4 summarizes
Maryland programs for controlling nonpoint source pollution.

Agricultural Runof f--
Through the 208 program, the state has developed a strategy for
controlling sediment and animal waste from agricultural runoff. This
P ~~~~strategy was prepared with the cooperation of the State Soil Conservation
Committee (SSCC) with the cooperation of many other organizations. The
SSCC has lead responsibility for identifying priority areas where the
potential for water pollution from agriculture is great and for identifying
appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling sediment and
animal wastes; both BMPs and the potential critical watershed have been
identified and an implementation strategy is presented in the state-wide
* ~~~~Agriculture Plan. in support of this program, the OEP maintains regular
representation on the SSCC and offers assistance to the SSCC in overcoming
p ~~~~obstacles to implementation of this program.

In addition to these state priority areas, local Soil Conservation
Districts (SCD's) have mapped in detail their local "critical areas." The
SCD's work to promote the development of voluntary soil conservation and
water quality plans by'farmers.

In 1982, a law was passed which set up a Maryland agricultural
cost-sharing program to supplement the Federal cost-sharing program run by
the USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The
program, Lo which 5 million dollars were allocated, is to be administered
by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDlA) and the Offices of
Environmental Programs (OEP), Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The
OEP is mandated to develop criteria for eligible projects to recieve the
cost-share assistance, while the MDA will serve as the link to farmers and
administer the distribution of funds.

Additional information on agricutlural and other nonpoint source
problem areas in Maryland and current state projects funded by EPA's Region
III are included in Section 3 of this appendix.

The Department of Agriculture administers the pesticide and pest

E- 27

TABLE 4. MARYLAND PROGRAMS FOR CONTROLLING MAJOR NONPOINT SOURCES

Date and
NPS Type Basis for Program Mandatory? Agency Responsibility Comments

agricultural 1940s-SCDs-state law no technical assistance -SCDs committed
pollution SCS/ASCS-fed. law SCDs/SCS but understaffed
(sediment, 1979 -State 208 Agri- Cost-share ASCS (fed) -1970's & 1980's
fertilizer & culture Plan OEP/MDA (State) breathing new
waste, etc.) (no law) OEP preparing to do life in the
1982 -State funded ongoing, modest program (State
cost-share law research cost-share is
(unprecedented in big boost)
MD) eventual result
unknown now but
outlook is hope
ful

sediment 1970 -State sediment yes SCD-plan approval -programs vary
control control law (farms counties - enforce- greatly from
(const- (no State funds exempt) ment oversight by county to count
uction, to local agencies) WRA -individual
surface county programs
mining) fluctuate in
quality over tii
-State must
monitor regular
ly - endlessly

urban run- 1970s-local ordinances yes counties (plan review, -program being
off (new in urban counties watershed planning developed by
development) 1977 -WRA "policy" enforcement) WRA
1982 -State stormwater oversight, research -most urban
law (no State by WRA (State $, counties have
funds to locals) FEMA $) quantity orient
ed guidelines
-State agencies
accepting

urban run- no law no only incidental to little being don
off (older other local functions
areas)

urban run- 1972 -Clean Water Act yes OEP makes runoff treat-
off (NPDES program) ment a condition of
(industrial) many industrial permits

(continued)

E-28

TABLE 4. (Continued)

Date and
NPS-Type Basis for Program Mandatory? Agency Responsibility Comments

hazardous 1976 -State Hazardous yes OEP (with EPA) -aggressive action
waste sites Substances Act on large older
Federal RCRA sites
1980 Hazardous -stringent new
Waste Siting criteria for new
Board sites
-State ownership
and operation of
major hazardous
waste sites

septic old State law, local yes OEP, local health -design criteria
system law departments have gotten more
stringent in
1970's

NOTES:

NPS: Nonpoint source
SCD: Soil Conservation Districts (county-level)
SCS/ASCS: Soil Conservation Service/Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (federal)
WRA: Maryland Water Resources Administration
OEP: Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
MDA: Maryland Department of Agriculture

E-29

control program, which requires registration and proper packaging and
labelling of pesticides, as well as proper application of pesticides.

Urban Runof f--
Maryland does have a comprehensive program to address stormwater runoff
in existing areas. The Water Resources Administration, DNR, has the lead
responsibility for addressing the quantity impacts of stormwater runoff,
including flooding, while the Water Management Administration, OEP, is
responsible for stormwater impacts on water quality. Under a state law
passed in 1982, counties are required to have a stormwater management
program by July 1, 1984.

The state's current strategy for urban nonpoint sources of water
pollution rests on (1) a continuing review of the evolving body of
knowledge relating to the mitigation of the urban runoff impacts, (2) an
investigation of the legal, institutional, and economic aspects of
establishing effective stormwater management programs at the state and
local levels, and (3) a program of "technology transfer" for the purpose of
sharing this knowledge with concerned citizens, local officials, and other
state agency officials in Maryland. only limited staff resources have been
available for this work.
Runoff from Construction Activities---
State law and regulations require sediment and erosion control measures
for construction activities in general, as well as for timber-harvesting
operations and surface-mining activities. Under the existing state
program, each county or municipality must adopt grading and building
ordinances necessary to carry out the sediment control program and submit
them to the Water Resources Administration, DNR, for approval. Local
ordinances require that a person obtain a grading or building permit before
any clearing, construction, or development may begin. One requirement for4
receiving such a permit is that the developer submit an erosion and
sediment control plan, which must be approved by the local Soil
Conservation District.

Land clearing or construction activities carried out by a state agency
require Department of Natural Resources approval. The OEP has entered an
agreement with the Water Resources Administration, DNR, to work
cooperatively in implementing and enforcing sediment and erosion control
programs. The QEP is responsible for *"sediment as a pollutant" (after it
has entered a waterway), and will notify the Water Resources Administration
of any apparent sediment and erosion control plan violations which are
observed.

Surf ace Mining---
The surface mining of minerals, including sand and gravel, are
regulated by the Water Resources Administration, DNR, under the Maryland
Surface Mining Act of 1975.

Dredging, Filling, and Spoil Disposal--
The Department of Natural Resources regulates the dredging and filling
of private wetlands and the state Board of Public Works regulates the
dredging and filling of state wetlands.

Federal permits are requried from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for

E-3 0

the discharge of dredged material into navigable waters, or to build any
structure, *to excavate, or to deposit any material in navigable waters.
Spoil material dredged from the bottom of Chesapeake Bay to maintain
maritime shipping channels is currently disposed of on land or in diked
containment areas.

The Department of Natural Resources has entered into an agreement with
the Corps of Engineers, providing for joint processing of state and Federal
permits. In addition, the Corps is required to consult with state agencies
and consider state policy when making determination on permit applications.

The Federal Water Pollution control Act provides for delegation of the
Federal permit program for dredged and fill material to the individual
states. Corps of Engineers permits are required for spoil disposal
containment sites under Section 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. In addition, permit applications for activities affecting Maryland's
coastal zone certification are available from the Coastal Resources
Division of the DNR.

Discharges from dredging and spoil disposal operations are regulated by
the OEP under the state's general authority to control water pollution.
The Department of Natural Resources administers a permit program
specifically for approval of Baltimore Harbor dredge spoil disposal sites.

Major dredging projects are primarily Federally funded and carried out
by the Corps of Engineers. However, the state is required to provide
suitable sites for spoil containment and to fund disposal operations. The
Department of General Services is responsible for approving all contracts,
plans, and specifications for public improvement projects and has been
designated as the lead agency in supervising the construction of spoil
disposal sites.

Dredging operations on a smaller scale are carried out by the Capital
Programs Administration of the Department of Natural Resources.

Shipping -- Oil Spills--
The Department of Natural Resources is empowered to regulate facilities
involved in receiving, transferring or discharging oil in order to prevent
and control potential oil spills. The Maryland Port Administration has
some regulatory power over vessels transporting oil. In addition, the
Maryland Port Administration is responsible for developing programs to
prevent and control oil spills in the Baltimore Harbor Area.

A license from the Department of Natural Resources is required to
p ~~~operate an oil terminal facility in Maryland. License fees and revenue
from fines are credited to the Maryland Oil Disaster Containment, Clean-Up,
and Contingency Fund, which is utilized for oil spill prevention, control,
and clean7-up. Bonding requirements, implemented by the Maryland Port
Administration, are imposed upon vessels carrying oil in Maryland waters.
Oil spill prevention and control programs are carried out in conjunction
with the U.S. Coast Guard. The Port Administration has enacted regulations
* ~~~governing the operation of vessels in Baltimore Harbor.

-Boating -- Sewage--
The dumping of refuse by boaters is specifically prohibited by Maryland
law.

E-31I

Shoreline Erosion--
The Wetlands Act of 1970 allows owners of waterfront property to make
improvements into the water in front of their land to preserve their access
to navigable water or protect their shore against erosion. Before
constructing soreline improvements, the land owner is required to notify
the Department of Natural Resources. In projects involving the filling of
state wetlands, a permit from the state Board of Public Works is required.

The Department of Natural Resources provides interest-free loans for
the construction of approved shore erosion control structures through the

Shore Erosion Control Construction Load Fund. Under this program, thej
department designs and supervises shore erosion projects, provides
technical assistance to property owners, and administers the loan fund.
Political subdivisions, as well as individual land owners, may apply for
funds. E-ach proposed project is then assigned a priority number based on
the rate of erosion, anticipated public benefit, and other factors. Loans
are repaid through a special tax levied on the benefitted property.

Hazardous Waste--
The "Safe Disposal of Designated Hazardous Substances Act" is
administered by the Waste Management Administration, OEP. The act imposes
general requirements with regard to the operation of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Persons who utilize or
dispose of hazardous wastes must supply the Waste Management
Administration, OEP, with a report identifying the type and quantity of
substances involved, the proposed management or disposal methods, and
detailed information concerning the location and characteristics of the
proposed disposal site. To obtain department permits, hazardous waste
facilities must comply with facility design and capacity standards, undergo
periodic monitoring by the department, establish emergency procedures in
case of accidents, maintain adequate liability insurance, and provide
evidence of financial ability to properly operate and maintain a facility.
Additional department certification is required to transport designated
hazardous substances.

Resources Management--
Fisheries Management--Detailed and comprehensive standards governing
commercial and sport fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay are implemented by the
Department of Natural Resources. In addition, the Department of Natural
Resources has the authority to promulgate fisheries regulations in several
specified subject areas, such as the blue crab fishery, the taking of
oysters from natural bars during closed season, and the restricting the
harvesting of striped bass during spawning season.

The Department of Natural Resources issues licenses to commercial
fishermen,, crabbers, oystermen, and clammers in tidal waters. Money
received as commercial license fees, in addition to taxes, royalties paid
for oyster and clam shells removed from state waters, and fines levied on
commercial fishermen, are credited to the Fisheries Research and
Development Fund. This fund is used for research and the replenishment of
fisheries resources.

The Department of Natural Resources coordinates an extensive oyster
culture program in the Chesapeake. Funds appropriated for oyster
propagation are used to finance the planting of oyster shells, cultch, andI
seed oysters on the natural bars of the state.

E- 32

The Department of Natural Resources is also authorized to acquire
property to be utilized as "state fish refuges" to protect, propagate, or
manage fish in tidal or non-tidal waters.

The Commercial Fisheries Advisory Commission and the Sports Fisheries
Advisory Commission, both appointed by the Governor, consult with the
Department of Natural Resources in the formulation of fisheries policy. In
addition, the DNR is authorized to enter into agreements with other states
to better manage fisheries.

Authority to restrict commercial harvesting of shellfish is shared by
the Department of Natural Resources and the Office of Environmental
Programs of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Particular areas
* ~~may be closed as a conservation measure to promote increased productivity.
* ~~Harvesting may also be prohibited in localities where water pollution poses
a potential health hazard.

The Department of Natural Resources is required to take measures to
increase the productivity or utility of the state's natural oyster base.
This may include a prohibition against harvesting oysters in specified
areas. Similar regualtions apply to closure of clamming grounds.
Harvesting restrictions are enforced by the Natural Resources Police.

Wetlands Management--The Wetlands Act of 1970 authorizes the Department
of Natural Resources to regulate dredging and filling of private wetlands.
Dredging and filling of wetlands is engaged in by private firms to provide
additional suitable land for agriculture and other uses, and for the
purpose of mining sand and gravel. Filling includes the artificial
* ~~alteration of navigable water levels by any physical structure. This
encompasses the construction of shoreline erosion projects.

Public agencies also undertake dredging projects to create and maintain
shipping channels. Public projects are described in the survey of dredging
and spoil disposal activities. The state Board of Public Works has similar
regulatory responsibilities over the dredging and filling of state
wetlands. "State wetlands" include all land under the navigable waters of
the state below mean high tide affected by the regular rise and fall of the
tide. "Private wetlands" are defined as any land not considered a state
wetland, bordering on or lying beneath tidal waters, which is subject to
regular or periodic tidal action and supports aquatic growth. An inventory
of wetlands in the state has been prepared by the Department of Natural
Resources. The State Wetlands Program is coordinated with the Federal
permit program for dredging and filling.

PENNSYLVANIA CONTROL PROGRAMS

Introduction

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is
responsible for the regulation and development of the commonwealth's
natural resources, including the management of activities that affect water
and land resources, minerals, and outdoor recreation. The DER is also
responsible for the control and abatemetit of water and air pollution. It
is the management and control efforts within the Susquehanna River Basin,
primarily, which affect the Chesapeake Bay.

E-33

The DER Organization

The Pennsylvania General Assembly created the DER through ACT 275 of
December 3, 1970. The Department was activated in January 1971 by
abolishing the Department of Forests and Waters, and Mines and Mineral
Industries, and by transferring specific powers from the Departments of
Agriculture, Health, Labor, and Industry, and the state Planning Board
(Figure 1). Act 275 also established the following:

The Citizens Advisory Council---
The Citizens Advisory Council consists of 19 members, including the DER
secretary, and six representatives chosen by the Governor, the speaker of
the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. The members are
unpaid volunteers who seek to increase citizen participation in the
department's decisions. The GAG is charged by law with: reviewing all
environmental laws and making appropriate suggestions for their review,
modification, and codification; reviewing the work of the department and
making recommendations for improvement; and reporting annually to the
Governor and the Legislature. 4

The Environmental Hearing Board--
The Environmental Hearing Board is an independent three-member body of
lawyers, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the
Senate. It holds public hearings and issues adjudications on orders,
permits, licenses, or decisions of the department.

The Environmental Quality Board--
The Environmental Quality Board is a 21-member panel of state agency
officials, legislators, and citizens. It is responsible for developing the
Environmental Master Plan, formulating and adopting rules and regulations
governing department programs, and advising the department on policy
issues. The DER is organized into six major offices (Figure 6) reporting
to the Secretary of the DER. These offices and associated responsibilities
are:

Office of Administration--This office provides direction and review of
staff support services for the department's administrative activities.

Office of Chief Counsel--This office is the department's legal agency,
representing the department in courts and before the Environmental Hearing
Board and offering legal advice and services to the department.

Office of Environmental Protection--This office is responsible for:

1) Identifying air pollution problems and solving them through
pollution control requirements, monitoring and meteorological
services, and air pollution emergency control programs.

2) Administering state-wide environmental health programs concerning
water supplies, food protection, recreation facilities, nursing
homes, schools, mobile home parks, seasonal farm labor camps, and
rodent and insect control.

3) Providing analytical services to the environmental regulatory,
planning, and advisory programs of the department.

E-34

I DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

CitizensAdvisory Officeof GeneralCounsel I - SECRETARY I OfficeofBudoetamdAdrlinistration I Boards and
Council Chief Counsel Comptroller CommissionS

Press Office Environmental
Hearing Board

Environmental
|[~~~~~ ~ | *~~~I I I Quality Board
DEPUTY FOR ADMINIS TRATION DEPUTY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPIJUTY FOR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Deputy for Legislation
& Policy Review Coal and Clay Mine
Office of Environmental Energy I a Policy Re Coal and Clay Mine-
AffirmativeAction Office of Environmenta Office of Natural Resources Subsidence Insurance
Management
Bureau of Deep Mine Safety Bureau of Topographic & Geologic Survey Board
Bureau of Personnel Bituminous Deep Mine Safety Geologic Mapping
Personnel & Organization Mgmt Anthracite Deep Mine S rety Mineral Resources State Board for
Employee Rnela tions &StyBureau of Oil & Gas Regulation Certficat~on of
Employee Relations & Safety Permitting Oil & Gas Geology
Employee Benefits & Compliance & Monitoring Environmental Geology SewageTreatment
Personnel Systems Bureau of Mining & Reclamation Bureau of Soil & Water Conservation Plant & Waterworks
raining & Development Surface Mine Reclam ation Conservation Dstricts Operators
Planning & Environmental Analysis Cne o DsriC
Mine Subsidence Soil Resources & Erosion Control
Bureau of Fiscal Management Bureau of Radiation Protection Bureau of Forestry State Board for
Budget Analysis Radiation Control Forest Management Certification of
Environmental Radiation Forest Fire Protection Sewage Enforcement
i Program Planing & Evaluation Nuclear Safety
Office of Environmental Management Forest Advisory Services Officers
Ln Bureau ofOffice Systems& Bureau of Air Quality Control Forest Pest Management
Services Air Resource Management Bureau of StateParks State Conservation
OfficeSupportServices Technical Services & Monitoring Pak Operation Commission
*Olfrte~~ Supor Abatement & Compliance
i Materials Management Bureau of Community Environmental Control Park Maintenance
Office Systems & Word Processing Food Protection Park Administration Advisory Committee
Facilities Sanitation Bureau of Water Resources Management on Atomic Energy
Bureau of nformation Systems Water Supph es State Water Plan Development 8
Bureau of Solid Waste Management Sa WeP
Systems Development Hazardous Waste Management Coastal Zone Management Radiation Control
Information Processing Operations Scenic Rivers
Management Science 8 System Municipal Services Office of Engineering Water Facilities Loan
Planning Bureau of Water Quality Management Bureau of Dams 8 Waterways Management Board
Water Quality
Technical Services Permits & Compliance Dam Safety
Local Environmental Services Waterways & Storm Water Management
Municipal Facilities & Grants Bureau of WaterProjects
Bureau of Laboratories
Technical Support & Quality Assurance & Safety
Organic Chemistry & Radiation Measurement Project Design
Inorganic Chemistry & Biological Services Stream Improvements
Field Labora tories Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclama tion
Erie Acid Mine Drainage Abatement
Regional Offices (6) Mine Hazards
Water Quality Management
Air Quality Control
Solid Waste Management
Community Environmental Control
Radiation Protection
Mininq and Reclamation

Figure 6. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
organizational chart

4) Enforcing laws and regulations designed to protect the environment
from problems associated with surface mining, both coal and
non-coal.

5) Planning, directing, evaluating, coordinating, and organizing the 1
state-wide waste management, including resource recovery, and 1
enforcement program.

6) Maintaining and improving the quality of Pennsylvania's water
resources for the support of planned and probable uses and to
protect the public health. The Office of Environmental Protection
maintains six regional offices which are responsible for
implementing and enforcing Pennsylvania's environmental laws.
They handle complaints, permit applications, inspections, and
environmental accidents in their regions.

Offic'e of Resources Management--This office is responsible for the
management of the state's natural resources. This includes recreation,
forestry, flood control, water resources planning and development, and
related engineering and operations activities. it also is responsible for
water obstructions and encroachments, flood-plain management, stormwater
management, erosion and sediment control, dam safety and water allocations,
and for surveys of the geology, mineral resources, topography, and
ground-water resources in the sta~te.

Office of Planning--This office is responsible for planning and program
policies, Congressional liaison, environmental review and economics,I
emergency planning, interstate and international boards and commissions,
environmental impact analyses, and development of the state environmental
master plan and Pennsylvania's recreation plan. I

Office of Deep Mine Safety--This office is responsible for enforcing
the anthracite and bituminous coal mining laws which provide for the health
and safety of underground mines.

Regulations and StandardsI

Table 5 provides a list of DER regulations and standards governing the
Department's Water Quality Management activities.

Water Quality Management Activities

Water Quality Standards---
Water quality standards for surface and ground waters in Pennsylvania
are developed and periodically revised by the Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Office of Environmental Protection. These standards are based
on designated water uses within a stream segment or zone in the basin and
water quality criteria necessary to protect those uses.

Water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life, water
supply, and state-wide recreation have been established. The criteria
include bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals. Specific criteria for water uses
requiring special protection have also been established.

E-3 6

TABLE 5. REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

Regulations!/Standards Guidelines Provided

Chapter 91. General Provisions Provides general administration
and enforcement guidelines for the
Department of Environmental Resources
which relate to water quality.

Chapter 92. National Pollutant Sets standards and regulations for
Discharge Elimination the administration of this system
System in Pennsylvania.

Chapter 93. Water Quality Criteria Sets forth water quality criteria
for the waters of Pennsylvania.
These criteria are utilized in the
Department of Environmental Resources
enforcement program.

Chapter 95. Waste Water Treatment Sets forth specific treatment
Requirements requirements to meet specified water
quality criteria.

Chapter 97. Industrial Wastes Provides standards and regulations
for the treatment of industrial
wastes.

Spray Irrigation Manual Provides guidelines for site
selection, system design, and
preparation of plans and reports.

Chapter 99. Mine Drainage Provides standards and regulations
for the treatment of mine drainage.

Chapter 101. Special Water Pollution Provides special water pollution
Regulations control regulations for the
following activities:
- Incidents causing or threatening
pollution;
- Activities utilizing polluting
substances;
- Impoundments;
- Algicides, herbicides, and fish-
control chemicals.

Chapter 102. Erosion Control Sets forth rules, regulations, and
standards to control erosion and
the resulting sedimentation in the
waters of Pennsylvania.

(continued)
E-3 7

TABLE 5. (Continued)

Regulations!/Standards Guidelines Provided

Chapter 103. Sub-chapter A. Federal Provides guidelines and eligibility
Grants for Construction standards for obtaining Federal
of Sewage Facilities grants for sewer projects.

Chapter 71. Administration of Sewage Provides rules and regulations
Facilities Act for the administration of the
Sewage Facilities Act. Provides
guidelines for preparation of
sewage facilities plans.

Chapter 73. Standards for Sewage Provides standards and regulations
Disposal Facilities for on-lot sewage disposal
facilities.

Chapter 77. Mining Sets forth rules and regulations for
the reclamation and planting of
areas affected by open pit mining
of bituminous and anthracite coal.
Also sets requirements for operations
of surface coal mining activities.

Chapter 301. General Provisions Sets forth administration regulations
State Board for Certification for administering the act.
of Sewage Treatment Plant and
Waterworks Operators

Chapter 303. Certification of operators Sets forth regulations and standards
for certification of operators of
sewage treatment plants and water-
works.

Chapter 103. Financial Assistance Provides regulations for state grants
Sub-chapter B. State to municipalities for the operation
Grants for Operation of of sewage facilities.
Sewage Treatment Plants

Chapter 103. Financial Assistance Provides regulations for awarding
Sub-chapter D. State Grants of state grants for the planning,
for Construction of Sewage design, and construction of sewage
Facilities facilities.

(continued)

E-38

TABLE 5. (Continued)

Regulations/Standards Guidelines Provided

Chapter 75. Solid Waste Management Provides standards and guidelines
for a variety of solid waste
functions including:
- Preparation of solid waste
management plans;
- Granting permits;
- Sanitary landfill standards;
- Collection and transportation of
solid wastes.

Chapter 76. Solid Waste Resource Provides guidelines for obtaining
Recovery Development loans for the Department of
Environmental Resources for disposal/
processing systems and resource
recovery systems.

Chapter 125. Coal Refuse Disposal Provides rules and regulations for
Areas operating a coal refuse disposal
area and obtaining a permit from the
Department of Environmental Resources
under the provisions of the Air
Pollution Control Act.

Chapter 100. Mine Resources Management Provides rules and regulations for
operating a coal refuse disposal
area and obtaining a permit from the
Department of Environmental Resources
under the provisions of the Clean
Streams Act.
Chapter 79. Oil and Gas Conservation Provides rules and regulations for we
drilling operations and permits.

Chapter 193. Public Swimming and Sets forth rules and regulations
Bathing Places governing operations and issuance
of permits for public swimming and
bathing places.

Chapter 109. Waterworks Sets forth standards and regulations
for construction, maintenance, and
operation of waterworks. Also provid,
regulations for obtaining permits

for waterworks.

E-3 9

Discharge Permit Program7--
Point source discharges from industrial waste treatment facilities and
both publicly and privately-owned sewage treatment facilities are
controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) by the Bureau of Water Quality Management, Office of Environmental
Protection. The NPDES permit applications are processed at regional
offices. Effluent limitations for the treatment facilities are established
in accordance with the water quality standards for the receiving waters.
Monthly monitoring reports must be submitted to the DER regional offices.
Waste treatment facilities must be consistent with area-wide waste
management plans and with municipal or county sewer plans.

The DER requires at least 80 percent phosphorus removal by all new or
modified wastewater treatment facilities discharging to tributaries and the
main stem of the Susquehanna River in a zone between the confluence of, but
not including, the Juniata River and the Pennsylvania-Maryland state-line.

On-Lot Waste Treatment Facilities---
The Bureau of Water Quality Management administers the program for
individual and community on-lot sewage disposal systems. Pennsylvania
requires that all on-lot sewage disposal systems be issued a permit by a
certified sewage enforcement officer employed by the municipality or
municipalities in which the system is to be installed. In addition, DER
concurrence is required for on-lot disposal systems for any facility,
establishment, or institution for public use and for all experimental
on-lot systems.

Construction Grants Program--
The Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants, Bureau of Water
Quality Management, Office of Environmental Protection manages the
allocation of Federal grant funds for the planning and construction of
publicly-owned treatment works.

The DER annually prepares a project priority list, in conformance with
Federal requirements for submittal of such lists, and schedules public
hearings prior to submitting the priority list for EPA approval. The
fundable portion of the list contains projects in priority order planned
for funding during the fiscal year to the extent of the total funds
expected to be available during the Federal fiscal year.

Priority among the eligible projects is established according to the
applicant's accumulation of priority points for each of the following
rating factors:

o Stream-segment priority
o Water-pollution control
o Population affected

Priority points are assigned to each of the rating factors as follows:

(1) Stream segment priority rating factor -- maximum 10 pts.

o Category I -- water quality segments with existing sewerage
systems, including treatment plants, and experiencing growth
rates at or above state-wide average; excluding mine drainage
affected streams not scheduled for reclamation projects (10
pts).
E-4 0

o Category II -- water quality segments with growth rates below
the state-wide average or identified as "special protection"
streams (7 pts).

o Category III -- effluent limitation segment (4 pts).

o Category IV -- water quality segments affected by acid mine
drainage from abandoned coal mines (1 pt).

(2) Water pollution control rating factor -- maximum 8 pts (Table 6).

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL USE-FACTOR RATINGS

No Slight Moderate Great
Effect Effect Effect Effect
Community Environment
and Aesthetics 0 (See Matrix)* 24
Domestic Water Supply 0 5 10 18
Fish and Aquatic Life 0 5 8 14
Public Bathing 0 1 3 8
Boating and Recreation 0 1 3 5
Industrial Water Supply 0 1 3 5
Irrigation 0 1 2 3
Stock Watering 0 1 2 3

*A maximum of 24 points can be assigned to the Community Environment and
aesthetics use-factor. A matrix is used to assign priority points based on
the extent of malfunctioning on-lot systems; occurrences of inadequately
treated or untreated sewage in publicly accessible areas; or untreated or
inadequately treated sewage discharges to surface streams from overload
sewage conveyance facilities and treatment plants.

(3) Population affected rating factor -- maximum 10 pts.

Project Equivalent Population Priority Points
1 - 3,500 6
3,501 - 5,000 7
5,001 - 10,000 8
10,001 - 50,000 9
greater than 50,000 10

Project Equivalent Population is the initial population equivalent
which would be served by the project at the time that the project is
rated. Small communities (less than 3,500) are rated for stream
segment priority and water-pollution control in the same manner as the
larger communities, but 9 points must be assigned for the population
affected factor.

DER's financial aid activity includes administration of funds available
through the Sewage Facilities Act (Act 208), the Clean Streams Act (Act
394), the Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act (Act 443), and

E-41

the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). The Sewage Facilities Act
provides 50 percent of the financial assistance to local governments for
the preparation of sewage facilities plans. These plans establish the
extent of existing public sewage systems and recommend future required
facilities. The Clean Streams Act provides a 2 percent subsidy for costs
of plant operation, maintenance, and replacement of new sewage facilities.
The Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act provides for grants of
5 percent for eligible projects.

Agriculture and Earth-Moving Activities---
The state-wide 208 Plan for Agriculture and Earthmoving Activities was
approved in 1979. This plan deals with erosion and sedimentation, manure
management, aquatic vegetation herbicide control, and pesticide control.
In the erosion and sedimentation plan, DER regulations require that any
land-owner, person, or municipality engaged in earthmoving activity
develop, implement, and maintain erosion and sedimentation control
measures. If the activity involves 25 or more acres of land, a special
erosion and sedimentation permit from DELR is required. No permit is
required for activities involving less than 25 acres, but erosion and
sedimentation control plans must be maintained at the site. All farmers
must have either an erosion and sedimentation control plan or have applied
to their county conservation district for the plan. The county
conservation districts prepare plans on a priority basis giving high
priority to those applicants with the most serious problems.

The program is administered jointly by two separate bureaus of the DER, 4
the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (through its administrative ties
with the State Conservation Commission), and the Bureau of Water Quality
Management. The former reviews and evaluates the technical aspects of
erosion control plans and the latter is responsible for enforcing the
regulations.

The manure management program is run jointly by the DER Bureau of Water
Quality Management, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Cooperative
Extension Service. Approval or a permit is required, depending upon how
the manure is handled. A study was recently completed (June 1983) entitled
"An Assessment of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Polution in Selected High
Priority Watersheds in Pennsylvania" by the DER Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation. Additional information on Pennsylvania's nonpoint source
problem areas and current state projects funded by EPA's Region III are
included in Section 3 of this appendix.

Comprehensive Water Quality Management Planning-- 4
The Department of Environmental Resources is addressing this problem
through the Comprehensive Water Quality Management Program (COWAMP). The
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, Office of Resource Management,
assists the Conservation Districts in implementation of conservation
programs.

Mining Activities---
All mine operators must obtain an NPDES mine drainage permit from the 4
Regional Environmental Protection Office. The Bureau of Resources
Programming, Office of Resource Management, develops restoration and acid
mine pollution abatement programs for abandoned mine areas.

E-4 2

Solid Waste Management---
Each municipality with a population density of 300 persons per square
mile must submit an official plan to provide an adequate solid-waste
management system for approval by the DER. A permit is required of any
person, municipality or authority that proposes to use any land as a
solid-waste processing or disposal area. An air pollution control permit
may also be required. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management is responsible
for planning, directing, evaluating, coordinating, and organizing the
state-wide solid-waste management and enforcement program. The DER also
administers a grant and loan program for development of resource recovery
systems.

Air Pollution--
The Bureau of Air Quality Control is responsible for identifying air
pollution problems and solving them through pollution control requirements,
monitoring, meteorological services, and air pollution emergency control
programs. An approved air quality plan is required before construction of
any significant air pollution source is begun. An air quality temporary
operating permit is required to perform acceptance testing, and to undergo
a lengthy start-up and debugging period. This permit is valid for 60 days
and may be extended. An air quality permit is required to operate any air
pollution source.

Water Resources Management

Pennsylvania Fish Commission---
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission administers and enforces laws relating
r ~~~to fishing and boating on Pennsylvania's waters. The Commission is also
responsible for the propagation, distribution, and protection of fish life
in Pennsylvania's lakes, streams, and rivers.

The Commission maintains a major interest in activities concerning the
abatement and reporting of water pollution. its staff of waterways
patrolmen assist in this endeavor by reporting various incidents of water
quality violations. Working with the DER, the Commission also reviews
permit applications for mine drainage, stream clearance, channel
relocation, dam construction, water allocation, erosion and sedimentation
control, and farm pesticide runoff.

The Commission's Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering conducts fish
cultural research to determine fish management programs appropriate for
Pennsylvania. The Bureau investigates the effect of pollution upon
existing aquatic life. The Bureau acquires and develops access areas along
streams, river, and lakes for recreational fishing and boating.

Pennsylvania Game Commission---
The Pennsylvania Came Commission is responsible for wildlife management
through the protection, propagation, and preservation of game, fur-bearing
animals, and protected species of birds. The major water-related activity
of the Commission is its management of approximately 1,100,000 acres of
state game-lands used as wildlife habitat development areas. Many of these
state game-lands contain natural ponds and man-made impoundments that
support various wildlife species.

E-4 3

VIRGINIA CONTROL- PROGRAMS

Introduction

The Commonwealth of Virginia holds title to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries from the Potomac River at Smith Point to the mouth of the Bay.
The tidewater portion of the state extends eastward from the fall line,
which runs approximately along a longitudual line from Washington, DC
through Richmond. This portion contains one-third of the land mass in the
state, but is home to sixty percent of the state's population. Hampton
Roads is one of the great ports in the world.

The management and regulation of the resources and activities affecting
this region involve many state agencies. Agencies with the greatest
involvement in the management of water quality and water resources are the
State Water Control Board, State Department of Health, and the Marine
Resources Commission. The efforts of the Division of Industrial
Development and the Virginia Port Authority can also have significant
impact on the Chesapeake Bay Region. The Council on the Environment is
closely involved with significant activities through the environmental
impact review processes.

State Water Control Board--
The State Water Control Board (SWCB, Figure 7), regulates the quality
of direct discharges into state water through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Animal waste
treatment facilities and some industries are controlled by no-discharge
permits. Non-point source pollution abatement is addressed through
area-wide water quality management planning. The water quality aspects of
dredging and filling operations are the purview of the 401 Certification
Program.

Stat'e Department of Health---
The State Department of Health has several programs which can impact
the water quality of Chesapeake Bay. The classification of
shellfish-growing areas and regulation of the public health aspects of the
shellfish industry is the responsibility of this agency. The Health
Department also inspects and approves solid and hazardous waste disposal
sites and individual waste-treatment facilities. The agency also approves
plans for publicly and privately-owned sewage treatment plants and inspects
the facilities.

Marine Resources Commission-- 4
The regulation of the fisheries resource and the commercial fishing
industry is the responsibility of the Marine Resources Commission (MRC),
(Figure 8). The Commission administers a permit program and reviews all
projects that have an impact on state-owned subaqueous bottoms. The
Commission also has responsibility for administration of the Wetlands and
Coastal Primary Sand Dunes Programs.

Virginia Port Authority--
The Virginia Port Authority and the Division of Industrial Development
are both involved in encouraging industry to locate in Virginia and to
utilize Virginia ports for international commerce. The success that these
tv, agencies enjoy can logically have an effect on the activities of
several of the state water quality programs.
E-44

SWCB ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

SPEC!AL ASSISTA-%T TO

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

SUPERVISOR OF PERSONNEL

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

IASTSISTANT EXECUTIVE SEC3ET ARY
PLA-N N DMNSRTO I
SPECIAL ASSISTANT

BUREAU OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE BUREAU OF ADMI.1NISTRATiION
Alexandria, Virginia AND F INANCE
'Technical Services
Permit Assessment and Engineering DietrManqarqemet Servie~s
Operator Training and Assistance Administration
PIEDMONT REGIONAL, OFFICE Automated Data Proce-ssing
Richmond, Virginia
BUREAU OF ENFORCEMENT

Northrn. alle, Wei Cenral.SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS CIV'ISION
Piedmont. Tidewater. Southwest. Abingdon, Virginia

BUREAU OF SURVEILLANCE TIDEWATER REGIONAL OFFICE " PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFiCE
AND FIELD STUDIES Virginia Peajch, Virginia

Ecofogieat nytProgra VALLEY IREGIONAL OFFICE
Survertiance Bridgewater, Vlir inia (1 emoaiyrorst euyfct-
Surfacq''a aer Invertwiation%
IN~ Turm(urrjv ly _j),3rj 1,3t Sj.,jc,.j Au.s ant to
E xecuti.e Sacrer nry
WEST CENTRAL REFGIONAL OFFICE 13) Teooa0 ,toi ONDeurty E'acul,'
BUREAU OF W4ATER CONTROL Roanokf!, Virginia ~n ieilA~~i
MA:.'A GE:.',E %T _________

Ptanniirg *~~~~Loc.ated in Cha,ln-rsieite

"Al~o responsible for Kilmarnock Ofttci

Figure 7. Virginia State Water Crontrol Board organizational chart

MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION ORGANIZATION CHART

Legal Commissioner Associate
Counsel Members

I
r I l I I
law Engineer Finance Environmental Conservation
Enforcement Surveying Administration Division Repletion
Division Division Division Division

l Wetlands & Oyster
District |Field Survey Budgeting Bottom Land I Repletion
Supervisors| | Force Accounting Management
Permits
II Df*~ _I Personnel J Artificial Reef
|~ District |Drafting Personnel Program
Inspectors Recording
Captains Mates
Purchasing Fisheries
Statistics |
Vessel Repair & Tax and L
Maintenance Opration Office
Station Services

Figure 8. Virginia Marine Resources Commission organizational
chart

Council on the Environment--
The Council on the Environment coordinates the state's review of
environmental impact documents. The Council also provides comprehensive
information on the environmental regulatory processes and requirements for
potential developers.

State Air Pollution Control Board--
The State Air Pollution Control Board administers the state and Federal
air quality regulations in Virginia. The Board has delegated
responsibilities for the prevention of significant deterioration program
and the hazardous pollutants program of the Clean Air Act. The agency
regulates emissions from discrete sources through a permit program. An air
monitoring network for particulate matter and gaseous compounds is operated
to measure the ambient air quality. The State Air Pollution Control Board
also has established an acid rain monitoring program.

Water Quality Management Activities

Water Quality Standards--
The Water Quality Standards for Virginia are established and
periodically revised by the State Water Control Board. Standards have been
adopted for the surface waters and the ground water within the state.
Standards are set by stream segments. The standards are based on the
designated uses of each segment and the specific criteria needed to protect
that usage. Some areas within any segment may be designated for more
restrictive uses, such as public water supplies, shellfish waters, or trout
I ~ ~~waters.
Numerical standards have been adopted for broad classifications of
state waters based on intended uses and the geographical regime of the
state. These include dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. Additional
standards for color, metals, organic compounds, nitrogen, and phosphorus
have not been established for the entire state.

Special (nitrogen and phosphorus) standards have been set for the tidal
I ~~~embayments of the Potomac River, in the Washington, DC area, the
Chickahominy River, and the Lynnhaven River. The standards necessitate
enhanced effluent quality.

NPDES Permit Program--
Industrial treatment facilities, publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs), and privately-owned treatment facilities are controlled by the
NPDES permit program administered by the State Water Control Board. All
discharges into state waters from discrete sources are subject to
regulation by this program.

Industrial dischargers must comply with the appropriate best
practicable control technology. Sewage treatment facilities must be
consistent with the basin7-wide and the area-wide waste management plans.
I0 ~~ All new POTWs must be designed in compliance with the state's sewage
regulations. The State Department of Health reviews and approves the plans
for treatment facilities.

All facilities must submit monthly reports describing effluent quality
to the State Water Control Board. Additionally, the State regularly
conducts compliance monitoring surveys of the permitted facilities.

E-47

Individual Waste Treatment Facilities---
Approval of septic systems or alternate means of treating wastes from
individual households in the responsibility of the State Department of
Health. This program is administered through local health departments.4

Construction Grants Program7--
The State Water Control Board manages the allocation of Federal grant
funds for the planning and construction of POTWs. To be funded, a proposed
facility must be consistent with the area-wide waste management plan and
must be able to meet water quality standards.

A priority listing of projects to be funded is adopted by the State
Water Control Board. The list is developed by the staff on the basis of
such factors as: public health impacts, severity of effect an water
quality, population served, and the need to preserve existing high quality
waters. The staff prepares a draft list for each funding biennium. The
list is adopted by the Board after a public hearing has been held to
receive additional comments.

Pretreatment---
The State Water Control Board has been unable to implement a
pretreatment program in Virginia due to manpower and funding constraints.
The agency has identified 27 POTWs requiring pretreatment and has developed
a check list to assist the localities in ensuring that local sewer
ordinances contain the necessary elements for an enforceable program. The
agency is now modifying the permits of the identified facilities to include
a schedule of compliance for development of a pre-treatment program.

No-Discharge Permit Prograur--
The State Water Control Board administers a no-discharge permit program
for industrial and animal waste treatment facilities. This program
regulates activities which can be operated in a manner which does not
require a point source discharge. The goals of this program are achieved
by the reuse or recovery of wastewater and waste products.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Programs---
The abatement of erosion and sedimentation (E & 5) from construction
activities is the ultimate responsibility of the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission. Counties and cities have the prerogative of
adopting and enforcing the State Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Standards or developing their own, which must be at least as restrictive.
The Commission must approve E & S plans for construction projects which
involve several local governing bodies. The Commission also periodically
must review and approve the E & S Handbook for the Department of Highways
and Transportation. The State Water Control Board investigates reports of
sedimentation in state waters and works with the appropriate agency to
correct the problem.

Agricultural Runoff Management-- 4
Under the Area-wide Water Quality Management Program (208), the State
Water Control Board has endeavored to abate the pollutant loading from
nonpoint sources. Together with many other state and Federal agencies, the
SWCB developed best management practices for controlling pollution from
certain sources and has identified critical watersheds due to nonpoint
source activities. These practices rely on voluntary compliance. For the

E-48

control of agricultural runoff, the local Soil and Water Conservation
District is the governmental body normally involved. Section 3 of this
appendix includes additional information on agricultural, as well as, other
nonpoint source problems in Virginia.

U~rban Runoff Management---
On a state-wide basis, the abatement of pollution from urban runoff is
based on voluntary compliance with best management practices. Compliance
with statutory requirements or regular maintenance practices to control
urban runoff pollution is the option of the individual localities. The
effectiveness of this voluntary program is reviewed by the State Water
Control Board.

Surface Mining---
The Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) is responsible for
administering the State Strip Mining Regulations and for reclaiming orphan
land. The DMLR is in the process of obtaining responsiblity for issuance
of NPDES permits for the coal mine discharges.

Dredging, Filling, and Dredged Material Placement---
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits are necessary to perform any
activity which can result in a spoil discharge into navigable waters or any
dredging or filling In wetlands contiguous to navigable waters.

The State and the Norfolk District and the Baltimore District of the
Corps of Engineers utilize the same permit application form. This single
booklet serves as an application for the Corps permit, the Marine Resources
Commission (MRC) permit, the Wetlands Board Permit, and the State Water
Control Board's Water Quality Certification.

The Marine Resources Commission has jurisdiction over all state-owned
* ~~subaqueous bottom. Any activity which involves the dredging, filling, or
crossing of the submerged bottom requires a permit from the MRC.
Construction activities which similarly impact subaqueous bottom requires a
permit. The Commission charges a royalty for the use of the public
resource. The permit may contain stipulations to minimize any adverse
impacts.

The Virginia Wetland Act is primarily administered by local (county or
city) Wetlands Boards in the tidewater portion of the State. The Wetlands
Board permits must be obtained before the Corps of Engineers may act on a
proposal. The Marine Resources Commission administers the Wetlands Act in
those localities which have not assumed jurisdiction under the Wetlands
Act. The MRC also reviews all actions of local boards. Additionally, the
MRC is the appeals forum for persons aggrieved by the decision of a local
board.

Shoreline Stabilization -
Shoreline stabilization projects are generally subject to the same
regulatory statutes and review as the dredging and filling activites.
Private land owners often wish to attempt to arrest the erosion of their
property; the purpose of the Regulatory Review is to ensure that this
protection is obtained in a manner which minimizes the impact on the public
resources of the marine environment. The Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission has established the Shoreline Erosion Advisory
Service (SEAS) to advise property owners regarding shoreline stabilization.

E-4 9

The Commission on the Conservation and Development of Public Beaches
was authorized by the legislature in 1980. The Commission was established
to preserve and enhance the public beaches within the state by
administering the Public Beach Assistance and Development Funds. This
funding is provided to the localities by the state for restoration of
publicly-owned beaches.

Oil Spills--
State law forbids the discharge of oil or petroleum products into state
waters and provides for recovery of investigation costs and damages. An
oil-spill contingency fund has been established to facilitate immediate
clean-up action for spills when the source or responsible party is
undetermined.

Shellfish Sanitation---
The State Department of Health's Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation is
responsible for establishing the regulatory standards for Shellfish
Sanitation Control. The Bureau regularly samples shellfish growing areas
to determine their suitability from a public health perspective. Any
growing area which is determined to be unsafe is closed for the direct
marketing of shellfish. The State Department of Health regulates on-shore
sanitation facilities and sewage pump-out facilities at marinas.

Boat pollution is addressed by Regulation 5 of the State Water Control
Board. The state is presently seeking a No-Discharge Zone designation from
the Environmental Protection Agency for the Rappahannock River. If this
designation is authorized, the state may either require holding tanks for
sanitary wastes aboard pleasure craft in those waters or may restrict the
area where sewage may be discharged overboard.

Hazardous Wastes---
The State Water Control Board regulates the discharge of toxic
materials with the NPDES system. The Board adopted a Toxic Monitoring
Program in 1979 which is designed to ensure that industrial dischargers
develop site-specific plans to monitor for toxic materials.

The State Department of Health, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, is responsible for the development of regulatory policy for all
aspects of solid and hazardous waste management. This division is involved
in the manufacture, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of
toxic material. Also within the SDH, the Division of Health Hazards
Control, Bureau of Toxic Substances Information, collects and stores
information regarding the utilization and storage of toxic materials.

The Health Department and the State Water Control Board share some
responsibilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Both
agencies are involved to some degree in the approval of disposal sites.
The Health Department regulates the disposal of materials, while the SWiCB
is responsible for the protection of surface waters and ground-water.

Area-wide Waste Management---
The State Water Control Board has over-all responsibility for
administering the Water Quality Management Program pursuant to Section 208
of the Clean Water Act. Seven areas determined to have major water quality
problems were designated to develop plans in 1974. The SWCB has the

E-5 0

responsibility for developing a 208 Plan for the remainder of the state.
The agency has reacted to that mission by compiling best management
practices handbooks to develop methods for reducing nonpoint source
pollution.

Resources Management Activities

Fisheries--
The Marine Resources Commission is primarily responsible for the
preservation and enhancement of fisheries (shellfish and finfish) for
commercial use. The MRC develops and/or administers the regulations and
statutes necessary to protect the fisheries resources. The Commission
achieves this goal through the licensing of commercial fishing vessels and
fishermen, and by regulating activities in the subaqueous beds in the
state. The agency collects and evaluates commercial landings data to
determine the status of the resource. The Commission manages the oyster
Rock Repletion Program for 240,000 acres of public oyster grounds. An
additional 100,000 acres of state-owned bottom is leased to private
shellfish growers.

Wet lands--
A State Wetlands Act was adopted in 1972 with the declared policy to
"preserve the wetlands and to prevent their despoilation and destruction
and to accommodate necessary economic development in a manner consistent
with wetlands preservation." Vegetated tidal-wetlands are considered to be
any area containing specific vegetation species which are located between
* ~~~~and contiguous to mean low-water and on land situated within an elevation
of 1.5 times the mean tide-range above the mean low-water. The Wetlands
Act authorized tidewater localitites to establish Wetlands Boards to
regulate activities which affect wetlands. All decisions of the Wetlands
Boards are subject to review by the Marine Resources Commission. Any case
decision by a Wetlands Board may be appealed to the Commission. The
Wetlands Boards depend heavily on the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
for technical advice and support.

The 1972 Act has now been amended by the 1982 General Assembly to
include all non-vegetated areas of the shoreline between mean low and mean
high-water. All unexempted activity in this new area became subject to
regulation on January 1, 1983.

Coastal Resources--
The coastal region of Virginia contains sixty percent of the state's
population. The Port of Hampton Roads is vital to the economy and the
defense of the entire country. The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's greatest
and most productive estuary. This blend of people, economy, and resources
makes prudent management of the coastal resources imperative.

Development and growth is carefully managed to ensure that the land
uses are compatible. In Virginia, this function is normally handled by the
local governing bodies through the Zoning and Land Use Planning Sections.
The State Wetlands Act is a state law that has land-use regulation
overtones.

The fisheries resources (shellfish and finfish) are managed by the
Marine Resources Commission. The Commission also has general regulatory

E- 51

responsiblilities for all submerged lands, tidal wetlands, and primary
coastal sand dunes.

The State Department of Health is mandated to ensure the public
health. In the coastal areas, the evaluation of the shellfish beds is a
critical function of this agency. individual waste-treatment facilities
are also regulated by the Health Department.4

The State Water Control Board has permit programs to regulate
discharges from sewage and industrial waste-treatment facilities and to
control agricultural animal waste discharges. The agency has the
responsibility for investigating and, if necessary, cleaning up oil spills
within the state. The SWCB also has a Water Quality Certification Program
to evaluate the water quality impacts of projects which require Army Corps
of Engineers Permits.

The Council on the Environment administers a biennial review of coastal
resources management activities in Virginia. The state's success at
achieving its coastal resource management goals are evaluated carefully
through this process. The report contains specific recommendations to
achieve the state's basic goals.

Several state agencies are involved in industrial and economic
development. The Virginia Port Authority operates several port facilities
in Hampton Roads and generally promotes the use of Virginia ports for
international shipping. The Division of Industrial Development is
responsible for attracting industry for Virginia and assists industries in
selecting suitable locations. The Marine Resources Commission regulates
both the fisheries resource and the fisheries industry.

Wildlife--
The protection and regulation of wildlife and the non-marine fisheries
in Virginia is the purview of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
(CGIF). The CGIF achieves this goal through licensing and enforcement
procedures and through wildlife management activities. The Commission owns
and manages seven tracts of land in Tidewater Virginia, totalling over
25,000 acres. The CGIF also serves sportfishermen and recreational boaters
by providing free boating access to state waters. Over 50 public boat
landings are operational in the coastal area.

E-52

SECTION 3

NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEM AREAS AND
ON-GOING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, BY STATE

The Water Quality Management Planning Programs carried out by the
states during the last few years (FY 80 to FY 81) focused on nonpoint
source (NI'S) water quality problems. States conducted assessments for NP'S
categories perceived to be of most importance in terms of water quality
impacts and control feasibility. In many cases, the assessments resulted
in the identification of priority areas where problem solving
implementation programs should be initiated or accelerated. This document
is a summary of the identified priority NP'S problem areas for each state
and of the abatement programs presently being implemented.

Several informational sources were utilized in the development of the
maps and tables contained in this report. Generally, specific NI'S problem
areas were identified from the state-wide assessments conducted through
Section 208 and the Clean Lakes Programs. Solution development and
implementation were also addressed by those programs, and all of the states
in EPA's Region III have adopted plans that cover some of the more critical
NPS categorical problems. In addition, the implementation programs of the
USDA are included. Table 7 summarizes the informational sources.

This appendix does not present a comprehensive and thorough
identification and ranking of NP'S problems either within or among the areas
in Region III. The main purpose of this report is to provide a summary of
the critical NP'S problems and solutions associated with the EPA supported
EQM progams in the states. Therefore, the information in the tables and
maps focuses on agricultural problems; a few other types of problems are
addressed to varying degrees. The reader must recognize that a) for some
NI'S problems, the state's assessments have not yet progressed to the point
of critical problem identification (i.e., ground water problems and
toxics), and b) some problems are very extensive and difficult to solve due
to economic considerations (i.e., abandoned mine problems).

E-53

TABLE 7. INFORMATION SOURCES FOR NONPOINT SOURCE MAPS AND TABLES

Information Source Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia

Agriculture Water Identified 1 watershed Identified all 12 Identified only top Identified all 15 Identified all 5 watersheds
Quality Management ranked by New Castle watersheds by State 10 watersheds of the watersheds by State by State Committee ranking.
Plan County. Committee ranking. 21 listed by State Committee ranking.
Committee.

Clean Lakes Projects Identified the one Identified the 3 Identified 1 of 2 Identified 3 of 3 None
project. projects. lake projects. lake projects.

Survey & Classifi- Identified 3 top None Identified 3 top Identified 2 top None
cation of State- priority areas. priority areas. priority areas.
wide Lakes

Soil Conservation None, * None, * 1 project documented None, * None, *
Service Res. Cons.
and Dev. Project

Soil Conservation None, * 3 projects identified. 1 project identified. None, * 1 project identified.
Service Flood
Protect. & Water-
shed Protect. Prog.
U,

Agric. Stab. & None, * 3 projects identified. 5 projects identified. None, * 3 projects identified.
Conser. Serv. Ag.
Conser. Prog.

(continued)

TABLE 7. continued.

Information Source Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia

Agric. Stab. & 1 project identified. 1 project identified. 1 project identified. 1 project identified. None, *
Conser. Serv. Rural
Clean Water Prog.

208 Funded Prototype 4 significant projects 4 significant projects 9 significant projects 1 significant project 1 significant project
Projects identified. identified. identified. identified. identified.

Silviculture Water None, + None, + None, + 3 areas identified 2 areas identified.
Quality Management which have initiated identified.
Plan Best Management
Practice studies.

Construction Water None, + None, + 2 areas identified as None, + 1 area identified.
Quality Management part of other nonpoint
Plan source problems.

Mine Drainage None. None identified. None identified. None identified. Identified top 10 from
Affected Watersheds [305(b) report shows [305(b) report shows [305(b) report shows ranking of mine drainage
many problem areas.] many problem areas.] many problem areas.] affected watersheds.
tri
U-i
t~n National Urban None. 2 projects identified. None. None. None.
Runoff Program

No other USDA projects in state identified Agricultural water quality problem-area.
+No significant state-wide assessment initiated to date.

TABLE 8. NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS IN MARYLAND AND TILE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Map Nonpoint Source
Area Location Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

1 Double Pipe Agriculture State-wide Plan for 89% Agricultural land use, suffers from excessive Rural Clean Water Program (&
Creek Water- Agriculture sedimentation & high fecal bacteria counts. Million) and 308 Monitoring
shed Evaluation Support Program

2 Lower & Upper Agriculture State-wide Plan for 66% agricultural land use, high levels of coliform 208 Monocacy Watershed NPS
Monocacy Agriculture bacteria and large suspended solids loads. The Loading Study & Glade Creek
Watershed Monocacy drains agricultural, dairy, and cattle farms Tributary of Monocacy Agricul
& the sediment load contributed by the Monocacy to tural Conservation Program
the Potomac has been estimated to be as high as 25%
of the total load.

3 Liberty Agriculture State-wide Plan for 61% agricultural land use, water quality standards Liberty Reservoir Agricultura
Reservoir Agriculture are being met with the exception of bacteria levels. Conservation Program

4 Loch Raven Agriculture State-wide Plan for 48% agricultural land use, occassionaly water Clean Lakes Project (Phase II
Reservoir Agriculture quality standrads not met for bacteria. and Wasteload Allocation Stud

5 South Branch Agriculture State-wide Plan for 24% agricultural land use, Water Quality Standards Piney Run Tributary of South
Patapsco Agriculture for bacteria are occasionally in violation. Branch of Patapsco River
Watershed Completed Flood Protection &
Watershed Protection Program

6 Seneca Creek Agriculture State-wide Plan for 68% agricultural land use, bacteriological levels Seneca Creek Flood Protection
Watershed Agriculture continue to be higher than background. & Watershed Protection Progra

7 Prettyboy Agriculture State-wide Plan for 57% agricultural land use. Water Quality standards Waste-load Allocation Study
Reservoir Agriculture for bacteria are occasionally violaged.

(continued)

TABLE 8. (continued)

Map Nonpoint Source
Area Location Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

S Potomac Agriculture State-wide Plan for Definite runoff identified as an ongoing pollutant.
Watershed Agriculture The effects of nonpoint source pollutants are now
Frederick more obvious. The major pollution problem in the
County Maryland portion of the Potomac River Basin is now
recognized as surface runoff and soil erosion.

9 Potomac Agriculture State-wide Plan for Runoff definitely identified as an ongoing problem. Completed Flood Protection &
Watershed Agriculture Watershed Protection Program on
Montgomery Upper Rock Creek Watershed
County

10 Little Gun- Agriculture State-wide Plan for 54% agricultural land use. Bacteria is a major
powder Falls Agriculture problem in the Little Gunpowder Falls area.

11 West River Agriculture State-wide Plan for 35% agricultural land use. Water Quality
Agriculture standards are being met with the exception
of high bacteria levels.

12 Lower Elk Agriculture State-wide Plan for 47.6% agricultural land use. Water Quality
River Agriculture standards are being met with the exception
of bacteria violations betwen Frenchtown
Ul Wharf and Turkey Point.

13 Lake Roland Unidentified Clean Lakes Program Since its creation, there has been rapid reduction Clean Lakes Project (Phase 1)
in volume & surface area due to sedimentation. In
addition to the loss in capacity and surface area of
the lake, the sedimentation has adversely impacted
water quality of the lake and its tributary streams.

(continued)

TABLE 8. (continued)

Map Nonpoint Source
Area Location Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

14 Columbia Residential & Clean Lakes Program Chronic oxygen deficienty during the summer is the
Lakes commercial single greates problem in Wilde Lake. In Lake
runoff Kittamagundi, the single greatest problem is the
very excessive sediment and nutrient loadings from
the Little Patuxent River. Based on the size of the
watershed (2000 acres) & the amount of land which
is expected to develop in the next ten years (1000 acres),
Lake Elkhorn has the highest potential for environmental
degradation of any of the three lakes.

15 Antitam Creek On-lot State Water Quality 69% agricultural land use. Bacterial pollution and Washington County Ground-water
Watershed Management Plan large suspended solids loads contribute substantially Management 208 Program
to restrictions on aquatic life. Found in USGS 1976
survey Antietam Creek had highest concentrations
of metals, insecticides, and PCBs in the Potomac
Basin. Highfield-Cascade & Boonsboro, Sharpsburg,
& Keedysville areas are being evaluated for
alternatives to alleviate failing septic systems.

16 Jones Falls Urban runoff Regional Planning 78% developed land use. Water Quality Standards are Jones Falls National Urban
Watershed Council Water generally being met with the exception of bacteria Runoff Program
and pH standards violations during dry weather.

U,
17 Patuxent Unidentified State Water Quality Portions of the river show signs of water quality Wasteload Allocation Study &
River Management Plan stress in terms of dissolved oxygen and bacteria. Agricultural Conservation
Low dissolved oxygen is a problem in the lower Programs (Howard, Montgomery
mainstem portion of the river. In the middle section Prince Georges, and Calvert
of the river, bacteria and low dissolved oxygen are Counties)
problems. The Piedmont portion of the basin (head-
waters region) has good water quality.

(continued)

TABLE 8. (continued)

Map Nonpoint Source
Area -Location Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

18 Maryland Unidentified State Water quality The upper Wicomico River & the area near Salisbury Eastern Shore Nitrate Contamin-
Shore Management Plan experience violations of the Class I bacterial ation Control 208 Project
standards. Lower portion of Wicomico River closed
to shellfish harvesting. The Nanticoke River exhibits
low dissolved oxygen levels. Bacterial levels higher
than background have been observed in some areas of the
Upper Choptank.

19 Washington, Urban runoff Washington Council During summer, near-anaerobic conditions exist in the Washington Council of Governments
DC, Urban of Governments Water stratified bottom layer of water. Storm-induced National Urban Runoff Program
Area Quality Management discharges of combined sewer over-flows and urban
runoff will continue to burden the Potomac estuary
with high sediment and fecal coliform levels.

20 Little North- Agriculture State Water Quality 49% agricultural land use. Problems with high
east Creek Management Plan bacterial counts.

M ~NONPOIN T SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS .~
IN MARYLAND

Figure 9. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Maryland

TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF MARYLAND AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NONPOINT SOURCE
PROJECTS

Monocacy Watershed Nonpoint Source Loading Study -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs,
301-383-4214. A nonpoint source and land-use loading analysis will be
conducted in this project. The establishment of loading rates for various
land-use types will be done (Carroll, Frederick Counties).

Cooperative Extension Service -- Water Quality Specialist -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. This project provides for an extension specialist to serve as a liaison
between water quality management programs and the agricultural comminity. Agri-
cultural nonpoint source planning is done as well as varied public information
tasks (Carroll County, State-wide).

Rural Clean Water Program Monitoring and Evaluation -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. Project supports monitoring activities being done at the Carroll
County Double Pipe Creek USDA Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) location. Monitoring
will show and determine impacts of BMPs installed at the RCWP project area (Carroll
County).

Eastern Shore Nitrate Contamination Control Project -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. Ground-water contamination from nitrate will be investigated and
sources will be identified. An assessment of the effectiveness of BMPs to
reduce contamination will be done (Dorchester, Wicomico, Caroline Counties).

State-wide Agriculture Water Quality Management Program for the Control of
Sediment and Animal Wastes -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-383-4214. A plan was
developed on state-wide sediment and animal waste problems and contains three
elements. The first is a methodology for assessing critical areas. The second
element details recommended BMPs. The third element details a process for the
development of individual farm soil conservation and water quality plans (State-
wide).

Project Clear Water -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-383-4214. A major conservation
renovation of a farm was conducted as a pilot demonstration project showing the
impacts of BMPs on water quality (Frederick County).

Patuxent Nonpoint Source Generation and Delivery Model -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. This project will result in the development of a model that will simulate
the generation of selected nonpoint source pollutants in the Patuxent watershed
and the delivery of those pollutants to the Patuxent estuary (Patuxent Basin
Counties).

(continued)

E- 61

TABLE 9. (Continued)

Establishment of Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. This task will provide start-up services for the newly enacted Maryland
Agricultural Cost-Share Program. Regulations, field manuals, information brochures,
and other administrative products will be developed (state-wide).

Baltimore Metropolitan Region Water Quality Management Plans of Work (on-lot
Disposal Problem Assessment, Ground Water Management Program, and Stormwater
Management Plan) -- Dr. Philip S. Clayton, Baltimore Regional Planning Council,
301-383-5826.

a. On-Lot Disposal Problem Assessment -- This project is to analyze septic
system usage, identify on-lot problem areas, review management administration.
and report on on-lot disposal alternatives.

b. Ground-Water Management Program -- Program will review existing ground-
water data, assess land-use ground water relationships, identification of
ground water problem areas, and develop recommendations to minimize ground-
water problems.

c. Stormwater Management Plan -- Project is to assess BNPs in developing areas
for their effectiveness, analyze current institutional mechanisms,
coordinate efforts with the Jones Falls NURIP Project, and evaluate manage-
ment programs.

As part of the Nation-wide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the Regional Planning Council
is also involved in a project to determine the impacts of urban runoff on water
courses in the Baltimore metropolitan area.

Northeast Creek Nonpoint Source Monitoring -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-383-4214.
Monitoring has been done in conjunction with an Agricultural Conservation Program
in the Northeast Creek Watershed.

Hazardous Waste Facilities Development and Siting Program -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-383-
4214. Program will predict future demand on waste facilities in Maryland, research
alternative disposal options, and prepare list of candidate facility sites. One
or more selected alternatives will be looked at pertaining to its preliminary
engineering and operating budgets.

Washington County Ground Water Management Program -- Peter Tinsley, Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, 301-
383-4214. Project will assess the causes of ground water contamination; a
management program will be developed based on this assessment.

(continued)

E- 62

TABLE 9.

District of Columbia Council of Governments

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 208 Water Resources Planning
Program -- Austin Librach, Director, Council of Government's Department of
Environmental Programs, 202-223-6800. The Council of Government's work
includes tasks under the 04 and 05 grants.

The 04 grant included two watershed nonpoint source management studies -- one
on Seneca Creek in Montgomery County and one on Piscataway Creek in Prince
George's County.

The 05 grant, as part of the Region's Potomac Strategy, is going to evaluate
the relationship of nonpoint source loads to point source loads in the
Wasteload allocation setting process.

As part of the Nation-wide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the Council of
Governments is also involved in a project to determine the impacts of urban
runoff on water courses in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

E- 63

TABLE 10. NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS IN PENNSYLVANIA

Non Point
Ha p__~\le_~ __ .lnr ti o 2~e__Caoteenrv Dnc,,menttnn _~nmmpnn Ahbatment Practices

I Conestoga Creek Watershed Agriculture Statewide Plan For Cocalico Creek has non-point source Rural Clean Water Program
& Mill Creek Watershed Agriculture & problems resulting from erosion & ($1.93 Million) and 208
Wasteload Allocation sedimentation and three miles of Study-Effects of Agricul-
Study the stream is degraded by non-point tural BMPs on Conestoga River.
source problems. Mill Creek has
non-point source agricultural
runoff with two miles of the
stream degraded by non-point source
problems.

*2 Upper Middle Schuylkill Agriculture Statewide Plan for Agricultural runoff is responsible Furnace Creek Tributary of
River Watershed & Agriculture and 305(b) for dissolved oxygen and nutrient Tulpehocken Creek Agricul-
Tulpehocken Creek report problems of Telpehocken Creek & tural Conservation Program.
thirty miles of the stream are
degraded by non-point source
problems. Residual effects of
abandoned acid mine drainage and
runoff adversely affect water
quality of the Schuylkill River and
twenty-one miles of this river are
degraded by non-point source
problems.

3 Potomac Basin Watershed Agriculture Statewide Plan for There is lake eutrophication due Rock Creek tributary of
from Green Ridge to Agriculture to waterfowl concentration and Potomac Basin Agricultural
State Boundary one half mile of Middle Creek Conservation Program
degraded by non-point source
problems.

Aericulture Statewide Plan For
Aericulture

TABLE 10. (Continued)

Non-Point
Map Area Location Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

5 Staman's Run Agriculture Statewide Plan for Non-point source problems in Chickies Chickies Creek Agricultural
Watershed & Agriculture & Creek resulting from manure runoff & Conservation Program
Chickies Creek 305(b) Report agricultural erosion and sedimentation.
Watershed Ten miles of this stream degraded by
non-point source problems.

6 Elk Creek Agriculture Statewide Plan
Watershed & for Agriculture
Northeast Creek
Watershed

~7 ~ Codorus Creek Agriculture Statewide Plan for Two miles of Codorus Creek is degraded
Watershed & Agriculture by non-point source problems.
Pinchot Lake
Watershed

*8 Red & White Agriculture Statewide Plan for Major fishkills attributed to composting 208 study underway to
Clay Creeks of Agriculture from the mushroom growing industry. develop and induce
the Christiana implementation of EMPs.
River Watershed

9 Shenango River Agriculture Statewide Plan for Shenango River's taste & odor problems Flood protection and
& pymatuning Agriculture are due in part to non-point sources Watershed Protection
& Shenango of pollution (migratory waterfowl, program & Sbienango
Reservoirs swamps, agriculture). Agricultural Conservation
program.

(Continued)

TABLE 10. (Continued)

Non-Point
Map Area Location Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

10 Perkiomen Agriculture Statewide Plan for Oxygen consuming & nutrient problems due
Creek Agriculture in part to non-point source problems &
Watershed sixteen miles of the stream are degraded
because of non-point source problems.

'11 Lake Agriculture, On- Phase I, Clean Water Quality problems due to sewage Clean Lakes Program
Wallenpaupak Lot, Urban Runoff Lakes Study from malfunctioning on-lot systems
around the lake and from non-point
0' waste sources.

* 12 Edinboro Agriculture & 1981 Draft-EPA Water quality degradation is due to An Agricultural
Lake Urban Runoff EIS Project 675 agricultural runoff & siltation from Conservation Project and a
Edinboro & other non-point sources. Resource Conservation &
Washington Township Development Project
& ranks 1st in
statewide priority

13 Sugar Creek Agriculture 305(b) report Sugar Creek has localized water quality
Watershed & problems due in part to farmland runoff
Towanda Creek & thirty-four miles of this stream are
Watershed & degraded by non-point source problems.
Wyalusing Towanda Creek has some sections affected
Creek by farmland runoff and eight miles of
Watershed this stream are degraded by non-point
source problems. Wyalusing Creek has
farmland runoff problems in its
agricultural sections & twenty-two
miles of the stream are degraded by
non-point source problems.

(Continued)

TABLE 10. (Continued)

Non-Point
Map Area Location Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

14 Conodoquinet Agriculture 305(b) Report Phosphorus problems due to agricultural Agricultural Conservation
Creek runoff in part. Nine miles of this Program at Upper Frankford
Watershed stream are degraded by non-point source Township on Conodoquinet
problems. Watershed

15 Penn Creek Agriculture 305(b) Report Some minor problems due to farmland
Watershed runoff and nine miles of this stream are
degraded by non-point source problems.

16 Buffalo Agriculture 305(b) Report Some water quality problems are due to
Creek farmland runoff and six miles of the
Watershed stream are degraded by non-point source
problems.

*17 Meadville Industrial Non- Pennsylvania Water oil and gas well drilling & production 208 Program - Pennsylvania
Regional point source Quality Management activities have been identified as a Oil and Cas Well Pollution
Area pollution Plan & 305(b) major source of non-point pollution in Control Project
Report the Northwestern part of the State.

*18 Schuylkill Unspecified Pennsylvania Water Determining the distribution & Schuylkill River Sediment
River (All types of Quality Management concentration of selected priority Study
(Reading to toxics) Plan pollutants, pesticides, and heavy metals
Fairmount Dam) associated with river-bed sediments.

*19 Girty's Run Urban-Runoff Pennsylvania Water Project is an initial step toward Girty's Run Stormwater
Watershed Quality Management eventual development & adoption of a Quality hanagement Planning
Plan Statewide Urban Runoff Non-Point Source Project
Plan.

(Continued)

TABLE t0. (Continued)

Non-Point
Map Area Location Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

20 Yellow Breeches Urban-Runoff Pennsylvania Water Project is an initial step toward Yellow Breeches Stormwater
Watershed, Quality Management eventual development & adoption of a Quality Management Planning
Plan Statewide Urban Runoff Non-Point Source Project
Plan.

*21 Northampton & On-Lot Pennsylvania Water Project will determine through Lehigh-Northampton On-Lot
Lehigh Counties Quality Management demonstrations how management of on-lot Management District
0% Plan systems can be improved. Results of Demonstration Project
this project will be incorporated in
Statewide plan for on-lot management.

*22 Nockamixon Lake Agriculture & Trophic The lake suffers from high nutrient
(Bucks County) Urban Runoff Classification and loadings. Excessive algae growth &
Characteristics of Hypolimnetic anoxia occurs when the lake
Twenty-six Publicly is thermally stratified.
Owned Pennsylvania
Lakes

23 Speedwell Forge Agriculture Trophic Lake is fertile and supports dense growth
Lake (Lancaster Classification & of algae and rooted aquatic plants. The
County) Characteristics of lake is severely silted over about one-
Twenty-six Publicly half of its surface area and contains high
Owned Pennsylvania levels of inorganic nitrogen.
Lakes

(Continued)

TABLE 10. (Continued)

Non-Point
Map Area Location Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

*24 Green Lane Agriculture & Pennsylvania Water The Reservoir is a major source of Green Lane Reservoir 208
Reservoir Urban Runoff, Quality Management public water supply and identified Project
(Montgomery Construction Plan second as most eutrophic body of water
County) Activities, & in Pennsylvania.
On-Lot

*25 Carbonate Construction Pennsylvania Water Urban Stormwater/Carbonate
Outcrop Areas Activities & Quality Management BMP's 208 Project
(Montgomery, Urban Runoff Plan
Chester, and
Bucks Counties)

Chesapeake Basin Boundary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UIt4I AI) F )OR-O SUSOUL II L
E l~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iltwIIIK .AN POT0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AC 1

MOIE5C (A N'M A

C;~~~~~ CC FO ES SUL

F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Igr10 Loainonnpitsucprbearain PIEnslai

TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS

Completion and Adoption of a Water Quality Management Plan for the Management
of On-lot Disposal Systems -- R. E. Erickson, Division of Sewage Facilities
Act Administration, 717-787-9032. To develop an implementable plan for the
management of the on-lot sewage disposal program. The plan will describe the
existing program, identify deficiencies, make recommendations for their
correction, and describe needed resources. The plan will consider: (1) latest
technological developments; (2) related study and research recommendations;
and (3) institutional constraints.

Accelerated )evelopment of a Nonpoint Source Toxic Substances Management
Strategy -- Michael Arnold, Toxic Substances Coordinator, Division of Nonpoint
and industrial Sources, DER Bureau of Water Quality Management, 717-787-8189.
To develop a strategy for the management of nonpoint source-related toxic
substances.

Accelerated Assessment of Agricultural Pollution in Priority Areas, Including
an Educational Program Developed by the Cooperative Extension Service -- Victor
Funk, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, 717-787-5269. To identify specific
nonpoint pollution problems linked to agricultural activities within high-
priority watersheds contained in the agricultural portion of Pennsylvania's
208 plan; to develop recommendations for implementation strategies that will
produce water quality improvements in critical areas by application of BMPs;
to develop an educational program that will be the most appropriate and
6 ~~ effective to encourage the use of BMPs by landowner's voluntary cooperation
to achieve water quality goals.

Effects of Agricultural Best Management Practices on the Conestoga River
Above Lancaster, Pennsylvania -- Arthur C. Miller, Institute of Land and Water
Resources, Pennsylvania State University, 814-865-1521. To evaluate the
over-all effects of the implementation of agricultural best management practices
on surface and ground water quality in the upper Conestoga River (long-term
monitoring sites); to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of agricultural
BMPs on surface and ground water quality of specific isolated sites (short-
term monitoring sites).

Evaluation of Fertilizer Practices -- Victor Funk, Chief, Watershed Branch,
717-783-7010. To determine the current practices employed by farmers to apply
commerical fertilizer to cropland in a pilot-study areas, and to determine
if modifications to these practices are necessary or if additional techniques
must be developed.

State-wide Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Program -- John 0. Osgood, Chief,
Ground Water Quality Management Unit, 717-787-9633. To develop a state-wide
ground water quality monitoring strategy for Pennsylvania to include identifi-
cation of monitoring techniques, basin evaluation and priorization, location
of monitoring of potential monitoring points in high priority basins, and a
cost assessment for implementation purposes. The strategy will be applicable
for both ground-water quality and availability activities.

(continued)

E-7 1

TABLE 11.

Development of Ground Water Quality Standards -- John Osgood, Chief, Ground Water
Quality Management Unit, 717-787-9637. To develop and recommend a system of
water quality standards for the protection of Pennsylvania ground water resources.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Erosion and Sediment Control Program -- Victor Funk,
Chief, Watershed Branch, 717-783-7010. To analyze the operating programs
currently in place to control erosion in construction activities, agricultural
operations, forest land disturbances, mining activities, oil and gas well drilling
operations, and road construction and maintenance activities; to determine if
improvements are needed in current policies and procedures to achieve greater
compliance with sediment control regulations; to determine whether erosion and
sediment control plans are properly prepared, adequately reviewed, installed to
specification, and BMPs are achieving the expected control of sediment pollution;
and to assess the need for a personnel certification program for individuals
involved in E & S plan reviews and site inspections.

Water Quality Management Plan for Agriculture and Construction -- Ernest F.
Giovannitti, Chief, Division of Non-Point & industrial Sources, 717-787-8184.
A completed comprehensive plan for Agriculture & Construction Runoff nonpoint
source pollution control.

E- 72

TABLE 12. NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM-AREAS IN VIRGINIA

Map
Area Location Non-Point Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

* 1 Nottoway River Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Not known to what extent nonpoint
source assessment sources contribute to water
quality degradation
2 Happy Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Substantial agricultural runoff
Source assessment contributes to temporary, but
high fecal coliform counts
3 Passage Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
source assessment

4 Upper North Fork Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
Shenandoah source assessment

5 Potomac (Westmoreland Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Receives nonpoint source runoff
County) source assessment

6 Lower South Fork Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
Shenandoah Source assessment

*7 North Landing River Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Nonpoint sources from both
Source assessment agricultural and animal waste
holding systems have a signi-
ficant effect on water quality

8 Upper Goose Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Following storm occurrences,
source assessment the streams in the area tend
to exhibit elevated levels of
fecal coliform bacteria & nu-
trients

9 Cedar Run-Kettle Run Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Recent studies have shown that
source assessment nonpoint source runoff from
the watershed is the major
contributor of nutrients &
other pollutants which have
deleterious impacts in
reservoir water quality

(Continued)
* Not in Chesapeake Bay Basin

TABLE 12. (Continued)

Map
Area Location Non-Point Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

* 10 Northwest River Agriculture Statewide nonpoint Nonpoint sources from both
source assessment agricultural and animal
waste holding systems have
a significant effect on water
quality

* 11 Somerton Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
source assessment

* 12 Stony Creek Agriculture, On-lot Statewide nonpoint Septic tanks commonly fail &
Urban Runoff source assessment the surface runoff contains
high concentrations of
organics and bacteria

* 13 Assamoosick Swamp Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
source assessment

14 Opequon Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint A pesticide nonpoint problem
source assessment exists in the basin

15 Christian's Creek Agriculture Statewide nonpoint
source assessment

16 Lakes Fairfax & Unidentified Clean Lakes Project Clean Lakes Program
Accotink (Phase 1) Diagnostic-
Feasibility Study

17 Lake Chesdin Agriculture,Forestry Clean Lakes Project Lake Chesdin is eutrophic, Clean Lakes Program
Nutrient concentrations & (Phase 1) Diagnostic-
populations of blue-green Feasibility Study and
algae are excessively high. a 208 Project
Also experiencing rapid
sedimentation & filling of
the reservoir

(Continued)

-TABLE 12. (Continued)

Map
Area Location Non-Point Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

18 Rivanna Reservoir Unidentified Clean Lakes Project Rivanna Reservoir has high Clean Lakes Program
blue-green algae concentra- (Phase II) and a
tions responsible for taste 208 Project
and odor problems. The
Reservoir also has excessive
sedimentation & oxygen
depletion near the bottom of
the reservoir.

19 Potomac Embayments Unidentified Wasteload Allocation Potomac embayments of 208 Project -
of Virginia Study Virginia described as Potomac Embayment
supporting excess algal Assessments Study
populations

20 Appomattox River- Forestry Virginia non-point 208 Project -
headwaters down to source forestry Implementation of
Lake Chesdin Dam program Virginia's Non-Point
Source Forestry Program

21 Slate River Forestry Virginia non-point 208 Project-
source forestry Implementation of
program Virginia's non-Point
Source Forestry Pzogram

*22 Sandy River Forestry Virginia non-point 208 Project -
source forestry Implementation of
program Virginia's Non-Point
Source Forestry Program

23 Nansemond- Agriculture State Coordinating
Chuckatuck Watershed uaClnWte
Committee's RCWP Program ($1.89 Million)
drainage area Application

_________________ ~ ~ ~SI 82' SI o. 78,______

STATE OF VIRGINIA

1.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.AjI~O 00 CIE
'0 0 10 20 30 so 00 000,0'ETKS

EXPLANATION

L......JChesapeake Basin Boundary

-In~~~-i

Figure 11. Location of nonpoint source problem areas in Virginia

TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF VIRGINIA NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS*

State-wide Nonpoint Source Assessment -- Completed. The Soil Conservation
Service has conducted an assessment of potential nonpoint sources of pollution
in cooperation with the State Water Control Board. This was done in three
phases over a two-year period and was limited to the agricultural and forestry
categories of pollution. Phase III map (Figure 11) illustrates watersheds
slated for conservation assistance.

South Rivanna Watershed Management Program -- Completed. A Watershed Management
Planning program for South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to continue planning and
monitoring and to develop a methodology for implementing the County Runoff
Control ordinance (Albemarle County).

Smith Mountain Lake Study -- Completed. The investigation of the impact of
nonpoint source discharges on the water quality of Smith Mountain Lake. This
is the first investigation of rural nonpoint source discharges under the
State of Virginia 208 Water Quality Management Plan Development (Roanoke).

Potomac Embayments Assessment Study -- A re-evaluation of the current embayment
standards is being done to plan for the most cost-effective methods of improving
the water quality in the embayments.

Economic Evaluation of Impact of BMP Implementation on Agriculture -- Completed.
An analysis of economic relationships among agricultural production activities
is being done by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The
work included an annual report on economic mathematical programming models,
a report on water quality modeling and associated data mangement, and a report
on potential for choice and policy strategy for implementing a nonpoint
source program with emphasis on local decisions (state-wide).

Agricultural Extension Service Personnel Assistance -- A program to expand and
improve the nonpoint source pollution abatement educational program in Virginia,
to be conducted by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. An Environmental
Quality Specialist will assist in the implementation of the agricultural BMP
program and provide educational information and render technical assistance
in identified critical problem areas of the state.

Implementation of Virginia's NP'S Forestry Program -- Efforts will be concentrated
in identified critical forestry areas and sites will be checked for erodibility
factors and sensitivity of receiving waters. Foresters will ensure that logging
operators and timberland owners are aware of and encouraged to utilize RBMPs
in all phases of their logging operations (state-wide).

Agriculture BMP Implementation Practices -- Monitoring sites will be selected on
a critical agricultural watershed of predominately active cropland and the
monitoring will consist of gaging streamflow and sampling water quality at
several sites in tributary streams. The monitoring is intended to obtain
verification data for a hydrologic/water quality model (Montgomery County).

(continued)

t ~~~~~~~~~~~E-7 7

TABLE 13.

Program for Expending and Improving Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Educational Programs in Virginia -- A continuation of a project to be conducted
by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to culminate as part of the
implementation phase of the state agricultural nonpoint source control program.
Position will provide coordination of various extension programs and
agricultural assistance programs with the state nonpoint source program.

Special Nonpoint Source Studies on Chowan River Basin in Conjunction with the
State of North Carolina -- The objectives of a two-year Chowan Basin study are:
to identify and quantify critical pollutant sources (point and nonpoint) in the
upper Chowan Basin; to determine the effect of selected BMP implementation on
immediate downstream water quality through analysis of chemical water quality
data and limited biological data; and to ensure that the public is aware and
involved in the project.
BMP Implementation Strategy at the Local Community and County Level -- A briefingI
packet was developed for county boards of supervisors and town/city councils
to identify BMPs of value to particular communities. The briefing presented
methods for enabling the local government to encourage BMP use to get local
programs started (state-wide).

Richmond-Crater Consortium Interim Study -- Completed. The program will consist
of analyzing point source waste load allocations using a static model, assessing
the impact of residual wastes on water quality, a nonpoint source assessment
and control needs project, and a public participation program (Richmond and
Crater Planning District Commission areas).

Rappahannock Area Development Commission Nonpoint Source Assessment -- Project
to assess watersheds and rank them, calibrate a model with sampling data, and
do a general assessment the nonpoint source problems (RADCO area).

Hampton Roads Urban Runoff Program -- Project will evaluate BMP effectiveness
in four watersheds in Lynnhaven Basin, do BMP testing at construction, high
and low density residential, commerical and institutional and industrial land-
use sites, and develop BMPs and cost-effectiveness analysis using a stormwater
model (Peninsula and Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission areas).

Roanoke Update for Agriculture, Urban Runoff, and Ground Water Nonpoint Source
Categories -- Project description includes: studying of watershed-sized areas,
upgrading of malfunctioning septics in the Smith Mountain Lake area, agricultural
nonpoint source assessment of dairyland/pastureland and BMP effectiveness
study, urban runoff assessment and BMP effectiveness study, ground water strategy
identifying problem types for the Roanoke area, and a ground water conservation/
public participation program.

*WQM State Contact: Robert Stapleford, 804-257-6431

E-78

TABLE 14. NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS IN WEST VIRGINIA

Map
Area Location Nonpoint Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices
1 Lower Mill Creek Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan
2 Sandy Creek Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan
3 Upper Mill Creek Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan Flood Protection & Watershed
Protection Program
4 Upper Pocatalico Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan Repeated standards vio- Agricultural Conservation
River lations for Total Coli- Program
form, Fecal Coliform,
& Phenolics. Occasional
standards violations for
Suspended Solids and Iron.
*5 South Branch River Agriculture Agricultural WQM Plan Agricultural Conservation
Program
6 Oldtown Creek Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan Agricultural Conservation
Program and a 208 Project.
7 Deer Creek Agriculture Agriculture WQM Plan Agricultural Conservation
Program & a 208 Project.
8 Blackwater River Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation & Ongoing Source Evaluation
Preliminary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected Watersheds
Report
9 Three Forks Creek Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected Watersheds
Report
10 Gauley River Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Repeated Standards viola- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine tions for total coliform being conducted
Drainage Affected Watersheds and phenolics. Occasional
Report standards viol.for fecal col.
11 Elk Creek Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected Watersheds
Report
12 Middle Fork River Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected Watersheds
Report

(Continued)

* Only area in Chesapeake Bay Basin

TABLE 14. (Continued)

Map
Area Location Nonpoint Source Category Documentation Comments Abatement Practices

13 Panther Creek Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected
Watersheds Report
14 Upper Cheat River Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Occasional Standards Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine Violations for pH, being conducted
NJ Drainage Affected Total Coliform,
0o . , ~ Watersheds Report Phenolics, Iron &
O Atsenic
15 Tenmile Creek Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected
Watershed Report
16 Upper Tygart Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Occasional Standards Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine violations for pH, being conducted + Rural
Drainage Affected Total Coliform, Fecal Abandoned Mine Program
Watersheds Report Coliform, and Phenolics
17 Meadow River Acid Mine Drainage Data Evaluation + Prelim- Ongoing Source Evaluation
inary Ranking of Mine being conducted
Drainage Affected
Watersheds Report
18 Eastern Allegheny Silviculture Silviculture WQM Plan
Mountains +
Plateaus
19 Central Allegheny Silviculture Silvicuture WQM Plan
Plateau
20 Little Coal River Construction Construction WQM Plan Repeated Standards Demonstration Construction
+ Big Coal River Violations for Total Runoff 208 Project for
Coliform, Fecal Corridor & Highway
Coliform, and Phenolics

WElrST YJR~QI1IKtA dN\eCyV Aj
F ~ ~ u i- F-f7 'd"t SN

4(~ rN, "e~ ''

42'K I _ / no~ '
4~~~~~~~~~� 5 -jKii -c

r~~~. \'9 :r ).1 '.

"1I
e~ 10S/ A
Z: ~1 ''I��,I~j� , 9/

~~~4� "4.

~~~ ,4ZI EEEJ Chespeak Bai Bondr

Figure' 12 Location of nopon sorepole ra nWetVrii

TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF WEST VIRGINIA NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS

Agriculture Water Quality Management Plan -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division
of Water Resources, 304-348-2108. The agriculture plan would determine nonpoint
agricultural pollution sources by watersheds, determine and finalize BMPs for each
watershed, establish the priority watersheds for BMP implementation, and develop
a program to ensure BlMP application.

Silviculture Water Quality Management Plan -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division
of Water Resources, 304-348-2108. A voluntary BMP compliance program is to be
established based on an expanded educational program. Aerial survey of identifying
priority areas to abate silviculture nonpoint source pollution is included, along
with a proposed demonstration project of BMP implementation.

Construction Water Quality Management Plan -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division
of Water Resources, 304-348-2108. This plan includes identification of areas
with potential for water quality problems during land-disturbance activities, develop-
ment of a BMIP manual describing practices and listings of general construction
activities, and implementation of the plan on a voluntary basis with planned demon-
stration projects.

Mining Water Quality Management Plan -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division of
Water Resources, 304-348-2108. A priority determination of mine-drainage effected
watersheds is included in this plan to help ensure the successful implementation4
of a surface mine reclamation and mine drainage abatement program. Activities are
being coordinated with the Division of Reclamation.

Ground Water Strategy Plan -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division of Water
Resources, 304-348-2108. It is the intent of the West Virginia Division of Water
Resources to establish an overall strategy for the maintenance of ground water
at a level that will satisfy current needs and provide for future demands. The
strategy will identify those institutional and resource needs necessary to
properly implement a ground water management program.

303(e) Basin Plans Update Project -- Douglas Steele, West Virginia Division of Water
Resources, 304-348-2108. Project strives to address issues to better identify
areas where advanced wastewater treatment appears to be required and identify the
potential solutions to particular problems. Work includes stream modeling, sampling,
and analyzing water quality, and determining allowable wasteloads to particular
watersheds.4

E-82

TABLE 16. NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM AREAS IN DELAWARE

A'lp Area Location Nonpoint Source Category Documentation Abatement Practices

1 Appoquinimink Watershed Agriculture Volume 11 New Castle County RCWI' Program & 208 Monitoring
Areawide Waste Treatment & Evaluation Project on Watershed
MEanagement Program ($7.4 Million)

2 Smyrna Watershed Agriculture New Castle County Agricultural
Assessment Ranking Scheme

3 Chain of Lakes Watershed Agriculture 305(b) Report and Survey and Clean Lakes Program & 208 Moni-
(Blairs Pond, Griffith Classification of Delaware's toring & Evaluation Project
Lake and Haven Lake) Public Lakes

4 Lake Como Agriculture Survey and Classification of
Dclaware's Public Lakes

5 Lums Pond Agriculture Survey and Classification of
Delaware's Public Lakes

6 Millsboro Area Agriculture + On-Lot Sussex County Water Quality 208 Project - Management Plan to
Management Plan.Dl)laware Water Reduce Groundwater Contamination
Quality Management Plan

7 Frankford-Dagsboro Area On-lot Report #8 Case Study Report 208 Program - Wastewater
Rural Wastewater Management Management Plan for Frankford-
Dagsboro.

Note: None of the Delaware problem areas are located in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. However, the RCWP (#1) may be useful to
establish BMP effectiveness in reducing nutrient loads wich may be applicable to adjacent Eastern Shore farmland.

WILMINYGTON /

E 3Chesapeake Basin Bcundary

N'iio
i�~~~~~I�~&
V >�� .\ .nin' n
- "'" x .Daa~ L

' 0 , 0 z A \\ /

RLINE ~lr

--1;~~~~~~~~~~~f
0'"

*~�~�~ oW.1tloi1

ti .�i ('Mr
4Cmooco� Armn LA W0R'

itt Coiner - ,"

/7 K IP 'jJ i?.iti~
S
~ 55(0 4 P *jR "" o

toot . '4f ....... . .... ...
r~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~lton ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ot 0'e

Fiue1. L c t o f nnont sourepobem areas in Delwar
i t '5 ;""'' *'ii'.,
-n...�- .-� tI

Figre13 Lcaio of nonoint ourepolmaea nDlwr
.-.. i' 1 ,..i-84

Table 17. SUMMARY OF DELAWARE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS

New Castle County Water Quality Management Plans of Work (Agricultural, Fiscal
and Institutional Management, Ground Water, Mushroom Industry, On-Site Waste
Treatment Solid Waste Disposal, and Stormwater Nonpoint Source Control Work
Programs -- Bernard L. Dworsky, Administrator, Water Resources Agency for New
Castle County, 302-731-7670.

a. Agriculture -- Program to disseminate information to the agriculture
and non-agriculture communities regarding the Appoquinimink RCWP
project. Transfer of agriculture BMF information will be coordinated
by the Water Resources Agency.

b. Fiscal and Institutional Management -- Work plan to examine and analyze
existing financing methods and recommend possible alternative sources
and mechanisms for the continued funding of the area-wide water quality
management program.

c. Ground Water -- Program to establish water quality standards to integrate
with the state's ground water management plan, to update agricultural
and stormwater best management practices, and to develop an emergency
spill response program for New Castle County.

d. Mushroom Industrial Management -- Work plan to rely on voluntary program
to implement best management practices with assistance of agricultural
conservation district personnel. Plan consists of establishing project
oversight committee, quantifying water quality impacts, reviewing
monitoring and enforcement programs, and identifying best management
practices.

e. On-Site Waste Management -- Program to develop cost-effective guidelines,
identify alternative on-site systems for use in ground water recharge
areas, develop new regulations and modify old ones, and develop a
management program for on-site systems.

f. Solid Waste Disposal -- Work plan to initiate work in furthering the
prioritization of landfill sites impacting an area's water quality.
Recommendations will be made for a monitoring program on those sites
with the highest change of impacting water quality.

g. Stormwater --Program will summarize fiscal impacts of drainage facilities
in New Castle County, participate in the White Clay Creek and City of
Newark storm water management projects, and participation in an inter-
agency project to develop storm water management controls for the Mill
Creek Basin.

E-85

APPENDIX F

A MONITORING AND RESEARCH STRATEGY TO
MEET MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

David A. Flemer
Linda C. Davidson
Kent Price
Gail B. Mackiernan
Barnes Johnson

Acknowledgements

Over the last two years, many EPA, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of
Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and University of Delaware
personnel have been involved in this massive effort. We extend special
thanks to Robert Biggs, Charles Bostater, Larry Claflin, Ellen Gilinsky,
Michael Haire, Jerry Hollowell, Marria O'Malley, Narendra Panday, John
Roland, Evelyn Schulz, Ramona Trovato, and Carl Osborne.

In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Citizens Program for
Chesapeake Bay, the D.C. Government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Horn Point Environmental Laboratory, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Old Dominion University, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science are gratefully
acknowledged for their cooperation, active support, and sustained
interest in the Chesapeake Bay Program.

FOREWORD

This document is an appendix to the Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program's report entitled: Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for
Action. This monitoring strategy is only one of the management strategies
recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Program.

CONTENTS

Foreword ..F-ii

Executive Summary ... F-iv

Figures .F-vi

Tables. F-viii

Introduction ............................. F-1

Section

1 The Need for a Bay-wide Monitoring Strategy ......... F-4

2 The Theory Behind the Plan ................. F-7

F-23

4 Literature Cited ...................... F-28

Attachment

1 Major Problems with Past (and Present) Monitoring Efforts and
Data Collection ...................... F-1-1

2 Hypothesis Testing .... ........ F-2-1

3 Summary of Present Monitoring Activities .......... F-3-1

4 Chesapeake Bay Biological Resource-Monitoring Data
Acquisition and Analysis Requirements and Recommendations F-4-1

5 Volunteer Monitoring Program ............... F-5-1

6 Baseline Monitoring ..................... F-6-1

7 A Suggested Monitoring/Management Strategy for Nutrients,
Oxygen, and Oysters in the Main Stem of Chesapeake Bay . . . F-7-1

8 A Description of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Upper
Chesapeake Bay from 1971 to 1981 and the Resulting Management
and Monitoring Recommendations ............... F-8 I

F-il

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chesapeake Bay remains a highly productive body of water even after
centuries of intensive use. Every year it provides millions of pounds of
seafood, functions as a major hub for shipping and commerce, supplies
natural habitat for over 2,300 species of fish and wildlife, and provides
recr~eation for residents and visitors. In recent years, however, a number
of signs have indicated reasons for concern about the state of "health" of
the Bay. Serious declines have been seen in freshwater-spawning fish,
oyster spat recruitment, and in the abundance of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV). In addition, indications of degrading water quality
exist in the forms of nutrient enrichment, accompanied by blooms of
nuisance algae and persistent dissolv'ed oxygen deficiencies, and increasing
additions of toxic substances to the water column and sediments.

Monitoring data collected over the years have been adequate for
defining trends in water quality and living resources in some areas of the
Bay and its tributaries. However, these data have not provided the
information needed to understand the meaning of the changes taking place.
Apparently, monitoring and research need to be coupled in a mutually
reinforcing manner that would help reduce the uncertainty in explaining the
meaning of observed changes in the Bay.

The construction of a new Bay-wide monitoring strategy consisted of
three major steps. First, the Bay's declining natural resources were
described and questions that needed to be answered to determine the precise
cause(s) of the decline were posed. Second, the existing state and Federal
monitoring programs were mapped. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing programs were evaluated in light of their ability to answer
the questions concerning the living resources.

The evaluation of the current monitoring programs revealed several
weaknesses, including:

1) data collection gaps;
2) duplication of effort;
3) the failure to collect water quality and living resource data
together;
4) the absence of Bay-wide monitoring goals and objectives; and
5) the lack of support between monitoring and research.

With these weaknesses in mind, the GBP staff set out to formulate a new
Bay-wide monitoring strategy. The first step in this process was to define
how one uses a monitoring program to solve the Bay's problems. The
traditional approach of relying principally upon trend monitoring was
abandoned as ineffective. It was necessary to have a procedure that
combined monitoring, research, and management. These three elements had to
be combined into a continuous interpretive feedback system.

Managers need sound cause-and-effect information to make wise
management decisions. Therefore, the collection of environmental data must
be done in a manner that minimizes the uncertainty associated with cause-
and-effect inferences. The collection of data can be done on a series of
levels, each designed to give a different level of confidence in the data.
These levels are defined as follows:

F-iv

Level I: Descriptive -- to allow the monitor to describe
statistically changes in the parameters measured over time
and make trend assessments.

Level II: Analytical -- to allow the monitor to derive meaningful
correlations among several of the parameters measured over
time with defined statistical significance.

Level III: Interpretive -- to allow the monitor, analyst, and scientist
to determine cause-and-effect relationships among several of
the parameters measured over time and to understand and
predict, with statistical characterization, inter actions
among ecosystem components and the probable effects of
changes.

The new Bay-wide monitoring strategy was patterned after this
hierarchical approach. It presents baseline monitoring activities (i.e.,
collection of ambient water quality, sediment, and living resources data)
done at Level I and Level II efforts. This provides descriptive information
and allows the forming of initial hypotheses concerning possible cause-and-
effect relationships. The next logical step in this process is to design a
Level III (monitoring and research) approach which will lead to the
understanding of cause-and-effect relationships and provide a basis for
management action. A plan that combines all three levels provides a more
effective strategy than the use of any single level approach. Therefore,
the new Bay-wide monitoring strategy joins traditional monitoring with
research, and places them in a management context.

The master monitoring plan as outlined in this document has several
facets:

o it has a Bay-wide perspective;

o it is problem oriented;

o it builds on present monitoring programs;

o it assumes coordination of efforts between state agencies and
between state and Federal agencies;

o it emphasizes communication and cooperation between managers and
researchers;

o it emphasizes the necessary relationship between baseline
(pulse-taking) monitoring, research, and data analysis; and

o it assumes that there will be an effective Bay-wide data management
plan.

Because this Bay-wide monitoring program will be a long-term effort
carried out over several years, data management is critical and should be a
continuing process. This document suggests a data management plan whereby
field measurements will be recorded, transcribed, entered into the computer,
quality checked, organized into a unified data base, and maintained in a
secure, accurate, and efficient manner for subsequent retrieval and analysis.

F-v

FIGURES

Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay ......................F-2

Figure 2. Monitoring flow diagram showing the relationship of
monitoring to source, transport, fate and effects . . ..

Figure 3. A summary of the hierarchy of the various algal responses F-10
to the spectrum of environmental fluctuations ......

Figure 4. Conceptual scheme illustrating the hierarchical design of
research on SAV and associated Chesapeake Bay ecosystems .
F-13
Figure 5. Chesapeake Bay segmentation map .............

F-22
Figure 6. Monitoring, research, and management ...........

Figure 3e.1 NOAA meteorological, current, and tide monitoring
stations ........................ F-3-15

Figure 3e.2 USGS discharge and water quality monitoring stations . . F-3-16

Figure 3e.3 Water quality monitoring stations sampled by MD, VA, and
ODU ........................ F-3-17

Figure 3e.4 Water quality monitoring stations sampled by the DC
government, MD, and VIMS ................ F-3-18

Figure 3e.5 Sediment monitoring stations sampled by ODU and VA . . F-3-19

Figure 3e.6 Plankton monitoring stations .............. F-3-20

Figure 3e.7 Benthic monitoring stations .............. F-3-21

Figure 3e.8 Adult and juvenile fish monitoring stations ...... F-3-22

Figure 3e.9 Oyster spatfall monitoring stations .......... F-3-23

Figure 3e.10 Biological tissue monitoring stations ......... F-3-24

Figure 3e.ll Shellfish tissue monitoring stations .......... F-3--25

Figure 3e.12 Submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring stations . F-3-26

Figure 3e.13 Potomac river water quality and phytoplankton monitoring
stations ........................ F-3-27

Figure 3e.14 Radiological survey conducted near the Peach Bottom
nuclear power station .................. F-3-28

Figure 3e.15 Quarterly radiological survey conducted near the Calvert
Cliffs nuclear power station .... . ......... F-3-29

F-vi

Figure 3e.l6 Annual radiological survey conducted near the Calvert
Cliffs nuclear power station. .............F-3-30

Figure 6.1 Proposed baseline monitoring stations. ........F-6-2

Figure 7.1 Areas of reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations and
public oyster bars .. ..............F-7-4

Figure 7.2 Proposed stations for level III oyster/DO study . . .* F-7-7

TABLES

Table 3a.l. State of Maryland Monitoring .............. F-3-3

Table 3a.2. State of Virginia Monitoring ..............F-3-5

Table 3b.l. Federal Monitoring.F-3-7

Table 3c.l. District of Columbia Monitoring ............. F-3-9

Table 3d.l. Special Monitoring (On-going) .............. F-3-11

Table 6.1 Water Quality Baseline Monitoring ............ F-6-3

Table 6.2 Cost Estimates .....................

Table 8.1 A Listing of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetaion Encountered
in the Chesapeake Bay from 1971 to 1981 ......... F-8-3

Table 8.2 A Bay-wide Summary by Year of the Environmental
Variables Measured During the Monitoring of Upper
Chesapeake Bay SAV ...................

Table 8.3 A Summary by CBP Segment of the Environmental Variables
Measured During the 1971-1981 Monitoring of Upper
Chesapeake Bay SAV ................... F-8-5

Table 8.4.a. The Percentage and Number of Stations With and Without
Vegetation During the 1971-1981 Monitoring of Chesapeake
Bay SAV ........................ F-8-8

Table 8.4.b. The Percentage and Number of Visits to Stations With and
Without Vegetation During 19 71-1981 Monitoring of
Chesapeake Bay SAV ................... F-8-8

Table 8.5 A Summary by Year of the Total SAV Volumetric
Displacement on Standing Crop and the Average Number of
Species of Algae and Vascular Plants Measured During the
Monitoring of the Upper Chesapeake Bay SAV ....... F-8-9

Table 8.6 A Summary by CBP Segment of Total SAV Volumetric Standing
Crop and Average Number of Algae and Vascular Plant
Species Measured During the 1971 to 1981 Monitoring of
the Chesapeake Bay SAV ................. F-8-10

Table 8.7 Frequency of Occurrence of Each SAV Species Encountered
During the Period 1971 to 1981 in the Upper Chesapeake
Bay and the Percent of Total Frequency ......... F-8-12

Table 8.8 Frequency of Occurrence of the Five Most Frequently
Occurring Species During Each Year of the SAV Survey in
the Upper Chesapeake Bay ................. F-8-13

F-viii

Table 8.9 Frequency of Occurrence of the Five Most Frequently
Occurring Species in Each CBP Segment .......... F-8-13

Table 8.10 Frequency of Occurrence of the Overall Five Most
Frequently Occurring Species in Intervals of Water Column F-8-14
Depth in the Upper Chesapeake Bay ............

Table 8.11 The Number of Visits with and without Vegetation by Water
Column Depth Interval During the 1971 to 1981 SAV F 815
Monitoring in the Upper Chesapeake Bay .........

Table 8.12 Frequency of Occurrence of the Five Most Frequently
Occurring Species in Intervals of Secchi Disk Depth . �

Table 8.13 The Number of Visits with and without Vegetation by Water
Column Depth Interval During the 1971 to 1981 SAV
Monitoring in the Upper Chesapeake Bay .........

Table 8.14 Freque!icy of Occurrence of the Five Most Frequently
Occurring Species in 19.9 cm Intervals of WC-SD Depth in
the Upper Chesapeake Bay ................F--8

Table 8.15 The Number of Visits with and without Vegetation by WC-SD
Depth Interval During the 1971 to 1981 SAV Monitoring in
the Upper Chesapeake Bay ................

F-ix

INTRODUCTION

The Chesapeake Bay system (Figure 1) is a national resource recognized
for its productivity which is expressed as fishery yields, recreation, and
as a water-course providing large volumes of water for industry and
transportation. In recent years, a number of signs have indicated reasons
* ~~~~for concern about the state of "health" of the Bay (U.S. EPA 1982b, Flemer
* ~~~et al. 1983). To fulfill the information needs of Bay managers, industry,
the public, and the research community concerning possible future changes
in the Bay, it is essential that an effective monitoring program be
developed that builds on present knowledge and monitoring efforts.

An effective monitoring program should have several goals. It should:
enhance our ability to understand the difference between natural phenomena
and anthropogenic events; provide information about controllable land-use
activities that can affect the Bay's ecology; and also provide a framework
for research. Monitoring will become inefficient when it is uncoupled from
research, (that is, when data are collected and not interpreted).

Monitoring, as it is defined in this document, departs from the more
traditional usage of the word and is better phrased as "analytical
monitoring." The definition then becomes: a structured approach to
environmental measurements in response to a specific question which permits
a causal inference to be made. Analytical monitoring requires the coupling
of environmental resources, management questions, and scientific research.
This leads to a better understanding of environmental variability resulting
from both natural and human influences.

Chesapeake Bay is a complex system not only in physical, chemical, and
biological components and processes, but also in terms of its "goods and
services" that result from numerous ecological processes, including the
flow of the sun's energy through the photosynthetic process of plants
(including microscopic phytoplankton) to the fisheries and the human uses
of the system (U.S. EPA 1982a). As an estuary, the Bay has important
t ~~~ gradients and heterogeneities in its geology, physics of water movement,
chemistry, and biology. Thus, it is not a homogeneous environment but one
of a myriad of dynamic features. The human uses of this complex and
diverse system are manifold. Based on these observations, it would appear
that a monitoring program would necessarily be exceedingly complex. The
* ~~~magnitude of a monitoring plan will be large because of this complexity and
the large size of the Bay system; its drainage basin occupies about 64,000
square miles, and the surface of the Bay and tributary waters occupies 4400
square miles. However, an organized approach can reduce the complexity to
manageable limits and scale the large size and diversity of the system down
to comprehensible dimensions.

The purpose of this document is to define a framework and strategy for
the Master Monitoring Plan for the Bay, identify some important elements of
the plan, and suggest how research might be integrated into a long-term
operational monitoring effort. A summary is presented of the Bay's main
problems identified by the characterization process (Flemer et al. 1983)
and a discussion is given on how monitoring should be coordinated to
address these and other problems which may occur. In addition, the
document summarizes the existing monitoring programs and assesses their
ability to provide the information needed to begin to solve these

F-i

Susquehanna
River

~~~~atap sc

3 Chester River

Patapsco ~ ~ ~ ~ Copan
~~~ f"'~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~River

-, Chopt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~antcke

Pot o ~ ~ ~ ivrn River
RiverRie

Tangier
Sound

~38'

0 10 20

Nautical Miles

o 10 20 Rie

Kilometres

James River ~~~~~~Atlantic
I~~A ~Ocean

770

Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay. F-2

problems. Requirements and recommendations for biological resource
monitoring are outlined as well as a general data management plan for all
types of monitoring. A key feature of this data management plan is the
emphasis on quality assurance.

This document is divided into 3 sections. Section I gives the
reasoning behind the need for a new monitoring strategy; section 2 presents
the theory and rationale which went into the plan's formulation; and
Section 3 presents the plan itself.

F-3

SECTION I

THE NEED FOR A NEW BAY-WIDE MONITORING STRATEGY

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

The attempt to characterize the Bay (Flemer et al. 1983) using past and
present monitoring data revealed some strengths and weakness concerning
this data collection. The next three areas will discuss (1) the major
problems with the data collection, (2) what the data revealed about the
state of the Bay, and (3) recommendations for future data collection and
analysis.

Major Problems with the Data Collection

First, there were major problems with the data base as seen in the lack
of consistent data collection in several large areas of the Bay, such as
the Eastern Shore regions and the lower Bay. Many of these areas are
biologically important areas such as finfish-spawning grounds. Second,
temporal coverage could be improved, as could the power of multifactorial
analyses, by collecting water quality information that is coupled with
living resource information and third, there was a lack of consistency in
selection of parameters measured. This can be remedied by selecting a core
set of parameters that will always be measured. Attachment I discusses in
more detail these and other problems with past data collection.

What the Data Revealed about the State of the Bay

Most of the monitoring conducted in the Bay and its tributaries at
present is done on a trend assessment level. Monitoring, which is designed
to show cause-and-effect relationships, is accomplished under special
programs usually through research agencies and institutions. Through the
characterization of Chesapeake Bay (Flemer et al. 1983), data from the
current monitoring programs and research efforts were used in statistical
analyses and showed declines in several of the Bay's natural resources. In
many instances it was possible to show correlations between these declines
and certain water quality parameters which were sampled concurrently with
the living resources data. In many areas of the Bay this was not possible
because concurrent water quality data were not available. In addition, in
most cases, direct cause-and-effect relationships were impossible to
conclude because the monitoring programs were not designed to address this
issue.

The major environmental problems that emerged from the characterization
process (Flemer et al. 1983) provide a conceptual basis for a monitoring
plan. Each problem may be formulated as one or more specific hypotheses
that may be tested. This approach ensures that data will be used to
address the most important problems and that explicit decisions will be
made regarding what is to be measured and the format of the experimental
design.

The characterization process (Flemer et al. 1983) and research by many
institutions aided the CBP in identifying the following key problem areas:

F-4

1. An increase in the extent of oxygen deficient water in the mid-Bay
region.

2. A decline in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).

3. A decline in freshwater spawning (anadromous) fish.

4. A decline in the oyster fishery (particularly spat set success).

5. A proliferation of nuisance algae in upstream portions of the Bay
and its tributaries.

6. A threat of toxic substances to some living resources.

7. A decrease in water clarity.

8. A need for a more coordinated effort in the collection of baseline
information on the Bay.

9. A need for information to formulate, calibrate, and verify
hydrographic and water quality models of the Bay.

10. An urgent need to understand the causes of undesired changes.

Three of these problem areas involved declines in important living
resources of Chesapeake Bay -- SAV, finfish, and oysters. The remaining
areas could be directly or indirectly related to these three resources.
With this in mind CBP attempted to formulate monitoring strategies that
were designed to further the understanding of cause-and-effect
relationships between water quality and these living resources. Questions
designed to reveal the causes of the declines seen in each of these
resources were formulated from what is known about the resources' life
cycles and how they interact with their environment. Monitoring strategies
built around this framework aid in the separation of anthropogenic from
natural causes and bring the manager closer to pin-pointing the exact
cause(s) of the decline. Some specific hypotheses addressing these major
problems and associated rationale, answers from characterization (Flemer et
al. 1983), and suggested tests for the hypotheses are shown in Attachment 2
of this monitoring report.

Recommendations for Future Data Collection

To improve data analysis, several areas of data collection should be
refined. Some of these improvements include standardization of techniques,
congruent water quality and biological sampling, consideration of natural
variability when designing sample intensity and frequency, and recognition
of local system features. In addition, several areas of needs were
identified including: 1) the need for true abundance measurement; 2) the
need to understand biological community structure and interactions; and 3)
the need to develop bioassay procedures that allow interpretation of
laboratory derived results of field conditions. Attachment 4 discusses
each of these recommendations, as well as specific biological sampling
recommendations, in more detail.

F-5

SUMMARY

The need for a new monitoring strategy issues from these facts:

o there are data collection gaps;

o there is duplication of effort;

o water quality and living resources data are collected separately;

o no Bay-wide monitoring goals and objectives have been set; and

o monitoring and research have not necessarily supported each other.

With these ideas in mind the monitoring team [Bay scientists, and state
(MD and VA), and Federal representatives] formulated a proposal for a
Bay-wide monitoring strategy.

Each of the state monitoring programs described in Attachment 3 are
designed with a specific purpose in mind which may cover only a small
portion of a river or embayment. The philosophy behind the new monitoring
strategies proposed in this report is not to countermand the state's
specific monitoring objectives, but to better coordinate the efforts and
manage the data collection and storage to attack the problems involving the4
Bay's declining resources (see maps of state and Federal monitoring2
stations, Attachment 3).

F- 6

SECTION 2

THE THEORY BEHIND THE PLAN

IMPORTANT GUIDELINES

A number of important guidelines are suggested for the satisfactory
development of a monitoring plan. Some of these are self-evident but
others are not.

- Management goals must be established for major zones or regions of
the Bay and tributaries.

The over-all management goal is to maintain the natural biological
productivity and enhance it where science and management indicates such
would be appropriate. Regions such as Baltimore Harbor and the Elizabeth
River (near Norfolk) may receive future reductions in the discharge of
materials that cause problems, but it may not be realistic to expect such
areas to be rehabilitated to former "pristine" conditions. These may be
extreme examples of lost living resource values; however, other similar
regions may be returned to a more natural productive condition without
reaching the former productive potential.

-Objectives must be stated for monitoring.

The objectives will form the "road map" by which we can measure
progress in assessing the health of the Bay and evaluate the success of
management efforts.

- Monitoring must be carried out in the context of environmental
uncertainty.

This statement is based on the observation that environmental
measurements inherently have a probability distribution. Conclusions
reached from such measurements must address the statistical uncertainty
associated with sampling and analytical efforts to be meaningful. However,
another important consideration is the uncertainty associated with our
understanding of the dynamic nature of an ecosystem's structural and
functional properties (Flemer and DeMoss 1982). in this context, there
continues to be questions about what to measure, where, and with what
frequency.

- It must be recognized that outputs of the Bay ecosystem, such as
fisheries, result from the interaction of a number of ecological
processes.

For example, human effects on the fisheries can be direct, as in
over-fishing, but often it is intervention of various Bay processes (e.g.,
nutrient cycling, changes in freshwater flow, turbidity, and its effects on
photosynthesis) that can ultimately damage the fisheries.

- An operational framework that links sources of problem materials
with their transport, fate, and effects needs to be maintained.

F- 7

This simple framework (Figure 2) will require constant and consistent
monitoring of point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, often far removed
from the tidal Bay system proper. it will also require a close coupling
between present land use activities, a data management system, and
flexibility in over-all sampling design to track environmental planning
efforts which will assist future allocation of monitoring resources.

- Monitoring without an effective data management system can lead to
resource-use inefficiencies and waste.4

This point is self-evident in light of the vast amount of data in hand
and anticipated in the future. Furthermore, an effective data management
system is essential to periodic resource assessments.

- A system or Bay-wide perspective is essential.4

The future water and sediment quality of the Bay and its tidal
tributaries will continue to depend on inputs of material from various
land-use activities in the drainage basin, air-shed, and ocean boundary. A
holistic view of the Bay ecosystem is essential if we are to appreciate the
inter-connecting nature of ecological processes (White and Millington 1982).

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF A MONITORING PLAN

The Importance of Baseline Monitoring

Baseline sampling as we are defining it for this document is the
collection of data at defined locations over time by defined procedures.
It is useful in describing the basic features of the Bay ecosystem and can
help portray change. However, baseline monitoring alone cannot provide
adequate information needed to understand the meaning of a change in the
state or level of a variable. The Bay system is an ecosystem whose
properties are dynamic and interacting (U.S. EPA 1982a). Thus, measuring
changes in phytoplankton, copepods, oyster and fish stocks or water and
sediment quality (i.e., nutrients and toxic materials) will not provide
adequate data to understand or infer much about the nature and effects of a
stress or the response time following the relaxation of a stress.

The Need for Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing, whenever possible, ensures that a focus on sampling
design and evaluation of the data in terms of accepting or rejecting an
hypothesis will occur. Without a question in mind it is difficult to
interpret data. An extension of this concept leads to mathematical models.

The Complexity of Bay Ecological Processes

Another important consideration is the recognition that ecological
processes in the Bay operate at varying spatial and temporal scales (Harris
1980, Figure 3). For example, it is known that there are daily changes as
well as seasonal and locational differences in the levels of dissolved
oxygen. Thus, how the spatial and temporal scales are viewed is critical
to how a monitoring plan is designed and the results interpreted. A useful
way to view the ecological complexity of the Bay and link various spatial
and temporal scales into an analytical framework for coupling field

F-8

SOURCE TRANSPORT EFFECTS
OF � '- AND - (HUMAN HEALTH,- --ONITORING --->
POLLUTANT FATE ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM,
FISHERIES)

DPOSURE MONITORING EFFECTS M1ONITORING

Figure 2. Monitoring flow diagram showing the relationship of monitoring to source, transport,
fate and effects with separation between exposure and effects monitoring.

PERSPECTIVES

Time
Seconds \ Space
Metres
10' -

Decade- . e L Climatology - 9000 km
a * ; -Constant-

10'- I /

Year- . _.. - 616 km

107- ="

Month- - 55 km
a/ _2 r-, . Ecology
10' e "Observable
Week - oc Phenomena" -8km

10'- .
Day - 800 m

Hour- -20
'-o'.~i g Physiology
� a / "Equilibrium"

c
102 -
Minute- - 0.12 m

10 -

FIG. 3.. A summary of the hierarchy of the various algal responses to the spectrum of
environmental fluctuations. The temporal and spatial scales are linked by the processes of
horizontal turbulent diffusion (Bowden 1970). The three bell curves roughly define the
scales of interest to physiologists, ecologists, and climatologists. The horizontal arrows are
meant to show that higher frequency (lower level) processes collapse into higher level
responses. The figure does not pretend to be an exhaustive description - for more details
and references see text. (from Harris, 1980).

F-10

observation and-~experimental work, including mathematical modeling, is
exemplified by an hierarchical design of research in submerged aquatic
vegetation (Kemp et al. 1980, Figure 4).

Segmentation of the Bay

The physical complexity of the Bay can be portrayed in a simplified and
organized way as proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Chesapeake Bay Program (Figure 5). The approach is to segment the Bay
system into a group of areas that share common features. Major classes
within each major tributary include tidal fresh water, the turbidity
maximum zones and the two-layered estuarine region. The lower main-stem of
the Bay has some unique features in terms of estuarine circulation.
However, this approach provides a first-order level of comparison and helps
define limits on ecological processes for the Bay and tidal tributaries
that are controlled primarily by salinity and estuarine circulation.

Coordination of Effort

A principal weakness in many monitoring efforts is the lack of
coordination in sampling among the various scientific and management
agencies. This problem is acute when piecemeal sampling is undertaken.
Simultaneous sampling which includes key variables can provide greater
insights as to the probable cause of an effect. For example, studies that
examine the phytoplankton distribution in the Bay without measuring
important physical and chemical variables will not allow an opportunity to
analyze for meaningful correlations. An example of this problem is
described in detail for the fluvial James River at Cartersville whereby
inconsistencies in the dissolved oxygen data arose because appropriate
variables and frequencies of sampling were not included in the baseline
monitoring (Comptroller General 1981).

Changes in Methodology

Monitoring studies that extend over many years are subject to
methodological change. This change may be appropriate but, it is essential
to attempt to calibrate the old and new methods for their comparability.
The importance of this consideration was recently shown in Lake Michigan
where approximately 90 years of water quality data at selected drinking
water plants were seriously questioned (Shapiro 1983).

Quality Assurance

It is critical that a rigorous quality assurance plan be adopted for
the Bay-wide monitoring plan. Criteria should be established before data
are compared. Otherwise, inethodololgical differences, lack of analytical
control, and other factors will limit the utility of such data in trend
analyses.

A Specimen Bank

Another important consideration is the role of developing a specimen
bank where environmental materials (e.g., sediments and living resources)
will be stored, under appropriate and rigorously controlled conditions, for
future reference. This concept is straightforward--"it is important in

te CUITenQ FARM

Bay

Jo oHUMA N / Estuary
\ 1. SEUTMTAL ISETTLE-
MENT
VA /
CHESAPEAKE BAY \

/ \/
/ -N /
x/>=S /\

Pond
Micro-ecosystems ; \

/ \,

0~I \

Y; , Laboratory
Microcosms
MACRO- SEDIMENT /
t, PHYTES

Tanks i
hoto-/ \CRO-
syottle- Re~PHYTES
g Tanks

Fi .cm th io

Figure 4. Conceptual scheme illustrating the hierarchical design of research
on submerged aquatic vegetation and associated Chesapeake Bay eco-
systems. The illustrations on the right show various scales of re-
search focus, and model diagrams on the left represent principal
parts and processes of systems which correspond with the hierar-
chical level being studied. Graphic symbols are those of H.T.
Odum 1971. ( from Kemp et al. 1980)

F-12

ET-2

WT- I _ Et-2

Segment Characteristics WT-2
WT-3 EET-3
CB-2

Tidal-fresh reaches

Ches. Bay N. (CB-1) � dominated by freshwater inflow W-7 E-4
Up. Patuxent (TF-1) of the river system
Up. Potomac (TF-2) * spawning areas for anadromous
Up. Rapp. (TF-3) and semi-anodromous fish
Up. York (TF-4) * resident habitat for freshwater
Up. James (TF-5) fish E-2
* dominated by freshwater plank- TF-2
ton and aquatic vegetation

Transition zones ' 1

Up. Bay (CB-2) � slight salinity (3-9 ppt, mean)
M. Patuxent [(RET-1) influence
M. Potomac (RET-2) * zones of maximum turbidity CB-5 -6
M. Rapp. (RET-3) where suspended sediment E
M. York (RET-4) causes light limitation of RET-2
M. James (RET-5) phytoplankton production T-7
most of the year
� areas are valuable sediment
traps, concentrating material
associated with sediments in- ET-9
cluding absorbed toxic TF3 L-2
chemicals ET-10

Lower estuarine reaches RET-3

Up. C. Bay (CB-3) � upstream limit of deep water TF 4 EE-3
L. Patuxent (LE-1) anoxia LE-3
L. Potomac (LE-2) � moderate salinity (7-13 ppt,
L. Rapp. (LE-3) mean)
L. York (LE-4) � two-layer, estuarine circulation
driven primarily by freshwater
inflow RET-4 CB-6 CB-7

L. James (LE-5) * weaker estuarine circulation
Sec. W Tribu (WT-1-8) characterized by limited
E. S Tribu (ET-I-10) flow/flushing characteristics
� water quality controlled by the
density structure of the main 4
stem of the Bay at the tributary RET-5
mouth

Lower Main Bay LE-5

Chesapeake Bay � water deeper than 30' usually
Lower Central experiences oxygen depletion
(CB-4) in summer-can be toxic to fish,
crabs. shellfish and benthic
animals. Embayments
� mean salinity of 9 to 14 ppt
� rich in nutrients E. Bay (EE-1) � have salinities similar to
L. Choptank (EE-2) adjacent Bay waters
Chesapeake Bay * influenced by inflow from Tangier Sound (EE-3) � shallow enough to permit light
South (CB-5) Potomac and Patuxent and rich Mobjack Bay (WE-4) penetration for submerged
in nutrients aquatic vegetation growth
� mean salinity of 10 to 17 ppt * influenced strongly by wind
� subject to summer anoxia and patterns
contains most of the deeper Bay
waters
Estuaries have a capacity to assimilate waste before
Chesapeake Bay � net southward flow experiencing significant ecological damage, but, this
General West (CB-6) * mean salinity of 14 to 21 ppt ability can vary dramatically from one area to another. To
Chesapeake Bay * net northward flow assess water quality of areas with similar characteristics
$ General East (CB-7) * mean salinity of 19 to 24 ppt the CBP divided the Bay into regions, or segments using
natural processes such as circulation and salinity These 45
Chesapeake Bay � net southeastward flow segments were used as a framework to map and
Mouth (CB-8) * mean salinity of 19 to 23 ppt evaluate past and present conditions of Chesapeake Bay.

Figure 5. Segments of Chesapeake Bay and their principal characteristics.

F-13

analyzing trends in exposure to previously unrecognized toxic materials or
toxic materials for which analytical techniques may at present be
inadequate" (Luepke 1979).

Informing the Public

Concerned citizens in the Chesapeake Bay are an asset to managers and
researchers involved in protecting Chesapeake Bay. it is important for the
public to be informed that monitoring data are actually used in resource
assessments. The better informed citizen has a clearer view of how to
participate in Bay issues. One way of keeping open communication between
managers, researchers, and citizens is through a citizens' volunteer
monitoring program (Attachment 5).

Long-Term Commitments

Long-term commitments are an essential ingredient because interpretation
of data resulting from these programs often involves dealing with long-term
natural cycles and the ability to reliably detect subtle human intervention
in the system.

A Management and Regulatory Framework
informational development, to address management and regulatory
concerns for the Bay system, requires that observed efforts be linked to aI
probable cause or causes. Therefore, knowledge about sources of problems
or potential problems, can provide guidance to the development of a
monitoring design.

Sources---
Within the segmentation s'cheme, the tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay can
be viewed as an interface between the land and the atmosphere. Hazardous
materials that enter the estuary mainly via fluvial sources, should be
considered in a monitoring scheme. Classes of materials can be
conveniently grouped into nutrients, toxic chemicals (including trace
metals and organics), and sediments. They can be catagorized as point and
nonpoint sources, depending on whether they emanate from a confined
structure such as pipes or from diffuse sources such as agricultural runoff.

Emphasis should be placed on developing a fall-line or head-of-tide
sampling regime that flags a material that would present an additional load
to the Bay, and which would have unacceptable consequences. The idea of
unacceptable consequences is related to management criteria which are
usually framed in terms of uses of the estuary and its resources. It
should be noted that sources for a particular segment include other
boundaries (e.g., the ocean or a more seaward segment), the Bay bottom, and
the atmosphere.4

The activity of assessing source material should include a series of
bioassays to help evaluate the relative toxicity of anthropogenic
substances. These bioassays should be tested on a variety of organisms and
biological communities, including micro- and mesocosms. The latter is
necessary because single-species bioassays often are poor predictors of the
field behavior and the effects of industrial chemicals. Emphasis should be
placed on sub-acute effects and possible shifts in the food web. The
greater ecological insights gained on source material effects will lead to
a more rational basis for the prevention of pollution.

F-i14

Transport and Fate--
As indicated above, the transport and fate aspect is coupled to the
source identity. The significance of toxic chemicals and associated fine
sediments argues strongly for the development of physical transport
models. Because of logistical and cost problems, the Chesapeake Bay-wide
monitoring of materials from a transport and fate consideration will be
difficult to achieve on a spatially and temporally dense sampling plan.
Taking data to calibrate and verify transport models or update them seems
to be a better strategy than attempting to directly assess the transport
and fate components on a sampling-intense schedule. Site-specific problems
may fall outside of this argument, but tributary or Bay-wide efforts should
use the predictive capacity inherent in mathematical modeling with a
balanced use of ground truth.

Important questions will continue to require refinement; for example,
to what extent do materials get locked up in river and reservoir sediments
and organic matter which preclude materials from reaching tidal waters; and
under what hydrographic conditions do selected materials pass through
tributaries to the main-stem of the Bay and vice versa?

Effects---
This topic is poorly developed in an ecological context except for
nutrients where the capability is largely in terms of predicting changes in
the concentrations of dissolved oxygen (i.e., little is known about food-web
effects of nutrients). Research on the basic effects of nutrients, at the
level of food-web relationships, is needed before a rational effects model
can form the core of a nutrient monitoring plan. in this context, toxic
chemicals can be modeled mostly in a qualitative way using conceptual
effects models. Basic work is needed, especially in the area of obtaining
chemical tags or markers, to trace the flow of materials in the food webs
and in the ability to sort out meaningful signals in a typically "noisy"'
environment.

As a basic strategy, the present effects models being developed by the
scientific community should be used to predict the effects, and specific
research studies should use the long-term monitoring data to validate the
predictions. This approach has immediate utility for nutrients; but since
toxic chemical effects are much less clearly defined, the approach will be
more qualitative. The Application of conceptual mathematical models may
help resolve critical management decisions in the future. For example, a
significant increase in nitrate loading to the upper Chesapeake Bay may
have minor effects on the main-stem; however, it has been speculated that
this source may be transported down-Bay to the Patuxent where an already
stressed system may be further degraded. In this framework, mathematical
models should be recognized as essential tools in any monitoring plan.

An extension of the approaches described in Section 3 can be integrated
into the source/transport/fate and effects framework.- Attachment F is an
example of a study design that is parallel to the regulatory framework
described above.

Point Source Monitoring---
The Chesapeake Bay Program is recommending that biological and chemical
analysis of effluents from industrial and municipal dischargers be
collected and stored in a permanent data base. The CBP's computerized

F- 15

procedure for rapid, in-stream identification of wastewater effluents

discharged from point sources and accumulating in the bottom sediments.
This "fingerprinting" methodology is described in Appendix D; an example of
a "chromatograph" or "fingerprint" is shown in Figure 3 (Appendix D). in
those areas where biological communities become endangered or stressed,
fingerprints of sediments can be compared to fingerprints of point source
effluents to locate and reduce that particular toxicant.
in addition, a biomonitoring protocol is recommended to be adopted by
the states as part of the NPDES permitting program to ensure that
wastewater discharges are not hazardous to biota. This biomonitoring
program can be modeled after the Monsanto protocol developed by the CBP
(Wilson et al. 1982)(Appendix D). The methods, organisms, and data
analysis can be adapted by the states to address their mutual needs and
concerns. However it should be uniformly done by the states in conjunction
with EPA approved methods (U.S. EPA 1982). The options and recommendations
for biological and chemical tests (shown in Table 16, Appendix D of Wilson
et al. 1982) should be considered.

Nonpoint Source Monitoring--
Research, monitoring programs, and control strategies to reduce urban
runoff should be continued and strengthened by the localities which are
most directly affected. For example, the Baltimore Regional Planning
Council recommends vigorous implementation of 208 plans which identify
urban management strategies to protect water quality in those areas where
urban runoff controls provide the most effective results.

AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Monitoring programs are designed to meet one or more of the following
objectives:

o detection of environmental change

o assessment of regulatory compliance

o provision of a framework for design and conduct of research on
causes and effects

o predictive assessment

o determination of management action effectiveness; and

o provision of a reference pattern.

These elements represent an ordered series for understanding the Bay.
Each element has different information requirements, sampling design, and
analytical approaches. They all are important and necessary for a
comprehensive master monitoring plan for the Bay. These elements or
objectives can be re-cast into three primary analytical levels, each having
managerial flexibility by permitting varying levels of activity. This
hierarchical structure basically reflects one of confidence and power in
the nature of the information. An increased cost may be associated with
higher levels but this is not necessarily true because even extensive
baseline or zero-order predictive efforts can be expensive. Each objective

F- 16

is described below, followed by a re-structuring into the three primary
analytical levels.

Environmental Change Detection

Assuming that meaningful baseline variables have been selected, the
data can be used to determine whether or not a change has occurred in that
variable over a period of time. This objective can form the primary means
for providing a screen or "flag" for potential environmental problems.

Compliance Monitoring

This is conceptually a simple problem. it requires the detection of
change from "ambient" conditions which are established through a defined
set of regulatory standards. In practice this objective may not be simple
to execute because the physical dimensions of the problem range from
site-specific to regional.

Determination of Causality and Prediction in an Ecosystem Context

As is well known, cause and effect determination is usually difficult
to make, especially in complex systems such as Chesapeake Bay. The
establishment of the causes of specific changes is a key element in the
resource decision-making process. Though resource managers are frequently
unable to wait for a strong case of causality to be made, they feel a sense
of increased confidence in decision-making when a decision is supported by
a reasonable causal explanation. However, causal explanations require
careful attention to detail, often involving statistical hypothesis
testing, field and laboratory experiments, and conceptual and mathematical
modeling with varying levels of complexity. This process will lead to
improving predictive capabilities.

Determination of Management Action Effectiveness and Predictive Accuracy

Monitoring to determine whether management actions have been effective
and predictions accurate is important in that it either reinforces
predictions and management actions or it forces a reevaluation of them, and
the search for alternative solutions. if it is found that our predictions
and management actions are not effective, we may be forced back into the
hypothesis testing mode.

ELEMENTS OF THE MASTER MONITORING PLAN

To achieve managerial flexibility, the following plan is structured in
an hierarchical manner, each expressed as a goal. Level III is intended to
provide a greater confidence than the preceeding levels with regard to
explaining the meaning of the data.

Level I: Descriptive--to allow the monitor to describe statistically
changes in the parameters measured over time and -make trend
assessments.

Level II: Analytical--to allow the monitor to test for meaningful
correlations among several of the parameters measured over
time with defined statistical significance.

F- 17

Level III: Interpretive--to allow the monitor, analysts,
and scientists to determine cause and effect relationships
among several of the parameters measured over time and to
understand and predict interactions among ecosystem
components and the probable effects of changes with
statistical characterization.

Baseline data development (levels I and II) will be largely
descriptive; thus, it sets the limits within which initial hypotheses are
formed. Baseline monitoring has and can continue to help describe the 4
spatial and temporal variability associated with the measurement of
environmental parameters. It also serves as part of a long-term
environmental screening technique that detects change in situations where
an hypothesis has not yet been formulated

When it is discovered through baseline monitoring that a problem
exists, the next step in the plan is to develop an analysis of all relevant
data. Then one can formulate an hypothesis followed by a statement of
rationale and test of the hypothesis. This approach is based on the
conviction that an hypothesis framework is the most explicit form of
coupling between scientific knowledge and our ability to detect important
changes in the Bay. As an analytical framework, it directs our thinking to
deal with uncertainty. The suggested approach can be viewed as a "road
map" that assists in organizing information so that answers to questions
will be matched.

Finally, an hypothesis framework does something else that is critical.
it forces those responsible for implementation of the plan to periodically
make assessments as to the weight of *the evidence for accepting or
continuing to reject the hypothesis. The most useful hypotheses will be
coupled in a way that provides insights into the conceptual model that
addresses the source of a problem material, its transport and fate, and its
ultimate effects. This approach will help define the relative influence of
human intervention on processes that have a characteristic natural
variability.

The following plan presents activities for the baseline and trend
assessment goal (level I). Coverage includes the monitoring of sources of
materials both at their origin, in transport media (e.g., fall line and
atmospheric precipitation), and in the tidal Bay system. Effects are
included for several levels of chemical and biological organization. This
level of activity will be followed by levels II and III, respectively.

LEVELI1 GOAL: Describe Baseline and Measure Trends

Objective: To characterize the spatial and temporal pattern of living
resources and environmental variables so that a meaningful
baseline is developed and applied over time for the Bay
system.

Rationale: Baseline monitoring is largely a zero-order activity (i.e.,
little or no immediate predictive value). This is so because
baseline monitoring focuses on point-in-time measurements of
ambient conditions. It typically does not address questions
of ecological function or processes. Because complex

F- 18

ecosystems such as Chesapeake Bay probably have multiple
steady states in terms of biological out-puts (May 1977), it
is not surprising that baseline monitoring has limited
capabilities. However, such recognition is not intended to
denigrate baseline monitoring but place it in perspective and
ensure that practitioners of such activities-have realistic
expectations.

LEVEL II GOAL: Develop Analytically Significant Sets of Correlations
With Defined Statistical Significance

Objective: To develop a series of relationships that can be tested as
hypotheses that focus on important questions regarding the
Bay's living resources and environmental variables.

Rationale: Many interesting and ecologically plausible relationships are
known to exist between environmental variables and living
resources. Discovery of these relationships often results
from experience and knowledge about how variables are related
through common patterns. A grouping of common patterns can
be formulated into a conceptual framework or model. The
conceptual model is a tool that is used to track the behavior
of various interactions expressed either as a bivariate or
multi-variate set of interactions.

In an attempt to increase the generality of the observed
relationships (that is, does one factor change predictably in
relation to one or more factors) it is desirable to test the
nature of the relationship under a range of circumstances.
If generality can be combined with realism and
predictability, then a good understanding of how some aspect
of the Bay ecosystem functions has been developed. This is
the basis of understanding cause-and-effect relationships and
leads naturally to level III.

In an ecosystem in general, and especially one as complex as
Chesapeake Bay, one might expect to find many relationships
among variables that vary in their intensity. Many
relationships often are poorly correlated but may reflect
meaningful interactions. Statistical hypothesis testing is
an important technique that brings a high level of
objectivity in deciding whether a particular relationship
occurs simply as a matter of chance. However, statistics are
a tool, not a substitute for clear reasoning and accurate
framing of ecological relationships.

LEVEL III COAL: Develop and Interpret Predictive Models based on
Cause-and-Effect Relationships

objective: To analytically allocate cause-and-effect among the various
parameters and interactions (many of which were previously
described as level II examples) that constitute the critical
elements of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and to develop
predictive models that incorporate cause-and-effect of
multiple parameter interactions.

F-i19

Rationale: Because Chesapeake Bay is an ecosystem which has biological,
chemical, physical, and geological components, it must be
understood and managed as a system and not necessarily as the
sum of its components (U.S. EPA 1982a).

This section builds upon the current scientific knowledge concerning
cause-and-effect relationships from an ecological perspective. Emphasis
will be placed on models that are composed of coupled processes. At this
stage in the Bay's management and scientific support, it is possible to
consider an exceedingly large number of options on what would be modeled
and approaches that might be fruitful. The need for predictive models that
are cost-effective is great. Many processes are still poorly understood
and are more appropriately viewed within a research development context
(e.g., a suspended sediment transport model which has important
implications for assessment of toxic chemical exposure to organisms, food4
webs, and people). An example is work done on modeling the transport of
Kepone in the James River estuary (Nichols and Cutshall 1979).

In light of what has been shown to be directly useful, there are
several large-scale models that warrant further application. Others
require improvement. An example of a useful model that has direct
application is the nonpoint source model adapted to the ChesapeAke Bay
drainage basin for the Chesapeake Bay Program. A model that requires
further development is the CBP model that predicts levels of dissolved
oxygen based on coupling transport and mixing processes, photosynthetic-
nutrient processes and decomposition processes. Under varying stages of
research and development are fisheries models which include statistical and
deterministic functions.

There are a number of models that focus on ecosystem processes that
have relevance to management questions but do not predict specific outputs
in terms of a particular fishery. Many of these models have been developed
for areas other than Chesapeake Bay but may be transferred to the Bay after
additional research, calibration, and verification steps are undertaken.
Examples of such efforts include a phytoplankton model of Saginaw Bay, Lake
Huron (Bierman et al. 1980), a simulation model for coastal zoobenthic
ecosystems (Albanese 1979), a coastal marine ecosystem model of
Narragansett Bay (Kremer and Nixon 1978), a carbon flow model of a Georgia
salt-marsh ecosystem (Dame 1979) and the general ecosystem model of the
Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, England (GEMBASE)(Radford and Joint
1980). The purpose here is not to give a review, which is probably
impossible in limited space, but to suggest that progress is being made
(Platt et al. 1981) and future management concerns for the Chesapeake Bay
system can benefit from formal modeling efforts. A key point that
sometimes is overlooked is that models, whatever their complexity and
stated objectives, are nothing but tools and can have direct management
application for the Bay.

MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND MANAGEMENT

It is true that in the strict definitions of the words "monitoring" and
"research" they are two distinctly different subjects. However, in order
to ensure that responsible management decisions are made, these two
subjects must not be separated. To solve the problems identified in the
Bay, managers and researchers need to work together toward a common goal.

F- 20

Figure 6 illustrates how monitoring, research, and management are
intertwined. First, a coordinated effort is made to collect baseline data
(levels I and II) which gives us the capability to detect changes in the
parameters sampled. Through statistical analysis it is determined that a
problem exists. It is then that the question-asking process and the
formulation of hypotheses begins. At this point it is clear that a
cooperative effort between monitoring and research needs to take place.
This is a level III effort and it involves not only parameter sampling but
also an experimental design, field and lab research, and statistical
analysis. This level III effort is commonly known as a special study. At
times these special studies are handled by the state government through an
in-house effort. At other times they may be contracted out to one of the
research institutions in the area. In many cases, research institutions
will incorporate the problem into their efforts.

Theoretically when the special study (level III) is completed, a better
understanding of the causal relationships should exist. "'his information
is passed on to the manager who will then take some kind of action to
alleviate the problem. The monitoring effort will then drop back to level
I or II, which has been ongoing. However, now two additional objectives
come in to play. If the manager proposes some new regulations, a
monitoring effort will have to be carried out to make sure that those
regulations are being observed. in addition, the special study area will
need to be monitored to determine whether or not the management action has
produced the desired effect and predictions were accurate. If not, the
process will go back to the level III position.

What is being proposed in this document is not a new concept since
monitoring and research have been going on for years or decades for some
problems. The key issue here is to better coordinate these activities and
to make sure that monitoring is done with specific objectives in mind.

F- 21

LEVEL I & II

(DESCRIPTIVE AND ANALYTICAL)
MONITORING

O COMPILATION OF BASELINE INFORMATION
O DETECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

O ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

_ ET AICI 0 DETERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT ACTION EFFECTIVENESS
MANGFIENT ACTION . S '"
o

b PROBLEM DEFINED
Lu
LLB~ IO~ ~ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
LU '_ AND
w, O HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
-Ij-)
U-

CAUSE
IDENTIFIED
IDE~f[IFIED(_~~ -LEVEL III
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
(ANALYTICAL AND INTERPRETIVE)
O EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
O PARAMETER SAMPLING
O LAB AND FIELD RESEARCH
O STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

FIGURE 6. MbNITORINGj RESEARCHJ AND MANAGEMENT.

SECTION 3

THE PLAN

The Bay-wide monitoring strategy presented here has two major
components: baseline monitoring which represents level I and level II
efforts for some water quality parameters and a level 11 effort for the
living resources monitoring; and the special studies that have been defined
by the baseline monitoring.

BASELINE MONITORING

Baseline monitoring is the backbone for building a mechanism which will
lead toward understanding the Bay ecosystem. Its importance in this light
should not be underestimated. The baseline plan consists of monitoring
water quality (Attachment 6, Figure 6.1), sediment quality, and living
resources.

In formulating this proposal several points were kept in mind:

1. Baseline data should give good time-series information concerning
the problem areas defined by the characterization process.

2. Stations that have been sampled consistently for many years should
be kept, where possible, to maintain the historical data base.

3. Coordination between state agencies, and state and Federal
agencies in their sampling programs will make sampling more
efficient and may reduce total costs.

4. Stations should be placed not only in areas where known problems
exist but also in areas that in the past have been considered
"pristine".

5. Water quality stations and living resource stations should be
coordinated, where possible.

6. Some consideration should be given to circulation processes in the
Bay and how they will effect data collection.

7. Geographical coverage should be balanced against comprehensive
temporal coverage.

8. Stations should be placed in areas which have particular or
special biological importance such as in the major striped bass
spawning grounds.

9. Funding constraints need to be considered.

10. Monitoring programs should have built-in flexibility.

F-23

Water Quality Monitoring

This document presents one ambitious proposal for water quality
baseline monitoring (Attachment 6, Figure 6.1; Table 6.1). This was
formulated after close assessment of the present state and Federal
monitoring programs (Attachment 3). Where there were overlaps, stations
were combined. Where there were gaps, stations were added. In many areas
this process meant an actual reduction in the number of stations over what
is presently being done. It is highly possible that the water quality plan
has more or less stations than will be needed. A further reduction or
addition of stations can only be accomplished after this plan has been
statistically analyzed following several years of data collection. Most of
the fall line stations (Attachment 6, triangles on Figure 6.1) are
presently occupied by the U.S. Geological Survey and it is recommended that
these staions be continued (see Attachment 3 section B for a description of
USGS stations), and that similar observations be added for the Chester,
Nanticoke, and other tributaries on a calibration basis. In addition, the
two NOAA current and circulation stations located off the Patuxent River
and at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay should be maintained. These
stations are continuous monitors that give constant readings of current
speed and direction, depth, conductivity, temperature, and pressure. These
baseline stations (Figure 6.1) are, for the most part, concerned with water
quality parameters; however, many of them were selected to be at the same
site where living resources are sampled (such as oyster spat and juvenile
finfish).

Living Resources Monitoring

Many water chemical variables characterize the requirements for growth
and survival of aquatic organisms. In recent years, the role of physical
variables has been emphasized as limiting biotic populations, or, at least,
setting a boundary in an ecosystem within which biotic elements interact.
Traditionally, temperature and salinity have been known to exert important
effects at the physiological level. More recently, the role of climate and
its interaction with the circulation of marine and estuarine water is now
acknowledged to play an important role in the distribution and abundance of
many populations both directly and through processes such as "upwelling"
and mixing of waters of different characteristics.

These considerations suggest that our ability to understand the
raitionship between environmental variables, including water quality, and
the biological components of a water body will necessarily involve
processes and rates in a dynamic sense as compared to point-in-time
(ambient) measurements. This is a fundamental premise which forms the
underpinning of all monitoring schemes.4

Specific recommendations for oyster spat set, juvenile finfish,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAy), and phytoplankton are outlined in
Attachment 4. A description of SAV monitoring in the upper Chesapeake Bay
and recommendations for future monitoring is included in Attachment 8. The
most important change that should be considered for living resources
monitoring is that sampling should be stepped up to a level II phase. That
is, concurrent water quality sampling should be done as outlined in the
baseline approach (Attachment 6).

F-24

SPECIAL STUDIES

A strong program of baseline monitoring should keep Bay managers and
scientists aware of how the Bay is doing and whether or not any changes are
taking place in its water quality or living resources. When a problem has
been identified and the cause is uncertain, a special study (hypothesis
framing and testing) may have to be conducted. This level III monitoring
will probably be site-specific and will require an experimental design and
statistical analysis. These special studies are actually research projects
that are superimposed on the central (baseline) monitoring program.

Examples of special studies that are presently being conducted are:
(1) the intensive monitoring of the Potomac River tributaries around the
District of Columbia (Figure 3e.13), (2) the Power Plant Siting Studies
(Figures 3e.14 to 3e.16), and (3) the James River Kepone Study (Figures
3e.5 and 3e.10). These studies and others like them are vital to the
continued efforts to understand the changes taking place in the Bay and its
tributaries.

An Approach to a Major Bay Problem

The EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has developed evidence that a pool of
lethal low oxygen water covering twenty percent of the Bay bottom between
the Patapsco River and Tangier Island is some fifteen times larger today
than in the early 1950's. it is believed that the Bay's characteristic of
recycling nutrients and anthropogenically increasing nutrient loading
principally from nonpoint sources are major factors contributing to the low
oxygen problem. Evidence suggests that the low oxygen condition is
impacting bottom-dwelling animals (oysters, crabs, soft clams, etc.) and
bottom-feeding fishes (flounder, croacker, spot, striped bass, etc.).
Strategies designed to monitor the relationship of ambient nutrient to
ambient oxygen, and the impact of low oxygen on biota must take into
consideration 1) nutrient loading from point and nonpoint sources, 2) how
these nutrients are routed through the Bay system, 3) the nutrient balance
of the Bay, 4) the relationship of nutrient enrichment to low oxygen, 5)
diurnal, seasonal , and annual behavior of nutrients and oxygen on a
vertical and horizontal scale in the Bay, and 6) the relationship of low
oxygen to the occurrence of ecologically and economically important Bay
biota. A suggestion for a detailed monitoring and research strategy to
follow the nutrients to oxygen to oyster relationship is described in
Attachment 7.

DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. ~~~~Data management is the process by which field measurements are
recorded, transcribed, entered into the computer, quality checked,
organized into a unified data base, and maintained in a secure, accurate,
and efficient manner for subsequent retrieval and analysis. Data
management encompasses the process that begins with the entry of field data
onto data forms and ends with the archival of final data bases on some type
of computer readable medium. Because the monitoring program described
'I ~~~above will be a long-term effort carried out over several years, data
management is critical and will be a continuing process, with new
information added to the data base on a regular basis.

F- 25

Ef fective data management should be an essential part of the monitoring
program. It will permit access to the data by a broad community of users,
including research organizations, Federal and state agencies, and citizen
groups. Because data collected by many agencies using differing sampling
methodologies will be integrated into an internally consistent, quality
assu'red and documented data base, agencies other than those collecting the
data will be able to utilize them in a cost-effective manner. Ultimately,
as the various data collection agencies gain confidence in the scientific
validity of the monitoring program and their ability to utilize other
agencies data, redundant field efforts will be eliminated. Additional
advantages of a Bay-wide data management program are discussed by Lynch
(1983).

The data management plan for monitoring should include detailed
procedures for quality assurance, which should be applied consistently to
all field studies. These procedures include the design of legible field4
sheets, re-checking of all hand-written data, accurate data verification
procedures, error checking of all data sets for internal consistency,
accurate data editing procedures, and complete data-set documentation. No
data set should be entered into the final data base until it has been
subjected to these procedures. To ensure that the quality of data from all
studies is adequate, a quality assurance manual should be developed and
used by all data collection agencies participating in the monitoring
program.

To ensure data integrity and security, the data management plan should
include adequate procedures for data storage, computer file backup, and for
controlling data base access. This will require computer hardware,
software, and standard operating procedures designed specifically
for the organizations that will be utilizing the data base. Because the
monitoring program will include users with widely varying data processing4
and data management backgrounds, a professional data management staff
should be established to develop and implement these procedures.

In addition to the establishment of a data management staff, the
continued usefulness of the data base depends upon the commitment of the
various research institutions and government agencies to participate in the
monitoring program and data management plan. This commitment includes the
prompt submission of field data, and carrying out of the already mentioned
quality assurance procedures.

Note: At the present time, EPA is in the beginning stages of
implementing a data management plan as outlined above.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This document presents the rationale behind the development of aI
Bay-wide monitoring strategy and presents some specific monitoring
activities. However, this is only the beginning phase in this process.
Before any plan can be instituted, there are several items which need to be
considered. First, the managers who direct the present monitoring programs
need to be brought together to discuss how the new strategy affects what
they are presently doing and how to implement the new strategy. At this
time, the cost and effectiveness of the plan should be discussed. The
possibility of cost sharing between the state and Federal governments in
monitoring the main stem of the Bay should be given consideration.

F- 26

A series of workshops should be planned where scientists and managers
can be informed about and discuss items such as new advances in monitoring
technology and the feasibility of standardizing methods where possible.
Further consideration should be given to establishing a minimum core
network of stations that focus on time-series analysis and automated
sampling of key variables. Another series of workshops concerning the
Bay-wide data management plan is essential.

it is further recommended that monitoring be considered when the
Bay-wide institutional mechanisms are established so that some type of
mechanism is devoted to the implementation of the Bay-wide monitoring
strategy. A technical advisory committee should oversee the implementation
of the strategy and help ensure that the collected data gets into the
Bay-wide data management system. In addition, there should be a quality
assurance officer to oversee the implementation of the CBP quality
assurance plan and to assure that only data of suitable quality be included
in the data base.

The monitoring proposals presented in this document are meant to be
"straw men"; that is, they can be improved upon as additional effort is put
into the implementation of a Bay-wide strategy. These strategies were
formulated through a joint effort between representatives from the States
of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and from EPA. In addition, they
were reviewed by scientists and managers from the Bay area. It is
recommended that this process be continued for the further refinement of
the proposals.

F- 27

SECTION 4

LITERATURE CITED

Albanese, J.R. 1979. A Simulation Model for Coastal Zoobenthic
Ecosystems. Report No. 6. Center for Ecological Modeling, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. Troy, NY. 45 pp.

Alford, J.J. 1968. Changing Oyster Yields in the Major Administrative
Units of the Chesapeake Bay Fishery. Ph.D. U. of Kansas.

Ayling, G.M. 1974. Uptake of Cadmium, Zinc, Copper, Lead, and Chromium
in the Pacific Oyster Crassostrea Gigas Grown in the Tamar River,
Tasmania. Water Res. 8(10):729-738.

Bierman, V.J., Jr., D.M. Dolan, E.F. Stoermer, J.E. Gannon, and V.E.
Smith. 1980. The Development and Calibration of a Spatially
Simplified Multi-Class Phytoplankton Model for Saginaw Bay, Lake
Huron. Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study. Contribution No. 33.
126 pp.

Biggs, B.B. 1981. Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries, Short and Long-Term
Perspectives. Proc. Natl. Symp. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries.
U.S.F.W. #/FWS/OBS-81-04.

Boesch, D.F. 1980. Evaluating Impacts on Continental Shelf Environments:
Concepts and Prospects. In: Proceedings of a Symposium - Biological
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - at the 1976 meeting of the
Ecological Society of America, American Institute of Biological
Sciences. Washington, DC. p. 159.

Bolton, E. 1982. Controlled Environment Mariculture Production System.
Univ. of Delaware Sea Grant Report.

Bowden, K.F. 1970. Turbulence II. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 8:22-32.

Campbell, T.G. 1975. Relating Evolving Land Use Patterns in the Delaware
Coastal Zone to Ecological Impact on Marine Fishes in the White Creek
Estuary. University of Delaware Master's Thesis. 60 pp.

Carriker, M.R., J.W. Anderson, W.P. Davis, D.R. Franz, G.F. Mayer, J.B.
Pearce, T.K. Sawyer, J.H. Tietzen, J.F. Timoney, and D.R. Young.
1982. Effects of Pollutants on Benthos. In: G.F. Mayer, ed. 1982.
Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management.
Estuarine Research Foundation. Columbia, SC. 715 pp.

Cole, H.A. 1975. Marine Pollution and the United Kingdom Fisheries.
In: Sea Fisheries Research. F.R. Harden-Jones, ed. Wiley, London pp.
277-303.

Comptroller General. 1981. Report to Congress of the United States:
Better Monitoring Techniques Are Needed to Assess the Quality of Rivers
and Streams. Vol. I, Appendix VII.

*Includes literature cited in Attachments.

F-28

Coutant, C.C., and D.S. Carrol. 1980. Temperatures Occupied by Ten
Ultrasonic Tagged Striped Bass in Freshwater Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 109:195-202.

Cushing, D.H. 1975. Marine Ecology and Fisheries. Cambridge. U.K.
278 pp.

Dame, R.F., Ed. 1979. Marsh-Estuarine Systems Simulation. The Belle W.
Baruch Library in Marine Sciences, No. I. University of South Carolina
Press. Columbia. 260 pp.

Davis, H.E., D.W. Webster, G.E. Krantz. 1981. Maryland Oyster Spat
Survey. Maryland Sea Grant Program Report. UM-SG-TS-81-03:1-22.

Derrickson, W.K., and K.S. Price. 1973. The Shore Zone Fishes of Rehobeth
and Indian River Bays. Transactions American Fisheries Society.
102(3):552-562.

Doubleday, W.G. 1980. Coping with Variability in Fisheries. FAO Fish.
Report 236. Report of the ACMRR Working Party on the Scientific Basis
of Determining Management Measures. 149 pp.

Farley, C.A., W.G. Banfield, G. Kasnic, Jr., W.S. Foster. 1972. Oyster
Herpes-Type Virus. Science. 178(4062):759-760.

Flemer, D.A., G.B. Mackiernan, W. Nehlsen, V.K. Tippie, R.B. Biggs, D.
Blaylock, N.H. Burger, L.C. Davidson, D. Haberman, K.S. Price, and J.L.
Taft. 1983. E.G. Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M. Kasper, Eds.
Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 299 pp. +
Appendices.

Flemer, D.A., J.L. Taft, K.S. Price, G.B. Mackiernan, W. Nehlsen, R.B.
Biggs, N.H. Burger, and D.A. Blaylock. 1982. Nutrient Enrichment of
Chesapeake Bay Correlated with Decline of Striped Bass: A Speculative
Hypothesis. Draft Manuscript. Striped Bass Symposium, 112 Annual
Meeting. Sept. 1982. Amer. Fish. Soc. Hilton Head, SC.

Flemer, D.A., and J. Olmon. 1971. Daylight Incubator Estimates of Primary
Production in the Mouth of the Patuxent River, Maryland. Ches. Sci.
12(2):105-110.

Flemer, D.A., and R.B. Biggs. 1971. Short-Term Fluorescence and Dissolved
Oxygen Relationships in the Upper Chesapeake Bay. Ches. Sci.
12(1):45-47.

Flemer, D.A., and T.B. DeMoss. 1982. Uncertainty, Science, and Resource
Management in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Citizen Report. Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. Baltimore, MD. pp. 6-7.

Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin.
Fish. Bull. No. 64. 480 pp.

F-29

Guillory, V., J.E. Roussel, and C. Miller. 1980. Appraisal of Otter Trawl
Tow Lengths and Replicate Sampling. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference Southeast Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
34:158-166.

Harris, Graham P. 1980. Temporal and Spatial Scales in Phytoplankton
Ecology. Mechanisms, Methods, Models, and Management. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 37(5):877-900.

Haven, D.S., W.J. Hargis, Jr., and P.C. Kendall. 1978. The Oyster Industry
of Virginia: It's [sic] Status, Problems and Promise. S.R.A.M.S.O.E.
No. 168. V.I.M.S.

Haven, Dexter S., J.P. Whitcomb, and P.C. Kendall. 1981. The Present and
Potential Productivity of the Baylor Grounds in Virginia. Volumes I
and II. VIMS Special Report No. 243. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Heinle, D.R., and D.A Flemer. 1975. Carbon Requirements of a Population
of the Estuarine Copepod, Eurytemora affinis. Mar. Biol. (Berl.)
31:235-247.

Heinle, D.R., D.A. Flemer, and J.F. Ustach. 1976. Contributions of Tidal
Marshlands to Mid-Atlantic Estuarine Food Chains. In: Estuarine
Processes. Martin Wiley, ed. Academic Press, Vol. II. pp. 309-320.

Holland, A.F., N.K. Mountford, and J.A. Mihursky. 1977. Temporal
Variation in Upper Bay Mesohaline Benthic Communities. 1. The 9-m Mud
Habitat. Ches. Sci. 18:370-378.

Kaufman, L.S., D.S. Becker, and R.G. Otto. 1980. Patterns of Distribution
and Abundance of Macrobenthos at Taylors Island, Maryland with
Implications for Monitoring Programs. C.B.I. Sp. Report # 81. 34 pp.

Kaumeyer, K.R., and E.M. Setzler-Hamilton. 1982. Effects of Pollutants
and Water Quality on Selected Estuarine Fish and Invertebrates: A
Review of the Literature. Report Submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Ref. No. UMCEES 82-130 CBL,
Univ. of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD.

Kemp, W.R., M.R. Lewis, J.J. Cunningham, J.C. Stevenson, and W.R. Boynton.
1980. Microcosms, Macrophytes and Hierarchies: Environmental Research
in Chesapeake Bay. In: Microcosm Research in Ecology. J. Giesy, ed.
ERDA Conf. 781101. pp. 911-936.

Kerwin, J.A., R.E. Munro, and W.W. Peterson, 1975a. Distribution and Abun-
dance of Aquatic Vegetation in the Upper Chesapeake Bay 1971-1973, pp.
D1-D21, In: J. Davis (ed.), Impact of Tropical Storm Agnes on
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Research Consortium.

Kerwin, J.A., R.E. Munro, and W.W. Peterson, 1975b. Distribution and Abun-
dance of Aquatic Vegetation in the Upper Chesapeake Bay 1971-1974.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station,
Mimeo. 15 pp.

F-30

Kingston, H.M., R.R. Greenberg, E.S. Beary, B.R. Hardas, J.R. Moody, T.C.
Rains, and W.S. Liggett. 1982. The Characterization of the Chesapeake
Bay: A Systematic Analysis of Toxic Trace Elements. Grant No. EPA
79-D-X-0717. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental protection
Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.

Krantz, G.E., and A.C. Carpenter. 1981. Potomac Estuary Oyster Fishery:
Past, Present and Future. UMCEES Ref. 81-14HPEL. 192 pp.

Kremer, J.N., and S.W. Nixon. 1978. A Coastal Marine Ecosystem:
Simulation and Analysis. Ecological Studies. Vol. 24.
Springer-Verlag, New York. 217 pp.

Lee, R., A.C. Longwell, T.C. Malone, L.S. Murphy, D.R. Nimmo, H.B.
O'Connors, Jr., L.S. Peters, and K.D. Wyman. 1982. Effects of
Pollutants on Plankton and Neuston. In: G.F. Mayer, Ed. Ecological
Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. Estuarine
Research Foundation. Columbia, SC

Luepke, N.P. 1979. Monitoring Environmental Materials and Specimen
Banking. larinius Nijhoff Publishers, obtained in United States and
Canada from Kluewer Boston, Inc. Hingham, MA. 591 pp.

Lynch, M.P. 1983. How Can the Data About the Bay be Best Stored and Made
Available to the Variety of Users? In: Ten Critical Questions for
Chesapeake Bay in Research and Related Matters. L.E. Cronin, ed.
Chesapeake Research Consortium Publ. No. 113.

Mackiernan, Gail B. 1968. Seasonal Distribution of Dinoflagellates in the
Lower York River, Virginia. Master's Thesis. The College of William
and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 104 pp. +9 plates.

Marshall, N. 1954. Factors Controlling the Distribution of Oysters in a
Neutral Estuary. Ecology. 35(3):322-327.

May, R.M. 1977. Thresholds and Breakpoints in Ecosystems with a
Multiplicity of Stable States. Nature. 269:471-477.

Mayer, G.F. Ed. 1982. Ecological Stress and the New York Bight:
Science and Management. Estuarine Research Foundation, Columbia, SC
715 pp.

Meritt, Donald W. 1977. Oyster Spat Set on Natural Cultch in the Maryland
Portion of the Chesapeake Bay (1939-1975). UNCEES Special Report No.
7. Horn Point Environmental Laboratories, Cambridge, MD. 1977.

Mihursky, J.A., W.R. Boynton, E.M. Setzler-Hamilton, K.V. Wood, and T.T.
Polgar. 1981. Freshwater Influences on Striped Bass Population
Dynamics. Proc. Natl. Symp. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries.
FWS/OBS-81/04. 1:149-167.

Munro, R.E. 1976a. Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Upper Chesapeake Bay--1975 Compared with 1971-1974.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station,
Laurel, MD. Mimeo 8 pp.

F-31

Munro, R.E. 1976b. Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation in the Upper Chesapeake Bay--1976 compared with 1971-1975.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station,
Laurel, MD. Mimeo 7 pp.

Munro, R.E. and M.C. Perry, 1981. Distribution and Abundance of Waterfowl
and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 78/D/X0391, 193 pp.

Nichols, Maynard M., and Norman H. Cutshall. 1979. Tracing Kepone
Contamination in James Estuary Sediments. In: Proceedings of
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Workshop on
Sediment and Pollution Interchange in Shallow Seas. Texel, the
Netherlands. Paper No. 8.

Odum, Eugene P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Company,
Philadelphia. 574 pp.

Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1982. Distribution and Abundance of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay: A Scientific Summary. In:
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G.
Macalaster, D.A. Barker, and M.E. Kasper, eds. U.S. EPA's Chesapeake
Bay Program. Washington, DC pp. 381-427.

Platt, T., K.H. Mann, and R.E. Ulanowicz. 1981. Mathematical Models in
Biological Oceanography. The UNESCO Press, Paris. p. 156.

Prakash, A. 1975. Dinoflagellate Blooms - An Overview. Conference
Chairman's Opening Address to the First International Conference on
Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms. Boston, MA. Nov. 4, 1974. Publ.
Massachusetts Science and Technology Found. and M.I.T. Sea Grant
Program. 1975. pp. 1-6.

Radford, P.J., and I.R. Joint. 1980. The Application of Ecosystem Model
to the Briston Channel and Estuary. Inst. Wat. Pollut. Control Ann.
Conf. (Conference Paper 7). (Water Pollution Research, in press).

Ryther, J.H. 1954. The Ecology of Phytoplankton Blooms in Moriches Bay
and Great South Bay, Long Island, New York. Biol. Bull. 106:198-209.

Ryther, John H., and Charles B. Officer. 1981. Impact of Nutrient
Enrichment on Water Uses. In: Estuaries and Nutrients. Bruce J.
Neilson and Eugene Cronin, eds. The Humana Press, Inc. Clifton, NJ.
pp. 247-261.

Shapiro, J., and E.B. Strain. 1983. Lessons from the Silica "Decline" in
Lake Michigan. Science 221:457-459.

Sindermann, C.J. 1980. Pollution Effects on Fisheries--Potential
Management Activities. Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters. 33:674-686.

Sindermann, C.J., S.C. Esser, E. Gould, B.B. McCain, J.L. McHugh,
R.P. Morgan II, R.A. Muchelano, M.J. Sherwood, and P.R. Spitzer.
1982. Effects of Pollutants on Fishes. In: G.F. Mayer, ed.
Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management.
Estuarine Research Foundation, Columbia, SC 715 pp.

F-32

Skud, B.E. 1982. Dominance in Fishes: The Relation Between Environment
and Abundance. Science. 216:144-149.

Stevenson, J.C. and N.M. Confer, 1978. Summary of Available Information on
Chesapeake Bay Submerged Vegetation. U.S. Department of the Interior
FWS/OBS-78/66, 355 pp.

Stevenson, J.C., C.B. Piper, and N. Confer, 1979. The Decline of Submerged
Aquatic Plants in Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Department of the Interior
FWS/OBS-79/24, 12 pp.

Ulanowicz, R.E., M.L. All, A. Vivian, D.R. Heinle, W. Rickus, and J.
Summers. 1981. Climatic Factors Influencing Commercial Seafood
Landings in Maryland. Manuscript Submitted as a Contribution of the
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies of the Unversity of
Maryland.

Ulanowicz, R.E., W.C. Caplins and E.A. Dunnington. 1980. Forecasting of
Oyster Harvest in Central Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci.
11:101-106.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Chesapeake Bay:
Introduction to an Ecosystem. 33 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Chesapeake Bay Program
Technical Studies: A Synthesis. E.G. Maclaster, D.A. Barker, and M.E.
Kasper, eds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
635 pp.

Walne, P.R. 1963. Observations on the Food Value of Seven Species of Algae
to the Larvae of Ostrea edulis. I. Feeding Experiments. J. Mar.
Biol. Assoc. UK. 43(3):767-784.

Walne, P.R. 1970. Studies on the Food Value of Nineteen Genera of Algae
to Juvenile Bivalves of the Genera Ostrea, Crassostrea, Mercenaria, and
Mytilus. Fish. Invest. London, Ser. 2: 26(5). 62 pp.

White, H.H., and L. Millington. 1982. A Holistic Approach to Solving
Pollution Problems: The Basis for a Wise Management. NOAA, Rockville,
MD. Presented at the SECOTOX Workshop, Tokyo, Japan, September 6-7,
1982. (Draft pre-print).

Wilson, S.C., B.M. Hughes, and G.D. Rawlings. 1982. Toxic Point Source
Assessment of Industrial Dischargers to the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
Phase III. Protocol Verification Study. EPA-68-02-3161. Monsanto
Research Corporation, Dayton, OH. Vol. I and Appendix A.

Wise, J.P., Ed. 1974. The United States Marine Fishery Resource.
Contr. NOAA-NMFS MARMAP: 1-379.

Wolfe, D.A., D.F. Boesch, A. Calabrese, J.F. Lee, C.D. Litchfield,
R.J. Livingston, A.D. Michael, J.M. O'Connor, M. Pilson, and L.V.
Sick. 1982. Effects of Toxic Substances on Communities and
Ecosystems. In: G.F. Mayer, ed. Ecological Stress and the New York
Bight: Science and Management. Estuarine Research Foundation.
Columbia, SC 715 pp.

F-33

ATTACHMENT I

MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH PAST (AND PRESENT) MONITORING
EFFORTS AND DATA COLLECTION

SPATIAL COVERAGE

There was a lack of consistent data collection in large areas of the
Bay including:

1. the lower Bay, especially CB-6,7,8;

2. eastern embayments (e.g., Tangier Sound, Pocomoke, Eastern Bay,
Lower Choptank);

3. smaller tributaries, especially those on eastern shore; anu

4. a lack of information for the main Bay that was not taken in the
main channel along the CBI longitudinal transect. There is a need
for lateral transects; this is more critical in months when low DO
is expected.

A lack of information exists from areas which are biologically
important--or changing. Examples include:

1. The juvenile index taken in the upper Bay, Potomac, Choptank, and
Nanticoke. However, water quality information from CB-1, as well
as Choptank and (especially) the Nanticoke are very scattered.

2. MD SAV sampling from many smaller tributaries also in shallow
water (4 2 m) is scarce. Virtually no water quality data exists
from some areas showing major changes (e.g., Little Choptank,
Manokin, Honga, Annamessex, etc.).

3. Spat set--similar problem as described above.

There is a lack of surface to bottom values for many parameters
expected to change with depth (especially in stratified portions of
estuary), including salinity, temperature, DO, flow rates, and certain
nutrients.

TEMPORAL COVERAGE

Seasonal coverage is highly biased for spring and summer (this may
reflect more the "productivity studies" part of the data base, as current
state monitoring is year-round).

There is a lack of diurnal data for parameters which could be expected
to change over a 24-hour cycle--most importantly, dissolved oxygen.

There is a lack of water quality data from the same time that important
biological variables are being sampled--this is the "resource - water
quality variable coupling" need.

Most importantly a lack of consistent coverage has hampered time-series
analyses. Some stations are (or were) sampled sporadically. Missing
years, seasons or months in the data base for various parameters and areas
has been a particular problem. This gets back to the question of improving
temporal coverage possibly by reducing the number of stations.

There is a need for intensive, short-term sampling of some variables.
This may need to be continuous (or very frequent) for such parameters as
light, TSS, turbidity, and chlorophyll a. A possibility might be a series
of intensive I to 3 day continuous stations spaced throughout the year at
places that need special attention. This could be coupled with
simultaneous intensive biological monitoring.

PARAMETERS MEASURED

Again, consistency is needed in the selection of parameters to be
measured. The GCBP was hampered by some studies measuring only inorganic
nutrients, others only part of a suite of organics, etc., and so on. The
CBP found TN and TP to be the best indicators of change, but many very
carefully done studies (e.g., CRIMP) did not measure these. A "core" set
of parameters should be selected that will be measured each time.
There is a need for either consistency of methodology (e.g. EPA, APHA
Standard Methods, biological recommendations such as those for
phytoplankton contained in the Handbook of Phycological Methods) or some
way of comparison. Winkler titration or an oxygen electrode type meter
that is resistant to 112S poisoning should be used where anoxic waters are
expected.

Variables should be measured using methodologies sensitive enough to
identify expected ambient concentrations. This is particularly true of any
toxicant monitoring; here one should be able to at least determine if EPA
water quality criteria have been exceeded (i.e., level of detection should
be less than the acute value, at least). if appropriate sensitivity is not
attainable, alternate strategies, such as examination of animal tissue for
bioaccumulation, may be recommended.

F-1-2