The PA`s Department of Environmental Protection is currently launching the strategy for Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Chesapeake Bay program partners have developed new scientific water quality criteria for the bay. For each major bypass strategy and jurisdiction, new nutrient and sediment reduction targets were developed to meet the revised water quality criteria. The new targets, agreed in April 2003, replace the previous nutrient reduction target set by the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Following the adoption of the crown`s revised water quality standards in 2005, Bay Program partners will reassess and adjust nutrient and sediment targets as required. There are many new BMPs in the proposed strategy for Pennsylvania tributaries. Some of these new BMPs are: precision agriculture, advanced no-till agriculture, precision rotary grazing and carbon sequestration. In part in response to Virginia`s tmDL lawsuit, the EPA and bay jurisdictions — this time also Delaware, New York and West Virginia — signed a fourth bay purge agreement. The 2000 Chesapeake Agreement aims to improve water quality in the bay and its tidal rivers to such an extent that they will be removed from the “dirty water” list by 2010. EPA and Bay State governors admit that the terms of the 2000 agreement will not be met by the 2010 deadline — in fact, probably not until 2020 or later.
A series of four agreements dating back to 1983 led to the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. From the outset, the agreements emphasized the importance of shared responsibility between the federal government, the Bay Watershed States and the District of Columbia. No other approach would work, as the bay`s watershed spans more than 64,000 square miles in six states. Since the signing of the 1983 agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Program has adopted two additional agreements that provide general guidance for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay: Representatives of the entire watershed sign the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. For the first time, Delaware, New York and West Virginia are entering into a full partnership in the Bay program. The agreement includes the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint`s pollution reduction targets for 2017 and 2025, but also sets 10 targets for habitat restoration and conservation, fisheries improvements, improved public access and environmental literacy, to name a few. The Bay Accords clearly represent an evolutionary attempt to translate ambitious goals into real results. The EPA, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia and the Chesapeake Bay Commission sign a new agreement that sets digital targets and deadlines for the first time. The agreement provides for a 40% reduction in the nutrient load of the bay by the year 2000. But the first agreements were voluntary in nature, with little responsibility. These agreements have made progress, but the states and district are far from meeting their own pollution reduction targets.
In 2009, all participants realized that a new type of approach was needed, one that delivered on its promises. The first agreement in 1983 was a simple, one-sided promise signed by the governors of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement: A Model of Intergovernmental and Multistate Cooperation in the Management of Estuary and Coastal Resources A subsequent Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1987 set the first numerical targets to reduce pollution and restore the Bay`s ecosystem. The third agreement, signed in 2000, broadened and clarified the objectives and included the participation of the source states: Delaware, New York and West Virginia, as well as the jurisdictions of origin. In the 1980s, awareness of pollution problems in estuaries and coastal waters increased. The problems of medical waste in 1988 raised public awareness of this problem and showed that coastal pollution is not only isolated, but that it is a regional problem that requires regional solutions. During the 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia worked together to forge two agreements, one in 1983 and, most importantly, a broader agreement in 1987, in which they agreed to work together to develop specific goals and objectives to address and resolve the problems of the Chesapeake Bay. These agreements are important because the signatories have recognized that the importance and problems of the Chesapeake Bay go beyond regional boundaries, and they are committed to managing the Chesapeake Bay as an integrated ecosystem. The 1987 agreement established a governance framework for the Chesapeake Executive Council and set out 29 specific engagement strategies and timelines to work towards the protection and restoration of the bay`s important living resources. This historic agreement sets out new initiatives and specific goals, timelines and targets to address key issues such as nutrient and toxic pollution, the decline of the bay`s aquatic resources, population growth and land use. These are all goals that will determine the course of efforts in the years to come.
The CBF, its co-plaintiffs, and the EPA settle the Chesapeake 2000 lawsuit with a historic, binding, and legally binding agreement requiring the EPA to take specific action within a specified time frame to ensure that pollution of rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced enough to remove the bay from the federal “dirty water” list. Among other commitments, the settlement agreement includes the Chesapeake Bay TDGL and an “accountability framework” designed to hold states accountable for developing and implementing recovery plans and two-year milestones. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signs the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement with the State of Maryland, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The unilateral agreement recognizes the need for cooperative measures to clean up the bay, but does not include any requirements or timelines. The CBF and its partners are filing a letter of intent to sue the EPA for not requiring Pennsylvania and New York to develop implementation plans that meet the bay`s 2025 recovery goals. The 2014 agreement sets 2025 as the deadline for achieving the targets. A mid-term review in 2017 revealed significant progress in reducing pollution, thanks in large part to the reliance on nutrient reductions in wastewater treatment plants. However, the assessment found that polluted runoff from suburbs and urban areas is increasing, and also found that Pennsylvania generally lags behind other states. CBF releases a report suggesting that the focus on pollution reduction efforts in five southern Pennsylvania counties could significantly accelerate efforts to get Pennsylvania back on track to meet its pollution reduction goals. This analysis helps catalyze federal funding and focus on these polluting areas. CBF and its partners are suing the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for relinquishing their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.
The district actively seeks out farmers who participate in the program and works with them individually to develop the right BMPs for their farm. All BMPs must be designed and built in accordance with NRCS standards and specifications. In addition, all farmers receiving funding must have a phosphorus-based nutrient management plan and a conservation plan at the TRA level. Four watersheds in Berks County flow into the Susquehanna River and then into the Chesapeake Bay: Little Swatara Creek, Conestoga Creek, Little Muddy Creek and Little Cocalico Creek. These three watersheds represent more than 56,000 hectares. .