Technical Summary 



Developing a Non-point Source Management Strategy 



The design of a Bay non-point source management program presents the opportunity to 

 review a range of existing protection policies and control strategies. Because this initiative 

 coincides with important review of land use and water policy on the state level, and with 

 redirection of key programs at the federal level, much can be accomplished. 



Efforts should be carefully coordinated so as to put in place a non- point 

 source management framework which utilizes a mix of techniques including 

 land use management, source-oriented controls, water quality standards, 

 water area use restrictions, remedial action techniques, and land 

 acquisition. Techniques should be developed, however, giving careful attention to 

 interrelationships among pollutant sources, to the need for joint protection of groundwater 

 and surface water quality, and to potential interactions anwng controls and management 

 practices. 



Designation of critical areas, though problematic, must be considered as 

 necessary in order to make best use of limited resource protection funds. 



Vulnerability should be considered as a more important factor than either use or quality, 

 since the plan, and existing state policy, emphasize restoration of Bay habitat and resource 

 viability. Critical area vulnerability should be based on physical characteristics and extent 

 of existing degradation. At the same time, efforts should be made to avoid developing a 

 guiding strategy in which selective management and classification creates an institutional 

 bias in favor of areas designated as criti(^ areas, to the exclusion of proper attention to 

 retrofitting and remedial action in degraded areas of the Bay system. 



Involved agencies should build on the flexible problem-solving 

 objectives of the special area planning process to place increased emphasis 

 on watershed-based planning and management, and to foster development 

 of regional inter-community cooperative programs. In general, emphasis 

 on pro-active planning and management neeib to be increased so that vital 

 resource areas can be protected. 



The 205j program's priority setting framework should be used in establishing detailed 

 water quality goals to guide non-point pollution efforts in specific areas, particularly poorly 

 flushed embayments and their tributaries. A targeted planning process needs to be 

 put in place for these selected areas which clearly links defined water 

 quality goals to control programs and requirements via water quality 

 characterization. Specific, monitored discharge reduction programs need to 

 be devised. At the same time, specific standards should govern 

 development siting and design to ensure that water quality concerns form a 

 basis for decision-making regarding construction, operation, and 

 maintenance. 



DEM and CRMC should develop a pre-development and post- 

 development water quality monitoring program for use in critical watershed 

 areas and estuarine waters. The agencies should jointiy define how water quality 

 measurements will be used in evaluating the adequacy of stormwater, erosion, and 

 sedimentation control measures and facility designs. Similarly, they should define how 

 water quality measiu-es will be used in measuring adequacy of facility performance through 

 time, and in initiating enforcement procedures where maintenance schedules specified in 



