The Chesapeake Bay TMDL the Bay Models and the

Document Sample
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL the Bay Models and the Powered By Docstoc
					The Chesapeake Bay TMDL,
the Bay Models and the Bay
  Watershed Agricultural
        Community
Briefing for the Chesapeake Bay
 Watershed State Agricultural
           Secretaries
      Pennsylvania Dept of Agriculture
              Harrisburg, PA
                                         1
               April 23, 2010
                  AGENDA
•   Introduction to the Bay TMDL
•   Review of the suite of Bay models and their
    roles
•   How conservation practices are credited
•   Expanding tracking, reporting and crediting of
    conservation practices
•   Monitoring the Bay and watershed
•   Partnership’s target loads to states methodology
•   Open discussion with questions and answers 2
              Today’s Presenters
• Bob Koroncai, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Manager,
  Water Protection Division, U.S. EPA Region 3, Co-
  chair CBP WQ Goal Implementation Team
• Gary Shenk, Integrated Analysis Coordinator,
  Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO), U.S. EPA
  Region 3
• Chris Brosch, CBP Nonpoint Source Data Analyst,
  University of Maryland/CBPO
• Mark Dubin, CBP Agricultural Technical Coordinator,
  University of Maryland/CBPO and Mid-Atlantic Water
  Program
• Rich Batiuk, Associate Director for Science,
  Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. EPA Region3 3
Introduction to the Bay
    TMDL and all its
     Components
                Bob Koroncai
       Chesapeake Bay TMDL Manager
 U.S. EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division
   Co-chair of Chesapeake Bay Program’s
  Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
                                               4
 Why do a Bay
 TMDL now?
       Low to no
       dissolved
     oxygen in the
     Bay and tidal
      rivers every
        summer
                                5
Source: www.chesapeakebay.net       5
                          Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• EPA sets the pollution diet to
  meet states’ Bay clean water
  standards

• Caps on nitrogen, phosphorus
  and sediment loads for all 6 Bay
  watershed states and DC

• States, DC set the load caps for
  point and non-point sources

• Watershed implementation
  plans and 2-year milestones
  guide implementation and
                                                                                      6
  ensure accountability
Source: EPA September 2008 Ltr to States available at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl       6
                     Current State Target Loads
                          Nitrogen                                            Phosphorus
                2008        Tributary         Target                         2008         Tributary        Target
    State       Load        Strategy           Load             State        Load         Strategy          Load

    DC             3.54            2.12            2.37        DC                0.14            0.10          0.13

    DE             9.91            6.43            5.25        DE                0.34            0.25          0.28

    MD           58.00            42.37          41.04         MD                3.10            2.54          3.04

    NY           16.71             8.68          10.54         NY                0.83            0.56          0.56

    PA         114.40             73.48          73.64         PA                3.99            3.10          3.16

    VA           72.82            56.75          59.21         VA                7.18            6.41          7.05

    WV             7.77            5.93            5.71        WV                0.70            0.43          0.62

    Total      283.15           195.75         197.76          Total           16.28            13.39        14.84

                               All loads are in millions of pounds per year
                                                                                                                 7
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.2 Watershed Model; EPA Nov 2009 Ltr to States available at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
     Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation
        Plans Will Include 8 Elements:
1. Interim and Final Target Loads

2. Current Program Capacity

3. Mechanisms to Account for Growth

4. Gap Analysis

5. Commitment to Fill Gaps: Policies, Rules, Dates for Key Actions

6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols

7. Contingencies for Failed, Delayed or Incomplete Implementation

8. Appendix with:
       a.    Loads divided by 303(d) segment drainage and source sector
       b.    2-year milestone loads by jurisdiction – EPA will use to assess milestones
       c.    No later than November 2011: Update to include loads divided by local area
             and controls to meet 2017 interim target load                            8
Source: EPA November 2009 Ltr to States available at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
    Bay and Local Pollution Diet Schedule
                EPA                                                                                                                                 EPA                  Major basin
Nov. -                                                                                                                                                                   jurisdiction
                sends                                                                                                                               sends
Dec.            Expect-                                                                                                                             Conse-               loading
2009            ations letter to                                                                                                                    quences letter       targets
                States, DC                                                                                                                          to States, DC


           Develop Ph. I
           WIP                                legislative Rulemaking regulatory increased budget program Increased
                                              authorities             controls    to legislature  budget  controls
                                                                                                                                    Description
                                                                                                                                    of Planned
                                              40
                                                   35                                                                                Controls
                                                   35



                                                                                                                                                  Plan details into
                                              35   3.5
            Nitrogen Loads Delivered to Bay
           Nitrogen Loads Delivered to Bay




                                                    10
                                              30                                    27.5
                                                                                 27.5
                                                           Load                  3
                                                                                                                                 TOTAL
                                              25                                   7.5
                                              25         Reduction                                                                   Onsite
                                                    20                                                                      20   Agriculture
                                                         Schedule



                                                                                                                                                  draft WLAs & LAs
                                              20   12                                                                 20 2           Wastewater
                                                                                                                                 Developed
                                              20
                                                                                  15                                     5.5        Developed
                                                                                                                                 Wastewater
                                                                     Interim       10.5
                                              15                                                                                    Agriculture
                                              15                     Targets                                                     Onsite
                                                   9.5
                                              10                                                                      10 9
                                              10   7                              6 6.5                                           Final
                                                                                                                      5.5
                                              5    6          Stage 1             5              Stage 2                         Targets
                                              5                                                                        4
                                                   2       Implementation       1.5           Implementation              3.5
                                              0                                                                        0.5
                                              0
                                              2009       2011   2013    2015     2017      2019     2021     2023   2025
                                              2009       2011    2013    2015     2017       2019     2021     2023    2025
                                                                                Year




Nov. 2009 –
August 2010                                                                                                                                                           Final
                                                                                                                                                                      TMDL              Ph. II
                                                                                                                                                                      Established       WIP
December 2010                                                                                                                                                                           with
                                                                                                                                                                                        local
                                                                                                                                                                                        targets        2-year
No later than November 2011                                                                                                                                                             and controls   milestones,
                                                                                                                                                                                                       reporting,
                                                                                                                                                                                                       modeling,
2012 – 2025                                                                                                                                                                                            monitoring 9
Source: EPA November 2009 Ltr to States available at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl                                                                                                                                    12
                  Federal Actions Include…
  • Expand NPDES permit coverage to unregulated
    sources
  • Increase permit oversight/object to permits
  • Require net improvement offsets
  • Establish finer scale allocations
  • Require additional reductions from regulated point
    sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plants)
  • Increased federal enforcement
  • Condition or redirect federal grants
  • Promulgation of local nutrient standards
                                                                                     10
Source: EPA December 2009 Ltr to States available at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
 Review of the Suite of
 Bay Models and Their
 Roles in the Bay TMDL

                      Gary Shenk
            Integrated Analysis Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office
  Coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Program’s
 Scientific, Technical, Analysis and Reporting Team
                                                      11
             Roles of the Bay Models In
                 Decision-Making
                Land Use
              Change Model                           Bay
                                         Bay
                                                  Water Quality                                 Criteria
Management                            Watershed
                                                     Model                                    Assessment
  Actions                              Model
                                                                                              Procedures
                                                                                    100
                                                                                    90
                                                                                                          CFD Curve
                                                                                    80




                                                                  Percent of Time
                                                                                    70

                         Scenario                                                   60                  Area of Criteria
                                                                                                         Exceedence
                                                                                    50

                          Builder                                                   40                       Area of Allowable
                                                                                                                 Criteria
                                                                                    30
                                                                                                               Exceedence
                                                                                    20


              Airshed                                                               10
                                                                                     0
                                                                                          0   10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

              Model                                                                                 Percent of Space




  Sparrow
   Model

                                      Effects

                                    Allocations                                                              12
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Population Trends

                                                           Data provided by state and local agencies


              20,000,000




              15,000,000
 Population




              10,000,000




               5,000,000




                      0
                       1950   1960   1970   1980   1990          2000   2010     2020     2030         2040
                                                          Year
                                                                                                              13
           Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model
                                                     Management Applications
                                                     • Establish benchmark
                                                       expectations of the
                                                       magnitude, location, and
                                                       impact of urban development
                                                       in the Bay watershed through
                                                       the year 2030
                                                     • Inform Watershed
                                                       Implementation Plans in the
                                                       absence of alternative local
                                                       or state forecasts.
                                                     • Starting point for considering
                                                       and discussing the potential
                                                       implications of urban growth
                                                       on Bay water quality.
                                                                               14
Source: Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model Version 3
   Forecasted Population Growth on Sewer vs. Septic (2000 to 2030)




                                                             15
Source: Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model Version 3
       Farmland and Forest Land Loss (2000 to 2030)




                                                     16
Source: Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model Version 3
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Land Use
Satellite Series: 1984, 1992, 2001, 2006
Satellite data: 1984,         U.S. Census of
 1992, 2001, 2006               Agriculture



                                 1982
                                 1987
                                 1992
     64000 Square Miles
                          +      1997
                                 2002
                                 2007

                                               17
     Agricultural Land Use Development
• Row 1: 20 crops               • Apply tillage
    – Corn / soy / wheat         information
• Row 2: 62 crops               • Apply nutrient
    – Vegetables, etc             management
• Nursery: 12 crops               information 
• Hay: 13 hays
                                             • Sixteen
• Alfalfa: 3 alfalfa
                                               Agricultural
• Idle: 3 idle categories      Satellite:
                               Proportion to   Land Uses
• Pasture: 2 pasture           watersheds
  categories
• Manure area: animal                                     18
  counts
A Quarter Century of Watershed Model Development

       Phase 1                          Phase 4                        Phase 5




  • Completed in 1982           • Completed in 1998            • May 2009 roll-out (Phase 5.1)
  • 63 model segments           • 94 model segments            • Over 1,000 model segments
  • 5 land uses                 • 9 land uses                  •25 land uses using time-varying
  • 2 year calibration period   • 14 year calibration period   land use & BMPs
  (March- October)              (1984-97)                      • 21 year calibration period
                                                               (1985-2005)                19
         Increased Calibration Sites By An Order of
                         Magnitude
  Phase 4 Segmentation and           Phase 5 Segmentation and
       Calibration Sites                  Calibration Sites
Calibration sites = 20         Calibration sites = 296
Land Segments = 94             Land Segments = 308
River Segments = 94            River Segments= 1,063
Land uses = 9                  Land uses = 25
Simulation Years = 10          Simulation Years = 20




                                                                20
  How the Watershed Model Works
                            Annual or Monthly:

                            Land Use Acreage
                            BMPs
                            Fertilizer
                            Manure
Hourly Values:              Atmospheric Deposition
                            Point Sources
Rainfall                    Septic Loads
Snowfall
Temperature
Evapotranspiration
Wind
Solar Radiation
Dewpoint
Cloud Cover
                     HSPF

                              Daily output compared
                              To observations 21
           How the Watershed Model Works
    Each segment consists of separately-modeled land
                         uses:
•    High Density Pervious Urban       •   Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation
•    High Density Impervious Urban         (high till)
•    Low Density Pervious Urban        •   Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation
•    Low Density Impervious Urban          (low till)
•    Construction                      •   Other Row Crops
•    Extractive                        •   Alfalfa
•    Combined Sewer System             •   Nursery
•    Wooded / Open                     •   Pasture
•    Disturbed Forest                  •   Degraded Riparian Pasture
                                       •   Manure Areas
                                       •   Fertilized Hay
    Plus: Point Source and             •   Unfertilized Hay
      Septic Loads, and                    – Nutrient management
         Atmospheric                         versions of the above
       Deposition Loads          Each calibrated to nutrient and     22
                                 Sediment targets
       How the Watershed Model Works
 Each land use type is divided into four soil layers:




              Surface
              Interflow
              Lower Zone
              Ground Water


Composed of Water, Sediment, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus submodels   23
                             How the Watershed Model Works
                                                Trees
                                                                               Each
                                                                               submodel
Denitrification




                                                                               has a
                                                Roots              Leaves      complex
                                                                               hydrologic
                             Nitrate
                                                                               or nutrient
Atmospheric Deposition




                                                                               cycling
                         Export                                                structure.

                                                  Particulate          Particulate
                           Solution
                                                    Labile             Refractory
                           Ammonia
                                                  Organic N            Organic N

                         Export                  Export               Export
                                       Export             Export               Export


                                                   Solution             Solution
                           Adsorbed
                                                    Labile             Refractory       24
                           Ammonia
                                                  Organic N            Organic N
Where do we calibrate?

                                            Automated
                                            Calibration




                              Ri
        Reasonable




                                ve
        values of




                                   r
                                   Re
        sediment,




                                     ac
        nitrogen, and




                                       h
        phosphorus




                        Observations of flow, sediment,
                        nitrogen, and phosphorus     25
Automated     26
Calibration
Quick Overview of Watershed Model Scenarios

                     Hourly output is summed over   Snapshot:
                     10 years of hydrology to
                     compare against other          Land Use Acreage
                     management scenarios           BMPs
                                                    Fertilizer
                                                    Manure
Hourly Values:                                      Atmospheric Deposition
                                                    Point Sources
Rainfall                                            Septic Loads
Snowfall
Temperature
Evapotranspiration
Wind
Solar Radiation
Dewpoint
Cloud Cover                                          1991-2000
                              HSPF
                                                     “Average Annual
                                                     Flow-Adjusted Loads”
                                                                      27
    Scenario
     Builder

 A modeling program that
    simulates non-point
source processes in order
 to enhance the accuracy
    and precision of the
Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay
     Watershed Model


                    28
29
          Outputs to Chesapeake Bay
              Watershed Model
• BMPs
    – Descriptions
    – Acres
    – Pounds nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduced
•   Land uses
•   Manure (nutrient species/land use/month)
•   Septic system loads
•   Cover crops uptake
•   Fertilizer application
•   Legumes (pounds nitrogen)
•   Maximum crop uptake
•   Uptake curve (monthly nutrient uptake by land use)
                                                         30
      How Agricultural
   Conservation Practices
    are Credited through
       the Bay Models
                    Chris Brosch
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Nonpoint Source Data Analyst
            University of Maryland/CBPO
                                                   31
        How the Bay Watershed Model Applies
              Practices and Programs
    Meteorological
         and
                     Atmospheric
                                            Point                    Final Output
                      Deposition
     Precipitation                         Source
                     Time Series
     Time Series                          Discharges
                        Inputs
        Inputs

             Manure & Fertilizer Inputs    Opportunities for BMPs



                                             External
                                             Transfer
                                              Module
Opportunities for BMPs
                 Land Variable File
          Management Practices Time Series                   River Variable File
               Land Use Time Series                    Time Series to River Simulation
          Time Series from Land Simulation                                               32
         How the Bay Watershed Model Applies
               Practices and Programs

• BMPs that alter nutrient applications to cropland
  o   Diet and feed changes
  o   Manure transport
  o   Nutrient management applications
• BMPs involving landuse conversions

• BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction
  efficiencies

• BMPs with both landuse conversions and
  reduction efficiencies
  o   Riparian forest buffers and wetland restoration
  o   Riparian grass buffers                            33
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
           Agricultural BMPs                              Developed Lands BMPs
               Riparian Forest Buffers                            Riparian Forest Buffers

                Riparian Grass Buffers                             Riparian Grass Buffers

                 Wetland Restoration                                Wetland Restoration

                   Land Retirement                                     Tree Planting

                    Tree Planting                                   Forest Conservation

                 Conservation-Tillage                             Urban Growth Reduction

                  Continuous No-Till                               Wet Ponds & Wetlands

       Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops          Dry Detention Ponds & Hydrodynamic Structures

              Poultry and Swine Phytase                        Dry Extended Detention Ponds

               Poultry Litter Transport                             Infiltration Practices

           Ammonia Emission Reductions                               Filtering Practices

Animal Waste Management Systems: Livestock & Poultry                Stream Restoration

   Barnyard Runoff Control/Loafing Lot Management               Erosion & Sediment Control

   Dairy Precision Feeding /and Forage Management                  Nutrient Management

          Nutrient Management Applications                     Abandoned Mine Reclamation

                Precision Agriculture                  Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control

           Enhanced Nutrient Management                               Street Sweeping

             Conservation Plans/SCWQP                               Septic Connections

        Cover Crops (Early- and Late-Planting)                        Septic Pumping

  Small Grain Enhancement (Early- and Late-Planting)               Septic Denitrification

     Off-Stream Watering with and without Fencing           Structural Shoreline Erosion Control

 Off-Stream Watering w/ Fencing & Rotational Grazing      Non-Structural Shoreline Erosion Control

                  Precision Grazing

             Horse Pasture Management                            Forestry BMPs
               Water Control Structures                         Forest Harvesting Practices            34
                 Stream Restoration
    Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
             Practices Involving Landuse Conversions

                                         Load reductions attributed to
             Fertilizer                  movement to lower-exporting
Atmosphere
                              Manure              landuses




                              Runoff
                             Runoff


                                                                  35
 Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
     Practices With Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Efficiencies

                                            Load reductions attributed to
               Fertilizer
Atmosphere                                   upland benefit employing
                                Manure             “efficiencies”
                                             • Efficiencies can vary by hydro-
                                               geomorphic region




                            Runoff



                                                                        36
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
      Practices that Alter Nutrient Applications to Agriculture Land
                                                                       Phytase
                                                        Precision Feeding/Forage Management
 Uncollected                                                       Manure Transport
                    Pasture            Volatilization

    Beef
                                                                      Volatilization
   Dairy
   Swine
               Collected
   Layers
  Broilers                                    Daily Application
                           Enclosure
  Turkeys
   Horses
                                                               Spring/Fall
                                                 Storage       Application Crop
 Volatilization
                           Barnyard
                                              Daily Application

           Runoff                                                          Runoff

                                                                                       37
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
              Nutrient Management Applications


             Fertilizer
Atmosphere
                            Manure




                                 Runoff


                                                 38
      Expanding Tracking,
     Reporting and Crediting
        of Conservation
            Practices
                      Mark Dubin
Chesapeake Bay Program Agricultural Technical Coordinator
           University of Maryland/CBPO and
              Mid-Atlantic Water Program
                                                      39
      BMP Efficiencies History
• CBP Partnership contracted with the Mid-
  Atlantic Water Program at the University of
  Maryland to develop effectiveness estimates;
  a two year process (2006-2008).
• Challenge: scientifically estimate the
  effectiveness of practices Bay-wide and the
  way they are actually installed or implemented.
• Many, many different individuals and
  organizations had input during the process.
                                                40
         The Collaborators are Many…
These are the federal, state, and regional agency, academic institution, non-
governmental organization and agricultural industry contributors to just the two-
year effort to evaluate and revised the best management practice efficiencies:
Mid-Atlantic Water Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
 Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
      Virginia Department of Forestry, Pennsylvania State Conservation
     Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
 Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Maryland
    Department of Agriculture, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Maryland Department of the Environment, University of Maryland Cooperative
   Extension, University of Maryland-College Park, Delaware Department of
 Agriculture, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
     Control, Delaware Maryland Agribusiness Association, West Virginia
    Department of Agriculture, West Virginia Department of Environmental
    Protection, Cacapon Institute - West Virginia, New York Department of
    Environmental Conservation, Upper Susquehanna Coalition, American
Farmland Trust, Chesapeake Bay Commission, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish
 and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, Pinchot Institute,
                       Piedmont Environmental Council                     41
               CBP Agricultural BMPs
Nutrient Management                           Other Agricultural BMPS
• Nutrient Management                         • Forest Buffers
• Precision Agriculture                       • Wetland Restoration
• Enhanced Nutrient Management                • Land Retirement
Conservation Tillage                          • Grass Buffers
• Continuous No-Till                          • Tree Planting
• Other Conservation Tillage                  • Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops
Cover Crops                                   • Conservation Plans/SCWQP
• Cover Crops – Late Planting                 • Animal Waste Management Systems
• Cover Crops – Early Planting                • Mortality Composters
• Small Grain Enhancement – Late Planting     • Water Control Structures
• Small Grain Enhancement – Early Planting    • Horse Pasture Management
Pasture Grazing BMPs                          • Non-Urban Stream Restoration
• Off-Stream Watering with Fencing            • Poultry Phytase
• Off-Stream Watering without Fencing         • Poultry Liter Management
• Off-Stream Watering with Fencing            • Dairy Precision Feed
  and Rotational Grazing                        and/or Forage Management
• Precision or Intensive Rotational Grazing   • Swine Phytase
                                                                                    42
                                              • Ammonia Emissions Reductions
           CBP Urban/Suburban BMPs
Other Urban/Suburban BMP                          Stormwater Management
• Forest Conservation                             • Wet Ponds and Wetlands
• Impervious Surface and Urban Growth Reduction   • Dry Detention Ponds and
• Forest Buffers (Urban)                            Hydrodynamic Structures
• Tree Planting (Urban)                           • Dry Extended Detention Ponds
• Grass Buffers (Urban)                           • Urban Infiltration Practices
• Stream Restoration (Urban)                      • Urban Filtering Practices
• Erosion and Sediment Control                    • Recent/Retrofit Stormwater Management
• Nutrient Management (Urban)                     Septic BMPs
• Street Sweeping                                 • Septic Connections
• Forest Buffers (Mixed Open)                     • Septic Denitrification
• Wetland Restoration (Mixed Open)                • Septic Pumping
• Tree Planting (Mixed Open)
• Nutrient Management (Mixed Open)
• Abandoned Mine Reclamation
• Non-Urban Stream Restoration (Mixed Open)
• Dirt and Gravel Road Erosion
  and Sediment Control (Mixed Open)
                                                                                   43
     Getting Credit for New BMPs
• Partnership interest is growing in obtaining
  water quality credit for practices that are not
  currently in the Bay watershed model.
• The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership
  needed a standardized procedure for
  evaluating both new and existing practices.
• Based on the 2-year experience with the Mid-
  Atlantic Water Quality project, the partnership
  developed a protocol to do this (approved
  March 15, 2010)
                                               44
 Workgroups review
  the process and                                                  Request made to
 recommend to the                                                    the WQGIT,
      WQGIT                                                        forwarded to the
                                Water Quality Goal
                                                                     Workgroups
                               Implementation Team



 Watershed Technical WG           Review                    Watershed Technical WG
          And                                                        And
   Source Workgroup               Process                     Source Workgroup


                                     Expert panel
                                   (includes other
  Panel develops                    perspectives)                     Workgroups
  definitions and                                                 convene an expert
estimates based on                                                  panel to review
       data                                                       existing information


      Protocol available on Chesapeake Bay Program website                          45
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/47043_03-15-10_Handout_2_10251.pdf
   Practice Evaluations Requested by
                Partners
• Practices Currently Under Evaluation:
  – Pasture management, cover crops, enhanced
    nutrient management, street sweeping/storm drain
    cleanout, urban stormwater BMPs by era

• Practices Requested for Evaluation:
  – Precision agriculture, continuous no-till, avoided
    deforestation, third party forest certification, finer
    scale riparian forest buffers, urban tree cover, septic
    system BMPs

• There is a lot of work to be done!                  46
                     Agricultural Practice Data
                                   Current Data Flow

                                         Chesapeake
                                             Bay
                                          Program
                                            Office




                                          Maryland
                            District     Department
Pennsylvania   Virginia                                   New York         Delaware       West Virginia
                          of Columbia       of the
                                         Environment

                                                                 Tracking and reporting NPS BMPs
                                                                     had no overall strategy or
                                                  Maryland     technology plan Bay watershed-wide
                                  Maryland
                                                 Department
                                Department                           Disparate funding sources and
                                                  of Natural
                                of Agriculture
                                                  Resources             implementation at many
                                                                        organizations and levels
                                                                    • Individual state agency tools
                                                                             • NRCS ToolKit
                                  Maryland                                       • FSA
                                 Agricultural                               • 319 programs
                                  BMP Data                                  • Paper tracking
                                   Sources                     • Some good (GIS) tracking tools at some
                                                                                                  47
                                                                   advanced Conservation Districts
                                                                                                       54
                     Agricultural Practice Data
                                         Future Data Flow
          (NEIEN or National Environmental Information Network Exchange)
                  • Nodes host a suite of standard web services that facilitate the authentication and exchange of
 Maryland                                             data between partners
Agricultural      • Messaging between partners is handled through standard extensible markup language (XML)
 BMP Data
  Sources                                                                                  Translation for
                                                                                           CBP reporting
         Template for raw                                                                    and model
         source BMP data                                                                       inputs

                                                                       Tracking and Reporting Objectives
                                                                       • Build EPA network node at CBPO and
                                                                        state nodes to support environmental
                                                                             information exchanges in an
                                                                                  automated fashion.
                                                                         • Develop standard templates to be
                                                                         used on the NEIEN to move tabular
                                                                           and spatial data for NPS BMPs.
                                                                          • Map jurisdictional NPS BMP data
                                                                        from state sources into the templates.
                                                                        • Transfer the NPS BMP data from CB
                                                                       jurisdictions to CBPO network node for
                                                                        assembly into the model deck and for
                                                                       use in Geographic Display Tools for the
                                                                                                        48
                                                                                        region.              55
       Crediting Voluntary Practices
EPA/USDA Commitment: Early 2009

  – To increase Bay state reporting inclusion of USDA
    implemented voluntary conservation practices through
    improved data access from USDA sources.

  – To support agricultural partnership discussions and form
    commitments to increase the tracking and reporting of
    implemented voluntary practices through a standardized
    and verifiable process.

  – To develop a protocol for providing Bay watershed model
    accreditation of reported voluntary practices from diverse
    non-verified sources that ensures accountability.
                                                          49
       Crediting Voluntary Practices
USDA-USGS Agreement Formed: 2009-2010

  – A Cooperative Agreement has been developed
    between USDA-FSA and USGS to allow data to be
    shared between the two agencies
  – The initial transfer of USDA data to USGS upon
    authorization of the Agreement will be from the Farm
    Services Agency (FSA). A separate Cooperative
    Agreement with USDA-NRCS data is being developed
    using the FSA agreement as a model.
  – USGS will prepare and disseminate aggregated USDA-
    FSA voluntary practice data following federal Farm Bill
    guidelines to the Bay states and the Chesapeake Bay
    Program Office.                                    50
CBP partners working with
USDA (NRCS and FSA)
and through USGS to track
conservation practices
down at the HUC 12 scale
into the future




                            51
       Crediting Voluntary Practices
USDA-State Agreement Formed: 2010
  – A Cooperative Agreement has been developed
    between Maryland USDA-NRCS and the Maryland
    Department of Agriculture (MDA) to allow NRCS data to
    be shared between the two agencies.
  – MDA has direct access to NRCS conservation practice
    data at the county implementation level. Direct access
    will allow the state agency to obtain geo-referenced
    implementation to filter out potential double counted
    practices.
  – Additional USDA Cooperative Agreements are being
    considered amongst the Bay states using the MDA
    agreement as an model.                          52
        Crediting Voluntary Practices
• Conservation Partnership Database Group Formed: 2009
  – Organizational meeting of federal and state agencies and
    Non-Governmental Organizations representing the six
    watershed states held in Gettysburg, PA on December 12,
    2009
  – Group commitment to develop a transparent process for the
    Bay partnership to track and report voluntary practice
    implementation from diverse traditional and non-traditional
    sources.
  – Criteria included:
     * Simplicity                   * Ease of Use
     * Cost Efficient               * Verifiable Data
     * Accurate                     * Accountable
                                                                 53
     * Adaptable for Future Needs   * Beneficial for Producers
        Crediting Voluntary Practices
• Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs)
  Guidelines: 2010

  – Developing transparent levels of accountability for reported
    voluntary practices from diverse sources and verification
    methods.

  – Developing a a protocol for providing Bay model
    accreditation of reported voluntary practices from verified
    non-traditional sources. Example options include:
     • Verified Source/approved practice: full model accreditation value

     • Non-Verified Source/approved practice: discounted model
       accreditation value

     • Non-Verified Source/unapproved practice: new accreditation value
                                                                       54
         Crediting Voluntary Practices
• Next steps to be taken by the Conservation Partnership
  Database Group in the process of crediting voluntary
  practices:
   – Develop a standardized and verifiable process for Bay
     watershed states to track and report voluntary practice
     implementation from diverse traditional and non-traditional
     sources.
   – Develop a model accreditation protocol of Bay state reported
     voluntary practice implementation from diverse non-verified
     sources that ensures accountability.
   – Continue to support and further implement the National
     Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) BMP
     reporting system with all Bay states to assure accuracy and
     consistency of data reporting.
   – Timeline for completion: late 2010                      55
     Overview of the
   Partnership’s Target
     Load to States
      Methodology
                      Gary Shenk
            Integrated Analysis Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office
  Coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Program’s
 Scientific, Technical, Analysis and Reporting Team   56
     Guidelines for Distributing the
       Basinwide Target Loads
• Water quality and living resource goals
  should be achieved
• Watersheds that contribute the most to the
  ‘downstream’ water quality problems should
  achieve the most reductions
• All previous reductions in nutrient and
  sediment loads are credited toward achieving
  final pollutant cap loads
                                            57
Nutrient Impacts on Bay WQ




                             58
            58
                                        Fraction reduction from 2010 noBMPs to E3




                              0.60
                                          0.65
                                                 0.70
                                                        0.75
                                                               0.80
                                                                      0.85
                                                                             0.90
                                                                                    0.95
                                                                                           1.00




                          0
                                     JmsA, WV
                                     JmsA, VA
                                      YrkA, VA
                                     RapA, VA




                          1
                                     JmsB, VA
                                     PxtA, MD
                                      PotA, PA




                          2
                                      Wsh, PA
                                     PotA, WV
                                      PotA, VA
                                      YrkB, VA




                          3
                                     PotA, MD
                                     Susq, NY
                                 MidES, DE
                                     RapB, VA




                          4
                                      PotB, VA
                                     PotB, MD
                                     PotA, DC




Relative Effectiveness
                                     PxtB, MD

                          5
                                     UpES, PA
                                 EshVA, VA
                                     PotB, DC
                                                                                                     Pollution Contribution




                          6


                                     Susq, PA
                                                                                                      Sample TN Allocation at 90% Level Effort




                                 MidES, MD
                                      Wsh, MD
                                     UpES, DE
                          7
                                                                                              Allocating Load ReductionofBased on




                                LowES, DE
                                     UpES, MD
                         59




                                LowES, MD
                                     Susq, MD
                          8
                                                                     TN, p5.2, goal=200, WWTP = 4.5 - 8 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,

                                           100%
                                                                                                                      4.5 mg/l
                                           90%                     Wastewater Loads
Percent reduction from 2010 noBMPs to E3




                                           80%
                                                      8 mg/l
                                                                                               All other sources
                                           70%

                                           60%

                                           50%                        20 percent slope
                                           40%

                                           30%

                                           20%
                                                        Allocation Method Selected
                                                           by Watershed States’                                              All Other
                                           10%
                                                                Secretaries                                                  WWTP
                                            0%
                                                  0            1         2        3        4         5         6       7            8         9
                                                                                                                                         60
                                                                                      Relative Effectiveness
                     Nitrogen Target            Phosphorus Target
Basin/Jurisdiction        Load                        Load
                                 (million pounds per year)
SUSQUEHANNA               80.2                           3.3
        NY                10.5                           0.6
        PA                68.8                           2.7          Results from
        MD                 0.8                           0.1
EASTERN SHORE             19.7                           1.7          application of the
        DE                 5.3                           0.3
        MD                12.8                           1.2          selected
        VA                 1.6                           0.2
WESTERN SHORE             10.2                           0.6          methodology:
        MD                10.2                           0.6
PATUXENT                   3.2                           0.2
        MD                 3.2                           0.2          target loads by
POTOMAC                   43.1                           4.1
        PA                 4.8                           0.5          major river basin by
        MD                14.1                           0.9
        DC                 2.4                           0.1          jurisdiction
        VA                16.1                           2.0
        WV                 5.7                           0.6
RAPPAHANNOCK               6.5                           0.8
        VA                 6.5                           0.8
YORK                       6.5                           0.6
        VA                 6.5                           0.6
JAMES                     28.5                           3.5
        VA                28.5                           3.5        Source: EPA November 2009 Ltr to States
                                                                    accessible at www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
                                                                                                                  61
TOTAL TARGET
                         197.8                          14.8
LOAD
Maryland must distribute 5 basin target loads to
      58 MD Bay TMDL Segmentsheds*




                                                                             62
 *Specific geographic land area that drains to a Bay water quality segment
     2011
   Phase II
  Watershed
Implementation
     Plan:
  County-Segment
(Co-Seg) and County
    Allocations




                      63
  EXAMPLE:
 Patuxent tidal
fresh segment
drainage area
 with counties
  delineated



                  64
All Source Sectors are
      Important!

              Bob Koroncai
      Chesapeake Bay TMDL Manager
U.S. EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division
   Co-chair Chesapeake Bay Program’s
 Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
                                              65
         Main Sources of Bay Pollution
•   Agriculture – animal manure, commercial fertilizer
•   Urban/suburban runoff – a growing problem
•   Air pollution – tailpipes, power plants
•   Wastewater – sewage treatment plants




                                                         66
         All sources are important!
• States will decide where to seek reductions
• Relevant factors
  – Wastewater: currently undergoing $ billions in treatment
    technology upgrades
  – Agriculture: low cost controls, significant source
  – Turf grass: no/low cost controls, important source
  – Urban runoff: costly controls, growing source
  – Septics: new N-reduction technologies, growing source
  – Air: EPA lead, opportunity for more controls?
  – Funding, regulations, cost of controls, reduction potential
                                                              67
    Monitoring the Bay
     and Watershed:
    Defining Success
                   Rich Batiuk
          Associate Director for Science
U.S. EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office

                                                  68
Tidal and Watershed Monitoring Networks
Current and Planned Watershed Monitoring Networks




                                             70
Watershed Nitrogen/Phosphorus Flow-Adjusted
           Concentration Trends




                                        71
Health of Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake
                Bay Watershed




                                            72
How the Bay TMDL will
Affect Agriculture in the
    Bay Watershed

               Bob Koroncai
       Chesapeake Bay TMDL Manager
 U.S. EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division
    Co-chair Chesapeake Bay Program’s
  Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
                                               73
         Affect on Agriculture
• The Bay TMDL will likely identify the
  need for further significant nutrient and
  sediment load reductions from the
  agricultural community

• The question is: how to incentivise the
  installation of the needed conservation
  practices

• The answer will be identified the states’
  watershed implementation plans
                                              74
  Opportunities to Directly Participate
• Call your state’s watershed implementation plan
  point of contact (see next slide)

• Join in the monthly Bay TMDL webinars
  – Next webinar: May 4th 10 AM

• Get better informed at:
  www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl

• Bay TMDL public review/comment period this fall

• Fall public meetings and webinars

• Contact your friendly EPA Bay TMDL colleagues
                                                75
  (we don’t bite or even bark!)
Watershed Implementation Plan Contacts
• Delaware: Jennifer Volk, DNREC
• District of Columbia: Monir Chowdhury, DOE
• Maryland: Rich Eskin and Tom Thornton, MDE
• New York: Ron Entringer and Peter Freehafer, DEC
• Pennsylvania: Pat Buckley, DEP
• Virginia: Alan Pollock, DEQ and Russ Perkinson, DCR
• West Virginia: Teresa Koon, DEP


(Contact information--phone number, email address--is
  available at: www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl)
                                                 76
               Further Information
• Chesapeake Bay TMDL web site
     www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
• U.S. EPA Contacts
  – Region 3 Water Protection Division
    • Bob Koroncai
       – 215-814-5730; koroncai.robert@epa.gov
  – Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office
    • Rich Batiuk
       – 410-267-5731; batiuk.richard@epa.gov
  – Region 2
    • Ruth Izraeli
       – 212-637-3784; izraeli.ruth@epa.gov
                                                 77
Questions & Comments




                       78
       78