Post on 19-Jan-2016
description
Watershed Model ScenariosTributary Strategies &
Enhanced Program Implementation
Jeffrey S. SweeneyUniversity of Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Program Officejsweeney@chesapeakebay.net
410-267-9844
Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting Lancaster, PA
September 29, 2009
1
Tributary StrategiesScenario Purpose and Design
2
• Reference point loads among the scenarios: current conditions and E3.
• Possible use as interim target loads for Watershed Implementation Plans. o Between short term goals (Milestones) and long-
term goals (TMDL that meets water quality standards).
202.1155.5
72.245.0
36.6
41.1
31.9
21.1
93.4
60.4
41.6
22.7
8.8
11.1
11.2
3.5
53.8
44.7
39.1
37.9
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1985 2002 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3: WWTP Design Flow
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater Septic Forest Non-Tidal AtDep
Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
3
13.05
9.076.79
4.31
2.47
2.82
2.45
1.13
10.72
4.81
3.46
0.91
2.11
2.05
2.15
2.23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1985 2002 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3: WWTP Design Flow
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater Forest
Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
4
Tributary StrategiesScenario Purpose and Design
5
• Phase 4.3 WSM jurisdictional Tributary Strategies have been converted for the Phase 5 WSM.
• Generally, used absolute acreage for practices involving landuse changes and
• Other practices (those employing reduction efficiencies) were treated as percentages of available land, i.e., the same implementation levels in Phase 4.3 strategies (as percentages) was used in the Phase 5 strategies.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Phase 4 WSM Phase 5 WSM Option 1 (sameimplementation acres)
Phase 5 WSM Option 2 (samepercent implementation)
Implementation Acres Total Available Acres
Tributary Strategy ScenarioImplementation Levels I
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Phase 4 WSM Phase 5 WSM Option 1 (sameimplementation acres)
Phase 5 WSM Option 2 (samepercent implementation)
Implementation Acres Total Available Acres
Tributary Strategy ScenarioImplementation Levels II
7
Nonpoint Source Implementation Levels
2005 – 2010 Tributary Strategy – 2010 E3
8
• For each nonpoint source practice, implementation levels are presented as a percent of available or E3 and in absolute quantity (i.e., acres, tons, AU, etc.)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Conservation Plans Traditional &Enhanced Nutrient
Management
CoverCrop+Commodity
Cover Crop
Conservation-Tillage Pasture Management Continuous No-Till
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3
9
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Production Land forBMPs
Forest Buffers Tree Planting Land Retirement WetlandRestoration
CarbonSequestration
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3
10
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Horse PastureManagement
Litter Transport(tons)
Pasture Fencing Grass Buffers Animal WasteMngt+Mortality
Compost
Water ControlStructures
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3
11
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Stormwater Management Urban NutrientManagement
Forest Buffers Forest HarvestingPractices (hvf)
Forest Conservation &Urban Growth Reduction
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3
12
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Erosion & SedimentControl (urban)
Tree Planting Forest HarvestingPractices (forest)
Erosion & SedimentControl (barren)
Street Sweeping Abandoned MineReclamation
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3
13
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.
Agricultural BMPs Developed Lands BMPsRiparian 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 BMPsWater Control Structures Forest Harvesting Practices
Stream Restoration
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
14
• LandusesData sources = satellite imagery and U.S. Census Bureau series, Census of Agricultureo Agriculture
Composite Crop w/ manure nutrients: Conventional-Till Conservation-Till
Composite Crop w/o manure nutrients Hay w/ & w/o nutrients Alfalfa Nursery Pasture Pasture Stream Corridor Animal Feeding Operations
o Urban High- and Low-Intensity Pervious High- and Low-Intensity Impervious
o Extractiveo Barren/Constructiono Forest
Forest and Disturbed Foresto Water
• Nutrient Inputs to the Lando Manure Applications & Excretions
Animal Populationso Chemical Fertilizers
Agricultural Non-Agricultural
o Atmospheric Deposition NOx Ammonia
• Point Sources• Septic• Best Management Practices
Data sources = annual reporting from each jurisdiction
Watershed Model Inputs
15
354.3311.6
274.5
54.967.7
76.4
175.1175.1
175.1
19.423.4
25.4
89.385.8
84.9
2.32.3
2.3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1985 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow 2002 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow 2010 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater Septic Forest Non-Tidal AtDep
Edge-of-Stream Nitrogen LoadsNo-Action: 1985 – 2002 - 2010
16
25.3018.73 16.08
3.80
4.655.22
50.83
50.8350.83
3.826
3.7103.656
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1985 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow 2002 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow 2010 No-Action: WWTP Design Flow
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater Forest
Edge-of-Stream Phosphorus Loads No-Action: 1985 – 2002 - 2010
17
• LandusesData sources = satellite imagery and U.S. Census Bureau series, Census of Agricultureo Agriculture
Composite Crop w/ manure nutrients: Conventional-Till Conservation-Till
Composite Crop w/o manure nutrients Hay w/ & w/o nutrients Alfalfa Nursery Pasture Pasture Stream Corridor Animal Feeding Operations
o Urban High- and Low-Intensity Pervious High- and Low-Intensity Impervious
o Extractiveo Barren/Constructiono Forest
Forest and Disturbed Foresto Water
• Nutrient Inputs to the Lando Manure Applications & Excretions
Animal Populationso Chemical Fertilizers
Agricultural Non-Agricultural
o Atmospheric Deposition NOx Ammonia
• Point Sources• Septic• Best Management Practices
Data sources = annual reporting from each jurisdiction
Watershed Model Inputs
18
TN Scenarios Phase 5.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
pr1985 pr1985 LowAir pr2002 pr2002 LowAir Trib Strat LowAir
Mill
ion
lbs
per
yea
rPhase 5.2 Watershed Model
Air Scenarios – Nitrogen
19
TP Scenarios Phase 5.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
pr1985 pr1985 LowAir pr2002 pr2002 LowAir Trib Strat LowAir
Mill
ion
lbs
per
yea
rPhase 5.2 Watershed Model
Air Scenarios – Phosphorus
20
202.1155.5
72.245.0
36.6
41.1
31.9
21.1
93.4
60.4
41.6
22.7
8.8
11.1
11.2
3.5
53.8
44.7
39.1
37.9
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1985 2002 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3: WWTP Design Flow
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater Septic Forest Non-Tidal AtDep
Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
21
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Scenario Purpose
22
• The Enhanced Program Implementation Level (EPIL) scenario is an effort to try to quantify the “do-ability” of achieving various nutrient and sediment controls in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. o Many stakeholders questioned feasibility, especially in response to
E3, including the PSC.• Used as a reference among loadings and implementation levels
for: o Current assessmento Existing Tributary Strategieso Draft Bay nutrient loading capso Final loadings expressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDLo E3
• Could be use for costing implementation – point and nonpoint sources.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Qualitative Definition
23
• The amount of nutrient and sediment controls for all source sectors that can be expected to be employed on a large scale. o May include limit-of-technology for some sources sectors but is,
perhaps, less than limit of technology for all nonpoint source sectors.
• Do-ability can be expressed at several levels, including:o Technical achievability – the maximum of current technology to
reduce nutrients. o Operational achievability – the maximum tolerance for individuals
and society to support nutrient controls. Will society support large-scale conversion of cropland to forest? Can operators of small package WWTP operate sophisticated plants
designed to achieve low levels of nutrients? o Financial achievability – the maximum cost burden on individuals or
society to reduce nutrients• While it is difficult to separate the financial achievability from the
rest of this analysis, the EPIL analysis only addresses the first two levels of do-ability.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
24
• Waste Treatmento Discharges likely to be same as existing tributary strategies.
• Some nonpoint source practices and programs may not be universal to jurisdictions as they are in E3.
• Nonpoint source practices would be considered for EPIL if reported in a jurisdiction’s annual model assessment, Tributary Strategy, or Milestone.
• Levels of implementation and control technologies for the Enhanced Program Implementation Level scenario are subjective.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
2003 Level-of-Effort Scenarios
25
“The partners agree that the E3-level nutrient and sediment reductions are not
physically plausible and that the load reductions represented by Tier 3 are
technologically achievable.”
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
26
• Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: o EPA perspectives, including reports fulfilling “120-day” and “180-
day” responses to the May 12, 2009 Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.
Urban sector domain is extent of MS4 regions where, for the year 2010, 56% of the urban area and 69% of the impervious surfaces in the Chesapeake Bay watershed fall within regulated MS4 regions.
EPA is estimating the number of animal operations that are or could be CAFO as well as their nutrient generation and ultimate fate.
CAFO = farms that confine the threshold number of animals to meet the medium and large CAFO definitions in the current CAFO regulations. There needs to be a translation to acres that could be regulated for Enhanced Program Implementation Level scenario.
There is considerable emphasis on “next-generation nutrient management plans”.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
27
• Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: o Tetra Tech March 18, 2009 literature review for EPA. o CBP workgroup, subcommittee, and implementation team
(jurisdictional) responses to assigned task of detailing “Full-Funding Full-Regulatory” scenario.
o Historic documentation of scenario “Full Voluntary Program Implementation”.
o Implementation levels in historic and current annual model assessments, Tributary Strategy and E3 scenarios.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Conservation Plans Traditional &Enhanced Nutrient
Management
CoverCrop+Commodity
Cover Crop
Conservation-Tillage Pasture Management Continuous No-Till
mill
ion
acre
s
2005 2010 Tributary Strategy 2010 E3
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Agricultural Practices - Example
28
No E3 level of implementation presented indicates:
1) less land available for implementation in E3 than Strategies due to greater buffers, retirement, etc., or
2) practice to be replaced by more enhanced version, or
3) determination of theoretical maximum too subjective.