Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation

1. Watershed Model ScenariosTributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net 410-267-9844 Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting Lancaster, PA September 29, 2009 1

2. Tributary StrategiesScenario Purpose and Design • Reference point loads among the scenarios: current conditions and E3. • Possible use as interim target loads for Watershed Implementation Plans. • Between short term goals (Milestones) and long-term goals (TMDL that meets water quality standards). 2

3. Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay 3

4. Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay 4

5. Tributary StrategiesScenario Purpose and Design • 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. 5

6. Tributary Strategy ScenarioImplementation Levels I 6

7. Tributary Strategy ScenarioImplementation Levels II 7

8. Nonpoint Source Implementation Levels2005 – 2010 Tributary Strategy – 2010 E3 • 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.) 8

9. Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3 • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 9

10. Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3 • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 10

11. Agricultural Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3 • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 11

12. Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3 • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 12

13. Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3 • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 13

14. Non-Point Source Practices and Programs 14

15. Watershed Model Inputs • Landuses Data sources = satellite imagery and U.S. Census Bureau series, Census of Agriculture • 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 • Urban • High- and Low-Intensity Pervious • High- and Low-Intensity Impervious • Extractive • Barren/Construction • Forest • Forest and Disturbed Forest • Water • Nutrient Inputs to the Land • Manure Applications & Excretions • Animal Populations • Chemical Fertilizers • Agricultural • Non-Agricultural • Atmospheric Deposition • NOx • Ammonia • Point Sources • Septic • Best Management Practices Data sources = annual reporting from each jurisdiction 15

16. Edge-of-Stream Nitrogen LoadsNo-Action: 1985 – 2002 - 2010 16

17. Edge-of-Stream Phosphorus Loads No-Action: 1985 – 2002 - 2010 17

18. Watershed Model Inputs • Landuses Data sources = satellite imagery and U.S. Census Bureau series, Census of Agriculture • 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 • Urban • High- and Low-Intensity Pervious • High- and Low-Intensity Impervious • Extractive • Barren/Construction • Forest • Forest and Disturbed Forest • Water • Nutrient Inputs to the Land • Manure Applications & Excretions • Animal Populations • Chemical Fertilizers • Agricultural • Non-Agricultural • Atmospheric Deposition • NOx • Ammonia • Point Sources • Septic • Best Management Practices Data sources = annual reporting from each jurisdiction 18

19. Phase 5.2 Watershed ModelAir Scenarios – Nitrogen 19

20. Phase 5.2 Watershed ModelAir Scenarios – Phosphorus 20

21. Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay 21

22. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelScenario Purpose • 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. • Many stakeholders questioned feasibility, especially in response to E3, including the PSC. • Used as a reference among loadings and implementation levels for: • Current assessment • Existing Tributary Strategies • Draft Bay nutrient loading caps • Final loadings expressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL • E3 • Could be use for costing implementation – point and nonpoint sources. 22

23. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelQualitative Definition • The amount of nutrient and sediment controls for all source sectors that can be expected to be employed on a large scale. • 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: • Technical achievability – the maximum of current technology to reduce nutrients. • 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? • 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. 23

24. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelSpecifics • Waste Treatment • 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. 24

25. Enhanced Program Implementation Level2003 Level-of-Effort Scenarios “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.” 25

26. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelSpecifics • Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: • 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”. 26

27. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelSpecifics • Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: • Tetra Tech March 18, 2009 literature review for EPA. • CBP workgroup, subcommittee, and implementation team (jurisdictional) responses to assigned task of detailing “Full-Funding Full-Regulatory” scenario. • Historic documentation of scenario “Full Voluntary Program Implementation”. • Implementation levels in historic and current annual model assessments, Tributary Strategy and E3 scenarios. 27

28. Enhanced Program Implementation LevelAgricultural Practices - Example • No E3 level of implementation presented indicates: • 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 • determination of theoretical maximum too subjective. 28