EPA Strategic Plan, Health and Restoration Assessments, and Annual Model Scenarios

1. EPA Strategic Plan, Health and Restoration Assessments, and Annual Model Scenarios Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net 410-267-9844 Tributary Strategy Workgroup Meeting Chesapeake Bay Program Office April 3, 2006

2. FY06-11 U.S. EPA Strategic Plan EPA Strategic Planning & the Chesapeake Bay Program • The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires EPA to submit a 5 year strategic plan to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). • “Given the recent GAO report which calls for a more realistic water quality implementation plan, the Bay Program was encouraged to remain ambitious about setting targets while also considering what’s realistic.” Schedule • February 2006 – EPA releases draft architecture which details performance measures and strategic targets for public review (45 day comment period) • April 2006 – EPA releases full-text draft for public review and comment • August 2006 – Beginning of OMB formal review period • September 30, 2006 – Delivery of Strategic Plan to the Congress

3. Baselines and Targets (Goal Achievement) for CBPO Measures

4. Recent and Projected Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay (FY11 Program Activity Measures)

5. Methods In forecasting nutrient and sediment loads, many options were investigated – all using Watershed Model information: • Long-term trends solely • Short-term trends solely • Combination of long- and short-term trends • Variable end times for point source cap achievement • Annual changes in loads from each of the seven jurisdictions and for each of six major nonpoint source categories • Alternatives to non-linear forecasts • The chosen method for nonpoint sources is applied to all pollutants – nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment – for defensibility of the results. • The chosen method for point sources is applied to both nutrients, also to stand up under peer review.

6. Methods Nonpoint Source Nutrient and Sediment Load Forecasts: • 2010 model year (FY11) nutrient and sediment load forecasts are projections of load outputs from Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model. • For each major nonpoint source category (agriculture, urban, mixed open, forest, septic, and non-tidal water deposition), loads for TN, TP and sediment are projected to the 2010 model year using both a long-term (1985-2004) linear trend and short-term (2002-2004) linear trend at the spatial scale of Chesapeake Bay watershed-wide. • The 2010 model year nonpoint source load forecasts for the nutrient and sediment load were averages of these two sets of long- and short-term trends. Point Source Nutrient Load Forecasts: • It is assumed that point source loads will meet their tributary strategy goals in model year 2015 in all jurisdictions except Maryland where it’s assumed the strategy cap load will be met in 2010. • The 2010 model year point source load forecasts for nutrients come from linear interpolations between 2004 and the year in which the jurisdictions’ point source goals are assumed to be achieved. Nonpoint and Point Source Nutrient and Sediment Load Forecasts: • The nutrient and sediment forecasts developed for the EPA FY 06-11 Strategic Plan combine the nonpoint and point source loading results of the methods described above. • The baselines and targets as percentages are comparisons of load reductions between 1985 and projected loads with load reductions between 1985 and Bay-wide cap load allocations.

7. Recent and Projected Phosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay (FY11 Program Activity Measures)

8. Recent and Projected Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay (FY11 Program Activity Measures)

9. Future Opportunities for Improving Projections Projections of model load reductions could be underestimated because: • Nonpoint source BMP levels reported by jurisdictions for the Phase 4.3 Watershed Model annual assessments could significantly increase in subsequent years not necessarily because of on-the-ground implementation, but because of: • Better tracking mechanisms • Establishment of a tracking mechanism, i.e., stormwater management • Entire resource assessments • Point source assumptions How can we use monitoring data? • Flow-adjusted concentrations at the fall-lines • Trends in monitored loads at the fall-lines • + below fall-line point sources • + modeled below fall-line nonpoint sources • How do we determine goals for loads?

10. Future Opportunities for Improving Projections Projections of model load reductions could be overestimated because of the following reasons: • Nonpoint source BMP levels reported by jurisdictions for the Phase 4.3 Watershed Model annual “progress” runs could decrease in subsequent years because: • New resource assessments indicate reported historic implementation levels were too high • Implementation of voluntary practices that rely on continuous annual funding could decrease, i.e., cover crops • Jurisdiction revises it’s assumptions of distributing tracked BMPs among particular model land use categories. • Point source assumptions • Measured discharges from waste treatment facilities could increase over any yearly time period of high precipitation, i.e., wet years, because of leaky infrastructure. How can we use monitoring data? • Flow-adjusted concentrations at the fall-lines • Trends in monitored loads at the fall-lines • + below fall-line point sources • + modeled below fall-line nonpoint sources • How do we determine goals for loads?

11. Nitrogen Trends in Rivers Entering the Bay: Flow Adjusted Concentrations (through 2004)

12. 2005 Ecosystem Health Assessment:River Flow and Nitrogen Loads Reaching the Chesapeake Bay Data sources and methodology used to develop the environmental indicators featured in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods/index.htm

13. Chesapeake Bay 2005 Ecosystem Health and Restoration Assessments Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net 410-267-9844 Tributary Strategy Workgroup Meeting Chesapeake Bay Program Office April 3, 2006

14. Chesapeake Bay 2005 Ecosystem Health and Restoration Assessments On the Bay Program site at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/index.htm Part I: Ecosystem Health • Uses the most current data available to provide a scientifically based assessment of the health of the Bay ecosystem, including its water quality, habitats and fisheries. Part II: Restoration Efforts • Key restoration actions are measured against long-term restoration goals in five key areas: • Reducing pollution • Restoring habitats – Wetlands Restoration depicting 25K acre commitment • Managing fisheries • Protecting watersheds – Riparian Forest Buffers Planted depicting 10K mile commitment • Fostering stewardship The Bay Program is seeking feedback from watershed residents on the draft report's content and format. • Accepting public comments through May 31, 2006. • Scientific community will also review the data and methods used to compile this report later this year.

15. 2005 Restoration Assessment:Reducing Pollution Summary Data sources, methodology and restoration goals used to develop the environmental indicators featured in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods/index.htm

16. Reducing Pollution:Wastewater Pollution Controls Data sources, methodology and restoration goals used to develop the environmental indicators featured in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods/index.htm

17. Reducing Pollution:Agricultural Pollution Controls Data sources, methodology and restoration goals used to develop the environmental indicators featured in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods/index.htm

18. Chesapeake Bay 2005 Ecosystem Health and Restoration Assessments Plans for Future Reporting – Could use review by NSC workgroup representatives • Urban/Suburban Lands Indicator • Air Pollution Indicator Indicator and Data Survey – Could use review by NSC workgroup representatives • Data sources, methodology and restoration goals used to develop the environmental indicators featured in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/assess/methods/index.htm • Link to diagnostic level indicator data: • Point source effluent flows, concentrations, and discharges • Historic BMP implementation levels with and Tributary Strategy goals • Phase 4.3 Watershed Model loads and landuses • Data Quality • Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan? • Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? • If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable? • Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?

19. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net 410-267-9844 Tributary Strategy Workgroup Meeting Chesapeake Bay Program Office April 3, 2006

20. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Data from jurisdictions is due 7/15/06 • Point source flows and nutrient concentrations • Nonpoint source implementation levels – cumulative 2005 Watershed conditions • Have been using projections in landuses and animals developed by states several years ago. • Continue with interpolation of Phase 4.3 2000 and 2010 conditions for Tributary Strategy baseline. • Incorporate 2002 Agricultural Census data as was done in the past.

21. Annual Model Assessments:Nonpoint Source BMPs If model is used to assess “progress”, need to address year-to-year changes in loads due to anomalies: • Large changes in BMP data from jurisdictions not because of on-the-ground changes in implementation, but because of changes in tracking mechanisms and the states’ analysis methods. • Changes in methods and assumptions for developing model input decks. To-date, all efforts to resolve issue have gone into Phase 5 Watershed Model development, but anomalies will persist. • 2001-2002 BMP effectiveness changes • VA pasture fencing • PA and VA stormwater management • NY resource assessment • PA BMP distribution to landuses • MD AWMS and stormwater management • Etc. Need to think Chesapeake Bay TMDL

22. Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Reduction Efficiencies(Bay-wide pounds reduced per $)

23. Annual Model Assessments:Nonpoint Source BMPs Proposed Solutions • Only credit the latest year’s worth of work for annual load reductions, but report full implementation levels. • Assumes historic implementation is already in the model calibration. • Would need historic change in BMP implementation levels. Long-term fix is to rely more on monitoring data • Fill in gaps with model information. • Still have issue of “progress” when compared to goals when assessing loads or pollutant concentrations. • Water quality standard “progress” is most important. Other Suggestions