Upload
brent-clyde-lane
View
216
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Milestone Evaluations and Long Term Water Quality Monitoring
Trends:
What are They Telling Us About Where We are and Where We are Heading
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizen Advisory CommitteeSeptember 16, 2015
Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen
Agriculture
Wastewater
Stormwater
Septic Overall
Delaware
District
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Phosphorus
Agriculture Wastewater Stormwater Overall
Delaware
District
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen/Phosphorus/Sediment
Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment
Agriculture
Wastewater
Stormwater
Septic
All Sources
Wastewater TN Load Reduction Progress
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
5
10
15
20
25TN EOS Load (mil lbs/yr) vs Population Trend in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
IndustrialMunicipalPopulation
TN
EO
S L
oad (
mil
lion l
bs/
yr)
Popula
tion (
mil
lion)
Wastewater• Status: Well down the road to achieving the states’
WIP goals for reductions
• Red flags: MD, VA depending on wastewater reductions below their allocations being used to ‘make up’ for other sectors’ reduction shortfalls
• Watch List: New York; possible need for further reductions from PA significant, non-significant facilities
• Kudos: District, WV, MD, VA 13
Stormwater• Status: Nitrogen, sediment load estimated to
increase since 2009
• Red flags: getting the states’ MS4 programs and permits in place and fully functional; ensuring local funding sources/financing is in place
• Watch List: PA current Phase II WIP commitments well beyond achievement levels by 2025
• Kudos: District, MD, VA 14
Agriculture• Status: very mixed picture within and across
states heading into the midpoint assessment
• Red flags: PA: needs to reduce 19 million lbs. nitrogen to achieve their 2017 interim target; responsible for 72% of ag reductions by 2025
• Watch List: how the states deals with phosphorus saturated soils, BMP verification
• Kudos: MD (PMT), VA (RMP), WV (on target) 15
Changes in Total Nitrogen
Delivered to the Bay Estuary
from the 9 RIM Stations
Total reduction in RIM total nitrogen:1985 to 2014 = 16%2005 to 2014 = 2%
16% reduction
2% reduction
Annual Load
Trend, Flow-Normalized Load
Total increase in RIM total phosphorus:1985 to 2014 = 7%2005 to 2014 = 7%
Changes in Total
Phosphorus Delivered to the
Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM
Stations
7%increase
Annual Load
Trend, Flow-Normalized Load 7% increase
Changes in Suspended Sediment
Loads: 2003-2012Of the 30 long-term NTN stations• 8 improving
• 18 degrading
• 3 exhibit no discernable change in SSC loading
• All Susquehanna stations above Conowingo are showing decreased SSC loading
Changes in Suspended Sediment
Loads: 2003-2012Of the 30 long-term NTN stations• 8 improving
• 18 degrading
• 3 exhibit no discernable change in SSC loading
• All Susquehanna stations above Conowingo are showing decreased SSC loading
Restoration of Mattawoman Creek: Potomac River estuary tributary
• strongly impacted by nutrients from 1970 – mid-1990s• large and persistent algal blooms, sea grasses rare
• WWTP load reductions stimulated restoration
Photo from Elena Gilroy
Major WWTP load reduction completed
More Algae
Drought Year
• No clear response for about 4 years followed by sharp decline in algae
• After 2005 low levels of algae became normal
ALGAL BIOMASS DECREASED…WITH SUBSTANTIAL LAG TIME
10
0
20
30
40
Major WWTP load reduction
More Algae
Cle
are
r W
ate
r
Major WWTP load reduction completed
Drought Year
• No clear increase for about 8 years followed by sharp increase in clarity
• Water clarity and algae highly correlated shallow Chesapeake Bay systems
WATER CLARITY INCREASED…ALSO WITH A LAG TIME
Major WWTP load reduction completed
1971
0 ha SAV
More Algae
Cle
are
r W
ate
r
Drought YearM
ore
SAV
• Very low levels of SAV were present prior to nutrient load reductions
• Major expansion of SAV in 2002, a severe drought year
• SAV relatively stable after 2002; lag in SAV relatively short
SAV INCREASED…SHORTER LAG WITH THRESHOLD RESPONSE
Susquehanna Flats SAV at the Head of the Bay
• An unexpected piece of very good news
• A clear example of why long-term monitoring is so valuable for both trends and explanations
• This example also reminds us that once these habitats start to “ get better” strong positive feedbacks can accelerate the restoration process
Adapted from Gurbisz and Kemp 2014
(Gurbisz & Kemp 2011)
Maps of SAV Cover and Density: Susquehanna Flats (1984 – 2010)
(http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/maps.html)
Now…this is a SAV bed!• Huge expanse ~ 20 square miles (13,000 acres)• Clear water• Resilient to major storms; recovery from major storm = several years (not decades!)
C. Gurbisz, UMCES
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
MD Bay Anoxia: September Data(0 - 0.2 mg/L)
Year
Average Marylandlate September anoxicvolume
An
oxic
Volu
me,
10
6
m3
WQ Monitoring Trends• The Great: Susquehanna Flats, Lynnhaven River,
Mattawoman Creek, Gunston Cove, late summer mainstem Bay dead zone, the list goes on…
• The Good: widespread decreasing nitrogen trends in streams, rivers
• The Bad: phosphorus trends flattening out, reversing in streams, rivers
• The Ugly: clarity in the tidal waters47
Take Home Messages• Clear evidence that actions to date are making a
real difference in better water quality, improved ecosystem health, more resilience
• Pennsylvania is still the key to Bay restoration
• Comparison of long and short term trend indicate we are losing past gains in some areas
• Explaining trends then adapting programs as a result must be a Partnership priority
48
49
Rich Batiuk
Associate Director for Science, Analysis and ImplementationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office410 Severn Avenue, Suite 307
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
410-267-5731 Work443-223-7823 Mobile