Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation

Watershed Model ScenariosTributary Strategies &

Enhanced Program Implementation

Jeffrey S. SweeneyUniversity of Maryland

Chesapeake Bay Program [email protected]

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


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



10





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



11





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


Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3

12





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


Urban and Resource Practices2005 – 2010 Strategy – 2010E3

13





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


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


mill

ion

lbs.

/yea

r


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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”.


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



Agricultural Practices - Example

28





Documents

Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation