Experiences in Nutrient Pollution Control Planning, Implementation and Evaluation in the Chesapeake Bay Basin with Comparisons to the Great Lakes Program

1
Experiences in Nutrient Pollution Control
Planning, Implementation and Evaluation in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin with Comparisons to the
Great Lakes Program

• Thomas Simpson, University of Maryland and The
  World Bank Group
• Regional Conference on Nutrient Pollution Control
• In The Danube-Black Sea Basin
• 3-6 October, 2006
• Chisinau, Moldova

2

• Overview of Chesapeake Bay and its watershed
• About 100,000 km2 land area
• Bay is shallow with narrow deep trench
• Huge land area to water volume ratio
• 58 forest, 28 agricultural and 14 urban
• Population is 16 million and growing
• Three major animal productions regions with
• major nutrient imbalances
• Cropping systems near Bay dominated by
• short/no rotation with annual crops

3
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
West Virginia
Delaware
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary
District of Columbia
Virginia
4
Eutrophication in the Chesapeake Bay

• Nitrogen and phosphorus over enrichment causing
  excessive algal growth
• Limiting nutrient for algal growth
• Phosphorus in fresh to brackish water
• Nitrogen in salt water (gt10ppt salinity)
• Limiting nutrient for algal growth changes with
  location and season
• Hypoxic/anoxic conditions in deep water
• Limited clarity/loss of subaqueous grasses

5
Nitrogen Sources
Nutrient Sources to Chesapeake Bay
Phosphorus Sources
Source US EPA, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model,
2004
6
The Chesapeake Bay Program Chesapeake Bay
Agreements

• 1983 General agreement to work together to
  restore Bay
• 1987 40 reduction in pollutant nutrient
  pollution by 2000
• 1992 Tributary specific nutrient reduction
  strategies
• 2000 Remove all nutrient and sediment
  impairments (by 2010?)

7
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Partners

• Signatories to all Chesapeake Bay Agreements
• EPA (representing the Federal government)
• Jurisdictions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia
  
• and Washington, DC
• Chesapeake Bay Commission (representing state
  legislatures)

C B C

• Headwater states
• Delaware, New York and West Virginia
• Committed to Chesapeake 2000 water quality
  goals in 2001

8
Agreements are voluntary commitments by states
and stakeholders

• Sewage treatment plants permitted nutrient
  removal had been for local impacts Bay nutrient
  limits being imposed
• Stormwater management permits are new but focused
  more on flow and sediment
• Agriculture is voluntary with cost share to pay
  50-85 of practice costs
• Implementation involves political will, funding,
  incentives and persuasion

9
Executive Level Commitment and Political Support
Is Critical

• Agreements signed by Governors of jurisdictions
  and EPA Administrator for President
• Executive Council meets annually to show ongoing
  support and announce new initiatives
• Support must show in policies and be clear to
  Executive Branch Staff
• Important to engage Executives from all watershed
  jurisdictions as much as possible

10
1992 Tributary Strategy Amendment to Bay
Agreement

• Required tributary specific strategies to
  achieve 40 reduction in N P reaching
  Chesapeake Bay
• Maryland used local Tributary Teams to develop
  agricultural strategies based on Best Management
  Practices (BMPs)
• Technical Options Team used CBP BMP report,
  scientific literature and expert consensus to
  estimate efficiencies
• BMPs and efficiencies were adapted for basin-wide
  use for all nonpoint sources in 1995

11
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

• By 2001 (2003), determine load reductions
  necessary to remove nutrient impairments
• By 2002 (2005), develop new Tributary Strategies
  to achieve new goals
• Implement practices to remove all nutrient
  impairments (by 2010?)

12
Nutrient Loading Goals
The nutrient loads needed to remove nutrient
impairments are Nitrogen - 175 million pounds or
less. Phosphorus - 12.8 million pounds or less. .
13
Quantitative Goals Based on Resource Response Are
Critical

• Resource based goal should be end point
• May need surrogate goals (establish nutrient
  goals/caps that will decrease anoxia)
• Goals should be challenging but must be
  credible/achievable
• May need milestones or interim goals with
  incremental strategies to achieve them
• Must allocate loading goals to basin
  jurisdictions to allow for strategy development

14
Nutrient Loading Allocation Approach
...then 16 major tributary basins by jurisdiction
then 37 state-defined tributary strategy
sub-basins
By 9 major tributary basins
15
2003 Tributary Strategies

• Jurisdictions developed strategies to fully
  achieve impairment removal goal
• Started with stakeholder involvement like 1993
  strategies
• Goals so challenging stakeholders could not agree
  upon strategy to reach goal
• Jurisdictions included practices with high model
  reduction estimates at near complete levels and
  created some new practices (Beyond credible
  levels?)
• Nonpoint Sources Heavy agricultural focus but
  added urban controls for equity in some
  strategies
• All sewage treatment plants will enhance nutrient
  removal

16
Funding and implementing agricultural practices

• Society shares cost with farmer farmer has
  responsibility to reduce nutrient pollution
• 50-85 cost-share for practice implementation
• Long history of education/demonstrations and
  equipment rental by public agencies to promote
  adoption
• Increasing use of incentives to take risks and
  try new practices
• Hard to get above 75 adoption in voluntary
  program

17
Funding and implementing agricultural practices
(2)

• New practices/systems must be demonstrated and
  supported by incentives before widespread
  adoption will occur
• Need to target practices and incentives for
  maximum nutrient reduction
• Opportunities to turn production subsidies or
  incentives into water quality incentives
• Increased public investment will require
  increased farmer proof of performance

18
Jurisdictional Strategies to Achieve Goals Are
Important

• Realistic strategies with jurisdictional, local
  government and stakeholder support critical
• Challenging, yet doable practice implementation
  levels needed
• New practices must be acceptable or have program
  planned to gain acceptance
• Need implementation schedule and funding plan
• May need interim goals and milestones and
  strategies to achieve them incrementally

19
Best Management Practices (BMP) efficiencies are
critical in Tributary Strategy development

• Jurisdictions and stake holders identify
  practices, control measures or land use changes
  (all termed BMPs) that will reduce nutrient
  pollution and propose implementation levels of
  these to achieve allocation
• Practices defined and assigned reduction
  efficiencies based on science and experience
• Watershed Model scenarios are run with proposed
  BMP implementation and estimated efficiencies
• Results estimate impact of proposed strategies
• Iterative process if load allocations are not
  achieved

20
Lesson Learned Using model output and practice
efficiencies to estimate reduction progress
Load needed to remove nutrient impairment
Nitrogen loading goal is 175 Million pounds per
year
21
It became apparent that modeled load reductions
were greater than indicated by monitoring data.
Why?

• Lag times in water and in practice implementation
• Cycling of nutrients in rivers and Bay
• Modeling, monitoring or calibration issues
• Annual model runs using 1985-94 (now go through
  2004) hydrology to get average load, not
  hydrology for actual year
• BMP efficiencies and application assumption
  issues

22
INNOVATION INAGRICULTURAL CONSERVATIONFOR THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY EVALUATING PROGRESS AND ASSESSING
FUTURE CHALLENGES

• T. W. Simpson and C. A Musgrove, University of
  Maryland R. F. Korcak, USDA-ARS
• A White Paper From
• The Scientific Technical Advisory Committee
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• 2003
• http//www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacpubs.html

23
Probable sources of error in estimating BMP
impacts

• Limited data and/or field observation
• Research/plot scale reduction efficiencies
  applied to w/s scale implementation
• Extreme spatial variability in soils, hydrology,
  management, etc
• Plans assumed to be implemented
• Optimistic reported implementation rates
• Assume proper OM and replacement

Appear to result in optimistic estimates of
impact
24
BMP efficiency changes reduced modeled progress
and created a substantial policy/management
crisis but made model results closer to actual
and caused change

• Forum and white paper identified issues
• BMP efficiency revisions made for some practices
• Bay Program implemented changes for operational
  issues
• Changes in operational assumptions are being used
  in calibration of new phase of Watershed Model
• Project under way to revise old efficiencies and
  establish conservative ones for new practices
• Some research being funded or prioritized in RFPs
  to enhance science base for BMP efficiencies

25
Agricultural Pollution Controls
(Weighted impact of practices reported as
implemented)
26
Use of BMP/control measure efficiencies in
nutrient pollution control

• Only way to estimate impact of proposed
  strategy/actions
• Also critical to any market-based approach
• Need better data on effectiveness and spatial
  and temporal variability but must make decisions
  with current knowledge
• Use conservative efficiencies when extrapolating
  from research to watershed/operational scale
• Use conservative implementation, operation,
  maintenance and reporting assumptions
• Always easier to adjust effectiveness up than to
  lower it (but have never had to do this)

27
The Roles of Modeling and Monitoring

• Modeling essential for planning/projecting
• Project impact of changing land use
• Estimate impacts of practices and implementation
  progress
• Estimate efficiency of strategy scenarios
• Monitoring must be primary tool to measure water
  quality changes
• Need affordable, yet adequate monitoring
• Monitoring used to calibrate model
• Need monitoring at jurisdictional boundaries
• Large inter-annual variability makes trends
  difficult to see in short term

Modeling and Monitoring must be balanced but are
both essential
28
Nutrient Loading Goals
The nutrient loads needed to remove nutrient
impairments are Nitrogen - 183 million pounds or
less. Phosphorus - 12.8 million pounds or less. .
29
Nitrogen in Rivers Entering Chesapeake BayFlow
Adjusted Concentration Trends
30
Adapted from Boynton and CBP Data by Street and
Simpson
31
Dissolved Oxygen Three-Year Assessment
32
Summary and Comparison Chesapeake Bay
Great Lakes

• N and P limited
• Started in 1983, intensified in 1992
• 6 states, one country
• P detergent ban and P controls at point sources
  most effective reduction
• Nonpoint sources remain difficult

• P and toxicants
• Started in 1970s
• Bi-national
• P detergent ban and P controls at point sources
  most effective reduction
• Some success with toxicant reductions
• Nonpoint sources remain difficult

Source for Great Lakes Info Botts and Muldoon.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Its Past
Successes and Uncertain Future http//www.on.ec.g
c.ca/greatlakes/default.asp?langEnnEB5E196D-1
33
Formula for success to date Chesapeake Bay
Great Lakes

• Team effort led by Executive level
• Watershed wide (truly regional)
• Adoption of common resource-based goals
• Equitable allocations to jurisdictions
• Science-based
• Moving to adaptive science/management
• Increased accountability and realism of impacts

• Promotion of community
• Bi-nationalism
• Equity and parity in structure and obligations
• Adoption of common objectives
• Provisions for joint fact-finding and research
• Flexibility and adaptability to changing
  circumstances
• Accountability and openness in information
  exchange

34
Current and Future Issues and Challengesfor
Chesapeake Bay (and Great Lakes?)

• Maintaining community of support after 20 years
• Funding issues and priorities
• Credibility and accountability of strategies and
  implementation impacts
• Staged implementation plan and funds for
  strategies
• Addressing agricultural nutrient pollution while
  maintaining viability of agriculture
• Offsetting increases due to population growth and
  development and agricultural intensification
• Need to evaluate/change management structure?

35
Keys to Successful Nutrient Pollution Control
Programs

• Executive level commitment and community support
• Quantitative watershed and jurisdictional goals
• Implementable strategies based on conservative
  control measure efficiency
• Implementation and funding plan (particularly for
  agriculture)
• Science based programs, targeting and adaptive
  management to maximize benefits and allow for
  adjustments and new initiatives
• Patience and diligence