2005 Annual Model Assessment

2005 Annual Model Assessment

Jeffrey S. SweeneyUniversity of Maryland

Chesapeake Bay Program [email protected]

410-267-9844

Tributary Strategy Workgroup MeetingChesapeake Bay Program Office

November 6, 2006


Revisions Since 9/14/06 Draft

• Point Sourceso Point source discharges updated for NY, WV, DE and PA.

PA using 2004 concentrations and 2004/2005 flows. MD, VA and DC discharges the same as 9/14/06 draft.


Revisions Since 9/14/06 Draft

• PAo Revised Nutrient Management per K. Pattison 10/4/06. o Revised Conservation Plans per K. Pattison 10/4/06.

• MDo Revised Animal Waste Management Systems per B. Horsey 9/26/06.

• VAo Revised Tree Planting per B. Keeling 10/12/06.o Revised Nutrient Management per B. Keeling 10/12/06.

“In reviewing the agricultural nutrient management acreage, it is obvious that there is a growing imbalance between what Virginia is getting credit for in the model and what we think is actually taking place. This is primarily due to the fact that we have been allowed to continually add acreage of "new" plans but never removed any of the old out of date plans since it is almost impossible to verify someone is no longer applying nutrient management principles and planning”.

“This adjustment . . . brings the estimated active plans verses credited plans significantly closer together”.

“DCR is investigating a possible methodology for a rolling average of the plans thought to be active over a given set of years and will suggest this be standard practice for reporting this BMP”.


Remaining Issues• All States

o Resolve riparian forest buffer disparities between state implementation reports for annual model assessments and state reporting to CBPO forestry for tracking progress toward 10,000-mile commitment.

• MDo How to credit 767 Dead Bird Composting Facilities per B. Horsey

10/3/06. • DC, MD, VA and PA

o Add federal Storm Water Management information for "Federal Leadership in Storm Water Management”

Complete an inventory of innovative (LID/ESD) storm water management projects on federal facilities per Directive 01-1 (Managing Storm Water on State, Federal, and District-owned Lands).

Inventory federal facility NPDES MS4 Permits and how agencies are implementing these permits.

Host a meeting in the Fall of 2006 with representatives from Virginia, Maryland and the District to discuss federal roles and opportunities in achieving tributary goals.

Report results to the 2006 Executive Council Meeting and the 2006 Federal Principals' Meeting

21.0 18.2 17.8 17.2 16.9 12.6

120.1109.2 108.4 106.6 106.3

71.9

8.3

3.6 4.1 3.5 2.9

2.4

82.4

56.7 57.7 56.9 55.4

37.3

7.5

7.1 6.8 6.6 6.5

4.7

92.2

77.8 75.4 74.4 72.5

51.4

5.9

5.0 4.9 4.9 4.7

2.9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1985 2002 2003 2004 2005 (9/ 14/ 06DRAFT)

2010 Cap LoadAllocation

(million lbs

TN

/year)

NY PA DC MD WV VA DE

Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay By Jurisdiction

Point source loads reflect measured discharges while nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year

337.5

277.7 275.1 270.2

183.1

265.3

9/14/06 Draft

87.758.4 61.2 57.3 55.0

183.1

149.4

113.9 108.2 106.7 104.5

38.7

41.2 41.2 41.0 40.7

30.6

30.7 30.5 30.7 30.7

17.6

18.0 18.2 18.5 18.5

10.1

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.3

3.5

3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1985 2002 2003 2004 2005 (9/ 14/ 06DRAFT)

2010 Cap LoadAllocation

(million lbs

TN

/year)

Point Source Agriculture Forest Urban Runoff Mixed Open Septic Water Dep

Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay By Source Point source loads reflect measured discharges while

nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year

337.5

277.7 275.1 270.2

183.1

265.3

9/14/06 Draft


• 2-week period for jurisdictions to review and suggest changes to next draft 2005 annual model assessment – from date information is received from CBPO.


Remaining Issues

• Atmospheric Depositiono All jurisdictions credited with lower atmospheric deposition of

nitrogen as assessed through trends in monitoring data used in calibration of the Phase 5 Watershed Model.

Benefits of NOx SIP Call and other air programs. o TSWG Discussion

How should deposition component be accounted for and reported?

Reducing Pollution:Urban/Suburban Lands

Answer two questions:• How is the Bay/Watershed doing?

• What’s being done and are we on track in our efforts to restore the Bay?

Provide accountability• Connecting efforts with results

Provide guidance for future efforts• Intended audience is “interested public” and environmental managers

Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicator:Air Pollution

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Controlling Nitrogen

Accounting Begins

Monitored/

Modeled

Monitored/Modeled

ModeledProjection

Interpolation

Interpolation

Perc

ent

of

Goal

Ach

ieved

Goal is nitrogen load reduction from all air programs from 1996 = 15 million lbs.

Projected reduction primarily from NOx SIP Call = 7 million lbs.Projected reduction from other air programs, i.e., CAIR = 8 million lbs.

Historic and Projected Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

229

275

391394396

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

(million lbs.

TN

/year)

Monitored ModeledCAIR+CAMR+BAR

T

NADP/NTN + Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network

(AirMoN)

Models-3/Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System)

• Provides estimates of N deposition resulting from changes in precursor

emissions from utility, mobile, and industrial sources due to management actions or

growth. • Adjusts deposition determined by wet-fall

concentration model and precipitation volumes

• Predicts the influence of source loads from one region on deposition in other regions. • Provides estimates of wet:dry for NO3

- and NH4

-.

Projected Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

229

275

391394396

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

(million lbs.

TN

/year)

ModeledCAIR+CAMR+BAR

T

CMAQ Scenarios

2010 and 2020 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) + Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) + Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Partial Listing:

• Projected EGU emissions under emissions caps

• NOx SIP Call as remanded• Tier 2 tailpipe standards

• Heavy Duty Diesel Engines (HDDE) rule standards

• Land-based Non-road Diesel Engines (LNDE)• Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle

rules• Reasonably Available Control Techniques

(RACT) for NOx in ozone non-attainment areas• Air-bourn particulate matter (PM2.5)

2020 Allocation of State Responsibility Each watershed state & states as a single set

2020 Sector ResponsibilityEGU & industry

Mobile

2030 Long-Range Projection2020 Limit Of Technology

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicator:Air Pollution

Controlling Nitrogen

Perc

ent

of

Goal

Ach

ieved

5% of Goal Achieved

Accounting Begins

Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicators:Air Pollution, Agriculture, Urban/Suburban Lands

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

-100%

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Perc

ent

of

Goal

Ach

ieved

Air Nitrogen Pollution

5% of Goal

44% of Goal

-88% of Goal

Agriculture Nitrogen Pollution

Urban/Suburban Lands Nitrogen Pollution

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

61%44%

-88%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wastewater Agriculture Developed Lands

Individual SourcesNitrogen

Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicators:Current (2004) Restoration Efforts

All SourcesNitrogen

How important is urban versus agriculture versus wastewater versus air?

The Impacts of Emission Controls on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Deposition and Loads

DISCUSSION• Is it necessary to isolate the air piece from agriculture and

urban/suburban land and, if so, how?

Agriculture40%

Forest15%

Atmospheric Deposition to Non-

Tidal Water1%

Urban & Suburban Runoff18%

Municipal & Industrial

Wastewater21%

Septic5%

Agriculture - manure19%

Agriculture - chemical fertilizer

16%

Agriculture - Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil

emissions6%

Atmospheric Deposition - mobile (on-road + non-

road) + utilities + industries

21%

Natural - lightning + forest soils

1%

Urban & Suburban Runoff - chemical

fertilizer11%

Municipal & Industrial Wastewater

21%

Septic5%

• Based on year 2004 estimates from the Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model. • Sources of nitrogen loads in the break-out chart are rooted in the relative inputs of natural and

anthropogenic sources. • Contributions exclude atmospheric deposition directly to tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay.

• Point source loads reflect measured discharges while nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year.

Sources by Watershed ModelMajor “Landuse” Category

Sources with the Break-out for Atmospheric Deposition

Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

Agriculture - manure19%

Agriculture - chemical fertilizer

16%

Agriculture - Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil

emissions6%

Atmospheric Deposition - mobile (on-road + non-

road) + utilities + industries

21%

Natural - lightning + forest soils

1%

Urban & Suburban Runoff - chemical

fertilizer11%

Municipal & Industrial Wastewater

21%

Septic5%

Sources of Nitrogen Emissions and Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

area6%

utilities27%

industries12%

mobile (on-road)39%

mobile (non-road)16%

area (non-agricultural) +

utilities + industries + mobile (non-road)

10%

agriculture80%

mobile (on-road)10%

NOx Emission from Sources in 14 States in the

Chesapeake Bay Airshed

NH3 Emission from Sources in 14 States in the

Chesapeake Bay Airshed


DISCUSSION• How do emission controls impact deposition to the watershed

and loads to the Chesapeake Bay? o The benefits in load reductions to the Chesapeake Bay – from

reductions in emissions and deposition – are dependent on the land cover the air flux falls on.

o For most Bay Program air impact assessments, this land condition is held constant so only changes in loads to the Bay due to changes in deposition are quantified.

Scenarios are run with the same watershed conditions for landuses, manure and chemical fertilizer applications, nonpoint source BMPs, point sources, septic, etc. The baseline watershed condition is a scenario where each

jurisdictional portion of the major tributaries hits their cap load allocations for nutrients and sediment exactly.

The baseline landuse is not the strategies’ condition exactly. Strategies were developed at different times over several years. It is not prudent to do the entire suite of air impact scenarios every

time a jurisdictional plan is finalized or revised. There would be confusion among stakeholders and decision-makers

working with air programs if the deposition-to-load cause-and-effect relationship changed constantly because of landuse changes.


DISCUSSION• How do emission controls impact deposition to the watershed

and loads to the Chesapeake Bay? o The benefits in load reductions to the Chesapeake Bay – from

reductions in emissions and deposition – are dependent on the land cover the air flux falls on.

Forests, on average, retain more than 85% of the nitrogen deposited on them from the air. “If all of the 5.5 million acres of the forest that both

maximizes water quality but is vulnerable to development is lost, an additional 29 million lbs. of nitrogen annually will reach the Bay.” (Forest Sector Issue Paper, Expansion and Retention of Forested Area, Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation Committee, 10/19/06)

Impervious surfaces don’t retain nutrients but channel the load directly to adjacent land or water.


DISCUSSION• How much of the nitrogen load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay is

from atmospheric sources? o Sources of nitrogen loads to the Bay by typically-reported

“landuse” categories versus break-outs for atmospheric deposition, manure, and chemical fertilizers.

Agriculture Cannot simply divide agricultural component into portions

attributable to fertilizers (organic and inorganic) and atmospheric deposition.

Agriculture is also a source of nitrogen emissions in the airshed and deposition that falls on all watershed lands.

Employing a “break-out” of the atmospheric deposition component of loads slightly increases the portion attributable to agriculture. 80-85% of the ammonia emissions in states in the Chesapeake Bay

airshed are attributable to the agriculture sector – primarily from livestock in houses and holding facilities, but including fertilizers applied to the land.

Ammonia deposition represents 1/4 to 1/3 of the total nitrogen deposition to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Currently, ammonia emission controls in the agricultural sector are part of PA and MD Tributary Strategies.


DISCUSSION• How much of the nitrogen load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

is from atmospheric sources? o Sources of nitrogen loads to the Bay by typically-reported

“landuse” categories versus break-outs for atmospheric deposition, manure, and chemical fertilizers.

Urban & Suburban Runoff Contribution is smaller with the deposition break-out. Includes what can be managed at a more-local level, i.e.,

fertilizer inputs, imperviousness, etc. Could be local controls on mobile, utility, and/or industrial

emissions. Runoff is heightened because of imperviousness.



urban/suburban land and, if so, how? o Keep the air component as part of agricultural and

urban/suburban lands? CAA reductions were built in during the development of Tributary

Strategies. Typically report loads by model landuses – rather than as the

more-fundamental manure, chemical fertilizers, and atmospheric deposition. “Lands” are managed by states and localities while air emissions are

typically, but not entirely, regulated at the federal level (CAA, CAIR, etc.).

Emission controls from as distant as Texas, Canada, and the Bahamas can impact the Bay watershed’s deposition.



urban/suburban land and, if so, how? o Up until this point, the agriculture and developed sectors are

not moving closer to their goals because of reductions in atmospheric deposition since deposition is largely unchanged.

Regulated reductions mostly from the EGUs have been offset by increases in emissions from the mobile sector (primarily) and increases in ammonia emissions from the agricultural sector (secondarily).

o As net reductions in deposition increase through CAIR, as projected, need to determine how to best account for this in reporting.



urban/suburban land and, if so, how? o EPA's commitment to an 8 million lb. TN/year load reduction

will continue, in the near future, to be separated through model analyses until, perhaps, a reallocation of the caps.

EPA goal was agreed to by Bay Program partners to address an “orphan” load reduction needed to reach the 175 million lb. TN/year Bay-wide cap.

Progress toward the EPA air commitment is tracked just as progress toward jurisdictional-specific goals.

o The ability to do this becomes more difficult as time passes since the air programs are considered more part of a comprehensive package in, at least, CBP modeling work.

It will become difficult to definitively separate CAIR from the 1990 Clean Air Act as air models (and the national scenarios they assess) are upgraded and updated.



urban/suburban land and, if so, how? o Completely isolate the air component from agriculture and

developed lands? Can be done through extensive modeling assessments. Issue, in itself, is complicated and goes far beyond a new need to

look at Tributary Strategies in a different manner with the air component separated.



urban/suburban land and, if so, how? o Completely isolate the air component from agriculture and

developed lands? Some jurisdiction’s interest in getting “credit” for state emission

controls that go beyond, for example, ozone-season NOx SIP or Tier II tail pipe standards. Reductions in deposition are determined through monitoring program

information coming from sites throughout and just beyond the watershed.

The root cause and location of the emission controls that yield deposition reductions to the watershed are difficult to ascertain accurately.

How do you “credit” emission controls in one watershed state that also benefit other states’ deposition?

Who gets “credit” for emission controls outside the Bay watershed boundary that yield deposition reductions to the watershed?

Bay Program partners have been considering – and working at answering – these questions for a few years through the development of more-local tools relating emissions, deposition, and loads.


DISCUSSION• Need to use best-available science to support environmental

decisions regarding emission controls. • Need to track the status and expectations of individual

jurisdictional air programs – to inform and, possibly, coordinate efforts.

o Year-round NOx SIP call – not just ozone seasono More aggressive light- and heavy-duty tail pipe and diesel standardso “California-type” air quality mandateso “Clean Power” regulations

• Need involvement of jurisdictions, federal stakeholders, scientific community to direct emission-deposition-load assessments.

o Complexity of the assessments is related to complexity of the ecosystem.

• Need to portray cause-and-effect relationships among emissions, deposition, land, and loads to highlight issues – so management decisions are better informed.

• Need peer-review body to oversee work.

Documents

2005 Annual Model Assessment