Download
2005 annual model assessment n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
2005 Annual Model Assessment PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
2005 Annual Model Assessment

2005 Annual Model Assessment

111 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

2005 Annual Model Assessment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 November 6, 2006

  2. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Revisions Since 9/14/06 Draft • Point Sources • 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.

  3. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Revisions Since 9/14/06 Draft • PA • Revised Nutrient Management per K. Pattison 10/4/06. • Revised Conservation Plans per K. Pattison 10/4/06. • MD • Revised Animal Waste Management Systems per B. Horsey 9/26/06. • VA • Revised Tree Planting per B. Keeling 10/12/06. • 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due to the fact that we have been allowed to continually add acreage of "new" plans but never removed any of the old out of date plans since it is almost impossible to verify someone is no longer applying nutrient management principles and planning”.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”.

  4. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Remaining Issues • All States • 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. • MD • How to credit 767 Dead Bird Composting Facilities per B. Horsey 10/3/06. • DC, MD, VA and PA • 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

  5. 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 9/14/06 Draft 277.7 275.1 270.2 265.3 183.1

  6. Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay By SourcePoint source loads reflect measured discharges while nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year 337.5 9/14/06 Draft 277.7 275.1 270.2 265.3 183.1

  7. 2005 Annual Model Assessment • 2-week period for jurisdictions to review and suggest changes to next draft 2005 annual model assessment – from date information is received from CBPO.

  8. 2005 Annual Model Assessment Remaining Issues • Atmospheric Deposition • 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. • TSWG Discussion • How should deposition component be accounted for and reported?

  9. 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

  10. Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicator:Air Pollution Modeled Projection Controlling Nitrogen 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. Percent of Goal Achieved Monitored/ Modeled Monitored/ Modeled Interpolation Interpolation Accounting Begins

  11. Historic and Projected Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitored Modeled CAIR+CAMR+BART • 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-. NADP/NTN + Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network (AirMoN)

  12. Projected Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Modeled CAIR+CAMR+BART • CMAQ Scenarios • 2010 and 2020 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) + Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) + Best AvailableRetrofit 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 Responsibility • EGU & industry • Mobile • 2030 Long-Range Projection • 2020 Limit Of Technology

  13. Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicator:Air Pollution Controlling Nitrogen Percent of Goal Achieved 5% of Goal Achieved Accounting Begins

  14. Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicators:Air Pollution, Agriculture, Urban/Suburban Lands Air Nitrogen Pollution 5% of Goal Percent of Goal Achieved Agriculture Nitrogen Pollution 44% of Goal Urban/Suburban Lands Nitrogen Pollution -88% of Goal

  15. Reducing Pollution Environmental Indicators:Current (2004) Restoration Efforts How important is urban versus agriculture versus wastewater versus air? Individual Sources Nitrogen All Sources Nitrogen

  16. 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?

  17. Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay Sources by Watershed Model Major “Landuse” Category Sources with the Break-out for Atmospheric Deposition • 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.

  18. Sources of Nitrogen Emissions and Loads to the Chesapeake Bay NOx Emission from Sources in 14 States in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed NH3 Emission from Sources in 14 States in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed

  19. The Impacts of Emission Controls on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Deposition and Loads DISCUSSION • How do emission controls impact deposition to the watershed and loads to the Chesapeake Bay? • 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. • 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.

  20. The Impacts of Emission Controls on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Deposition and Loads DISCUSSION • How do emission controls impact deposition to the watershed and loads to the Chesapeake Bay? • 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.

  21. Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay DISCUSSION • How much of the nitrogen load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay is from atmospheric sources? • 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.

  22. Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay DISCUSSION • How much of the nitrogen load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay is from atmospheric sources? • 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.

  23. 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? • 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.

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

  25. 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? • 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. • 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.

  26. 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? • 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.

  27. 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? • 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.

  28. The Impacts of Emission Controls on Chesapeake Bay Watershed 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. • Year-round NOx SIP call – not just ozone season • More aggressive light- and heavy-duty tail pipe and diesel standards • “California-type” air quality mandates • “Clean Power” regulations • Need involvement of jurisdictions, federal stakeholders, scientific community to direct emission-deposition-load assessments. • 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.