1 / 50

Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizen Advisory Committee September 16, 2015

This report examines milestone evaluations and long-term water quality monitoring trends in the Chesapeake Bay area, providing insights on current status, progress, and future goals. The analysis includes data on nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, wastewater, stormwater, and agriculture. It also highlights the impact of monitoring on restoration efforts and showcases success stories in water clarity, algal biomass, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) growth.

work
Download Presentation

Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizen Advisory Committee September 16, 2015

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 Committee September 16, 2015

  2. Milestone Evaluations

  3. By Jurisdiction

  4. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen

  5. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Phosphorus

  6. 2014-2015 EPA Oversight Status

  7. By Sector

  8. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen/Phosphorus/Sediment

  9. Wastewater TN Load Reduction Progress

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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)

  13. Long Term Water Quality Monitoring Trends

  14. Using Monitoring Data To Measure Progress and Explain Change Foundation: Monitoring networks

  15. Total Nitrogen: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

  16. Total Nitrogen: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

  17. Total Nitrogen: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

  18. Changes in Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations Annual Load Trend, Flow-Normalized Load 16% reduction 2% reduction Total reduction in RIM total nitrogen: 1985 to 2014 = 16% 2005 to 2014 = 2%

  19. What is the Percent Contribution of Total Nitrogen from each of the 9 RIM Tributaries?

  20. Changes in Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations

  21. Changes in Nitrogen Yields: 2003-2012

  22. Changes in Nitrogen Yields: 2003-2012

  23. Total Phosphorus: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

  24. Total Phosphorus: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

  25. Changes in Total Phosphorus Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations Annual Load Trend, Flow-Normalized Load 7%increase Total increase in RIM total phosphorus: 1985 to 2014 = 7% 2005 to 2014 = 7% 7% increase

  26. What is the Percent Contribution of Total Phosphorus from each of the 9 RIM Tributaries?

  27. Recent Changes in Total Phosphorus Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations

  28. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012 • Of 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

  29. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012 • Of 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

  30. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012

  31. 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

  32. Algal Biomass Decreased…with Substantial Lag Time Drought Year 40 More Algae • No clear response for about 4 years followed by sharp decline in algae • After 2005 low levels of algae became normal 30 20 10 0 Major WWTP load reduction completed

  33. Water Clarity Increased…also with a Lag Time 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 More Algae Clearer Water Major WWTP load reduction completed Major WWTP load reduction

  34. SAV Increased…Shorter Lag with Threshold Response Drought Year • 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 More Algae More SAV Clearer Water 1971 0 ha SAV Major WWTP load reduction completed

  35. 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

  36. Maps of SAV Cover and Density: Susquehanna Flats (1984 – 2010) (http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/maps.html) (Gurbisz & Kemp 2011)

  37. 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

  38. Higher Flow Summer Dead-Zone Volume Lower Flow Trends in Bay Hypoxia…size of “dead zone”

  39. Anoxic Volume, 106 m3

  40. WQ Monitoring Trends • The Great: Susquehanna Flats, Lynnhaven River, MattawomanCreek, 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 waters

  41. 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

  42. Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science, Analysis and Implementation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 307 Annapolis, Maryland 21403 410-267-5731 Work 443-223-7823 Mobile batiuk.richard@epa.gov

  43. Questions 50

More Related