Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office [email protected].

Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program

Watershed Model

Jeff SweeneyUniversity of Maryland

Chesapeake Bay Program [email protected]

410-267-9844

Potomac Watershed Forum IVGeorge Mason University - Prince William Campus

August 12, 2005

Chesapeake Bay ProgramCurrent Modeling Structure

Calculated deposition of nutrients and Regional Acid Deposition Model

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelLumped-parameter, physically-based

Land and water simulation, Nutrient and sediment simulation

Chesapeake Bay Estuary ModelHydrodynamic Model, Sediment Benthic Model, and Submerged

Aquatic Vegetation

Purposes of the Chesapeake Bay ProgramWatershed Model

• Measure the environmental effects of particular management schemes for planning purposes. o What’s the impact of BMP implementation on nitrogen, phosphorus, and

sediment loads? • Results help direct tributary strategy development

o What yields the biggest bang and the biggest bang for the buck?• Load allocations

o Equitably account for all load sources.• Measure of loading cap maintenance• Provide loads to the Estuary ModelProvide loads to the Estuary Model

o What’s the impact of BMP implementation on living resources/water quality?What’s the impact of BMP implementation on living resources/water quality?o What yields the biggest bang and the biggest bang for the buck?What yields the biggest bang and the biggest bang for the buck?o Remove impairments by 2010Remove impairments by 2010

• Attainment of water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay will be determined by tidal water monitoring data, not the models.

VA Lower PotomacLoad and BMP Data

#

Loudoun

#

Fairfax

#

Fauquier

#

Prince William

#

Stafford

#

King George

#

Westmoreland

#

Northumberland

#

Arlington

VA Lower PotomacNitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1985 2003 2010 VA Strategy

(million lbs/

year)

Point Source Urban AgricultureForest Septic Mixed OpenNon-Tidal Water Deposition

38%

23%

34%

2%

3%

2003 – 2010 Strategy Load Reductions

VA Lower PotomacPhosphorus Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1985 2003 2010 VA Strategy

(million lbs/

year)

Point Source UrbanAgriculture ForestMixed Open Non-Tidal Water Deposition

48%

47%

5%


VA Lower PotomacSediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

1985 2003 2010 VA Strategy

(million t

ons/

year)

Urban Agriculture Forest Mixed Open

21%

78%

1%


Chesapeake Bay WatershedTributary Strategy Agricultural BMPs

Approved Agricultural BMPsAgricultural BMPs Requiring Peer

ReviewRiparian Forest Buffers Continuous No-Till

Riparian Grass Buffers Dairy Precision Feeding /and Forage Management

Wetland Restoration Swine Phytase

Land Retirement Ammonia Emission Reductions

Tree Planting Precision Agriculture

Conservation-Tillage Precision Grazing

Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops Water Control Structures

Poultry Phytase Stream Restoration

Poultry Litter Transport

Nutrient Management

Enhanced Nutrient Management

Conservation Plans/SCWQP

Cover Crops (Early- and Late-Planting)

Small Grain Enhancement (Early- and Late-Planting)

Off-Stream Watering w/ Fencing

Off-Stream Watering w/o Fencing

Off-Stream Watering w/ Fencing & Rotational Grazing

Animal Waste Management Systems: Livestock

Barnyard Runoff Control/Loafing Lot Management

Animal Waste Management Systems: Poultry* BMPs in red are in VA Lower Potomac Tributary Strategy

Chesapeake Bay WatershedTributary Strategy Urban and Mixed Open BMPs

Approved Urban and Mixed Open BMPs

BMPs Requiring Peer Review

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Grass Buffers

Wetland Restoration Forest Conservation

Tree Planting Horse Pasture Management

Urban Growth Reduction Abandoned Mine Reclamation

Wet Ponds & Wetlands Mixed Open Stream Restoration

Dry Detention Ponds & Hydrodynamic Structures

Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control

Dry Extended Detention Ponds Urban Street Sweeping

Urban Infiltration Practices

Urban Filtering Practices

Urban Stream Restoration

Erosion & Sediment Control

Urban and Mixed Open Nutrient Management

* BMPs in red are in VA Lower Potomac Tributary Strategy

Chesapeake Bay WatershedTributary Strategy Forest, Septic and Shoreline

BMPs

Approved Forest BMPs BMPs Requiring Peer Review

Forest Harvesting Practices Stream Restoration

Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control

Approved Septic BMPs

Septic Connections

Septic Pumping

Septic Denitrification

Approved Shoreline Erosion BMPs

Structural Shoreline Erosion Control

Non-Structural Shoreline Erosion Control

* BMPs in red are in VA Lower Potomac Tributary Strategy

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelOpportunities for BMPs

Input Data

Land Simulation

River Simulation

Output

Opportunities for BMPs


• BMPs involving landuse conversions

• BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficienciesefficiencies

• BMPs with both BMPs with both landuse conversions and landuse conversions and reduction efficienciesreduction efficiencies

• BMPs that alter nutrient applications to croplandBMPs that alter nutrient applications to croplando Diet and feed changesDiet and feed changeso Manure transportManure transporto Nutrient management applicationsNutrient management applications

BMPs Involving Landuse Conversions

Atmosphere FertilizerManure

Runoff

BMPs Involving Landuse Conversions


Runoff

AgriculturalBMPs Involving Landuse Conversions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Conservation-Tillage Tree Planting Land Retirement

(thousa

nd a

cres)

2003 Implementation 2010 VA Strategy Implementation

Load reductions attributed to movement to lower-exporting landuses.

Urban, Mixed Open and Septic BMPs Involving Landuse and Source Conversions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Urban & Mixed Open Tree Planting Septic Connections (systems)

(thousa

nd a

cres/

syst

em

s)


• Load reductions attributed to movement to lower-exporting landuses.

• In the case of septic connections, it’s assumed in the hook-up of

septic to sewer, load is now part of tracked point source discharge.


• BMPs involving landuse conversionsBMPs involving landuse conversions

• BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficiencies



BMPs With Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Efficiencies


Runoff



Runoff


How Efficiency BMPs Are Credited In The Model:

Reduction = acres treated by BMP * BMP efficiency total segment acres

• By Landuse and Model Segment


How Efficiency BMPs Are Credited In The Model:

BMPs That Cannot Be Applied To Same Landuse:• Mutually Exclusive – Additive In Nutrient Reduction Capabilities• Examples:

• Riparian forest and grass buffers• Pasture grazing BMPs• Urban stormwater BMPs

Several BMPs On Same Landuse – Consecutive:• One BMP Reduces The Nutrients Available For Subsequent BMPs –

Multiplicative In Nutrient Reduction • Examples:

• Conservation Plans• Cover Crops

Agricultural BMPsWith Nutrient and Sediment Reduction

Efficiencies

0

50

100

150

200

250

Conservation Plans /SCWQP

Pasture Grazing BMPs Cover Crops Pasture StreamRestoration (feet)

Animal WasteManagement Systems

(thousa

nd a

cres/

feet)


BMP efficiencies for removing TN, TP, and SED are collaboration of Bay Program

Subcommittee and Workgroup participants (i.e., peer review) after appraisal of literature and/or best

professional judgment.

Urban and Mixed Open BMPsWith Nutrient and Sediment Reduction

Efficiencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Urban NutrientManagement

Erosion &SedimentControl

ShorelineErosion Control

(feet)

Wet Ponds &Wetlands

UrbanInfiltrationPractices

Urban FilteringPractices

Mixed OpenNutrient

Management

(thousa

nd a

cres/

feet)





Urban, Septic and Forestry BMPsWith Nutrient and Sediment Reduction

Efficiencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Urban StreamRestoration (feet)

Septic Pumping(systems)

Forest HarvestingPractices

Dry Detention Ponds &Hydrodynamic

Structures

Dry ExtendedDetention Ponds

(thousa

nd a

cres/

feet/

syst

em

s)








• BMPs with both landuse conversions and reduction efficiencies


Agricultural BMPs With Both Landuse Conversions and Reduction Efficiencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Forest Buffers Grass Buffers Wetland Restoration

(thousa

nd a

cres)


• Riparian buffer and wetland efficiencies vary by hydro-geomorphic region.

• Wetland restoration is treated the same as riparian forest buffers.

• Forest and grass buffers are “additive” between each other but “multiplicative” with other BMPs.

Urban and Mixed Open BMPs With Both Landuse Conversions and Reduction Efficiencies

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Urban & Mixed Open Forest Buffers Mixed Open Wetland Restoration

(thousa

nd a

cres)


• Riparian buffer and wetland efficiencies for mixed open vary by

hydro-geomorphic region. • Wetland restoration is treated the

same as riparian forest buffers.





• BMPs that alter nutrient applications to croplando Diet and feed changesDiet and feed changeso Manure transportManure transporto Nutrient management applications

BMPs that Alter Nutrient Applications to Cropland

VolatilizationPasture

Dairy

Uncollected

Collected

Spring/FallApplication

Daily Application

Crop

Enclosure

BarnyardVolatilization

Storage

VolatilizationVolatilization

Volatilization

RunoffRunoff Runoff

Swine

Layers

Broilers

Turkeys

Horses

Beef

Daily Application

BMPs that Alter Nutrient Applications to CroplandNutrient Management Applications

• Phase 4 Watershed Model accounts for both N- and P-based nutrient management.• Phase 4 fertilizer application data is from state agricultural agencies.

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

35% CropNeed

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

35% CropNeed

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

35% CropNeed

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

35% CropNeed

BMPs that Alter Nutrient Applications to Cropland Nutrient Management Applications

Mineral

CropNeedAtDep

Fertilizer

Manure35% Crop

Need

Mineral

CropNeedAtDep

Fertilizer

Manure35% Crop

Need Manure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

35% CropNeedManure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

35% CropNeed Manure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

35% CropNeed

Move

Manure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

35% CropNeed

Move

• Phase 4 Watershed Model accounts for both N- and P-based nutrient management.• Phase 4 fertilizer application data is from state agricultural agencies.



Runoff



Runoff


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nutrient Management Applications Enhanced Nutrient Management Applications

(thousa

nd a

cres)


Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 5 Watershed Model

Chesapeake Bay WatershedModeled Landuses

Phase 4.3 Watershed Model Landuses

Agriculture:Conventional-Till

Conservation-Tillage

Hay

Pasture

Manure Acres

Urban:Pervious Urban

Impervious Urban

Forest

Mixed Open

Non-Tidal Water

Phase 5 Watershed Model LandusesAgriculture:

Composite Crop with Manure Nutrients: • Conventional-Till • Conservation-Till

Composite Crop without Manure Nutrients

Hay with and without Manure Nutrients

Alfalfa with Manure Nutrients

Nursery with Manure Nutrients

Pasture with Manure Nutrients

Degraded Stream Corridor

Animal Feeding Operations

Urban:

High- and Low-Density Pervious Urban

High- and Low-Density Impervious Urban

Extractive

Construction

Forest:

Forest and Harvested Forest

Natural Grass

Inland Water

All BMPs applied to Phase 4.3

model landuses must be accurately

distributed to Phase 5 landuses

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelBMP Spatial Scale

BMP implementation levels are known or have been submitted by

jurisdictions in the following spatial scales:

• state• state-segment

• tributary strategy basin• TMDL basin

• county• county-basin

• county-segment• point (latitude-longitude)

Phase 4 County-Segments

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelBMP Spatial Scale

Phase 5 Land Segments

ELK

TIOG A

ON EID A

YO RK

KEN T

STEU BE N

SUS SE X

HER KIM E R

PO TTER

DELA WA RE

BER KS

OTS EG O

MC KE AN

ACC O M AC K

IND IAN A

WAY NE

HALIF AX

ALLEG AN Y

SO M ERS ET

LE E

CLEA RFIE LD

CAY UG A

BLAIR

LU ZE RN E

BRA DF OR D

CEN TR E

LA NC AS TER

PER RY

BRO O M E

CH EST ER

CH EN ANG O

SUR R Y

CAM B RIA

ST M AR YS

CLIN TO N

ON TAR IO MA DIS ON

CEC IL

DO RC H ESTE R

LO U ISA

PITTS YLVA NIA

ON O ND AG A

GA RR ETT

CH AR LES

WISE

SCO TT

PRE STO N

HU NTIN G DO N

LY CO M IN G

BED FO RD

SCH U YLKILL

GU ILFO RD

FRA NK LIN

TALBO T

WYT HE

BALTIM O R E

FAU QU IER

FLOY DSM YTH

YATE S

HEN R Y

STO KE S

AUG U STA

JE FFER SO N

BATH

HAR D Y

FULTO N

HAM P SH IRE

BLAN D

ALBE MA RLE

SUS Q UEH AN N A

ADA M S

MIF FLIN

HAR FO RD

MO N RO E

WO RC ES TER

LIV ING S TON

CAR O LINE

SCH O HA RIE

CR AIG

LO U DO U NTUC KE R

NO RT HAM P TO N

WAR R EN

AM ELIA

FAIR FAX

PER SO N

HAN O VER

CAR R OLL

GR AN VILLE

CAM P BELL

JU NIA TA

TOM P KIN S

CO LUM B IA

DIN WID DIE

SULLIV AN

SUF FO LK

OR AN G E

MC D OW ELL

BRU N SWIC K

CO RT LAND

CAR BO N

BUC H ANA N

ASH E

NELS O N

CAS WE LL

ME CK LEN BU RGPATR IC K

FOR SY TH

BUC KIN G HA M

ESS EX

RO CK ING H AM

RU SSE LL

DAU PH IN

TAZE WELL

GR AN T

SNY DE R

CH EM UN G

ALAM AN C E

CH AR LOTT E

PULA SKI

BO TETO U RT

VAN CE

CAM E RO N

SO UTH AM P TON

RO CK BR IDG EALLEG HA NY

WAS HIN G TO N

LE BA NO N

AM HE RS T

NEW C ASTLE

ANN E A RU ND EL

CALV ER T

WIC OM IC O

FRE DE RIC K

CU LPEP ER

QU EE N AN N ES

LU N EN BUR G

MO N TG OM E RY

PAG E

LA CK AW AN NA

SCH U YLER

JO H NS ON

WAT AU GA

BER KE LE Y

VIRG IN IA BE AC H

CU M BER LAN D

WYO M IN G

PEN DLE TO N

CH EST ERF IELD

DIC KEN SO N

UN ION

HO WA RD

PRIN C E G EO RG ES

FLUV ANN A

NO TTO WA Y

SPO TS YLVA NIA

HEN R ICO

GR AY SO N

STAF FOR D

CH ESA PEA KE

MO R G AN

HIG HLA ND

SHE NA ND O AH

MA TH EWS

NO RT HU M BER LAN D

GILE S

APP OM A TTO X

ISLE O F W IGH T

GO O CH LAN D

PO WH ATA N

CLAR KE

PRIN C E WILLIA M

GR EE NSV ILLE

MIN ER AL

NEW KE NTGLO U CES TER

KING W ILLIAM

PRIN C E ED WA RD

RIC HM O ND

KING A ND QU EE N

MID D LESE X

RO AN O KE

PRIN C E G EO RG E

JA M ES C ITY

WES TM O RE LAND

CH AR LES C ITY

KING G EO R GE

HAM P TO N

MO N TO UR

NO RF OLK

RAP PA HAN N OC K

GR EE NE

NEW PO R T NE WSPO QU O SO N

BO TETO U RT

DAN VILLE

LY NC HB UR G

DIST OF CO LUM B IA

PO RTS M OU THBRIS TO L

HAR R ISO NB UR G

RAD FO RD

WAY NE SBO R O

HO PE WELL

MA NA SSA S

NO RT ON

EM PO RIA

FRE DE RIC KSB UR G

WILLIAM S BU RG

BUE NA VIST A

SO UTH BO ST ON

ARLIN G TO N

SALE M

STAU N TON

PETE RS BU RG

GA LAX

ALEX AN DR IA

MA RT INSV ILLE

WIN CH EST ER

CH AR LOTT ESV ILLE

FAIR FAX CITY

CO LO NIAL H EIG H TS

CO VIN G TONLE XIN G TON

CLIFTO N FO RG E

FALLS C HU R CH

MA NA SSA S P ARK

ELK

TIOG A

ON EID A

YO RK

KEN T

STEU BE N

SUS SE X

HER KIM E R

PO TTER

DELA WA RE

BER KS

OTS EG O

MC KE AN

ACC O M AC K

IND IAN A

WAY NE

HALIF AX

ALLEG AN Y

SO M ERS ET

LE E

CLEA RFIE LD

CAY UG A

BLAIR

LU ZE RN E

BRA DF OR D

CEN TR E

TIOG A

LA NC AS TER

PER RY

BRO O M E

CH EST ER

CH EN ANG O

KEN T

SUR R Y

CAM B RIA

ST M AR YS

CLIN TO N

ON TAR IO MA DIS ON

CEC IL

DO RC H ESTE R

LO U ISA

PITTS YLVA NIA

ON O ND AG A

GA RR ETT

CH AR LES

WISE

SCO TT

PRE STO N

HU NTIN G DO N

LY CO M IN G

BED FO RD

SCH U YLKILL

GU ILFO RD

FRA NK LIN

TALBO T

SUS SE X

WYT HE

BALTIM O R E

FAU QU IER

FLOY DSM YTH

YATE S

HEN R Y

STO KE S

AUG U STA

JE FFER SO N

BATH

HAR D Y

FULTO N

SO M ERS ET

HAM P SH IRE

BLAN D

ALBE MA RLE

SUS Q UEH AN N A

ADA M S

MIF FLIN

HAR FO RD

MO N RO E

WO RC ES TER

LIV ING S TON

CAR O LINE

SCH O HA RIE

CR AIG

LO U DO U N

LY CO M IN G

TUC KE R

NO RT HAM P TO N

CEN TR E

WAR R EN

AM ELIA

FAIR FAX

FRA NK LIN

PER SO N

HAN O VER

CAR R OLL

GR AN VILLE

CAM P BELL

CAR R OLL

JU NIA TA

TOM P KIN S

CO LUM B IA

DIN WID DIE

SULLIV AN

SUF FO LK

OR AN G E

MC D OW ELL

BRU N SWIC K

BED FO RD

CO RT LAND

BATH

CAR BO N

BUC H ANA N

ASH E

SULLIV AN

NELS O N

SUR R Y

CAS WE LL

ME CK LEN BU RGPATR IC K

FOR SY TH

BUC KIN G HA M

ESS EX

RO CK ING H AM

RU SSE LL

DAU PH IN

TAZE WELL

GR AN T

SNY DE R

CH EM UN G

ALAM AN C E

OR AN G E

CH AR LOTT E

PULA SKI

BO TETO U RT

VAN CE

CAM E RO N

SO UTH AM P TON

RO CK BR IDG E

YO RK

ALLEG HA NY

WAS HIN G TO N

LE BA NO N

AM HE RS T

NEW C ASTLE

ANN E A RU ND EL

CALV ER T

WIC OM IC O

FRE DE RIC K

AUG U STA

FRE DE RIC K

RO CK ING H AMCU LPEP ER

NO RT HAM P TO N

QU EE N AN N ES

LU N EN BUR G

MO N TG OM E RY

PAG E

ASH E

WAS HIN G TO N

LA CK AW AN NA

SCH U YLER

CAR O LINE

JO H NS ON

WAT AU GA

BER KE LE Y

VIRG IN IA BE AC H

CU M BER LAN D

FRA NK LIN

BED FO RD

CLIN TO N

BED FO RD

WYO M IN G

PEN DLE TO N

CH EST ERF IELD

HAR D Y

GR AN T

DIC KEN SO N

PEN DLE TO N

UN ION

HO WA RD

PRIN C E G EO RG ES

FLUV ANN A

NO TTO WA Y

SPO TS YLVA NIA

MO N TG OM E RY

HEN R ICO

GR AY SO N

STAF FOR D

CH ESA PEA KE

MO R G AN

HIG HLA ND

SHE NA ND O AH

MA TH EWS


GILE S

APP OM A TTO X

ISLE O F W IGH T

ALLEG AN Y

MA DIS ON

PAG E

GO O CH LAN D

RO CK ING H AM

PO WH ATA N

CLAR KE

LE E

PRIN C E WILLIA M

GR EE NSV ILLE

FRE DE RIC K

CU M BER LAN D

GILE S

DAU PH IN

MIN ER AL

NEW KE NT

UN ION

GLO U CES TER

KING W ILLIAM

PRIN C E ED WA RD

ADA M S

RIC HM O ND

LA NC AS TERKING A ND QU EE N

GR AY SO N

MID D LESE X

JE FFER SO N

RO AN O KE

ALLEG AN Y

PRIN C E G EO RG E

BRA DF OR D

GILE S

MIN ER AL

HIG HLA ND

JA M ES C ITY

ALLEG HA NY

WES TM O RE LAND

BED FO RD


CH AR LES C ITY

WAR R EN

NELS O N

KING G EO R GE

HAM P TO N

MO N TO UR

SCO TT

PATR IC K

MA DIS ON

SHE NA ND O AH

RU SSE LL

AM HE RS T

WYO M IN G

NO RF OLK

AUG U STA

RAP PA HAN N OC K

GR EE NE

WAR R EN

LU ZE RN E

CU M BER LAN D

FRA NK LIN

TAZE WELL

SM YTH

GR EE NE

BALTIM O R E

SCO TT

ALBE MA RLE

RO AN O KE

NEW PO R T NE WSPO QU O SO N

RIC HM O ND

RAP PA HAN N OC K

BO TETO U RT

ALLEG HA NY

DAN VILLE

FAU QU IER

RO AN O KE

LY NC HB UR G

WYT HE

CAR R OLL

DIST OF CO LUM B IA

PO RTS M OU THWAS HIN G TO N

PETE RS BU RG

BRIS TO L

RAD FO RD

WAY NE SBO R O

HO PE WELL

MA NA SSA S

EM PO RIA

BED FO RD

FRE DE RIC KSB UR G

WILLIAM S BU RG

SO UTH BO ST ON

CH EST ER

RO CK BR IDG E

RO CK ING H AM

ARLIN G TO N

SALE M

STAU N TON

GA LAX

ALEX AN DR IA

HAR R ISO NB UR G

NO RT ON

FRA NK LIN

MA RT INSV ILLE

WIN CH EST ER

CH AR LOTT ESV ILLE

BUE NA VIST A

FAIR FAX CITY

CO LO NIAL H EIG H TS

CO VIN G TONLE XIN G TON

CLIFTO N FO RG E

FALLS C HU R CH

MA NA SSA S P ARK

Phase 5 River Segments

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelExtension for Phase 5

NY

PA

VA

WV

MD

DEDC

Phase 5 Watershed Model

Extention

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelCalibration

Phase 4.3 Calibration Phase 5 Calibration

Calibration sites = 26Watersheds = 94

Land uses = 9Simulation Years = 17

CB WatershedCalibration sites = 237

Watersheds = 684Land uses = 24

Simulation Years = 20

Extended NetworkCalibration sites =

296Watersheds = 899

Chesapeake Bay Program Models

• Attainment of water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay will be determined by tidal water monitoring data, not the models.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed ModelInformation Resources

• http://www.chesapeakebay.net/tribtools.htmo Watershed Model Inputs and Outputso Best Management Practiceso Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Reportso Presentationso Cap Setting and Allocation o Chesapeake Bay Models

• http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdfo Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Land Use and Model Linkages to the Airshed and Estuarine

Models • http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf

o Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Applications & Calculation Of Nutrient & Sediment Loadings - Appendix H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program

• http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee.htmo Nutrient Subcommitteeo Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Workgroupo Forestry Workgroupo Point Source Workgroupo Sediment Workgroupo Tributary Strategy Workgroupo Urban Stormwater Workgroup

Chesapeake Bay Program Data Submission Information for Urban Storm Water BMP Data BMP Stream Restoration in Urban Areas Crediting Jurisdictions for Pollutant Load Reductions BMP Guidance for the States and the District BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiencies BMP Definitions

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee.htm

Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office [email protected].

Documents

chesapeake bay2003

septic bmps

landuse conversionsbmps

lower potomacload

nutrient applications

load sources

shoreline bmps

biggest bang