Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office [email protected]410-267-9844 Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting Lancaster, PA September 29, 2009 1
28
Embed
Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation
Watershed Model Scenarios Tributary Strategies & Enhanced Program Implementation. Jeffrey S. Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office [email protected] 410-267-9844 Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting Lancaster, PA September 29, 2009. 1. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
• Phase 4.3 WSM jurisdictional Tributary Strategies have been converted for the Phase 5 WSM.
• Generally, used absolute acreage for practices involving landuse changes and
• Other practices (those employing reduction efficiencies) were treated as percentages of available land, i.e., the same implementation levels in Phase 4.3 strategies (as percentages) was used in the Phase 5 strategies.
Tributary Strategy ScenarioImplementation Levels II
7
Nonpoint Source Implementation Levels
2005 – 2010 Tributary Strategy – 2010 E3
8
• For each nonpoint source practice, implementation levels are presented as a percent of available or E3 and in absolute quantity (i.e., acres, tons, AU, etc.)
• The Enhanced Program Implementation Level (EPIL) scenario is an effort to try to quantify the “do-ability” of achieving various nutrient and sediment controls in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. o Many stakeholders questioned feasibility, especially in response to
E3, including the PSC.• Used as a reference among loadings and implementation levels
for: o Current assessmento Existing Tributary Strategieso Draft Bay nutrient loading capso Final loadings expressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDLo E3
• Could be use for costing implementation – point and nonpoint sources.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Qualitative Definition
23
• The amount of nutrient and sediment controls for all source sectors that can be expected to be employed on a large scale. o May include limit-of-technology for some sources sectors but is,
perhaps, less than limit of technology for all nonpoint source sectors.
• Do-ability can be expressed at several levels, including:o Technical achievability – the maximum of current technology to
reduce nutrients. o Operational achievability – the maximum tolerance for individuals
and society to support nutrient controls. Will society support large-scale conversion of cropland to forest? Can operators of small package WWTP operate sophisticated plants
designed to achieve low levels of nutrients? o Financial achievability – the maximum cost burden on individuals or
society to reduce nutrients• While it is difficult to separate the financial achievability from the
rest of this analysis, the EPIL analysis only addresses the first two levels of do-ability.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
24
• Waste Treatmento Discharges likely to be same as existing tributary strategies.
• Some nonpoint source practices and programs may not be universal to jurisdictions as they are in E3.
• Nonpoint source practices would be considered for EPIL if reported in a jurisdiction’s annual model assessment, Tributary Strategy, or Milestone.
• Levels of implementation and control technologies for the Enhanced Program Implementation Level scenario are subjective.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
2003 Level-of-Effort Scenarios
25
“The partners agree that the E3-level nutrient and sediment reductions are not
physically plausible and that the load reductions represented by Tier 3 are
technologically achievable.”
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
26
• Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: o EPA perspectives, including reports fulfilling “120-day” and “180-
day” responses to the May 12, 2009 Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.
Urban sector domain is extent of MS4 regions where, for the year 2010, 56% of the urban area and 69% of the impervious surfaces in the Chesapeake Bay watershed fall within regulated MS4 regions.
EPA is estimating the number of animal operations that are or could be CAFO as well as their nutrient generation and ultimate fate.
CAFO = farms that confine the threshold number of animals to meet the medium and large CAFO definitions in the current CAFO regulations. There needs to be a translation to acres that could be regulated for Enhanced Program Implementation Level scenario.
There is considerable emphasis on “next-generation nutrient management plans”.
Enhanced Program Implementation Level
Specifics
27
• Implementation levels for each nonpoint source practice and program could take the following into consideration: o Tetra Tech March 18, 2009 literature review for EPA. o CBP workgroup, subcommittee, and implementation team
(jurisdictional) responses to assigned task of detailing “Full-Funding Full-Regulatory” scenario.
o Historic documentation of scenario “Full Voluntary Program Implementation”.
o Implementation levels in historic and current annual model assessments, Tributary Strategy and E3 scenarios.