using cast to develop implementation plans that meet loading … · 2017. 11. 8. · using cast to...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Using CAST to Develop Implementation Plans that Meet Loading Targets in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Webcast sponsored by EPA’s Watershed Academy
Thursday, November 09, 2017 1:00pm – 3:00pm Eastern
Rich Batiuk, Associate Director for Science, Analysis and Implementation
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis, Maryland
and
Olivia Devereux, Environmental Scientist Devereux Environmental Consulting
Webcast Logistics
• To Ask a Question – Type your question in the “Questions” tool boxon the right side of your screen and click “Send.”
• To report any technical issues (such as audio problems) – Type yourissue in the “Questions” tool box on the right side of your screen andclick “Send” and we will respond by posting an answer in the“Questions” box.
2
1
-
Speakers
• Rich Batiuk, Associate Director for Science, Analysis andImplementation Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland
• Olivia Devereux, Environmental Scientist, Devereux EnvironmentalConsulting
4
2
-
Chesapeake Bay Statistics
• Six states and DC• 64,000 sq. mile watershed• 719,000 sq. mile airshed• 18 million people and growing• 78,000 family farms• 470 significant and 3,000+
nonsignificant dischargers• Over 10,000 miles of shoreline• 21 feet average depth• 15:1 ratio of watershed to tidal
surface waters
Since the Chesapeake Bay Program’s foundation in 1983, the partnership have used written agreements to guide the restoration of the nation’s largest estuary.
3
-
The Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A 50-Year History with a Challenging Future • 1960s-70s Visible decline in Bay resources• 1967 Chesapeake Bay Foundation established• 1976-1982 EPA conducts 5-year Bay study• 1980 Chesapeake Bay Commission established• 1983 First Bay Agreement – Chesapeake Bay Program created• 1987 Second Bay Agreement – WQ Goals: 40% Reduction• 1992 Amendments to Agreement – Tributary Strategies• 2000 Third Bay Agreement – Precursor to Chesapeake Bay TMDL• 2008 Acknowledged Bay impairments will not be addressed by 2010• 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL established• 2014 Fourth Bay Agreement – focused on Bay and watershed restoration• 2017 Interim target of 60% of Bay TMDL loads achieved• 2025 100% of practices implemented to achieve TMDL allocations
Our Vision: An environmentally and economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean water, abundant life, conserved lands and access to the water, a vibrant cultural heritage, and a diversity of engaged citizens and stakeholders.
4
-
Setting goals and tracking progress holds all our partners accountable for their work.
Developing new agreements over time ensures our goals are aligned with the best available science to attain restoration success.
5
-
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
WIP
2
Mun
icip
al F
low
(mgd
)
TN E
OS
Load
(mill
ion
lbs/
yr)
Industrial
Municipal
Municipal Flow
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities Achieved their 2025 Goal a Decade Early!
Clean Act Air Implementation by the States has Resulted in a 35 Million Pound Reduction of Nitrogen Loads to Chesapeake Bay from 1985 to 2015
6
-
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Nitrogen Loads and Goals: 1985-2025
142 114 109 108 107 107 112 108 108
89 72
34
40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41
33 29
89
52 52 44 43 41 41 38 36
44
38
5.2
8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.7
7.1
6.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target
2025 Target
mill
ion
lbs
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater+CSO Septic Forest+
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
PA MD VA WV DE DC NY
mill
ion
lbs.
Nitrogen Load to be Reduced by 2025*
*Based on Jurisdictions’ Phase II WIPs and Phase 5.3.2 Watershed Model
7
-
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Phosphorus Loads and Goals: 1985-2025
11.0 10.5 10.7 10.4 10.4 9.9 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.7 7.4
2.9 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5
2.1
10.0
4.0 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.8
2.7 2.5 2.5 3.4
2.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1985 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target
2025 Target
mill
ion
lbs
Agriculture Urban Runoff Wastewater+CSO Forest+
Over the Past Decade, There are Now Lower Nutrient Loads During Higher River Flows
8
-
Source: Testa, 2017 unpublished
The Chesapeake Bay’s Summertime Dead Zone is Decreasing in Size!
Restoration Goal
nd – No Data, pd – Partial Data, * 2015 data is preliminary, source: VIMS 3/7/16
9
-
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Partnering,Leadership
& Management
MaintainHealthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality Sustainable
FisheriesProtect & Restore
Vital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
Management BoardScientific & TechnicalAdvisory Committee
Local GovernmentAdvisory Committee
Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Communications Workgroup
Workgroups
Chesapeake Bay Program Management Structure
Communications Workgroup
Goal Implementation Teams
Management Board Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee
Local Government Advisory Committee
Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Scientific, Protect & Maintain
Healthy Watersheds
Foster Partnering, Technical Sustainable Protect & Restore Chesapeake Leadership Assessment, Restore Water
Fisheries Vital Habitats Stewardship & Management and Reporting Quality
Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Workgroups Workgroups Workgroups Workgroups Workgroups Workgroups Workgroups
Enhance Partnering,Leadership
& Management
MaintainHealthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality
SustainableFisheries
Protect & RestoreVital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Ches. Bay Stock
Assessment Committee
Stream Health Workgroup
Fish Passage Workgroup
Agriculture Workgroup
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Workgroup
Wetland Workgroup
Forestry Workgroup
Land Use Workgroup
Urban Stormwater Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment Workgroup
Watershed Technical Workgroup
Decision Framework Implementation
Workgroup
Watershed Health Workgroup
Education Workgroup
Public Access Planning Action
Team
Land Conservation Priorities Action
Team
Milestone Workgroup
Trading and Offsets Workgroup
Maryland and Virginia
Interagency Oyster Teams
Invasive Catfish Task Force
Communications Workgroup
Budget and Assistance Agreement Workgroup
BMP Verification Committee
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Modeling Workgroup
Climate ResiliencyWorkgroup
Integrated Trends Analysis Team
Data IntegrityWorkgroup
Criteria Assessment Protocols
Workgroup
Integrated Monitoring Networks
Workgroup
Status and TrendsWorkgroup
CBP Goal Implementation Teams’ Workgroup Structure
Enhance Partnering, Leadership
& Management
Goal Implementation Teams
Maintain Healthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality
Sustainable Fisheries
Protect & Restore Vital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Ches. Bay Stock
Assessment Committee
Stream Health Workgroup
Fish Passage Workgroup
Agriculture Workgroup
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Workgroup
Wetland Workgroup
Forestry Workgroup
Land Use Workgroup
Urban Stormwater Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment Workgroup
Watershed Technical Workgroup
Decision Framework Implementation
Workgroup
Watershed Health Workgroup
Education Workgroup
Public Access Planning Action
Team
Land Conservation Priorities Action
Team
Milestone Workgroup
Trading and Offsets Workgroup
Maryland and Virginia
Interagency Oyster Teams
Invasive Catfish Task Force
Communications Workgroup
Budget and Assistance Agreement Workgroup
BMP Verification Committee
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Modeling Workgroup
Climate Resiliency Workgroup
Integrated Trends Analysis Team
Data Integrity Workgroup
Criteria Assessment Protocols
Workgroup
Integrated Monitoring Networks
Workgroup
Status and Trends Workgroup
10
-
Partnership’s Decision Support Tools
Bay Watershed
Model
Bay Water Quality Model
Bay Airshed Models
Role of Models in Partnership Decision-Making
CAST Implementation
Planning and Decision Making
22
11
-
Challenges of Modeling Watersheds
• Always improve
• Keep it simple
23
Challenges of Modeling Watersheds
• Always improve …
• Keep it simple …
24
12
-
Challenges of Modeling Watersheds for Scientists
• Always improve …and use my scientific research
• Keep it simple…and use multiple models
26
Average Load + Inputs * Sensitivity
Land Use Acres
BMPs
Land to Water
Stream Delivery
River Delivery
*
*
*
*
*
Phase 6 Model Structure
13
-
Include Everything Average Load + Inputs * Sensitivity
Land Use Acres
BMPs
Land to Water
Stream Delivery
River Delivery
*
*
*
*
*
Keep It Simple
27
Phase 6 watershed model is calibrated to 215 phosphorus water quality monitoring sites
14
-
Chesapeake Bay Watershed High Resolution Land Cover Data Phase 6 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 5 1 meter 30 meter 1 meter 30 meter
Urban/Suburban Settings Rural Settings
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
assuming +/ 10% uncerta nty in WRTDS estimates
Evaluating Model Calibration Using Monitoring Data
y = 0.9889x R² = 0.92566
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 1 0 15 2 0 25 30 35 40
Nitrate Per Acre Load, NSE = 0.9243
y = 0.9754x R² = 0.6632
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
0.0 0 .3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Phosphorus Per Acre Load, NSE = 0.6099
y = 0.9416x R² = 0.94272
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Nitrogen Per Acre Load, NSE = 0.9370
y = 0.9863x R² = 0.64849
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Sediment Per Acre Load, NSE = 0.5696
[1] Model calibration is made to improve agreement with monitoring data [2] Simulated vs. WRTDS Per Acre Load and the Geographic Efficiencies
[3] Simulated vs. WRTDS loads
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SIM
ULA
TED
LO AD
S ( l
bs/y
ear )
USGS - WRTDS LOADS ( lbs/year )
1-to-1
TOTN
1E3 1E4 1E5 1E6 1E7 1E8 1E9
1E3
1E4
1E5
1E6
1E7
1E8
1E9
‐ i
BASIN Sept June Phase 5 SUSQ -01 % -03% -01% POTO -09 % -09% -22% JAME -09 % -02% -07% RAPP -11 % -07% -10% APPO -18 % -07% -02% PAMU -08 % 00% 06% MATT 06% 07% -06% PATU 08% 05% 19% CHOP -01 % 08% -13%
[4] Agreement between the simulated and WRTDS loads at the RIM sites
15
-
PHOSPHORUSSUSQUEHANNA RIVER
31
PHOSPHORUSSUSQUEHANNA RIVER
32
16
-
Partnership Models • 5 years in development, calibration, review and approval• Series of workshops used to seek and incorporate feedback and
direction from a wide array of partners• 26 different BMP expert panels• Entire year of partners’ review of four beta versions• Extensive independent scientific peer reviews of each model
and decision support tool• Fatal flaw reviews by partners and stakeholders and
collaborative decision making on resolutions• Senior policy makers final sign-off for management applications
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Partnering,Leadership
& Management
MaintainHealthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality Sustainable
FisheriesProtect & Restore
Vital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
ImplementationWorkgroups
Management BoardScientific & TechnicalAdvisory Committee
Local GovernmentAdvisory Committee
Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Communications Workgroup
Workgroups
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Partnering, Leadership
& Management
Maintain Healthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality
Sustainable Fisheries
Protect & Restore Vital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Goal Implementation Teams
Implementation Workgroups
Implementation Workgroups
Implementation Workgroups
Implementation Workgroups
Implementation Workgroups
Implementation Workgroups
Management Board Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee
Local Government Advisory Committee
Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Communications Workgroup
Workgroups
Chesapeake Bay Program Management Structure
17
-
Enhance Partnering,Leadership
& Management
MaintainHealthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality
SustainableFisheries
Protect & RestoreVital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Ches. Bay Stock
Assessment Committee
Stream Health Workgroup
Fish Passage Workgroup
Agriculture Workgroup
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Workgroup
Wetland Workgroup
Forestry Workgroup
Land Use Workgroup
Urban Stormwater Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment Workgroup
Watershed Technical Workgroup
Decision Framework Implementation
Workgroup
Watershed Health Workgroup
Education Workgroup
Public Access Planning Action
Team
Land Conservation Priorities Action
Team
Milestone Workgroup
Trading and Offsets Workgroup
Maryland and Virginia
Interagency Oyster Teams
Invasive Catfish Task Force
Communications Workgroup
Budget and Assistance Agreement Workgroup
BMP Verification Committee
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Modeling Workgroup
Climate ResiliencyWorkgroup
Integrated Trends Analysis Team
Data IntegrityWorkgroup
Criteria Assessment Protocols
Workgroup
Integrated Monitoring Networks
Workgroup
Status and TrendsWorkgroup
CBP Goal Implementation Teams’ Workgroup Structure
Enhance Partnering, Leadership
& Management
Goal Implementation Teams
Maintain Healthy
Watersheds
Protect & Restore Water
Quality
Sustainable Fisheries
Protect & Restore Vital Habitats
Foster Chesapeake Stewardship
Ches. Bay Stock
Assessment Committee
Stream Health Workgroup
Fish Passage Workgroup
Agriculture Workgroup
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Workgroup
Wetland Workgroup
Forestry Workgroup
Land Use Workgroup
Urban Stormwater Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment Workgroup
Watershed Technical Workgroup
Decision Framework Implementation
Workgroup
Watershed Health Workgroup
Education Workgroup
Public Access Planning Action
Team
Land Conservation Priorities Action
Team
Milestone Workgroup
Trading and Offsets Workgroup
Maryland and Virginia
Interagency Oyster Teams
Invasive Catfish Task Force
Communications Workgroup
Budget and Assistance Agreement Workgroup
BMP Verification Committee
Scientific, Technical
Assessment, and Reporting
Modeling Workgroup
Climate Resiliency Workgroup
Integrated Trends Analysis Team
Data Integrity Workgroup
Criteria Assessment Protocols
Workgroup
Integrated Monitoring Networks
Workgroup
Status and Trends Workgroup
Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science, Analysis
and Implementation U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410-267-5731 Work 443-223-7823 Mobile
www.chesapeakebay.net
18
http:www.chesapeakebay.netmailto:[email protected]
-
Questions?
37
Speaker Contact Information
Rich Batiuk U.S. EPA
Olivia Devereux Devereux Environmental Consulting
19
-
Next Watershed Academy Webcast
Check back with us at www.epa.gov/watershedacademy for more details!
39
Participation Certificate
https://epa.gov/sites/production/files/201711/documents/watershed_acad_webcast_certificate_110917_508.pdf
40
20
www.epa.gov/watershedacademyhttps://epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-11/documents/watershed_acad_webcast_certificate_110917_508.pdf
-
Questions?
41
Thank You!
42
21
Using CAST to Develop Implementation Plans that Meet Loading Targets in the Chesapeake Bay WatershedWebcast LogisticsSpeakersChesapeake Bay StatisticsThe Chesapeake Bay Restoration: A 50-Year History with a Challenging FutureOur VisionThe Chesapeake Bay’s Summertime Dead Zone is Decreasing in Size!Chesapeake Bay Program Management StructureCBP Goal Implementation Teams’ Workgroup StructurePartnership’s Decision Support ToolsRole of Models in Partnership Decision-MakingChallenges of Modeling WatershedsPartnership ModelsChesapeake Bay Program Management StructureCBP Goal Implementation Teams’ Workgroup StructureQuestions?Speaker Contact InformationNext Watershed Academy WebcastParticipation CertificateQuestions?Thank You!