Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland PA Chesapeake Bay.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.

Advertisements

Frank J. Coale Mark P. Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Partnerships Agriculture Workgroup BMP Verification Review Panel Meeting Annapolis, Maryland December.

RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.

RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Tradeoffs in Achieving TMDLs – Ecosystem Services and Cultural.

Howard County, MD Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan October 6, 2011 Howard Saltzman Howard County Department of Public Works.

Jack E. Frye Virginia Director Chesapeake Bay Commission December 2012 Market Solutions and Restoring the Chesapeake The Economics of Nutrient Trading.

Agricultural and Biological Engineering SWFREC, UF/IFAS Immokalee.

Commonwealth of Virginia Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Russ Baxter, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator.

Project collaborators: Laura Ward Good, Katie Songer, Matt Diebel, John Panuska, Jeff Maxted, Pete Nowak, John Norman, K.G. Karthikeyan, Tom Cox, Water.

The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.

Stormwater Retrofitting Demystified! A training for local governments to cost effectively implement retrofits to meet MS-4 permit and Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking Thursday, May 31, 2012 Martin Hurd, Vladislav Royzman, Tetra Tech, Inc. Brian Burch, Megan Thynge,

David K. Paylor Director, Department of Environmental Quality May 27, 2014 VEDP Lunch & Learn Environmental Permitting 101.

Historic Record of Practice Implementation Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office

1 Expanding Crediting of Chesapeake Bay Program Conservation Practices Mark Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Agricultural Technical Coordinator University.

Overview of TMDL Plans TMDL Plan Workshop April 24, 2015 Karl Berger, COG staff Outline: Details Schedule Plan Elements Issues 1.

Chesapeake Bay and New York State Water Quality and the Potential for Future Regulations Presented by the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.

Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.

Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.

Determining the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce nutrient loading from cattle grazed pastures in Utah Nicki Devanny Utah State University,

Point Source POLLUTION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions – Estimating a Tradable Commodity Allen R. Dedrick Associate Deputy Administrator Natural Resources & Sustainable.

Chesapeake Bay Program Incorporation of Lag Times into the Decision Process Gary Shenk 10/16/12 1.

Nutrient Trading and the Chesapeake Bay Paul K. Marchetti PENNVEST February 18, 2008.

Ann Swanson Executive Director Chesapeake Bay Commission May 2012 Market Solutions and Restoring the Chesapeake The Economics of Nutrient Trading.

Virginia Nutrient Credit Trading: Nonpoint Source Offset Options Kurt Stephenson Dept of Ag & Applied Economics Virginia Tech

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scenario Builder Gary Shenk CCMP workshop 5/11/2010.

1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.

Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool CAST Olivia H. Devereux Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 12/13/2011.

Update on the Development of EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan Russ Perkinson Potomac Roundtable October 8, 2010.

Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool VAST Developed by: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.

Department of the Environment Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program Phase I- Trading between point sources and trading involving connecting on-site septic.

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.

Review of Scenario Builder BMP crediting Christopher F. Brosch University of Maryland Extension Chesapeake Bay Program Office

1 Questions Addressed What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe? Pollutant Reduction Opportunities.

Updating Background Conditions and BMP Efficiencies Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office

What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load –Amount of pollutants that a water body can receive and still support designated uses Drinking,

District of Columbia Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Blue Plains Regional Committee 1 District Department of the Environment Watershed Protection Divsion.

Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,

Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.

Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria Assessment Procedures Effects Allocations Airshed.

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?

2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.

John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed.

Revisiting the Adjustor Curves Anchor rates based on literature review – The “anchor rates” were the rates of percent Total Phosphorus removal based on.

Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.

Preserving York County 2010 Municipal Educational Series January 28, 2010 Rick Keister, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jake Romig, York County Circuit.

Chesapeake Bay TMDL and What It Means for You Katherine Antos, Coordinator Water Quality Team U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Virginia Municipal.

Caroline County Pilot Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Katheleen Freeman, AICP, Director Caroline County Department of Planning & Codes Leslie Grunden,

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two1 Lake Tahoe TMDL Phase Two Fall 2007 Public Participation Series Source Category Group Focus Team Meetings.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPRING MEETING MARCH 1—2, 2012 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EPA’s Evaluation of Bay Jurisdictions’ Draft Phase II WIPs & Final

Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.

IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico James Gillespie.

Williamsburg’s Local Strategies to meet the ChesBay TMDL March 2012 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Virginia Maryland Pennsylvania New York Delaware West Virginia.

The Chesapeake Bay: How is it Doing? An Overview of The Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The road ahead... Maximizing the benefits of maintenance efforts from a regulatory and fiscal perspective.

Milestones, Progress and the Mid-point Assessment APPROACHING 2017 James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality.

Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.

MACo Winter Conference

WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler

Local Planning Process…

GIS Data Management for SHA’s Bay Restoration Program

Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment

Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters

Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III

2018 BMP Verification Assessment

Presentation transcript:

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee Meeting Harrisburg, PA June 3, 2004

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Loads Objective of extensive model analysis was to determine relative nonpoint source BMP effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and potential load reductions that could be achieved – for TN, TP, and sediment. Study considered 30 nonpoint source BMPs on 9 specific source categories - for the agricultural, urban, and septic sectors. Results for effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and loading reduction potentials should be viewed RELATIVELY among BMPs – rather than focusing on the absolute numbers. The total annual costs are those reported in EPA UAA documents and documentation of Estimated Stormwater BMP Costs (in 2001 dollars) and reflect amortized capital costs plus annual O&M payments.

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Loads Potential load reduction numbers are reported since BMPs can be very effective and/or cost-effective, but there may not be potential for extensive implementation (or additional implementation beyond what is already on the ground). This measure is the maximum window of opportunity. o The loading reduction potentials are estimates of reductions beyond existing (2002) controls. All nonpoint source BMPs are ranked according to their cost- effectiveness and potential for reducing nutrient and sediment loads beyond existing (2002) controls - with EQUAL WEIGHT given to cost- effectiveness and potentials. Users of the information cannot simply add the potential load reductions for a group of BMPs to estimate the total reductions for a combination of practices.

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Nitrogen

Pennsylvania Nitrogen Loads and Cap Load Allocations

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Nitrogen Loads

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Phosphorus

Pennsylvania Phosphorus Loads and Confirmation Goals

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Phosphorus Loads

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Strategy BMPs Excluded from the Cost Effectiveness-Potential Study No-Till Managed Precision Agriculture Dairy Precision Feeding Swine Phytase Precision Rotational Grazing Mortality Composters Urban Street Sweeping Erosion & Sediment Control Horse Pasture Management Abandoned Mine Reclamation Non-Urban Stream Restoration Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee Meeting Harrisburg, PA June 3, 2004

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Nitrogen Loads

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Phosphorus Loads

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Sediment Loads

PA Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Potential for Reducing Phosphorus Loads Beyond TS1 TP Gap = million lbs.

PA Point Source Potential for Reducing Phosphorus Loads Beyond TS1 TP Gap = million lbs.