Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Tracking and Accounting
2 Tracking and Accounting
Pages 59-86
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 59... ...
In this chapter, the committee reviews and critiques the tracking and accounting practices for nutrient and sediment reduction efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. TRACKING AND ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORKS Diverse activities have been implemented within the Bay watershed to reduce nutrient and sediment loads, and many more are planned for the years ahead.
|
From page 60... ...
for credit in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (see Appendix B) and has used a peer-review process to assign pollutant load-reduction effectiveness estimates to each BMP.
|
From page 61... ...
In past years, the CBP struggled to handle the wide variety of data formats and spent a large amount of staff time incorporating these data into the Chesapeake Bay Model. However, since 2003, the CBP and Bay jurisdictions have devoted substantial efforts and resources to standardize data formats and develop approaches for electronic submission of both permit compliance and BMP data.
|
From page 62... ...
Jurisdiction-specific strengths and weaknesses in tracking and accounting are discussed briefly at the end of the section, summarized in Table 2-1, and detailed in Appendix C Jurisdiction-wide Issues in Tracking and Accounting In general, the Bay jurisdictions responded that they have a good understanding of wastewater discharges and state cost-shared BMP data.
|
From page 63... ...
The most intensive coverage for atmospheric nitrogen loadings exists for wet deposition of nitrate and ammonium through the National Trends Network of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) ; within the Chesapeake Bay watersheds, there are 16 sites, 5 of which have been in place since 1987.
|
From page 64... ...
Verification Process Delaware Multiple agencies, Field verifications are including: completed by each of the • ept. of Natural D partner agencies.
|
From page 65... ...
However, Review Database practices • ractices on private P permitted facilities lands with no have maintenance permit plans. • orest conservation F YES YES for ag BMPs YES, for most • tream restoration S In development for practices • eptic upgrades S stormwater BMPs funded by local govt.
|
From page 66... ...
West Virginia Dept. of Environmental No current field verification Protection tracks and process in place, although WV collects BMP data for most plans to develop verification sectors, with assistance protocols for stormwater and from: agricultural BMPs.
|
From page 67... ...
• eptic tank hook-ups S to central sewer No tracking of construction-related stormwater BMPs (an estimate of practices is instead provided) No practice life YES for ag BMPs YES for cost- Septic systems reported, but BMPs shared ag.
|
From page 68... ...
uncertainty in BMP load reduction effectiveness. Data Privacy Restrictions Much information regarding agricultural point and nonpoint source nutrient and sediment reduction activities within the Bay watershed resides within the U.S.
|
From page 69... ...
. However, as of fall 2010, TABLE 2-2 Surveyed Agricultural BMPs in Bradford County, Pennsylvania Practice Data Reported Percent Not Cost-Shared No till 6,039 acres 85 Cover crop 3,335 acres 74 Manure storage 81 units 43 Stream fencing 79 farms/339 acres 51 Rotational grazing 74 farms/4,679 acres 88 SOURCE: PA DEP (2010)
|
From page 70... ...
The EPA has explained its expectations for non-cost-shared BMP data, including procedures to prevent double counting, to allow for field verification, and to ensure that the datasets are updated over time to reflect land conversions or maintenance failures (EPA, 2010c,d; K Shenk, CBP, personal communication, 2011)
|
From page 71... ...
Field Verification The extent of field verification of urban and agricultural nutrient and sediment BMPs varies widely with state resources. Field verification ensures that the BMP implementation data are reliable and accurate and that the installed practices meet the definitions and design standards used by the
|
From page 72... ...
Developing ways to optimize field verification efforts will ultimately enhance the reliability of the BMP data sets, perhaps through some combination of remote sensing data, written surveys, phone calls, and site visits. BMP Efficiencies Data on BMP implementation are converted into load reductions by the Watershed Model using load reduction efficiencies established by the
|
From page 73... ...
In contrast, the BMP efficiencies for diffuse sources, such as suburban, urban, and agricultural nonpoint sources, are less predictable and vary widely with local site conditions. Many factors affect the pollutant removal efficiency of BMPs and create challenges for establishing BMP efficiencies for the Watershed Model.
|
From page 74... ...
In addition, BMP efficiencies have been the subject of numerous studies, especially by the Center for Watershed Protection TABLE 2-3 Range in Load Reduction Efficiency (percent decrease) Estimates for Select Best Management Practices implemented in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Best Management Practice Total N Total P Sediment Conservation plans 3–8 5-15 8-25 Conservation tillage 8 22 30 Forest buffer 19-65 30-45 48-60 Grass buffer 13-46 30-45 40-60 Wetland creation and restoration 7-25 12-50 15 Cover crops Coastal plains/ 11-45 0-15 0-20 Piedmont -- crystalline Mesozoic lowlands/Ridge and 9-34 0-15 0-20 Valley -- siliciclastic Ammonia emission reduction 15-60 NA NA Dairy feed management 24 25 0 Mortality composting 40 10 0 SOURCE: Adapted from Simpson and Weammert (2009)
|
From page 75... ...
Therefore, targeted monitoring programs in representative urban and agricultural streams are needed to evaluate associated water quality changes over time and to validate or improve model predictions, particularly at the watershed scale. As new field research becomes available, BMP efficiencies for the Watershed Model should be updated.
|
From page 76... ...
Ideally, each Bay jurisdiction would have a clear organizational framework for BMP reporting, geo-located data for accurate conversion of the data into the Watershed Model, a rigorous QA/QC process that includes some level of field verification, a process for removing BMPs when they have expired or are not functioning, processes to prevent double counting, and few unreported practices. In reality, most jurisdictions are still working through these challenges, and there are significant disparities between the human and financial resources applied to tracking and accounting across the states.
|
From page 77... ...
BayTAS will be used to track progress for both point and nonpoint sources using geographic information system (GIS) technologies and the Watershed Model, and data will be displayed by state, segment, or facility on the CBP's new ChesapeakeStat website.3 Among the questions the EPA expects to answer with BayTAS are: • What is the status of BMP practice implementation and programmatic activities?
|
From page 78... ...
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Field verification of agricultural BMPs is limited for some Bay jurisdictions (e.g., West Virginia, Pennsylvania) , while other jurisdictions have implemented structured field verification programs (e.g., Virginia verifies up to 5 percent of agricultural BMPs annually, Maryland verifies 7-8 percent of agricultural BMPs annually, and New York verifies all reported practices)
|
From page 79... ...
Furthermore, there are several discrepancies between a state's and CBP's definitions of BMP management that affect the accuracy of the calculated nutrient load reductions. For example, states allow application of manure to cover crops, while the CBP definition for cover crops assumes no manure is applied.4 4 No manure is applied except on commodity cover crops after March 1.
|
From page 80... ...
in 1999. The WRA is Florida's blueprint for development and implemen tation of TMDL provisions of the Clean Water Act primarily focused on achieving nutrient load reductions to impaired water bodies.
|
From page 81... ...
A Consolidated Chesapeake Bay Region Agricultural BMP Program All Bay jurisdictions lack the ability to reliably and consistently document agricultural nonpoint source BMPs that are implemented without the assistance of federal or state cost-share programs. These shortcomings could be overcome by the development and implementation of BMP
|
From page 82... ...
Verification of BMP implementation could occur through random field inspections of a percentage of program participants. The BMP efficiencies could be assessed through representative site water quality monitoring coupled with watershed or sub-watershedscale monitoring, which would serve to document a range of nutrient load reduction estimates for prioritized conservation practices.
|
From page 83... ...
Geo-referenced data can also help to assign proper pollutant delivery ratios in the Watershed Model and to prioritize BMP inspections based on the proximity of BMP implementation to the receiving water body, as described by Djojic et al.
|
From page 84... ...
Targeted monitoring programs in representative urban and agricultural watersheds and subwatersheds would provide valuable data to refine BMP efficiency estimates, particularly at the watershed scale, and thereby improve Watershed Model predictions. Current BMP load reduction efficiency estimates used in the Watershed Model are reasonable estimates of the short- to intermediate-term reduction efficiencies of newly installed BMPs at the field scale and gross representations of the same at the watershed scale.
|
From page 85... ...
However, because implementation data are now reported electronically, several jurisdictions noted that the data are less accessible for assessments of statewide progress. Some Bay jurisdictions have mechanisms in place to compile progress updates as needed, but others have to wait approximately 9 months after the end of the reporting period for a summary of BMP implementation progress from the CBP.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.