Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Assessment of the Two-Year Milestones
3 Assessment of the Two-Year Milestones
Pages 87-96
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 87... ...
The committee is not addressing whether the Chesapeake Bay's water quality will improve during this milestone period, because actual nutrient and sediment deliveries and the Bay's response are affected by lag times, legacy nutrients, and precipitation quantity, duration, and intensity. The full benefits of land-based nutrient reduction strategies will likely take decades to be seen in the Bay's main stem (see Box 1-3)
|
From page 88... ...
Is the two-year milestone strategy appropriate to address the Bay's excess nutrient and sediment loads, and (2) are treatment technologies and land-based BMP practices being implemented as promised in the original two-year milestones, such that the jurisdictions are on track to meet their modeled load reduction goals?
|
From page 89... ...
. However, most Bay jurisdictions simply noted that their permitted wastewater loads provided room for additional growth above actual current loads or noted that regulations required stormwater BMPs for new development.
|
From page 90... ...
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS IN THE BAY JURISDICTIONS The second part of Task 4 asks whether the jurisdictions are implementing the nutrient and sediment reduction practices as promised, such that they are on track to meet their modeled load reduction goals for the first milestone. To answer this question, information on implementation progress for a substantial portion of the first milestone period and associated anticipated load reductions (generated from model runs and wastewater treatment plant discharge reports)
|
From page 91... ...
BMP implementation data alone provide a general sense of whether the jurisdiction is making progress, but associated model runs are needed to evaluate how implementation shortfalls in some areas or greater than expected progress in others affect the overall anticipated nutrient reduction. Simply surveying the percentages of proposed practices actually implemented (as is reported in Appendix D)
|
From page 92... ...
. • Although the District of Columbia is making progress on implementing urban BMPs, the bulk of its load reductions are anticipated to come with upgraded nutrient removal technology at the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant, which will not be completed until 2015.
|
From page 93... ...
The CBP is currently resolving how to manage this issue, either by using the retired model to assess the load reductions from the 2010 implementation data or by generating new load estimates for the original milestone scenarios using the Phase 5.3 model. Either way, there may be some unexpected results, but this should not significantly hinder the interpretation of whether the states are keeping pace with implementation of their load reduction projects and actions.
|
From page 94... ...
However, data were insufficient to meaningfully evaluate implementation or anticipated load reduction progress relative to the goals. The jurisdictions reported numerous efforts to control urban and agricultural nutrient and sediment loads, although they experienced greater suc 1 ChesapeakeStat is a website designed to display TMDL progress.
|
From page 95... ...
Additionally, states are working to document practices implemented prior to the current milestone period but not yet credited in the Watershed Model. Available water quality improvement options during subsequent milestone periods will likely become less cost-effective.
|
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.