Chesapeake Bay Program Model Update Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science U.S. EPA Chesapeake...

Chesapeake Bay Program

Model Update

Rich BatiukAssociate Director for Science

U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about

Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling But Were Afraid to Ask a

Modeler

Role of Models

Modeling

Research Monitoring

Management

Power

ClarityWhat is the concentration?What are the filtering rates?Where are the streams?

What is the environmentaleffect of any particularmanagement scheme?

How do we balance manydifferent interests?

CBP Modeling Structure

Watershed Model

Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Package

Regional Acid Deposition Model

Purpose of Watershed Model

Results help direct tributary strategy development What’s the impact of BMP implementation on

Nitrogen/Phosphorus/Sediment loads? What yields the biggest bang and the biggest

bang for the buck?

Load allocations Equitably account for all load sources.

Measure of cap maintenance

Purpose of Watershed Model

Provide loads to the Estuarine Model

What’s the impact of BMP implementation on living resources water quality?

What yields the biggest bang and the biggest bang for the buck?

Remove impairments by 2010

Watershed Model Inputs

Nutrient Applications to Agricultural Land

Landuses Non-Point Source BMP Implementation Point Sources Septic Loads Atmospheric Deposition

Watershed Model Inputs

Nutrient Applications to Agricultural Land

Landuses Non-Point Source BMP Implementation Point SourcesPoint Sources Septic LoadsSeptic Loads Atmospheric DepositionAtmospheric Deposition

Watershed Model Simulation

Input Data

Land Simulation

River Simulation

Output

Opportunities for BMPs

Watershed Model Nonpoint Source BMPs

Agricultural BMPs How Credited TN Efficiency TP Efficiency SED Efficiency

Conservation Tillage Landuse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Riparian Forest Buffers (Agriculture)

Landuse Conversion + Efficiency

25-85% depending on hydrogeomorphic region



Riparian Grass Buffers (Agriculture)

Landuse Conversion + Efficiency

17-58%depending on hydrogeomorphic region



Wetland Restoration (Agriculture)

Currently Solely Landuse Conversion

Same as riparian forest buffers



Land Retirement (Agriculture)

Landuse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Tree Planting (Row Crop) Landuse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Nutrient Management Plan Implementation (Crop)

Built into Simulation Under Review Under Review N/A

Conservation Plans (Excluding Conservation-Tillage and Nutrient Management) Total OR Reported by the Following Landuses:

Conservation Planson Conventional-Till

Efficiency 8% 15% 25%

Conservation Planson Conservation-Till

Efficiency 3% 5% 8%

Conservation Plans on Hay Efficiency 3% 5% 8%Conservation Plans on

PastureEfficiency 5% 10% 14%


Cover Crops

Cover Crops on Conventional-Till

Efficiency30-45%

depending on planting date

7-15%

depending on planting date 10-20%

depending on planting date

Cover Crops on Conservation-Till

Efficiency30-45%

depending on planting date 0% 0%

Commodity Cereal Cover Crops

Efficiency17-25%

depending on planting date 0% 0%

Animal Waste Management Systems:

Livestock Systems – Designate types of

systems with associations to the number of Animal

Units and types of animals each system is handling

Efficiency 75% 75% N/A

Poultry Systems – Designate types of

systems with associations to the number of Animal

Units and types of animals each system is handling


Barnyard Runoff Control / Loafing Lot Management - Designate types of runoff controls with associations to the number of Animal

Units and types of animals

Efficiency

20%

(10% Supplemental)

20%

(10% Supplemental)

40%



Alternative Uses of Manure / Manure Transport

Built into PreprocessorReduction in nutrient

mass applied to cropland

Reduction in nutrient mass applied to

croplandN/A

Off-stream Watering with Stream Fencing (Pasture)


Off-stream Watering without Fencing (Pasture)


Off-stream Watering with Stream Fencing and Rotational Grazing

(Pasture)



Urban and Mixed Open BMPs

How Credited TN Efficiency TP Efficiency SED Efficiency

Stormwater Management Reported by the Following

Categories:

Wet Ponds and Wetlands Efficiency 30% 50% 80%Dry Detention Ponds and Hydrodynamic Structures


Dry Extended Detention Ponds


Infiltration Practices Efficiency 50% 70% 90%

Filtering Practices Efficiency 40% 60% 85%Roadway Systems TBD Under Review Under Review Under Review

Impervious Surface Reduction / Non-Structural

PracticesLanduse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Inserts

TBD Under Review Under Review Under Review

Stream Restoration Load Reduction 0.02 lbs/ft 0.0035 lbs/ft 2.55 lbs/ft


Urban and Mixed Open BMPs

How Credited TN Efficiency TP Efficiency SED Efficiency

Erosion and Sediment Control


Nutrient Management (Urban)


Forest Conservation (Urban)


Riparian Forest Buffers (Urban)

Landuse Conversion + Efficiency 25% 50% 50%

Riparian Grass Buffers (Urban)


Tree Planting (Urban) Landuse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Abandoned Mine Reclamation


Riparian Forest Buffers / Tree Planting (Mixed

Open)Landuse Conversion N/A N/A N/A

Nutrient Management (Mixed Open)



Resource BMPs How Credited TN Efficiency TP Efficiency SED Efficiency

Forest Harvesting Practices


Structural Tidal Shoreline Erosion Control

Water Quality Model N/A N/A N/A

Non-Structural Tidal Shoreline Erosion Control

Water Quality Model N/A N/A N/A

Septic BMPs How Credited TN Efficiency TP Efficiency SED Efficiency

Septic Connections/Hookups

Removal of Systems N/A N/A N/A

Septic Denitrification Efficiency 50% N/A N/A

Septic Pumping Efficiency 5% N/A N/A


Animal Feed Additives Yield Reserve Manure Additives Horse Pasture Management Carbon Sequesteration Mortality Composters Ammonia Emissions Controls in Animal Agriculture Voluntary Air Emission Controls within the Jurisdicitons

(Utility, Industrial and Mobile) Street Sweeping Alternative Uses of Manure Alternative Cropping Systems/Ag Operations SAV Planting/Restoration; Oyster Reef Restoration

NPS BMPs Efforts Not Currently Credited in the Model…But on the List

Adding to the “Approved”BMP List

Review/approval through the Bay Program’s Tributary Strategy Workgroup

BMP definition Recommended efficiency with technical

literature documentation How the BMP will be handled by the

watershed model How the BMP will be tracked (units,

acres, etc.)


BMPs that revise inputs Alternative uses of manure Nutrient applications to croplandNutrient applications to cropland BMPs involving landuse conversionsBMPs involving landuse conversions

BMPs with nutrient and sediment BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficienciesreduction efficiencies

BMPs with both BMPs with both landuse conversions landuse conversions and reduction efficienciesand reduction efficiencies

Manure Applications to Cropland

Pasture

Beef

Uncollected

Collected

Spring/FallApplications

Monthly Applications

Crop

Enclosure

Barnyard

Volatilization

Volatilization

Monthly Applications

Storage

VolatilizationVolatilization

Volatilization

RunoffRunoff Runoff

DairySwineLayers

BroilersTurkeys

Alternative Uses of Manure

9.548 3.8020

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nitrogen Phosphorus

(mill

ion

lbs/

year

)

Pre-BMP Nutrients Available for Crop Applications in DelawarePost-BMP Nutrients Applied to Cropland in Delaware

•Alternative uses of manure encompasses removing from the Chesapeake Bay watershed nutrients available for crop applications. •Jurisdictions need to track where the nutrients are removed from, how much, and manure/litter nutrient content.


BMPs that revise inputs Alternative uses of manureAlternative uses of manure Nutrient applications to cropland BMPs involving landuse conversionsBMPs involving landuse conversions



Nutrient Applications to Cropland

2.8840

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Nutrient Management Plan Implementation

(mill

ion

acre

s)

2001 Implementation Level 2001 Theoretical Maximum Implementation

•BMP implementation levels tracked by state agencies and submitted to CBPO.•Nutrient Management Plan Implementation is a separate module in the Watershed Model where crops receive only 130% of need/uptake for both nitrogen and phosphorus. •Yellow areas represent “windows of opportunity” for traditional or tracked practices.

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

30% CropNeed

Mineral

CropNeed

AtDep

Fertilizer

Manure

30% CropNeed


•Watershed Model accounts for both N- and P-based nutrient management.•Fertilizer application data from state agricultural agencies.

Mineral

CropNeedAtDep

Fertilizer

Manure30% Crop

Need Manure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

30% CropNeed Manure

Mineral

AtDepCropNeed

30% CropNeed

Move


Watershed Model accounts for both N- and P-based nutrient management.


BMPs that revise inputs Alternative uses of manureAlternative uses of manure Nutrient applications to croplandNutrient applications to cropland BMPs involving landuse conversions



•Light orange generally represents agricultural land in 1990 EPA EMAP / LANSAT-derived imagery. •Source of agricultural land categories and area in the model is U.S. Department of Agriculture “Census of Agriculture” - Published 1982/1987/1992/1997.•County Census information is distributed to model segments.•Agricultural land area projections directed by states.•In 2001, agricultural land covered about 9.4 million acres or 23% of the total Bay watershed area.•The watershed model estimates that agriculture accounts for 40% of the TN load, 47% of the TP load, and 62% of the land-based sediment load to the Bay in 2001.

Agricultural BMPs Involving Landuse Conversions

1.934 0.045 0.076 0.008 0.005 0.0000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

ConservationTillage

Land Retirement Conventional Tillto Pasture

Tree Planting WetlandRestoration

Pasture to MixedOpen

(mill

ion

acre

s)


•BMP implementation levels tracked by state agencies and submitted to CBPO.•Load reductions attributed to movement to a lower-exporting landuse. •Yellow areas represent “windows of opportunity” for traditional or tracked practices.


BMPs that revise inputsBMPs that revise inputs Alternative uses of manureAlternative uses of manure Nutrient applications to croplandNutrient applications to cropland BMPs involving landuse conversionsBMPs involving landuse conversions

BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficiencies


Agricultural BMPs with Reduction Efficiencies

3.476 0.118 0.107 0.047 0.028 0.005

N = 3-8%P = 5-15%

SED = 8-25%

N = 20%P = 20%

SED = 40%

N = 30-45%P = 0-15%

SED = 0-20%N = 60%P = 60%

SED = 75%

N = 30%P = 30%

SED = 38%

N = 20-75%P = 20-75%

SED = 0-40%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Farm Plans Grazing LandProtection

Cover Crops Stream ProtectionWith Fencing

Stream ProtectionWithout Fencing

Animal WasteManagement

(Manure Acres)

(mill

ion

acre

s)


•BMP implementation levels tracked by state agencies and submitted to CBPO.•BMP efficiencies for removing N, P, and SED are collaboration of TSWG participants after review of literature or agency/extension service recommendations.•Yellow areas represent “windows of opportunity” for traditional or tracked practices.

BMP Implementation

How “Efficiency” BMPs Are Credited In The Model

Reduction = acres treated by BMP * BMP efficiency

total segment acres

By Landuse and Model Segment

BMP Implementation How “Efficiency” BMPs Are Credited In The Model

BMPs that cannot be applied to same landuse• Mutually exclusive – Additive in nutrient reduction

capabilities• i.e., streambank protection with and without

protection

Several BMPs on same landuse Consecutive• One BMP reduces the nutrients available for

subsequent BMPs Multiplicative in nutrient reduction

• i.e., forest buffers downhill from cover crops


BMPs that revise inputsBMPs that revise inputs Alternative uses of manureAlternative uses of manure Nutrient applications to croplandNutrient applications to cropland BMPs involving landuse conversionsBMPs involving landuse conversions


BMPs with both landuse conversions and reduction efficiencies

BMPs with Landuse Conversions and Reduction Efficiencies

16.8 4.6

N = 17-58%P = 50-75%

SED = 50-75%

N = 25-85%P = 50-75%

SED = 50-75%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Grass Buffers

(tho

usan

d ac

res)


•Riparian buffer efficiencies are being revised so that they will vary according to hydro-geomorphic region. •Yellow areas represent “windows of opportunity” and assume 100-ft. buffer widths on all un-buffered stream-miles associated with agricultural land.

Model BMP Simulation

Input Data

Land Simulation

River Simulation

Output



Phase 4.3 Watershed Model

Simulation

Watershed Model

64,000 square miles 9 Landuses 94 Segments 133 State-segment 464 County-segments 9 Major Tributaries 20 State-Basins 31 Tributary Strategy Basins

Lumped Parameter Physically-Based Model

Loading Sources in Watershed Model

Pasture Hay

ImperviousUrban

ConservationTill

PerviousUrbanForest

ConventionalTill Manure

RIVER REACH

AtmosphericDeposition

Point SourceSeptic

Atmospheric Deposition, Manure,

Chemical Fertilizer

DenitrificationVolatilization

Export to Streams

Uptake byCrops

Ground Water

SurfaceInterflow

Lower ZoneGround Water

SurfaceInterflow

Lower Zone

Land Simulation – 1 Acre

Water Simulation - Physically BasedPrecipitation (time series)

Percolation - f(soil properties, slope, temp)

Evapotranspiration - f(time series, land properties)

Runoff - f(soil properties, slope, temp)

Nutrient and Sediment Simulation

Meteorology Precipitation

Runoff andGroundwater

LandMorphology

NitrogenCycle

SedimentExport

PhosphorusCycle

Nutrient Inputs

Nutrient Simulation

NitrogenCycle

Watershed Model Forest Nitrogen Cycle

Trees

Roots Leaves

ParticulateRefractoryOrganic N

ParticulateLabile

Organic N

SolutionAmmonia

Nitrate

SolutionLabile

Organic N

AdsorbedAmmonia

SolutionRefractoryOrganic N

Atm

osp

heric

Deposition

Denitrification

ExportExport

ExportExport ExportExport ExportExportExportExport ExportExport ExportExport

Agriculture Nutrient BalanceAtmospheric Deposition,

Manure, Chemical Fertilizer


Export to Streams

Uptake byCrops

Forest Nutrient BalanceAtmosphericDeposition


Export to Streams

Urban Nutrient BalanceAtmosphericDeposition,Other sources


Export to Streams

Uptake bygrasses

Land-Water Connection

X 3000 acres

X 400 acres

X 100 acres

X 200 acres

X 900 acres X 1500 acresX 300 acres

Forest

PerviousUrban

ImperviousUrban

ConventionalTill

ConservationTill

Hay Pasture

Land-Water Connection

X 3000 acres

X 400 acres

X 100 acres

X 200 acres

X 900 acres X 1500 acresX 300 acres

Forest

PerviousUrban

ImperviousUrban

ConventionalTill

ConservationTill

Hay Pasture

Deposition, Point Source,

Septic

Precipitation or percolation

Percolation

Evapotranspiration

RO

(time series)

f(soil properties, slope, temp)

f(time series,land properties)

f(soil properties, slope, temp)

Water Simulation - Physically Based

River Simulation - Nitrogen

Algae

ORGN

NO3

}

Sediment

NH3 River 1

River 2 River

3

Two Points of Calibration

Land Surface

RainRiver Reach


Atmospheric Deposition Model And Impacts of Deposition on Loads

Atmospheric Deposition Model

Atmospheric Deposition Model

P4ms5 - 66 - 77 - 88 - 99 - 1010 - 1111 - 1212 - 1313 - 14

•Deposition to the watershed is calculated from monitoring data – NADP nutrient concentrations / precipitation. •The Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) changes deposition to the watershed based on changes in emissions throughout the airshed from utility, mobile, and industrial sources.

Nitrogen Deposition Versus Delivered Load

462.7

305.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000 Progress

(million lb

s/ye

ar)

Atmospheric Deposition Delivered Load

Atmospheric Inputs:Of the total NOx deposition to the Chesapeake Bay watershed land area, about 50% originates from emissions in Bay-watershed states:__________________PA = 17%, VA = 10%, MD = 9%, WV = 7%, NY = 5%, DE = 1%OH, NC, NY, KY, IN, TN, MI = 27%Other States in 37-State Area = 24% Delivered Loads From All Sources:Of the total nitrogen load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, about 32% is attributable to atmospheric deposition, based on the proportion of anthropogenic inputs.

Nitrogen Deposition Versus Delivered Load

462.7

386.9

344.0

310.1284.6

305.2 294.2 286.5 279.4 274.8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000 Progress 2010 emissions w/ozone-season NOx SIP

call

2020 emissions w/seasonal NOx SIP call +

all-year "Tier II" &heavy duty diesel

regulations

2020 emissions w/annual CAA +

aggressive utilitycontrols

2020 emissions w/annual CAA +

aggressive utility,mobile, & industrial

controls

(million lb

s/ye

ar)

Atmospheric Deposition Delivered Load

For all air scenarios, landuses, fertilizer applications, point sources, septic, and BMP implementation are held constant at 2000 levels - Only atmospheric deposition varies

Model BMP Simulation

Input Data

Land Simulation

River Simulation

Output


1985 Versus 2001 and Cap Load Allocations

Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake

BayBy Major Tributary

Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

135.34

30.20 28.25

5.02

70.80

9.73 9.13

46.71

2.35

120.98

22.75

15.78

4.08

58.43

7.73 7.70

35.68

2.05

76.25

13.6811.10

2.38

34.32

5.05 5.51

25.74

1.11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Susquehanna Eastern ShoreMD

Western ShoreMD

Patuxent Potomac Rappahannock York James Eastern ShoreVA

(million p

ounds

TN

per

yea

r)

1985 2001 Progress Cap Load Allocation

Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

5.11

3.09

1.96

0.51

5.30

1.27 1.18

8.48

0.22

4.00

1.89

0.93

0.28

4.22

0.920.77

5.55

0.21

2.52

1.140.84

0.21

3.48

0.620.48

3.42

0.08

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Western ShoreMD


(million p

ounds

TP p

er y

ear)

1985 2001 Progress Cap Load Allocation

Land-Based Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

1.178

0.382

0.164 0.201

2.033

0.418

0.158

1.278

0.021

1.027

0.299

0.129 0.129

1.721

0.331

0.125

1.193

0.018

0.962

0.1630.100 0.095

1.494

0.288

0.103

0.935

0.0080.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


Western ShoreMD


(million t

ons

SED

per

yea

r)

1985 2001 Progress Land-Based Sediment Cap Load Allocation

Phase 5 Calibration

Phase 4.3 – 26 calibration stations

Phase 5.0 – 236 hydrology and 100+ water quality calibration stations

Old vs. New Segments

Phase 5 Improvements

Segmentation Calibration Land cover/land use (2000, year by

year) Rainfall Atmospheric Deposition Urban BMPs (seasonality, extreme weather

events, design life considerations) Lots more…so stay tuned!

Send Donuts to:

Rich Batiuk

U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office

410-267-5731

[email protected]

www.chesapeakebay.net

Chesapeake Bay Program Model Update Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science U.S. EPA Chesapeake...

Documents

Transcript of Chesapeake Bay Program Model Update Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science U.S. EPA Chesapeake...