2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning for Our Future:
Advertisements

The Effect of the Changing Dynamics of the Conowingo Dam on the Chesapeake Bay Mukhtar Ibrahim and Karl Berger, COG staff Water Resources Technical Committee.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Development, Governance, and Alignment Carin Bisland, GIT6 Vice Chair.
Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Development, Governance, and Alignment Carin Bisland, GIT6 Vice Chair.
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Citizens Advisory Committee December 6, 2013 Meeting Rich Batiuk,
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee December 3, 2013.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework Briefing CBP Partnership’s Communications Workgroup July 10, 2014.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions Principals’ Staff Committee Meeting 2/16/12 Carin Bisland, Associate Director.
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Meeting May 12, 2009 Mount Vernon, Virginia Jeff Corbin, Virginia Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 1 CBP Program Update on Bay Agreement Comments, Final Draft, and 2-Year Milestone Status Citizens.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
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.
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.
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 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January.
State of the Chesapeake Bay Program Nick DiPasquale, CBP Director, EPA Executive Council Annual Meeting June 16,
Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Environmental Literacy
Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Zoë P. Johnson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Mark Bennett, USGS
Chesapeake bay program
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System
CBP Update: Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System:
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Proposed Bay TMDL Schedule
DEP Citizen Advisory Committee October 17, 2017
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Chesapeake Bay Program Updates
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizens Advisory Committee
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee December 20, 2017
Local Government Engagement Initiative January 16, 2018
Commonwealth of Virginia
Conowingo Dam Update Presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System ~Meetings Detail~ DRAFT August 29, /6/2018 DRAFT.
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System
2017 Midpoint Assessment: Year of Decision October 5, 2017 Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting.
Local Government Advisory Committee
Communicating Credit Where Credit is Due
Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Outcomes and Phase III WIPs
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Monitoring & Assessment, Adaptation Outcomes
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Overview of Climate Impact Assessment Framework and Implementation
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
Gopal Bhatt1 and Lewis Linker2 1 Penn State, 2 US EPA
Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III
Citizen Advisory Committee November 30, 2018
Name of Your Outcome Presenter’s Name, Organization and
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections I would remove the Chesapeake Bay image altogether since you already a header image depicting the bay. I would move the logo to the left side of the text ”Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee, December 19, 2017” since this is where our name is located. Also, widen the text box so that Decisions isn’t on a line by itself. This also gives a bit more breathing room between the title and the sub-text. Mark Bennett, U.S. Geological Survey CBP Climate Resiliency Workgroup Co-Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee March 2, 2018

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions Approve the proposed next steps and overall schedule for addressing uncertainty in our understanding of climate change impacts on Chesapeake Bay water quality. Agree to use the nutrient and sediment load reductions presented in December 2017 as the starting point for proceeding forward the with proposed Partnership multi-year schedule for factoring changing climate conditions into the jurisdictions’ Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans.

Accounting for Changing Conditions

To Limit Uncertainty The Partnership used STAC recommended projections for 2025 that have a high level of confidence1 Selection of projections for sea level rise and precipitation change were based on past records of observed climatic and resultant river flow conditions Downscaled temperature projections for 2025 are closely aligned with observed trends CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2016. The Development of Climate Projections for Use in Chesapeake Bay Program Assessments. March 2016 Workshop.

Major Climate Variables: 2025 Projections Relative Sea Level Rise Extrapolation of NOAA observed sea level trends (Swells Point, VA) 17 centimeters Temperature Increase Precipitation Change Downscaled climate projections (RCP 4.5) 1.98° F / 1.1° C Increase Observed trends in 88-years of annual PRISM[1] data 3.1% Increase

Accounting for Changing Conditions Cumulative Assessment of Bay Low Dissolved Oxygen Impacts

In the Summer of 2017 Our Message was Climate Change Effects by 2025 were Projected to be Minimal as the Different Effects were Largely Counteracting Each Other

Summer 2017 Assessment: Deep Water Dissolved Oxygen in Balance Watershed Loads Increase Sea Level Rise Increases Water Temperature in Bay Increases Decreased Oxygen In Deep Waters of the Bay Increased Oxygen In Deep Waters of the Bay

So What Changed Between the Summer 2017 Assessment of Projected Climate Change Impacts and what was Presented to the PSC at the December 19-20 Meeting?

Estimated Sea Level Rise Decreased Partnership originally used a predicted sea level rise of 30 centimeters (1 foot) between the 1990s and 2025 Better scientific understanding brought forth by Partners NOAA released new sea level rise projections for the Chesapeake Bay VIMS also provided updated sea level rise projections Based on new science, the CBP Climate Resiliency Workgroup recommended using a projection of 17 centimeters Consistent with long term trends at the Sewells Point, VA tide gauge at Bay mouth Result: less influx of colder, oxygen-rich ocean water causing less ventilation of low dissolved oxygen waters in the deepest portions of the Bay MSL in 2000 = MSL in 1992 + .092957 ft (based on averages of monthly data)

Climate Change Effects on Loading of Different Types of Nutrients Better Understood Total nitrogen and phosphorus are expected to stay about the same Dissolved nitrate and phosphate have a strong effect on dissolved oxygen and increase with climate change Ammonia decreased as a percentage, but the absolute amount is small Organic nutrients decrease, but they have a weak effect on dissolved oxygen

December 2017 Assessment: Deep Water Dissolved Oxygen Not in Balance Watershed Loads Increase Sea Level Rise Increases Water Temperature in Bay Increases Decreased Oxygen In Deep Waters of the Bay Increased Oxygen In Deep Waters of the Bay

Nutrient Load Reductions Needed to Account for Reduced Oxygen Due to Climate Change We can choose to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, or both Since most BMPs apply to both nutrients, a balanced approach is more efficient than just focusing on one or the other Analysis performed in December of 2017 indicated that raising the level of effort for all jurisdictions using the approved planning target method resulted in an estimate of 9.1 million pounds of nitrogen and 490,000 pounds of phosphorus basin-wide

Climate Change Loads: Nitrogen Phase III Planning Target Jurisdiction 1985 Baseline 2013 Progress Climate Change Phase III Planning Target NY 18.71 15.44 0.400 (3.8%) 11.59 PA 122.41 99.28 4.135 (5.7%) 73.18 MD 83.56 55.89 2.194 (4.8%) 45.30 WV 8.73 8.06 0.236 (3.7%) 8.35 DC 6.48 1.75 0.006 (0.3%) 2.43 DE 6.97 6.59 0.397 (8.5%) 4.59 VA 84.29 61.53 1.722 (3.1%) 55.82 Basinwide 331.15 248.54 9.09 (4.6%) 201.25 *Units: millions of pounds

Climate Change Loads: Phosphorus Phase III Planning Target Jurisdiction 1985 Baseline 2013 Progress Climate Change Phase III Planning Target NY 1.198 0.710 0.014 (2.9%) 0.606 PA 6.282 3.749 0.141 (4.7%) 3.073 MD 7.495 3.942 0.114 (3.2%) 3.604 WV 0.902 0.617 0.019 (3.9%) 0.456 DC 0.090 0.062 0.001 (0.8%) 0.130 DE 0.225 0.116 0.006 (5.1%) 0.120 VA 14.244 6.751 0.193 (3.0%) 6.186 Basinwide 30.44 15.95 0.489 (3.4%) 14.173 *Units: millions of pounds

December 19-20 PSC Policy Decisions 1. Incorporate Climate Change in the Phase III WIPs Include a narrative strategy in the Phase III WIPs that describes the jurisdictions current action plans and strategies to address climate change, as well as the jurisdiction-specific nutrient and sediment pollution loadings due to 2025 climate change conditions, while incorporating local priorities and actions to address climate change impacts.   2. Understand the Science Address the uncertainty by documenting the current understanding of the science and identifying research gaps and needs. 3. Incorporate into Milestones Starting with the 2022-2023 milestones, determine how climate change will impact the BMPs included in the WIPs and address these vulnerabilities in the two-year milestones.

Understanding the Science: Proposed Next Steps 2018 STAC Workshop to examine current results, assess lessons-learned and recommend next steps. Climate Resiliency Workgroup will incorporate actions in its 2018-2020 workplan to develop a better understanding of BMP responses, including new or other emerging BMPs, to climate change conditions. 2019 Following the direction of the PSC, the Modeling and Climate Resiliency Workgroups, working with other key Chesapeake Bay Program groups, will develop and implement a complete and fully operational climate change modeling and assessment system in 2019. 2020 In 2020, the CBP partners will complete a technical review and process for approval of the new refined climate change modeling and assessment system as well as the scientific and technical findings from its management applications. 2021 In 2021, the policy implications for including targets adjusted for the influence of climate change into the 2022-2023 milestones will be considered by the Partnership. By the close of 2021, the refined findings on climate change will be implemented into the jurisdictions’ 2022-2023 milestones.  

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions First: Approval of the proposed next steps and overall schedule for addressing uncertainty by documenting the current understanding of the science and identifying research gaps and needs.

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions Second: Agreement to use the nutrient and sediment load reductions presented in December 2017 needed to address projected climate change impacts on Bay water quality by 2025 as the starting point for proceeding forward the with proposed Partnership multi-year schedule for factoring changing climate conditions into the jurisdictions’ Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans.

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions Third: Agreement on New York’s proposed revised “Factoring Climate Change Considerations into the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans” language: 1. Incorporate Climate Change in the Phase III WIPs Include a narrative strategy in the Phase III WIPs that describes the state and local jurisdictions’ current action plans and strategies to address climate change and commit to adopting climate change allocations by 2021, employing the climate change model and other relevant local information.

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions 2. Understand the Science Continue to sharpen the understanding of the science, impacts of climate change, and identify research gaps and needs. Develop an estimate of pollutant load changes (nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment) due to 2025 climate change conditions. Develop a better understanding of BMP responses, including new, enhanced and resilient BMPs, to better address climate change conditions such as increased storm intensity. In 2021, the Partnership will consider results of updated methods, techniques, and studies and determine estimated loads due to climate change for each jurisdiction. In 2021 jurisdictions will account for additional nutrient and sediment pollutant loads due to 2025 climate change conditions in a Phase III WIP addendum and/or 2-year milestones beginning in 2022.

Today’s Requested Policy Decisions 3. Incorporate into Milestones Starting with the 2022-2023 milestones, the Partnership will determine how climate change will impact the BMPs included in the WIPs and address these vulnerabilities in the two-year milestones.