State Profile Pennsylvania

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Howard County, MD Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan October 6, 2011 Howard Saltzman Howard County Department of Public Works.
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.
James River Chlorophyll Study Status Update: January 2015 House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee David K. Paylor, DEQ Director.
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Phase Difference = Phase Difference = 0.05.
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
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.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
Status and Effect of Impervious Area Estimates in the TMDL Presented to the Potomac Watershed Roundtable by Michael S. Rolband P.E., P.W.S., P.W.D., LEED.
Water JAM 2010 City of Raleigh briefing for Jordan Lake Partnership October 24, 2014.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.
Goal Lines for Monitoring Gary Shenk TMAW/NTWG 8/15/
E MKT 230 Week 5 CheckPoint New Product Development Read the following: You are working in the product development department of a company that creates.
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Citizens Advisory Council
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Agriculture Initial Inspections Update
Chesapeake bay program
Jim Edward, Deputy Director – EPA/CBPO
CBP Update: Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
DEP Citizen Advisory Committee October 17, 2017
State Profile Maryland
Moving to Phase II: Watershed Implementation Plans
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Local Planning Process…
2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections
Watershed Implementation Plan
Methodology to Distribute Target Loads
State Profile Delaware
Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee December 20, 2017
ФОНД ЗА РАЗВОЈ РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ
Third progress report on cohesion 17 May 2005
Federal Facilities and the District’s Phase III WIP
Local Government Engagement Initiative January 16, 2018
Local Partners Engagement and Communication Strategy
State Profile New York.
أنماط الإدارة المدرسية وتفويض السلطة الدكتور أشرف الصايغ
Conowingo Dam Update Presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee
State Profile West Virginia
Status Nearly 30 scenarios completed for NAB and CBP over a year’s effort. Report on application of CBEMP in preparation. October time frame for draft.
2017 Midpoint Assessment: Year of Decision October 5, 2017 Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting.
Local Government Advisory Committee
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
'III \-\- I ', I ,, - -
Maryland’s Phase III WIP Planning for 2025 and beyond
Approach to Setting Local Planning Goals
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
SCC Student Load (Fall 2009 to Fall 2013)
LECTURE 9.4 – EQUILIBRIUM.
Agronomy Research Station Established 1892
Expectations for Federal Agencies in Support if Chesapeake WIPs/TMDL
Citizen Advisory Committee November 30, 2018
,, 'III \-\-
Citizens Advisory Committee Discussion & Program Update Dana Aunkst Director USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 22,2019 Baltimore, MD.
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Restoration, Chesapeake Bay
SMR Nutrient Initiative Group Background Information Review
VIRGINIA’S Phase iii watershed implementation plan
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OCTOBER 7, 2019
Presentation transcript:

State Profile Pennsylvania

PA Draft Phase III WIP Planning Targets + Reference Loads Nitrogen Load No-Action (M lbs) E3 2013 Progress Phase II WIP (reference) Draft Phase III WIP Planning Target PA Eastern Shore 0.81 0.29 0.63 0.43 0.45 PA Potomac 11.04 4.08 8.11 5.39 6.06 PA Susquehanna 127.82 48.05 90.51 63.99 66.65 PA Western Shore 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 PA Total 139.71 52.32 99.28 69.82 73.18 Phosphorus Load 0.05 0.72 0.19 0.40 0.32 0.35 6.70 1.46 3.27 2.76 2.69 0.00 7.47 1.67 3.70 3.10 3.07

PA Nitrogen Loads-Goals, Phase 5.3.2

PA Nitrogen Loads-Goals, Phase 6

PA Nitrogen Change in Level of Effort

PA Phosphorus Loads-Goals, Phase 5.3.2

PA Phosphorus Loads-Goals, Phase 6

PA Phosphorus Change in Level of Effort

PA Nitrogen – Phase 6 Level Of Effort (NoAction:E3 Reference)

PA Phosphorus – Phase 6 Level Of Effort (NoAction:E3 Reference)

PA Nitrogen – Phase 6 Loads and Target Where did the reductions come from? 1985 2013 Draft Phase III WIP Planning Target

PA Phosphorus – Phase 6 Loads and Target Where did the reductions come from? 1985 2013 Draft Phase III WIP Planning Target

PA Nitrogen – Phase 6 Scenario Loads and Draft Target

PA Phosphorus – Phase 6 Scenario Loads and Draft Target

Nitrogen – Phase 6 Relative Effectiveness Effect of Nitrogen Load Reduction on WQ Standard Attainment A = Above Fall Line B = Below Fall Line

Phosphorus – Phase 6 Relative Effectiveness Effect of Phosphorus Load Reduction on WQ Standard Attainment A = Above Fall Line B = Below Fall Line

Nitrogen Relative Effectiveness Phase 5.3.2

Nitrogen Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, WWTP, Mid-90s

Nitrogen Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, WWTP, Conowingo Dynamic Equilibrium

Nitrogen Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, All Else, Mid-90s

Nitrogen Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, All Else, Conowingo Dynamic Equilibrium

Phosphorus Relative Effectiveness Phase 5.3.2

Phosphorus Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, WWTP, Mid-90s

Phosphorus Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, WWTP, Conowingo Dynamic Equilibrium

Phosphorus Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, All Else, Mid-90s

Phosphorus Relative Effectiveness Phase 6, All Else, Conowingo Dynamic Equilibrium