Christopher Brosch University of Maryland Modeling Subcommittee Meeting January 11, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

Frank J. Coale Mark P. Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Partnerships Agriculture Workgroup BMP Verification Review Panel Meeting Annapolis, Maryland December.
Howard County, MD Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan October 6, 2011 Howard Saltzman Howard County Department of Public Works.
Stormwater Retrofitting Demystified! A training for local governments to cost effectively implement retrofits to meet MS-4 permit and Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Historic Record of Practice Implementation Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office
1 Expanding Crediting of Chesapeake Bay Program Conservation Practices Mark Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Agricultural Technical Coordinator University.
CBP Partnership Proposal for Ensuring Full Accountability of Best Practices and Technologies Implemented CBP WQGIT Wastewater Treatment Workgroup Briefing.
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.
Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Nick DiPasquale, Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office (EPA) 1 CBP Program Update Local Government Advisory Committee March 14, 2014.
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Citizens Advisory Committee December 6, 2013 Meeting Rich Batiuk,
 Jennifer Volk Environmental Quality Extension Specialist University of Delaware Cooperative Extension.
BMP Verification Process Progress to Date Frank Coale, AgWG Chair Mark Dubin, AgWG Coordinator 06/19/12.
Evaluation of Nutrient Management Practices Mark Dubin, University of Maryland Steve Dressing, Tetra Tech Agriculture Workgroup (AgWG) Meeting January.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA) 1 CBP Program Update Citizens Advisory Committee February 27, 2014.
1 Agriculture Workgroup Mid-Point Assessment Priorities Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting Fairfield, Pennsylvania October 22-23, 2012.
Update on Forest Goals and Progress in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, 8/23/13 Sally Claggett & Julie Mawhorter, US.
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee December 3, 2013.
Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003.
Forestry BMP Review Process Mark Sievers, Tetra Tech Forestry Workgroup (FWG) Conference Call—February 1, 2012.
Chesapeake's Future Forests: Crafting a Forest Restoration Strategy for the Bay Watershed Partners.
CBP Partnership Approach for Ensuring Full Accountability of Best Practices and Technologies Implemented Jim Edward, CBPO Deputy Director CBP Citizen Advisory.
Progress Update: Evaluation of Federal Facilities in WIPs and Milestones CBPO Management Board March 6, Jim Edward, EPA Greg Allen, EPA.
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
Best Management Practices and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool CAST Olivia H. Devereux Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 12/13/2011.
Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool VAST Developed by: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework: Building Confidence in Delivering on Pollution Reductions to Local Waters Delaware.
Review of Scenario Builder BMP crediting Christopher F. Brosch University of Maryland Extension Chesapeake Bay Program Office
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Updating Background Conditions and BMP Efficiencies Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office
What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load –Amount of pollutants that a water body can receive and still support designated uses Drinking,
Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework: Building Confidence in Delivering on Pollution Reductions to Local Waters Maryland.
Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) Meeting February 7, 2013 Annapolis, MD Katie Foreman and Liza Hernandez University of Maryland Center for.
1 Phase 5.3 Calibration Gary Shenk 3/31/ Calibration Method Calibration method largely unchanged for several years –P5.1 – 8/ first automated.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Urbanized Stream Source Ratio October 20, 2015 Urban Stormwater Workgroup Reid Christianson, PE, PhD Neely Law, PhD Bill Stack, PE.
Moving towards a restored Chesapeake Bay watershed
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Agriculture Workgroup (AgWG) AgWG Membership Workshop December 17, 2015.
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program Office CAC Meeting February 18, 2016.
Verification Requests Citizen Advisory Committee –Repeated requests for BMP verification Chesapeake Executive Order Strategy –USDA and EPA commitment to.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPRING MEETING MARCH 1—2, 2012 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EPA’s Evaluation of Bay Jurisdictions’ Draft Phase II WIPs & Final
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011.
Williamsburg’s Local Strategies to meet the ChesBay TMDL March 2012 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Virginia Maryland Pennsylvania New York Delaware West Virginia.
1 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan – Phase II James Davis-Martin, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Coordinator Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake.
Milestones, Progress and the Mid-point Assessment APPROACHING 2017 James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager Department of Environmental Quality.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Nutrient Management Planning for CAFO & AFO Fundamentals Nutrient Management Training Dec. 16 &17, 2009 Tom Basden WVU Extension Service.
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizens Advisory Committee
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Chesapeake Bay Program
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
MDE’s Phase III WIP Inventory 2018 Fall Regional WIP Meetings
Agriculture WIP Phase III Development Update
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.
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Christopher Brosch University of Maryland Modeling Subcommittee Meeting January 11, 2012

Mark Dubin Agriculture Workgroup Coordinator Website: enuitem=52211

AgWG BMP Evaluations The AgWG will be supporting the evaluation of the following high priority agricultural BMPs or model data identified by the workgroup in 2011: Nutrient Management Cover Crops Crop Residue Mgt. (Conservation Tillage/CNT) Poultry Litter Management

Protocol- in breif Recommendations being developed by the expert review panel will be communicated throughout the process to the AgWG and the WTWG. Consistent with the “BMP Protocol” final draft recommendations will be provided to the partnership in the following order: AgWG for a technical review and endorsement. WTWG for a modeling review and endorsement. WQGIT for a final review and approval.

Nutrient Management The evaluation of nutrient management (NM) practices is the first priority of the AgWG. The evaluation was initiated on October 13 th in conjunction with the AgWG meeting. Completion of approved and documented recommendations are estimated for late Will ask panel to provide any recommendations for interim placeholder BMPs in early 2012.

Nutrient Management The AgWG supported expert review panel will be evaluating not one but a suite of agricultural nutrient management practices in combination: Nitrogen Based NM Phosphorus Based NM Enhanced NM Precision/Decision Ag

Nutrient Management The AgWG supported panel will also consider the following topics related to nutrient management: Application rates for land not under nutrient management (model, but will inform workgroup if any placeholder BMP recommendations). Manure application sequencing. Mineralization and amount of nutrients available for crop uptake. Many of these topics will more likely inform midpoint evaluation of modeling tools, but will notify workgroup if any BMP recommendations.

Nutrient Management The WQGIT approved “BMP Protocol” process will be followed for developing the recommendations and obtaining approval. The NM expert review panel will consist of 25 members representing all six jurisdictions, 19 more than the protocol requires. The chair and members of the panel were identified and endorsed by the AgWG. Representatives for the AgWG and the Watershed Technical Workgroup (WTWG) are also serving on the panel.

Nutrient Management Coordination and technical assistance to support the AgWG’s evaluation of NM practices will be provided by a dedicated Tetra Tech (Tt) team to expedite the process. Tt will be assisting the AgWG and the expert review panel: Collecting technical and modeling information for panel support and review. Interviewing scientists to identify relevant documentation for panel support and review. Performing literature searches for providing documentation for panel support and review. Scheduling and supporting panel meetings. Summarizing panel recommendations for review endorsement by the panel members. Assisting panel chair and members with communicating their recommendations to the AgWG, WTWG and the WQGIT for review and endorsement.

Nutrient Management Expert review panel recommendations will be developed with the following criteria: Phase II WIP and Milestone Commitment Planning: guidance where appropriate for using interim or provisional methods. Progress Reporting: in order to receive credit toward progress runs and achieving milestone commitments. Midpoint evaluation of modeling tools: to be completed in advance of Phase III WIPs in 2017.

Cover Crops/Crop Residue Mgt. The evaluation of cover crops and crop residue management (Conservation Tillage/CNT) are a high priority of the AgWG. The evaluation process is currently underway in conjunction with the AgWG. The AgWG will be integral to the evaluation throughout the process; from the initiation to the point of final approval by the WQGIT. Completion of approved and documented recommendations are estimated for late Will ask panels to provide any recommendations for interim placeholder BMPs early 2012.

Cover Crops/Crop Residue Mgt. The AgWG supported expert review panels will be evaluating a suite of agricultural practices in combination: Cover Crops Traditional Cover Crops Commodity Cover Crops Crop Residue Management Continuous No-Till Conservation Tillage

Cover Crops/Crop Residue Mgt. The WQGIT approved “BMP Protocol” process will be followed for developing the recommendations and obtaining approval. The two expert review panels will consist of members representing all six jurisdictions as the protocol requires. The chair and members of the panels have been identified by the AgWG and endorsement is scheduled for January 12th. Representatives for the AgWG and the Watershed Technical Workgroup (WTWG) will also serve on the panels.

Poultry Litter Management The AgWG has endorsed the formation of a poultry litter subcommittee (PLS) based on a University of Delaware (UD) study. The PLS is being supported through the UD, Delaware Department of Agriculture and the AgWG. The PLS has been formed and held their first conference call on Friday, October 7 th Completion is estimated for February, Will ask the PLS to provide any recommendations for interim placeholder BMPs at December 2011 AgWG meeting.

Poultry Litter Management The expert review panel consists of 20 members representing five jurisdictions, USDA, EPA and NGO. Delaware: UD, DDA Maryland: MDA, UMD, NRCS New York: abstaining Pennsylvania: PDA/SCC, PSU Virginia: VADCR, VT West Virginia: WVDA, WVU USDA: Headquarters EPA: CBPO NGO: KCF

Poultry Litter Management The project will be evaluating regional data on poultry litter in comparison to existing USDA/ASAE national standards presently used in the Bay models. The evaluation will consider the following: Nutrient Concentrations Production Volume (Mass) Management Technology Effects Phytase/feed management Genetics Moisture content Production weights

Poultry Litter Management The evaluation will be utilizing available federal, state, university and private industry information. The analysis will include data from present litter management as well as historical conditions to create representative annual values back through time. Regional differences will be considered and if identified, incorporated into recommendations for interim and/or long term model recommendations.

Coordinator: Tom Schueler Website: group_info.aspx?menuitem=47769

Stormwater Retrofits Three retrofit classes New retrofit facilities, BMP conversions (e.g., a dry ED pond to a constructed wetland) Maintenance upgrades

Stream Restoration Panel In Literature Review Phase Now Tetra Tech providing assistance Strong panel interest in how sediment and nutrient dynamics are simulated in context of Watershed Model (esp. the scale for urban channel erosion) and what scale) Classes of stream restoration (NCD, RCS, etc.) Location issues (landscape position/stream order) Non-urban stream restoration rates (VA)

Stream Restoration Issues Headwaters vs. Segment Shed Scale Legacy Sediment Issues Regenerative Conveyance Systems (the tweener problem)

Urban Nutrient Management Panel Effect of P fertilizer bans Urban lawn nutrient management Reduced N fertilizer on public land Reduced N Fertilizer on residential land Focus on qualifying conditions and verification methods for NFR and ULNW

Future BMP Panels  Impervious Cover Removal/Rooftop Disconnection/Soil Amendment  Others

Questions?