Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) Meeting February 7, 2013 Annapolis, MD Katie Foreman and Liza Hernandez University of Maryland Center for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Frank J. Coale Mark P. Dubin Chesapeake Bay Program Partnerships Agriculture Workgroup BMP Verification Review Panel Meeting Annapolis, Maryland December.
Advertisements

RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
Management Plan: An Overview
CBP Partnership Proposal for Ensuring Full Accountability of Best Practices and Technologies Implemented CBP WQGIT Wastewater Treatment Workgroup Briefing.
Overview of TMDL Plans TMDL Plan Workshop April 24, 2015 Karl Berger, COG staff Outline: Details Schedule Plan Elements Issues 1.
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.
Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.
Program framework 1.Articulate program goals 2.Develop system level model for goal attainment 3.Assess current management efforts – identify gaps 4.Develop.
Lessons from Chesapeake Bay Restoration Efforts Understanding the role of nutrient reduction activities in improving water quality.
Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Framework Implementation.
Improving Austin Streams Making Progress with Bacteria.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment National Water Quality Monitoring Council Meeting August 20, 2003.
CBP Partnership’s BMP Verification Review Panel’s Findings and Recommendations to Date CBP Citizens Advisory Committee December 6, 2013 Meeting Rich Batiuk,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
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.
James Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 20, 2014 The Bay’s Health & Future: How it’s.
Taking the Next Step: Implementing the TMDL. What IDEM Provides to Help With Implementation  Compiling all the data in one place  Data-driven recommendations.
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.
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.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
Understanding the Effectiveness of BMPs: Synthesizing Lessons Learned from Water Quality Monitoring Studies Katie Foreman & Liza Hernandez August 15, 2012.
Updating Background Conditions and BMP Efficiencies Jeff Sweeney Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.
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,
Understanding the Effectiveness of BMPs: Synthesizing Lessons Learned from Water Quality Monitoring Studies Katie Foreman & Liza Hernandez April 9, 2012.
Understanding the Effectiveness of BMPs: Synthesizing Lessons Learned from Water Quality Monitoring Studies Katie Foreman & Liza Hernandez April 5, 2012.
Straight to the Point – Watershed-based Plans Should: be designed to restore water quality from nonpoint source impairments using sufficiently analyzed.
Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,
Streams & Springs Breakout Session Trans-boundary collaboration Meeting July 9, 2014.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CBP Partnership Team- Enhance Monitoring in the Bay and its Watershed Scott Phillips, USGS Jonathan.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Reducing Nutrient Loads from the Opequon Creek Watershed Project Team Meeting Oct 19, 2007 Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework: Building Confidence in Delivering on Pollution Reductions to Local Waters Maryland.
Synthesizing the lessons learned about the effectiveness of BMPs from existing and ongoing water quality monitoring studies Katie Foreman Liza Hernandez.
Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.
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.
Moving towards a restored Chesapeake Bay watershed
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
OWEB Effectiveness Monitoring Program Key Components  Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop  Development of definitions  Effectiveness Monitoring of: 
Citizen Stewardship Outcome Kick Off Meeting 11/18/2014.
Jeff Horan, Habitat GIT Chair February 16, 2012 CBP Decision Framework in Action.
Katherine Antos, Water Quality Team Leader Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Coordinator U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Chesapeake Bay Program.
FY 2016 EAP Proposals 1.Groundwater Sampling at Coulee Creek 2.Deep & Coulee Straight to Implementation Project 3.Little Spokane DO/pH TMDL 4.Lake Spokane.
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
Integrated Approach for Assessing and Communicating Progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Water-Quality Standards Scott Phillips USGS, STAR May 14, 2012 PSC.
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.
Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team Executive Committee Meeting March, 26 th 2012.
Chesapeake Bay Program
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
EVALUATING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN THE LAKE ERIE BASIN AND KEY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE ERIE WATERSHED Ohio Stormwater.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizens Advisory Committee
program framework Articulate program goals
Local Government Engagement Initiative January 16, 2018
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Straight to the Point – Watershed-based Plans Should:
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 2.0
Presentation transcript:

Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) Meeting February 7, 2013 Annapolis, MD Katie Foreman and Liza Hernandez University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science at the Chesapeake Bay Program

 Synthesizing the state of knowledge from monitoring studies that look at the effectiveness of BMPs  2009 MRAT recommendations  April 2011 STAR topical meeting with WQGIT  WIPs and verification of practices  Aid in the decision framework

COMPLETED  Literature Review  ~30 Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW) studies  ~20 National and International studies  “Synthesis” workshop  Storyboarding session CURRENT AND UPCOMING  Writing phase  Review  Synthesis Team  NTWG/TMAW  STAR  WQGIT  edit  WQGIT  MB  CBP publication

 1) Are BMPs working?  4 Lessons  4 Recommendations Big Spring Run : Riparian areas pre- and post-cattle stream exclusion and riparian replanting (Galeone et al. 2006).

LESSON  At the scale of the CBW, the quickest and most obvious improvements in water quality have been from wastewater treatment facility upgrades. RECOMMENDATION  WWTP have substantially reduced their loads via upgrades, however, continuing established practices and making improvements is crucial to the continuance of progress toward reducing loads and offsetting population growth.

LESSON  Practices which focus on reducing the initial input of nutrients into the system through on-the-ground actions that target water and air quality improvements have shown to be effective at reducing nutrient transport. RECOMMENDATION  Comprehensive plans and innovative technologies are necessary to reduce fertilizer use (for residential and agricultural sources), solids (biosolids and animal manure), and air emissions.

LESSON  Many nonpoint source BMPs will take years to decades to improve water quality in the watershed; once water quality improvements reach the estuary, the response can be rapid (years). RECOMMENDATION  Now is the time to accelerate nonpoint source BMPs; detecting measureable improvements in water quality will require persistence and patience

LESSON  Improvements in water quality as a result of BMPs may be offset by increasing nutrients in other sources. RECOMMENDATION  Restoration goals and expectations should be set knowing that the offsets are a reality and that desired outcomes from some BMPs might be eclipsed by increases in other nutrient sources.

Articulate program goals. Describe factors influencing goal attainment. Assess current management efforts (and gaps) Develop management strategy. Develop monitoring program. Assess performance. Manage adaptively.  2) How do we design and implement BMPs to be more effective and inform the Adaptive Management Cycle?  4 Lessons  4 Recommendations CBP Decision Framework

LESSON  In order to observe significant water quality and habitat responses, relatively large amounts of focused implementation (both type and location) are required to address the location-specific sources of pollution. RECOMMENDATION  Identify the sources, location, and magnitude of nutrient inputs within the project area to target the appropriate site and type(s) of implementation as well as the amount of effort needed to achieve desirable outcomes.

LESSON  Apart from point source tracking, information is limited at the sub-county scale to track BMP implementation. RECOMMENDATION  Improvements are needed for local tracking of voluntary and cost-share BMPs to enhance models for targeting of BMP implementation and for being able to evaluate the effectiveness of specific BMP projects.

LESSON  A very limited percentage of watershed-wide BMP projects have been monitored for their effectiveness and of those, most are not monitoring at the scale necessary to access BMP effectiveness. RECOMMENDATION  Improvements are needed to enhance monitoring of BMPs as well as water quality and habitat responses.

LESSON  Most BMP implementation is not designed using lessons learned from rigorous evaluation results. RECOMMENDATION  Evaluating the effectiveness of water quality and habitat monitoring programs and BMP projects will require a better understanding of the lessons learned from past BMP projects and the application of those lessons learned through adaptive management.

 Spring 2013  Technical Report Spring/Summer 2013  Newsletters  Booklet ▪ For targeted audiences