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 Program Partnership’s Citizen Advisory Committee September 16, 2015

2. 2 Milestone Evaluations

3. 3 By Jurisdiction

4. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen Agricultu re Wastewat er Stormwat er SepticOverall Delaware District Maryland New York Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia

5. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Phosphorus AgricultureWastewaterStormwaterOverall Delaware District Maryland New York Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia

6. 2014-2015 EPA Oversight Status

7. 7 By Sector

10. Status of Trajectory Towards Achieving 2017 Interim Targets: Nitrogen/Phosphorus/Sediment NitrogenPhosphorusSediment Agriculture Wastewater Stormwater Septic All Sources

12. Wastewater TN Load Reduction Progress

13. Wastewater Status: Well down the road to achieving the states’ WIP goals for reductions Red flags: MD, VA depending on wastewater reductions below their allocations being used to ‘make up’ for other sectors’ reduction shortfalls Watch List: New York; possible need for further reductions from PA significant, non-significant facilities Kudos: District, WV, MD, VA 13

14. Stormwater Status: Nitrogen, sediment load estimated to increase since 2009 Red flags: getting the states’ MS4 programs and permits in place and fully functional; ensuring local funding sources/financing is in place Watch List: PA current Phase II WIP commitments well beyond achievement levels by 2025 Kudos: District, MD, VA 14

15. Agriculture Status: very mixed picture within and across states heading into the midpoint assessment Red flags: PA: needs to reduce 19 million lbs. nitrogen to achieve their 2017 interim target; responsible for 72% of ag reductions by 2025 Watch List: how the states deals with phosphorus saturated soils, BMP verification Kudos: MD (PMT), VA (RMP), WV (on target) 15

16. 16 Long Term Water Quality Monitoring Trends

17. 17 Using Monitoring Data To Measure Progress and Explain Change Foundation: Monitoring networks

18. Total Nitrogen: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

21. Changes in Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations Total reduction in RIM total nitrogen: 1985 to 2014 = 16% 2005 to 2014 = 2% 16% reduction 2% reduction Annual Load Trend, Flow-Normalized Load

22. What is the Percent Contribution of Total Nitrogen from each of the 9 RIM Tributaries?

23. Changes in Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations

24. Changes in Nitrogen Yields: 2003-2012

26. 26

27. Total Phosphorus: Flow Adjusted Concentration Trends

29. Total increase in RIM total phosphorus: 1985 to 2014 = 7% 2005 to 2014 = 7% Changes in Total Phosphorus Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations 7%increase Annual Load Trend, Flow-Normalized Load 7% increase

30. What is the Percent Contribution of Total Phosphorus from each of the 9 RIM Tributaries?

31. Recent Changes in Total Phosphorus Delivered to the Bay Estuary from the 9 RIM Stations

32. 32

33. 33

34. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012 Of the 30 long-term NTN stations 8 improving 18 degrading 3 exhibit no discernable change in SSC loading All Susquehanna stations above Conowingo are showing decreased SSC loading

35. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012 Of the 30 long-term NTN stations 8 improving 18 degrading 3 exhibit no discernable change in SSC loading All Susquehanna stations above Conowingo are showing decreased SSC loading

36. Changes in Suspended Sediment Loads: 2003-2012

37. 37

38. Restoration of Mattawoman Creek : Potomac River estuary tributary strongly impacted by nutrients from 1970 – mid-1990s large and persistent algal blooms, sea grasses rare WWTP load reductions stimulated restoration Photo from Elena Gilroy

39. Major WWTP load reduction completed More Algae Drought Year No clear response for about 4 years followed by sharp decline in algae After 2005 low levels of algae became normal A LGAL B IOMASS D ECREASED … WITH S UBSTANTIAL L AG T IME 10 0 20 30 40

40. Major WWTP load reduction More Algae Clearer Water Major WWTP load reduction completed Drought Year No clear increase for about 8 years followed by sharp increase in clarity Water clarity and algae highly correlated shallow Chesapeake Bay systems W ATER C LARITY I NCREASED … ALSO WITH A L AG T IME

41. Major WWTP load reduction completed 1971 0 ha SAV More Algae Clearer Water Drought Year More SAV Very low levels of SAV were present prior to nutrient load reductions Major expansion of SAV in 2002, a severe drought year SAV relatively stable after 2002; lag in SAV relatively short SAV I NCREASED … S HORTER L AG WITH T HRESHOLD R ESPONSE

42. Susquehanna Flats SAV at the Head of the Bay An unexpected piece of very good news A clear example of why long-term monitoring is so valuable for both trends and explanations This example also reminds us that once these habitats start to “ get better” strong positive feedbacks can accelerate the restoration process Adapted from Gurbisz and Kemp 2014

43. (Gurbisz & Kemp 2011) Maps of SAV Cover and Density: Susquehanna Flats (1984 – 2010) (http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/maps.html)

44. Now…this is a SAV bed! Huge expanse ~ 20 square miles (13,000 acres) Clear water Resilient to major storms; recovery from major storm = several years (not decades!) C. Gurbisz, UMCES

45. Trends in Bay Hypoxia…size of “dead zone” Lower Flow Higher Flow Summer Dead-Zone Volume

46. Anoxic Volume, 10 6 m 3

47. WQ Monitoring Trends The Great: Susquehanna Flats, Lynnhaven River, Mattawoman Creek, Gunston Cove, late summer mainstem Bay dead zone, the list goes on… The Good: widespread decreasing nitrogen trends in streams, rivers The Bad: phosphorus trends flattening out, reversing in streams, rivers The Ugly: clarity in the tidal waters 47

48. Take Home Messages Clear evidence that actions to date are making a real difference in better water quality, improved ecosystem health, more resilience Pennsylvania is still the key to Bay restoration Comparison of long and short term trend indicate we are losing past gains in some areas Explaining trends then adapting programs as a result must be a Partnership priority 48

49. 49 Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science, Analysis and Implementation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 307 Annapolis, Maryland 21403 410-267-5731 Work 443-223-7823 Mobile batiuk.richard@epa.gov

50. 50