903R89102
Bay wide Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Progress Report
US. fr.-;: „..:. .•••'.:.! r;.::?:r-vn ^
[,;g;c,n Li* .!;i..;i.,a;3n Uioia
Csiitsr C.P75?)
fll Cl;eilr.ui ^.rejt
p: -todtiphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Report No. 1
TD
225
.C54
B195
19(39
copy 2 Printed on recycled paper DCCCmbCr 1989
-------
1989 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
BAYWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Center (2PKC2)
841 Ciisslnut Street
A 19107
Prepared by:
Nutrient Reduction Strategy Task Force
NPS Subcommittee
CBLO Staff
-------
Table of Contents
Section Title
1 Modeling Progress
2 Consistent Methodologies for Load and Delivery
Calculations
3 Nutrient Sources
4 Effectiveness of Biological Nutrient
Removal throughout the Basin
5 Nutrient Reduction Progress, Point and Nonpoint
Sources
6 New and Expanded NPS Monitoring Programs and Information
from Living Resources and Future Task Force Activities
-------
Summary
This first progress report under the 1988 Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy
describes implementation progress and analytic refinements promised in the original
strategy. The Nonpoint Source Subcommittee NFS Nutrient Reduction Task Force has
developed a range of NFS land use loading factors which will be utilized in the
recalibration of the Watershed Model. The Task Force will continue work with the
modeling program to develop methodology for load reduction estimations resulting from
BMP installations. Utilizing the Watershed Model to consolidate jurisdictional information
into a consistent report will provide the final results by August 1990 whichwill enhance the
capability of responding to issues in the 1991 reevaluation process. Land use information
developed for the Watershed Model provides the location of major NFS nutrient sources.
The Task Force will continue to evaluate the location and extent of other NFS sources,
such as groundwater, shoreline erosion, on-lot treatment systems and atmospheric loads.
Information from the Section 319 NFS assessment documents will provide additional
information on the origins of NFS loads.
Information on the progress of BMP installation for cropland erosion and animal
waste management is summarized for the Chesapeake Bay Basin along with point source
progress. Progress is being made at an annual rate greater than that projected in the
Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy.
The Task Force reviewed NFS monitoring station information and focused on NFS
monitoring activities. Each state has an individualized NFS monitoring program which is
summarized in the text. It is clear that additional monitoring data is needed to realize the
full potential of the various models used in the NFS control programs, while the need
continues to establish a uniform NFS monitoring protocol throughout the basin.
Introduction
In 1988, the Water Quality Task Group developed the Basinwide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy. The strategy describes state point and nonpoint source (NFS) programs designed
to meet the agreement goal of reducing nutrient loads entering the Bay by 40% by the year
2000. Based on 1985 "baseline" loadings to the Bay of nitrogen and phosphorus, the Task
Group established interim load reductions goals for both nutrients between now and 2000.
To achieve these goals, the states are implementing a variety of actions and programs. The
nutrient reduction strategy, however, is not static and calls for annual progress reports and
a reevaluation of the strategy in 1991.
The strategy needed additional information and more consistent base line data. After
identifying the need to fill this gap, the Task Group called for annual reports to detail the
progress, gather supplementary data and resolve consistency problems. These progress
reports by the jurisdictions, therefore, will:
1) Provide information on the point and nonpoint source management
programs and document progress toward the year 2000 target;
2) Report on new information that fills in the gaps identified during the
strategy development; and,
3) Incorporate any necessary adjustments to the approaches outlined in the
basinwide strategy.
1
-------
3) Incorporate any necessary adjustments to the approaches outlined in the
basinwide strategy.
During the process of developing the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy, the Task
Group identified key areas where the jurisdictions need to arrive at a common means of
organizing and using existing information and data and areas where additional information
is needed.
The Task Group identified a lengthy list of issues requiring resolution prior to the
completion of the 1991 reevaluation process. The full list of issues is contained in Table
4-1 of the Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Strategy, July 1988.
Most of the baywide milestones identified in the strategy dealt with nonpoint sources.
The Nonpoint Source Subcommittee, therefore, was given the lead to prepare the annual
progress reports called for in the strategy. The Nonpoint Source Subcommittee formed a
NFS Nutrient Reduction Task Force to address specific issues set forth in the development
of NFS data for the Watershed Model and to prepare the annual progress reports required
by the strategy.
NFS Loads and the Watershed Model
During development of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy, the
jurisdictions found that they each were using different data sets, dissimilar
methodologies to calculate loads from land uses and a variety of land use
combinations to describe NFS loads. Some jurisdictions made transport
calculations and assumptions while others did not. These differences led
to the inclusion of requests for information needs and annual reports to
track the progress to resolve the disparities.
The Watershed Model calibration process also requires similar data
and information . Since the Watershed Model is the most reliable way to
estimate NFS loads, the Task Force decided to use the model to locate and
quantify these loads for the basin. To assure the model would accurately
simulate the loads, the Task Force and Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
staff have provided most of the critical input into the model, such as land
use, load factor ranges and point source data. They are also involved in
the initial calibration process and will provide much of the additional
information for model completion. Involvement with the model assures
the Task Force of consistent, reliable NFS information for the basin. By
using the model, the data will be reported in a consistent format that can
be compared among and within sub-basins throughout the watershed.
This annual report provides the reader with the status of the progress to resolve the 1989
issues outlined below. The report discusses progress of point and nonpoint nutrient
reductions within the basin and summarizes the modeling process and its importance in
addressing the issues leading to the 1991 reevaluation.
-------
Issues not fully resolved in this report will be subject to continuing Task Force
refinement which they will document in the 1990 annual report.
Steps Toward Refining the Nutrient Strategy
Baymde Milestones for 1989
• Continue development of consistent baseline data (both fall line
and basinwide).
• Develop consistent methodologies for estimating loads and/or
load delivery calculations for:
- point sources, including projected increases;
- cropland and pastureland;
- nutrient management impacts;
- transport conversions;
- animal waste production and storage; and,
- developed land uses.
• Survey and locate to the extent possible all significant nutrient
sources in the Bay basin, both point source and nonpoint source
(including agriculture, urban, forest and shoreline erosion), and
identify actions needed to improve the resolution and accuracy of
our estimates.
• Identify and evaluate the necessity of new and expanded
monitoring programs, for example:
- upland watersheds;
- nonpoint source loads below the fall line;
- edge of field;
- point source nutrients;
- atmospheric inputs; and,
- shoreline erosion.
• Develop consistent accounting for loads delivered via
groundwater flows.
• Develop consistent approaches for defining controllable and
uncontrollable nonpoint source components.
• Identify informational and other needs to be addressed by the
Nonpoint and Living Resources subcommittees as well as other
work groups.
• Evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of application of
biological nutrient removal (BNR) at plants throughout the Basin.
• Develop specific point and nonpoint source implementation plans
for each state.
-------
Section 1
Modeling Progress
To better quantify NFS loads and the effect of all loads on the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay
Program, beginning with the research phase in 1978, has placed high priority on the
development of drainage basin and tidal mainstem models of the Bay. The modeling effort
originated with development of the Watershed Model during the research phase. The
Watershed Model simulates streamflow and point and nonpoint source nutrient loads over
the entire Bay drainage basin, an area of 64,000 square miles.
The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) decided to upgrade the original Watershed
Model in steps starting with the inclusion of winter conditions, additional land uses, 1985
land use as a base, revised loading factors and calibration to the years 1984 and 1985.
Phased refinements provide a framework for continued improvement. The framework
allows response to specific concerns and issues regarding predicted NPS loadings, ensures
sensitivity to varied and changing land uses and management practices and permits
refinements to model representation of NPS processes. The initial calibration will be
completed in November 1989 with additional modification by August 1990.
Variable hydrologic impacts from land uses, the assessment of animal waste
contributions and snowmelt simulation are required improvements to the model to
adequately represent NPS processes. With refined NPS parameters and updated data files,
the Watershed Model will be calibrated for the 1984-1985 period to closely match observed
data The enhanced model will also be applied to the 1974-78 period to test its
representation of these earlier periods.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the Modeling Process
Basin Land
Use Data
Point Source
Loads
NPS Land Use
Load Factors
'Future Alternative^
Management
Practices
Watershed
Model i
Bay
Water
Quality
Figure 1. The flow diagram depicts the basic data needs of the Watershed Model and the
process leading to simulation of Bay water quality. Managers will use this linkage of the
models to evaluate various management alternatives for the 1991 revaluation.
-------
Nutrients associated with sediments are a significant means of nutrient input to the Bay.
By August 1990, the model will partition the total nutrient load into sorbed (nutrients
bound to soil particles) and dissolved components. This partitioning will be used in the
stream simulation to evaluate the impact of settling and other attenuation processes on
predicted fall line loadings.
Successful completion and operation of the revised Watershed Model and the 3-D model
are the key elements on which the 1991 reevaluation of the Nutrient Reduction strategy will
be based. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the modeling process.
Section 2
Consistent Methodologies for Load and Delivery Calculations
The Task Force coordinated the jurisdictions' NFS load documentation efforts with the
Watershed Model thereby assuring progress toward the development of consistent
methodologies and the realistic application of NFS information. This information is being
used in the Watershed Model which will generate consistent NFS loads for the basin.
The consistency and accuracy of the Watershed Model NFS loads is extremely
important to the Task Force, since these loads drive the 3-D model of the Chesapeake Bay.
The 3-D model, in turn, will simulate the outcome of nutrient reduction strategies/programs
in the estuary. NFS loading data generated by the watershed model will aid the
jurisdictions and CBLO in reporting annual NFS abatement progress. Both models are
recognized as valuable management tools.
The strategy originally defined a large portion of baseflow, all forest sources, air
deposition and cropland not needing treatment as uncontrollable sources. The Task Force
decided the controllable and uncontrollable categories of NFS should be revisited and
redefined if necessary. As a result of this effort, the Task Force has established consistent
baseline nutrient sources by redefining all NFS sources as the following categories:
cropland; cropland with manure/sludge; pasture; pasture with manure/sludge; animal
waste—barnyard/feedlot/loafing areas; forest; urban; on-site waste water treatment (septic
systems); and, estuarine shoreline erosion. The Task Force selected these categories to
reflect both quantitative nitrogen and phosphorus categories and sources manageable under
NFS programs. They include all land-based nutrient sources, regardless of the nutrient
species or pathways. The loads from these source categories include all solid, sediment-
associated and soluble forms of nitrogen and phosphorus found in surface and
groundwater, and are tentatively considered "controllable."
The definition of source categories may change pending further information on
groundwater flows, atmospheric loads, and nutrient management BMP impact on surface
and groundwaters. Recent data from the Toxic Release Inventory indicates that
atmospheric deposition may be a major uncontrolled source of nitrogen to the Bay. All of
these factors will be considered as we continue to refine the Watershed Model.
During Watershed Model calibration, the Task Force has worked closely with both the
watershed modeling contractor, Aqua Terra, and the Modeling Subcommittee to develop
annual load ranges within which the model should calibrate. Table 1 compiles many
sources of NFS data to obtain sediment and nutrient ranges for the land uses in the basin.
The load ranges assure that the model closely represents observations from a wide range of
field studies. In all cases, due to the nature of monitoring programs and studies, the NFS
loading data includes atmospheric deposition. The hydrodynamic portion of the Watershed
-------
Model will be ran for the calibration years as well as an average year rather than projecting
best case or worst case scenarios as the original model did.With completion of the Phase I
model calibration approaching, the Task Force will continue to assure the accuracy of data
for the model refinements. This process is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1990.
During this time the Task Force will work with the modelers and CBLO to obtain BMP
effectiveness data for the reduction of erosion and sediment discharges and changes in N
and P movement in both surface and groundwaters, assuring that the model will reflect
these changes in the scenario runs.
Table 1 Watershed Model Losading Factor Ranges by Land Uses
Land Use NH3-N NO3-N Total N PO4-P Total-P
BOD Sediment
Forest
Pasture
Urban
Cropland
High-Till
Cropland
Low-Till
Manure
Acres
0.13-
0.20
0.09-
0.62
0.53-
3.12
0.58-
?
—
50-
1500
0.45-
3.6
0.62-
1.25
0.20-
6.85
0.39-
9
17-
290 .
0.09-
11.6
1.34-
7.60
1.20-
24.03
0.60-
7.90
4.4-
36.2
80-
3000
0.01-
0.14
—
0.26-
1.51
0.24-
0.37
0.46-
?
22-
1100
0.01-
0.80
0.07-
4.1
0.23-
11.00
0.21-
0.37
0.07-
6.4
18-
720
6.1-
25.45
9.2-
48.06
4.0-
124.0
30-
2000
50-
1000
200-
2000
100-
2000
200-
2000
200-
2000
NA
* Table references located at end of report.
Section 3
Nutrient Sources
Nonpoint Sources
The Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy also charges the NPS Task Force to "survey
and locate to the extent possible all significant nutrient sources in the Bay basin." The
principle means of surveying NPS nutrient sources is through model simulation of NPS
loads from different land uses. The amount and location of each land type are critical
elements of both the Watershed Model and the control programs operating in all
jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction now has additional NPS water quality documentation
contained in a NPS Assessment Report in accordance with Section 319 of the 1987 Clean
Water Act.
-------
CBLO utilized several sources of county level land use information throughout the
basin. The Census Bureau supplied agricultural land use data and the U.S. Forest Service
provided state forestry surveys. The resulting preliminary 1978 land use data set was sent
to the state offices of the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for revision, verification
and confirmation of the data. The data set had four categories of land use on a county by
county basis: cropland, pasture, woodland/forest and urban.
The revised 1978 land use data set was updated to obtain a 1985 land use data set. State
offices of the SCS updated land use from the 1978 values to 1985 figures except in
Pennsylvania where the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation updated the data. In both
cases, the offices used the same four categories.
The Watershed Model requires further definition of the cropland data by dividing them
into low-till and hi-till categories. Figures were derived for the 1978 data using estimates
sent by the SCS to the No-till Farmer magazine. The model uses the following percentage
of conservation tillage in each state for 1978: Delaware 41%, Maryland 33%, New York
5%, Pennsylvania 17%, Virginia 28% and West Virginia 37%.
The Conservation Technology Information Center data provided the same information
for the 1985 land use on a county level. CBLO processed the data to eliminate any
duplication of acres due to double cropping and calculated the percent of cropland under
conservation tillage for each county.
During the Phase I recalibration of the Watershed Model, the necessity for water acres
accounting became evident. The USGS Land Use/Land Cover provided the information
for all areas except New York. The 1982 USDA/SCS National Resources Inventory (NRI)
supplied the New York water acres.
The original Watershed Model did not address the potential nutrient loads going into
streams or the Bay from animal waste. The addition of a manure acres category, which
were partitioned from the pasture acres, will allow the model to simulate animal
concentrations within a segment. As farmers install animal waste BMPs, these acres will
revert back to pasture acres for modeling purposes. This practice allows the model to
account for animal waste storage and runoff control practices and reveal changes.
The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office (CBLO) has compiled data for 1978 and 1985
(Table 2) to supply uniform land use data for the Watershed Model.
Table 2 Revised Land Use Totals for the Watershed Model
Year Cropland Cropland Pasture Forest Urban Water Manure
Low Till High Till
acres
1978 1,838,454 6,092,969 3,716,515 25,272,092 3,688,227 526,111 0
1985 3,988,502 4,248,889 3,739,158 24,457,144 4,160,082 526,115 14,473
-------
New source categories that will be included to refine NFS loading numbers are:
construction sites (under the urban category), on-site wastewater treatment concentrations,
zones of significant shoreline erosion. NFS loading values for these three categories are not
yet complete. As the Watershed Model produces loads, the results will be reported by
source of pollutant, including atmospheric deposition.
Unfortunately, no quantitative data has been found to adequately characterize basinwide
groundwater-delivered loads. Virginia will initiate a small study in the coming year to
collect some of these data. The work by USGS addresses some elements of this question
on the Delmarva peninsula. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Maryland Department of the Environment
and the USGS in Pennsylvania and Maryland have ongoing monitoring programs which
give insight into groundwater loads through base flow, tile drain and well monitoring. The
agencies must complete sampling, analyze the data and integrate surface nutrient data before
the results are clear. Groundwater loads, along with their location and associated land use,
will be intensively studied in the next year to further refine the groundwater component of
the model.
Point Sources
CBLO compiled point source nutrient loads from the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
Discharge Monitoring Report data for the Bay states to complete the loading data needs for
the Watershed Model. CBLO preferentially used PCS data for the monthly loadings in the
model and used state data whenever PCS was not available. Data extracted from the CBLO
Point Source Atlas provided information when no other data was available.
Section 4
Effectiveness of Biological Nutrient Removal throughout the Basin
Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR), which utilizes improved management of biological
processes in wastewater treatment technology, has indicated that nitrogen and phosphorus
control may be achieved at a lower cost than conventional nutrient removal technologies.
There are, however, a limited number of plants with sufficient operating history to elucidate
potential cost savings, treatment effectiveness and the reliability of BNR systems. To
address these concerns, EPA and the states of Maryland and Virginia conducted studies and
initiated BNR demonstration projects to assess the effectiveness and cost of BNR and other
technologies to control point source nutrient discharges.
An EPA report entitled "Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of Biological Dual
Nutrient Removal Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin" provides a basis
for estimating costs for retrofitting and operating existing municipal treatment plants in the
Bay drainage basin with BNR. This report evaluated the design, performance and costs of
three BNR processes (Bardenpho, A2O and UCT) assessing two levels of effluent
treatment; an effluent phosphorus concentration of 2.0 mg/1 and nitrogen concentration of
8.0 mg/1; and, an effluent phosphorus concentration of 0.5 mg/1 and nitrogen
concentrations of 3.0 mg/1.
The report concluded that all three processes are capable of meeting a phosphorus
concentration of 2.0 mg/1 and a nitrogen concentration of 8.0 mg/1 on a long-term basis.
Only Bardenpho, with continuous chemical dosing to precipitate phosphorus and effluent
filtration to remove fine solids (with associated phosphorus and nitrogen), is capable of
8
-------
meeting an effluent phosphorus concentration of 0.5 mg/1 and nitrogen concentration of 3.0
mg/I. All three processes consistently achieved the nitrogen effluent levels only during
warm weather months due to the difficulty of maintaining nitrification during colder
weather.
BNR demonstration projects in Maryland have provided important information about
treatment effectiveness during warm and cold weather and costs to retrofit and operate
plants with BNR. The projects have also provided information on BNR design to make
recommendations on the feasibility and applicability of different BNR processes.
The demonstration projects have achieved average total phosphorus effluent
concentrations ranging from < 0.7 to 1 mg/1 and average total nitrogen effluent
concentrations from 2.0 to 7 mg/1. At one location, the plant reduced nutrient and BODS
effluent concentrations without the usual increase in energy costs and even slightly reduced
these costs.
Research scientists are arranging seminars and workshops with the Maryland Center for
Environmental Training to inform engineers, regulatory personnel and STP staff of the
project results.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) produced the "Biological Nutrient
Removal Study" which provides Maryland with information on the capability and cost-
effectiveness of modifying 24 municipal STPs to remove phosphorus and nitrogen
biologically. In the study, MDE evaluated each plant to determine the best practical method
for adding BNR to the existing treatment process. Along with the methodology evaluation,
MDE also provided preliminary cost estimates for modifications.
Virginia has also conducted demonstrations at several locations. The State Water
Control Board hired a consultant to evaluate different levels of nutrient removal at 26
Virginia POTWs. The report, scheduled for completion in October 1989 will assist
municipal owners and state and federal agencies in assessing the cost of a point source
nutrient reduction program for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The report will appraise
BNR and other technologies.
The District of Columbia has undertaken a feasibility study of alternative nitrogen
removal systems at the Blue Plains STP. The study is examining the effectiveness of
various nitrogen removal systems including BNR and its resultant impact on Bay water
quality.
Section 5
Nutrient Reduction Progress, Point and Nonpoint Sources
NFS Reduction
The Chesapeake Bay NPS programs have traced agricultural NPS progress since 1985
under a BMP tracking requirement in the implementation grants. This process was refined
in the "Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs" report published in January 1988.
Using 1985 as the base year, the publication reported NPS progress for 1985 and 1986 by
tracking the installation of BMPs and the resultant reductions in erosion and stored animal
waste.
CBLO developed base year data using 1982 information from the USDA/SCS NRI to
calculate the amount of erosion from cropland needing treatment. These data were
-------
standardized to base year 1985 by removing the acres treated under the USD A programs
and state programs in 1983 and 1984. Using animal numbers from the Bureau of
Census/Agricultural Census, CBLO adjusted the data to obtain storable tons of manure.
These two sources were considered potential NPS loads and are reduced by each BMP
installed. There has been no attempt to numerically transport these potential loads from the
fields to the Bay, since the reductions for each BMP are at the field and can be subtracted
directly from the potential source.
For accounting purposes, the tracking system does not count a BMP until it is certified
as complete with the cost share paid and removes BMPs when the contract life has expired.
This practice ensures that the system counts only properly constructed and functioning
BMPs. At a minimum, the states supply the following information for each BMP: location
of the BMP by county and watershed; BMP type (either the SCS practice code or a state
practice code); acres benefitted (total land area protected by the BMP); tons removed (the
amount of soil that no longer erodes from the acres benefitted); tons of animal waste stored;
total cost of the BMP; cost share funds paid for the BMP; and, other cost share funds.
CBLO annually obtains and processes USDA Agricultural Conservation Program BMP
installation information to compile tracking information for the Bay portion of each state
and county. The office combines these data with the state Chesapeake Bay Program data
and use them to develop reduction percentages for stored animal waste and tons of erosion
reduced from highly credible cropland. Efforts are now underway to acquire additional data
showing reductions achieved for BMP installed without cost share assistance. The states
and SCS are setting up a system to transfer SCS progress reporting data to the states for
inclusion in the tracking system.
During development of the NPS portion of the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
each state used different methods to estimate load reductions. Each also used different
NPS land use categories, making it difficult to calculate NPS reductions without tracking
information for each land use. By using nutrient values for a ton each of soil and animal
waste, the values may be added and related to each state's agricultural source loads. Since
the calculated nutrients are those associated with the soil, the system is more efficient in
tracking phosphorus reduction. As the states implement more nutrient management plans,
the potential for reduction of soluble nutrients, such as nitrogen, will increase greatly.
Figure 2 and 3 show the nutrient reduction progress being made by the two agricultural
assitance programs within the basin. They also indicate the basinwide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy Phase I, II and in reduction goals for NPS through the year 2000.
Point Source Reduction
CBLO also tracks point sources throughout the basin; the results indicate that
projections made for the strategy are holding true for nitrogen and are decreasing at a
greater rate than expected for phosphorus. The Phase I nitrogen load increased as
predicted. Nitrogen increased because the only Phase I nitrogen control action scheduled
was its removal at Virginia's York and Maryland's Dorsey Run STPs. Maryland is
conducting nitrogen removal demonstration projects at Maryland City and Bowie STPs and
both states are conducting site-specific engineering studies to determine which municipal
treatment plants are best suited for nitrogen removal.
The Phase I phosphorus load decreased substantially more than projected due to
implementation of phosphorus bans in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Figures 4 and 5 show the current status for point sources. Average annual projected loads
10
-------
Figure 2
NPS PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION PROGRESS
- BAYWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY -
PHASE I —M<« PHASE II —»
Figure 3
Year
NPS NITROGEN REDUCTION PROGRESS
- BAYWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
100
>
Ul
m
oo
en
60-
50
Year
11
-------
Figure 4
POINT SOURCE PHOSPHORUS LOADS
IN BAYWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRAGTEGY
10
5
CCm
O-l
9-
8-
7-
=i 6-
5-
.PROJECTED
TARGET
1985 1988 1992 2000
< PHASE I *•}•< PHASE II >\< PHASE III
Year
Figure 5
90-
l
o
70-
HZ
52
-J 60-
50
40
POINT SOURCE NITROGEN LOADS
IN BAYWIDE NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
REPORTED
PROJECTED
TARGET
1985
1988
1992
2000
•PHASE I-
- PHASE II-
Year
PHASE III
12
-------
are compared to an estimated annual load based on data for one month (June 1988). This
month establishes a baseline that reflects all upgrades and credits their total load reduction
during Phase I.
Over the long-term, the tracking of nutrient reduction for both point and nonpoint
sources will remain an important activity. The states and the District have started tracking
systems for non-agricultural BMPs. Virginia is now tracking forestry operations, shoreline
erosion and changes in urban land in an eleven county pilot program. The District is
tracking urban BMPs while Maryland is developing reporting systems for urban, forestry
and shoreline erosion. As the modelers continue to modify the Watershed Model, the data
from all BMP installation and point source treatment plant changes will be entered into the
model and the output will reflect changes in water quality. The results will allow a
jurisdiction to evaluate it's reduction strategy on a real time basis, subject only to
implementation reporting time lags.
Section 6
New and Expanded NPS Monitoring Programs and Information from
Living Resources and Future Task Force Activities
The Task Force and CBLO staff confirmed die lack of NPS water quality monitoring
data the basin as they gathered data for the Watershed Model and to prepare this report.
They found current data in two general categories; first, data from short-term, storm event
monitoring of field-scale plot for single land used with and without BMPs, these studies
usually provided annual nutrient and sediment loads; the second category consisted of
stream or river stations with discrete time period data, with some storm flow values
interspersed throughout the data set. There were very few long-term water quality data sets
that contained both low flow and an adequate number of storm flow data points. Storm
flow data are necessary to fully describe the NPS loads that are being delivered from the
land.
Figures 6,7 and 8 show the surface water and NPS monitoring locations in each state.
Currently, each state has its own approach to the monitoring of nonpoint source pollution.
A common theme among all Section 319 NPS assessment reports has been the lack of
adequate storm-related water quality monitoring data. Most state NPS management plans
identified additional monitoring as critical to a better understanding of NPS problems and
solutions. The states under the Bay Program have already begun to address this issue.
Pennsylvania
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducts water quality monitoring
at 12 locations on the Susquehanna and its tributaries. This five-year sampling program
will conclude at the end of 1989. Data analysis is underway with a program report
expected by the end of 1990. The five years of data collection covered a wide range of
weather conditions, providing the opportunity to gather both base flow and storm samples.
Project outputs will include refined estimates of baseline loads, seasonal variability of
loads, base flow (groundwater) loads and a means to calibrate the Watershed Model for the
entire river basin and several intermediate locations. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) is discussing the scope of future monitoring with
SRBC. Pending the outcome of this project, short-term monitoring needs will likely be
met through the PADER water quality network. This network will detect general trends in
water quality. After several years of BMP implementation, a thorough monitoring program
will be re-established to evaluate the impact of the BMPs. In the interim, upon termination
13
-------
of funding by USDA, emphasis will be placed on continuing small watershed monitoring
in the Conestoga Watershed to obtain statistically reliable results.
The Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) and the U.S. Geological
Service (USGS) initiated a single station monitoring program on the Monocacy River in
1989. This program is similar to the SRBC program and the agencies will carry out
sampling for several years.
The USGS has been conducting field and small watershed monitoring under the Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) and the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). Variable factors,
such as weather and farm management practices, have caused difficulties in obtaining
consistent results and detecting significant load differences in pre-BMP and post-BMP
phases. This effort has been extended to facilitate the detection of nutrient load reductions
in the post-BMP phase. The Agricultural Research Service, USDA (ARS) and SRBC
outside the auspices of the CBP are evaluating additional field and small watershed
sampling programs for data value.
Maryland
Maryland's nonpoint source monitoring activities include several types of sites, ranging
from the state's largest rivers draining hundreds of square miles to small field sites draining
only a few acres. The longest running monitoring activity in the state is the Maryland
Department of the Environment's (MDE) CORE monitoring network, in operation since the
early 1970s. MDE collects monthly samples at 37 stream and river monitoring stations
located, throughout Maryland. Monitoring of these stations provides a characterization of
long-term water quality conditions in the state.
In 1984, with the passage of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay initiatives, MDE initiated the
Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program to document water quality conditions and
nutrient loadings from four major watersheds—the Susquehanna, Potomac, Patuxent and
Choptank. This monitoring program, unlike previous programs, is designed to emphasize
sampling during storms, when most of the river loads are delivered to the Bay.
In addition to these large-scale efforts, MDE is conducting intensive watershed studies
on the Patuxent and Monocay systems. These studies provide detailed monitoring data and
related information needed to analyze, understand and document water quality changes in
response to point and nonpoint source pollution controls in those watersheds. Water quality
monitoring of these watersheds includes river, stream and edge-of-field sampling.
Computer models under development of both watersheds will permit MDE to evaluate
quantitatively the relative benefits of proposed control alternatives. Maryland's watershed
models are closely coordinated with the large-scale Bay Watershed Model to ensure that the
models and results are compatible and complimentary.
A great deal of research on nonpoint source pollution is also funded by Maryland. The
Governor's Research Fund for Chesapeake Bay, established in 1985, has supported a
variety of work by the University of Maryland and others on a range of research problems,
including the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs, riparian buffer zones and other aspects of
nonpoint source pollution.
Recently, Maryland initiated a Watershed Targeting Project with the cooperative efforts
of the Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment, the Office of State
Planning and local governments. The project will focus state and other resources on four
watersheds in Maryland and track water quality improvements through monitoring of both
water quality and living resources. An important component of this project is a public
14
-------
education effort designed to increase public involvement and awareness of the importance
of controlling nonpoint source pollution control.
Virginia
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation/Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DSWC) sponsors two watershed studies to assess the effectiveness of
agricultural BMPs in the coastal plain and piedmont of Virginia. The studies concentrate on
animal waste and cropland practices for relatively small watersheds (2800 and 3600 acres).
Continuous stream flow monitoring, nutrient, biological and pesticide sampling as well as
groundwater monitoring will provide additional information for the region.
The DSWC has completed three years of monitoring pre-BMP conditions and prepared
a data report, although is is continuing data analysis of the pre-BMP phase to appraise
current water quality conditions. At the same time, the division is implementing several
computer models on the watersheds to assist in the projection of results.
The DSWC has also developed a large digital database called VirGIS (Virginia
Geographic Information System) which contains soil, land use, elevation, political
boundaries and other NFS information at a 1:24,000 scale for 0.25 and 2.47 acre cells.
This system currently covers over 10 million acres of Virginia bay drainage and is
expanding each year. The database, coupled with monitoring, will provide additional
detailed information for the CPB modeling and assessment work. The DSWC has also
devised a digital database for shoreline information which contains 3150 "advisories"
issued since 1980. The database includes bank height, UTM coordinates, annual erosion
rates, soil profiles and other data. Integration of this information with the results of the
shoreline bank nutrient study should provide the much-needed capability to project direct
nutrient and sediment loadings to the Bay.
EPA has approved Virginia's newly developed Section 319 plans. The plans provide a
coordinated NPS pollution control approach both statewide and within the Bay watershed.
Virginia DSWC and the state SCS have developed a new cooperative agreement to
devise a planning program for watersheds of 40,000 to 60,000 acres statewide. They are
delineating and digitizing these watersheds for resource conservation planning activities.
This planning effort will provide a new site-specific approach to NPS pollution prevention
for the Bay.
-------
criteria and critical life stages for the protected plants and animals is also necessary to
develop specific reduction strategies beyond the overall reduction requirements for the Bay.
Future Task Force Activities
The Task Force is continuing to work on the remaining 1989 issues, the issues required
for the 1990 annual report and the data needed to complete the recalibration of the
Watershed Model. The topics listed for the 1990 report are:
• Quantify and characterize non-agricultural (urban, forest and
shoreline erosion) nonpoint source loadings into the Bay basin;
• Develop consistent load reduction accounting methodologies for BMPs
(to include the effective "working life" of various BMPs);
• Complete development of the basinwide Watershed Model;
• Identify performance capability and refine cost information for
wastewater treatment processes such as BNR;
• Complete refinement of habitat requirements for living resources
that will be used with the 3-D model;
• Evaluate approaches that may be used for nitrogen reduction (e.g.,
available technology, regulatory actions and incentive programs);
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary programs for
implementation of BMPs; and,
• Implement new and expanded monitoring programs for point and nonpoint
sources pollutants.
-------
education effort designed to increase public involvement and awareness of the importance
of controlling nonpoint source pollution control.
Virginia
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation/Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DSWC) sponsors two watershed studies to assess the effectiveness of
agricultural BMPs in the coastal plain and piedmont of Virginia. The studies concentrate on
animal waste and cropland practices for relatively small watersheds (2800 and 3600 acres).
Continuous stream flow monitoring, nutrient, biological and pesticide sampling as well as
groundwater monitoring will provide additional information for the region.
The DSWC has completed three years of monitoring pre-BMP conditions and prepared
a data report, although is is continuing data analysis of the pre-BMP phase to appraise
current water quality conditions. At the same time, the division is implementing several
computer models on the watersheds to assist in the projection of results.
The DSWC has also developed a large digital database called VirGIS (Virginia
Geographic Information System) which contains soil, land use, elevation, political
boundaries and other NFS information at a 1:24,000 scale for 0.25 and 2.47 acre cells.
This system currently covers over 10 million acres of Virginia bay drainage and is
expanding each year. The database, coupled with monitoring, will provide additional
detailed information for the CPB modeling and assessment work. The DSWC has also
devised a digital database for shoreline information which contains 3150 "advisories"
issued since 1980. The database includes bank height, UTM coordinates, annual erosion
rates, soil profiles and other data. Integration of this information with the results of the
shoreline bank nutrient study should provide the much-needed capability to project direct
nutrient and sediment loadings to the Bay.
EPA has approved Virginia's newly developed Section 319 plans. The plans provide a
coordinated NPS pollution control approach both statewide and within the Bay watershed.
Virginia DSWC and the state SCS have developed a new cooperative agreement to
devise a planning program for watersheds of 40,000 to 60,000 acres statewide. They are
delineating and digitizing these watersheds for resource conservation planning activities.
This planning effort will provide a new site-specific approach to NPS pollution prevention
for the Bay.
Monitoring and Living Resources Recommendations
Results from the new and expanded NPS monitoring programs will enhance the
potential for upscaling existing physical process models (CREAMS, GLEAMS, etc.) and
downscaling the watershed (Monocacy and Patuxent) models. Additional NPS monitoring
will be required to calibrate management models to baseline conditions in watersheds where
data are lacking. Managers can also use the models to test scenarios before designing
future monitoring programs. To assure consistemt NPS monitoring results, a basinwide
NPS monitoring protocol is needed to serve as the minimum standard for all NPS
monitoring activities. It should be patterned after the protocol for the main bay monitoring
stations.
Critical living resource areas within the basin and the Bay need to be located, allowing
managers to formulate nutrient reduction strategies for specific areas. Establishing nutrient
15
-------
criteria and critical life stages for the protected plants and animals is also necessary to
develop specific reduction strategies beyond the overall reduction requirements for the Bay.
Future Task Force Activities
The Task Force is continuing to work on the remaining 1989 issues, the issues required
for the 1990 annual report and the data needed to complete the recalibration of the
Watershed Model. The topics listed for the 1990 report are:
• Quantify and characterize non-agricultural (urban, forest and
shoreline erosion) nonpoint source loadings into the Bay basin;
• Develop consistent load reduction accounting methodologies for BMPs
(to include the effective "working life" of various BMPs);
• Complete development of the basinwide Watershed Model;
• Identify performance capability and refine cost information for
wastewater treatment processes such as BNR;
• Complete refinement of habitat requirements for living resources
that will be used with the 3-D model;
• Evaluate approaches that may be used for nitrogen reduction (e.g.,
available technology, regulatory actions and incentive programs);
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary programs for
implementation of BMPs; and,
• Implement new and expanded monitoring programs for point and nonpoint
sources pollutants.
16
-------
Figure 6
PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STATIONS
West Branch
Susquchanna
SCALE LL951341
CONESTOGA HEADWATERS RCVrp
MONITORING STATIONS
17
-------
0>
pi
-------
-------
References for Table 1
Angle. SJ. 1984. Effect of Cropping Practices on Sediment and Nutrient Runoff Losses
From Tobacco, Tobacco Science, MD Agr. Exp. Stn., Dept of Agronomy, Univ. MD,
Scientific Article No. 7120.
Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An Examination of Land Use-Nutrien Export
Relationships. Water Res. Bui. Dec. Vol. 16, No 6. p 1013-1022.
Croft, R.J. 1989. Barnyard Runoff Control. Dairy Manure Management NRAES-31,
Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Syracuse New York, p 61-66.
Donigian, A.SJr. 1977. Nonpoint Source Pollution from Land Use Activities. Staff Paper
No 22. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Chicago Illinois.
Edwards, W.M., F.W. Chichester, and L.L. Harrold. 1971. Management of Barnlot
Runoff to Improve Downstream Water Quality. Livestock Waste Management and
Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, p 48-50.
Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, D.A. Norman, and R.K. White. 1980. A Settling Basin -
Grass Filter System for Managing Runoff From a Paved Beef Feedlot. Livestock
Waste: A Renewable Resource. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan, p 265-273.
Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, R.K. White, and N.R. Fausey. 1985. Effects of a Settling
Basin and Tiled Infiltration Bed on Runoff. Agricultural Waste Utilization and
Management. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago Illinois.
House, G.J., B.R. Stinner, D.A. Crossley Jr., E.P. Odum, and G.W. Langdale. 1984.
Nitrogen Cycling in Conventional and No Tillage Agroecosystems in the Southern
Piedmont. J. Soil and Water Cons. May-June, p 194-200.
Hubbard, R.K., A.G. Erickson, B.E. Ellis, and A.R. Wolcott. 1982. Movement of
Diffuse Source Pollutants in Small Agricultural Watersheds of the Great Lakes Basin.
J. of Environmental Quality 11. p 117-123.
Langdale, G.W., R.A. Leonard, and A.W. Thomas. 1985. Conservation Practice Effects
on Phosphorus Losses From Southern Piedmont Watersheds. J. Soil and Water Cons.
40 (1). p 157-161.
Loehr, R.C. 1974. Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point Sources. J.
Water Pollution Control Fed. 46 (8). p 1849-1870.
McDowell, L.L., and L.C. McGregor. 1980. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses in Runoff
from No-Till Soybeans. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. 23 (3). p 643-647.
Ott, A.N., C.S. Takita, R.E. Edwards, and S.W. Bollinger. 1988. Preliminary Analysis
of Nutrient Monitoring Data for the Susquehanna River and Selected Tributaries, Jan.
1,1985 - Dec. 31,1987. Pub 120 Susquehanna River Basin Comm.
20
-------
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and Nutrient
Losses from an Unimproved, All-Year Grazed Watershed. J, Environmental Quality.
18. p 232-238.
Staver, K.R., R. Brinsfield, W. Magette. 1988. Nitrogen Export from Atlantic Coastal
Plain Soils. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. AS AE
Paper No. 88-2040.
21
------- |