Local Nitrogen Goals Across Different Geographies

Transcription

1 Local Nitrogen Goals Across Different Geographies Lisa Schaefer Co-Chair of PA Phase III WIP Local Area Goals Workgroup County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania Matt Johnston University of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program Office All data provided in this presentation are draft for hypothetical purposes only, and are subject to change.

2 Review of Local Goals Process Step 1: Receive Statewide Bay Goal from Partnership Step 2: Convert Bay Goal to Local Streams Goal for State Step 3: Convert Statewide Local Streams Goal to Goals for Local Geographies 82 M Lbs N (Bay) 114 M Lbs N (Local Streams)

3 Decisions Requested At what geographic scale should local, numeric goals be provided to stakeholders? Will some geographies be asked to reduce more of their controllable nutrient and sediment loads than other geographies. If so, how much more LEVEL OF EFFORT will be required?

4 What is Controllable Load? The anthropogenic load from a geography that can theoretically be reduced. This load is equal to the difference between: A NO ACTION scenario which has no BMPs, and A E3 scenario, which defines the maximum limit of reductions possible. These scenarios are designed by states and other partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership for each sector (wastewater, stormwater, and agriculture).

5 Assumptions All geographies must reduce some portion of the controllable load. No geographies are required to reduce ALL of the controllable load. Goals presented in this presentation combine loads from ALL sectors, assuming sector-specific strategies will be developed by workgroups and stakeholders at a later date in order to achieve overall goals.

6 Steering Committee Requests Show methods for establishing local areas for the following geographies: Land-River Segment (LRSEG) River County Sub-Basin Demonstrate percent of controllable load that would have to be reduced by geographies if: (EQUAL EFFORT) All geographies were expected to reduce the same percent, or (20% DIFFERENCE) The highest contributing geography was expected to reduce 20% more than the lowest contributing geography. Present maps of results which distinguish areas of highest and lowest priority for restoration. Provide pros and cons for each geography and level of effort rule.

7 Geographic Scales Available Land-River Segments (LRSEG) Rivers Counties - 42 Sub-Basins - 6

8 Level of Effort Results by Geography Scenario Highest % Lowest % LRSEG 20 Percent Difference River 20 Percent Difference County 20 Percent Difference Sub-Basin 20 Percent Difference LRSEG Equal River Equal County Equal Sub-Basin Equal PERCENT DIFFERENCE PROS: Extra focus driven by this approach may help achieve some economies of implementation might be less fair but could increase costeffectiveness May help achieve acceptance by landowners CONS: Feels like a double whammy Perceived as real cost increase for certain areas over others Perception of telling one area they are bigger polluters than another Can approach percent of controllable loads at higher end approaching infeasibility

9 Level of Effort Results by Geography Scenario Highest % Lowest % LRSEG 20 Percent Difference River 20 Percent Difference County 20 Percent Difference Sub-Basin 20 Percent Difference LRSEG Equal River Equal County Equal Sub-Basin Equal EQUAL EFFORT PROS: Easier to communicate locally Still means bigger reductions in higher loading areas CONS: Perception of equity but reality is different Might not be ability in lower tiers to achieve that effort? From here forward, everything will be presented as if equal effort was chosen.

10 Geographic Scales Available Land-River Segments (LRSEG) Rivers Counties - 42 Sub-Basins - 6

11 What are Tiers? Tier 1 First 25% Tier 2 Second 25% Tier 3 Third 25% Tier 4 Final 25% Geographies are categorized into tiers using the color scheme on this slide. Tier 1 = The least number of geographies (e.g., counties) needed to achieve at least 25% of the state s reduction goal. Efforts are still needed in ALL locations to fully achieve state goal.

12 Land-River Segment Nitrogen Target Tiers Equal Percent Effort PROS: Helpful in focusing efforts within a larger area Feels more local/communities affiliate more with smaller segments At a larger scale, could be more finger pointing CONS: Not practical from a management standpoint Harder to designate someone who will be in charge/accountable for leading efforts to meet goal in that area

13 River Nitrogen Target Tiers Equal Percent Effort PROS: Shows valuable information regarding watersheds that could be used once local areas are established Appropriate size to focus efforts CONS: Labeling the rivers distorts the data Less pieces of the puzzle Harder to designate someone who will be in charge/accountable for meeting goal No recognizable boundaries

14 County Nitrogen Target Tiers Equal Percent Effort PROS: Something people can grasp and understand Manageable size, existing political boundary Agriculture data/statistics broken down at county level Implication of county responsibility to achieve the goal Begins discussion on resources how much and where? Easy to organize technical teams, provide fact sheets about loads Conservation district/local farm bureaus in each county Can see mix of priorities and need to collaborate across sectors Can use data to break down goals into more detailed targeted areas as needed CONS: Implication of county responsibility to achieve the goal Potential to lose opportunity for relevancy, cost-efficiency if we stop there

15 Sub-Basin Nitrogen Target Tiers Equal Percent Effort PROS: Highlights where efforts need to be focused could breakdown into more detailed targeted areas to focus on a smaller level CONS: So large that it is easy to point fingers No one to take charge/leadership No management structure

16 Breaking Counties Down to Smaller Areas for Stakeholders Equal Percent Effort Remaining Controllable Load

17 Breaking Counties and Sectors Down to Smaller Areas for Stakeholders Reductions Needed After 2013: 2.79 M Lbs Remaining Controllable Agricultural Load 3.45 M Lbs Remaining Controllable Developed Load 1.22 M Lbs Remaining Controllable WW Load 0.37 M Lbs Values could also be provided by LRSEG Additional SRBC, USGS and CBPO analyses could be provided at LRSEG and smaller scales.

18 Carbon Jefferson Mckean Wayne Wyoming Indiana Cameron Elk Somerset Potter Sullivan Blair Cambria Montour Berks Fulton Luzerne Chester Susquehanna Tioga Clearfield Union Bradford Juniata Schuylkill Clinton Columbia Mifflin Lycoming Adams Snyder Perry Northumberland Huntingdon Bedford Centre Lackawanna Dauphin Lebanon Cumberland Franklin York Lancaster Lbs of Nitrogen Delivered to Local Streams By County in Various Scenarios Assuming Equal Effort 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 LBS N/YR Loads Already Reduced as of Reduction Needed from Controllable Load that does NOT Need to be Reduced. Loads that are Uncontrollable Tier 4 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1

19 Tier 4 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1-34% Reductions Needed in Lbs of Nitrogen Delivered to Local Streams from 2013 Progress Assuming Equal Effort Green Bar = Total Lbs of Reduction Needed from White Percentages = % Reduction Needed from % -33% -29% -36% -30% 0% -25% -8% -18% -3% -23% -10% -13% -21% -13% -19% -8% -28% -28% -33% -27% -10% -34% -21% -20% -18% -29% -17% -29% -24% -25% -24% -33% -20% -24% -33% -29% -22% -28% -28% -24% -39% -9,000,000-8,000,000-7,000,000-6,000,000-5,000,000-4,000,000-3,000,000-2,000,000-1,000,000 0 LBS N/YR Carbon Jefferson Mckean Wayne Wyoming Indiana Cameron Elk Somerset Potter Sullivan Blair Cambria Montour Berks Fulton Luzerne Chester Susquehanna Tioga Clearfield Union Bradford Juniata Schuylkill Clinton Columbia Mifflin Lycoming Adams Snyder Perry Northumberland Huntingdon Bedford Centre Lackawanna Dauphin Lebanon Cumberland Franklin York Lancaster

20 Decisions Requested At what geographic scale should local, numeric goals be provided to stakeholders? LOCAL AREA WORKGROUP: County level goals appear to be the most logical geographic scale. Will some geographies be asked to reduce more of their controllable nutrient and sediment loads than other geographies. If so, how much more LEVEL OF EFFORT will be required? LOCAL AREA WORKGROUP: No conclusions reached, but pros and cons provided.