Chesapeake Bay Nitrogen Assessments

Similar documents
Dead-Zones and Coastal Eutrophication: Case- Study of Chesapeake Bay W. M. Kemp University of Maryland CES Horn Point Laboratory Cambridge, MD

Murky Waters. More Accountability Needed for Agricultural Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay

Eutrophication: Tracing Nutrient Pollution Back to Penns Creek

How Nutrient Trading Can Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

Riparian Buffers and Stream Restoration

Literature Review The Environmental Concerns of Arsenic Additives in Poultry Litter

Nutrient Management for Water Quality Protection : A Case Study of Delaware

How global warming and climate change may be accelerating losses of Chesapeake Bay seagrasses.

Jointly developed by C-AGG and Chesapeake Bay Foundation December 2015

Qian Zhang (UMCES / CBPO) Joel Blomquist (USGS / ITAT)

Coastal Ecosystems: Saving Chesapeake Bay. Note the highest pigment concentrations (red) in coastal regions, especially estuaries

Natural Resources & Environmental Stewardship

Unit 3: Ecology II Section 1: Environmental Systems and Nutrient Cycling

Pennsylvania s Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan

EUTROPHICATION. Student Lab Workbook

The Hypoxic Zone in the Gulf of Mexico

Mike Langland USGS PA Agricultural Advisory Board April 28, 2016

Integrating Water Quality and Natural Filters into Maryland s Marine Spatial Planning Efforts

Strategies for nitrate reduction: The Cedar River Case Study

Lag-Times in the Watershed and their Influence on Chesapeake Bay Restoration. STAC Workshop October 16-17, 2012 Annapolis, MD

Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting January 14, Bruce Michael Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Instructions to Regional Planners

Regional Watershed Planning. Calumet Summit 2010: A Call to Connect Calumet Conference Center April 27, 2010

TARGETING WATERSHEDS FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED. Technical Documentation October 4, 2002

Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs in the Implementation of the Bay TMDL

Nitrogen Cycling, Primary Production, and Water Quality in the New River Estuary. Defense Coastal/Estuarine Research Program (DCERP)

Climate Change, Marsh Erosion and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Functional Uplift Based Stream Assessment & Restoration Design

VIDEO: Riparian Forest Buffers: The Link Between Land & Water

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore MD

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES AND RESTORATION PLAN. Habitat GIT Meeting 9 May 2017

Water Resources on PEI: an overview and brief discussion of challenges

Cultural accelerated by anthropogenic activities

Water Quality Resilience and Policy in an Integrated Urban and Agricultural Water Basin

Chapter Seven: Factors Affecting the Impact of Nutrient Enrichment on the Lower Estuary

WATERSHED. Maitland Valley. Report Card 201

Wisconsin Wastewater Operators Association. Protecting Our Water Resources: The Future Bill Hafs - NEW Water 10/2014

North Dakota s Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Presented to the 2016 ND Water Quality Monitoring Conference March 4, 2016

ALMY POND TMDL MANAGEMENT PLAN

BMP Verification: What is it and How Will it Impact Pennsylvania?

Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District Six Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan

Chesapeake Bay. report card

Sustainable Fisheries GIT: Fish Habitat

Chesapeake Bay Report Card 2016

Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Benefits and Challenges of Using Multiple Models to Inform Management Decisions

Nitrogen Pollution: from the Sources to the Sea

SOIL P-INDEXES: MINIMIZING PHOSPHORUS LOSS. D. Beegle, J. Weld, P. Kleinman, A. Collick, T. Veith, Penn State & USDA-ARS

The Chesapeake Bay Blueprint:

Introduction (Welcome!)

Washington State Conference A Perspective on Water Quality Issues across Washington State Strategies and Implementation for Reducing

Ecosystem Services BUCK KLINE AND VIJAY A SATYAL

Nutrient Management Planning

James River Alternatives Analysis June 23, 2005

Master 5.1, Newspaper Articles. Special Edition December 14. Special Edition March 17

Ecosystems: Nutrient Cycles

Agriculture, Diet and the Environment. by David Tilman University of Minnesota, and University of California Santa Barbara

PA Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) TMDL Plan

The Role of Pollution Prevention in Reducing Nutrient Enrichment of Chesapeake Bay

RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS

Full Title of Priority: Enhanced Analysis and Explanation of Water-Quality Data for the TMDL Mid-Point Assessment

FieldDoc.org User Guide For 2017 NFWF Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund Applicants. Background 2. Step 1: Register for a FieldDoc account 3

Sam Cramer INTRODUCTION

Decision Rationale. Total Maximum Daily Load for Phosphorus for the Sassafras River, Cecil and Kent Counties, Maryland 4/1/2002

Sources of Nutrients in the Nation s Watersheds

Nutrient Retention in Restored Streams and Floodplains: A Review and Synthesis

STREAM AND BUFFER AREA PROTECTION/RESTORATION

Causes of Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

Strategies for Phosphorus Management on Cropland. Renee Hancock, NE NRCS State Water Quality Specialist

Hypoxia in the Gulf. Executive Summary

AP Environmental Science

Gas Guzzlers. Biological Pump

New Practices for Nutrient Reduction: STRIPs and Saturated Buffers. Matthew Helmers and Tom Isenhart Iowa State University

Streamlines V2, n2 (May 1997) A Newsletter for North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Administrators

of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico

The national-level nutrient loading estimation tool for Finland: Watershed Simulation and Forecasting System WSFS-Vemala

Land application of manure for water quality protection : A play in three acts

Maryland Nutrient Management Program

Hydrology and Water Quality. Water. Water 9/13/2016. Molecular Water a great solvent. Molecular Water

Improving Nutrient Management for Animal Production Systems. Dr. Tom Sims College of Agriculture & Natural Resources University of Delaware

Streaming to Cleaner Water

Climate Change and Chesapeake Bay Habitats

Virginia Forest Conservation. Forestry Work Group November 2013

Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor: Ecosystem Condition. Michael J. Kennish Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences Rutgers University

ANSWER KEY - Ecology Review Packet

A Presentation of the 2013 Drainage Research Forum. November 14, 2013 SDSU Extension Regional Center Sioux Falls, SD

Urban Stream Restoration Expert Panel March 4, 2013

Fish Habitat Outcome Management Strategy , v.1

Phosphorus Kyle Minks Land and Water Resources Scientist Land Conservation Division

MURPHY DRAIN CATCHMENT

Closing Pennsylvania s Pollution-Reduction Gap

THEME OVERVIEW: INNOVATING POLICY FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter 8: Aquatic Biodiversity

Understanding the Basics of Limnology

Design Features of Constructed Wetlands for Nonpoint Source Treatment. September 1995

A Summary of Efforts to Reduce Phosphorus in the Red Cedar River Basin

Restoration and Protection of the Water Resources of the Greenwood Lake Watershed in New Jersey

An Introduction to The Ecology of Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs. Developing a Management Plan

Transcription:

Chesapeake Bay Nitrogen Assessments May 20, 2010 Workshop on Nitrogen Assessment Science in the USA Thomas E. Jordan

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Area=167,000 km 2 Spans 6 states + DC 6 physiographic provinces 58% forest 22% agricultural 9% developed land

Susquehanna Chesapeake Bay Balt. Largest estuary in the US 322 km long X 48 km wide 11,601 km 2 Shallow (ave. depth 14m) Shorelines in MD and VA Many sub-estuaries DC

Nitrogen loads to Chesapeake Bay from the Susquehanna River doubled during the 1960s and 1970s (Hagy et al. 2004).

Increasing nitrogen loads contributed to eutrophication causing: Deep water hypoxic dead zone Shallow water hypoxia Demise of submerged aquatic vegetation Declines in oyster and blue crab fisheries?

N Red is dead. Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Data

Deep water hypoxia Forms below pychnocline More severe if more river flow Volume of hypoxic water increased from 1950 2001 (Hagy et al. 2004) 1950 (10 9 m 3 ) 2001 (10 9 m 3 ) Anoxic 0 3.6 Hypoxic (DO<2mg/L) 3.4 9.2

Dissolved Oxygen (g m -3 ) Diel Hypoxia in Shallow Water 20 18 Corsica River 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Day of Year 2005 Data from Maryland Department of Natural Resources Shallow Water Monitoring Program http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/eyesonthebay/index.cfm#map

Demise of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (Orth and Moore 1983, Moore et al. 2004) Greatest decline:1965-1975 SAV area: Before decline = 840 km 2 In 2004 = 360 km 2 Shading by phytoplankton, periphyton, and suspended sediment Waterfowl dependent on SAV decline Possible effects on blue crab habitat

Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Funded by EPA and states (esp. MD & VA) Started in 1983 Focus on effects of nutrient loading E.g., see: www.eyesonthebay.net

Anthropogenic Nitrogen Exchanges Via Agriculture Fertilizer N Fixation by Crops Via Atmosphere Nitrate Deposition Ammonia Volatilization And Deposition 8.9 7.1 7.3?? N Fluxes: kg ha -1 yr -1 (Castro et al. 2003) Chesapeake Watershed Via Trade 0.3 10.4 Food Feed 13.5 Riverine N Discharge

Annual Flow-Weighted Mean Nitrate Concentrations 18 (Jordan, Weller, and Correll, 1997a,b,c and unpublished data) 16 14 12 Conestoga R. Lancaster Co. PA 10 North of Balt. 8 6 4 Central PA 2 E. and W. Shores 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Cropland

N sources to Bay (Castro et al. 2003) Agriculture 51% Atmospheric Deposition 25% Sewage 15% Forest 7% Urban Non-Point Source 1%

Actions Clean Water Act 1972 Chesapeake Bay Agreements: 1983, 1987, 2000 $ 6 billion spent over 25 years (Washington Post, 5/12/10)

Management in the Estuary SAV restoration Bivalve (esp. oyster) restoration

Management: Developed Lands Sewage infrastructure Biological N removal for sewage or septic Storm water management Critical areas laws

Management: Agricultural Lands Riparian buffer and wetland restoration Conservation reserve lands Nutrient management plans Increase livestock N assimilation efficiency Manure management Cover crops Minimum tillage

Nitrate ( mol L -1 ) Flow-weighted annual mean nitrate concentration in the Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Based on data from USGS: http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/rimp/dataretrieval.html 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Obstacles to reducing N loads Population increase 12-17 million 1970-now Voluntary participation for agriculture Privacy of agriculture e.g. secret wetlands and censored chickens Economies of concentrating livestock Growing corn for ethanol biofuel Lag time for seeing mitigation effects Effects of management practices not known

Wetlands Restored in Agricultural Watersheds: Percentage of Inflowing N Removed Annually 100 100 (Jordan 2009) 80 60 40 80 60 40 20 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Wetland Area (% of watershed)

SERC Riparian Buffer Transect Studies Peterjohn & Correll. 1984. Ecology 65:1466-1475. Buffer removes most of the N load. Bohlke et al. 2007. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:664-680 Buffer removes little N.

Statistical models suggest that N removal by riparian buffers differs among physiographic provinces. Coastal Plain buffers on average remove most of the N received from uphill croplands. Piedmont buffers remove about one third of the N received from uphill croplands. Appalachian buffer N removal is not statistically significant. (Weller et al. in review Ecological Applications)

N knowledge gaps Denitrification at large spatial scales Gaseous ammonia transport Agricultural activities Effectiveness of N mitigation practices

Hope? Obama issues executive order for Bay cleanup (May 2009). EPA settles suit by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation by setting enforceable goals and pollution caps (May 2010). Pending legislation to give EPA authority to punish states for not complying.

References: Castro, M.S., C.T. Driscoll, T.E. Jordan, W.G. Reay, W.R. Boynton. 2003. Sources of nitrogen to estuaries in the United States. Estuaries 26:803-814. Hagy, J. D., W. R. Boynton, C. W. Keefe, and K. V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries 27:634-658. Jordan, T. E. 2009. Wetland restoration and wetland creation best management practices. Pages 599-611 in Developing best management practice definitions and effectiveness estimates for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program by T. Simpson and S. Weammert. Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, and D. E. Weller. 1997a. Relating nutrient discharges from watersheds to land use and stream flow variability. Water Resources Research 33:2579-2590. Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, and D. E. Weller. 1997b. Effects of agriculture on discharges of nutrients from Coastal Plain watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality 26:836-848. Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, and D. E. Weller. 1997c. Nonpoint source discharges of nutrients from Piedmont watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:631-645. Moore, K. A., D. J. Wilcox, and B Anderson. 2004. Historical analysis of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Potomac River and analysis of Bay-wide SAV data to establish a new acreage goal. Report prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CB983627-01). Orth, R. J. and K. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222:51-53.