Chesapeake Bays Problems Issues for the Chesapeake Bay - PDF document

Environmental Chesapeake Bay’s Problems Issues for the Chesapeake Bay • Congressional appropriation of $27 million for six year EPA study to determine the reasons for the decline of the Chesapeake Bay • Final report printed in 1982 found three major Russ Perkinson problems: • Nitrogen and phosphorus levels causing excess Virginia State Feed Association algae growth Conference February 16, 2011 • Sediment from ag and urban soil erosion • Toxic compounds (Ag pesticides not found to be a major problem) Nitrogen and Phosphorus Surface Water Concerns • Algae growth fertilized by nutrients • As algae die, decomposition process depletes dissolved oxygen needed by fish and other aquatic life • Extreme cases cause fish kills • Excessive phytoplankton (algae) growth in Chesapeake Bay cuts out light needed by bottom grasses (S.A.V.) Why Feed Decisions are important to water quality

Nutrients and Water Quality Nutrient Management Transport Sources Plan N P K A written document prepared by a Virginia Runoff certified nutrient management planner to Erosion manage the amount, placement, timing, and Leaching application method of manure, fertilizer, Tile flow Water Body biosolids, or other materials containing plant Subsurface flow nutrients in order to reduce nutrient loss to Hydrology the environment and to produce crops. P source is management (field)- Manure Phosphorus based • Soil P content Net Balances in Virginia • Fertilizer P – rate, method, timing • Manure P – rate, method, timing P transport is landscape-based • Runoff potential • Erosion potential • Leaching potential Source – MidAtlantic Water Quality Program • Distance to int. or per. stream & buffers Nutrient Management Relating Soil P to Runoff P Phosphorus Criteria 2 • No P applications regardless of method if Sandy loam soils are greater than 65% phosphorus Silt loam 1.5 Loam saturated Clay loam Dissolved P, Region Mehlich I P 1 ppm mg/L Eastern Shore and Lower Coastal >458 0.5 Plain Middle and Upper Coastal Plain >375 0 and Piedmont 0 200 400 600 Ridge and Valley >525 Mehlich-3 soil P, mg/kg

What to do? To diagnose a problem is elementary my dear To diagnose a problem is elementary my dear Sherlock Holmes Sherlock Holmes Watson.. Watson.. to resolve it is quite another matter ! to resolve it is quite another matter ! Environmental Feed Management Confined Animals Efforts in Virginia Approaches to feed management to reduce environmental impacts • 1998-99 Based on work by the late Dr. E. T. Kornegay, Virginia offers matching grants to poultry and swine integrators to install Phytase injection equipment • Swine • 1999 Grant provided to VT Dairy Science Department to research phosphorus management on pilot dairy farms • Poultry • 2006 grant to VT Dairy Science Department to implement an innovative pilot incentive program on 300 • Dairy dairy farms • 2007 MOAs signed between DCR and six poultry integrators to achieve a 30% P reduction in manures through feed management

Acres to Meet a P Based Dairy Poultry Litter Results to Date Nutrient Management Plan Poultry Litter Phosphorus Reductions: July 2009 - June 2010 Dietary Phosphorus % Spreadable Acres/Cow/yr 50.00 45.00 0.35 1.6 % Phosphorus Reduction 40.00 0.38 1.8 35.00 30.00 0.48 2.4 25.00 20.00 0.55 2.9 15.00 10.00 5.00 Source: Powell et. al., 2001 0.00 A B C D E F G H Integrator Dairy Feeding Considerations Background on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL • Nutrient management plan compliance • Cheap byproduct feeds • Herd size v. available manure application land

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Multi-state TMDL • EPA sets pollution diet to meet clean water standards • Caps on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for all 6 Bay watershed states and DC • States and EPA allocate loads to point and non-point sources so not to exceed TMDL cap [i.e., diet] • Must demonstrate “reasonable assurance” of actions • VA draft Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) sent to EPA on Sept 3, final on Nov 29 • EPA published final TMDL on December 29, 2010 Virginia WIP Allocations Nitrogen – [Million Pounds/Year] What the Bay TMDL Sector 2009 Progress WIP Means to Virginia Allocations Nov 29, 2010 21.6 15.4 Agriculture 6.8 6.1 Urban Stormwater 20.0 14.9 Wastewater 2.6 2.4 Onsite-septic 13.6 14.1 Forest 0.6 0.6 Non-Tidal Deposition 65.3 53.4 VA Totals Virginia WIP Allocations Example Major Sector Allocations Example Major Sector Allocations Phosphorus – [Million Pounds/Year] 2017 and 2025 2017 and 2025 Sector 2009 Progress WIP Allocations Nov 29, 2010 3.08 2.10 Agriculture 1.20 0.99 Urban Stormwater 1.74 1.14 Wastewater 0 0 Onsite-septic 1.09 1.07 Forest 0.06 0.06 Non-Tidal Deposition 7.17 5.36 VA Totals

Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Sector Requirements Sector Requirements Wastewater Wastewater • Significant dischargers will not exceed current allocations based on Water Quality Management Planning Reg and Chesapeake Bay Watershed general Permit Reg • Plus additional significant N & P reductions in the James and some P reduction in the York • Nonsignificant discharger loads based on 2005 Code of Va procedures • Combined sewer systems based on long-term control plan for bacteria Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Urban Stormwater Urban Stormwater Urban Stormwater Urban Stormwater • Revise VA Stormwater Management Regulations • Also install BMPs on existing developed lands to to prevent loads from increasing above loads generate reductions beyond urban nutrient allowed for previous land uses. management • Maximize implementation of urban nutrient – Impervious lands 9% N ↓ , 16% P ↓ management: – Pervious lands 6% N ↓ , 7% P ↓ – All municipal / county owned lands implement NMPs – Federal Urban Lands – Twice these reductions – Lawn service companies follow DCR criteria for fertilizer use and voluntary reporting Practice Description % Coverage Existing % Coverage Existing – NMPs on all golf courses Urban Impervious Land Pervious Urban Land – Sales restrictions or controls on do-it-yourself fertilizers Impervious Cover Reduction 7.5 % - – Prohibit use of nitrogen based deicers Filtration Practices 7.5 % 5 % – Require proper storage and disposal of non-ag Infiltration Practices 8.0 % 5 % fertilizers by retailers Total Area Treated 23 % 10 % Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Overview of WIP Agriculture Agriculture Onsite / Septic Onsite / Septic • Revisions to Code of VA will be considered to require for all • Implementation of Resource Management Plans new and replacement systems, the use of either: that may include: – Shallow-placed drainfields to reduce nitrogen loss, or – Nutrient management plans – Denitrification systems (sites where shallow-placed is not an option) – Soil conservation plans – Cover crops • Seek legislative requirement for 5 year septic pumpout – 35’ grass or forest buffers requirements – Livestock stream exclusion from perennial streams • Consider Code revision to encourage the use of community – Assessment of all BMPs in place to determine adequacy systems • 95% coverage needed of most of the above practices by 2025. • Seek legislation for tax credits or low interest loans to • Better accounting of voluntary and currently required practices. encourage upgrading existing septic systems to nitrogen • Plus other many practices that reduce nutrients and/or reducing systems sediment • Expanded nutrient credit exchange program to offset new • Contingencies if Ag milestones not met – request for systems legislation