2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
New York State’s Strategy to Address Nutrient and Sediment Problems in the
Chesapeake Bay
An Interim Plan based on the CBP Watershed Model, Version 4.3
Developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in partnership with the
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
2005
1
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
I.
2/6/16
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. It is about 200 miles long with
over 11,600 miles of shoreline in its many coves, wetlands and tidal tributaries. It provides
habitat to over 3,600 different species of plants and animals, and produces nearly 500 million
pounds of seafood per year. Much of the Bay is extremely shallow, less than 6 feet, which adds
to its productivity but also to its sensitivity to pollution. The entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed
covers 64,000 square miles, which includes more than 15 million people in portions of six states
(New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia and Delaware) along with
Washington D.C.
The Bay has become significantly degraded from excess sediment and nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) entering its waters. Excess nutrients cause blooms of algae, which block sunlight
needed by underwater bay grasses to grow. Algae also deplete oxygen as they die, robbing other
living resources of the oxygen they need to live. Sediment can smother bottom-dwelling plants
and animals, such as oysters and clams, prevent light from penetrating to the leaves and stems of
submerged aquatic vegetation and also carry excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, into Bay
waters, further compromising water quality.
The pollution in the Bay is from both point and non-point sources. Point sources include
wastewater treatment plants and septic systems.
Non-point source pollution includes the
nutrients from stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas (e.g., lawns, parking lots, roads,
tailpipe emissions) and runoff from farms (e.g., crop lands, pasture). Interestingly as more land
is developed, especially near the Bay the urban and suburban lands are becoming very significant
contributors.
In 1983, a voluntary government partnership, first championed by private citizens, was formed to
direct and manage a restoration effort of the Bay. This partnership, called the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP), includes Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Chesapeake
Bay Program serves as a model for dozens of other estuary cleanup efforts nationally, such as
Casco Bay, Long Island Sound, Tampa Bay, Monterey Bay, Puget Sound and others.
Although the program has made great efforts, continued water quality impairments within the
Bay led the EPA and the Bay states to the list over 90% of the Bay tidal waters as “impaired”
2
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
under the Federal Clean Water Act due to low dissolved oxygen levels and other problems
related to nutrient pollution. A federal court order requires the development of Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) if the Bay water quality impairment is not rectified by
2010. This spurred the CBP states to reach out to the “headwater” states of New York, West
Virginia and Delaware to also be involved.
Thus, in 2000, New York State Governor Pataki, through a Memorandum of Understanding,
joined executives from the other Chesapeake Bay Watershed states and the federal government
in agreeing to

“Work cooperatively to achieve the nutrient and sediment reduction targets that we agree
are necessary to achieve the goals of a clean Chesapeake Bay by 2010, thereby allowing
the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries to be removed from the list of impaired waters.

Provide for an inclusive, open and comprehensive public participation process.

Collaborate on the development and use of innovative measures such as effluent trading,
cooperative implementation mechanisms, and expanded interstate agreements to achieve
the necessary reductions.”
The agreement stimulated efforts in NY to develop, as are the other Bay states, a “Tributary
Strategy” that outlines how NY can help reduce nutrients and sediments delivered to the Bay.
The
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC),
http://www.dec.state.ny.us was given the lead role and it partnered with the Upper Susquehanna
Coalition (USC), http://www.u-s-c.org, to help provide local input and technical support. The
USC, established in 1992, is a network of county natural resource professionals who develop
strategies, partnerships, programs and projects to protect the headwaters of the Susquehanna
River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds. The USC includes representatives from 12 counties in
New York.
This Tributary Strategy will use a multi-faceted approach, taking into consideration
implementation activities that are regulated, incentive-based or voluntary.
We expect to gain
reductions through regulated activities such as the Stormwater Phase 2 regulations, CAFO farm
permits and existing individual and general SPDES permitted. These reduction activities tend to
be those in the point source arena. Other Tributary Strategy implementation activities will be
3
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
voluntary and incentive-based, especially those related to agricultural activities where several
funding programs are already in place to support such efforts. It is also clear that a commitment
to technical assistance, public education/outreach and a thorough regulatory oversight is
necessary to meet and sustain the Bay restoration goals.
Although the goal of all Bay states is to have tributary strategies developed and fully
implemented by 2010, it appears that due to the complexity of the issue, high costs of the
implementation needed, available funds to support such efforts and the sheer “gearing up”
needed to accomplish all tasks that the final timeline for success will reach at least well into the
next decade.
For this approach to be successful, considerable federal financial support from
outside NYS is needed, particularly in the agricultural sector. The following strategy describes a
realistic approach to meet New York’s nutrient and sediment load allocations.
The New York Landscape
The headwaters of the Susquehanna River are in New York. The Susquehanna River Basin is
the second largest east of the Mississippi, and the largest on the Atlantic seaboard. This 27,500
square mile watershed drains portions of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland before
emptying into the Chesapeake Bay, where it provides half of all of the Bay’s fresh water. The
river also empties into the head of the Bay thus maximizing the retention of nutrients and
sediments compared to any other drainage.
The Susquehanna River Watershed lies within the Appalachian Highlands, covering 6,265
square miles of south-central New York, or about 13 percent of the state. It includes the
Susquehanna River (4,521 square miles) and Chemung River (1,744 square miles) watersheds
(Maps 1 and 2). Major municipalities include Hornell, Corning, Horseheads, Elmira, Owego,
Binghamton, City of Cortland, Oneonta and Cooperstown. Portions of 19 NY counties are
included and about 775,000 people. The population trends have been decidedly downward; the
previously mentioned municipalities have each lost about 20% of their population between 1970
and 2000. The loss of jobs and population is also reflected in the rather high percent of the
population falling below the poverty line, about 22%.
The geology of the region is characterized by rocky glacial till, with a land cover composed of
71% forest and wetlands, 23% agriculture, 5% urban/suburban and 1% open water. The general
land use trends have been an increase in forest, a decrease in agriculture and the urban/suburban
4
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
remaining about the same. The Susquehanna Headwaters is one of the most flood-prone regions in
the nation. Its low rolling hills have narrow side valleys and steep gradient tributaries that feed the
main valleys resulting in flashy watersheds that can flood even after moderate rainfall events.
Water quality in the New York portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is generally good.
Only the Whitney Point Reservoir at the tail waters of the Otselic River drainage is on the 303(d)
list for impairments due to phosphorus levels. In general water quality and quantity problems are
closely linked with such issues as stream erosion, gravel deposition and flooding, which have
both local and regional significance. The resulting stream channelization, gravel removal and
road ditch repairs are basin-wide issues. Agriculture is also an important nutrient source. Within
the basin there are also localized issues concerning groundwater nitrification, septic system
runoff, gravel mining, rapid residential development and acid mine drainage waters. The basin’s
lakes, except for Otsego Lake, are generally shallow and eutrophic, with extensive weed
problems due to nutrient enrichment from septic systems, streambank erosion and agriculture.
Otsego Lake also has nutrient enrichment problems from septic and agriculture. The New York
State Watershed Restoration and Protection Action Strategy: Susquehanna and Chemung River
Basins provides an extensive review of water quality issues in each subwatershed.
II. Other New York Chesapeake Bay Watershed Plans
The New York State Watershed Restoration and Protection Action Strategy: Susquehanna and
Chemung River Basins (WRAPS)
This strategy was developed in 2000 and 2001 through a partnership among USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, NYS Department of Health, NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Upper Susquehanna Coalition, Southern Tier Regional
Planning and Development Board and Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The purpose of
developing the strategy was to bring together appropriate agencies and stakeholders to identify
important needs and to focus financial, technical and informational resources on addressing those
needs so that water and natural resources are restored, preserved and protected.
A series of meetings were conducted to develop recommendations and commitments in
watersheds that were considered a priority by either the NYS DEC or county members of the
5
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
USC. Each 11 HUA watershed was prioritized by both the NYS DEC and USC. The status of
the watershed was discussed, as were pollutants and their sources. A list of recommendations
and commitments were developed. Additional Basin-wide recommendations and commitments
were also developed to address the more ubiquitous problems. The watershed analyses were
updated in 2002 and it will be part of this Tributary Strategy to again update relevant sections
through 2005. The WRAPS was very important in accomplishing a comprehensive review of the
Watershed on a subwatershed basis.
Susquehanna Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (SCWCS)
President Bush signed the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2002, into law on November 5, 2001. This bill included $80 million for wildlife conservation
grants to States and to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
apportioning the funds to NY under the State Wildlife Grants portion of Public Law 107-63. To
establish eligibility for these funds the State must first submit a comprehensive wildlife
conservation plan by 1 October 2005.
New York’s approach is to develop plans based on major watersheds. The Susquehanna Plan is
being developed by NYS DEC with input form the USC and other interested organizations and
individuals. Its objective is to describe actions that will protect, support and enhance species of
special concern. To the extent possible we will attempt to integrate the goals of the SCWCS
with those of the Tributary Strategy. The draft plan can be viewed at http://www.dec.state.ny.us
/website/dfwmr/swg/susquehannatxt.pdf.
III. The Tributary Strategy Development Process
Three support groups were formed to help with the strategy development and to inform
stakeholders about this issue and challenge all involved to help. The workgroup members
include NYSDEC, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, NYS Soil and Water
Conservation Committee, USC, County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, New York Farm
Bureau, Center for Watershed Studies Binghamton University, The Water Resources Institute,
National Nitrogen Institute, Cornell, State University of New York Oneonta Biological Field
6
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
Station,
Alfred
University,
Cornell
2/6/16
Cooperative
Extension,
Broome
and
Chemung
Environmental Management Councils, Broome County Department of Health, Southern Tier
Central Regional Planning and Development Board, USGS, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission and private citizens.
The Outreach Support Group (OSG) is providing an accurate and consistent message that
informs watershed stakeholders of the goal of the tributary strategy, the roles of those involved
and the status of strategy development, and soliciting input and feedback, thereby encouraging
stakeholder participation and acceptance.
To accomplish these objectives the OSG developed a list of important stakeholder contacts, a set
of outreach materials and initiated various outreach efforts. The outreach materials, which
included a Fact Sheet, brochure and Power Point presentation can be found on u-s-c.org. The
stakeholders include the general public, local, state and federal legislators and agency staff,
County Water Quality Committees, boards of directors, Farm Bureau, Grange, economic
development agencies, academia, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, watershed
organizations and community organizations (Appendix A).
Outreach efforts were begun with USC county members meeting with various stakeholder
groups. Initial efforts included 130 separate presentations. A series of county meetings were
held in 2005 to provide an opportunity for feedback directly to NYSDEC on stakeholder
suggestions and to discuss somewhat in depth the need for point source reductions (Appendix
A). A series of meetings are envisioned for presenting this draft Strategy to the public. We
expect the OSG to continue to provide outreach support as the strategy is modified in the future.
The Scientific Support Group (SSG) was formed to provide sound scientific advice on
assessing needs and options for achieving nonpoint source load reductions, substantiating
management measures and evaluating the effectiveness and costs of the measures that may be
implemented to reduce nutrient and sediment loads. The SSG is composed of academic and
agency technical specialists. The SSG is currently developing proposals to address important
scientific questions. These topics are summarized in Appendix B “Strategic Planning Needs”.
More specifically the SSG will review the CBP watershed model to identify how it portrays
conditions in New York that affect the generation of nutrient and sediment loads, and
recommend how more accurate baseline information would alter the load estimates. It will also
7
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
review updates to the CBP watershed model and recommend refinements that would more
accurately reflect load generation and transport in New York. It will evaluate the management
practices recognized in the CBP watershed model and provide guidance on applicability to New
York conditions, and ancillary local benefits beyond nutrient and sediment reduction. It will
review previous and ongoing water quality monitoring, and advise on how monitoring should be
enhanced to better define sources of nutrients and sediments, to estimate loads and to provide a
sound ability to evaluate effects of management measures adopted through the tributary strategy.
It will recommend procedures for targeting where specific practices would be most cost-effective
given a suite of local site conditions and provide technical support to the NYSDEC in gaining
CBP acceptance for additional, innovative practices that are well suited to conditions in the
watershed.
The Strategy Development Advisory Group (SDAG) was formed to provide recommendations
to the NYSDEC on development of the New York tributary strategy and recommend how
NYSDEC and local partners can build upon the success of the Watershed Restoration and
Protection Action Strategy (WRAPS) for the Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins so that
the tributary strategy can be coordinated with and supported by efforts to address local water
quality concerns. As part of this Tributary Strategy effort the subwatershed problems and
commitments documented in the WRAPS will be updated and will be revisited concurrently with
each Tributary Strategy review.
The SDAG will assist the USC and NYSDEC in soliciting a broad range of representation and
focusing local input on issues that advances the strategy development while enhancing and
implementing the Watershed Restoration and Protection Action Strategy where appropriate. It
will provide input on locally acceptable load reduction alternatives from traditional nonpoint
sources, including specific conditions applicable to particular BMPs, for NYSDEC consideration
for inclusion in the tributary strategy. It will consider costs of BMPs and identify possible
funding from various levels of government and other public, as well as, private sources. And
lastly it will provide initial review of draft alternatives and suggest refinements.
8
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
IV.
2/6/16
Nutrient and Sediment Sources and the Cap Load Allocations
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed an extensive library of information on the sources
of nutrients and sediment. The interested reader should search the CBP site for more specifics at
(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/wqcriteriatech/tributary_tools.cfm).
The CBP Watershed
Model estimates loads at the “edge of stream” for a specific subwatershed and as well as the load
“delivered” to the Bay from that watershed. We will use “edge of stream” as this is an estimate
for New York’s load, while “delivered” takes into account denitrification and other processes
occurring in the river system that we cannot affect. We will discuss “delivered” load when
appropriate.
Watershed Delineations
Nutrient and sediments loads are estimated by the CBP on a subwatershed basis using their
Watershed Model (Map 1). In the Model’s Version 4.3 estimates for NY are based on two
watersheds: the Chemung Basin on the west and Susquehanna Basin on the east. The Version 5
model estimates use 72 smaller subwatersheds of which all or portions are in NY. These
watersheds generally represent drainages with at least 100 cubic feet per minute flow and each is
further broken down along county lines so there are 156 “watershed polygons” for NY. The
Watershed Model develops estimates based on these polygons because most information is
collected at the county level and then allocated to the corresponding watershed. The Watershed
Model Version 5 will not be available until early 2006, but it is important to understand the
differences in the models as we transition from the simpler Version 4.3 to the more detailed
Version 5. We will generally discuss our implementation needs for the entire NY Chesapeake
Bay Watershed as a whole. We will depict subwatershed data at times to help demonstrate
certain aspects of the Model.
9
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
Land Cover Classes used in the Watershed Model
Land cover classes and acreage estimates for Versions 4.3 and 5 are depicted below. Similar to
the watershed delineations the newer Version 5 has a much finer resolution. Nutrient and
sediment load estimates in this strategy have been developed using Version 4.3; these estimates
and load allocations may change in 2007 or 2008 when the Model Version 5 is implemented.
Each land use category, through a complex series of analyses, is given a unique sediment and
nutrient runoff load on a per acre basis. The model can adjust these numbers due to differences
in such variables as rainfall and practices installed to determine a final “edge of field load”. The
Model will help us to understand which combination of land uses and practices may provide the
most cost-effective opportunities to reduce nutrient and sediments. It is beyond the accuracy
limitations of the model, including Version 5, to give precise subwatershed estimates; for this
reason the strategy focuses reduction efforts at the entire watershed level.
There are 21 Land Use/Land Cover types in the Version 5 model versus 10 in Model 4.3. Below
we compare the two acreages. We will compare the Bay Model land use cover types of certain
headwater counties with digital information developed by the USC to determine how well the
Bay Model estimates compare with what we see on the ground. This information will be
included in a later version of this strategy to help recalibrate the estimates reflect numbers closer
to the real present conditions.
Map1. CBP watershed delineations
Version 5
Version 4.3
(Acres)
(Acres)
Year 2000
Year 2004
23,095
33,381
2. Construction - urban construction calculated as the average yearly change
1,008
Part of Urban
in
impervious -surface
from
1990
to 2000.
3. Extractive
includes
both
active
and abandoned mines
619
4. Low Intensity Urban - Pervious
93,338
Categories
New
(4-7)
Category
5. High Intensity Urban - Pervious
72,903
NY Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Version 5 Land Cover
(All definitions are per the Chesapeake Bay Program)
1.Open Water - All areas of open water (fresh water lakes, ponds, rivers,
streams, canals), generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil.
141,681
10
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
NY Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Version 5 Land Cover
Version 5
(All definitions are per the Chesapeake Bay Program)
6. Low Intensity Urban - Impervious
7,039
7. High Intensity Urban - Impervious
21,057
Version 4.3
68,314
8. Forest - Consist of deciduous, evergreen and mixed forests in which tree
species accounts for more than 30% of total vegetation cover. The forestland
use also includes wetlands.
9. Harvested Forest - Consists of 1% of the total adjusted forestland use to
2,809,028
2,477,406
28,374
account for disturbed and harvested forests.
10. Natural Grass - Areas with "natural" grass species accounting for more
New
than 70% of the vegetation cover
15,669
11. Mixed Open - includes everything not otherwise categorized
Spread
12. Pasture - The pasture category contains only the Pastureland [060073]
other
from the Agricultural Census. Pastures do not receive fertilizer but can have
categories
higher nutrient loading capacity than hays or idle land due to manure from
289,079
Category
into
527,233
grazing animals. The agricultural census does not report pastures used In
265,397
Phase 5 horse pastures are included in the natural grassland use category.
13. Disturbed Stream Corridor/Trampled ground – Consists of 0.5% of
the total pasture by land-river segment to account for non-fenced streams in
pasture and other animal trampled areas.
1,453
14. Alfalfa - This category contains only alfalfa hay. This is a dominant hay
crop in many areas of the watershed. It is separated out because it is a
nitrogen-fixing crop and receives different nutrient applications than other
112,812
hay crops.
15. Hay with Nutrients - This includes all tame and small grain hay but not
wild hay or alfalfa, which are included in other categories. These crops
receive fertilizer or manure and have a high degree of surface cover for most
218,851
234,142
of the year. Failed cropland is also included in this category since they also
receive fertilizer but are not harvested.
16. Hay without Nutrients - This category includes hay or other herbaceous
agricultural areas that do not receive fertilizer and are not harvested, such as
96,680
wild hay, idle, cropland, fallow land, and unharvested land in cover crops.
11
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
NY Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Version 5 Land Cover
2/6/16
Version 5
Version 4.3
15,606
18,436
166,228
243,249
9,861
Part of 17,18
(All definitions
areincluded
per the Chesapeake
Bay Program)
Orchards
are also
in this category.
Although orchards contain trees,
the trees are widely spaced and do not have the runoff characteristics as a
forest. The grassy areas between orchard trees are not fertilized or harvested
and respond to rainfall events similarly to wild hay or idle land.
17. Composite with Manure Conservation Tillage - corn, soybeans, small
grains, sorghum, dry edible beans
18. Composite with Manure Conventional Tillage - corn, soybeans, small
grains, sorghum, dry edible beans
19. Composite Crop without Manure - potatoes, vegetables, berries under
either conservation till or conventional till
20. Nursery - The nursery category includes all nursery crops grown in the
open including bedding and flowering plants, cut flowers and floral greens,
10,243
foliage plants, cut Christmas trees, sod, and mushrooms.
New
Category
21. Animal Feeding Lots (AFO) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Lots
(CAFO). Areas of high animal concentration with bare ground and high
966
966
Total Agriculture – numbers 12 through 20
936,102
745,933
Total Area
4,008,233
3,993,948
manure content
IV (C). An Overview of the Sources, Loads and Cap Load Allocations
After considerable analysis the CBP developed an estimated total yearly load for Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Sediment that it considered the maximum amount the Chesapeake Bay could
handle and still meet Federal Clean Water Standards. It distributed these loads to all of the states
using a specific set of protocols that can be reviewed at http://www.chesapeakebay.
net/tribtools.htm. The numbers that were developed are referred to by the CBP as the “Cap Load
Allocations”. The allocation for New York, an estimate of our loads for 1985, the first year of
analysis, and 2004, the last year available, and our estimate for potential reductions based on this
strategy, are depicted in the table below:
12
2005 Tributary Strategy-Background
2/6/16
Nutrient and Sediment estimates for NY based on Version 4.3 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Nitrogen
Estimate
Phosphorus Estimate
Sediment Estimate
(lbs/year)
(tons/year)
Sources
(lbs/year)
Year
1985
2004
Agriculture
23,677,492
Forest
1985
2004
1985
2004
14,101828
1,823,394
1,080,744
271,524
177,622
8,683,486
9,668,042
65,065
71,778
84,774
94,335
Open Water
423,927
416,096
18,908
18,908
0
0
Other open space
2,835,080
3,239,469
242,832
265,597
39,494
34,186
Point Source
4,427,522
4,250149
570,952
604,866
0
0
Septic Systems
1,228,575
1,216,760
0
0
0
0
Urban
2,454,734
2,106,274
171,326
125,190
19,929
20,711
Total NY Load
43,730,816
34,998,617
2,343,554
2,146,487
410,411
332,939
Goal
25,583,291
Strategy
1,337,858
Strategy
Strategy
322,524
13