2014 Public Policy Forum: The Urban Ocean Harbouring Pollution Dr. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2014 Public Policy Forum:

The Urban Ocean

“Harbouring” Pollution

• Dr. Nancy Rabalais – Moderator – Louisiana Universities Marine

Consortium Holly Greening – Tampa Bay Estuary Program David Blazer – Maryland Port Administration, Harbor Development Team

• Dr. Troy Pierce – EPA, Gulf of Mexico Program

Pollution is not just hazardous chemicals--

Pollution -“the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, resulting in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities including fisheries, impairment of quality for use of seawater, and reduction of amenities.” (GESAMP, Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, a United Nations sponsored advisory group)

The list of pollutants grows, many are persistent, and they influence social and natural ecosystems, especially in populated, coastal urban areas.

• Organic loading, waste products
• Greenhouse gasses
• Pathogens
• Petroleum hydrocarbons
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
• Halogenated hydrocarbons
• Heavy metals
• Nutrients
• Radionuclides
• Endocrine disruptors
• Litter
• Light
• Noise

More stressors than I can count on my ten fingers--

Groundwater withdrawal Oil and Gas Development Oil Spills Eutrophication Hypoxia Harmful Algal Blooms Altered Nutrient Ratios Subsidence Watershed Landscape Changes Dredging Loss of Natural Processes Global Economy Climate Change Sea-Level Rise Habitat Changes Nutrient Over-enrichment International Trade Farm Bill Population Increase Marine transportation

Pollution intersects with dense coastal populations, productive natural ecosystems and great economic benefits.

Shore-adjacent counties, where the real concentration of U.S. economic activity occurs, had 108.3 million people, 48.6 million jobs, and contributed $5.7 trillion to the U.S.

• economy. With only 18% of U.S. land area, these counties

accounted for 36% of population and 42% of the national economic output in 2007. NOEP, 2012

A Recovering Urban Harbor: Tampa Bay, Florida

Holly Greening Tampa Bay Estuary Program March 2014

8

• Florida’s largest open-

water estuary

• Open water: 400 sq miles
• Watershed: 2,600 sq

miles

• Average water depth:

12 feet

• Watershed population:

2.3 million

• Port Tampa Bay in top 10

in U.S.

Fast Facts about Tampa Bay

9

Photo by JOR Johansson

Tampa Bay in the 1970s

“The Kitchen” (Hillsborough Bay near Gibsonton) Archie Creek

Troubled Waters

• Half of Tampa Bay

seagrasses lost by 1982

• Half of Tampa Bay’s

natural shoreline altered

• 40% of tidal marshes

destroyed

• Wading bird populations

plummeted by 70%

• Visibility reduced to 2

feet in Hillsborough Bay

• Fish kills common

10

11

A "poster child” for polluted waters

• “60 Minutes”

segment brought national attention

What caused the Bay’s decline?

12

• Poorly treated sewage
• Unrestricted dredging

and filling

• Untreated stormwater

runoff and industrial discharges Common pollutant: NITROGEN

Restoring Tampa Bay

• Citizen action
• Regulatory restrictions
• n wastewater

early 1980s

• State and local agencies

late 1980s

• Tampa Bay Estuary

Program 1990

14

One of 28 National Estuary Programs: Focus on partnerships

Difference between 1950 and 1990 seagrass cover

Tampa Bay Seagrass Restoration Goal

Seagrass Restoration Goal: Restore seagrass acreage to that

• bserved in ~1950.

TN Load Chlorophyll Light Attenuation Seagrass Growth & Reproduction Seagrass Light Requirement

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Strategy Paradigm

The beginning of Tampa Bay’s Collaborative Approach

• Public sector realized that nitrogen

management goals were unattainable without private sector help.

• Private sector invited to participate with

the public sector in the voluntary Nitrogen Management Consortium.

• Each partner contributed to nitrogen

management goal as they were able- no requirements or allocations

18

Formed in 1996 Partnership of:

• local governments,
• regulatory agency

participants,

• local phosphate companies,
• agricultural interests and
• electric utilities

Tampa Bay Public/Private Partnership Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium

45+ NMC participants responsible for meeting nitrogen load reduction goals

19

Many projects have improved the Bay

• 300+ projects implemented

between 1996-2013

• Decreased industrial

discharges

• Upgrades to sewage plants
• Improvements to air quality

at power plants

• Better handling of materials

(less spills) at ports

• Stormwater treatment
• Residential fertilizer

restrictions

Nitrogen loading has decreased

20

Per capita TN load reduced by 80%

21

Water quality has improved

Advanced wastewater treatment begins Stormwater regulations enacted

Data source: EPCHC Annual average chl-a concentration thresholds

TBEP

And seagrasses have responded

23

Data: SWFWMD

From Voluntary to Meeting Regulatory Requirements

1998- EPA Region 4 approves TN loads for 1992- 1994 as TMDL for nitrogen for Tampa Bay. 2008- EPA stated that allocations would be required to be incorporated into FDEP regulatory permits in 2010 FDEP allowed Consortium to collaboratively develop recommended allocations to all sources within the watershed.

Key Decision: Collaborative Management Strategy

Consortium participants willing to work together to develop voluntary allocations (caps) for nitrogen loads, for agencies’ consideration. Decided they wanted to ‘drive the bus’

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium

• 45+ public and private

partners throughout watershed- collaborative approach to meeting regulatory water quality goals (EPA TMDL)

• Consortium developed and

agreed to voluntary ‘caps’

• n nitrogen loads at 2003-

2007 levels for all sources. Caps now incorporated into permits.

Key Elements in Tampa Bay’s Management Strategy

• Target resources identified by both public and

science as “worthy” indicators

• Community willing to work together towards

common goals

• Science-based numeric goals and targets
• Multiple tools: Regulation; public/private

collaborative actions; citizen actions

• Long-term monitoring
• Recognized “honest broker” to track, facilitate,

assess progress

• Assessment and adjustment

Thank you!

Holly Greening, TBEP Director hgreening@tbep.org

Maryland Port Administration

Ocean Leadership Public Policy Forum March 12, 2014

Maryland Port Administration

Mission & Environmental Policy

“To stimulate the flow of waterborne commerce through the State of Maryland in a manner that provides economic benefit to the citizens of the State.” “To protect the environment by its commitment to

environmental compliance; continuous improvement

• f environmental performance; pollution prevention; and

effective interaction/outreach.”

The Port of Baltimore is a complex mix of Private and Public terminals….handling diverse bulk & general cargoes.

Baltimore

Coal & Iron Ore Salt & Fertilizers Sugar Autos Forest Products Containers Farming Mining Construction Forest Products

Lower Bay Channels Upper Bay Channels

Annual Dredging for the Port of Baltimore

C&D Canal

0.04 +/- Mcy

C&D Canal Approach

1.2 Mcy

MD Bay Channels

2.0 Mcy

Harbor Channels**

1.5 Mcy

VA Bay Channels 0.5 Mcy

Total 5.24 Mcy

Channels Volume

** Harbor volume includes state & private sector work. All other volumes are federal maintenance only.

Poplar Island Before Poplar Island After Masonville Cox Creek

Masonville Dredge Material Containment Facility 2010 National Environmental Excellence Award

(National Association of Environmental Professionals)

Environmental Initiatives

• Water Quality

– Stormwater Management – Chesapeake Bay TMDL

• Air Quality

– Diesel Emissions

• Energy Efficiency

Water Quality

• Stormwater BMPs

– Analyzed several BMPs for efficiency – Use most cost- effective and efficient – Investigate novel approaches

Imbrium Jellyfish Filter Algal Turf Scrubber Floating Wetland

Water Quality

• Water Quality Enhancements

– Trash Interceptors, Trash Cleanups – Stormwater drain cleanings – Integrating water quality projects into terminal improvements

Bioretention Structure Floating Wetland

Pre-Cleaning Post-Cleaning

Air Quality

• Port of Baltimore Clean Diesel Program

– Replaced or retrofitted Harbor Craft, Locomotives, Cargo Handling Equipment – Replaced 80 Dray Tucks with new, cleaner models

Emissions Reduction Dray Trucks (Tons/Yr)

HC: 1.6 CO: 10.9 NOx: 50.2 PM: 2.1

Energy Efficiency

• Installed Several Energy Saving

– Solar Panels at Cruise Terminal and South Locust Point Terminal – World Trade Center HVAC Upgrades, including Harbor Heat Sink and Chiller Replacement – Terminal Lighting Upgrades, with Occupancy Sensors

Future Challenges

• Maintaining a cost-effective, environmentally-sensitive,

and community-supported dredging program

• Big Ships need Deep Water and wider channels
• Future upland placement sites are limited and have

many obstacles

• Innovative Reuse Options
• Water Quality: Stormwater and Bay TMDL
• Air Quality
• Habitat creation and restoration
• Marine Spatial Planning

Dave Blazer Maryland Port Administration dblazer@marylandports.com

Ocean Leadership Public Policy Forum Troy Pierce

Implementation vs. Studies

 Program funding needs measurable improvements in

pollution levels in urban bays, estuaries and sounds

 RFP proposals are usually strong on the research study

side, though many struggle with providing measurable positive pollution decreases in urban settings

 How can we better combine studies along with

implementation projects into a single proposal that decreases urban ocean pollution?

Measurable Results Considerations

 How will project measurably improve urban ocean

pollution issues?

 # acres of treatment wetlands created  # water bodies no longer impaired  # decision makers who used data/tool  # of people who changed practices  decrease in Vibrio health cases  Decrease in Gulf hypoxic zone

Social Science and Urban Ocean Pollution

 What are the proven methods that change attitudes

and polluting practices at scale (e.g. active community water quality monitors)

 Connecting communities back to their urban ocean

and decision makers (Environmental Justice)

 Ease of access to make the right decision when

disposing of trash/recyclables (e.g. Trash Free Waters)

Urban Stormwater

 Rapid growth in many coastal cities  Moving target for future planning with climate change  Combined sewer overflows  Bathing beach impacts/tourism  Erosion  Flooding: contaminants into neighborhoods  Impervious surfaces  Aging infrastructure

Pathogen Pollution

 Bathing Beaches (e.g. high density urban beaches;

urban contaminated stormwater)

 Septic Tanks  Small package systems  POTW future planning

River Basin Nutrient Pollution

 Much ends up in urban bays, bayous and sounds  Sources upstream and local: agriculture, POTWs,

failing septic, urban landscape (pets/fertilizer)

 Some policy challenges (urban centers need food, fuel

diversity from rural landscapes; rural area runoff makes it to urban ocean)

NDSU

Partnership Hope

 Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

 Improve impaired water bodies  Proven Model of Success: monitor, source identification,

compliance assistance to source from partners (both regulatory and non-regulatory)

 Alabama Water Watch

 Certified community monitors  Use data to work with decision makers

Future Pollution Issues Today

 Pharmaceuticals  Metals  Aging infrastructure  Is it more efficient for downstream cities to help pay

for prevention of pollution from upstream rural/agriculture areas?

 Freshwater inflow vs. urban water needs: less dilution  Mississippi River wants to move: shifts in pollution  Sediment/erosion not always pollution (Louisiana

Marsh building)

2014 Public Policy Forum:

The Urban Ocean

“Harbouring” Pollution Questions?

• Dr. Nancy Rabalais – Moderator – nrabalais@lumcon.edu
• Holly Greening – hgreening@tbep.org
• David Blazer – dblazer@marylandports.com
• Dr. Troy Pierce – Pierce.Troy@epa.gov