Transcript Slide 1
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL AND VIRGINIA’S PHASE I WIP Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011 INTRODUCTION Purposes for Meeting: Provide Information on Chesapeake Bay TMDL process… Discuss how the ChesBay TMDL process could impact local governments… Discuss possibility of regional response to Chesapeake Bay TMDL including regional Watershed Implementation Plan… CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL Largest TMDL yet Caps on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for all 6 Bay watershed states and DC 35 Segments in Virginia States set load caps for point and non-point sources Includes Watershed Implementation Plans 2 Year Incremental Steps Goal: Acceptable water quality in the Bay by 2025 BAY WIDE POLLUTION SOURCES VIRGINIA POTOMAC RIVER SOURCES 2009 PROGRESS SCENARIO (V5.3) Delivered TN Sources Delivered TP Sources Non-Tidal Water Deposition 0% Non-Tidal Water Deposition 1% Forest 10% Forest 20% Septic 3% Agriculture 44% Point Sources 23% Point Sources 18% Urban runoff 14% Urban runoff 16% Agriculture 51% VIRGINIA’S PHASE I WIP Finalized 11/29/10 Assigned allocations by basin and sector EPA approved Virginia’s Phase I WIP with “enhanced oversight and contingencies” for urban stormwater EPA may shift a greater portion of Virginia’s urban stormwater load from the load allocation to the wasteload allocation EPA reserves authority to object to proposed stormwater regulations, MS4 permits, construction general permits, and industrial stormwater permits Included Individual Waste Load Allocations for 11 Virginia MS4 Phase I Jurisdictions VIRGINIA PHASE I WIP: REGULATED URBAN STORMWATER Revise Stormwater Management Regulations to prevent load increases from new development Require that redevelopment meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads from Stormwater Management Regulations Restrict application of non-ag fertilizers Require reporting from “for-hire” applicators Encourage all locality owned non-ag lands receiving nutrients to develop and implement nutrient management plans Implement additional BMPs on existing pervious and impervious lands through future permits and wider adoption of stormwater utility fees KEY PROVISIONS OF WIP FOR MS4 STORMWATER DISCHARGERS Requires “Level 2” retrofits of existing urban lands Achieve 100% of reductions over next 3 permit cycles Load reductions from impervious urban lands: 9% Nitrogen, 16% Phosphorus, 20% Sediment Load reductions from pervious urban lands: 6% Nitrogen, 7.25% Phosphorus, 8.75% Sediment 2011-2015: 5% of required reductions 2016-2020: 35% of required reductions 2021-2025: 60% of required reductions Allocations for newly developed land will be set at a level that results in no increase above allowable 2025 average nutrient loads per acre from previous land uses, unless offset Requirements in Stormwater Management Regulations that redevelopment meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads Proposes to expand Nutrient Trading for Stormwater Dischargers to enable both buying and selling for new and existing development REGULATED VS. TOTAL REDUCTIONS Load reductions from impervious urban lands: 9% Nitrogen, 16% Phosphorus, 20% Sediment Load reductions from pervious urban lands: 6% Nitrogen, 7.25% Phosphorus, 8.75% Sediment TMDL Reductions (%) Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment POTTF_Md 13 38 27 POTTF_DC 20 POTTF_VA 6 POTOH_VA 10 2 19 POTOH1_MD 12 5 15 4 KEY PROVISIONS OF WIP FOR INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER DISCHARGERS 877 industrial dischargers identified, specific provisions not developed, aggregate averages used: Phosphorus: Medium imperviousness: 1.2 lb/acre/year High imperviousness: 1.5 lb/acre/year Nitrogen Medium imperviousness: 9.9 lb/acre/year High imperviousness: 12.3 lb/acre/year Sediment Medium imperviousness: .16 tons/acre/year High imperviousness: .22 tons/acre/year KEY PROVISIONS OF WIP FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS Waste Load Allocations set at levels permitted under current Virginia regulations Seek legislative changes necessary to require offsets for nutrient loads of less than 1000gpd Seek legislative changes to establish requirement for offsetting loads for discharger that expand to less than 40,000gpd. WIP states that significant dischargers are currently using only 65% of design capacity WIP anticipates that excess capacity will be used for Nutrient Trading and/or to provide offset for future growth KEY PROVISIONS OF WIP FOR ONSITE/SEPTIC Require a minimum 50% reduction in delivered N for all new small alternative onsite systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed Implement proposed Dept of Health regulations for alternative systems State to consider revisions to require nitrogen reducing technologies State to consider revisions to encourage the use of community onsite systems Expand the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program to include on-site systems WILL THERE BE ANY ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT THAT WILL IMPACT LOCAL GOVERNMENT? EPA letter to states on December 29, 2009 EPA will take actions for state failure to: Submit WIPs consistent with EPA expectations Submit 2-year milestones consistent with EPA expectations Achieve 2-year milestone target loads FEDERAL ACTIONS COULD INCLUDE… Expand NPDES permit coverage to unregulated sources Require net improvement offsets Require additional reductions from point sources Increase federal enforcement Condition or redirect federal grants Promulgate local nutrient standards WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW? EPA Calibrating Model Version 5.3.2 Address Urban Land and Agric Nutrient Management Issues Adjust Allocations if necessary DCR and DEQ still holding internal discussions regarding nature, composition and formation of WIP II entities.