Transcript Slide 1

Chesapeake Bay TMDL
May 13, 2009
2009 NPS/TMDL/WQM States Meeting
Martinsburg, West Virginia
Jennifer Sincock
U.S. EPA Region 3
Water Protection Division
Portrait of an Ecosystem
2
Where are the Bay WQ Impacts?
3
Pollutant Sources to the Bay
4
How are we doing?
Agriculture Nitrogen
50
Agriculture Phosphorus
49
Agriculture Sediment
48
Wastewater Nitrogen
67
Wastewater Phosphorus
91
Note: Some jurisdictions may be underreporting existing
stormwater management practices.
Urban/Suburban Nitrogen
-85
-74
Urban/Suburban Phosphorus
-61 Urban/Suburban Sediment
Air Nitrogen
9
5
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx
The science behind the TMDLs
Airshed
Model
Watershed
Model
Bay
Model
Criteria
Assessment
Procedures
100
90
CFD Curve
80
Percent of Time
Land Use
Change Model
70
Area of Criteria
Exceedence
60
50
Area of Allowable
Criteria
Exceedence
40
30
20
10
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
6
What’s the Scope of the Bay TMDL?
• TMDL will establish
loads for all Bay states
• Nutrients, sediments
• Oxygen, clarity/Bay
grasses, algae
• All impaired tidal water
segments
• All sources
– Point source control thru NPDES
– NPS implementation thru 319
funding
7
Not one bay TMDL
but
(as many as)
92 segment TMDLs
8
Impaired Segment TMDLs
• EPA Regulations require TMDLs for each
impaired Water Quality Limited Segment
TMDLSD = ∑ WLASD + ∑ LASD + MOS
TMDLSD
WLASD
LASD
MOS
= Segment Drainage TMDL
= WLA from Segment Drainage
= LA from Segment Drainage
= Margin of Safety (implicit)
9
Potomac
Tidal Fresh
(POTTF)
Segment
Drainages
for Impaired
Segment
TMDLs
Potomac
Oligohaline
(POTOH)
10
Wasteload Allocation
For Tidal Fresh Segments:
WLASD = ∑ individual WLAs (tidal state)
+ Gross WLA (nontidal state)
Other Segments:
WLASD = ∑ individual WLAs (tidal state)
• Determined by each state’s Implementation Plan
development process and could include:
POTW
MS4s
Others?
Industrial Stormwater
Non-significant permits
11
Load Allocation
For Tidal Fresh Segments:
LASD = Source Sector LAs (tidal state)
+ Gross LA (nontidal state)
Other Segments:
LASD = Source Sector LAs (tidal state)
• Source Sector LAs would be based on each state’s
Implementation Plan development process and could
include:
Agriculture
Other NPS
Atmospheric
Forest
Urban/Res/Road
Others?
12
Bay Cap
• The Bay Cap will be set for each pollutant (N, P,
and sediment) to meet water quality standards at
critical conditions (i.e. worst case scenarios) for
the entire Bay as well as localized impairments.
Bay Cap = ∑ Bay Impaired Segment TMDLs +
∑ Bay Unimpaired Segment Loads
• (i.e., The Bay Cap based on 2003 Allocations
would be 175 MPY for N and 12.8 MPY for P)
13
Basin-jurisdiction Caps
New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
West Virginia
Virginia
District of
Columbia
Delaware
14
Preliminary Draft Allocations
July/August 2009
Iterative
Draft Allocations
TMDL Allocations
December 2010
Building the Chesapeake Bay
Nutrient TMDLs
Determine
the Bay cap load
Establish
Allocate
the TMDL for each
impaired segment
the Bay cap load
to basin-jurisdictions
Determine
Sub-allocate
which source loads
go into each
impaired segment
the basin-jurisdiction
loads to sources in state
implementation plans
18
A TMDL is not enough!
Employ
Consequences
by EPA if appropriate
progress is not being made
Monitor
Effectiveness
to assess
implementation actions
Set Biennial
Milestones
for closing
identified
program gaps
Contingencies
by States if milestones fall
short
Establish
Chesapeake
Bay TMDL:
•Set total nutrient and
sediment caps
•Wasteload and load allocations
Identify Program
Gaps
between needed
controls and existing program
capacity
Revise
Implementation
plans
Identifying the
nutrient and
sediment controls needed to
meet the Basin caps
Evaluate
Program
capacity
(programmatic, funding,
technical) to fully implement
tributary strategies
Consequences/
Contingencies
20
How does it all fit?
System/Process
Question
Accounting
What loads to
achieve?
Planning
Implementation
Document
Bay Cap load,
J-B cap loads,
segment TMDLs
What controls
State
are needed (e.g. Implementation
BMP’s)
Plans
What is the
2 year
program delivery commitments
system?
21
Bay Cap Load
Susquehanna
Patuxent
West Shore
Ches.
WV
Rappahannock
MD
MD-DE
Eastern Shore
York
Potomac
VA
James
DC
VA Eastern
Shore
PA
2009-2011 2009-2011
2009-2011
2009-2011 2009-2011
2011-2013 2011-2013
2011-2013
2011-2013 2011-2013
2013-2015 2013-2015
2013-2015
2013-2015 2013-2015
2015-2017 2015-2017
2015-2017
2015-2017 2015-2017
2019-2011 2019-2011
2019-2011
2019-2011 2019-2011
Basin-jurisdiction allocations/
State Implementation Plans
2 year commitments
What we know?
• We need a bigger, better toolbox to reduce
nutrients and sediments
• The tributary strategies level of effort is not
enough to restore the bay
• The existing tributary
strategies result in higher
loadings than previously
thought.
-new hydrology
-new BMP efficiencies
23
What we need to know…
but don’t know yet
• Sediment allocation
process
• How much will it cost?
• What are the best
enhancements to the
existing nutrient and
sediment control
toolbox?
• Who pays?
24
Building a bigger toolbox
Sources:
Tools:
• Agriculture
• Air
• Developed and
developing lands
• Wastewater
• Public funding
• Cap and trade
• Tax incentives
• Marketing program
• Corporate Stewardship
• Regulation
• Other?
25
Upcoming Deliverables from EPA
• Reasonable Assurance and
Implementation Guidance
– Staged Implementation
• Consequences if Milestones
are not met
• Bay TMDL 101 public
meetings
• Preliminary Draft Bay Cap
and Basin-Jurisdiction
Allocations
26
Bay TMDL Outreach
• Bay TMDL 101 public meetings (Summer
2009)
• Meetings with Stakeholders and Local
Governments (ongoing)
• “A River Runs To It” (Summer 2009)
– Visits throughout watershed to highlight best
practices and present funds for projects
• EPA Bay TMDL Website (coming soon)
27
What’s on the road ahead?
• State Implementation Plan Development
(May 2009 – May 2010)
• TMDL 101 public meetings (June – Sept.
2009)
• Preliminary Draft Bay Cap & BasinJurisdiction Allocations (July/Aug. 2009)
• Draft TMDL Public Notice/Public Meetings
(June – Sept. 2010)
• Final TMDL Established (December 2010)
• Consent Decree deadline (May 1, 2011)
28
Coming Attractions
• Preliminary Draft Chesapeake Bay Cap
• Preliminary Draft Basin-Jurisdiction
Allocations
• Two-year Milestones
• Commitment Challenge Dates
• Independent Evaluate
• Public Messages
• Communication Challenges
29
Executive Council Meeting
May 12, 2009
• Announce 2-year milestones
• Set Restoration End Date
• Executive Order
30
Milestones Guidelines
• Will focus strictly on Bay water quality restoration
goal
• Jurisdiction-specific milestone outcomes can be
rolled up into a single, basin-wide summary
• Milestone outcomes include: pounds reduced, acres
implemented, adoption of new regulations,
legislation, policies
• Account for implementation actions of all partners
31
Milestone Attributes
• First 2-year milestones will be from mid-2009 through end of 2011
• Confirming we intend to develop milestones which are ‘stretch goals
but still attainable’
• Accelerates past rates of implementation
• Milestones could include commitments to seek new regulations,
enactment of new legislation/policies
• Translate or relate actions and resources to Bay water quality
endpoints
• Measurable, trackable, reportable and related to the end goal (cap
load allocations)
• Consistency across the 7 jurisdictions
32
33
34
Watershed-wide 2011 Milestones
• Nitrogen
– Additional 6.9 million pounds nitrogen
reduced
– 77% increase over previous rate of reduction
• Phosphorus
– Additional 463,948 pounds phosphorus
reduced
– 79% increase over previous rate of reduction
35
A New Restoration End Date
“The date by which all the actions
required to achieve the jurisdictionspecific and basinwide cap load
allocations have been fully
implemented on the ground”
“No Later Than” 2025
36
Executive Order
Signed May 12, 2009
• Chesapeake Bay declared a national treasure
• Directed Federal Agencies to make restoration a
greater priority with the following key provisions:
– Establishing a Bay Federal Leadership Committee
– Directing EPA to use its CWA authorities to the maximum
extent possible
– Improving agricultural conservation practices and
focusing financial support
– Reducing water pollution from federal lands and facilities
– Developing an interagency Chesapeake Bay Climate
Change Strategy
– Expanding public access to the Bay via Fed. property
– Strengthening scientific support for decision-making
37
Funding
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
– Provides hundreds of millions of dollars for projects
that advance the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay
– Projects range from WWTP upgrades to green
infrastructure projects
• Farm Bill
– Additional $188 million over next four years for
agricultural conservation projects to reduce pollution
flowing into the Bay
– Support nutrient management, cover crops, crop
residue management, vegetative buffers, and other
agricultural conservation practices
38
Accountability
•
•
•
•
•
Two-year Milestones and Contingencies
Chesapeake TMDL and Consequences
Independent Evaluator
Bay Barometer
Adaptive Management
– Monitor progress and adjust course if
necessary
39
Further Information
• Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality
Steering Committee website
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_wqsc_info.as
px?menuitem=16618
• EPA Region 3 Contacts
– Water Protection Division
• Bob Koroncai ([email protected])
• Jennifer Sincock ([email protected])
– Chesapeake Bay Program
• Rich Batiuk ([email protected])
40
41
EPA’s Draft Bay TMDL Framework
• States’ existing Chesapeake Bay WQS should
not be relaxed based on feasibility
• Bay TMDLs must contain the LAs and WLAs
necessary to achieve the states’ existing
Chesapeake Bay WQS
• State Implementation Plans will be written to
achieve the loadings assigned in the Bay TMDLs
– Staged implementation is a possible option
• Wastewater discharge load requirements will
continue to be set at the discretion of states
• An affordability assessment will be completed
42