Transcript Virginia Discussion on Phase II Watershed Implementation

Virginia Phase II Watershed
Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach
Northern Virginia Regional Commission
MS4 Meeting
March 17, 2011
Dividing up Virginia’s
Chesapeake Bay Loads
TMDL
 40 Segment sheds
 1275± TMDL Allocations
Local Targets
 96 Localities (Counties and Cities)
 216 Locality-Segments
 4890± Locality-Segment Source Targets
2
Dividing It Up?
Loudoun
Fairfax
Fauquier
PWC
Stafford
Virginia’s WIP II Process
Project Organization
Steering Committee
Stakeholder
Advisory Group
Project Manager
Inter-Agency
Project Team
Planning District
Commissions (16)
Soil and Water
Conservation
Districts (32)
4
Localities (96)
Non-Governmental
Organizations
Federal
Facilities/Lands
Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.)
 EPA Expectations: Phase II will reference and build upon
Phase I management strategies
 EPA Expectations: Develop “Local” Targets
 Initially as percent reduction from current loads
 Upon completion of model revisions, update targets
 Engage 96 Localities, 32 SWCDs and NGOs
 Explore the Use of the 16 Planning District Commissions to
facilitate local engagement
 Develop Community Conservation Profile (locality scale)
5
Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.)
 Community Conservation Profiles
 Integrates conservation strategies with appropriate local data;
 DCR convert appropriate components of the strategy to an
input deck to include in WIP II;
 Intended to provide context for local strategy that is more than
just an “input deck” including strategies for linking land and
water quality, for example:
 Comprehensive planning
 Outreach/education
 Local programs: PDR/TDR, buffer initiatives, green public
lands, LEED building initiatives, ect.
6
Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.)
 Profile could serve as tracking mechanism for two year
milestones.
 Proposed PDC Role:
 Manage local data set
 Developed by PDC with DCR Support
 Defined by Locality/PDC
 Land Use/Land cover/BMPs/Bleu-Green Infrastructure
 Work with localities to identify potential pollution reduction
strategy
 Employ local scenario tool
 Will require predictive element
 Question development & time frame
 Lack of relationship to Bay data
7
Schedule
 Schedule Remains unchanged as of now
 June 2011 Draft Phase II WIP to EPA;
 November 2011 Final Phase II WIP to EPA;
 Anticipating 3 month slip per CBF letter to EPA;
 Presently very limited flow of information out of
Richmond;
 Virginia Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources for
Chesapeake Bay to present to NVRC Commissioners
later next week.
How will the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
affect local government?
 Allocations set for local governments/watersheds/regions for




nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment;
Discretion as to whether the local level identified as
municipalities, watershed organization or PDC;
Require improvements draws attention to existing regulatory
efforts and for increased regulatory efforts; Additional regulatory
and administrative burdens on local governments;
All new pollutant loadings resulting from growth will need to be
offset;
Local discretion will exist for how to meet pollutant loads. But, if
there is not a local plan, then responsibility for meeting pollutant
loads will fall on DCR and ultimately EPA.
How is this different from the VA
Stormwater Regulations?
 VA Stormwater Regulations go into effect 280 days following
the finalization of Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan or
Dec 2012
 The stormwater controls are a very important part of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL process
 The Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is broader and will focus
on source sectors beyond stormwater
 The Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is attempting to reach
reduced pollutant levels by 2025 that will lead to restoration
of the Chesapeake Bay.
Impacts of Having Phase I MS4 WLAs
in TMDL
 MS4 permits must be consistent with WLAs
 Complicates permit negotiations
 Phase I localities must track progress toward and achieve
three separate sets of targets for nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment
 Reduces flexibility
 Increases risk of non-compliance
 Exposes Phase I localities in Virginia to third party
lawsuits for failure to achieve required reductions.
WIP II Development Issues
 Bay Model resolution & accuracy at the local scale;
 Uncertainty around delivery of approved 5.3.2 Model;
 Individual Waste Load Allocations for Virginia only MS4
Phase I Jurisdictions;
 Dealing with federal and state lands, accounting for and
accountability;
 Funding for WIP II planning process and implementation;
 Locality willingness to participate.
12
EPA Ideas for State Strategies to Help
Facilitate Local Implementation
1.
Document how targets could be built into existing or future local planning
documents:
 Examples could include comprehensive plans, conservation district contracts or
work plans, watershed association strategic plans
2.
State regulations with local-level requirements tied to TMDL and WIPs:
 Include numeric goals from WIP or TMDL, specific roles for local partners, or
creation/revision of local ordinances
 Evidence of technical assistance and/or compliance assurance to ensure activities
are carried through at the local level
3.
State permits with specific provisions tied to TMDL and WIPs
 Set numeric targets at the local level or require certain actions by local
governments
 Serve as leverage if jurisdictions do not meet sector nutrient and sediment
reduction targets. Leverage could include more stringent requirements to
protect water quality or expanding the universe of permittees
What advantage is there in working
together as a region in this process?
 Collective voice asking for resources for implementation
 Opportunities to work together to figure out the best
methods for reducing loads of pollutants across all sectors
 Potential for pollutant offsets with other regions or
watersheds, but also
 Opportunity to create regional or watershed‐based offset
program (appropriate scale for implementation)
Comments or Questions
Before we get to
Discussion!!
Input/Discussion
 What are your primary concerns with the CB
TMDL process and potential impacts
 What do you believe are the primary concerns of
local officials?
 How do you think the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will
impact you as a permitted discharger?
 What do you think your local government needs
from the state or federal government to help with
implementation of Chesapeake Bay TMDL
requirements?
Input/Discussion
 What strategies do you think the region should pursue in
the next 6 to 12 months related to the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL?
 Would a regional or watershed-specific plan help to
address any of these concerns?
 What problems or issues do you think we would face if
we attempted a regional or watershed based WIP?
 How much would guesstimate that it would cost to
produce a region wide approach?