Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
INTRODUCING THEINTRODUCING THECHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PROCESSCHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PROCESS
TO VIRGINIATO VIRGINIA
November 2009November 2009
Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
• Largest U.S. estuary• Six-state, 64,000 square mile watershed• 10,000 miles of shoreline (longer then
entire U.S. west coast)• Over 3,600 species of plants, fish and
other animals• Average depth: 21 feet• $750 million contribution annually to local
economies• Home to 17 million people (and counting)• 77,000 principally family farms• Declared “national treasure” by President
Obama
Source: www.chesapeakebay.net
Main Sources of Pollution• Agriculture – animal manure, commercial fertilizer• Urban/suburban runoff – a growing problem• Air pollution – tailpipes, power plants• Wastewater – sewage treatment plants
New Approach to RestorationPerformance and Accountability
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): Mandatory ‘pollution diet’
• Chesapeake Bay Executive Order: New era of federal leadership
• Two-Year Milestones: State/local commitments to action • Consequences: Federal monitoring; consequences for lagging
progress
Chesapeake Bay TMDL• EPA sets pollution diet
and oversees its achievement
• Restrictions on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
• Limits sufficient to meet states’ Bay clean water standards
Taking Responsibility for Load Reductions
Identify basinwide target loads
EPA, States, DC
Identify major basin by
jurisdiction target loads
EPA, States, DC
Identify tidal segment watershed, county and source
sector target loads
States, DC, local governments & local partners
Pollution Diet for Each Impaired Tidal Water Segment
• Clean Water Act requires a TMDL for each impaired waterbody
• MD, VA, DE, DC have listed most of the Bay’s 92 tidal water segments as impaired
• All 6 watershed states must be part of reaching the prescribed diet for each of these Bay tidal water segments
Watersheds Draining to Virginia’s 35 Tidal Bay Segments
Counties Overlaying the Watersheds Draining to Virginia’s 35 Tidal Bay Segments
Restoring Virginia’s Rivers/Bay
• Virginia is down-stream/down-tide of others– Must do its share of reductions, but can’t restore tidal rivers
and Bay water quality alone!
• James, York Rivers must also address local water quality problems– Tidal York River has oxygen and bay grasses problems– Tidal James River has algae and bay grasses problems
• Bringing Bay restoration to where local decisions are made that impact water quality– Counties, cities, towns, conservation districts
• Opportunity to build on VA Clean-up Plan– Factor in local TMDLs, local water quality needs
Mandatory Pollution Diet at Work
EPA Consequences
• Will be outlined in EPA letter this fall. May include:
– Assigning more stringent pollution reductions to point sources
– Objecting to state-issued NPDES permits
– Limiting or prohibiting new or expanded discharges of nutrients and sediment
– Withholding, conditioning or reallocating federal grant funds
Decision Made….
• PSC approved preliminary basinwide target load of 200 million pounds per year nitrogen and 15 million pounds per year phosphorus
These Basinwide Target Loads Will Change Due to…
Upgraded watershed model (Phase 5.2 to 5.3) Filter feeder inclusion in the WQ model SAV/clarity target load analysis Atmospheric deposition allocation and impact on
ocean load Trade-offs between N and P Loading reductions needed to meet local Bay
segments
Relative Effectiveness is a combination of Watershed Delivery and Estuarine Delivery
Low Delivery||\/
High Delivery Potm.DissolvedPotm.Dissolved James
Dissolved
Potomac EstuarineEffectiveness
James EstuarineEffectiveness
TN, p5.2, goal=200, WWTP = 4.5-8 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to
E3
All Other
WWTPReview of Target Load Method from April
Susq, M
DLow
ES
, DE
LowE
S, M
DW
sh, MD
UpE
S, M
DS
usq, PA
MidE
S, M
DU
pES
, DE
PxtB
, MD
PotB
, MD
PotA
, DC
PotB
, DC
EshV
A, V
AP
otB, V
AS
usq, NY
UpE
S, P
AR
apB, V
AM
idES
, DE
PotA
, MD
PxtA
, MD
PotA
, PA
YrkB
, VA
PotA
, VA
PotA
, WV
Wsh, P
AR
apA, V
AJm
sB, V
AY
rkA, V
AJm
sA, V
AJm
sA, W
V
Su
sq, MD
Low
ES
, MD
Low
ES
, DE
Up
ES
, MD
Su
sq, PA
Up
ES
, DE
MidE
S, M
DP
xtB, M
DP
otA
, DC
Up
ES
, PA
EshV
A, V
AW
sh, MD
Po
tB, M
DR
apB
, VA
Su
sq, NY
MidE
S, D
EP
otB
, VA
Po
tA, M
DP
otB
, DC
Po
tA, P
AY
rkB, V
AP
otA
, VA
Po
tA, W
VP
xtA, M
DW
sh, PA
Ra
pA, V
AJm
sB, V
AY
rkA, V
AJm
sA, V
AJm
sA, W
V
TP, p5.2, goal=15, WWTP = .22 - .54 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to E
3
All Other
WWTP
0.22 mg/l
0.53 mg/l
20 percent slopeOption B
StateTributary Strategy
Option A
Option B
DC 2.12 2.82 2.37
DE 6.43 5.12 5.25
MD 42.37 41.52 41.04
NY 8.68 10.54 10.54
PA 73.39 72.72 73.64
VA 56.75 60.38 59.22
WV 5.93 5.65 5.71
Total 195.67 198.77 197.76
State Total Target LoadsOPTION B SELECTED BY PSC
Nitrogen Phosphorus
All loads are in millions of pounds per year.
StateTributary Strategy
Option A
Option B
DC 0.10 0.18 0.13
DE 0.25 0.26 0.28
MD 2.54 3.03 3.04
NY 0.56 0.56 0.56
PA 3.09 3.17 3.16
VA 6.41 6.98 7.05
WV 0.43 0.60 0.62
Total 13.39 14.77 14.84
TN Scenario Loads as a percent of the Average of Option A and Option B
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Total
Per
cent
of
Ave
rage
d O
ptio
ns
2008
Tributary Strategy
Option A
Option B
TP Scenario Loads as a percent of the Average of Option A and Option B
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Total
Per
cent
of
Ave
rage
d O
ptio
ns
2008
Tributary Strategy
Option A
Option B
VA Basin Target Loads*
[Million Pounds/Year]
RIVER
BASIN
TRIBUTARY
STRATEGYTARGET
LOADS
2008
LOADS
TRIBUTARY
STRATEGYTARGET
LOADS
2008
LOADS
Shenandoah - Potomac
14.27 16.09 19.09 1.58 1.97 1.91
Rappahannock 6.13 6.49 8.21 0.69 0.82 0.85
York 6.22 6.53 8.20 0.58 0.61 0.66
James 28.61 28.49 33.23 3.45 3.50 3.62
E. Shore 1.52 1.61 2.73 0.11 0.15 0.16
TOTALS 56.75 59.22 71.46 6.41 7.05 7.21
--------Total Nitrogen-------- -----Total Phosphorus ---------
*These target loads are likely to change based on EPA’s new modeling; allocation loads for the basinsare expected to be set in spring of 2010; EPA’s current plan is to adopt Bay TMDL by 12/31/10.
Watershed Implementation Plan Expectations
• Identify reductions by river basin, tidal segment watershed, county, source sector
• Identify gaps and strategy for building local capacity
• Commit to develop 2-year milestones at the county scale
• Develop contingencies
Watershed Implementation PlansApproved along with TMDL
• States must develop Plans to demonstrate to EPA “reasonable assurance” that allocations assigned to each source sector will be met
• Allocations will need to be assigned to these source sectors within each basin:
WLAs LAsPoint Source: Wastewater
[Individual WLAs for Sigs]
Agriculture
Point Source: Wastewater
[Aggregated WLAs for Non-sigs]
Urban/Sub Runoff
Non-MS4s
Point Source: Wastewater
CSOs
Onsite
Point Source: CAFOs Forest
Point Source: Storm Water
Industrial
Point Source: Storm Water
MS4s
Point Source: Storm Water
Construction
EPA’s Response to Concerns with Short Timeframe to Develop Plans
• Defer some planning elements to a later date
• Phase I Plan: Target loads by source sector and segment drainage area to inform Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs– Preliminary: June 1, 2010– Draft: August 1, 2010– Final: November 1, 2010
• Phase II Plan: Include local area target loads and identify specific controls to be implemented by 2017– Draft: June 1, 2011– Final: No later than November 1, 2011
• 2-year Milestones: Near-term, specific commitments and actions– Iterative: 2012 – 2013; 2014 – 2015; etc.
• Phase III Plan: Update 2018 - 2025 implementation efforts– Final: No later than January 1, 2017
Staged Implementation
• Stage 1: Current Loads – Interim Target – 2011 – 2017
• Stage 2: Interim – Final Target – 2018 – no later than 2025
• Less details on Stage 2 if States and District commit to update Plans by 2017– Potential actions that will result in final target loads to provide
assurance that final TMDL will be achieved – Recognize 2018 – 2025 milestones may change
• Specific implementation efforts adapted and assessed through 2-year milestones
Interim Target Load
• States and District must have controls in place to meet interim target by 2017 – Demonstrates on track to meet final target load by 2025– EPA assesses if 2-year milestones on schedule to meet
interim and final target loads and imposes consequences as necessary
• 60% between 2008 loads and target loads – Basinwide: 233 mil lbs/yr N and 15.5 mil lbs/yr P– Represents ~18% decrease of N and ~5% decrease of P
compared to 2008 loads– Corresponds to modeled water quality improvements – With greater justification, EPA may accept interim target
of no less than 50% between current and target loads
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
De
liv
ere
d N
Lo
ad
s (
mil
lb
s/y
r)
Basinwide Interim Target Load
EPA Will Assess ifMilestoneReductions are on Schedule to Meet Target Loads
Assumes Upfront Program-Building and Future Reductions
Assumes Constant Reduction Over Time
Assumes Upfront Low-Hanging Fruit and More Difficult Future Reductions
< Interim Target
233
284
200
Example: Projected Nitrogen Delivery from Major Basin in Each Jurisdiction by Source Sector
Also divide jurisdiction load by 303(d) segment drainage area and, by November 2011, local area Attain jurisdiction-wide load reductions by the interim target, or justify why can still meet final target Jurisdiction would determine desired 2-year schedule to meet interim and final target loads EPA first evaluates milestones based on consistency with jurisdiction target load. EPA accepts shifts among
source sectors, basins, segment drainages, and local areas if jurisdiction target load is met and local and Bay water quality goals are achieved
35
27.5
20
20
15
10
54
66
5.57
1.520.50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Year
Nit
rog
en L
oad
s D
eliv
ered
to
Bay
TOTAL
Agriculture
Developed
Wastewater
Onsite
9.5
6.5
3.5
10.5
9
12
7.5
5.5
10
3
3.5
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Year
Nit
rog
en L
oad
s D
eliv
ered
to
Bay
Onsite
Wastewater
Developed
Agriculture
Propose increased budget
to legislature
Increased program budget
Increased controls
Propose new legislative authorities
RulemakingImplement regulatory controls
Examples of Some Planned
Controls
Load ReductionSchedule
InterimTargets
Final Targets
35
26
20
Stage 1 Implementation Stage 2 Implementation
Milestones for Assessing Progress
Schedule for InvolvementSchedule for InvolvementACTIONACTION SCHEDULESCHEDULE
Bay TMDL Webinar October 2, 2009
Assign State/Basin Allocations for Nutrients – by PSC
October 23, 2009
Participate in EPA Public Meetings Nov./Dec. 2009
Continue Process of Developing Allocations for Major Source
Sectors and Watershed Implementation Plans by Engaging
Stakeholders and Citizens
Winter 2009/Spring 2010
Public Meetings on
Draft TMDL and WIPs
Summer/Fall 2010
EPA Approves Bay TMDL and WIPs
December 31, 2010
VA Public Meeting Schedule
• December 14 – 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Fairfax County– Falls Church High School, Little Theater, 7521 Jaguar Trail, Fall Church,
• December 15 - 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm James City County – 2007 Legacy Hall 4301 New Town Avenue Williamsburg
• December 16 - 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Harrisonburg Area – Spotswood High School 368 Blazer Drive Penn Laird
• December 17 - 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Fredericksburg – Wingate Inn 20 Sandford Drive, Fredericksburg
Proposed Stakeholder Processin Virginia
*2-Pronged Approach**2-Pronged Approach*
1. Smaller “scoping group” produce a strawman of options – [for DCR source categories]
2. Larger, more active, Stakeholder Group involved throughout the process
Impacts on DEQ Programs
• DEQ will begin allocation process with allocations for wastewater plants identified in VA-WQMP reg
• EPA will approve allocations among source sectors based on reasonable assurance, so allocations in final TMDL are unknown
• Also, uncertain about expectations for CAFOs and Industrial Storm Water
Question & AnswerQuestion & Answer