Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO and Frank Dukes, IEN UVA Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting...

Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO and Frank Dukes, IEN UVA

Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting

December 3, 2015

MOVING TOWARDS A RESTORED CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED

• TMDL: Set limits for sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to meet water quality standards.

• Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs): States/DC describe what amount, how, where, and when.

• 2-Year Milestones: States and DC, working with local partners, implement actions to reduce pollutant loads

• 60% by 2017, 100% of practices in place by 2025

• Consequences: State contingencies and/or EPA consequences if targets aren’t met.

Chesapeake Bay TMDL: What’s Different?

CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL BASED ON 7 WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

BAY TMDL = CLEAN LOCAL & BAY WATERS

EVERYONE HAS A ROLE TO PLAY

PHASE II & III WIPS: TAKING IT LOCAL

5

Phase II and Phase III WIPs are intended to ensure that local partners understand their role in helping to implement their state’s WIP strategy.

WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS

SIGNS OF RECOVERY CAN BE FOUND ACROSS THE WATERSHED

1. Review of progress towards meeting the 2017 60% interim target and 2025 Chesapeake Bay TMDL goal

2. Optimize implementation of Bay jurisdictions’ WIPs and ensure we’re on track for development of Phase III WIPs

3. Gather, review, and incorporate new data and science into the partnership’s decision support tools

WHAT IS THE MIDPOINT ASSESSMENT?

1. Continue implementation, tracking progress and reporting results, with stable tools through at least 2017

2. Enhance decision support and assessment tools to enable successful engagement of local partners

3. Incorporate new or refined BMPs and verification of practices into existing accountability tools and reporting protocols

4. Address emerging issues (e.g., climate change)

5. Prioritize midpoint assessment actions and use adaptive management to ensure goals are met

MIDPOINT ASSESSMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• In October 2012, the CBP partnership identified and approved specific priorities to address under the midpoint assessment, including Model refinements (e.g. Phase 6) for WIP implementation:

• New land use classifications

• Address emerging issues such as climate change, Conowingo, and James River chlorophyll-a

• Bring in analysis of monitoring trends to better represent progress to date

MIDPOINT ASSESSMENT PRIORITY-SETTING

Conowingo Dam: Factor in the additional nutrient and sediment loads given the Conowingo Dam/ Reservoir have reached dynamic equilibrium and are contributing to Bay water quality impacts

James River Chlorophyll-a Criteria Assessment: Determine appropriate criteria in order to protect designated uses in the tidal James River

Climate Change: Update the partnership’s decision support tools to reflect climate change considerations

Incorporate BMP expert panel and workgroup recommendations with a focus on adding innovative BMPs and updating current BMPs to enhance the evaluation of progress

STRATEGIC ISSUES OF THE MIDPOINT ASSESSMENT

HOW HAVE WE ENGAGED AND WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE

MIDPOINT ASSESSMENT?

New Land Use Classifications: Improve the resolution of land uses in the CBP partnership’s modeling tools

#1 Midpoint Assessment Priority

States and localities sharing and confirming data

Improved accuracy; supports implementation of restoration actions

Rolling review of land use data in 2016

Question 1. How would LGAC like to be involved in reviewing this land use data?

Question 2. What additional information may you need to conduct the review?


Monitoring Data: Focus on analyzing nutrient and sediment trends; assessing attainment of water quality standards; and factors affecting trends

Factors affecting water quality response to BMPs

Assists with targeting implementation

Use of monitoring data to assess progress under Bay TMDL

Question 1. What monitoring information and data would LGAC like to see over the 2016 time period?

Examples: Explanations of long term trends? What story does monitoring data tell us in specific geographic areas?


Phase 6 Modeling Tools: Enhance modeling tools to improve transparency, accuracy, and confidence

Incorporates new land use data and BMPs

Local area target development – enhancing local engagement

Beta version of Watershed Model releases December 2015, initiates a one-year partnership review period in 2016

Question 1. What specific information about the Phase 6 modeling tools is LGAC most interested in learning more about?

Question 2. How do you think local area targets could best be expressed?

Question 3. How can LGAC help raise awareness about these modeling tools that are intended to strengthen local participation?


Communications and Outreach: Develop a game plan for engaging local partners in WIP development and implementation

Look at local successes (e.g. LGAC’s “Our Waters, Our Towns” publication)

Messaging needs to resonate with local communities – no one-size fits all approach

Question1. How can we build in early local government engagement during Phase III WIP development?

Question 2. What messaging would resonate with your communities?

Question 3. How do you want information about the midpoint assessment communicated to you?


1. Stakeholder Assessment

a. Key focus area is lessons learned from Phase I and II WIPs and improvements to be made in Phase III

b. Targeting interviews with CBP stakeholder groups and local implementers

c. Timeline for key deliverables:

• Interviews complete – June 2015

• Draft stakeholder assessment due for partnership review – September 2015

• Final stakeholder assessment complete – December 2015

2. Draft Phase III WIPs due to EPA – June 2018

3. Final Phase III WIPs due to EPA – December 2018

PHASE III WIPS: A GREATER LOCAL FOCUS

Prepared by Frank Dukes, Ph.D. Institute for Environmental Negotiation University of Virginia

Chesapeake Bay Stakeholder Assessment Process

What we want to understand

• What aspects of the Phase I and II WIP process facilitated implementation?

• What topics does the Phase III WIP process need to address more directly ?

• How Phase III WIPs and the oversight of implementation could better engage local partners and accelerate the implementation of pollution reduction practices?

• Other topics as appropriate and/or as suggested by stakeholders.

Target diverse stakeholders

• Secured recommendations from Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Goal Implementation Team for stakeholders to contact.

• During conversations with stakeholders, asked each of them who else would be helpful to listen to.

Stakeholder Conversations

• April 30 - Sep 24: Spoke to 121 stakeholders, 46 more than initially proposed.

• All states and D.C, EPA and other federal agencies

• Local governments• Agriculture,

wastewater, stormwater sectors

• NGOs

Draft Assessment

• Sept. 25: Prepared a draft Stakeholder Assessment summarizing the issues that were discussed and the range of input and opinions presented.

• Provided stakeholders the opportunity to review and confirm that the draft assessment has accurately captured their views.

• Presented findings to WQGIT, Principals Committee, Management Committee, LGAC

STAKEHOLDER BREAKDOWN

• Contacted 204 stakeholders throughout watershed

• Spoke to 121 individuals• District of Columbia: 8

• Delaware: 10

• Maryland: 13

• New York: 3

• Pennsylvania: 32

• Virginia: 27

• West Virginia: 8

• EPA: 19

• Additional federal landowners: 2

PREPARED BY FRANK DUKES, PH.D. INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NEGOTIATION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA


STAKEHOLDER BREAKDOWN (CONTINUED)

• Agriculture: 9

• Stormwater: 6 (undercounted)

• Wastewater: 15 (undercounted)

• State government: 28 + 8 D.C.

• Local government: 19 + 8 D.C.

• NGO: 11


THREE STORIES• Story One

• Implementing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and meeting applicable water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal rivers is our highest priority

• Story Two

• The Bay TMDL is one priority among many, largely because of regulatory or institutional mandates

• Story Three

• The Bay TMDL is an unfair burden that impinges on other priorities


WHAT HAS BEEN VALUABLE

• Early outreach and continued communication

• Stakeholders can work out differences when involved early

• Money & technical support are vital

• Show local benefits

• Listening – adapting Model & mandates


MANY SHARED CONCERNS AND IDEAS

1) Equity

2) Communication & Collaboration

3) Accountability and Flexibility

4) Need for Support

5) Schedule

6) Role of the Bay Model


24

EQUITY

• Treat sectors and jurisdictions fairly – share benefits & burdens

• Target funding and support to where needed most, e.g., rural areas

• Be transparent and equitable in burdens and benefits


COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION

• Need more opportunities for sharing what is learned

• Communication strategy

• States to localities: what, why, resources, and the implications of success and failure

• EPA to each state and each sector – same

• EPA Bay-wide: show the value to local waters and local economies

• Bring localities and sectors within states to work with each other, to learn together, and to build consensus for actions that reflect experience


ACCOUNTABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY

• Create more innovative and cost-effective BMPs

• But: more testing and/or verification for BMPs, which will drive up costs

• Too little credit has been given for some jurisdictions or sectors

• More flexibility on the “how” - focus on results, not checking off boxes


NEED FOR SUPPORT

• Localities and sectors feeling the pain!

• Worry about changes in Phase III

• Need more consideration about the cost-effectiveness of practices

• Trading is problematic – inconsistent in watershed

• Most cost-effective practices generally involve agriculture

• Funding, technical assistance, and regulatory structures need to keep up with demands


SCHEDULE

• Schedule is too rushed

• States had too little time to learn from and gain support from localities & sectors

• Localities too - for elected officials and local stakeholders

• 2025 deadline is not practical – will harm planning and implementation

• But - concerns that easing schedule means abandoning TMDL and provoking lawsuits


THE BAY MODEL

• Confusion over Model has been harmful

• Model is being asked to guide decisions at scales that are not suitable

• Too many assumptions don’t match realities

• But - Model may be better than monitoring due to lag time


LOCALITY QUESTIONS

• Will loads change? will the TMDL have to be reopened?

• How can we make reductions real to the people who have to make them?

• Will there be a new model for funding for Phase III?

• What do we need to do?

Purpose: Translate assessment findings into actions to inform development of Phase III WIP expectations.

Goal of Action Plan: Strengthen local engagement in Phase III WIP development

Specific actions under review:

Identify and share local engagement successes

Develop and implement communication plans

Identify target audiences for communications and engagement

Explore development of local area targets

STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT ACTION PLAN

1. Partnership needs to be able to engage local partners in order to get practices on the ground

2. Use midpoint assessment priorities to optimize implementation of WIPs to help achieve 2017 and 2025 goals

3. Changes to modeling inputs and assumptions will allow us to work with key partners

4. Healthy step in adaptive management process

BOTTOM LINE FOR 2025 GOAL

Next Steps in Assessing Progress

1. 2016-2017 milestones due January 15, 2016

2. EPA will work with federal partners to provide leadership and coordinate with jurisdictions on WIP and milestone implementation

3. Continue work on Midpoint Assessment, which will guide future WIPs, milestones and implementation from 2018 - 2025

QUESTIONS

Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO and Frank Dukes, IEN UVA Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Lucinda Power, EPA CBPO and Frank Dukes, IEN UVA Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting...