Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "INTRODUCING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PROCESS TO VIRGINIA November 2009."— Presentation transcript:


2 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:

3 Main Sources of Pollution Agriculture – animal manure, commercial fertilizer Urban/suburban runoff – a growing problem Air pollution – tailpipes, power plants Wastewater – sewage treatment plants

4 New Approach to Restoration Performance 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 Watersheds Draining to Virginia’s 35 Tidal Bay Segments

9 Counties Overlaying the Watersheds Draining to Virginia’s 35 Tidal Bay Segments

10 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

11 Mandatory Pollution Diet at Work

12 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

13 Decision Made…. PSC approved preliminary basinwide target load of 200 million pounds per year nitrogen and 15 million pounds per year phosphorus

14 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

15 Relative Effectiveness is a combination of Watershed Delivery and Estuarine Delivery Low Delivery || \/ High Delivery Potomac Estuarine Effectiveness James Estuarine Effectiveness

16 Review of Target Load Method from April

17 0.22 mg/l 0.53 mg/l 20 percent slope Option B

18 State Total Target Loads OPTION B SELECTED BY PSC NitrogenPhosphorus All loads are in millions of pounds per year.



21 VA Basin Target Loads * [Million Pounds/Year] RIVER BASIN TRIBUTARY STRATEGY TARGET LOADS 2008 LOADS TRIBUTARY STRATEGY TARGET LOADS 2008 LOADS Shenandoah - Potomac 14.2716.0919.091.581.971.91 Rappahannock 6.136.498.210.690.820.85 York6.226.538.200.580.610.66 James28.6128.4933.233.453.503.62 E. Shore1.521.612.730.110.150.16 TOTALS56.7559.2271.466.417.057.21 --------Total Nitrogen-------- -----Total Phosphorus --------- * These target loads are likely to change based on EPA’s new modeling; allocation loads for the basins are expected to be set in spring of 2010; EPA’s current plan is to adopt Bay TMDL by 12/31/10.

22 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

23 Watershed Implementation Plans Approved 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: WLAsLAs Point 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: CAFOsForest Point Source: Storm Water Industrial Point Source: Storm Water MS4s Point Source: Storm Water Construction

24 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

25 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

26 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

27 Basinwide Interim Target Load EPA Will Assess if Milestone Reductions 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

28 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 Propose increased budget to legislature Increased program budget Increased controls Propose new legislative authorities Rulemaking Implement regulatory controls Examples of Some Planned Controls Load Reduction Schedule Interim Targets Final Targets 35 26 20 Stage 1 Implementation Stage 2 Implementation Milestones for Assessing Progress

29 Schedule for Involvement ACTIONSCHEDULE Bay TMDL WebinarOctober 2, 2009 Assign State/Basin Allocations for Nutrients – by PSC October 23, 2009 Participate in EPA Public MeetingsNov./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

30 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

31 Proposed Stakeholder Process in Virginia *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

32 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

33 Question & Answer


Similar presentations

Ads by Google