Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Joan Salvati, Manager

DEQ Local Government Assistance Programs

1

Topics for Today • Current status of Bay TMDL activities and progress • State implementation initiatives • What’s next? • Local water quality improvement success stories • Open discussion/Q & A

2

3

Chesapeake Bay Watershed – Scale of Implementation 5 Major basins

39 Segmentsheds (areas in colors) 16 Planning District Commissions 96 Localities (Counties and Cities) 32 Soil & Water Conservation Districts

It’s about local waters • Nutrients and sediment from wastewater, urban,

agricultural, and septic sources contribute to water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay AND to local waters within your jurisdictions

• Opportunity to build on local programs currently underway or under design to improve the quality of local waters

• Opportunity to address local water quality issues and other community issues at the same time

4

Watershed Implementation Plan

Background & Chesapeake Bay Status

5

Watershed Implementation Planning (WIP) Timeline

• Phase I WIP – submitted to EPA November 2010

• Phase II WIP – submitted to EPA March 2012 o Statewide strategies updated

o Engaged local governments & collected local strategies

• Phase III WIP – Due April 2019 will: o Build upon and update commitments in previous two WIPs

o Include Local Area Planning Goals

o Include more focused engagement of local entities

o Localities will be encouraged to review previous WIP II strategies

6

EPA’s Expectations for States – Top 4 1. Identify programmatic actions and pollutant

reducing practices to be implemented between 2018-2025

2. Plan for engaging local, regional and federal partners in implementation

3. Account for changed conditions: climate change, Conowingo Dam infill, growth

4. Develop local planning goals below the state-major basin scales

Progress & Activities

8

• Blue crab population increasing

• Bay grass abundance improving

• Dead zone forecast improving

• Oyster populations increasing

We Are Making Progress

9

Virginia Delivered Nitrogen Loads CBWM v.5.3.2

2017 Target

2025 Target

Virginia Delivered Phosphorus Loads CBWM v.5.3.2

2017 Target

2025 Target

Virginia Delivered Sediment Loads CBWM v.5.3.2

2017 Target

2025 Target

Take Home Points on Progress • Point source pollutant loads significantly reduced

due to waste water treatment plant upgrades - reductions will “level off” as growth occurs in the service areas of these plants

• Agricultural and urban source sectors have benefitted from “overachievement” of nutrient reductions from waste water treatment plants

• Although sediment loads from agricultural have decreased, these loads remain a primary source of sediment and further reductions are needed

• Need to address nutrient and sediment loads from urban sources

13

Programmatic Initiatives AGRICULTURE • Increased cost share program for livestock exclusion • Development of agricultural Resource Management Plans (RMPs) STORMWATER • Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits

reissued • Phase II MS4 General Permit regulations being developed • Virginia Stormwater Management Program Implemented statewide

LAND USE • Environmental site design criteria: minimize land disturbance;

maintain indigenous vegetation; minimize impervious cover being implemented

WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS • Waste water treatment plant upgrades

14

What’s Next?

15

Phase III WIP/Midpoint Assessment Schedule

16

• Local review of the Phase 6 model land use data

• Release of final Phase 6 model • EPA releases draft Phase III WIP Planning

Targets • EPA releases final expectations for Phase

III WIPs • EPA releases final Phase III WIP Planning

Targets • Draft Phase III WIPs due to EPA • EPA feedback and public comment on

draft Phase III WIPs • Final Phase III WIPs due to EPA

October-Nov 2016

November 2017

September 2017

October 2017

March 2018

December 2018

February 2019

April 2019

2017 2018

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Mar 30 – Apr 30

Aug – Sept, 2017

Release of final planning targets; DEQ subdivides planning targets to local scale Seek input from Chesapeake Bay SAG on local planning goals – Dec., May

Convey local area goals to local entities through regional DEQ office or other entities

Submit draft Phase III WIP for Executive Review

Local entities develop strategies for Phase III WIP

DEQ Phase III WIP Development Timeline – based on EPA Revised WIP III/Midpoint Assessment schedule

Release of draft Planning Targets /DEQ review of draft planning targets & identification of alternate methodologies for subdivision of planning targets into local area planning goals

Sep Nov Dec Oct

Submit draft Phase III WIP

DEQ collects local strategies for WIP & builds input decks

May - Jun

May – Oct

Aug - Oct

Dec

Nov

Sept Aug

Model “fatal” flaw identification & resolution; DEQ assesses appropriate scale of local planning goals; Phase 6 model approved

Oct 31, 2017 – Feb 28, 2018

May

On-going drafting of Phase III WIP document

Key Tasks

Mar - Oct

General Assembly Session

New Administration

Dec

DEQ provides training on CAST & priority strategies for meeting local area planning goals Feb – Mar

Local engagement & outreach events

Regional Peer-to-Peer meetings

Regional work

sessions

Regional work

sessions

Regional Peer-to-Peer meetings

DEQ Phase III WIP Development Timeline Notes

• Based on EPA’s approved, adjusted WIP III/MPA schedule

• Timeline accounts for adjustment of date for receipt of final planning targets from December, 2017 to March, 2018

• Includes key tasks DEQ has to undertake once final planning targets are received in March, 2018:

o subdivision of planning targets to local area planning goals

o review of local goals by SAG (early DEC meeting; May meeting)

o building input decks once local strategies/BMPs are received

o executive review of draft Phase III WIP

• Includes training on CAST and “priority strategies” – priority strategies are based on local strategies submitted by localities for the Phase II WIP

• Includes drafting of the Phase III WIP concurrently with other key tasks

Key Issues/Tasks Moving Forward • Factoring climate change and the Conowingo

Dam into the TMDL

• Model update and partnership review

• Short timeframe between receipt of planning targets and due date for draft Phase III WIP

• Subdivide Planning Targets into local area planning goals

• James River Study

• Federal, State and local resources limited

19

Potential Impacts of Issues on Local Area Goals

• Climate change: minimal

• Conowingo: likely minimal for Virginia

• Accounting for growth: Have already committed to accounting for growth

• James River Study: TBD; greatest impact likely will be for point source discharges

20

• Land use categories and Model data have been updated, based on more recent data

• Finer resolution of land cover categories (now at 10 meter resolution)

• Model is the only tool used by EPA to forecast the effects of practices and strategies on the Chesapeake Bay

• Works best at a larger scale (e.g. river basin)

• Will be used for the Phase III WIP

Phase 6 Model Update

21

Local Area Goals

• Local Area Goal Task Force Recommendation: Local planning goals should be established by each of the seven Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions at a scale below the state-major river basin, but jurisdictions have full flexibility for the scale of the goals and how they are expressed

• DEQ has not yet established Local Area Goals

• Process for identifying options for the goals will take place in late 2017, during DEQ’s “fatal flaw” review of the Phase 6 model

• Process will conclude in mid-2018 after final planning targets are received from EPA

• The Chesapeake Bay Stakeholder Advisory Group will be asked for input on the goals

22

How should local be defined?

• Locality jurisdictional boundaries or collections of such sub-state political subdivisions

• Federal facilities

• State facilities

• Soil & Water Conservation District boundaries

• Regional entity boundaries (i.e. planning district commissions; regional river basin commissions, utility districts)

• Watershed or sub-watersheds of Chesapeake Bay Tributaries

23

• Targeted areas with high nitrogen, phosphorus or sediment yields (loadings)

• “Segment-sheds” as depicted in the 2010 TMDL

• Any area (e.g. MS4), entity or political subdivision based on an identified need for pollutant reductions for a given source sector or sectors

• Some combination of the above

24

How should local be defined? Cont.

How should local goals be expressed?

• Percentage of BMP Implementation

• Implementation goals for particular BMPs

• Programmatic Goals (i.e. ordinances with Erosion and Sediment Control, Urban Nutrient Management, post-construction performance standards) with specific implementation, oversight and enforcement

• Numeric nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment as expressed as reductions or maximum load goals

• Pace of implementation over a certain time frame

25

• Percent reduction of existing loads over a certain time frame

• Percent of flow in certain tributaries/runoff captured – flow-based targets

• Pace of implementation over a certain time frame

• Percent reduction of existing loads over a certain time frame

• Percent of flow in certain tributaries/runoff captured – flow-based targets

26

How should local goals be expressed? Cont.

What Localities & SWCDs can do

27

Local Role in Phase III WIP “Identify, verify, report, and develop”

1. Engage in WIP Planning effort – participate at meetings

2. Identify, verify and report implemented practices - BMP warehouse, Construction General Permit data base, DCR

3. Meet permitting and program requirements

4. Identify what pollutant reductions are already being achieved/planned for in various programs

5. Develop local water quality strategies that yield multiple benefits

6. Take advantage of funding opportunities

28

Water Quality Measures that Yield Multiple Benefits

Water Quality Practice Additional Benefits

29

• Expanded tree canopy

• Green infrastructure & environmental site design

• Stormwater quantity control

• Stream restoration

• Shade and community attractiveness

• Reduced stormwater costs

• Reduce future stream restoration costs

• Reduce loss of property

MS4s and the Phase III WIP

• Continue compliance with all permit conditions and implement Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plans

• Continue to report all verified and installed BMPs

• Regulatory development schedule for reissuance of small MS4 General Permit will not likely allow for incorporation of the Phase 6 model or the Phase III WIP

• Promote strategies to address pollutant reductions outside of MS4 service areas (unregulated area)

30

MS4 Permit Cycle vs 2025 • Last of 3 MS4 permit cycles will end in 2028 for Phase II’s

and 2031 for Phase I’s

• Practices to be in place by 2025, leaving gap in meeting 2025 target

• DEQ will incorporate a strategy for meeting the gap in the Phase III WIP – likely will include reliance on wastewater treatment plant reductions for the six year gap o Need to assess MS4 gap and PS over achievement at the segmentshed scale

to ensure there is sufficient overlap

31

Implications of not participating in the Phase III WIP process ?

• There is no regulatory requirement to participate in the WIP III process

• However…..If Virginia does NOT reach pollutant reduction targets (from EPA), new programs and possibly regulations may be necessary

• Participation in the Phase III WIP process and contributing pollutant reduction strategies may avoid future regulations

32

Examples of Local Success Stories

33

City of Alexandria & Arlington County: Four Mile Run Stream Project

34

Problems: Heavily urbanized stream resulting in significant sediment transport Solution: Naturalize stream banks; minimize sediment transport; replace rip-rap with vegetation Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 9 tons/year Nitrogen: 247 lbs/year Phosphorous: 43 lbs/year

City of Staunton: Lake Tams BMP Retrofit

35

Problems: Severely eroded banks High erosion and sediment transport downstream Solution: Construct riprap energy dissipater and sediment forebay Utilize Virginia Stormwater Local Assistance funds - $200,000 Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 15 tons/year Nitrogen: 399 lbs./year Phosphorous: 39 lbs./year

Completed sediment forebay

Town of Kilmarnock, Northern Neck: Stream Restoration

36

Town of Kilmarnock Problems:

Severe stream bank erosion resulting in heavy sediment and nutrient loads downstream Solution: Comprehensive stream restoration Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 812 tons/year Nitrogen: 706 lbs/year Phosphorous: 279 lbs/year

DCR/City of Harrisonburg: Blacks Run Watershed

• Problem: Stormwater pollution from numerous sources • Solution:

o Installation of ~200 BMPs treating 124 urban residential acres o 170 rain barrels; 14 rain gardens o 8 bioretention/infiltration practices o 7 riparian buffer planting projects > 1 acre o 2,850 ft of streambank stabilization o 65 pet waste digesters o 117,500 gallons of rainwater harvested o 8 acres of trees planted

• Estimated Pollutant Reductions: o Nitrogen: 509 lbs/year o Phosphorous: 78 lbs/year o Sediment: 19 tons/year

37

Open Discussion • Are there other delivery mechanisms for outreach

and engagement? • Are there other groups to include? • As the state obtains more detailed information,

what are the best mechanisms to deliver that information?

• What kinds of educational information and forums would be of value throughout this process?

• Opportunities for peer-to-peer collaboration • Thoughts or questions? • Additional success stories?

38

Contact Info • Russ Baxter, russ.baxter@governor.virginia.gov

804-786-0044 • Jutta Schneider, jutta.schneider@deq.virginia.gov

804-698-4099 • Melanie Davenport,

melanie.davenport@deq.virginia.gov 804-698-4038

• Joan Salvati, joan.salvati@deq.virginia.gov 804-698-4230

• James Davis-Martin, james.davis-martin@deq.virginia.gov 804-698-4298

39