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