Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When. Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January 7, 2010. Why?. Chesapeake Bay water quality does not support living resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans:
Why, What, and When
Katherine AntosU.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
MACo Winter ConferenceJanuary 7, 2010
2
Why?
• Chesapeake Bay water quality does not support living resources
• EPA establishing a total maximum daily load, or pollution budget, for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
• President Obama and proposed reauthorization of Clean Water Act call for greater transparency and accountability
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Watershed Implementation Plans
3
Why: Learning from Experience
• Scale
• Timing
• Consequences
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025D
eli
ve
red
N L
oa
ds
(m
il l
bs
/yr)
4
What: Bay TMDL and WIP Development
Major basinjurisdictionloading targets
Plan details into draft WLAs & LAs
Final TMDL Established
Nov. 2009 – August 2010
December 2010
EPA sends Expect-ations letter to PSC
EPA sends Conse-quences letter to PSC
Nov. - Dec.2009
2012 – 2025
2-yearmilestones, reporting, modeling, monitoring
Develop Ph. I WIP
** Note: Numbers are illustrative and do not indicate basin/jurisdiction and sector current, tributary strategy, or target loads **
Attaining specific load reductions by the interim target would be required Jurisdiction would determine desired reduction schedule to meet load reduction EPA would evaluate milestones based on whether consistent with reduction schedule
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
Lo
ad
s D
eli
vere
d t
o B
ay
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
Lo
ad
s D
eli
vere
d t
o B
ay
Onsite
Wastewater
Developed
Agriculture
Propose increased budget
to legislature
Increased program budget
Increased controls
Propose new legislative authorities
RulemakingImplement regulatory controls
General Description of Planned Controls
Load ReductionSchedule
InterimTargets
Final Targets
35
27.5
20
Stage 1 Implementation
Stage 2 Implementation
** Note: Numbers are illustrative and do not indicate basin/jurisdiction and sector current, tributary strategy, or target loads **
Attaining specific load reductions by the interim target would be required Jurisdiction would determine desired reduction schedule to meet load reduction EPA would evaluate milestones based on whether consistent with reduction schedule
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
Lo
ad
s D
eli
vere
d t
o B
ay
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
Lo
ad
s D
eli
vere
d t
o B
ay
Onsite
Wastewater
Developed
Agriculture
Propose increased budget
to legislature
Increased program budget
Increased controls
Propose new legislative authorities
RulemakingImplement regulatory controls
General Description of Planned Controls
Load ReductionSchedule
InterimTargets
Final Targets
35
27.5
20
Stage 1 Implementation
Stage 2 Implementation
Ph II WIP with local targetsand controls No later than November 2011
5
What: Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan Includes:
1. Nutrient and Sediment Target Loads
2. Current Program Capacity
3. Mechanisms to Account for Growth
4. Gap Analysis
5. Commitment to Fill Gaps: Policies, Rules, Dates for Key Actions
6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols
7. Contingencies for Failed, Delayed or Incomplete Implementation
8. Appendix with:a. Loads divided by 303(d) segment drainage and source sectorb. 2-year milestone loads by jurisdiction – EPA will use to assess milestonesc. No later than November 2011: Update to include loads divided by local area and
controls to meet 2017 interim target loadChesapeake Bay Program will assist jurisdictions with Plan development
6
When: ScheduleTMDL Development
– 11/2009 Nutrient targets released
– 4/2010 Revised nutrient and sediment targets
– 6-7/2010 EPA Plan Review – 8-10/2010 Draft TMDL for Public
Comment
– 10/2010 TMDL Revisions
– 12/2010 Final TMDL
– 1/2012 and on: 2-year milestones
Watershed Implementation Plan– 11/2009 Expectations released
– 6/2010 Initial Plan
– 8/2010 Draft Phase I Plan
– 10/2010 Phase I Plan Revisions– 11/2010 Final Phase I Plan
…
– 11/2011 Final Phase II Plan…
– By 2017 Phase III Plan
7
Myth Fact
• EPA expects Watershed Implementation Plan from each county
• Purpose of local targets is to impose consequenceson local partners
• EPA not supporting development of Watershed Implementation Plans
• EPA expects Watershed Implementation Plan from each state & D.C.
• EPA will fist assess progress at state-wide scale
• EPA providing financial, contractual and technical assistance to state and local partners to develop Watershed Implementation Plans
5
Katherine Antos, Coordinator Water Quality Goal Implementation Team U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
[email protected](410) 295-1358
For More Information on the Bay TMDL:http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
