Jan Bowers

Chester County Water Resources Authority

*564 sq. mi. (397 in PA; 234 not in Urbanized Area)

*3 states (PA/DE/MD)

*4 counties (Lancaster, Chester, Delaware, New Castle)*Approximately 50% of Chester County

*4 major watersheds (Brandywine, Red Clay, White Clay, Christina River)

*1,240 miles streams (~30% impaired, 2014)

*55 PA municipalities *(31 MS4s/TMDLs, 14 MS4s/no TMDL, 10 non-MS4s)

*259,000 population

*Early 1990’s – news photo Governor Carper in canoe facing north “…pollution from PA”

*Non-profit filed law suit against EPA for not enforcing CWA in Christina – EPA lost; court mandated EPA to develop Christina TMDLs for DE & PA

*1995 – EPA asked DRBC to work with PA, DE*Christina Clean Water Partnership formed

*Inter-state, inter-level goverments, non-profits*“Check your guns at the door”*Evolved to current strong working relationship

*Separate TMDLs for PA & DE*PA - Bacteria and Sediment (9/2006)

*Sediment WLAs (28 municipalities with WLAs, 2 non-MS4s)

*PA - Nutrient and Low Dissolved Oxygen (High Flow) (9/2006)*Nitrogen WLAs (26 municipalities with WLAs)

*Phosphorus WLAs (26 municipalities with WLAs)

*Focus only on 1996/1998 impairments*Many questions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, erroneous data, etc. in the TMDL reports

*Chester County Portion of the Basin*32 municipalities

*MS4s, non-MS4s, WLAs, non-WLAs

*Brandywine Red Clay Alliance – lead coordinator (formerly Brandywine Valley Assoc.)

*Chester County Water Resources Authority

*Chester County Conservation District

*2003 – MS4 program started*BVA – partnership with MS4s for MCMs 1 & 2*2007 DEP asked CCWRA/CCCD for assistance in addressing MS4 and TMDLs in Christina

*2008 – MS4 Permit Renewal (scheduled) to include TMDL requirements

*CCWRA/CCCD offered to coordinate; Municipalities requested to expand relationship with BVA to include MS4/TMDL coordination

*Letters of Agreement with BVA

*2007- began regular meetings (still meet regularly)*CCWRA/BVA - liaison between Partnership and DEP for technical interpretation/clarification

*Many questions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, erroneous data, etc. etc.in the TMDL reports

*Numerous meetings, letters, emails, discussions with DEP staff (SERO, HQ, TMDL group, etc.)

*Meeting with DEP and EPA*“Best available information, use it…”

*All municipalities were committed to improving water quality in ALL CURRENT stream impairments of the watersheds (not just 1996/1998 impairments)

*Commitment to collaboration and cohesive watershed-based approach

*BMP/Project Collaboration is NOT an alternative for these TMDLs*Localized and disbursed stream impairments*Inconsistent and limited geographies of the 96/98 impairments, UAs, MS4 regulated areas, etc. PRECLUDE collaboration on projects

*Can’t get credit for BMPs installed outside of their regulated MS4 jurisdiction

*Can’t get credit for pollutant reduction that is not to the TMDL streams they are discharging to

*But technical collaboration and coordination ARE improving MS4 & TMDL implementation:*Coordinated information sharing, *Clearing-house of reliable technical material,*Online tools, maps, documents, GIS data and layers,

*Joint meetings/discussions with DEP to improve understanding of TMDL and MS4 requirements,

*Christina MapShed pollutant reduction model to track improvements & evaluate scenarios

*CCWRA prepared a thorough “MS4 TMDL Strategy Template” *user friendly, streamlined

*pre-formulated spreadsheets for parsing

*maps

*spreadsheets of WLAs

*included all components required by MS4 permit

*group and individual training and coaching

*Provided consistent, coherent, scientifically-based approach, completely consistent with TMDLs and MS4 permit requirements

*Streamlined and consistent to ease DEP review

*Used by most MS4s for 2012 submittals*No problems noted by DEP with template

*Some used incorrectly

*Not sure if being used for re-submittals

*Municipalities most comfortable working with a non-advocacy non-profit conservation organization experienced in watershed restoration

*TMDLs = Snowflakes

*MS4s = Snowflakes

*(lots of them; all very similar but no 2 are alike; can create a beautiful landscape; can be incredibly difficult to navigate through)

*MS4s CAN’T collaborate for TMDL BMP implementation because of the very localized, disbursed impairments

*MS4s CAN collaborate on technical information, tools, materials, data, regulatory interpretation, etc.

*Christina TMDLs are NOT an effective method for restoring water quality under today’s regulations & extent of impairments

*PRPs (2018 MS4 permit) – will provide a much better approach for truly improving streams & may provided some (limited) opportunities for collaboration

*DEP “Offsets” Policy is badly needed to encourage/allow more collaboration