Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by EPA on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL during the Choose Clean Water conference
Citation preview
1
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL: THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Restoring Local Waters and the
Chesapeake BayChesapeake Bay
Choose Clean Water ConferenceWashington, DCJanuary 11, 2010
Bob KoroncaiBob KoroncaiU.S. EPA Region IIIU.S. EPA Region III
1
2
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• The largest TMDL in the country
• Learn from lessons of the past– Bay Program
• Long term goals • Planning and commitment
– TMDL Program• Point source implementation
3
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• The largest TMDL in the country
• Learn from lessons of the past– Bay Program
• Long term goals + short term goals• Planning and commitment
– TMDL Program• Point source implementation
4
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• The largest TMDL in the country
• Learn from lessons of the past– Bay Program
• Long term goals + short term goals• Planning and commitment + accountability
– TMDL Program• Point source implementation
5
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• The largest TMDL in the country
• Learn from lessons of the past– Bay Program
• Long term goals + short term goals• Planning and commitment + accountability
– TMDL Program• Point source implementation + non-point
source implementation
6
6
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
All 6 states and the District of Columbia are covered.
Caps on nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
Caps on point sources and non point source sectors
Draft TMDL August 2010Round 2 of public meetings Aug – October, 2010
Final TMDL December 2010
7
Bay TMDL Development Process
What total loading for nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment can the Bay assimilate?
What is an equitable
distribution of the watershed-wide loadings to the states/basins?
How should the state/basin load be sub-allocated to: individual
point sources, non- point source sectors, and sub-
watersheds or counties?7
WIP
8
The Chesapeake Bay
Performance and Accountability System
8
9
Reasonable assurance
• In establishing a TMDL, EPA determines whether there is ‘reasonable assurance’ that the load reductions, particularly for non-point sources, will be achieved and water quality standards will be attained.
10
Mandatory Pollution Diet at Work
Employ Federal Actions or Consequences (EPA letter 12/29/09)
Develop Watershed Implementation
Plans(EPA letter 11/4/09)
Establish Bay TMDL:
Set 2-YearMilestones
10
Monitor Progress
11
Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs)
• EPA ‘expectations’ letter sent 11/4/09 • Stage 1: 60% reductions achieved by 2017• Stage 2: All controls in place no later than 2025
• State lead on developing WIP’s– Phase I WIP by 11/2010 (Focus on 2010-2017)– Phase II WIP by 11/2011 (Add county/local watershed
target loads and identify controls)– Phase III WIP by 2017 (Focus on 2017-2025)
12
Watershed Implementation Plans
• Include:– Individual PS target loads and aggregate target loads
for NPS sectors – Schedule for load reductions – Strategy and schedule to fill program gaps– Commitments to install needed controls– Accounting for growth– Tracking and reporting protocol– Contingencies for Failed or Delayed Implementation
13
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
14
Federal Consequences• Letter from EPA to states on December 29,
2009
• Outlines EPA actions for state failure to:
– submit WIPs consistent with 11/4/09 letter
– submit 2-year milestones consistent with 11/4/09 letter
– achieve 2 year milestone target loads
– Develop NPDES permits consistent with allocations in the TMDL
– Develop mechanisms to ensure that NPS reductions are achieved
14
15
Federal Consequences Include…
• Expand NPDES permit coverage to unregulated sources
• Increase permit oversight/object to permits• Require net improvement offsets • Establish finer scale allocations • Require additional reductions from PS’s• Increased federal enforcement• Condition or redirect federal grants• Promulgation of local nutrient standards
16
The Bay TMDL and Performance and Accountability System will..
• …Learn from lessons of the past– Bay Program
• Long term goals + short term goals• Planning and commitment + accountability
– TMDL Program• Point source implementation + non-point
source implementation
17
“Accountability breeds response-ability”
-Steven Covey, Author on personal effectiveness
18
Further Information• Chesapeake Bay TMDL web site
www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
• U.S. EPA Region 3 Contacts– Water Protection Division
• Bob Koroncai – 215-814-5730; [email protected]
• Jennifer Sincock ([email protected])
– Chesapeake Bay Program Office• Rich Batiuk
– 410-267-5731; [email protected]
• Katherine Antos ([email protected])
18
