chesapeake bay tmdl and what it means for you katherine antos, coordinator water quality team u.s....
TRANSCRIPT
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and What It Means for You
Katherine Antos, CoordinatorWater Quality Team
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Virginia Municipal League andVirginia Association of Counties
June 2, 2010
2
• “For the Chesapeake Bay, 2010 may well go down as the year that everything changed”– Karl Blankenship, Chesapeake Bay Journal,
January 2010
3
May Could be the Month Everything Changed for the Watershed!
• EPA settles lawsuit with Chesapeake Bay Foundation
• Federal Leadership Committee releases Strategy to Protect and Restore the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
4
And Central to Both:
The ChesapeakeBay TMDL
The ChesapeakeBay TMDL
5
Nutrient Loads Delivered from the Watershed to the Bay
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1985 2009 Tributary Strategy
Tot
al D
eliv
ered
Nitr
ogen
(mil
lbs/
yr)
Agriculture Urban runoff Wastew ater
Septic Forest Non-Tidal Deposition
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1985 2009 Tributary Strategy
Tota
l Del
iver
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
il lb
s/yr
)
Agriculture Urban runoff Wastew ater Forest
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Phase 5.3 (2010)
342
251
191
24.1
16.614.4
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1985 2009 Tributary Strategy
To
tal D
eliv
ered
Ph
osp
ho
rus
(mil
lbs/
yr)
Agriculture Urban runoff Wastew ater Forest
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1985 2009 Tributary Strategy
To
tal D
eliv
ered
Nit
rog
en (
mil
lbs/
yr)
Agriculture Urban runoff Wastew ater
Septic Forest Non-Tidal Deposition
Nutrient Loads Delivered from the Virginia to the Bay
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Phase 5.3 (2010)
91
66
56
11.3
7.16.6
7
TMDL and WIP Development
Major basinjurisdictionloading targets
Plan details into draft WLAs & LAs
Final TMDL Established
Nov. 2009 – September 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
8
Phase I WIP Phase II WIP
9
Distributing Stormwater among Point and Nonpoint Sources
The Phase I WIPs need to inform EPA how to distribute nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL
WLAs LAs
Point Sources
Nonpoint Sources
Allocating Nutrients and Sediment…
Like Taking Candy from a Baby, Right?!?!
11
Opportunities to Directly Participate• Call Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan points of
contact (see next slide)– Help develop YOUR Watershed Implementation Plan
• Join in the monthly Bay TMDL webinars– Next one: Monday, June 7, 10 a.m.
• Get informed: www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
• Fall 2010: Bay TMDL public review/comment period– Public meetings/webinars
• Contact your friendly EPA Bay TMDL colleagues (we don’t bite or even bark!)
12
Watershed Implementation Plan Contacts
• Virginia: Alan Pollock, DEQ and Russ Perkinson, DCR
• Delaware: Jennifer Volk, DNREC
• District of Columbia: Monir Chowdhury, DOE
• Maryland: Rich Eskin and Tom Thornton, MDE
• New York: Ron Entringer and Peter Freehafer, DEC
• Pennsylvania: Pat Buckley, DEP
• West Virginia: Teresa Koon, DEP
Contact information--phone number, email address--is available at: www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
Katherine Antos, CoordinatorWater Quality Team
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program [email protected]
(410) 295-1358
For More Information on the Bay TMDL:http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
For More Information on Executive Order 13508:http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/
Questions?