Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase III ... - University of Toledo
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay 1 Topics for Today Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) background Current status of Bay TMDL activities and progress
Local water quality improvement success stories State implementation initiatives Whats next? 2 Partners and Implementers Nutrients and sediment from wastewater, urban, agricultural, and septic sources contribute to water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay AND to local waters within your jurisdictions Opportunity to build on local programs currently underway or under design to improve the quality of local waters Opportunity to address local water quality issues
and other community issues at the same time 3 Chesapeake Bay Background & Status 4 What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Establishes the amount of pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, suspended solids (sediment)) that a water body can accept and meet water quality standards
In Virginia, the TMDL is further subdivided into TMDLs for each of the three pollutants for 39 segmentsheds (sub watersheds) Allocates pollution loads among Bay states (and DC) and among source sectors (agriculture, urban, wastewater, septic, forest) Designed to ensures that all pollution control measures needed to meet water quality standards are in place by
5 Virginias Chesapeake Bay Watershed Virginias Chesapeake Bay Watershed 64,000 square mile watershed - 34% of the total Bay watershed is in Virginia 55% of the Virginias land area drains to the Bay > 50% of Virginia's streams and rivers flow to the Bay 75% of the Virginia's 8 million residents live within the watershed
Overall summary of land cover: Forest ~ 66% Agriculture ~ 20% Developed ~ 13% Non-tidal water ~ 1% Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Timeline Phase I WIP submitted to EPA November 2010 o enhancements to existing state level programs and initiatives Phase II WIP submitted to EPA March 2012 o Updates to statewide strategies o Subdivided Bay TMDL planning targets for Virginias 39 segment sheds into local area targets o Significant engagement of local governments and collection of local
strategies Phase III WIP Due August 2018 o Further updates to statewide strategies o More focused engagement of local entities (localities and Soil & Water Conservation Districts) and stakeholders 9 We Are Making Progress Blue crab population Bay grasses Dead zone forecast Reducing pollution Oyster
populations 11 Virginia Nitrogen Loads (lbs/year) CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 2017- 60% progress Chesapeake Bay TMDL 12 Virginia Nitrogen Loads CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 198 5
2015 31.2% reduction Point source loads reduced by 60% Agricultural loads reduced by 31% Urban stormwater loads increased by 38% 13 Virginia Phosphorus Loads (lbs/year)
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 2017- 60% progress Chesapeake Bay TMDL 14 Virginia Phosphorus Loads CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 198 5 2015 44% reduction
Agricultural load are a larger % of the smaller pie due to significant reductions in point source discharges Agricultural phosphorous loads were reduced by 16.8% Urban stormwater phosphorous loads increased by 3.4% 15 Virginia Sediment Loads (lbs/year) CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 2017- 60% progress Chesapeake Bay TMDL
16 Virginia Sediment Loads CB Watershed Model 5.3.2 198 5 2015 27% reduction Agricultural loads have decreased by 36% Urban stormwater sediment loads have increased by 8%
17 Programmatic Initiatives 18 Programmatic Initiatives AGRICULTURE Increased cost share program including livestock exclusion Development of agricultural Resource Management Plans (RMPs) STORMWATER Reissued all Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits Regulatory development for reissuance of Phase II MS4 General Permit Virginia Stormwater Management Program Implemented statewide
FORESTRY Healthy watersheds forest project local tools to retain forest lands LAND USE Implementation of environmental site design criteria: Minimize land disturbance; Maintain indigenous vegetation; Minimize impervious cover WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANS Waste water treatment plant upgrades through Watershed General Permit 19 Data and Funding Initiatives DATA CLEANUP Completed historical data cleanup to improve accuracy of BMP information Developed BMP warehouse to facilitate submittal of BMP information now live Completed land cover project to improve land use information across
Virginia Local Governments invited to review land use data FUNDING Water Quality Improvement Fund: Waste Water/Ag. BMPs Special Emphasis on Livestock Exclusion Stormwater Local Assistance Fund ($40 million to date) Living Shorelines Loan Program Federal Grants 20 Key Points Point source pollutant loads have significantly reduced due to waste water treatment plant upgrades, but these reductions will level off as growth occurs in the service areas of these plants Agricultural and urban source sectors have benefitted from
overachievement of nutrient reductions from waste water treatment plants Although sediment loads from agricultural have decreased, these loads remain a primary source of sediment and further reductions are needed Need to address nutrient and sediment loads from urban sources State and local resources are limited 21 Ideas for Addressing Issues at Local Level Focus on local water quality Prioritize those strategies that address community benefits and achieve multiple benefits Identify, verify and report practices resulting from
existing local programs & initiatives 22 Elements of Local Participation There is no regulatory requirement to participate in the WIP III development. Current regulatory programs are a necessary part of our WIP Contributing additional pollutant reduction strategies will have both local and regional benefits 23 Whats Next?
24 Key Issues Moving Forward Factoring in loads from the Conowingo Dam into the TMDL and the impacts of climate change on the ecosystem and the practices we currently use Updates to the Chesapeake Bay Model Focus on finance: Maintain pubic support and work to bring private capital to water quality restoration? Planning Targets and due date for draft WIP III document (about 6 months) Determination of scale of local area planning goals 25 Phase III WIP Timeline
Local review of the Phase 6 model land use data EPA releases final expectations for Phase III WIPs October-Nov 2016
June 2017 Release of final Phase 6 model EPA releases draft Phase III WIP Planning Targets EPA releases final Phase III WIP Planning Targets Draft Phase III WIPs due to EPA June 2017 EPA feedback and public comment on draft Phase III WIPs Final Phase III WIPs due to EPA October 2018
June 2017 December 2017 August 2018 December 2018 27 Local Engagement Timeline On-going: Regular meetings of Chesapeake Bay Stakeholder Advisory Group
January 2017 through second quarter of 2017: Initial presentations to elected officials and staff, Soil & Water Conservation District Directors and staff Phase 6 Model and draft planning targets released June 2017 Third and fourth quarters of 2017: Two rounds of regional engagement work sessions including local and SWCD district staff as well as local stakeholders Final planning targets released December 2017 First quarter 2018: Final engagement round prior to submittal of the draft Phase III WIP in August 2018
28 Opportunities for Local Engagement Develop workable strategies to fill gaps and that yield multiple benefits Explore and pursue peer-to-peer exchanges of ideas, tools, and best practices Participate in organized meetings & training opportunities Take advantage of funding opportunities 30
Water Quality Measures that Yield Multiple Benefits Water Quality Practice Expanded tree canopy Green infrastructure & environmental site design Stormwater quantity control Stream restoration
Additional Benefits Shade and community attractiveness Reduced stormwater costs Reduce future stream restoration costs Reduce loss of property 31 MS4s and the Phase III WIP Continue compliance with all permit conditions and
implement Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plans Continue to report all verified and installed BMPs Regulatory development schedule for reissuance of small MS4 General Permit will not likely allow for incorporation of the Phase 6 model or the Phase III WIP Examine strategies to address pollutant reductions outside of MS4 service areas (unregulated area) 32 Examples of Local Success Stories 33
City of Alexandria & Arlington County: Four Mile Run Stream Problems: Project Heavily urbanized stream resulting in significant sediment transport Solution: Naturalize stream banks; minimize sediment transport; replace rip-rap with vegetation Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 5254.14 lbs/year
Nitrogen: 76.79 lbs/year Phosphorous: 7.17 lbs/year 34 City of Staunton: Lake Tams BMP Retrofit Problems: Severely eroded banks High erosion and sediment transport downstream Solution: Construct riprap energy dissipater and sediment forebay Utilize Virginia Stormwater Local Assistance funds $200,000
Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 14.8 tons/year Nitrogen: 399 lbs/year Phosphorous: 39 lbs/year Completed sediment forebay 35 Town of Kilmarnock, Northern Neck: Stream Restoration Problems: Severe stream bank
erosion resulting in heavy sediment and nutrient loads downstream Solution: Comprehensive stream restoration Anticipated pollutant reductions: Sediment: 812 tons/year Nitrogen: 706 lbs/year Phosphorous: 279 lbs/year Town of Kilmarnock 36
DCR/City of Harrisonburg: Blacks Run Watershed Problem: Stormwater pollution from numerous sources Solution: o Installation of ~200 BMPs treating 124 urban residential acres o 170 rain barrels; 14 rain gardens o 8 bioretention/infiltration practices o 7 riparian buffer planting projects > 1 acre o 2,850 ft of streambank stabilization o 65 pet waste digesters
o 117,500 gallons of rainwater harvested o 8 acres of trees planted Estimated Pollutant Reductions: o Sediment: 19 tons/year o Nitrogen: 509 lbs/year o Phosphorous: 78 lbs/year 37 Your ideas! Are there other delivery mechanisms for outreach and engagement? Are there other groups to include? As the state obtains more detailed information, what are the best mechanisms to deliver that information?
What kinds of educational information and forums would be of value throughout this process? Opportunities for peer-to-peer collaboration Thoughts or questions? Additional success stories? 38 Contact Info Russ Baxter, [email protected] 804-786-0044 Jutta Schneider, [email protected] 804-698-4099 Melanie Davenport, [email protected] 804-698-4038 Joan Salvati, [email protected]
RCUK Research Outcomes Project Background Originally the Outputs and Outcomes Collection System, the project was refocused in June 2010 following the Spending Review; Uses previous input to the OOCS project from universities and other stakeholders; EPSRC, AHRC, BBSRC developing a...
PROPOSED ENSEMBLE SUPPORT FOR HIGH IMPACT EVENT FORECASTING Existing operational ensemble systems Climate Forecast System (CFS) ensemble Out to 9 mos, 2.5x2.5 lat/lon resolution Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS / NAEFS) Out to 16 days, 1x1 lat/lon resolution Short Range...
The mission of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute (SHLI) is to develop a diverse group of exceptional health leaders, advance and support comprehensive health system strategies, and actively promote policies and practices that will reduce and ultimately eliminate disparities in...
Illustrate how historical human migration patterns have contributed to genetic variation observed in modern populations. Differentiate between population subgroups defined by racial categories or geographic ancestry in terms of genetic variation.
Risk is shared jointly among the partners, encouraging innovation and continuous improvement. Traditional Approach Objectivity is limited due to fear of reprisal and lack of continuous improvement opportunity. Access is limited with structured procedures and self-preservation taking priority over total...