1 / 49

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan. Brian Benham and Erin Ling, Biological Systems Engineering Jim Pease, Agricultural and Applied Economics. Overview . Chesapeake Bay and Bay Watershed statistics Efforts to clean up the Bay

marsden-conrad
Download Presentation

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan Brian Benham and Erin Ling, Biological Systems Engineering Jim Pease, Agricultural and Applied Economics

  2. Overview • Chesapeake Bay and Bay Watershed statistics • Efforts to clean up the Bay • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) definition and development • Water quality in the Bay • Pollutant sources and loads • Tools used to develop the Bay TMDL • Reducing pollutant loads to the Bay: Implementing the Bay TMDL

  3. Chesapeake Bay Watershed • Largest U.S. estuary • 64,000 mi2 watershed; six states and District of Columbia • 10,000 miles of shoreline (longer than west coast) • 14:1 land to water surface ratio • Average depth 21 ft • Over 3,600 species of plants and animals • $750 million contributed annually to local economy from the Bay • Population = 17 million and growing Source: Chesapeake Bay Program

  4. Chesapeake Bay TMDL: How we got here • Water quality deterioration and decreased productivity recognized in the 1970s • 1972 Clean Water Act requires TMDLs for impaired waters • 1983 and 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreements • Acknowledged decline in living resources • Established Chesapeake Bay Program in EPA Region 3 • 1999 lawsuit – EPA commits to bring the Bay and tidal tributaries into compliance with water quality criteria by 2010 or develop TMDL • 2004 – 2006 Tributary Strategies • Outlined implementation activities to reduce N, P, and sediment by river basin • 2009 Executive Order http://walthubis.blogspot.com/2005/12/chesapeake-bay-fishing.html

  5. What is a TMDL? • A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) quantifies the amount of a particular pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality criteria – “pollution diet” • TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS Where: WLA = waste load allocation (sum of point source loads) LA = load allocation (sum of nonpoint source loads) MOS = margin of safety • Bay TMDL addresses nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment expressed as total suspended solids (TSS) Portion of the TMDL load that accounts for a lack of knowledge about relationship between pollutant loads and water quality. MOS in Bay TMDL is IMPLICITLY included in WLAs and LAs.

  6. How is a TMDL developed? Clean TMDL Development Study Impairment Designation Water quality standards met Water quality standards not met React to lessons learned “Adaptive Management” Assess Progress Implementation Determine target pollutant loads needed to meet WQ criteria Implementation Planning How many and what type of pollutant control measures are needed to meet target loads? Illustration adapted from original developed by Dr. Robert Brent, James Madison University

  7. Bay and tributaries are impaired • “Impaired” = does not meet water quality criteria • 92 impaired tidal segments, 39 are all or in part in VA • EPA is establishing “pollution diets” (TMDLs) for these segments • TMDLs developed for • Nitrogen • Phosphorus • Sediment http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/maps/cbp_28727.pdf

  8. So….WHAT’S happening? water quality criteria violated poor water quality, decreased habitat, Bay species out of balance Nitrogen Chlorophyll a (algal growth) Phosphorus Dissolved Oxygen Sediment Water Clarity/ Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

  9. Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries: Chlorophyll a • Measure of algal growth • Excess nutrients produce algal blooms • block sunlight • reduce water clarity • decaying algae deplete dissolved oxygen http://www.deq.state.va.us/info/Potomacalgalbloom.html http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/algae-blooms-spreading- chesapeake-bay

  10. Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries: Water clarity/Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) • Water clarity (visibility of Secchi disc, depth) • Affected by nutrient and sediment loading • Impacts the extent and survival of SAV; important habitat for finfish and shell fish populations http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chppSAV.html http://ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/displayimage-92-846.html

  11. Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) • Amount of oxygen dissolved in water (mg/L) • Affected by nutrient loading, circulation, water temperature • DO criteria vary by season and species Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. April 2003. USEPA.

  12. Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) • Amount of oxygen dissolved in water (mg/L) • Affected by nutrient loading, circulation, water temperature • DO criteria vary by season and species • Extremely low DO levels result in “dead zone” Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. April 2003. USEPA.

  13. What are the sources? water quality criteria violated poor water quality, decreased habitat, Bay species out of balance Nitrogen Chlorophyll a (algal growth) Phosphorus Dissolved Oxygen Sediment Water Clarity/ Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

  14. Nitrogen loading to the Bay by source http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogensources.aspx?menuitem=19797, last accessed 10/2010, simulated loads using CBWM Phase 4.3

  15. Phosphorus loading to the Bay by source http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogensources.aspx?menuitem=19797, last accessed 10/2010, simulated loads using CBWM Phase 4.3

  16. Sediment loading to the Bay by source http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogensources.aspx?menuitem=19797, last accessed 10/2010, simulated loads using CBWM Phase 4.3

  17. 2009 model estimated base-line loads and 2025 final TMDL target loads http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html http://www.pserie.psu.edu/seagrant/ais/watershed/chesapeake.htm

  18. Virginia N model-estimated and target loads - 19% million lbs/year Bay Journal July-August 2010; Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html

  19. Virginia P model-estimated and target loads - 25% million lbs/year Bay Journal July-August 2010; Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html

  20. Virginia N allocation by sector 65.3 58.5 56.8 million lbs/year 2009 data: ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/phase5/Phase53_Loads-Acres-BMPs/VA/, “Loads-Acres_VA_083010.xls” 2017 and 2025 data: Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml

  21. Virginia P allocation by sector 7.1 6.0 5.7 0.06 0.06 million lbs/year 2009 data: ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/phase5/Phase53_Loads-Acres-BMPs/VA/, “Loads-Acres_VA_083010.xls” 2017 and 2025 data: Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml

  22. Modeling the Chesapeake Bay • The Chesapeake Bay Program uses a suite of models to predict the water quality in the Bay. • The models use mathematical relationships to simulate how the Bay responds to changes in population, land use, and pollution management. Airshed Model Watershed Model Chesapeake Bay Estuary Models

  23. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM) • County-based input data: • population • land use • cropping systems • livestock • best management practices (BMPs) • Topographic input data: • soils • slopes • hydrology • Meteorological input data • precipitation • temperature • solar radiation • etc. CBWM outputs (nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads) are inputs to estuary model that is used to simulate water quality and living resources in the Bay. Graphics source: Chesapeake Bay Program

  24. CBWM illustration • River reach in each subwatershed receives nutrient and sediment loads from the land uses in that subwatershed and from upstream reaches River/Stream Reach Model outputs flow, sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus Land uses Graphics source: Chesapeake Bay Program

  25. Urban High Density Pervious and Impervious Low Density Pervious and Impervious MS4 (permitted) Bare/Construction Forest Wooded Harvested Forest Extractive (active/abandoned) Open Water (non tidal) Agricultural Alfalfa hay Nursery Pasture (w/ and w/o nutrient mgmt) Degraded Riparian Pasture Hay (w/ and w/o fertilizer) Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) Various crops and crop rotations Conventional (high) till (w/ and w/o manure) Conservation (low) till (w/ and w/o manure) Land uses in the CBWM Plus: Point Sources and Septic

  26. CBWM: Simulating structural BMPs • Structural best management practices (BMPs) simulated as numeric “filters.” Reduce loads from the land before entering river/stream reach. BMP efficiency factors based on literature values and expert opinions. Performance varies with climate conditions. River/Stream Reach BMP Row crop Riparian Forest buffer (Valley and Ridge): N = 44%, P = 45%, Sediment = 45% Graphic source: Chesapeake Bay Program; BMP performance factors: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading%20Documents/Additions%206_27_06/BMP_Descriptions.pdf

  27. Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) • Roadmap of how states and DC, in partnership with local and federal governments, will implement pollution control measures to achieve and maintain TMDL target loads • Two-year implementation milestones begin 2013 • WIPs evaluated by EPA for “reasonable assurance” http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipphase1.pdf

  28. WIPs developed in phases • Phase 1 (2010) • Determine sector-specific loads for major river basins • Develop strategy to implement control measures that achieve TMDL target loads • Emphasis on 2017 interim goal of having control measures in place to achieve 60% of required pollution reduction • Phase 2 (2011) • Refine sector-specific loads at finer geographic scale • Engage local partners to develop strategy to implement control measures at finer geographic scale • Emphasis on 2017 interim goal • Phase 3 (2017) • Refinement of Phase 2 WIP to reflect “lessons learned” (adaptive mgmt) • Determine measures to be implemented between 2018 and 2025 to achieve TMDL target loads http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/tmdl_implementation_letter_110409.pdf

  29. Virginia Draft Phase 1 WIP:Stakeholder engagement • Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) established in 2009 to inform WIP development • Review and evaluate work of expert panels, advise state agencies on sector-specific loads • SAG members include: • Virginia Agribusiness Council • Virginia Farm Bureau Federation • Virginia Poultry Federation • Virginia State Dairyman’s Association • Virginia Small Grain Producers • Virginia Forestry Association • USDA-NRCS • Virginia Association of SWCD • James River Association • Southern Environmental Law Center • Virginia Assoc of Wastewater Auth • Virginia Manufacturers Assoc • Navy/Dept of Defense • Virginia Assoc of Planning Districts • Virginia Chamber of Commerce • Chesapeake Bay Commission • Virginia Watermen’s Assoc • Virginia Seafood Council • Shenandoah Riverkeeper • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf

  30. Virginia Phase 1 WIP: Summary • Presents 2017 and 2025 TMDL target loads for source sectors by major river basin • Describes source sector strategies, identifies obstacles to goal achievement, accounts for growth • Proposes role for expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange Program within and between sectors • Commits to 2017 target loads for James River, questions EPA additional reductions for chlorophyll impairment, calls for additional study and rule-making Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf

  31. Virginia Phase 1 WIP Focus on 5 “suites” of Ag BMPs • Nutrient Management • Vegetative Buffers (grass and forest) • Conservation Tillage • Cover Crops • Livestock Stream Exclusion

  32. Virginia Phase 1 WIP Ag BMPs – Proposed Implementation Rates *Includes Specialty Crops Final Virginia WIP Nov 2010: http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipphase1.pdf

  33. Virginia Phase 1 WIP Ag BMPs – Proposed Implementation Rates (cont.) *Includes Continuous NT acres Final Virginia WIP Nov 2010: http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipphase1.pdf

  34. Virginia Phase 1 WIP Ag BMPs – Proposed Implementation Rates (cont.) Final Virginia WIP Nov 2010: http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipphase1.pdf

  35. Virginia Phase 1 WIP Ag BMPs – Proposed Implementation Rates (cont.) Final Virginia WIP Nov 2010: http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipphase1.pdf

  36. Resource Management Plan Complies with WIP, other State RegulationCROP LAND • NMP per DCR • >35’ forest/grass riparian buffer per NRCS • Conservation plan <“T” per NRCS • Cover crops per DCR for summer annual crops receiving at least 50 lbs N/acre • Assessment of all cost-shared and other BMPs • “Such other BMPs as may be developed and credited in the Bay Model”

  37. Resource Management Plan Complies with WIP, other State RegulationHAY LAND • NMP per DCR • >35’ forest/grass riparian buffer per NRCS • Conservation plan <“T” per NRCS • Assessment of all cost-shared and other BMPs • “Such other BMPs as may be developed and credited in the Bay Model”

  38. Resource Management Plan Complies with WIP, other State RegulationPASTURE LAND • NMP per DCR if received manure, litter or biosolids applications within past 3 years or will receive in future • Livestock stream exclusion system • Pasture management or Conservation plan <“T” per NRCS • Assessment of all cost-shared and other BMPs • “Such other BMPs as may be developed and credited in the Bay Model”

  39. Animal feeding operations • Currently 828 poultry AFOs under Va Pollution Abatement permit. Of these AFOs, 101 defined as Large CAFOs by EPA, must transfer to VPDES permits over next 18 months • Currently 70 non-poultry AFOs under VPA permit. Of these, 15 are Large CAFOs, must transfer to VPDES permits • All Medium and Large CAFOs under VPDES permit by 2017, Small CAFOs by 2025

  40. Virginia Phase 1 WIP: How to reach 2017 agriculture sector goals • Increased technical assistance e.g., 1 additional FT employee at each SWCD in Bay watershed • Intensified promotion of incentive-based BMP programs. General Assembly (GA) study estimates cost-shared program needs of $63 million sustained until 2025 • Nutrient trading with other sectors • GA initiative to determine how to report non cost-shared agricultural and forestry BMP practices Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf

  41. Failure to Meet Milestones • If sufficient cost-share was available during milestone period and milestones were not met, authorization will be sought from General Assembly to implement mandatory programs

  42. Virginia Phase 1 WIP: Implications for Virginia agriculture • State will expect implementation of NMPs, buffers, conservation tillage and soil conservation plans, and stream exclusion (>20 cows) • New sod farms may need nutrient management plans • New vineyards may need soil conservation plans • Container nurseries and greenhouses may need nutrient mgmt plans • Expanded nutrient exchange program offers more opportunities to sell nutrient credits Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf

  43. Virginia Phase 1 WIP: How to reach 2017 agriculture sector goals • Increased technical assistance e.g., 1 additional fulltime employee at each SWCD in Bay watershed • Intensified promotion of incentive-based BMP programs. General Assembly (GA) study estimates cost-shared program needs of $63 million sustained until 2025 • Nutrient trading with other sectors • General Assembly initiative to determine how to report non cost-shared agricultural and forestry BMP practices Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf

  44. Accountability • Achievement of milestones is based on having control measures in place and modeled load reductions • Progress mapped out in 2-year increments Model • Needed pollutant control measures (scenario) • 20% cows fenced out • 10% erodible land converted to forest • 30% failed septic systems repaired • 10 rain gardens installed √Implementation goal met County “X” Reduction Goal 25 tons N 10 tons P 18 tons Sed & OR • Implementation • goal NOT met

  45. Virginia 2011 Milestones http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC_2009_allmilestones.pdf

  46. Potential EPA actions • If a jurisdiction‘s WIP is inadequate or its progress is insufficient, EPA may invoke consequences • Expand NPDES permit coverage • Increase NPDES oversight and object to draft NPDES permits • Require net improvement offsets for new/expanded point sources • Establish finer scale TMDL allocations than those in state WIPs • Require additional reductions from point sources • Increase federal enforcement , including air and water sources • Condition or redirect EPA grants • Federal establishment of local nutrient WQ standards Source: EPA Region 3 Administrator letter to Principals’ Staff Committee of the Chesapeake Executive Council, December 29, 2009.

  47. What’s next… • Nov 29, 2010: States submitted final WIPs to EPA for evaluation of “reasonable assurance” • Dec 31, 2010: Final Bay TMDL released • June 1, 2011: Draft Phase II WIPs due to EPA • Nov 1, 2011: Final Phase II WIPs due to EPA • Dec 31, 2011: States must implement reduction milestones set in May 2009 • June 1, 2017: States submit draft Phase III WIPs to EPA to ensure that all necessary practices will be in place by 2025 • Nov 1, 2017: States submit final Phase III WIPs to EPA • Dec 31, 2017: Sufficient practices in place to achieve 60% of load reductions • Dec 31, 2025: All restoration practices in place to achieve 100% of load reductions 2017 2015 2023 2021 2019 2013 2011 2010 2025

  48. Additional Resources • Webinar of previous version of this presentation can be accessed at http://connect.extension.iastate.edu/p43305770/Note: the presentation in the webinar is based on an earlier draft of the Virginia WIP. • EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay TMDL: http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/ • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml • Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl/chesapeakebay.html

  49. Thank you http://flavormagazinevirginia.com/got-dairy-farmers/ http://www.annmeekins.com/pages.asp?pg=northernneck_tour http://www.virginiaplaces.org/waste/stormwater.html Brian Benham (benham@vt.edu) and Erin Ling (ejling@vt.edu) Biological Systems Engineering Jim Pease (jim.pease@vt.edu) Agricultural and Applied Economics

More Related