chesapeake bay tmdl & watershed implementation plans the role of local governments jeff corbin...
TRANSCRIPT
Chesapeake Bay TMDL&
Watershed Implementation Plans
The Role of Local Governments
Jeff CorbinSenior Advisor to the Administrator
U.S. EPA
Presentation to the Potomac Watershed Roundtable
A Bit of HistorySeries of Agreements & Commitments
• 1983 (1 page) – There’s a Problem – Work Together
• 1987 (7 pages)– 40% Reduction in Nutrients
• 1992 (back to 3 pages)– Work Upstream– Develop Tributary Strategies
• 1996 Shen/Potomac Tributary Strategy• 1999 Consent Decree – TMDLs• 1999 Bay and Tidal Rivers listed on 303(d) List
More History
• 1999-2000 James, Rapp, York, E.S Trib Strats• 2000 (13 pages & 100+ commitments)
– Beyond 40% - Delist the Bay and Rivers
• 2005 State-wide Tributary Strategy• 2006-2009 Annual Bay & River Clean-Up Plans• And Now – Bay TMDL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1985 Base 2009 Target Tributary Loading Loading Loading E3 All
Scenario Calibration Scenario Load A Strategy Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Forest
342TN 309TN 248TN 200TN 191TN 190TN 179TN 170TN 141TN 58TN
24.1TP 19.5TP 16.6TP 15.0TP 14.4TP 12.7TP 12.0TP 11.3TP 8.5TP 4.4TP
Nu
mb
er o
f S
egm
ents
in D
O V
iola
tio
n
Open Water Violations
Deep Water Violations
Deep Channel Violations
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment
Basin-wide TMDL load is185.9 N and 12.54 P MPY
Millions of Pounds Per Year (MPY)
8
Pollution Diet
…by River…by State
Assessment of Management Effectiveness
Watershed Implementation Plans
~Expectations~Similar to VA Law Requirements
1. Interim and Final Nutrient and Sediment Target Loads2. Current Loading Baseline and Program Capacity3. Gap Analysis4. Account for growth5. Commitment and Strategy to Fill Gaps6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols7. Contingencies for Slow/Incomplete Implementation8. Appendix with Detailed Targets and Schedule
60% by 2017!!
None of This is All That New
• We’ve been at this a while
• We’ve had a pretty good idea of what needs to be done – “Trib Strat Effort”
• We’ve developed clean-up plans before
• We’ve developed many TMDLs
• Many of the partners have been at the table awhile
So How is the TMDL Different?
• Accountability • Assurance • Step-wise progress …milestones, 2017• New Clean-Up Date
No Later Than 2025
• Transparency• Backstop Actions
Flexibility
• Focus on Milestone Achievement
• Staged Implementation Approach for Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Virginia James River Basin
– (TMDL App X)
• Better accounting of practices – CBP Established Process
• 15 year Implementation Timeline
• Innovation Encouraged
• Expanded Trading
Stormwater – MS4 Permits
• Draft WIP included very aggressive stormwater reductions
• Final WIP proposed baseline + % reductions over 3 permit cycles
• TMDL included individual Wasteload Allocations
• VA prefers aggregate allocations
• EPA & VA Close to Resolution
Primary Purpose of Phase II WIPs:Taking It Local!
• Provide roadmap at scale that helps partners reach their goals
• Respond to concern that Tributary Strategies not understood at local level
• Engage local decision-makers
• Primary EPA expectations for Phase II (November 2009):– Divide TMDL allocations to finer
scale. Targets are not finer scale allocations
– Provide specific controls that will be implemented by 2017
• Extra time so 7 Bay jurisdictions could work with local decision-makers in Phase II strategies
16
Phase III - 2017
Costs
True – It will take a significant $ investment
We have know this for a long time
• Nov ‘10 WIP - Upwards of $7 Billion
• 2005 Statewide Trib Strat - ~$10B
• 2005 Shen-Pot Tributary Strategy - $3.88B
We’ve Studied Funding Options
Budget
The overall budget for the Chesapeake Bay Program has increased in the last several years
FY 2009 - $30.9M enacted FY 2010 - $50.0M enacted FY 2011 - $54.4M enacted FY 2012 - $67.4M President’s Budget
$50.0M House Bill
Bottom Lines•This is Doable
Nobody Has Said “No”
•Focus on 2-Year Chunks – Budgets, Programs, Policies, etc.
•Innovate
•Think Creatively – Be Flexible
•Tackle the Funding Issue
•Private Capital?