Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan

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

November 4th, 2010 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 • 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

2 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

3 Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 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 http://walthubis.blogspot.com/2005/12/chesapeake-bay-fishing.html • 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

4 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 = ΣWLA + ΣLA + MOS Where: WLA = waste load allocation (sum of point source loads) LA = load allocation (sum of nonpoint source loads) MOS = margin of safety

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.

• Bay TMDL addresses nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment expressed as total suspended solids (TSS)

5 How is a TMDL developed? Impairment Water quality Designation standards met

Clean Water quality standards not met

TMDL Assess Development Study Progress

Determine target Implementation pollutant loads needed to meet WQ criteria Implementation Planning

How many and what type of pollutant control measures are needed to meet target loads? 6 Illustration adapted from original developed by Dr. Robert Brent, James Madison University 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 t/content/maps/cbp_28727.pdf • Nitrogen • Phosphorus • Sediment http://www.chesapeakebay.ne So….WHAT’S happening? water quality criteria violated poor water quality, decreased habitat, Bay species out of balance

Nitrogen

× Chlorophyll a (algal growth) Phosphorus Ø Dissolved Oxygen

Sediment Ø Water Clarity/ Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

8 Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries: Chlorophyll a • Measure of algal growth • Excess nutrients produce algal blooms • block sunlight

http://www.deq.state.va.us/info/Potomacalgalbloom. • reduce water clarity html • decaying algae deplete dissolved oxygen

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/algae-blooms-spreading- chesapeake-bay

9 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://ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/displayimage-92-846.html http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chppSAV.html

10 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 11 Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. April 2003. USEPA. 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 12 Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. April 2003. USEPA. Water quality criteria for Bay and tidal tributaries Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Indicators % Goal Achievement, 1985-2008 100 Chlorophyll a Dissolved Oxygen 75 Water Clarity

25 % Goal Achievement % Goal

0 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program, "Bay Water Quality," www.chesapeakebay.net

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 Ø Dissolved Oxygen

Sediment Ø Water Clarity/ Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

14 Nitrogen loading to the Bay by source Agriculture - Manure Atmospheric 17% Deposition 27% Agriculture - Chemical Fertilizer 15% Agriculture - Atmospheric Wastewater Deposition Treatment 6% Plants Septic Systems 19% Urban- 4% Suburban Runoff 10% 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

Wastewater Treatment Agriculture - Plants Manure 21% 26%

Agriculture - Chemical Fertilizer Urban- 19% Suburban Runoff Natural 31% Sources 3% 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 Urban- Suburban Runoff 19%

Agriculture 60% Natural Sources 21%

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 TMDL target loads 2009 2025 NP NP --- million lbs/year --- Delaware 4.2 0.3 2.9 0.3 District of Columbia 3.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 Maryland 52.7 3.4 39.1 2.7 New York 10.9 0.8 8.2 0.5 Pennsylvania 108.3 4.0 76.8 2.7 Virginia 65.8 7.1 53.4 5.4 West Virginia 5.9 0.9 4.7 0.8 247.5 16.6 187.4 12.5 TOTAL 2009 2025 - billion lbs/year - Sediment (TSS) 8.0 6.3 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/states_N_P_draft_allocations.pdf 18 http://www.pserie.psu.edu/seagrant/ais/watershed/chesapeake.htm Virginia N model-estimated and target loads million lbs/year

- 37%

Bay Journal July-August 2010; 19 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf Virginia P model-estimated and target loads

12 11.3

8 7.1 5.8 6 5.4

million lbs/year 4

2 - 52% 0 1985 2009 2017 2025

Bay Journal July-August 2010; 20 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf Virginia N allocation by sector

65.3

58.5 57.2 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: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf; addendum Sept 27, 2010. 21 Virginia P allocation by sector

7.1

5.8 5.4 million lbs/year

• The models use Airshed Model mathematical relationships to simulate how the Watershed Bay responds to Model changes in population, land use, and pollution management. Chesapeake Bay Estuary Models

23 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM)

County-based input data: Topographic input data: • population • soils • land use • slopes • cropping systems • hydrology • livestock • best management practices (BMPs)

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, Land uses sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus Graphics source: Chesapeake Bay Program Land uses in the CBWM

• Urban • Agricultural • High Density • Alfalfa hay • Pervious and Impervious • Nursery • Low Density • Pasture (w/ and w/o nutrient mgmt) • Pervious and Impervious • Degraded Riparian Pasture • MS4 (permitted) • Hay (w/ and w/o fertilizer) • Bare/Construction • Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) • Forest • Various crops and crop rotations • Wooded • Conventional (high) till (w/ and w/o manure) • Harvested Forest • Conservation (low) till (w/ and w/o manure) • Extractive (active/abandoned) Plus: Point Sources • Open Water (non tidal) 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; 27 BMP performance factors: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading%20Documents/Additions%206_27_06/BMP_Descriptions.pdf 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 • Draft WIPs evaluated by EPA • Two-year implementation milestones begin 2013 • EPA demands “reasonable assurance”

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 Assoc of Wastewater Auth • Virginia Farm Bureau Federation • Virginia Manufacturers Assoc • Virginia Poultry Federation • Navy/Dept of Defense • Virginia State Dairyman’s Association • Virginia Assoc of Planning Districts • Virginia Small Grain Producers • Virginia Chamber of Commerce • Virginia Forestry Association • Chesapeake Bay Commission • USDA-NRCS • Virginia Watermen’s Assoc • Virginia Association of SWCD • Virginia Seafood Council • James River Association • Shenandoah Riverkeeper • Southern Environmental Law Center • Wetlands Watch

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

31 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf Virginia Phase 1 WIP: Reaching 2017 Ag sector goals • Focus on 5 “suites” of BMPs: • Nutrient management • Vegetative buffers (grass and forested) • Conservation tillage • Cover crops • Livestock stream exclusion • Very high expected adoption levels

32 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf Virginia Phase 1 WIP: How to reach 2017 agriculture sector goals • Increased technical assistance e.g., increased number and distribution of certified nutrient management planners • Intensified promotion of incentive-based BMP programs. General Assembly (GA) study estimates cost-shared program needs of $63 m sustained until 2025 • GA initiative to determine how to report non cost-shared agricultural and forestry BMP practices

33 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf 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

34 Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 1: www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pdf/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf Virginia Phase 1 WIP: Urban-Suburban Stormwater • Documents existing programs governing stormwater, e.g. Erosion and Sediment Control, Industrial Stormwater, MS4 permits (Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System) • Accounts for growth by 1) verification of programs and practices currently implemented 2) new development projects must meet pre-development loads through site planning, BMPs and offsets • New stormwater regulations in development will account for growth, but will not address pollutant loads from existing developments (no retrofit requirements)

35 EPA review of Draft WIPs • Sept. 2010 states and D.C. submitted draft Phase 1 WIPs • EPA found some WIPs didn’t achieve load reductions and none provided sufficient reasonable assurance • EPA outlined “Federal Backstops” – alternatives to meet pollution reduction goals that focus on federal authority. Three levels of backstop allocation adjustments – Minor, Moderate, and High. Virginia = Moderate. Differ in restrictions on point sources: WWTPs, CAFOs, MS4s • States and D.C. may revise WIPs – due Nov 29, 2010 • EPA will assess revised WIPs and determine if Federal Backstops required for reasonable assurance

36 EPA review of Virginia WIP: Agriculture sector • Serious deficiencies • No compelling regulatory authority to require BMP adoption • Required control measure adoption rates unrealistic • No firm commitment to provide additional technical assistance • No proposal of onsite audits to verify BMP adoption • No commitment to management of high P soils • EPA-suggested “opportunities” • Revise nutrient management planning regulations to require additional practices or address high P soils • Impose additional Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations on smaller confined animal operations • Place greater emphasis on alternative uses for animal manures, specifically poultry litter

37 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/WIPEVALUATIONS/PortfolioOfDraftWIPs.pdf EPA review of Virginia WIP: Urban-Suburban Stormwater • Reliance on existing programs and proposed stormwater regulations is insufficient • Need clear, enforceable new and redevelopment performance standards • Little discussion of retrofits • Does not address stormwater discharges outside of MS4 areas • More stringent performance standards for stormwater necessary before a trading program would be acceptable

38 Accountability • Achievement of milestones is based on having control measures in place and modeled load reductions • Progress mapped out in 2-year increments

Needed pollutant control measures County “X” (scenario) √ Implementation Reduction • 20% cows fenced out goal met Model Goal • 10% erodible land OR 25 tons N & converted to forest 10 tons P U Implementation • 30% failed septic 18 tons Sed goal NOT met systems repaired • 10 rain gardens installed

39 Virginia 2011 Milestones

http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC_2009_allmilestones.pdf Potential EPA actions at any point in process • 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, Deceiber 29, 2009. 41 What’s next…

• Draft TMDL is out, comment period ends Nov. 8th • www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OW-2010-0736) • Nov 29, 2010: States submit 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

2010 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 42 Additional Resources • 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

43 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 ([email protected]) and Erin Ling ([email protected]) Biological Systems Engineering

Jim Pease ([email protected]) Agricultural and Applied Economics