Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland PA Chesapeake Bay.
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
General Ag. Compliance & Chesapeake Bay Update. PA Clean Streams Law & General AG Compliance Prevent discharge of pollutants & water quality impairment.
Chesapeake Bay and New York State Water Quality and the Potential for Future Regulations Presented by the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.
Mark Dubin Agricultural Technical Coordinator University of Maryland Extension-College Park Modeling Quarterly Review Meeting April 17, 2012.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Funding Green Infrastructure Solutions: Stormwater Management in Pennsylvania Liz Garland American Rivers ABSTRACT Across the nation, American Rivers is.
Update on Forest Goals and Progress in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, 8/23/13 Sally Claggett & Julie Mawhorter, US.
Implementing the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Stormwater Division General Services Department Board of Supervisors Work Session October.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
DC Draft Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan Stakeholder Meeting March 1, 2012 Metropolitan Washington Council Of Governments Hamid Karimi Deputy Director.
Laila Racevskis 1, Tatiana Borisova 1, and Jennison Kipp 2 1 Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida 2 Resource.
Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee Meeting Bay Program Water Quality Goals: Focus on Funding Presented to COG Board of Directors September 10, 2003.
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load –Amount of pollutants that a water body can receive and still support designated uses Drinking,
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
Desired Outcomes / Impacts ActionsKnowledge Occurs when there is a behavior change based upon what participants have learned (medium term): Development.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Wisconsin’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy for Water Quality Wisconsin Crop Management Conference January 16, 2014 Ken Genskow, PhD Associate Professor, Department.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework: Building Confidence in Delivering on Pollution Reductions to Local Waters Maryland.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
VACo Environment and Agriculture Steering Committee VML Environmental Policy Committee June 2, 2010 Charlottesville, VA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Roanoke.
New Development and Significant Development 12/21/20151 New Development & Significant Redevelopment.
Preserving York County 2010 Municipal Educational Series January 28, 2010 Rick Keister, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jake Romig, York County Circuit.
Introduction to Water Quality Trading National Forum On Water Quality Trading July 22-23, 2003 Chicago, Illinois.
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Caroline County Pilot Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Katheleen Freeman, AICP, Director Caroline County Department of Planning & Codes Leslie Grunden,
Regulatory Approaches to Address Agricultural Water Quality Catherine L. Kling Department of Economics Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa.
76. The central U.S. law regulating water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA), adopted in The Act initially focused on point sources, which it.
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program How Trading Works John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPRING MEETING MARCH 1—2, 2012 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EPA’s Evaluation of Bay Jurisdictions’ Draft Phase II WIPs & Final
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011.
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
Growing Smarter Pennsylvania’s Land Use Agenda. Percent of Land Developed in Pennsylvania Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department.
Williamsburg’s Local Strategies to meet the ChesBay TMDL March 2012 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Virginia Maryland Pennsylvania New York Delaware West Virginia.
1 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan – Phase II James Davis-Martin, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Coordinator Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake.
Mary Apostolico Potomac Watershed Manager. Current Authorities for TMDL Process Federal Clean Water Act, § 303(d) - TMDL List & TMDL Development §303(e)
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Agriculture Initial Inspections Update
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Citizens Advisory Committee
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Chesapeake Bay Program
Current VA Ag Initiatives
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office June 1, 2012
Funding at Record Levels
Developing a Water Quality Trading Framework
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
MDE’s Phase III WIP Inventory 2018 Fall Regional WIP Meetings
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
2018 BMP Verification Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay

Federal Clean Water Act, federal court orders and regulations finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2010 require Pennsylvania to reduce annual loading of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay watershed and return Bay waters to state water quality standards by 2025 Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law 2 A Legal Obligation

Investment: More than $4 billion in Pennsylvania through various loan and grant programs toward Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts Results: Phosphorous down 25 percent, nitrogen down 6 percent, sediment reduced nearly 15 percent Significantly reduced discharges of nutrients from point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants Since

2010 Total Maximum Daily Load As a result of the federal consent decree, in 2010 EPA established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Bay Implementation of this TMDL requires us to develop plans to meet specific target reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads in phases Pennsylvania’s Phase 2 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) has interim targets for these reductions to be achieved in

Despite our investments and efforts to date, Pennsylvania will not meet 2015 and 2017 reduction targets On track for meeting phosphorous reduction goals, but not meeting nitrogen and sediment goals – Agriculture – Urban stormwater 2010 Total Maximum Daily Load 5

Resources have been inadequate to the scale of the challenge – August PSU Environmental and Natural Resources Institute estimated the resource requirements to fully implement nonpoint source BMPs in Pennsylvania’s Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP): $3.6 billion in capital costs to fully implement all nonpoint source BMPs in the WIP, in incremental levels between 2011 and 2025 $378.3 million per year through 2025, including Operation and Maintenance costs 6 Why Pa. is Falling Short on Goals

– In FFY 2014, $146.6 million (combined state and federal funding) was spent on programs to address nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduction statewide $127.6 million (87%) was used for BMP deployment Why Pa. is Falling Short on Goals 7

Data to measure current Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction efforts for agricultural and urban stormwater pollutant sources is fundamentally inadequate Relies overwhelmingly on installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) where a portion of the cost was shared by federal or state government Non-cost shared BMPs not counted 8 Why PA is Falling Short on Goals

The Bay watershed in Pennsylvania is home to more than 33,600 farms – EPA recommends that DEP inspect 10 percent of farms annually – In 2014, DEP conducted a total of 592 inspections, which equates to a 1.8 percent inspection rate 9 Why Pa. is Falling Short on Goals

The Bay watershed in Pennsylvania has 206 MS4 communities with an estimated 10,000 discharge sites – EPA recommends that DEP inspect 10 percent of the MS4 systems annually – In 2014, DEP conducted 25 field inspections, achieving 10% for the first time – Significant compliance with MS4 permitting requirements in the Bay watershed is uncertain until the 10% inspection rate is consistent Why Pa. is Falling Short on Goals 10

Pennsylvania must change its approach for the Chesapeake Bay DEP cannot work alone and be successful DEP and the Pennsylvania Departments of Agriculture (PDA) and Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) collaborated strongly in this effort to coordinate plans, policies and resources Working with our agency partners and a number of external partners and stakeholders, DEP has developed a plan aimed at improving local water quality in Pennsylvania – and by virtue of that, the Chesapeake Bay 11 The “Reboot”

Six Elements to Plan 1.Address pollutant reduction by: a) meeting the EPA goal of inspecting 10 percent of farms and MS4s in the watershed annually, b) ensuring development and use of manure management and agricultural erosion and sediment control plans, and c) enforcement for non- compliance 2.Quantify undocumented Best Management Practices in watersheds impaired by agriculture or stormwater and put more high-impact, low-cost BMPs on the ground 3.Improve reporting, record-keeping and data systems to provide better documentation and obtain maximum credit toward Bay goals 12

4.Identify legislative, programmatic or regulatory changes to provide the additional tools and resources necessary to meet federal pollution reduction goals by Establish a DEP Chesapeake Bay Office to coordinate development, implementation and funding of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay efforts 6.Obtain additional resources for water quality improvement Six Elements to Plan 13

Strategy Based On: – New partnership with Conservation Districts (CDs) CDs work closest with farmers across the state Existing funding will be used to shift from 100 educational visits to minimum of 50 inspections per year Emphasize education AND compliance Need for additional DEP staff reduced based on success of partnership 1. Address Pollutant Reduction 14

Initial inspection focus: – Manure Management Plan – Erosion and Sedimentation Plan Plus – Renewed emphasis on riparian forest buffers, led by DCNR 1. Address Pollutant Reduction 15

Locate, quantify and verify previously undocumented BMPs via comprehensive, voluntary farm survey Unprecedented partnership with: – Pennsylvania Farm Bureau – PennAg Industries – Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania – Penn State University – Pa. Association for Sustainable Agriculture – Pa. Farmers Union – Pa. Assn. of Conservation Districts 2. Quantify and Multiply BMPs 16

Put new high-impact, low-cost BMP projects on the ground in watersheds that are currently impaired by agriculture or stormwater by shifting an additional 15 percent of available statewide water quality funding ($1,250,000) to Bay work. 2. Quantify and Multiply BMPs 17

Improve data gathering, reporting, record keeping Provide better and more accessible documentation of progress made toward Pennsylvania’s restoration effort Obtain maximum credit for what Pa. farmers are doing Consider other data gathering tools, reporting requirements for the agriculture sector based on success of voluntary reporting measures 3. Improve Record-Keeping 18

Identify changes to provide the additional tools and resources necessary to meet federal pollution reduction goals by 2025: – Legislative – Programmatic Enhance nutrient credit trading Interstate trading Role of technology Overcome barriers to BMP installation, such as riparian forest buffers Others – Regulatory 4. Identify Needed Changes 19

Establish a Chesapeake Bay Office within a restructured DEP water programs deputate to coordinate development, implementation and funding of the Commonwealth’s Chesapeake Bay efforts – Improve management focus – Improve accountability 5. Establish a New DEP Bay Office 20

Restore existing federal funding Pursue additional federal funding Obtain additional resources devoted to local water quality and, ultimately, Bay compliance Work with public and private partners to identify funding and partnership opportunities for specific practices, such as riparian forest buffers 6. Seek New Resources 21

Retarget existing resources to where they’re needed most Strengthen ability to seek additional resources Restructure existing partnerships and create new ones Address chronic data gaps and get Pa. farmers credit they deserve Improve DEP management focus on local water quality improvement and the Bay – Short- and long-term Value of This Approach 22

Enhance ability to innovate – Credit trading – Interstate trading – Technology Improve information technology Create a culture of compliance – the missing link Value of This Approach 23

Local water quality in Pennsylvania is a shared responsibility Collaboration, partnerships, commitment and resources are key “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come” Every farmer, community and citizen must do their part We’re All In This Together 24