TMDL Implementation Planning in Virginia

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning for Our Future:
Advertisements

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan Development John McLeod VA Dept. of Environmental Quality February 12, 2014 Chuckatuck and Brewers.
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.
Montana’s 2007 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Robert Ray MT Dept Environmental Quality.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Incorporating the 9-Elements into a WMP Lindsey PhillipsMike Archer Source Water CoordinatorState Lakes Coordinator (402) (402)
Components of every Good Watershed Management Plan NDEQ – Planning Unit August 6 th, 2014 NDEQ – Planning Unit gust 6 th 2014.
Allen Berthold Texas Water Resources Institute. Review: Clean Water Act Goal of CWA is to restore and maintain water quality suitable for the “protection.
Catoctin TMDL Project Proposal for New Initiatives to Loudoun Watershed Management Stakeholders Steering Committee Loudoun Watershed Watch Data Compilation.
Section 319 Grant Program Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Update on Forest Goals and Progress in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, 8/23/13 Sally Claggett & Julie Mawhorter, US.
Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003.
Catoctin Creek: A Stream in Distress Catoctin Watershed Project A Partnership of County and Citizen Organizations.
Watershed Planning: Current Status and Next Steps
VIRGINIA’S TMDL PROCESS.
Sustaining Long Term Regional Coordinated Monitoring Programs Todd Running, H-GAC May 9, 2006.
Taking the Next Step: Implementing the TMDL. What IDEM Provides to Help With Implementation  Compiling all the data in one place  Data-driven recommendations.
Virginia Assessment Scenario Tool VAST Developed by: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Water Quality Program Financial Assistance Progress and Plans for Meeting RCW Requirements (Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee)
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Straight to the Point – Watershed-based Plans Should: be designed to restore water quality from nonpoint source impairments using sufficiently analyzed.
Watershed Planning. Watershed Definition A watershed is a landscape surface area that surrounds and drains into a common waterbody such as a lake, small.
Redwood River TMDL Critique David De Paz, Alana Bartolai, Lydia Karlheim.
Catoctin Creek TMDL Implementation Plan Development June 24, 2004.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPRING MEETING MARCH 1—2, 2012 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA EPA’s Evaluation of Bay Jurisdictions’ Draft Phase II WIPs & Final
Commonwealth of Virginia TMDL Program Update Citizen for Water Quality Annual Summit September 22, 2001.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Commonwealth of Virginia Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs Four Mile Run Public Meeting #1 June 14, 2001.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Mary Apostolico Potomac Watershed Manager. Current Authorities for TMDL Process Federal Clean Water Act, § 303(d) - TMDL List & TMDL Development §303(e)
Ashley Wendt Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board NPS Project Manager.
Using RMMS to Track the Implementation of Watershed-based Plans
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
VIRGINIA’S TMDL PROCESS Four Mile Run Bacteria TMDL March 25, 2002
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Using RMMS to Track & Report BMP Implementation
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
NH MS4 Stormwater Permit -- Guidance for NHDES related provisions
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Water Quality Improvement Through Implementation of a Watershed Protection Plan in the Leon River Watershed Lower Rio Grande Valley Stormwater Conference.
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Local Planning Process…
Tim Cawthon TCEQ Nonpoint Source Program
Mulberry Watershed Management Plan
Current VA Ag Initiatives
North Dakota’s Alternative Plans
Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Coliform for the Restricted Shellfish Harvesting/Growing Areas of the Pocomoke River in the Lower Pocomoke River Basin.
Commonwealth of Virginia
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program in Illinois
Southfork of the Spring River Sub-Watershed Project ( )
Mike Bira EPA Region 6 NPS Program
Communicating Credit Where Credit is Due
State Agency Perspective of Estuary Program Subcommittees
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Straight to the Point – Watershed-based Plans Should:
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
Nonpoint Source Program
Upper Clark Fork Watershed Restoration and TMDLs
Information Item- Monterey Coastkeeper v. SWRCB
Watershed Restoration, Chesapeake Bay
Presentation transcript:

TMDL Implementation Planning in Virginia Nicole Sandberg, NPS Implementation Coordinator Ashley Wendt, TMDL IP Technical Reviewer June 8, 2017

Planning Process For Impaired Waters Assessment: Assess monitoring data to identify impaired waters TMDL Development: Determine pollutant loads for impaired waters and quantify necessary pollutant reductions TMDL IP Development: Prescribe BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads TMDL Implementation: Installation and monitoring of BMPs to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution Monitoring: Water Quality Ecosystem Health Fish Tissue Begin here AW - Overall Process: Assessment- determine waters that are impaired TMDL Development Implementation Plan Development Implement the IP Continue Monitoring to verify water quality improvement 2

1033 TMDLs completed 22% 3 68% 7% 1% 2% AW - This map shows all of the TMDLs completed as of October 2016. As you can see there have been 1,033 TMDLS completed, approximately 700 of those address bacteria impairments which are shown by the tan shading. The second highest impairment addressed is sediment and nutrients comprising 22% of the TMDLs completed. 68% bacteria, 12% Sediment, 10% nutrients, 7% toxics, 2% other, 1% organics VA assesses the TMDLs that have been developed (of which they have their own prioritization process) and then we determine which of those to prioritize for IP development. Several years ago, there was a ranking performed on all of the potential IP watersheds based on several criteria We are currently in the process of amending how we prioritize IPs. We are shaping the prioritization to be similar to the 303(d) Vision process and will include a list of various ranking criteria. (one of the largest being willingness by stakeholders to participate and therefore implementation will have a high success rate) 3

What is a TMDL Implementation Plan? A TMDL Implementation Plan (IP) describes how pollution will be reduced to achieve a TMDL An IP includes: types and number of BMPs to be installed sources of funding stakeholders involved in implementation Goal: provide roadmap to restore water quality in impaired watersheds In VA, addresses load allocation (NPS) only; waste load allocations are addressed through permit conditions AW - An IP has 11 different components, but they generally include…three bullets listed. The goal of the IP is to provide a roadmap to restore water quality in impaired watersheds. In VA, IPs address load allocations (NPS) only; waste load allocations are addressed through permit conditions. Implementation plans can also be done without a TMDL, but traditionally that has not been the case here in VA. These plans are commonly referred to as watershed-based plans. We have done one watershed-based plan, Fairview Beach, and are looking into expanding into doing more of these into the future. 4

Implementation Drivers in VA State- Virginia’s Water Quality Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act (WQMIRA) Established 1997 Requires “expeditious development and implementation of total maximum daily loads” Federal- USEPA Clean Water Act Section 319(h) Meet Nine Key Elements Not required, but necessary if desired as funding resource NS - WQMIRA established 1997 (§62.1-44.19:4 through 19:8 Code of Virginia) In 1997, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Water Quality Monitoring, Information, and Restoration Act (WQMIRA) [I-0d.pdf], §62.1-44.19:4 through 19:8 of the Code of Virginia. This statute directs DEQ to develop a list of impaired waters and develop a watershed clean-up plan, such as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or TMDL alternative for each impairment , as well as develop implementation plans for these TMDLs. “expeditious development and implementation of total maximum daily loads” WQMIRA requires IPs include: Date of expected achievement of WQ objectives Measureable goals Necessary corrective actions Associated costs, benefits and environmental impact of addressing the impairment Fulfillment of 1999 Consent Decree and Post-CD TMDL Development: In 1998, the American Canoe Association and the American Littoral Society filed a complaint against EPA for failure to comply with the provisions of §303(d) of the Clean Water Act in Virginia. As a result of this legal action, EPA signed a Consent Decree (CD) with the plaintiffs in 1999 that contained Virginia’s TMDL development schedule through year 2010. The CD greatly increased the number of TMDLs produced by Virginia as result the number of implementation plans produced annually also increased In 2000, the CWA §319 program nationally doubled funding to address restoration of impaired waters. Eligiblity for funding access included having watershed based plan that addressed those impairments. These plans must address a minimum of nine key elements that USEPA determined where essential for addressing water quality improvement needs. VA CHOSE to define their watershed based plans based around TMDLs, and between 2001 and 2016 almost 100% of the plans developed in Virginia were TMDL Implementation Plans. Moving forward, we are looking at doing more plans that are not based on first developing TMDLs. All plans are aimed at meeting the USEPA nine key elements requirements. 5

NS - Graph demonstrates how more expansive the plans are getting over the years, covering over 429 impairments with over 83 plans…we are currently up to 88 plans now.

58% (48) of IPs have/had Projects Not including Chesapeake Bay As of June 2016 Virginia has completed 83 IPs, addressing 429 impairments 58% (48) of IPs have/had Projects Not including Chesapeake Bay NS - As of June 2016, Virginia has completed 83 IPs, addressing 429 impairments. Define the difference between plan and project. Point out the one watershed based plan completed. Also, note where there have been Virginia success stories there have also been plans and projects. 7

USEPA Nine Key Elements Identify causes and sources of pollution Estimate load reductions expected Describe management measures and critical areas Estimate technical and financial assistance needed Develop public information and outreach component Develop project schedule Describe interim, measurable milestones Identify indicators to measure progress Develop a monitoring component AW - While VA commonly uses this TMDL IP  Implementation process, all IPs are written to satisfy the USEPA nine key elements as shown here. This is important in that accepted nine element plans open the door for 319 Implementation funding, 50% of which has to go towards implementing accepted plans. These elements all play into the six steps of watershed based planning as laid out in the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters produced by USEPA. In VA, between the science and load allocations provided by the TMDL and the Implementation Plan elements, we can satisfy all nine of these elements. Source: EPA Watershed Handbook 8

Virginia Implementation Plan Development Implementation Plan development led by DEQ with local stakeholder involvement and participation Public Meetings (typically two) Steering Committee Working Groups Agriculture Residential Government AW – Implementation plan development begins with gaining support from local stakeholders (it’s even one of the criteria used for ranking IP watersheds). Even though the IP development process is led by the DEQ, it is done in partnership with watershed stakeholders. This is important from both the plan development and the on the ground implementation perspective. Once a development project begins a public meeting is held to kick off the process. Generally, this is where the watershed issues and strategy for moving forward are presented to the general public. There is also another public meeting that is held at the end of the project to talk about what is included in the draft implementation plan and release it for public comment. A steering committee is formed which acts as the main decision-making body for strategies put into the plan. Typical steering committee members include Soil and Water Conservation Districts, County planning staff, local watershed groups, Planning District Commissions, etc. Several steering committee meetings, which are fed information from the working groups’ meetings, are held over the course of development. These working groups break down the issues by interest groups. The working groups formed through the IP process are typically: agriculture, residential and government. 9

VA Implementation Plan Development Procedures outlined in DEQ “Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans” (2017) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/programs/water/waterqualityinformationtmdls/tmdl/tmdlimplementation/tmdlimplementationplanguidancemanual.aspx AW – In 2003 a Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans was created to provide guidance to local governments, soil and water conservation districts, planning district or regional commissions, community watershed groups, and state and federal agencies on developing Implementation Plans (IPs) for waters where TMDLs have been completed. It was recently updated earlier this year and is posted on our website. We also try to integrate our plans with other regional or statewide efforts such as, but not limited to, the Chesapeake Bay WIP, Watershed Groups/Roundtables, Local Comprehensive Plans, etc. 10

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs Headwaters Tributary to Rappahannock River Located in Northern Piedmont – foothills to Blue Ridge Mountains Subwatersheds ranging from 17,280 acres to 35,580 acres in size Primary land uses across the subwatersheds include: forest and agriculture Minimal residential (~3%) AW – Now we will be presenting an example Implementation Plan while also concurrently describing the general framework and contents of our implementation plans. We chose this particular IP because we ended up gaining a success story in one of the subwatersheds: Carter Run. Any examples of tables or implementation examples given from here forward are from the Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Run IP, particularly the Carter Run Implementation project(s). Thumb Run, Carter Run, Great Run, and Deep Run are part of the Rappahannock River watershed, located in Fauquier and Stafford Counties, Virginia. Thumb Run, Carter Run and Great Run are located west of the Town of Warrenton with Deep Run located to the southeast. The Thumb Run watershed is approximately 21,780 acres of which forested (49%) and agricultural (51%) land uses dominate. The Deep Run watershed is approximately 17,280 acres (78% forested and 21% agricultural land uses). Area of the Great Run watershed is approximately 18,090 acres, with forest as the primary land use (51%) followed by agricultural (46%) and residential (3%) land uses. The Carter Run watershed is approximately 35,580 acres comprised of forest (63%), agricultural (35%), but minimal residential (2%) land uses. 11

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters: 97 miles of perennial streams. Impaired for fecal bacteria (e.coli or fecal coliform; primary contact recreation) TMDLs Developed in 2005 Biological Source Tracking indicators: Human Pet Livestock Wildlife AW – Deep Run was initially placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list based on violations of the fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard. Thumb Run, Carter Run, and Great Run were initially included on the 1998 Section 303(d) list because of violations of the fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard. After these listings, bacteria TMDL studies were comprised for each impairment in 2005. Biological Source Tracking was performed to determine sources of pollution. 12

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs Bacteria Load Reductions Exclusion of most/all livestock from streams; Substantial land-based NPS load reductions on pasture and cropland; Correct all straight pipes and failing septic systems; Maintain all properly functioning septic systems; Reduce pet bacteria loads on residential land; Wildlife bacteria load reductions are necessary based on bacterial source tracking data AW – These loading reductions were determined by the TMDLs, but were further refined to be included in the Implementation Plan. Read bullets… 13

Staged Approach Addresses largest impact on water quality first Shows implementation milestones over time Demonstrates cost of full implementation Benefits: Demonstrates incremental water quality improvement through continued monitoring Provides measure of quality control Provides mechanism for gaining public support as progress is achieved Ensures cost effective practices implemented first NS – Staged implementation is an iterative process that first addresses those pollutant sources with the largest impact on water quality. Generally in VA, the first stage of implementation is attaining the delisting goal (meeting WQ standards). The second stage is full implementation of the TMDL, which is typically more stringent (more recent TMDLs equate to not exceeding geometric mean, 126 cfu/100ml). *Note for bacteria this is the single sample maximum criteria of 235 cfu/100 ml not violated 10.5% of the time. 14

Staged Implementation Plan NS – 15

BMPs Identified (Control Measures) Determine BMPs necessary to reach water quality goal(s) Most Common BMPs: Pasture Management and manure incorporation Livestock exclusion Repair/ Replacement of failing septic systems and straight pipes Pet waste stations Riparian Buffers NS – Most Common BMPs: Livestock exclusion (fencing and pasture management) Repair/ Replacement of failing septic systems and straight pipes Pet waste stations Riparian Buffers 16

Stage 1 & 2 BMPs for Carter, Deep, Great and Thumb Run TMDL IP

Carter Run: Stage 1 Implementation Best Management Practice (BMP) Unit BMP Goal Implemented BMP (6/30/16) % Goal Completed Stream Exclusion Fencing Miles 20.6 55.7 270% Stream Exclusion Systems 51 54 105% Pasture Management Acres 5,910 Not tracked n/a Vegetated Riparian Buffer 1,352 320 23.6% Permanent vegetative cover 183 Manure Incorporation 2,164 Not implemented Residential Septic Pump out System 114 Residential Septic Repair 11 19 9 Total=28 31 7 1 Total = 39 282% 44% 11% Total=140% Residential Septic Replacement Alternative Waste Treatment Pet Waste Control Program 100% Confined Canine Unit 0% 218 Total BMPs Installed NS - 18

Implementation Plan Funding Take note of the original full implementation cost of $53 million. 19

Carter Run Project Highlights Project Dates: 7/1/2006-12/31/2016 First BMPs installed: January 2007 Funded from multiple EPA 319 Grant awards Funding 7/2007-6/30/2016 BMPs Section 319 - BMP…..$769,790 Farm Service Agency CREP…..$45,262 State (VACS and CREP)…..$963,020 Landowners…..$199,873 Technical Assistance Section 319…..$223,765 TOTAL…………………..$2.21 million

Water Quality Monitoring Plan Element of a successful IP Continued Monitoring in subwatersheds Verify interim progress NS 21

Water Quality Results- Carter Run 22

BMP Installation: 1/1/2007-Present Result: 65% improvement Project Start: 7/1/2006 BMP Installation: 1/1/2007-Present Result: 65% improvement NS- 23

After completing the implementation plan development process, we end up with both a technical document and a public document. The technical document gets sent to EPA for nine element consistency review and acceptance. The public document purpose is to serve as a shorter, more easily digestible document. The example that we have been discussing was finalized in May 2006. 24

TYPE 2- Water Quality Improvement Through the installation of best management practices, Carter Run was able to demonstrate water quality improvement, but has not yet fully restored the waterbody. This is what USEPA terms a type II success story. 25

26 How many does this total up to across the state? How many are Type I, II, etc. 26

Lessons Learned Consistency amongst IPs Differences between contractors Regional and geographic variability State Agency led vs. Local Initiative Public Participation Funding motivates actions Keeping those key players involved throughout entire process Changing behavior in a voluntary manner takes time Implementation Monitoring IPs and grants interaction 27

Contact Information Ashley Wendt Ashley.wendt@deq.virginia.gov, 804-698-4042 Nicole Sandberg Nicole.sandberg@deq.virginia.gov, 804-698-4043 28