Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning for Our Future:
Advertisements

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.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA) 1 CBP Program Update Citizens Advisory Committee February 27, 2014.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Progress Update: Evaluation of Federal Facilities in WIPs and Milestones CBPO Management Board March 6, Jim Edward, EPA Greg Allen, EPA.
Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions Principals’ Staff Committee Meeting 2/16/12 Carin Bisland, Associate Director.
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.
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.
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 1 CBP Program Update on Bay Agreement Comments, Final Draft, and 2-Year Milestone Status Citizens.
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.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Trading and Offsets Workplan June 1, 2012.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
Preserving York County 2010 Municipal Educational Series January 28, 2010 Rick Keister, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jake Romig, York County Circuit.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2017 Midpoint Assessment: A Critical Path Forward Lucinda Power EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
Moving towards a restored Chesapeake Bay watershed
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
OVERVIEW: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS AND WATER & CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITIES Water Resources Technical Committee Oct. 29, 2015 Presented by Tanya.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January.
Carin Bisland, EPA Principals’ Staff Committee 5/14/12.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
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.
1 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan – Phase II James Davis-Martin, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Coordinator Citizens Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Chesapeake bay program: Funding & Bay TMDL Midpoint Assessment
Zoë P. Johnson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Mark Bennett, USGS
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Chesapeake bay program
Jim Edward, Deputy Director – EPA/CBPO
CBP Update: Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Proposed Bay TMDL Schedule
Local Government Engagement and Communication Strategy
Moving to Phase II: Watershed Implementation Plans
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
2025 Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Load Projections
Watershed Implementation Plan
Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee December 20, 2017
The SWA Collaborative Behaviors
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office June 1, 2012
Commonwealth of Virginia
The Bay’s Health & Future: How it’s doing and What’s Next
Implementation Guide for Linking Adults to Opportunity
2017 Midpoint Assessment: Year of Decision October 5, 2017 Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting.
Communicating Credit Where Credit is Due
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
MDE’s Phase III WIP Inventory 2018 Fall Regional WIP Meetings
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III
Expectations for Federal Agencies in Support if Chesapeake WIPs/TMDL
Citizen Advisory Committee November 30, 2018
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
Citizens Advisory Committee EPA/CBP Program Update Jim Edward Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office February 20-21,2019 Williamsburg, VA.
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
Presentation transcript:

Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations

Overview The WIPs are a critical piece to restoring our local and Bay waters. They are intended to provide clear roadmaps for how state jurisdictions, in coordination with their local and federal partners, will meet their nutrient and sediment goals in the Bay TMDL.   The Phase III WIPs will set forth the actions jurisdictions will implement between 2018 and 2025 to have all practices and controls in place to achieve not only the Bay’s water quality standards but also address local water quality impairments.

Overview (cont) EPA provided expectations to the state jurisdictions previously to help guide development and implementation of their Phase I and Phase II WIPs, in 2009 and 2011, respectively.   EPA will release its final expectations for the Phase III WIPs to account for the next seven years of implementation of the 2010 Bay TMDL, as well as to factor in new science and information resulting from the Bay TMDL’s midpoint assessment.

General Phase III WIP Expectations Our expectations were developed to provide the jurisdictions with the opportunity to build off their earlier WIP strategies to:   Further optimize their choices of pollution reduction practices. Incorporate lessons learned and new science and information from the midpoint assessment. Develop comprehensive local and federal engagement strategies. Account for growth and climate change, and ensure new pollutant loads are offset. Build and sustain the necessary programmatic and funding capacity needed to achieve their 2025 goals. EPA expects the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs to lay the groundwork for implementation of the next generation of innovative practices and to continue to strengthen their respective policy, programmatic, legislative, and regulatory infrastructures necessary to achieve their Phase III WIP planning targets by 2025.

New Phase III WIP Expectations There are several new expectations since the Phase I and Phase II WIPs were released and implemented: Local engagement and participation is critical to the success of meeting our water quality goals, as much of the implementation occurs at the local level. The Partnership has embraced the use of local planning goals – essentially, translating the state-basin nutrient and sediment targets to a scale and measurable goal that local partners can relate to. The Partnership recently agreed to use 2025 forecasted conditions in their Phase III WIPs to account for growth, which includes changes in human and animal populations, shifting land use patterns, and housing density. These projections will be updated every two years to reflect the best available information and jurisdictions will use their two-year milestones to adapt their growth strategies accordingly. The Partnership has recently decided to address Conowingo Dam infill in a collaborative fashion, as opposed to assigning responsibility to individual jurisdictions. The plan is to develop a separate WIP specific to Conowingo that will encompass our collective implementation efforts and resources to reduce those additional nutrient and sediment loads as a result of the Dam’s loss of trapping capacity. This Conowingo WIP will also include a financing strategy that will lay out the funds necessary in order to sustain implementation of the plan through 2025.

New Phase III WIP Expectations (con’t.) The PSC also committed to addressing climate change impacts both programmatically and numerically and EPA supports this approach. Jurisdictions will document in their Phase III WIPs state and local actions planned and underway to address those impacts, and starting with the 2022-2023 milestones, jurisdictions will be expected to reduce the additional nutrient and sediment loads as a result of increased storm events, sea level rise, and temperature changes. Jurisdictions are also being encouraged to consider the co-benefits of nutrient and sediment pollutant reduction practices beyond water quality improvements during their planning and implementation efforts. The tidal jurisdictions (DE, DC, MD, VA) will also be expected to conduct a finer level of BMP targeting towards those segment-sheds that are significantly out of water quality standards attainment, given the proximity of those jurisdictions to tidal waters. EPA also has developed specific Phase III WIP expectations for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to help ensure Pennsylvania is on track for meeting their water quality goals under the Bay TMDL by 2025. EPA will be issuing federal agency expectations for the development of federal water quality milestones and the role federal agencies can play in the development and implementation of the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs.

CBP Partnership Role These Phase III WIP expectations went through thorough Partnership review prior to their interim release in January 2017, and the document was later updated to reflect recent policy decisions by the CBP Principals’ Staff Committee on how the Phase III WIPs should account for growth, climate change impacts, and Conowingo dam infill.   Although this document is being released by EPA, many of these expectations are Partnership driven and reflect Partnership priorities and PSC decisions. EPA recognizes that Phase III WIP commitments may need to be modified during the 2018-2025 timeframe, and EPA expects the jurisdictions to update those programmatic and/or numeric commitments, as appropriate, through their two-year water quality milestones.

Changes in Level of Effort for Phase III WIPS Since completion of the Phase II WIPs in 2012, the Partnership has undertaken a midpoint assessment of progress to determine if restoration efforts are working as intended. The TMDL midpoint assessment also incorporated the best available science and data into our collective decision-making and into the Phase 6 model and suite of decision support tools.   The results of the Bay TMDL’s midpoint assessment show that changes to levels of effort may be necessary for certain jurisdictions to meet their Phase III WIP planning targets. The drivers of these changes include improved state and local land use data, new methods to model and simulate agricultural data inputs (e.g., fertilizer sales data), “early” verification of BMP implementation and data reporting, and accounting for growth occurring across the urban and agricultural sectors.

Closing EPA continues to work with each of the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions to better understand the sources and drivers of these changes, and how adjusting for these changes may impact the final Phase III WIP planning targets. As a partnership, we need to recognize the good work and progress we’ve made in meeting our water quality commitments, while knowing that additional effort is needed to get us to the 2025 goals. We have a shared understanding of how much farther we need to go, what’s needed – both through regulatory and voluntary means – to get us there, and what resources are key to making a demonstrable difference at the state and local levels.   EPA looks forward to our continued collaboration with each of the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions as they develop and implement their Phase III WIPs, and EPA will continue to support these efforts through technical assistance, funding, facilitation services, and other resources.

Questions? Jim Edward edward.james@epa.gov