Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.

Slides:



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

The Use of Nutrient Credits in Virginia
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Coming to an Impaired Water Near You? Sean M. Sullivan Williams Mullen 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700 Raleigh, NC (919)
Commonwealth of Virginia Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Russ Baxter, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator.
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking Thursday, May 31, 2012 Martin Hurd, Vladislav Royzman, Tetra Tech, Inc. Brian Burch, Megan Thynge,
INTRODUCING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PROCESS TO VIRGINIA November 2009.
Overview of TMDL Plans TMDL Plan Workshop April 24, 2015 Karl Berger, COG staff Outline: Details Schedule Plan Elements Issues 1.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL: Restoring Waters of West Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay Bay TMDL Public Meeting November 4, 2009 Martinsburg, WV Rich Batiuk.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
Nutrient Trading and the Chesapeake Bay Paul K. Marchetti PENNVEST February 18, 2008.
David Johnson, Director, Department of Conservation and Recreation Russ Baxter, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator, Department of Environmental Quality October.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Background and Litigation Jon A. Mueller, Vice President For Litigation Chesapeake Bay Foundation William and Mary,
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
Status Report: Chesapeake Bay TMDL Clean Up Plan Presented to P otomac Roundtable by Jack E. Frye April 9, 2010.
The Virginia Bar Association October 22, 2009 Richmond, Virginia Reginald Parrish U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Update on.
Water Quality Reduction Trading Program Draft Rule Language Policy Forum January 29,
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
WATERSHED PERMITTING IN NORTH CAROLINA NPDES PERMIT NCC BECAME EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2003 NEUSE RIVER COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION MORRIS V. BROOKHART, P.E.
Update on the Development of EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan Russ Perkinson Potomac Roundtable October 8, 2010.
C hesapeake Bay EPA TMDLs & State WIPs: Implications for Local Governments Presentation to Water Resources Technical Committee November 12, WRTC.
Department of the Environment Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program Phase I- Trading between point sources and trading involving connecting on-site septic.
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.
District of Columbia Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Blue Plains Regional Committee 1 District Department of the Environment Watershed Protection Divsion.
Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Credit Trading Program
Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,
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.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Basinwide BMP Verification Framework: Building Confidence in Delivering on Pollution Reductions to Local Waters Maryland.
VACo Environment and Agriculture Steering Committee VML Environmental Policy Committee June 2, 2010 Charlottesville, VA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Roanoke.
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.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans: Why, What, and When Katherine Antos U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office MACo Winter Conference January.
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
Potomac Round Table Bay TMDL Update 4/1/2011. Schedule Dec 29,2010 EPA established Bay TMDL Dec 29,2010 EPA established Bay TMDL March/April/May/June.
Nutrient Trading: Principles and Issues April 7, 2006 presentation to Potomac Watershed Roundtable.
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.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Moving to Phase II: Watershed Implementation Plans
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office June 1, 2012
Developing a Water Quality Trading Framework
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
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.
James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OCTOBER 7, 2019
Presentation transcript:

Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010

Watershed Implementation Plans EPA expects States to develop Plans that provide roadmap of how the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will be achieved and maintained Challenge is for States to equitably allocate nutrient and sediment loads to source sectors, such as: Wastewater, municipal and industrial Agriculture Storm Water On-site septic systems Forest Some sectors are regulated, some are not All sectors very concerned over impact TMDL allocations will have on their future activities and costs

Watershed Implementation Plans Eight Elements 1.Interim and Final Nutrient and Sediment Target Loads 2.Current Loading Baseline and Program Capacity 3.Account for Growth 4.Gap Analysis 5.Commitment and Strategy to Fill Gaps 6.Tracking and Reporting Protocols 7.Contingencies for Slow or Incomplete Implementation 8.Appendix with Detailed Targets and Schedule

TMDL Allocations to Source Sectors TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS HOW MUCH OF THE PIE IS EACH SOURCE SECTOR ASSIGNED?

This is How the VA WIP will look for Wastewater IF Allocations in Current VA Regulation Remain Unchanged

WIP – Element #1: Interim and Final Nutrient and Sediment Target Loads Significant Dischargers: –Total Nitrogen = MPY * –Total Phosphorus = 2.12 MPY * Non-significant Municipal and Industrial Dischargers –Total Nitrogen = XX.X MPY –Total Phosphorus =XX.X MPY →Allocations based on WQMP regulation adopted in 2005 with subsequent amendments and contained in Watershed GP →Allocations based on procedure in VA Code adopted in 2005 to maintain load cap upon plant expansion; data being compiled; expect WLAs for municipals ~5% of allocations of significant dischargers * These loads are “delivered loads” under the Tributary Strategy scenario using CBP Watershed Model 5.3; TMDL allocations will be expressed as delivered loads based on model run that achieves water quality standards using WSM 5.3; EPA to set basin allocations by July 1, 2010.

WIP – Element #2: Current Loading Baseline and Program Capacity Wastewater – Nitrogen [MPY]Wastewater – Phosphorus [MPY] Program Capacity - Basis for waste load allocations for wastewater dischargers contained in VA Code [§ :12] and two regulations: Water Quality Mgmt Planning Regulation [9 VAC ] and Chesapeake Bay Watershed General Permit Regulation [9 VAC ].

WIP – Element #3: Account for Growth EPA provides two approaches: –Designate explicit target loads in TMDL for anticipated growth; this decreases allocations available for existing sources; OR, –Do not designate explicit target loads for growth, but “offset” any new or increased loads in the future with reductions elsewhere VA Code and regulation provides for combination of these approaches for wastewater: –Allocations set at 2010 design capacity of wastewater plants to recognize planning and investment made to provide wastewater treatment for future growth into foreseeable future –Regulatory nutrient caps call for offsetting new loads from future expansions of existing wastewater plants –VA Code calls for no allocation provided for new wastewater plants 2005 legislation: this applies to only new plants > 40,000 gpd 2010 legislation: this applies to only new plants > 1,000 gpd

WIP – Element #4: Gap Analysis EPA expects states to identify gaps between current capacity and the capacity necessary to fully attain the interim and final target loads. Current VA law, regulation and permits generally provide the assurance needed to meet the wastewater nutrient target loads 2010 VA General Assembly provided new authorities: –HB Eastern Shore facilities can acquire credits from facilities in Potomac and Rappahannock basins –HB1135 – New dischargers [>1,000 gpd but < 39,999 gpd] commencing to discharge after January 1, 2011 must offset nutrient loads Remaining issues for small dischargers: –Existing dischargers that expand to <40,000 gpd are not included –New dischargers < 1,000 gpd [SFH] are not included

WIP – Element #5: Commitment and Strategy to Fill Gaps EPA expects states to develop and commit to a strategy to systematically fill gaps identified Wastewater dischargers operate under permit; Commonwealth’s overall commitment of ensuring compliance is through these permits Options for existing small dischargers expanding to under 40,000 gpd: –Seek legislation to set allocations based on existing design capacity; future expansions would be treated like other non-significant dischargers that need to offset beyond existing capacity, or; –Assign allocation to each of these discharges based on 40,000 gpd; this will use more of the existing allocation compared to first option Options for small dischargers < 1,000 gpd [Single Family Homes]: –Provide allocations in TMDL for all existing AND NEW dischargers <1,000 gpd, or: –Possibly seek legislation setting up program that provides offsets for new SFH dischargers –NOTE: should coordinate with approach used for on-site systems for SFHs

WIP – Element #6: Tracking and Reporting Protocols Wastewater dischargers are required to track and report under their discharge permits [Watershed General Permit or individual permits] Under Nutrient Credit Exchange Program, DEQ is required to report results of wastewater nutrient loads by April 1 of each year for the prior year annual loads

WIP – Element #7: Contingencies for Slow or Incomplete Implementation Compliance and Enforcement Program for wastewater permit requirements is the mechanism to ensure timely implementation to achieve waste load allocations Contingency: Offsets among source sectors –Assessing compliance with 2-year milestones based upon total loadings, not by compliance with individual source sector allocations –Wastewater treatment plants can operate below their assigned allocations: During early years, treatment efficiency is better while wastewater flows are below the design capacity Operating to meet permitted nutrient concentrations attainable by installed technology –Excess “credits” from the wastewater sector can be used to offset loads in other sectors that exceed their allocations; this will aid in meeting the Commonwealth’s overall target load for the 2 year milestone period

WIP – Element #8: Appendix with Detailed Targets and Schedule Wastewater targets loads will be included in the TMDL for the segment shed where the facility is located; there are 40[?] segment sheds in Virginia Schedule for meeting the wastewater nutrient allocations is contained in the Watershed General Permit

EPA’s Accountability Framework Federal consequences if State fails to: Develop WIPs consistent with EPA expectations and schedule Develop Two-Year Milestones consistent with EPA expectations Achieve Target Loads in Two-Year Milestones Develop NPDES permits consistent with WLAs Develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure NPS Load Allocations are achieved

Federal Consequences! Expand NPDES coverage to unregulated sources Object to NPDES permits and increase program oversight Require net improvement offsets Established finer scale WLAs and LAs Require additional reductions from point sources Increase federal enforcement and compliance assurance Condition or redirect EPA grants Federal promulgation of local nutrient water quality standards

What does this all mean for the future? Who Knows?......But we can speculate… CHANGE in……. –The way land is developed –“Disposal” of wastewater – more reclamation and reuse –The management of agriculture –Other - TBD…….

Question & Answer

EXTRA SLIDES

Virginia Nitrogen Loads Virginia Nitrogen Loads [million lbs/yr] Working Target Load – MPY for Bay TMDLs EXPECTED TO CHANGE!! TS – VA Tributary Strategy issued in 2005; with 2020 CAIR E3 – Theoretical maximum reductions

Virginia Phosphorus Loads Virginia Phosphorus Loads [million lbs/yr] Working Target Load – 7.05 MPY for Bay TMDLs EXPECTED TO CHANGE!! TS – VA Tributary Strategy issued in 2005 E3 – Theoretical maximum reductions Need to update with P5.3 #s

State Target Loads [as of Oct. 2009] State 2008 Load Tributary Strategy Target Load DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Total State 2008 Load Tributary Strategy Target Load DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Total NitrogenPhosphorus All loads are in millions of pounds per year NOTE: Expect target loads to change in April, with possible lower [more stringent] VA target loads