1. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP)
Russ Baxter
Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay

2. Topics for Today
Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) background
Current status of Bay TMDL activities and progress
Local water quality improvement success stories
State implementation initiatives
What’s next?

3. Local Governments: Key Partners and Implementers
Nutrients and sediment from wastewater, urban, agricultural, and septic sources contribute to water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay AND to local waters within your jurisdictions
Opportunity to build on local programs currently underway or under design to improve the quality of local waters
Opportunity to address local water quality issues and other community issues at the same time

4. Chesapeake Bay Background & Status

5. What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL?
Establishes the amount of pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, suspended solids (sediment)) that a water body can accept and meet water quality standards
In Virginia, the TMDL is further subdivided into TMDLs for each of the three pollutants for 39 “segmentsheds”
(sub watersheds)
Allocates pollution loads among Bay states (and DC) and among source sectors (agriculture, urban, wastewater, septic, forest)
Designed to ensures that all pollution control measures needed to meet water quality standards are in place by 2025

6. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed

7. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed
64,000 square mile watershed - 34% of the total Bay watershed is in Virginia
55% of the Virginia’s land area drains to the Bay
> 50% of Virginia's streams and rivers flow to the Bay
75% of the Virginia's 8 million residents live within the watershed
Overall summary of land cover:
Forest ~ 66%
Agriculture ~ 20%
Developed ~ 13%
Non-tidal water ~ 1%

8. Chesapeake Bay Watershed – Scale of Implementation
5 Major basins
39 Segmentsheds (areas in colors)
16 Planning District Commissions
96 Localities (Counties and Cities)
32 Soil & Water Conservation
Districts

9. Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Timeline
Phase I WIP – submitted to EPA November 2010
enhancements to existing state level programs and initiatives
Phase II WIP – submitted to EPA March 2012
Updates to statewide strategies
Subdivided Bay TMDL planning targets for Virginia’s 39 segment sheds into local area targets
Significant engagement of local governments and collection of local strategies
Phase III WIP – Due August 2018
Further updates to statewide strategies
More focused engagement of local entities (localities and Soil & Water Conservation Districts) and stakeholders

10. Chesapeake Bay Model
Only tool used to forecast and track the effects of practices and strategies on water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay
Simulates impact of changes in land cover and uses that could affect the Bay
Projects the effect of pollution-reduction actions
Provides an estimate of the nutrient and sediment reductions that may occur when management practices are implemented
Currently being updated (Phase 6)

11. We Are Making Progress Blue crab population Bay grasses
Dead zone forecast
Reducing pollution
Oyster populations
Adult Female Blue Crab Abundance: Between 2015 and 2016, the abundance of adult female blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay increased 92 percent from 101 million to 194 million. This number is above the 70 million threshold but below the 215 million target.
Underwater Grass Abundance: Between 2014, and 2015, underwater grass abundance in the Chesapeake Bay rose 21 percent, bringing underwater grasses in the nation’s largest estuary to the highest total of the last three decades. Aerial imagery collected between May and November of 2015 revealed a total of 91,621 acres of underwater grasses across the region. While this total is just under half of the 185,000-acre goal to which Chesapeake Bay Program partners committed in the Watershed Agreement, it is the highest amount ever recorded by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) aerial survey and surpasses the partnership’s 2017 restoration target two years ahead of schedule. Experts attribute this rise in underwater grass abundance to the recovery of wild celery and other species in the fresher waters of the upper Bay, the continued expansion of widgeon grass in the moderately salty waters of the mid-Bay and a modest recovery of eelgrass in the very salty waters of the lower Bay. In spite of this good news, experts advise cautious optimism: because widgeon grass is known as a “boom and bust” species whose abundance can rise and fall from year to year, the widgeon-dominant spike we have seen is not guaranteed to persist in future seasons. Freshwater grasses, however, are more resilient, and continued improvements in water quality are expected to support the continued expansion of these grass species.
Short-term Trends in Nitrogen Loads: Short-term trends in nitrogen loads are improving in a number of tributaries. Because excess nitrogen (along with excess phosphorus) fuels the growth of algae blooms that can create low or no-oxygen “dead zones,” a drop in nitrogen loads is a good thing for water quality and the underwater grasses that need clear water to survive. For more information, see nitrogen trends (2005 to 2014) at River Input Monitoring stations via USGS:  
Water Clarity: Satellite data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revealed that in October and November of 2015, most of the Chesapeake Bay was clearer than it has been at this time during the previous five years. Data collected by NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System revealed that turbidity was statistically lower than normal in November of 2015 at five of ten buoys. In Maryland, secchi disk results revealed that water clarity in October of 2015 was higher than the most recent five to ten-year average. (However: satellite data did show some areas of increased turbidity in October and November of 2015 and two CBIBS buoys did show statistically higher turbidity in November of 2015, so it is important to note that clarity did not improve in the entire Bay). For more information: 
Water Quality Standards Attainment: Results of the 2012 to 2014 assessment period indicate that 34 percent of the water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay were met during this time. These results mark a 17 percent increase from those of the previous assessment period, during which 29 percent of water quality standards were met. A straight-line trend analysis from the 1985 to 1987 assessment period to the present shows a positive trend in the percentage of water quality standards met in the Bay and its tidal tributaries.
Reducing Pollution: Computer simulations show that pollution controls put in place in the Chesapeake Bay watershed between 2009 and 2015 lowered nitrogen loads eight percent, phosphorus loads 20 percent and sediment loads seven percent. Between 2014 and 2015, these controls lowered nitrogen loads three percent, phosphorus loads three percent and sediment loads four percent. Experts attribute this drop in estimated pollution loads to a number of factors, including the increased implementation of agricultural conservation practices; a drop in the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen; and significant reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater sector. Indeed, for the first time—and ten years ahead of schedule—the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership as a whole has met its 2025 pollution reduction targets for the wastewater sector. Practices are in place to achieve 31 percent of the nitrogen reductions, 81 percent of the phosphorus reductions and 48 percent of the sediment reductions necessary to attain applicable water quality standards as compared to 2009, the year before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.
American Shad Abundance: TBD

12. Virginia Nitrogen Loads (lbs/year)
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
% progress
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
% TMDL
59,908,558 TN ,429,236

13. Virginia Nitrogen Loads
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
1985
2015
31.2% reduction
Point source loads reduced by 60%
Agricultural loads reduced by 31%
Urban stormwater loads increased by 38%

14. Virginia Phosphorus Loads (lbs/year)
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
% progress
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
% TMDL
7,025,091 TP ,927,277

15. Virginia Phosphorus Loads
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
1985
2015
44% reduction
Agricultural load are a larger % of the smaller pie due to significant reductions in point source discharges
Agricultural phosphorous loads were reduced by 16.8%
Urban stormwater phosphorous loads increased by 3.4%

16. Virginia Sediment Loads (lbs/year)
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
% progress
% TMDL
3,443,241,378 TSS 3,243,454,757

17. Virginia Sediment Loads
CB Watershed Model 5.3.2
1985
2015
27% reduction
Agricultural loads have decreased by 36%
Urban stormwater sediment loads have increased by 8%

18. Programmatic Initiatives

19. Programmatic Initiatives
AGRICULTURE
Increased cost share program including livestock exclusion
Development of agricultural Resource Management Plans (RMPs)
STORMWATER
Reissued all Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits
Regulatory development for reissuance of Phase II MS4 General Permit
Virginia Stormwater Management Program Implemented statewide
FORESTRY
Healthy watersheds forest project – local tools to retain forest lands
Land Use
Implementation of environmental site design criteria: Minimize land disturbance; Maintain indigenous vegetation; Minimize impervious cover
Waste water Treatment Plans
Waste water treatment plant upgrades through Watershed General Permit

20. Data and Funding Initiatives
DATA CLEANUP
Completed historical data cleanup to improve accuracy of BMP information
Developed BMP warehouse to facilitate submittal of BMP information – now live
Completed land cover project to improve land use information across Virginia
Local Governments invited to review land use data
FUNDING
Water Quality Improvement Fund: Waste Water/Ag. BMPs
Special Emphasis on Livestock Exclusion
Stormwater Local Assistance Fund ($40 million to date)
Living Shorelines Loan Program
Federal Grants

21. Key Points
Point source pollutant loads have significantly reduced due to waste water treatment plant upgrades, but these reductions will “level off” as growth occurs in the service areas of these plants
Agricultural and urban source sectors have benefitted from “overachievement” of nutrient reductions from waste water treatment plants
Although sediment loads from agricultural have decreased, these loads remain a primary source of sediment and further reductions are needed
Need to address nutrient and sediment loads from urban sources
State and local resources are limited

22. Ideas for Addressing Issues at Local Level
Focus on local water quality
Prioritize those strategies that address community benefits and achieve multiple benefits
Identify, verify and report practices resulting from existing local programs & initiatives

23. Elements of Local Participation
There is no regulatory requirement to participate in the WIP III development.
Current regulatory programs are a necessary part of our WIP
Contributing additional pollutant reduction strategies will have both local and regional benefits

24. What’s Next?

25. Key Issues Moving Forward
Factoring in loads from the Conowingo Dam into the TMDL and the impacts of climate change on the ecosystem and the practices we currently use
Updates to the Chesapeake Bay Model
Focus on finance: Maintain pubic support and work to bring private capital to water quality restoration?
Planning Targets and due date for draft WIP III document (about 6 months)
Determination of scale of local area planning goals

26. Phase 6 Model Update
Land use categories and Model data have been updated, based on more recent data
Finer resolution of land cover categories (now at 10 meter resolution)
Model is the only tool used by EPA to forecast the effects of practices and strategies on the Chesapeake Bay
Works best at a larger scale (e.g. river basin)
Will be used for the Phase III WIP

27. Phase III WIP Timeline Local review of the Phase 6 model land use data
EPA releases final expectations for Phase III WIPs
Release of final Phase 6 model
EPA releases draft Phase III WIP Planning Targets
EPA releases final Phase III WIP Planning Targets
Draft Phase III WIPs due to EPA
EPA feedback and public comment on draft Phase III WIPs
Final Phase III WIPs due to EPA
October-Nov 2016
June 2017
June 2017
June 2017
December 2017
August 2018
October 2018
December 2018

28. Local Engagement Timeline
On-going: Regular meetings of Chesapeake Bay Stakeholder Advisory Group
January 2017 through second quarter of 2017: Initial presentations to elected officials and staff, Soil & Water Conservation District Directors and staff
Phase 6 Model and draft planning targets released June 2017
Third and fourth quarters of 2017: Two rounds of regional engagement work sessions including local and SWCD district staff as well as local stakeholders
Final planning targets released December 2017
First quarter 2018: Final engagement round prior to submittal of the draft Phase III WIP in August 2018

29. Expectations and Opportunities for Local Engagement
Feedback to EPA through Local Government Advisory Committee
Continue to provide BMP information, not reported elsewhere, through BMP warehouse
Review local programs and initiatives to identify gaps and optimize existing programs and projects
Identify what pollutant reductions are already being achieved/planned for in various programs

30. Expectations and Opportunities for Local Engagement
Develop workable strategies to fill gaps and that yield multiple benefits
Explore and pursue peer-to-peer exchanges of ideas, tools, and best practices
Participate in organized meetings & training opportunities
Take advantage of funding opportunities

31. Water Quality Measures that Yield Multiple Benefits
Water Quality Practice
Additional Benefits
Expanded tree canopy
Green infrastructure & environmental site design
Stormwater quantity control
Stream restoration
Shade and community attractiveness
Reduced stormwater costs
Reduce future stream restoration costs
Reduce loss of property

32. MS4s and the Phase III WIP
Continue compliance with all permit conditions and implement Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plans
Continue to report all verified and installed BMPs
Regulatory development schedule for reissuance of small MS4 General Permit will not likely allow for incorporation of the Phase 6 model or the Phase III WIP
Examine strategies to address pollutant reductions outside of MS4 service areas (unregulated area)

33. Examples of Local Success Stories

34. City of Alexandria & Arlington County: Four Mile Run Stream Project
Problems:
Heavily urbanized stream resulting in significant sediment transport
Solution:
Naturalize stream banks; minimize sediment transport; replace rip-rap with vegetation
Anticipated pollutant reductions:
Sediment: lbs/year
Nitrogen: lbs/year
Phosphorous: 7.17 lbs/year

35. City of Staunton: Lake Tams BMP Retrofit
Problems:
Severely eroded banks
High erosion and sediment transport downstream
Solution:
Construct riprap energy dissipater and sediment forebay
Utilize Virginia Stormwater Local Assistance funds - $200,000
Anticipated pollutant reductions:
Sediment: 14.8 tons/year
Nitrogen: 399 lbs/year
Phosphorous: 39 lbs/year
Completed sediment forebay

36. Town of Kilmarnock, Northern Neck: Stream Restoration
Problems:
Severe stream bank erosion resulting in heavy sediment and nutrient loads downstream
Solution:
Comprehensive stream restoration
Anticipated pollutant reductions:
Sediment: 812 tons/year
Nitrogen: 706 lbs/year
Phosphorous: 279 lbs/year
Town of Kilmarnock

37. DCR/City of Harrisonburg: Blacks Run Watershed
Problem: Stormwater pollution from numerous sources
Solution:
Installation of ~200 BMPs treating 124 urban residential acres
170 rain barrels; 14 rain gardens
8 bioretention/infiltration practices
7 riparian buffer planting projects > 1 acre
2,850 ft of streambank stabilization
65 pet waste digesters
117,500 gallons of rainwater harvested
8 acres of trees planted
Estimated Pollutant Reductions:
Sediment: 19 tons/year
Nitrogen: 509 lbs/year
Phosphorous: 78 lbs/year

38. Your ideas!
Are there other delivery mechanisms for outreach and engagement?
Are there other groups to include?
As the state obtains more detailed information, what are the best mechanisms to deliver that information?
What kinds of educational information and forums would be of value throughout this process?
Opportunities for peer-to-peer collaboration
Thoughts or questions?
Additional success stories?

39. Contact Info
Russ Baxter,
Jutta Schneider,
Melanie Davenport,
Joan Salvati,
James Davis-Martin,