Chesapeake Bay TMDL&

Watershed Implementation Plans

The Role of Local Governments

Jeff CorbinSenior Advisor to the Administrator

U.S. EPA

Presentation to the Potomac Watershed Roundtable

A Bit of HistorySeries of Agreements & Commitments

• 1983 (1 page) – There’s a Problem – Work Together

• 1987 (7 pages)– 40% Reduction in Nutrients

• 1992 (back to 3 pages)– Work Upstream– Develop Tributary Strategies

• 1996 Shen/Potomac Tributary Strategy• 1999 Consent Decree – TMDLs• 1999 Bay and Tidal Rivers listed on 303(d) List

More History

• 1999-2000 James, Rapp, York, E.S Trib Strats• 2000 (13 pages & 100+ commitments)

– Beyond 40% - Delist the Bay and Rivers

• 2005 State-wide Tributary Strategy• 2006-2009 Annual Bay & River Clean-Up Plans• And Now – Bay TMDL

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1985 Base 2009 Target Tributary Loading Loading Loading E3 All

Scenario Calibration Scenario Load A Strategy Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Forest

342TN 309TN 248TN 200TN 191TN 190TN 179TN 170TN 141TN 58TN

24.1TP 19.5TP 16.6TP 15.0TP 14.4TP 12.7TP 12.0TP 11.3TP 8.5TP 4.4TP

Nu

mb

er o

f S

egm

ents

in D

O V

iola

tio

n

Open Water Violations

Deep Water Violations

Deep Channel Violations

Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment

Basin-wide TMDL load is185.9 N and 12.54 P MPY

Millions of Pounds Per Year (MPY)

8

Pollution Diet

…by River…by State

Assessment of Management Effectiveness

Watershed Implementation Plans

~Expectations~Similar to VA Law Requirements

1. Interim and Final Nutrient and Sediment Target Loads2. Current Loading Baseline and Program Capacity3. Gap Analysis4. Account for growth5. Commitment and Strategy to Fill Gaps6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols7. Contingencies for Slow/Incomplete Implementation8. Appendix with Detailed Targets and Schedule

60% by 2017!!

None of This is All That New

• We’ve been at this a while

• We’ve had a pretty good idea of what needs to be done – “Trib Strat Effort”

• We’ve developed clean-up plans before

• We’ve developed many TMDLs

• Many of the partners have been at the table awhile

So How is the TMDL Different?

• Accountability • Assurance • Step-wise progress …milestones, 2017• New Clean-Up Date

No Later Than 2025

• Transparency• Backstop Actions

Flexibility

• Focus on Milestone Achievement

• Staged Implementation Approach for Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Virginia James River Basin

– (TMDL App X)

• Better accounting of practices – CBP Established Process

• 15 year Implementation Timeline

• Innovation Encouraged

• Expanded Trading

Stormwater – MS4 Permits

• Draft WIP included very aggressive stormwater reductions

• Final WIP proposed baseline + % reductions over 3 permit cycles

• TMDL included individual Wasteload Allocations

• VA prefers aggregate allocations

• EPA & VA Close to Resolution

Primary Purpose of Phase II WIPs:Taking It Local!

• Provide roadmap at scale that helps partners reach their goals

• Respond to concern that Tributary Strategies not understood at local level

• Engage local decision-makers

• Primary EPA expectations for Phase II (November 2009):– Divide TMDL allocations to finer

scale. Targets are not finer scale allocations

– Provide specific controls that will be implemented by 2017

• Extra time so 7 Bay jurisdictions could work with local decision-makers in Phase II strategies

16

Phase III - 2017

Costs

True – It will take a significant $ investment

We have know this for a long time

• Nov ‘10 WIP - Upwards of $7 Billion

• 2005 Statewide Trib Strat - ~$10B

• 2005 Shen-Pot Tributary Strategy - $3.88B

We’ve Studied Funding Options

Budget

The overall budget for the Chesapeake Bay Program has increased in the last several years

FY 2009 - $30.9M enacted FY 2010 - $50.0M enacted FY 2011 - $54.4M enacted FY 2012 - $67.4M President’s Budget

$50.0M House Bill

Bottom Lines•This is Doable

Nobody Has Said “No”

•Focus on 2-Year Chunks – Budgets, Programs, Policies, etc.

•Innovate

•Think Creatively – Be Flexible

•Tackle the Funding Issue

•Private Capital?