Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Last December--and you might have read about it
in the paper--EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) established the final Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load).
And this was a TMDL that set a limit on the amount of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sediment that the Bay could receive
from the entire watershed in order
to meet water quality standards for dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll a, and SAV (submerged aquatic vegetation) water clarity in all 92 segments --
tidal segments--of the Bay where those standards are assessed.
And those 92 segments, they include water
of the District of Columbia, Delaware,
Virginia, and Maryland.
And so we often colloquially refer to the TMDL
as a pollution diet, kind of saying how much do we have
to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
in order for the Bay to be healthy
and to achieve those water quality standards.
There have been about 40,000 TMDLs established
in the United States to date, either by states and approved
by EPA, or established by EPA directly.
Because this one was multi-jurisdictional,
the states said, you know, EPA,
you can take the lead on this one.
But we're going to help you out with it.
So as TMDLs go, this one was the largest that's been done
to date, and also it is on the very comprehensive end
of the spectrum, in large part because of our efforts
over multiple decades to restore the Bay that have, you know,
not yet achieved water quality standards, most notably by 2010.
And so we said, well for this TMDL, in order for EPA
to have assurance that those allocations for nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment will be achieved and maintained,
we're going to have to ask a little more in order to have
that assurance, because past efforts have fallen short.
So we've received several questions.
One of the most popular one is, why is EPA establishing the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL?
It is our obligation under the federal Clean Water Act
to have water quality that, you know
meets those standards as protective of human health
and aquatic resources.
It's also because of the insufficient restoration
progress that I referenced earlier.
And finally, not just did the Clean Water Act say that, EPA
and the states had to do it, but it also responds
to specific court orders and legal settlements.
And it was also a cornerstone
of President Obama's executive order strategy that he signed
in 2009, and his executive order strategy came out in 2010.
Now throughout the Bay TMDL process, as I mentioned,
EPA established the TMDL,
but we would not have gotten anywhere were it not
for the six states and the District of Columbia.
You know, working with our team
at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office we were able
to say, this is how much as a whole nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment the Bay can receive.
But states, it's really up to you to say how much
of that should go to agriculture,
to urban stormwater, to wastewater, to forest.
And also it's up to you to tell us, how are you going to develop
strategies that make the most sense in your state,
in your community to achieve and maintain those allocations.
And so we put that question out to the states and DC
to say, tell us through Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) how we
should set this pollution diet.
And this accountability framework,
of which the Watershed Implementation Plans were one
part, became the basis for the demonstration
to EPA of assurance that those allocations could actually be
achieved and maintained.
Having the states buy in an ownership
of those strategies made us a lot more confident
than if EPA just said okay, 17 million people,
this is what you're all going to do;
you're with us, right?
And it is important to know --
I mean everyone in this group is well aware
of the various benefits of healthy water.
But oftentimes we hear when we're out on the road, you know,
how much is this going to cost farmers?
How much of it is going to affect private property?
And we just need to highlight
that these restoration activities are really key
to the economic value of the Bay,
and particularly in Maryland and Virginia.
So I mentioned the accountability framework.
And I just want to spend a moment on it,
because it's this accountability framework
that really sets the Chesapeake Bay TMDL apart from other TMDLs.
And we often get the question, is this what EPA is going to do
for the next 40,000 TMDLs?
And this accountability framework is really unique
to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL because of the decades
of partnership, the millions
of dollars invested in restoring the Bay
and we still haven't yet achieved standards.
So that's why we kicked it up a notch in this TMDL.
Now the first part
of the framework are the Watershed Implementation Plans,
where the states are saying all right,
here's what we're proposing to do to reduce nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment.
And here's how we're going to get it done.
And when we said to the states we want you
to put together these plans, we asked them
to answer a few questions.
First of all, what's your current program capacity?
Second of all, what are gaps in that program capacity
that actually increase that capacity
so we could achieve those nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment reductions?
And third, what's the
timeframe and what are the strategies
that you're looking to implement over the next 15 years,
to have all practices in place that would be necessary
to meet water quality standards?
2025 is a partnership goal.
Maryland has actually taken a step forward
and said, you know what?
We want to have all of our practices in place by 2020,
and we want to lead by example.
And EPA has said in order for us to have assurance
that you can get all the way there in 2025, we want to know
that 60% of the necessary practices
in place are in place by 2017.
We don't want to be coming back in 2024 and being like whoops,
we missed another deadline.
So we want to know that we're on a trajectory.
And Maryland again, leading by example.
So you know what?
We want practices in place by 2017, that would achieve 70%
of the necessary reductions compared to 2009.
So we took all of that information,
we put it into the TMDL, and then what we're gonna be doing
in the coming years, starting now,
is first the states already have one set of two-year milestones
out on the streets that they adopted in 2009.
The next set of two-year milestones that's actually going to
be tracked more specifically to the TMDL,
and the Watershed Implementation Plans will have to be in place
by January of 2012, so they're beginning
to develop those milestones.
EPA, working with the jurisdictions,
is going to model and monitor progress.
And then as necessary, if we see
that that progress isn't occurring on schedule,
or if we're concerned that jurisdictions,
they aren't committing to milestones,
or those milestones aren't aggressive enough,
or jurisdictions aren't putting together Phase II Watershed
Implementation Plans, which I'm going to talk about in a moment,
then we have the authority under the Clean Water Act
to take federal actions, to basically backstop and assure
that this restoration progress is gonna continue on schedule.
And that might require more stringent permit limits,
NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits under the Clean Water Act, conditioning
or redirecting our federal grants, different types
of things that we've said we have the authority to do,
and we're going to step up and use our full authorities
as necessary to ensure
that restoration continues on schedule.
[ Silence ]
So if for those of you --
I know some of you were living the WIP process,
so this might be old news for you.
But Maryland -- Maryland came
in with a strong draft WIP back in September.
In many of the other jurisdictions
that wasn't the case.
And the TMDL that we put out for public notice
in September, EPA didn't have confidence
that those allocations could be achieved and maintained.
And in many cases the states actually weren't even proposing
enough BMPs (Best Management Practices), or enough wastewater treatment plant
upgrades to actually result in the necessary reductions.
And so EPA had to take some of those backstop actions
that I mentioned in the previous slide,
where we actually said you know what wastewater
treatment plants?
We're pushing you closer to the limit of technology.
And animal feeding operations that aren't currently
under the CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) program, we're going to put you
under the CAFO program, and make sure
that those controls are in place.
And stormwater that's not currently covered
by an MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) permit, we're going to expand that MS4 area
through residual designation.
The jurisdiction said EPA thanks, but no thanks,
we would rather do it our way.
And I'm proud to say that between September and November,
December, they worked their tails off
and gave us a lot stronger Phase I Watershed Implementation
Plans, where first of all they were able
to actually propose nutrient and sediment reductions
that would meet standards.
And second of all they gave us a lot more credible strategies
about how and when they were going to get that done.
And EPA has said okay, because of
that we are gonna base the final TMDL
on what you've told us to do.
But in the coming years, it's our job to continue oversight
to make sure that's happening, and it's your job
to make it happen through the two-year milestones.
But I'm proud to say that, you know, we're moving forward
as a partnership to actually implement
these restoration roadmaps.
And some of the highlights that came
through in the final Phase I WIPs
were: there were additional commitments
to more stringent wastewater treatment plant limits.
There was increased accountability
for urban stormwater programs,
such as specifically saying what's going to happen
in the next few Phase I MS4 permit cycles
in Virginia, for example.
There were commitments to strengthen regulatory programs,
and to pursue rulemakings, and to tie those more specifically
to components that were identified
in the Watershed Implementation Plans.
Particularly in Pennsylvania there were new compliance
initiatives proposed for agriculture,
where they actually have some pretty good state programs
on the books.
It's just not happening.
And they're saying all right, we're going to change how we work
with our conservation districts,
and we're going to put a lot bigger focus
on this compliance assurance.
There was agreement that if voluntary actions
to reduce those from agriculture weren't meeting the expected
reductions, that the state would consider
in 2013 making mandatory programs,
and expanding their regulatory authority.
There were commitments to expand the areas
where septic systems would have to be upgraded.
And finally there were financial and programmatic commitments
to implement state of the art technologies.
This was particularly true in Pennsylvania, to do more manure
to energy technologies that
at the same time would also reduce nutrient loads associated
with that manure.
Pennsylvania was really leading the charge,
but several other states were like yeah, let's
work together and explore these new technologies.
So that was then, that was 2010.
This is now.
And I thought last year was hard,
last year was a little hard.
[ Laughter ]
I won't be shy.
But now the real hard work begins,
which does make me a little bit nervous.
But it's one of the reasons why I can't spend too much time
with this group today, because we're still running
around like headless chickens, trying to, you know,
get the word out that now the hard work really is beginning.
And first of all that hard work is, you know,
implementing the strategies that are
in the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans.
We've already had jurisdictions propose legislation
that they thought of through the WIP I process.
It's also the hard work of okay, those two-year milestones
that were adopted in 2009, how's it going states?
Are you making those reductions?
And what are you going do in the next set of two-year milestones?
We're looking at how we're working with the states
to track this data in a way that first
of all is more comprehensive than it's been in the past,
working through our NEIEN (National Environmental Information Exchange Network) nodes
so that we have a better process to actually link our databases
with states' databases,
with other federal agencies' databases, and get
a better understanding of the practices that are
on the ground, and also looking
at how do we verify those practices?
You know, we might have some areas coming
in saying they have more acres under nutrient management
than acres of agriculture
that actually exists in a particular area.
So that's the kind of thing that we're working
on our verification protocols to sort out.
We're also working with the jurisdictions
in this Phase II WIP process
where all along we said we're never going get there
if it's just EPA, the other federal agencies,
and the states.
So much of this work needs to be the conservation districts,
the local governments, the planning commissions,
the watershed associations, the utilities.
And they need to be a part of this strategy too.
But we can't do it all in 2010.
So we said let's have a Phase II Watershed Implementation
Plan process, where it's the time for the jurisdictions
to engage their local partners and refine those strategies
for what they're going to do over the next 15,
or rather now 14 years.
So oftentimes we've also heard, you know,
we're pushing too hard, we're pushing too quick.
And this restoration process
that started decades ago,
and we're still looking practices in place in 15 years.
So that's half a century of restoration to try
to save this Bay.
And it's by no means going to be easy,
but I don't think anyone could actually argue
that 50 years is too short a time to try
to save this waterway.
And I'm sure that many of you in this room feel the same way,
which is why you're here.
But I just want to share with you some of our key messages.
[ Silence ]
So I mentioned now we're looking
at the Phase II WIPs.
And we've often referred to the Watershed Implementation Plans
as these roadmaps for restoration.
And as you all know, a roadmap is totally useless unless you
can zoom it in to the scale that actually helps guide you
to where you need to go.
So the whole purpose of Phase II is to make sure
that the key local partners
that I mentioned earlier actually know what's expected
of them to implement these WIPs,
and feel like they have an opportunity
to help develop those strategies,
and help take ownership of those strategies, just like
our six states and DC have now taken ownership
of the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans,
and therefore the TMDL.
So like I said, all along our intent was
to give an additional year of time for the states to work
on these Phase II WIPs.
Last year when we were working on the TMDL,
a couple of our needs emerged that are being built
into the Phase II process.
One is that we agreed with the states that we need
to make two updates to our model,
one relates to how we simulate nutrient management
on agricultural lands, the other has to do
with how we estimate the number
of urban land use acres in the watershed.
The state said okay, well we'll let it pass in 2010,
but really make this change in 2011, and let us build it in
and adjust our allocations accordingly
in the Phase II WIP process.
So we're allowing that to happen as well.
And then in jurisdictions where we still have some questions
for particular sectors about, you know,
were their strategies actually adequate enough
to get necessary management actions
on the ground by 2017 and 2025.
These Phase II WIPs provide us
with another opportunity to check in and say hey,
how's that new legislation you talked about going?
How's that staffing up that you said
that was absolutely critical?
How are you refining your strategy to show us, you know,
you really can do it, and you don't need us to, you know,
lock down on the wastewater treatment plants,
or start designating more animal feeding operations,
or urban areas to come in for permits.
And so because of that, because Phase II's become a little more
complicated, that's why EPA
and the principal staff committee now are talking
about how we should revise the Phase II WIP schedule
to make sure that the states have time to take the results
of those two model updates,
fully engage their local partners,
and get a strong strategy that actually guides restoration
for the next 14 years.
So the key things that when states say okay, you know,
is there a checklist for Phase II?
And I said, you know, no.
Let's not be that boring.
And honestly it's really going to look different
in each jurisdiction.
How Pennsylvania works with its local governments, you know,
the fact that they have townships
and boroughs is completely different from Maryland
with its strong counties,
Virginia with its planning district commissions.
Some areas need to focus a lot more on the soil
and water conservation districts,
whereas other areas are really good focusing
on the county level.
It needs to be tailored, it needs to be flexible.
And at the end of the day, EPA just wants to be able
to read the WIP, and have it be able
to tell general story.
And we think that the public living
in the watershed has the right to read the WIP
and be able to understand that story.
And what that is, is who are the key local implementers?
Is it the conservation districts, local governments,
utilities, commissions?
Tell us who needs to be involved.
And second of all, are these key partners --
are they taking ownership of those strategies?
Can the state actually document
that those key local partners have had a role
in developing those Phase II strategies?
Third, we want to know
at the state level what are the jurisdictions helping to do
to facilitate local implementation.
Because we've heard from many local governments, that's great,
we want to be with you,
but unless the state amends such and such regulation,
we don't have the authority.
Or unless we get this much more technical assistance,
there's no way we can get it done.
Or unless permits are written in such and such a way,
we're not going to drive these practices down to a local level.
So we want to know what are the types of technical assistance,
regulatory, programmatic approaches
that the states are taking
to help drive this local level implementation.
And finally, we want to know how the federal agencies are
contributing to that effort, not just EPA holding out, you know,
we might have to do backstops.
But how are the other federal agencies --
first of all what are they doing on their lands and facilities
to reduce nutrient and sediment loads, and second of all --
this is particular true with USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), but also Department
of Interior -- how are they using their resources,
their knowledge, their expertise to help the state succeed
in implementing their Watershed Implementation Plan strategies?
So that is really in a nutshell what the TMDL and the Phase I
and Phase II WIP process is about.
I have a couple minutes before I need to jet,
but I could answer a couple questions, and of course follow
up with me if you have more questions.