EPA Releases Final Chesapeake Bay TMDL

It's 2011, and that means the final Chesapeake Bay TMDL is now available! In the final TMDL, only New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia received allocations that differed from those proposed in their final Phase I WIPs. Furthermore, because EPA determined that many of the jurisdictions’ final Phase I WIPs met all target allocations and/or met EPA’s expectations for reasonable assurance, EPA reduced or eliminated many of the backstop allocations that it had included for those jurisdictions in the September 24, 2010, draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Although Maryland was not "threatened" with any of these backstop allocations as a result of its Phase I WIP, it continues its streak of rising above the crowd and is praised by EPA for establishing the goal of EXCEEDING the interim target allocations. Let's take a closer look...

In its December 29, 2010 Executive Summary, EPA notes that Maryland developed a final Phase I WIP input deck with nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment controls that more than met the interim target allocations by achieving a 70 percent reduction by 2017, and met the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment target allocations by 2020. Maryland’s final Phase I WIP also met EPA’s expectations for providing reasonable assurance that these allocations will be met. As a result, EPA based Maryland’s final allocations entirely on Maryland’s final Phase I WIP.

 Maryland Allocations

Maryland meets its nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment allocations for each basin in the final TMDL, based on EPA’s quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Maryland’s final Phase I WIP. Maryland submitted proposed modifications to its nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment allocations in each of its five basins. EPA used the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model to confirm that these modifications would still attain applicable WQS. Maryland’s final Phase I WIP input deck resulted in jurisdiction-wide loads that are 0 percent over modified nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment allocations. Maryland’s Bay TMDL jurisdiction-wide allocations are nitrogen 39.09 mpy; phosphorus 2.72 mpy; and sediment 1218.10 mpy.

 Maryland Agriculture

Maryland’s final Phase I WIP showed significant improvements from its draft Phase I WIP in the agriculture sector, including a strong contingency statement that significantly bolsters EPA’s reasonable assurance that Maryland will meet its agriculture targets by committing to explore new policy measures and mandatory BMP compliance options. For example, these could include a regulatory change that cover crops be planted on the highest risk acres. The Maryland final Phase I WIP also provides more detail on phosphorus management, strengthens contingencies, improves coordination with USDA, develops a plan for increasing staff levels, and selects a subset of strategies to implement by 2017.

EPA will maintain ongoing oversight of Maryland’s agriculture sector. EPA will use its national review of CAFO State Technical Standards in 2011 as an opportunity to identify any deficiencies in the State Technical Standards for protecting water quality. Through its review of State Technical Standards, EPA also will evaluate whether Maryland’s phosphorus management program is sufficient to address phosphorous imbalances and water quality concerns. If deficiencies are identified that are not addressed by Maryland or a CAFO permit does not include other conditions to achieve nitrogen and phosphorus reductions identified in the final Phase I WIP, EPA may object to permits if they are not protective of water quality.

Maryland Urban Stormwater

Maryland’s final Phase I WIP also showed significant improvement in its commitment to urban stormwater management. In the final Phase I WIP, Maryland committed to several actions to ensure reductions, including limits on lawn fertilizer use, use of natural filters such as riparian buffers and stream restoration, and an increase in watershed restoration requirements for MS4s by requiring additional nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions. The WIP also included a contingency plan whereby if local utilities or other systems of charges are not underway in 2012, Maryland will seek legislation requiring development of local stormwater utilities via a statewide system of fees. The final Phase I WIP also included descriptions of the policy, financing, and tracking mechanisms for implementing urban stormwater retrofit programs.

Maryland also included in its final Phase I WIP specific activities and milestones for urban stormwater program implementation, including the following:
  • Renewal of Phase I MS4 permits to require nutrient and sediment reductions equivalent to urban stormwater treatment on 30 percent of the impervious surface that does not have adequate urban stormwater controls.
  • Renewal of Phase II MS4 permits to require nutrient and sediment reductions equivalent to urban stormwater treatment on 20 percent of the impervious surface that does not have adequate urban stormwater controls.
  • Renewal of State Highway Administration Phase I and Phase II MS4 permits to require nutrient and sediment reductions equivalent to urban stormwater treatment on 30 percent of the impervious surface that does not have adequate controls.
  • Regulation of fertilizer applications on 220,000 acres of commercially managed lawns.

 

While EPA is satisfied overall with Maryland’s demonstration of reasonable assurance, EPA will closely track the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions expected to result from these urban stormwater retrofits. EPA will maintain ongoing oversight of Maryland’s urban stormwater sector and will assess how well Maryland is able to track and quantify outcomes from the retrofits projected in its final Phase I WIP.

Maryland Wastewater

Maryland’s final Phase I WIP also showed significant improvement in the wastewater sector. Maryland committed to identify options to structure the Bay Restoration Fund (BRF) fee in order to fully fund Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) upgrades at 67 public major wastewater treatment plants. Options include fees based on consumption, income, or other criteria; and, in 2012, to propose an amendment to the BRF statute to change the BRF fee in order to provide funding needed to complete the upgrades.. Maryland’s final Phase I WIP also included a contingency that if the BRF statute is not amended, “All funding for ENR projects will be reduced from 100 percent grant to provide partial grant funds for each remaining project. Local governments would be responsible for the balance of the necessary funding. State low interest loan funds would be available to assist.”

EPA will maintain ongoing oversight of Maryland’s wastewater sector to ensure that the actions detailed in the final Phase I WIP occur and achieve the expected pollutant reductions.

Maryland Conclusion

EPA applauds Maryland for following up a strong draft with an even stronger final Phase I WIP. Maryland clarifies how its existing programs will implement nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions ahead of schedule. Both Maryland and EPA are committed to carefully review progress and adopt contingency actions as necessary to achieve and maintain the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions.

Maryland planners responsible for the Phase I WIP get a grade "A" from EPA...I just hope that the implementation phase is conducted smoothly and without too many growing pains.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL's Potential Impacts on Builders and Developers

The draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL -which extends over portions of six states and Washington, DC, an area of 64,000 square miles, a total of 92 watersheds, and 17 million inhabitants -was published on September 24, 2010, and was available for review and public comment through November 8, 2010. The EPA’s stated plan is to produce a final TMDL by the end of 2010. Because the TMDL is being held out as a potential model in the formation of other TMDL's and nutrient reduction programs, and because the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will have a significant impact on the building industry, it's helpful for us to know what is being said about the draft TMDL via the public comments submitted to EPA.

The comment submitted by NAHB, the National Association of Home Builders, makes some excellent points specifically about the TMDL's impact on builders and developers.  Here are a few excepts from its comment dated November 8th, 2010 (the complete version of NAHB's public comment is available here as a pdf on www.regulations.gov):

  1. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL's requirements will become a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued for controlling the stormwater discharges from construction sites, and will therefore become a part of the stormwater permits issued for homebuilding projects in the Bay watershed.
  2. EPA intends to hold states, municipalities, NPDES permit holders, and citizens responsible if the states do not live up to EPA's visions of compliance.
  3. The stringency of the new pollutant reduction requirements will significantly strain the already challenged state and local government budgets and may simply be unaffordable for the states and localities covered by the rule.

If local governments and municipalities cannot afford the costs associated with the TMDL - who is going to pay?

NAHB alleges that: The costs of the TMDL will be borne by the construction industry in the form of land, planning, and carrying costs; installation and maintenance of BMPs; and, in affected states that have no pollutant allocation set aside for future growth, the requirement to offset all pollutant loadings from new construction activities. These will ultimately be felt in the market as a combination of higher prices and lower output for the construction industry. As output declines and jobs are lost in the construction industry, other sectors of the economy that buy from or sell to the construction industry will also contract and lose jobs. Builders and developers already are being crippled by the economic downturn and the ability of the home-buying public to absorb significant new costs and the TMDL will further exacerbate these challenges. Further, because compliance costs are incurred prior to the home sales, builders and developers will be required to pay carrying costs, which add additional cost to projects.

-    Page 17 of the NAHB's comment on EPA-R03-OW-2010-0736.

These are troubling allegations for the building industry. It will be interesting to see if EPA responds to these and other points relating to inconsistencies in modeling in the final version of the TMDL.

Interested to see what other industry and agricultural sectors had to say? The complete set of public comments is available here, on the regulations.gov website.

EPA Releases Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Announces Federal Backstop Measures for Maryland

Based upon deficiencies in several of the draft Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans submitted by Chesapeake Bay watershed states in September, the EPA released its draft TMDL plan on September 24, 2010 with newly incorporated federal backstops. As a quick refresher, remember that the TMDL is designed to ensure that all pollution control measures to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025.  The final TMDL will be established by December 31.

EPA's backstop measures include tightening controls on federally permitted point sources of pollution, such as wastewater treatment plants, large animal agriculture operations, and municipal stormwater systems. Let's take a quick look at all proposed backstops, then jump to those proposed specifically for Maryland.

All Federal Backstops (applied in varying degrees per jurisdiction):

  1. Expand coverage of NPDES permits to sources that are currently unregulated;
  2. Increase oversight of state-issued NPDES permits;
  3. Require additional pollution reductions from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants;
  4. Increase federal enforcement and compliance in the watershed;
  5. Prohibit new or expanded pollution discharges;
  6. Redirect EPA grants; and
  7. Revise water quality standards to better protect local and downstream waters

In the draft TMDL, EPA proposes more extensive backstop allocations for Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, Delaware and West Virginia - only minor changes were made to the plans for Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Federal Backstops for Maryland:

  1. Maryland's Phase I WIP Analysis: EPA found some deficiencies - but found that it meets overall statewide allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, with several individual river basins exceeding the allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment.
  2. Maryland's Federal Backstop Allocation: EPA asserts that it made "minor level" backstop allocations for Maryland's non-point source load allocations to meet nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment allocations in each major basin within Maryland. EPA believes that the TMDL does not institute changes to point source wasteload allocations that would affect NPDES permit conditions.

While it is somewhat reassuring to read that EPA believes that the NPDES permit program would not require further federal oversight in Maryland, this is by no means a guarantee. If no new NPDES permits can be issued, then this would stymie the building industry.

The release of the draft TMDL begins a 45-day public comment period that will include public meetings in the watershed states. Maryland's scheduled meetings are as follows:

  • Oct. 12, 2-4 p.m., The Easton Club, 28449 Clubhouse Drive, Easton, MD
  • Oct. 13, 2-4 p.m. Sheraton Annapolis, Annapolis, MD
  • Oct. 14, 2-4 p.m. Hagerstown Hotel and Convention Center, Hagerstown, MD

 

Scheduled Public Meetings on Maryland's Phase I WIP and Chesapeake Bay TDML

 

Here are some upcoming meetings on Maryland's Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to add to your Outlook calendar - - -

(The picture at left admittedly is not directly on point...but my lab, Emerson, has been begging to be featured on the blog- and he absolutely loves water!)

The following meetings are hosted by Maryland’s Tributary Teams:

 

September 27, 2010

5:30-6:30  Elected Officials

7:00 to 9:00  Public

Host- Upper Potomac Trib Team

South Hagerstown High School Auditorium,

1101 South Potomac Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740

 

September 30, 2010

5:00-6:00  Elected Officials

6:30 to 8:30 Public

Hosts: Choptank, Upper & Lower Eastern Shore Trib Teams

Talbot County Community Center, Wye Oak Room

10028 Ocean Gateway (US Rte 50) Easton, MD  21601

 

October 4, 2010

5:00-6:00  Elected Officials

6:30 to 8:30 Public

Hosts- Upper Western Shore & Patapsco/Back Trib Teams

MD State Fair Grounds, DNR Bldg/State Fair Museum

2200 York Road, Timonium, 21093 (Use the York Road gate)

 

October 6, 2010

5:00-6:00  Elected Officials

6:30 to 8:30 Public

Hosts- Patuxent River Commission, Middle Potomac,

Lower Potomac & Lower Western Shore Trib Teams

Prince George’s Soil Conservation District   

5301 Marlboro Race Track Road

Upper Marlboro, 20772  (301) 574-5162 X3

 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Public Meetings on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL:

 

Tuesday October 12

2:00-4:00pm

The Easton Club

28449 Clubhouse Dr

Easton, MD

 

Wednesday October 13

2:00-4:00pm

Sheraton Annapolis

173 Jennifer Road

Annapolis, MD

 

Thursday October 14

2:00-4:00pm

Hagerstown Hotel & Convention Center,

1901 Dual Hwy

 Hagerstown, MD

(Meeting and Webinar) 

EPA Announces Intent to Establish Chesapeake Bay TMDL

In mid-September, the EPA published its intent to establish a Chesapeake Bay-wide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients and sediment for “all impaired segments in the tidal portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed” via Volume 74, No. 179 of the Federal Register.

According to the notice, a TMDL is being developed for the Chesapeake Bay because water pollution in the Bay prevents the attainment of existing State water quality standards and the pollutants that are largely responsible for this impairment are nutrients in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus along with sediment.

What will the TMDL do?

The TMDL will establish the watershed pollution budget for nutrients and sediment necessary to meet water quality standards in the Bay, taking into consideration both point (i.e., sources discharging to waterbodies through a pipe or other direct conveyance) and nonpoint (agricultural and other unchanneled stormwater runoff) sources of pollutants. Because the EPA’s ability to influence nonpoint sources has been limited in the past, under the Bay TMDL, the EPA is working with local jurisdictions to develop “innovative approaches” to achieving nonpoint source reductions of nutrients and sediment.

If you’re thinking, “Well, I don’t build on the Bay, so the TMDL won’t impact me,” then you’d be sadly mistaken. The scope of the Bay TMDL will likely include about 92 impaired Bay and tidal tributary segments and may therefore result in 92 TMDLs (one for each impaired segment). The EPA estimates that when the TMDL is completed, it will the largest, most complex TMDL in the country, covering a 64,000 square mile area in six States and the District of Columbia.

What actions might I take?

The EPA will hold a series of public meetings between November and December 2009 and a second public comment period will be held in the summer of 2010 once a draft TMDL is developed. At this point, the EPA requests that the public provide to EPA any water quality related data and information that may be relevant to the development and calculation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL by December 18, 2009. This is a great opportunity for the development and building industries to gather pertinent data (especially on nonpoint sediment runoff) and to get that information submitted so that it can be reviewed during the establishment of the TMDL.