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 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.
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
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.