chesapeake bay tmdl phase ii watershed implementation planning for hampton roads
DESCRIPTION
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase II Watershed Implementation Planning for Hampton Roads. Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting May 5, 2011. Jennifer Tribo Senior Water Resources Planner. Hampton Roads. HRPDC and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. 1996-2001: Locality nutrient reduction strategy options - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase II Watershed Implementation Planning for
Hampton Roads
Citizens Advisory Committee MeetingMay 5, 2011
Jennifer TriboSenior Water Resources Planner
2
Hampton Roads
Shore Drive
Great Neck Road
I-264
Lond
on B
ridge R
oad
Little
Independence Blvd
Holland Road
Lynnhav
en Pkwy
First Colon ia l R
o adGre
at N
eck
Roa
d
Virginia Beach Blvd
Shore Drive
Neck R
oadW
este
rn
Eastern Branch
Lynnhaven
Broad Bay
Bra
nch
Lynnh
aven
Linkh orn Bay
Lond
on B
r idge
Cre
ek Canal #2
0 1 2 3 Miles
N
3
HRPDC and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL • 1996-2001: Locality nutrient reduction strategy options• 2003-2005: James River Tributary Strategy• 2006: Implementation Plans for local impairments.• 2009: Commission briefings on TMDL development.• 2010: Attended meetings of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay
Stakeholder Advisory Group.• 2010/2011: Developed cost estimates for
implementation of urban stormwater reductions and commented on Draft TMDL and VA WIP.
4
Promoting Regional Cooperation• Elected Officials
– Monthly Commission Meetings• Locality Staff
– Stormwater Committee, Directors of Utilities, Chesapeake Bay Committee
• Other Agencies– Joint Environmental Committee
• SWCDs, Navy, HRSD, DEQ, DCR, USGS
5
Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan• Significant reductions required for agriculture.• Phased Implementation in the James River.
– Chlorophyll a study• Wastewater held at 2005 Permit levels with
exception of Lower James River.• No net increase in loads for new development.• Extensive urban nutrient management• Additional reductions from existing development.
6
Phase II WIP Development Phase II WIPs due March 2012 EPA’s expectations for Phase II WIPs:
Divide target nutrient reductions into a finer geographic scale (counties, sub-watersheds)
Identify specific controls and practices that will be implemented, no later than 2017, to meet interim water quality goals.
7
Overview of Virginia Approach• Develop locality targets from TMDL basin
allocations. • Engage local governments and other
stakeholders through Planning District Commission.
• Guide localities through development of Community Conservation Information.
8
Virginia’s Phase II WIP Schedule• June 2011 - Draft load reduction targets to localities
based on final TMDL
• July 2011 – EPA delivers revised load reductions to State.
• August 2011 – Revised load reduction target to localities.
• November 2011 - Localities submit final conservation strategies to Virginia.
• December 2011 – Virginia submits draft Phase II WIP to EPA.
9
Concerns with Virginia’s Approach• Timeframe• Definition of local scale• Accountability for reductions from unregulated
sources• Risk that permitted sources held liable for
nutrient reduction gaps• Technical and financial assistance
10
Timeframe• 3 months is not enough time to effectively engage
stakeholders • Localities need more time to evaluate the nutrient
reduction potential of sources and develop Community Conservation Information.
• Local TMDL Implementation Plans took an average of 12 months to complete.
• Piedmont Regional Pilot Project spent 10 months on stakeholder outreach.
11
Definition of Local• Virginia has defined local as locality, but may
allow nutrient reduction strategies at other scales.
• Who decides the appropriate scale?• Watershed scale is best for water quality.• Locality scale is cleaner for implementation.• Questions on application of the model at the
local scale.
12
Accountability for Unregulated Sources• State plan relies heavily on voluntary nutrient
and sediment reductions.• What incentives will the State give non
regulated sources to define and achieve reductions?
• How will the State address gaps if non regulated localities do not identify enough load reductions to meet the target?
13
Liability for Permitted Sources• Wastewater treatment plants and MS4s at risk of
being held accountable for nutrient reduction gaps.
• This approach will make it more difficult and expensive to restore the Bay.
• Creates more challenges to meet local water quality goals.
• Need balance of incentives and consequences to be successful.
14
Technical and Financial Assistance• Localities need loading targets and baseline BMP
data to begin planning.• State needs to provide guidance on tools and
methodologies for assessing nutrient reduction potential.
• Localities and PDCs need funding for data analysis and stakeholder involvement.
• Level of financial assistance depends on timeframe for plan development.
15
Hampton Roads Approach to Phase II WIP Create Regional Framework for stakeholder
involvement and policy development. Set “rules” for addressing source sector reductions
outside local government control.
Create Local Government Frameworks Recommend establishment of interdepartmental teams.
Assist local governments with data collection and analysis.
16
Assess nutrient loadings and sources at a Regional Scale.
Identify potential challenges to planning and implementation.
Identify opportunities /incentives related to TMDL implementation.
Phase II WIP – Initial Steps
17
Hampton Roads Land Cover
NOAA 2005 Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover dataset for Virginia
18
Hampton Roads Land Cover
19
Hampton Roads Pollutant SourcesNitrogen Phosphorus
James River
York River
20
Regulated Sources in Hampton Roads• Significant Wastewater Discharges
– 8 Hampton Roads Sanitation District discharges• Stormwater
– 6 Phase I MS4s– 6 Phase II MS4s– Permitted Federal facilities– VDOT– Multiple Industrial discharges
21
Regulated Lands in Hampton Roads
22
Nutrient Reductions for Hampton Roads
James River York RiverSource Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus
Ag 12% 27% 38% 36%Urban 24% 39% 14% 20%Point 57% 67% -3% -22%Septic 9% 0% 9% 0%Forest -1% 5% -1% 9%
AtmDep -2% 0% -1% 10%Total 16% 26% 15% 14%
23
Major Challenges to Implementation• Defining the appropriate local scale.• Cost of urban stormwater management.• Creating flexibility for trading between
regulated and unregulated sources.• Expanding the options for nutrient reduction
strategies.• Local government needs.
24
Bay Segmentsheds in Hampton Roads
25
Locality
Estimated Stormwater Capital Cost (Millions)
EPA Backstops Final VA WIPWIP with Nutrient
ManagementChesapeake $1,367 $343 $152 Hampton $1,053 $293 $110 Newport News $1,166 $299 $133 Norfolk $1,384 $343 $162 Portsmouth $666 $165 $75 Virginia Beach $1,737 $433 $195 Isle Of Wight $231 $58 $25 James City $501 $128 $54 Poquoson $90 $27 $8 Suffolk $628 $157 $70 Williamsburg $94 $25 $10 York $594 $173 $60 Gloucester $242 $71 $23 Surry $40 $10 $4 Hampton Roads Total $9,792 $2,523 $1,080
26
Nutrient Trading in Hampton Roads
27
Cost Effective Nutrient Management• No Discharge Zones• Oyster Restoration • Wetlands Restoration• Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation• Education Programs• Street Sweeping
28
Local Government Needs
1. Funding1. Planning2. Implementation
2. Better information on the Bay Models and input data.
3. Tools for determining local nutrient reduction potential.
29
Incentives and Opportunities• Improved local water quality.
• Improved quality of life.
• Threat of future regulatory action.
• Opportunity for trading to create financial incentives.
• Opportunity for technical innovations.