Federal Facilities and the District’s Phase III WIP Training for Federal Facilities Located in the District of Columbia Washington, DC May 31, 2018 Jeff Sweeney Katherine Antos, Branch Chief Integrated Analysis Coordinator Partnering & Environmental Conservation Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Department of Energy & Environment Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Oxygen Requirements (mg/L) of Bay Species Migratory Fish Shallow-Water Spawning and Bay Grass Use 6 Nursery Use Striped Bass: 5-6 American Shad: 5 5 White Perch: 5 Yellow Perch: 5 4 Open-Water Open-Water Habitat Habitat Hard Clams: 5 Alewife: 3.6 3 Bay Anchovy: 3 2 Crabs: 3 1 Deep-Channel Spot: 2 Deep-Water Seasonal Seasonal Fish and Refuge Use Shellfish Use Worms: 1 0 @DOEE_DC 2
Chesapeake Bay Impairments Dissolved Oxygen • Chlorophyll a • Water Clarity/SAV Abundance • 3 3
Bay TMDL Adaptive Management Framework Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @DOEE_DC 4
@DOEE_DC 5
EPA Expectations Document Under Development D RAFT EPA’ S E XPECTATIONS FOR F EDERAL L ANDS AND F ACILITIES I N S UPPORTING C HESAPEAKE B AY J URISDICTIONS ’ P HASE III W ATERSHED I MPLEMENTATION P LANS (F INAL APPROXIMATELY A UGUST 2018) Lists information needed to create a plan to reach targets • Other tie-togethers • – 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement – EO 13508 and EO 13834 – EISA 438 EPA to coordinate and assist • @DOEE_DC 6
Expectations for Federal Facilities • Participate and stay informed Identify Land and facilities • Calculate current loads • Account for growth • Understand reduction targets • Plan BMP scenarios to achieve targets • Implement BMPs • • Report BMPs in the annual progress submission
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Planning Targets Rules of Equity • Those who pollute more should do more • Those that have a greater influence on attaining water quality standards should have a greater level of effort 8 @DOEE_DC 8
Planning Target Methodology Defining the Controllable Loads No-Action • E3 (Everything, Everywhere, by Everyone) • No-Action and E3 are one component of the o Planning Target calculations Equity rule = Major river basins that contribute o the most to the Bay water quality problems must do the most to resolve those problems (on a pound-per-pound basis) The difference between No-Action and E3 loads is • defined as the “controllable” loads. @DOEE_DC 9
Preliminary* Federal Facility Planning Targets Agency Scenario Total Area (Acres) Total Nitrogen (Lbs) Total Phosphorous (Lbs) ARS 2010 No Action 420.52 1,275.60 97,213.10 2009 Progress 420.52 1,256.60 95,936.50 Federal Facility Planning Targets 420.52 894.44 64,104.86 E3 420.52 689.20 47,049.10 DOD 2010 No Action 1,654.73 12,256.50 1,148.20 2009 Progress 1,654.73 12,237.90 1,152.50 Federal Facility Planning Targets 1,654.73 7,744.14 756.82 E3 1,654.73 5,314.40 473.40 GSA 2010 No Action 517.65 2,100.40 141.30 2009 Progress 517.65 2,099.10 141.50 Federal Facility Planning Targets 517.65 1,277.05 83.18 E3 517.65 833.70 41.10 Smithsonian 2010 No Action 146.95 441.00 102.90 2009 Progress 146.95 440.10 103.30 Federal Facility Planning Targets 146.95 333.23 54.01 E3 146.95 275.20 18.60 NPS 2010 No Action 8,151.72 37,195.80 13,305.00 2009 Progress 8,151.72 35,559.90 4,752.70 Federal Facility Planning Targets 8,151.72 24,060.67 5,723.94 E3 8,151.72 16,987.90 234.20 Other Fed 2010 No Action 665.28 130.20 9.50 2009 Progress 665.28 129.80 9.40 Federal Facility Planning Targets 665.28 91.92 6.19 E3 665.28 71.30 3.80 * Pending release of final Phase III WIP planning targets, expected July 2019, and review period
Tools to Plan and Report Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) • o Web-based planning tool to develop scenarios that estimate the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reductions associated with future best management practice (BMP) implementation Stormwater Database: • o Web-based reporting tool to provide information on BMPs implemented to date 11 @DOEE_DC 11
Next Steps • Comments on Federal Facility Planning Targets due June 29 th , 2018 • Check-ins with DOEE: – August 31 st , 2018 : Review 1 st draft scenario – November 30 th , 2018 : Review 2 nd Draft of Scenario – January 15 th , 2019 : Review Final Draft of Scenario • Will discuss other support and coordination needs later today 12 @DOEE_DC 12
Bottom Line District cannot achieve planning targets without federal facilities • EPA expects federal facilities to participate in Phase III WIP • development Today’s training kicks off coordination between DOEE and federal • facilities within the District to develop Phase III WIP by March 1, 2019 (draft) and June 28, 2019 (final) @DOEE_DC 13
Resources Midpoint Assessment Website: • https://mpa.chesapeakebay.net/ WQGIT web page: • http://www.chesapeakebay.net/groups/group/water_quality_ goal_implementation_team Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool: • https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/ Chesapeake Progress / Water Quality: • http://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/clean-water#water- quality May 24 Webinar: • View and listen to archive here @DOEE_DC 14
Questions? Katherine Antos Greg Allen, Ph.D. Branch Chief allen.greg@epa.gov katherine.antos@dc.gov 410-267-5746 (202) 574-7606 Jeff Sweeney Aaron Waters jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net Chesapeake Bay and Regulatory 410-267-9844 Program Specialist Renee Thompson aaron.waters@dc.gov rthompso@chesapeakebay.net (202)535-2239 Olivia Devereaux Luke Cole olivia@devereuxconsulting.com Chesapeake Bay Data Coordinator 301-325-7449 luke.cole@dc.gov (202) 724-5348 Matthew Espie SWDB Administrator Matthew.Espie@dc.gov (202) 715-7644
Recommend
More recommend
