|
|
|
Because of its importance to us and to the Bay, we have dedicated the bulk of this newsletter to the Chesapeake Bay Pollution Diet! John R. Shuman, Ph.D. President
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay: TMDLs, WIPs, and the Next 15 Years
The Chesapeake Bay states are facing mounting pressure from the EPA to take action that will meet Bay restoration goals by 2025. The willingness and desire by the states to meet Bay restoration goals is nothing new, but now there are federal consequences if the goals are not met. What led to this increased pressure, and what does it mean for the states, and the Bay? First, some historical perspective: The intent to restore the Chesapeake Bay has its political origin in 1983, when the one-page Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the EPA, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The 1983 Agreement pledged a cooperative approach by the Bay state partners to fully address the extent, complexity, and sources of pollutants entering the Bay. The agreement followed a five-year, $27 million scientific study of the Bay’s degradation, funded by Congress. The Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, signed by the initial Bay state partners, and also by the states of New York and Delaware, set the course for restoring the Bay over the next 10 years. West Virginia signed on to this pledge in 2002. In 2007, however, the partners acknowledged that they would not meet the goals and timetable of the 2000 Agreement. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on restoring the Bay, along with several partners, announced in October 2008 their intent to sue the EPA for not fulfilling the Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement. They filed suit in January 2009. On May 12, 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council (comprised of the Bay Agreement signatories) announced that Presidential Executive Order 13508 mandated federal leadership for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, including the development of a coordinated implementation strategy and annual action plan for restoration. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and partners suit was settled on May 11, 2010, and included a commitment by the EPA to establish a Bay-wide TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) by December 31, 2010
|
|
Inside this issue:
|
|
Celebrating 44 years of preserving and protecting the natural and historic resources of the Octoraro |
|
Hold the Date April 21st 2011 OWA Annual Dinner Meeting:
Keith Williams, Education Director at North Bay Adventure
“The View Below, an underwater exploration of the Octoraro” |
|
That Chesapeake Bay TMDL was finalized on December 31, 2010. The TMDL established a process, that the Bay states have committed to, for reducing the amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that flow into our streams and ultimately to the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL established the maximum amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that can enter the Bay from each river basin. These maximum amounts, called load allocations, are set for each of the primary sources of these pollutants. For instance, agriculture has a load allocation established in the TMDL for the Susquehanna River basin, and current pollutant loads must be reduced to these load allocations by the year 2025. Each state must set 2-year milestones of progress for reaching these load allocations by 2025. Successful achievement of the pollutant load reductions, necessary to meet the TMDL allocations, is expected to result in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Through this TMDL process, the states prepared their Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), which were finalized on November 29, 2010. These Phase I WIPs divided the TMDL pollutant load allocations among the nonpoint and point sources that contribute those pollutants to the Chesapeake Bay. The difference between today’s nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads and the maximum levels (allocations) established in the TMDL is the pollution reduction that needs to be made by 2025. For instance, the nitrogen loads in the Susquehanna River basin in Pennsylvania need to be reduced by over 32 million pounds, with agriculture targeted to provide about 84 percent of those nitrogen load reductions (see pie chart to the right). The states are required to prepare Phase II WIPs, due to the EPA by November 1, 2011. In the Phase II WIP, states will identify, at the county, subwatershed, or municipal level, how and where the pollution reductions will take place, and what best management practices or actions will be utilized to reduce the pollution loads. The EPA expects the states to achieve, by 2017, at least 60 percent of the required nutrient and sediment load reductions necessary to meet the load allocations set by the EPA. The EPA has established a series of eight federal actions it might take if the states do not meet their obligations with WIPs and the required load reductions. Among the actions the EPA could take are expanding NPDES permitting to currently unregulated sources, requiring additional load reductions from point sources, conditioning or redirecting federal grants that states typically receive, and establishing federal nutrient water quality standards for local watersheds. |
|
Given the relatively slow progress in reducing sediment and nutrient loads since the first Chesapeake Bay agreement in 1983, over 27 years ago, the states face the daunting task of reducing loads down to the EPA-prescribed allocation levels over the next 15 years. The states will need to address not only what pollution control strategies and best management practices they will utilize to achieve the required load reductions, but also how these strategies and practices will be funded and implemented. The federal consequences facing the states if they fail are significant. So stay tuned as Pennsylvania develops their WIPs and milestones to meet these mandates by 2025.
The Maryland Phase I WIP was prepared by the State agencies, with some consultation with stakeholder groups. In Phase II, the focus will shift to the County level, with nutrient and sediment load allocations assigned to the county, and within the county by source sector and “segmentshed” (a watershed or cluster of watersheds).
We will be expected to determine at the local level: · who’s responsible for how much implementation · implementation costs by source sector · how much growth/economic development can fit, where, & at what costs
Any entity that generates significant loads and has authority or is required to control them will receive an allocation, These include Local county and municipal governments, agriculture, State Highways, Federal Facilities, other major facilities, e.g., airports, parks, etc. and atmospheric deposition. The County has formed a local Stakeholder Advisory Committee on which I am the citizen representative. We will meet for the first time on Feb 28th.
The Octoraro will be in the same segmentshed as the Lower Susquehanna, Conowingo Creek and Furnace Bay (Principio Creek). It will include the towns of Rising Sun, Port Deposit & Perryville, a lot of agriculture,and forest, some industrial and commercial sites, the Perrypoint VA Hospital, I-95 & Rte 1. So we have quite a list of stakeholders!
Do stay tuned as the year progresses, both north and south of the M-D line! |
|
OWA Assisting Watershed Farmers with Compliance In April 2010, the OWA was awarded a grant of $52,300 to assist farmers in the Octoraro watershed in completing farm conservation plans, which are required by Pennsylvania state law. In September 2010, the OWA was also awarded a grant of $55,300 from the USDA-NRCS to expand that work in the watershed to additional farmers. This work is particularly timely, since farmers in the Octoraro and Pequea Creek watersheds have come under increasing scrutiny from the EPA regarding governmental compliance and best management practices on their farms. |
|
Stone Run Watershed Assessment provides targeting for local restoration projects.
The recently completed watershed assessment provides a prioritized list of projects that will help Cecil County meet its pollution diet. We have just received a follow-up grant of $34,600 from the Chesapeake Bay Trust for the design of a half acre stormwater wetland to be installed in the Town of Rising Sun’s Triangle Park. When installed, the wetland will treat the run-off from 20 acres of suburban homes and roadways. |
|
Well, another Solanco Fair season is over, and what a crowd of people attended all three days, even the evening it rained. While I filled my six hours at the booth, I did get many questions, some of which I could answer while other I could not. To those I could not, I did recommend the individual contact one of the county agencies which I felt could best supply the answer for the person. Like any fair booth, you really do get little accomplished when the tent is wall to wall people. They briefly look at your exhibit while being shuffled along in the masses. The most meaningful and rewarding time is generally from about 1 to 6 pm. People have time to leisurely walk through and spend time in the exhibit area. So then, what is the main purpose of renting exhibit space and trying to fill time slots? In my view, it is community outreach and education. Everyone, whether they know it or not, does live in a watershed. It may not be the Octoraro, but it’s somewhere. If nothing else, we have to let them know that and what better method to reach thousands of people that at the fair? Will we get new members because of the exhibit? Hopefully, but probably not. That is not our purpose at this event. Outreach and education is the purpose! Citizens really do need to know that the Association is actively working on projects to better protect water quality and habitat improvement. This leads me to one final observation. The Board of Directors of your Association cannot and should not be expected to man the exhibit for 36 hours over the three-day event. We need your help! Each year as you receive your membership notice, please consider checking Solanco Fair Exhibit. Spending 1 or 2 hours there one of the 3 days will be rewarding. See YOU at next year’s fair. |
