Special Bulletin From the Editors

The Chesapeake Bay drainage is by a large measure the single largest watershed in Pennsylvania, comprising approximately 50 % of the state.  Impaired water quality in the Bay for some years has been the focus of national attention, with EPA and other federal agencies working hard to improve problems (e.g., nutrients nitrogen in various forms, phosphorus, and sediment) which persist.  In recent months, after years of strenuous management actions that failed to deliver the desired water quality improvements, more stringent actions have been defined and are pending, all likely to add more water quality requirements on municipalities within the watershed.  Given the extent of the Bay watershed in Pennsylvania and the number of municipalities which these new actions could potentially affect, keeping track of what’s going on makes sense.

We recently interviewed Harry Campbell, Senior Scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (Harrisburg Office) for a summary of these pending actions.

Harry points out that at the moment, there are 4 major developments with both legal and regulatory and technical ramifications for municipalities to watch.  Although these developments seem to be converging to some extent, they also are driven somewhat separately by distinct legal and technical mandates.

1.  Federal governments significant tightening of water quality performance at its own facilities.  Refer to President Obama’s Executive Order 13508 Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.  This Order discusses preparation of an Accountability Framework, comprehensive Watershed Implementation Plans, definition of explicit milestones, application of rigorous LEED performance standards at federal facilities, and a host of other new management measures.  This is a thesis unto itself!

2.  Introduction of Congressional (Senate S. 1816 and House H.R. 3852, named the Chesapeake Clean Water Act) bills to reauthorize and strengthen Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, specifically focusing on the Chesapeake Bay.  Go to the CBF webpage ( http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1420) for explanation of why this expanded and more specific law is necessary.  Although these 2 companion bills started out life being quite similar, as time progresses, aspects of the bills are undergoing some change.  Nevertheless, the legislative intent here is to:

-Places legally enforceable, science-based limits on pollution from all sources.

-Gives states pollution reduction standards to meet and allows them the flexibility to achieve those reductions as they best decide.

-Provides significant funding for technical assistance to farmers so they can implement pollution controls, as well as funding for stormwater pollution controls.

-Encourages market-based approaches to pollution reduction, which could provide an estimated $300 million annually to rural areas.

3.  The Bay TMDL.  Most folks at this point have come to understand what Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs are all about.  TMDLs have been created by the Clean Water Act to quantify the total amount of pollution (pollutant loads from both point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources such as dispersed stormwater runoff).  TMDLs are supposed to address both existing sources and future or projected sources of pollution.  As can be imagined, calculating and modeling the 6-state watershed to develop a single TMDL for the Chesapeake is one challenging exercise.  Scientists have been at it for some time and have promised to have the TMDL developed by December 31, 2010 for the pollutants of primary concern in the Chesapeake: nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.

These TMDLs are critical for any number of reasons.  In describing the relationship between the new Congressional bills (above), the CBF website points out:

-EPA will require the states to specify, in great detail, how they will achieve pollution reductions from all sources through enforceable or binding, rather than voluntary measures.

-EPA wants these plans designed to ensure 100% implementation of pollution reduction practices by 2025.

-EPA has indicated its intent to invoke strict consequences if the states fail to develop adequate implementation plans or to make progress in achieving the necessary pollution reductions.

-The TMDL will require tidal states to set pollution caps for smaller geographic areas than in the past, e.g., counties, because much of the reduction efforts will occur at the local level. To clean-up the Bay and its tidal rivers, we need to reduce pollution from all the streams and rivers that feed them. So implementing the TMDL will help clean up local streams as well as the Bay.

-The local pollution caps for tidal states will increase accountability by providing a goal against which local efforts can be measured

The Chesapeake Clean Water Act adopts the Bay-wide TMDL pollution caps and the state cleanup plan requirements, but it also clarifies and strengthens EPA’s role in ensuring the needed pollution reductions occur. In addition, the legislation includes more than $1.5 billion in grants for state and local governments to help cover the costs associated with implementing those reductions. It also establishes an interstate trading program designed to lower the costs of compliance with the new TMDL, particularly for local municipalities.

In addition to the CBF website, more details on the TMDL process can be found here, on EPA’s website>>

4.  Finally, in the midst of all of the above, there has been a May 11, 2010 lawsuit settlement, reached between environmental groups (including CBF) and the EPA which will require EPA to strengthen measures to protect and restore Bay water quality.

This historic settlement is a legally binding, enforceable document that requires EPA to take specific actions by dates certain to ensure that pollution to local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced sufficiently to remove the Bay from the federal “dirty waters” list. The settlement mandates:

-Reasonable assurances: The settlement outlines what “reasonable assurances” EPA will require of the states to support the Bay TMDL.. The states will be required to develop Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) explaining how they will meet the limits for all sources in each area of their state.

-Consequences: The settlement identifies what consequences EPA will impose upon states and localities that fail to develop sufficient WIPs or meet their limits. One of those consequences could be that permits will not be issued to new sources of pollution. That could include new sewage treatment plants or major new developments.

-Offsets: The settlement requires that the states offset all new nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment loads. In the settlement EPA has agreed that each state’s WIP will provide offsets for new or increased permitted discharges.

-Dates certain: The settlement establishes dates identifying when EPA will complete development of a Bay TMDL and when the states are to provide WIPs.

-Tracking: The settlement requires EPA to develop a tracking system that is publically available and which describes whether increased pollution from new, small sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers have been included in calculating whether the state or local jurisdiction is meeting its new limits. CBF has recently seen an increase in small sewage treatment plants that are below EPA’s permit threshold.

-Stormwater: EPA agrees that one of the biggest sources of pollution in the Bay region is urban stormwater and that this form of pollution is growing.  EPA agreed to:

1. review all new construction general permits (those that apply to categories of construction) drafted by Bay states and make sure they meet federal standards;
2. by July 31, 2010 develop a guidance for major municipal stormwater permits in the Bay region; and
3. by Nov. 19, 2012, take final action on industrial and municipal stormwater regulations.

-Reducing pollution from agriculture: The settlement commits EPA to proposing new regulations for controlling pollution from agriculture by Dec. 15, 2012 and taking final action by Dec. 15, 2014.

-Addressing air pollution: Under the settlement EPA will require an allocation for air deposition of nitrogen from the states in the Bay TMDL, so that some portion of the total nitrogen budget will be attributed to air pollution.

More details on this lawsuit settlement agreement can be found at the CBF website>>

Change is coming to Pennsylvania’s Bay municipalities.  Many thanks to Harry Campbell and the Chesapeake Bay Froundation for the work they are doing in forging these changes. Harry can be reached at (717-234-5550, HCampbell@cbf.org)

admin Chesapeake Bay, From the Editors agriculture, Chesapeake Bay, clean water, Clean Water Act, nitrogen pollution, Nonpoint source pollution, nutrient reduction, phosphorous reduction, stormwater, stormwater legislation, stormwater runoff, TMDL, US EPA, water quality, watershed protection

The  Little Missouri River in Southwest Arkansas experienced a flash flood last week, with waters that rose over 20 feet in just 5 hours, killing 20 people.  In response to this severe and unusual flooding, the USGS deployed a team of scientists to document and study the flow and height of the floodwater as it coursed down the Little Missouri River and its tributaries.

Flash flooding is one of the biggest causes of natural hazard-related deaths in the United States and we are here collecting data to understand what happened from a hydrologic standpoint, in order to help the emergency management community and National Weather Service better protect and educate the public. For those camping in one of these beautiful spots near flowing water, it is important to know how high and how fast the water can rise in the case of flash floods.

–Dr. Robert Holmes, USGS National Flood Specialist

More details about the USGS WATER ALERT Program are available here>>

admin Announcements flash flood, flood, flooding, stormwater, stormwater runoff, volume control, wet weather

From University of Delaware - Water Resources Agency Institute for Public Administration …

Gerald J. Kauffman, Director

Re: Clean Water Funding Legislation, H.R. 1262

We know that the political focus shifts as needs arise, as it should, from one topic to another. When bridges, roads, water delivery systems and waste collection systems fail in metropolitan areas, the focus shifts to infrastructure. When there is an oil spill, the focus shifts to stopping the leak, controlling the impact, cleaning what has leaked and restoring the environment to the conditions prior to the leak; or as close to those conditions as possible. This constant shift in focus means that federal and state funding sources should be assessed for their longevity and likeliness to be available into the future.

At the local level, the prudent approach to financing for small systems is to look at the long term effect of decisions. Even with the American Recovery and Reinvestment act money moving through the different levels of government, we need to keep in mind that this is (right now) a onetime Act of Congress and local leaders should have good reason not expect injections of money for infrastructure at this level in the future. The best case scenario then, is for leaders to employ full cost pricing which includes setting money aside for renewal or replacement of assets in the system enabling the system to be financially stable without any external assistance.

Our experience at the Environmental Finance Center shows that this is not usually the case. So, we must look at what is available in relative perpetuity as a funding source. One of the most stable funding sources is the annual capitalization of the States’ Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The federal funding appropriated to the individual States is a determining factor of whether your project for your system will be funded in a given year. There are, of course, other State-by- State criteria.

Currently, H.R. 1262, the “Water Quality Investment Act of 2009″, has passed the House of Representatives and is currently in the Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. One of the important things to remember is that this bill determines the allotment formula for the State Revolving Funds through FY 2014. This is the type of legislation that should be tracked by municipal and district leaders so they can understand how this long-term funding resource will be administered.

I encourage everyone responsible to their community for providing water, wastewater and stormwater services to look at the text of H.R. 1262 and spend the necessary time to understand what its implications are to your upcoming infrastructure projects.

You can find the State-by-State Allocation for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund here>>

admin Funding, National ARRA, clean water, Clean Water Act, drinking water, economic stimulus, state revolving fund, stormwater, wastewater, Water Quality Investment Act of 2009

From Maryland Department of the Environment…

Grants Will Reduce Nutrient Pollution in the Bay and Improve Drinking Water

June 9, 2010 - The Maryland Board of Public Works approved $19,833,443 million in grants to reduce pollution and improve water quality by upgrading wastewater treatment plants and septic systems, controlling stormwater, and improving drinking water systems. The Board is composed of Governor Martin O’Malley, Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp, and Comptroller Peter Franchot.  “These projects significantly reduce nitrogen pollution, control polluted stormwater runoff, provide safe drinking water, and put people to work across the state,” said Governor Martin O’Malley.

The grants approved by the Board of Public Works include more than $4 million to Maryland counties to upgrade septic systems. Of the approximately 420,000 septic systems in Maryland, 52,000 are in the “Critical Area,” land within 1,000 feet of tidal waters that is vital for water quality and wildlife habitat.

“Upgrading Maryland’s septic systems, particularly in the Critical Area, will help Maryland meet our goals for a healthier Chesapeake Bay,” Governor O’Malley said.

More details are available here>>

admin Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay, clean water, Nonpoint source pollution, stormwater, water quality, watershed protection, wetlands

The number of native fish and aquatic insects, especially those that are pollution sensitive, declines in urban and suburban streams at low levels of development - levels often considered protective for stream communities, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey.

When the area of driveways, parking lots, streets and other impervious cover reaches 10 percent of a watershed area, many types of pollution sensitive aquatic insects decline by as much as one third, compared to streams in undeveloped forested watersheds. We learned that there is no ’safezone,’ meaning that even minimal or early stages of development can negatively affect aquatic life in urban streams.

–Tom Cuffney, USGS biologist

As a watershed becomes developed, the amount of pavement, sidewalks and other types of urban land cover increases. During storms, water is rapidly transported over these urban surfaces to streams. The rapid rise and fall of stream flow and changes in temperature can be detrimental to fish and aquatic insects. Stormwater from urban development can also contain fertilizers and insecticides used along roads and on lawns, parks and golf courses.

Stream protection and management is a top priority of state and local officials, and these findings remind us of the unintended consequences that development can have on our aquatic resources. The information has been useful in helping us to predict and manage the future impacts of urban development on streams and reinforces the importance of having green infrastructure to control stormwater runoff and protect aquatic life.

–Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network

USGS studies examine the effects of urbanization on algae, aquatic insects, fish, habitat and chemistry in urban streams in nine metropolitan areas across the country: Boston, Mass.; Raleigh, N.C.; Atlanta, Ga.; Birmingham, Ala.; Milwaukee-Green Bay, Wis.; Denver, Colo.; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Portland, Ore.

These USGS studies also show that land cover prior to urbanization can affect how aquatic insects and fish respond to urbanization. For example, aquatic communities in urban streams in Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee did not decline in response to urbanization because the aquatic communities were already degraded by previous agricultural land-use activities. In contrast, aquatic communities declined in response to urbanization in metropolitan areas where forested land was converted to urban land, areas such as Boston and Atlanta.

Comparisons among the nine areas show that not all urban streams respond exactly the same. This is mostly because stream quality and aquatic health reflect a complex combination of land and chemical use, land and storm-water management, population density and watershed development, and natural features, such as soils, hydrology, and climate.

These USGS studies represent an integrated approach to understanding urban streams that includes physical, chemical and biological characteristics associated with urbanization. This is critical for prioritizing strategies for stream protection and restoration and in evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies over time.

For more information, listen to USGS Corecast Episode 127.

The full report and extended video podcasts are available at the National Water Quality Assessment program urban studies website.

admin Research aquatic life, development, green infrastructure, Nonpoint source pollution, pavement, stormwater, stormwater best management practices, stormwater runoff, urban development, urban stream, water quality