Chesapeake Bay Draft TMDL

Overview of the Draft TMDL and 

WIP Evaluations 

September 2010
2

Bay TMDL and WIP Schedule: 2009-2017

Major basin

jurisdiction

loading 

targets

Oct 2009

2-year

milestones, 

reporting, 

modeling, 

monitoring

Starting 

2011

Divide Target Loads 

among Watersheds,

Counties, 

Sources

Phase 1 Watershed 

Implementation 

Plans: November 

2009 – Sept.1 2010

Final 

TMDL

Established

Public

Review

And

Comment

Draft TMDL

Sept. 24, 2010

(45 days)

December 

2010

Local Program 

Capacity/Gap 

Evaluation

Bay TMDL Public 

Meetings

NovemberDecember 

2009

Phase 2 

Watershed 

Implementation 

Plans: Jun/Nov

2011

July 1 and August 13 Allocations

Nov 29, 2010 Final WIPs

2017 60% of Practices in Place -

Phase III WIPs to meet 2025 Goal
3

Nitrogen Loads by Sector and Scenario - CBP Watershed Model p5.3

46.4 49.2 50.4

29.5 33.9 25.4

144.4 109.4

70.8

90.1

55.1

44.3

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

1985 2009 Tributary

Strategies

July 1 Draft

Allocation

Millio

n

L

b

s

p

e

r

Y

e

a

r

Total

WWTP

Agriculture

Developed

Wooded/Open

310.4

247.5

190.9 187.4

* Note: This is land based allocated load. Air allocation is an additional 15.7 mpy N

*
4

Phosphorus Loads by Sector and Scenario - CBP Watershed Model p5.3

2.30 2.42 2.53

2.43 2.57 2.08

9.22 7.25

5.50

10.14

4.37

4.25

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1985 2009 Tributary

Strategies

July 1 Draft

Allocation

Millio

n

L

b

s

p

e

r

Y

e

a

r

Total

WWTP

Agriculture

Developed

Wooded/Open

24.10

16.62

14.36

12.52
5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1985 2009 Tributary Strategies Aug 13 Draft Allocation

Billio

n

L

b

s

p

e

r

Y

e

a

r

9.78

8.09

6.47 6.1-6.7

Model Simulated Sediment Loads by Scenario 

Compared with the Draft Sediment Allocations 

(billions of pounds per year as TSS)
6

Executive Summary

– WIP Evaluation Findings

 7 Jurisdictions Provided Draft WIPs and Sub-allocation Data Decks Sept 1-3 

(distributing the load reductions to major sources and sectors)



 A Team of EPA Sector experts conducted a rigorous evaluation process

 Common review criteria; Tiered the State submissions in 4 categories of quality and 

Reasonable Assurance;

 Two goals were paramount: 

 achieving the load caps in all 19 basin-jurisdictions and 92 segments, 

 providing a high level of reasonable assurance that NPS controls will be achieved and 

permitting programs will result in point source reductions

 None of the WIPs provided full assurance that programs identified will 

achieve the nutrient and sediment reduction targets in all respects by 2017 

or 2025; variable levels of assurance require variable levels of federal 

backstop actions

 Draft TMDL: 

 Employs Hybrid TMDL that merges Watershed Implementation Plan allocations 

with varying degree of Federal Backstop Allocation adjustments in all 7

jurisdictions

 Identifies additional Federal Backstop Actions that EPA is prepared to take in all 

7 jurisdictions if not achieving milestones on schedule
7

Draft WIP Evaluation Findings

 No strategy for filling recognized program or resources 

gaps

 Few enforceable or otherwise binding commitments

 Discrepancies between implementation programs and 

strategies described in a WIP

 Reliance on pollution trading programs--no commitment to 

adopt critical trading drivers such as new regulations

 Few dates for key actions and program-building milestones

Only one jurisdiction (MD) achieved all its draft allocations at 

the statewide scale, but minor adjustments will be necessary

among Maryland basins

None of the WIPs provided satisfactory reasonable assurance
8

Initial Findings: Stormwater

 A number of jurisdictions are lacking strong performance 

standards and specific, enforceable permit conditions

 Only one state included a strong retrofit program within 

their WIP; reductions from existing stormwater loads not 

possible without retrofits

 Number of proposed management practices’ 

implementation rates are unreasonable to achieve by 

2025
9

Initial Findings: Wastewater

 Some jurisdictions lacked detailed information for permit 

writer to derive permit conditions for nonsignificant 

dischargers 

 Some jurisdictions did not identify all their wastewater 

dischargers

 One jurisdiction set all significant dischargers—with one 

exception—at 12 mg/L TN and 2 mg/L TP

 Tracking of nutrient loads and upgrade/compliance 

schedules needs improvement in most jurisdictions
10

Initial Findings: Agricultural

 Limited assurance that agricultural reductions will be met, given little to no 

detail on plan for building technical assistance, leveraging financial 

incentives and verifying implementation of practices

 Implementation rates of proposed conservation practices are unrealistic to 

achieve by 2025 unless incorporated into state technical standards or other 

regulatory programs

 No or limited commitment to improving phosphorus (P) management to 

address high P in soils and related excess manure

 Additional reductions may be possible through new technologies (e.g., 

manure incorporation)

 Compliance/enforcement strategies inadequate
11

How Do The WIPs Add Up? 

 MD - Meets statewide allocations for nutrients and 

sediment, though individual basins are over for nitrogen, 

phosphorus or sediment

 DC - Meets for nutrients; not for sediment

 NY, DE and VA - Meets sediment, not for nutrients

 PA – Meets nitrogen statewide but not all basins; Over 

for phosphorus and sediment

 WV - Meets phosphorus, not for sediment or nitrogen

 STATEWIDE TOTALS: 4 of 7 met for Sediment

2 of 7 met for Nutrients
12

Proposed Federal Backstop 

Allocations

 All jurisdictions require some level of 

Backstop allocation or adjustment to meet 

two priority requirements for the TMDL:

 the allocations meet the July 1 and August 13 

basin-jurisdiction allocations, which achieved 

standards in all 92 segments (the MATH adds)

 the WIPs provide a high level of assurance of 

achieving the allocations, and in particular 60% 

target by 2017 through permitting and nonpoint 

source control programs
13

Federal Backstop Actions 

Include...

 Establish additional reductions from regulated 

point sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, 

CAFO, MS4s) (TMDL)

 Establish finer scale allocations for headwater 

states (TMDL)

 Expand NPDES permit coverage to unregulated 

sources

 Increase permit oversight/object to permits

 Require net improvement offsets 

 Increased federal enforcement

 Condition or redirect federal grants

 Promulgation of local nutrient standards
14

Backstop Allocation Options

 Where gap-filling strategies have serious deficiencies or 

are fully inadequate, moderate and high level backstop 

allocations first focus on where EPA has the federal 

authority to control allocations through NPDES permits

 Swapping out jurisdictions’ proposed wasteload allocations and 

swapping in EPA “backstop allocations” for point sources

 Varying levels of regulatory controls were defined per 

category from Moderate to Full Backstop

 Minor backstop allocations do not result in changes to 

point source wasteload allocations that affect NPDES 

permit conditions
15

Three Levels of Action – Modifying the 

WIP Basis with backstop allocations

 Backstop allocation adjustments take 3 levels:

 Minor (adjust load allocations to equal targets); 

 Moderate (uses Best State WIP practices; greater point source regulation)

 High Backstop (Best State WIP practices for stormwater and AFO production 

areas; limit of technology concentration for WWTPs)

 A HYBRID TMDL that applies backstop allocations to point sources and 

nonpoint sources as necessary; 

 uses the WIP as the basis but modify with federal backstop actions with greater 

reasonable assurance under the Clean Water Act (apply the three levels of 

adjustment as noted above)

 NOTE because of the dominance of Non Point Source loads, the end Hybrid TMDL will 

result in a higher level of enforceability but not achieve 100% reasonable assurance

 DC: EPA will adjust sediment allocations to meet the August 13 

sediment range. Will ensure allocations are achieved through NPDES 

permits issued by EPA in the District

 MD: EPA will adjust nutrient and sediment load allocations among basins 

so that each basin meets the July 1 and August 13 allocations 
16

Recommended Allocation Adjustments 

Per State – HYBRID TMDL

 MD – Minor Backstop 

 To ensure each basin meets July 1 and August 13 nutrient and 

sediment allocations

 DC – Minor Backstop 

 Adjust sediment to meet August 13 allocation range - strong DC 

MS4 permit is the main gap filler; no mention in DC’s WIP

 VA – Moderate Backstop

 James River requires close attention

 PA, NY, DE and WV – High Backstop for nutrients to fill 

significant math and reasonable assurance gaps

 Headwater States (PA, NY, WV) – EPA assigning finer 

scale wasteload and load allocations to same level of 

detail as tidal states. Ensures wasteload allocations can 

be translated into permit conditions
17

WWTPs Stormwater AFO Production Areas

Moderate: 

(VA)

4 mg/L TN, .3 

mg/L TP + Design 

Flow (MD ENR 

Strategy)

Construction: 100% Erosion & 

Sediment Control

MS4: 50% of urban MS4 lands 

meet aggressive performance 

standard through retrofit/ 

redevelopment

50% of unregulated land 

treated as regulated, so that 

25% of unregulated land 

meets aggressive performance 

standard; designation as 

necessary

Waste management, 

barnyard runoff control, 

mortality composting

Precision feed 

management for all 

animals

Same standards apply 

to AFOs not subject to 

CAFO permits EXCEPT 

no feed management 

on dairies; designation 

as necessary

High 

Level 

Backstop

(DE, PA, 

NY, WV)

Limit of Tech. 

concentration (3 

mg/L N, .1 mg/L 

P) + Design Flow

Same as Moderate Same as Moderate

Full 

Backstop

Limit of Tech. 

concentration (3 

mg/L N, .1 mg/L 

P) + Current Flow

Same as Moderate Same as Moderate
18

“Bottom Lines”

 The HYBRID TMDL as proposed is a blend of State and EPA 

adjusted allocations 

 this was necessary to fill gaps and to assure that the allocations will be 

achieved - more controls on regulated point sources were part of this 

equation; 

 EPA did not want to backstop; last resort based on deficient WIPs

 More work needs to be done by States and EPA to provide 

satisfactory assurance in all sectors 

 Nonpoint source sectors, including agriculture, have considerable 

work to do to achieve load caps.

 Point Sources are not alone in the enhanced effort. Significant funding 

through the Farm Bill needs to be targeted to accelerate work 

on the ground
19

Opportunities for Improvement

 EPA is providing the States with Opportunities to enhance their 

WIP submissions by the November 29 deadline when Final WIPs 

are due

 EPA will again evaluate these to determine if the EPA Backstop 

allocations can be replaced with State commitments with equal or 

better reasonable assurance

 2011 provides another Opportunity in the Phase II WIPs to enhance the 

levels of commitment

 EPA will engage the jurisdictions in discussions during this time to 

share Best Practices from the WIPs across the States, share our 

own Guidance (such as the EO 502 guidance), and assist in any way 

that we can 

 We need to move forward with the important job of restoring the 

Bay by our 2017 and 2025 deadlines 
20

Draft TMDL outreach

 Draft TMDL Issued on Sept 24: 45 Day public 

comment period until November 8th

 18 public meetings in six states, D.C.: Sept 29 –

Nov 4, 2010

 Webinars - one per state/D.C.

 EPA presents draft TMDL, states also present WIPs

 Stakeholder outreach: in conjunction with public 

meetings, EPA will hold small meetings with 

leaders of environmental organizations, state 

legislators, local governments, agricultural 

community, homebuilders/developers, and 

wastewater groups