Chesapeake Bay Program Update Citizens Advisory Committee September 18-19, 2019

1. Chesapeake Bay Program UpdateCitizens Advisory CommitteeSeptember 18-19, 2019 Jim Edward Deputy Director-EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office

2. Topics • EPA Evaluation of Jurisdictions’ Draft Phase III WIPs • Conowingo WIP and Financing Strategy Timelines • Use of New CBP Land Policy BMPs • Pennsylvania CBP Grants and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs)

3. Bay TMDL and 3-Phase Planning Process 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL established General plan with strategies to meet at least 60% practices needed by 2017 Phase I WIP 2025 2010 2017 More detail on strategies, extensive local engagement, local plans and growth Phase II WIP Phase II WIP 2012 2017 2025 Detailed plan with local goals to meet 100% practices needed by 2025 Phase III WIP 2025 2018

4. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: Delaware Key Strengths: • Delaware established a Chesapeake Bay Cover Crop Initiative with a goal of enrolling every eligible acre • Delaware engaged with appropriate agricultural partners including the USDA/NRCS and conservation districts. • Delaware revised its sediment and stormwater regulations, to focus on runoff reduction practices to minimize increases in stormwater loads from new development. • Delaware developed a data quality and BMP verification plan to improve the processes for tracking, reporting, and verifying BMPs. Potential Enhancements: • Delaware should provide more detail on how it will accelerate nitrogen reductions for agriculture. • Delaware should provide more detail on how it will achieve 85% nutrient management implementation and compliance. • Delaware should provide additional detail (e.g. new strategies, programs, and/or funding) for BMPs such as tree planting, tree canopy, urban nutrient management, conservation landscaping, and urban stream restoration. • Delaware should provide a long-term strategy to address future increases in wastewater flow from growth which may require facility upgrades and financial hardship for affected communities.

5. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: District of Columbia Key Strengths: • The District expects most implementation to come from compliance with their stormwater management regulations based on a review of land that is developed or redeveloped within the MS4 area. • The District demonstrated funding and specific programs that will be used to implement the WIP. • The District has a robust set of voluntary programs that are well-funded and well-staffed. Potential Enhancements: • The District should provide more details on how it is coordinating with federal agencies on crediting BMPs beyond just providing information on funding and project location. • The District should provide additional detail on both costs of projected restoration projects as well as sources of funding to pay for those projects.

6. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: Maryland Key Strengths: • Maryland demonstrated engagement of local agricultural partners, conservation districts, and NGOs to increase voluntary participation in conservation practices. • Maryland invested in a thorough BMP verification program. • Maryland created three programs to incentivize WWTPs to achieve concentrations of lower levels of total nitrogen in wastewater effluent with a goal of achieving 3.25 mg/L by 2025. Potential Enhancements: • Maryland should accelerate nitrogen reductions in the agricultural sector to provide greater confidence to the Partnership that sustained funding, increased technical capacity, and BMP implementation will be realized. • Maryland should provide additional information on how implementation in the stormwater sector will increase over time to meet its pollutant load reduction goals.

7. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: New York Key Strengths: • Planned reductions in agriculture are based on extensive coordination between farmers, the Upper Susquehanna Coalition, New York Departments of Environmental Conservation and Agriculture and Markets. • The partnership of New York with the local county soil and water conservation districts through the USC provides a framework for communications between local agricultural producers and service providers. • New York is extending its Phase II WIP level of effort for nutrient and sediment reductions into the draft Phase III WIP, providing confidence that their wastewater strategy is feasible. Potential Enhancements: • New York’s WIP will only achieve 61%of needed nitrogen reductions by 2025 • New York should provide more detail on how it will accelerate nitrogen reductions in the agricultural sector. • New York should provide more detail on how it will increase stormwater BMP implementation.

8. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: Pennsylvania Key Strengths: • Pennsylvania conducted outreach and community engagement efforts to develop the draft Phase III WIP. Hundreds of watershed stakeholders were involved in the draft Phase III WIP development process to assess barriers to watershed implementation and strategies to overcome them. • Through the pilot County Action Plan efforts in Lancaster, York, Adams, and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania provided a comprehensive road map for the counties in the watershed and an effective use of targeting areas for pollutant reduction practices. • If the proposed state funding initiative materializes, the county action plan rollout to the Tier 2, 3, and 4 counties would accelerate the pace of best management practice (BMP) implementation going forward. Potential Enhancements: • According to the simulations from the CBP partnership's Phase 6 suite of modeling tools, Pennsylvania's draft Phase III WIP achieves approximately 64% of the nitrogen and 76% of the phosphorus Phase III WIP planning targets overall. • The draft Phase III WIP generally refers to these initiatives as proposals, recommendations, and items under consideration. Pennsylvania's draft Phase III WIP lacks implementation details and programmatic commitments on the initiatives identified for achieving nutrient reductions, including securing the necessary funding and staff, enacting needed legislation, refining programs, and developing necessary regulatory changes. • Pennsylvania is not limited to implementing those approaches agreed upon by the Partnership, and there may be more effective or efficient opportunities for Pennsylvania to achieve its targets. • EPA is available to assist and encourages Pennsylvania to identify more state­ specific practices, programs and opportunities for its final Phase III WIP.

9. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: Virginia Key Strengths: • Extensive local engagement which resulted in reduction plans at the local level that had the support of the local implementers. • New agricultural strategies such as proposing legislation for nutrient management and livestock exclusion should certain reduction goals not be attained. • Proposal to achieve additional reductions in the wastewater sector. • Proposal to perform annual needs assessment for the agricultural sector, the urban/suburban stormwater sector and the wastewater sector. These assessments will be used to provide information to the legislature on needed funding. Potential Enhancements: • Virginia should provide more detailed information on the funding needed and further define the current funding gaps in its proposed agricultural and stormwater programs. • Virginia should provide more details on the schedule for implementing some of its new strategies, such as proposed regulations for nutrient management and livestock exclusion and reducing pollution from wastewater plants. • Virginia should provide more detail on how pollution reducing techniques will be incentivized in the unregulated portion of the urban stormwater sector and how the trading program will be used to address reductions in this sector. • Virginia should provide more detailed information on how the excess capacity achieved in the wastewater sector will offset the gap in the regulated stormwater sector meeting its permit requirements by 2025.

10. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIP: West Virginia Key Strengths: • West Virginia conducted a robust engagement effort with appropriate agricultural organizations and non­ governmental organizations in developing the draft Phase III WIP. • West Virginia ensured coverage of the West Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed expected to experience the most growth by post-construction stormwater management regulations. • West Virginia constructed a new treatment plant operated by the Moorefield Regional Wastewater Authority to treat wastewater from the Town of Moorefield and two poultry processing facilities, which accounts for a significant share of required nutrient reductions from this sector. • West Virginia included a new requirement that POTWs permittees develop plans of action to address and offset new growth when the average flow of treated wastewater reaches 90% of design flow. Potential Enhancements: • West Virginia should provide more detail on how it will accelerate nitrogen reductions in the agricultural sector. • West Virginia should elaborate on the specific "guidance and support" to be provided to encourage priority activities identified by local wastewater authorities in the draft Phase Ill WIP.

11. EPA Phase III WIP Expectations for Federal Agencies • EPA expects federal agencies to work with the Bay watershed jurisdictions to ensure that they have the information necessary to prepare their Phase III WIPs. • Compile and provide, or make available to each jurisdiction 12 different categories of information specific to Agency facilities • EPA expects federal facilities to achieve the new federal planning goals set in 2019 (PA, MD, VA, DC) or the federal facility targets established in 2015 (NY, WV), by 2025. • Federal agencies are expected to report annual BMP progress to the jurisdictions and EPA.

12. EPA Evaluation Highlights of Federal Agency Phase III WIP Participation EPA evaluated federal agency participation to determine whether there is confidence that federal agencies will achieve the Phase III WIP federal planning goals agreed to with the jurisdictions by 2025, including the offsetting of any new or increased pollutant loads. • Federal agency WIP III submissions were incomplete - approximately 40% submissions • DoD most detailed and complete • Substantial new additional acres treated for stormwater • Federal wastewater performance meets goals • Open issue: PA federal planning goals

13. Federal Phase III WIP Narrative and CAST Scenario Submissions Red – No submission; Green – Submitted; Grey – No facilities C – CAST Scenario; N - Narrative

14. EPA Grantees to Support Development and Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Conowingo Watershed Implementation Plan Activity 1- Facilitate Development and Implementation of the Conowingo WIP and Associated Two-Year Milestones • Awardee: Center for Watershed Protection • Other Project Partners: Chesapeake Conservancy; University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension; Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission • Sub-Activities: (1) Provide Overall Assistance to the CBP Partnership's Conowingo WIP Steering Committee; (2) Developing Two-year Milestones for the Conowingo WIP; (3) Targeting Effective Practices to Reduce Pollutant Loadings; (4) Establishing a Timeline for Achieving the CBP Partnership's Conowingo WIP; and (5) Conducting Watershed-wide Stakeholder Outreach Activity 2 - Develop and Propose a Comprehensive Conowingo WIP Financing Strategy and Associated Implementation Plan • Awardee: Chesapeake Bay Trust • Other Project Partners: Center for Global Sustainability/School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland; Virginia Polytechnic and State University • Sub-Activities: (1) Develop, Propose, and Implement Conowingo Finance Strategy; (2) Identification of the Necessary Financing Approaches; (3) Assessment of Legal Authorities, Restrictions, and Processes Necessary to Propose a Multijurisdictional and Multi-Sector Finance and Investment System; and (4) Link Economic Development to Restoration Finance Activity 3 - Tracking, Verifying, and Reporting Implementation of Conowingo WIP and Two-year Milestones • Awardee: Chesapeake Conservancy • Other Project Partners: Chesapeake Commons and Center for Watershed Protection • Sub-Activities: Tracking, Verifying, and Reporting Progress on Conowingo WIP and Two-year Milestone Implementation

15. Supporting development of Conowingo Watershed Implementation Plan: EPA Request for Applications and Grantee Award Timeline • February 4, 2019: EPA releases its Conowingo WIP (CWIP) Request for Applications (RFA). • March 20, 2019: Application Submission Deadline to the RFA. This kicks off a ~2-month review and selection process of the EPA review panel. • May 22, 2019: EPA notifies applicants of award selections. EPA is awarding three separate cooperative agreements to the following recipients:Center for Watershed Protection (Activity 1 – CWIP development and implementation); Chesapeake Bay Trust (CWIP financing strategy); and Chesapeake Conservancy (BMP tracking, verifying, and reporting). • May 28, 2019: EPA Regional Administrator notifies PSC of cooperative agreement recipients (“grantees”) • June 7, 2019: EPA holds kick-off meeting with grantees. The purpose of this in-person meeting was to convene all three grantees and their teams to discuss work under their respective proposals, coordination with the CWIP Steering Committee, and budgets for the first year and future years. • Early June: Pre-award costs awarded to all three grantees. Grantees can initiate work under grant applications while awards are being processed.

16. Supporting development of Conowingo Watershed Implementation Plan: EPA Request for Applications and Grantee Award Timeline (cont.) • June 10, 2019: CWIP Steering Committee Co-chair notifies Steering Committee members of grantees’ scopes of work. Matt Rowe, MDE and CWIP Steering Committee Co-chair, sends to the members a summary of the grantees’ proposals, including scopes of work and participating partners. • June 27, 2019: Grantees submit work plan and budget applications to EPA. EPA grants and technical team reviews work plan and budget materials and provides comments to grantees as part of the grant negotiation process. • July and August 2019: EPA submits comments to grantees on grant applications. Comments were sent to the Center for Watershed Protection and Chesapeake Bay Trust on July 11 and to the Chesapeake Conservancy on July 22. • September 2019: EPA anticipates finalizing all three cooperative agreement awards. This is dependent on how thorough grantees respond to EPA comments on grant applications. However, it is important to note that work is already underway by allowing pre-award costs.

17. Conowingo WIP and Financing Strategy Timelines This timeline reflects Conowingo WIP development and the development of the financing strategy. Timeline under development for two-year milestones and achievement of Conowingo WIP planning targets. Grantee* plans to meet with CWIP SC on a monthly basis. *Center for Watershed Protection and Chesapeake Bay Trust

18. Conowingo WIP and Financing Strategy Timelines

19. Conowingo WIP and Financing Strategy Timelines

20. Land Policy BMPs • To support the jurisdictions’ efforts to account for growth in loads due to changes in land use, the CBP partnership and the jurisdictions have developed a suite of future land use scenarios that are referred to as “Land Policy BMPs” and available inclusion in each jurisdiction’s Phase III WIP. • The Land Policy BMPs currently in CAST include three categories: (“Forest Conservation”, “Growth Management”, and “Agricultural Conservation”) and will include at least one custom Land Policy BMP for jurisdictions that wanted one (i.e., District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) for inclusion in their final Phase III WIPs. • Currently proposed custom Land Policy BMPs include a balanced mixture of forest and farmland conservation and growth management. • Jurisdictions can choose and/or design land conservation and growth management actions to include in their custom Land Policy BMPs.

21. Current Land Policy BMPs in CAST There are currently, as of April 2019, four Land Policy BMPs in CAST that include Forest Conservation, Growth Management, Agricultural Conservation, and Custom-Jurisdictional BMPs. The elements and assumptions composing each of these Land Policy BMPs are outlined below along with their expected impacts on land use nutrient sources from CAST. Forest Conservation Land Policy BMPs Organizations and governments proactively pursuing a variety of actions to conserve forests and wetlands which provide the greatest benefits to wildlife, human safety, and water quality. Elements include: • Conserve riparian zones (default width = 30m) • Conserve wetlands (NWI, State Designated Wetlands, and Potential Conservable Wetlands (PA only)) • Conserve all lands subject to inundation due to sea level rise (default = 1m rise by the year 2100) • Conserve all lands surrounding National Wildlife Refuges (default = 1 mile buffer) • Conserve all large forest tracts (default >= 250 acres) • Conserve Bay shorelines (default = 305m buffer (~1000-ft) of the tidal Bay and Atlantic shorelines) • Conserve all high-value forest and forested wetlands identified by the Chesapeake Conservation Partnership

22. Current Land Policy BMPs in CAST (con’t) • Agricultural Conservation Land Policy BMPs • Organizations and governments proactively pursuing a variety of actions to conserve farmland and productive soils. Elements include: • Conserve all farmland within designated Agricultural Districts • Conserve all lands within the floodplain (default = 100-year recurrence interval) • Conserve all lands with flooded soils (default = frequently flooded) • Conserve all prime farmlands and farmland of state importance • Conserve potential restorable wetlands (applies only to PA farmland) • Conserve all high-value farmland identified by the Chesapeake Conservation Partnership

23. Current Land Policy BMPs in CAST (con’t) Growth Management Land Policy BMPs Organizations and governments proactively pursuing a variety of actions to encourage growth in areas with supporting infrastructure. Elements include: • Increase proportion of growth occurring as infill/redevelopment (default = 10% per decade) • Increase urban densities (default = 10% per decade) • Increase proportion of urban vs rural growth (default = 10% per decade) • Expand sewer service areas (default = ~1 mile)) • Avoid growth on all soils unsuitable for septic systems (based on depth to bedrock, drainage class, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and flood frequency)

24. Pennsylvania CBP Grants and Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs) • EPA continues to work with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on addressing its high Unliquidated Obligations (ULOs) to help ensure that PADEP’s grant funding is best utilized to support key personnel and on-the-ground implementation. • To date, EPA has provided PADEP with only partial FY 2018 CBIG & CBRAP funding and none of its FY 2019 grant funds due to high ULOs • EPA is currently exploring options for redirecting CBP funding to other PA state agencies and/or organizations in PA. This funding would remain in PA to support their WIP implementation efforts.

25. Questions? • Learn more: • www.chesapeakebay.net • www.chesapeakeprogress.com • Facebook: Chesapeake Bay Program • Twitter: @chesbayprogram • Instagram: @chesbayprogram Jim Edward, Deputy Director EPA-CBPO 410-267-5705 edward.james@epa.gov 2019 DoD Chesapeake Bay Commanders’ Conference One Mission • Shared Leadership • Continuing Commitment