1 / 30

Current DEP Initiatives to Improve Water Quality

Current DEP Initiatives to Improve Water Quality. September 18, 2009 CBP Citizens and Local Government Advisory Committees Pat Buckley, DEP Water Planning Office. Chesapeake Bay Compliance Status of Point Sources. John Wetherell, DEP Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation.

gaura
Télécharger la présentation

Current DEP Initiatives to Improve Water Quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Current DEP Initiatives to Improve Water Quality September 18, 2009 CBP Citizens and Local Government Advisory Committees Pat Buckley, DEP Water Planning Office

  2. Chesapeake Bay ComplianceStatus of Point Sources John Wetherell, DEP Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation

  3. Phased Approach • Pennsylvania defined significant facilities as those with discharges greater than 0.4 MGD • These facilities were divided into 3 phases and account for 95% of the Point Source Nutrient Load to the Chesapeake Bay from Pennsylvania • These facilities will have their nutrient loads capped at 6 mg/l for Total Nitrogen and 0.8 mg/l for Total Phosphorous at design flow • Point sources are 14% of PA’s nitrogen load to the Bay. The Compliance Plan calls for them to reduce nitrogen loads by 14%.

  4. Phase 1 • Phase 1 – Includes 63 facilities accounting for 80% of the nutrient load to the Bay • Phase 1 - All permits have been issued except 2 which are in draft and are either being reviewed by EPA or have been appealed. • The majority of the Phase 1 facilities will begin meeting their cap loads beginning in 2011.

  5. Phase 2 • Phase 2 – Includes 47 facilities accounting for 10% of the nutrient load to the Bay • Phase 2 – Regional Offices sent out letters per 25 Pa Code 92.8a notifying the facilities of their cap loads and asking for a plan to meet the cap loads. Permits will be issued starting in late 2009 or early 2010. • Phase 2 cap loads will be met beginning in 2012 unless the facilities show that they need a compliance schedule extending beyond that date.

  6. Phase 3 • Phase 3 – Includes 73 facilities accounting for 5% of the nutrient load to the Bay • Phase 3 – 92.8a letters will be sent to these facilities in the first half of 2010 and permits will be issued in late 2010 or early 2011 • Phase 3 cap loads will be met beginning in 2013 unless the facilities show that they need a compliance schedule extending beyond that date.

  7. Conewago Creek Watershed Initiative • Partnership of public- and private sector organizations assembled to provide innovative leadership to accelerate implementation of proven and ‘new’ practices to decrease nutrient and sediment loads in a targeted watershed.  • Designed to  implement the section 319-funded Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) for the Conewago Creek (East) watershed. • The Penn State University $750,000 NFWF grant will help to implement the WIP and promote participation from watershed residents. • Partners are providing $1.44 million in match.

  8. Conewago Creek Watershed Initiative Partnership • Penn State University/Cooperative Extension • 3 Conservation Districts (Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon) • Tri-County Conewago Watershed Association • PA Department of Environmental Protection • PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources • ZedX • Natural Resources Conservation Service • Lower Susquehanna Center for Land and • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Collaborators • Environmental Credit Corporation • American Farmland Trust • Capital RC&D • State Conservation Commission

  9. Conewago Creek Watershed Initiative • Much of the watershed is 303(d) listed and several sub-basins have approved TMDLs. • It is anticipated that with the combination of the NFWF initiative, the USDA-NRCS designation of the watershed as a high priority for 2008 Farm Bill Conservation funds, and existing Section 319 NPS Program implementation efforts, a quicker and more thorough targeting of NPS problems will occur. • Both agricultural, forestry and urban/storm water related problems will be addressed. • Lebanon County will take a proactive approach in working with municipalities to address residential storm water issues • Dauphin and Lancaster Counties will work primarily with the agricultural community. • The Initiative is in the beginning stages of a 3-year implementation period.

  10. Conewago Creek Watershed Initiative Multi-partner four pronged approach proposed: 1)Accelerate adoption of BMPs in all segments of watershed (ag, forest, residential, commercial, and municipal) that will result in significant sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen reductions 2)Conduct whole farm systems and forest land assessments in partnership with land owners that will increase the implementation of core conservation- and innovative practices 3)Monitor early signals and long term improvements that will measure movement towards environmental goals; and 4)Increase local awareness of the ecosystem services provided by well managed lands and waterways, their value, and the potential for environmental improvements to qualify for participation in environmental markets.

  11. Ag NPS Compliance InitiativeSpring Bank Run Watershed Survey DEP NCRO Watershed Program • Between June 24 and July 3, 2009, the NCRO Watershed Program conducted farm surveys of 24 farms in the Spring Bank Run watershed in Miles Township, Centre County. • Survey initiated in response to fish kills at a local fish hatchery and several liquid manure runoff events • The farms are primarily small dairy operations and are a mix of Amish and non-Amish owned and operated. The results of the survey indicate for the most part these farms are well managed. • It was also determined two farms have high potential to contribute pollution to surface waters.

  12. Ag NPS Compliance InitiativeSpring Bank Run Watershed Survey DEP NCRO Watershed Program • A workshop will be conducted to provide farmers with information on how they can better manage their operations and to provide information on various funding sources available to them. • Follow-up inspections will be conducted of those farms that were determined to have problems. • DEP plans to work with the Centre County Conservation District, the State Conservation Commission and the NRCS to participate in the workshop and in subsequent follow up efforts to eliminate the threat of pollution to waters in the Spring Bank Run watershed.

  13. Cost-effective Reductions Using Market Tools – Nutrient TradingAnn Smith, DEP Water Planning Office

  14. Credits and Contracts: • 74 proposals have been submitted and 47 have been approved, for a total of 1,695,336 nitrogen credits and 202,557 phosphorous credits. • 7 contracts completed: • 5 for new development • 2 for existing WWTP facilities

  15. Certified Credit Generating Activities include:

  16. Bank and Exchange: • The Bank and Exchange will: • Purchase nutrient credits as needed to establish a portfolio of available nutrient reduction credits; and • Sell nutrient reduction credits for a set price and time period. • PENNVEST awarded a contract to Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in January 2009 to establish the framework for the Bank and Exchange. • It is anticipated that the final design and function of the Bank and Exchange will be discussed at the October PENNVEST Board Meeting. • The development of the Bank and Exchange will add more stability to the market place and the Nutrient Trading Program.

  17. Trading Regulations: • The proposed rulemaking will amend Chapter 96 (Water Quality Standard Implementation) to include “Use of offsets and tradable credits from pollution reduction activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.” • It codifies the Department’s existing guidance and provides clear and certain standards for nutrient and sediment credit trading in Pennsylvania. • Anticipate introduction of the proposed rulemaking to occur at the October 20th EQB meeting.

  18. Innovative Technologies: • Cove Area Regional Digester Project – CARD • Enhanced Digester to process dairy manure in Blair/Bedford • 14 enhanced digesters placed in the top two counties (Lancaster & Franklin) for dairy manure could possibly reduce the Total Nitrogen (TN) load by about one-third, or 9 million pounds. • Further analysis suggests that 42 digesters in forty counties in PA’s Chesapeake watershed could reduce TN by about 27 million pounds. • These technologies are not inexpensive to develop -- they can require as much as $35 to $40 million in start-up revenue/loans. Nutrient credits, renewable energy credits and selling electricity to the grid are potential funding sources. • Other examples of current projects include: Bion Environmental Technologies (process dairy manure in Lancaster), and EnergyWorks (process poultry manure in Adams).

  19. Proposed Rulemaking25. Pa. Code Chapter 102Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Ken Murin Bureau of Watershed Management

  20. Enhanced requirements related to agriculture • Requirements related to plowing and tilling more clearly defined. • Scope expanded to include “animal heavy use areas”. • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan development and implementation required.

  21. Existing requirements for accelerated erosion and sediment control clarified • Definitions • Plan requirements • Chapter 93 antidegradation implementation requirements • Permitting requirements • Site stabilization

  22. Updated federal requirements incorporated • Second phase (Phase II) of the federal requirements added. • Phase I requirement established a five acre or greater earth disturbance threshold. • Phase II requirement establishes a one acre or greater of earth disturbance threshold.

  23. Post construction stormwater management (PCSM) requirements codified • Post construction stormwater management already required by: • Federal NPDES stormwater construction and MS4 requirements • Environmental Hearing Board decisions • Act 167 Stormwater Planning

  24. Requirements related to riparian forest buffers added • New general requirements for protecting existing and establishing new riparian forest buffers • Buffer conservation, construction and maintenance • Riparian forest buffer mandatory when: • Activity requires a permit under this chapter and is located along or within 150 feet of an Exceptional Value (EV) river, perennial and intermittent stream, or lake, pond, or reservoir • Activity is authorized utilizing the permit-by-rule

  25. Permit-by-rule option • Eligibility criteria included to limit applicability to “low-risk” projects • Conditions included requiring the use of • Riparian forest buffers • “Low impact design” techniques • Prescriptive plan and implementation requirements • Mandatory oversight by a professional engineer, geologist, or landscape architect • 30 day review timeframe

  26. Erosion and Sediment Control Permit for Oil and Gas Activities • Codify permitting requirements for oil and gas activities • Establishes requirements to obtain an E&S general permit for 5 acres or more of earth disturbance.

  27. Status • 90-day public comment period • Published in PA Bulletin August 29, 2009 • Comments due November 30, 2009 • Riparian Forest Buffer Technical Guidance will be published on September 26, 2009 • 3 public meetings and hearings to be held during the public comment period: • September 29, 2009 Cranberry Township Municipal Bldg. (Butler County) • October 1, 2009 DEP-SCRO (Harrisburg) • October 5, 2009 Salisbury Township Municipal Bldg. (Allentown) • Registration for public hearing • One week prior to hearing contact EQB • 10 minute oral testimony; 3 written copies of testimony • One witness per organization

More Related