WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Status of Efforts to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality'

Laura Gatz authored and updated (30 June 2023) this CRS InFocus report: 'Status of Efforts to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Rpt_Status_Efforts_Restore_Chesapeake_Bay_WQ_30June2023

The maps are from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the USGS. Click on them to enlarge them.. The watershed (land area) is about 64,000 square miles.
Here are some more facts about the Bay.

For decades, Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia), multiple federal and local agencies, and others have worked to improve water quality in the Bay. Nonetheless, poor water quality in the Bay and its tidal tributaries persisted, prompting litigation that ultimately required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)—or a “pollution budget” for the Bay. Established in 2010, the TMDL includes interim and final goals for each jurisdiction to achieve by 2017 and 2025, respectively. As the target date for the final TMDL goals approaches, stakeholders are examining the progress toward these goals and the continuing challenges Bay jurisdictions and others face in improving the Bay’s water quality.

What Is a TMDL?
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters that are “impaired” by pollution (i.e., not meeting state water quality standards). For those waters, the act directs states to establish a TMDL, which is a calculation of the amount of a pollutant that can enter a waterbody and still allow the waterbody to meet state water quality standards for that pollutant. TMDLs include a quantitative assessment of the pollutant sources and reductions required to attain water quality standards. TMDLs address both point sources of pollution (e.g., wastewater or industrial discharges) and nonpoint sources (e.g., urban runoff and agricultural runoff). The CWA directs states to submit TMDLs to EPA for approval. If EPA disapproves, the act directs EPA to develop a TMDL for the waterbody.

Chesapeake Bay TMDL
EPA established a Chesapeake Bay TMDL in 2010 pursuant to consent decrees resolving litigation over impairment of Bay waters in Virginia and the District of Columbia. The TMDL was also a key feature of a 2010 strategy to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay, chaired by EPA, created the strategy in response to Executive Order 13508, issued in May 2009.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL is the largest single TMDL developed to date in terms of area covered. It addresses all segments of the Bay and its tidal tributaries that are impaired from discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The TMDL set two broad goals: an interim goal of having 60% of pollution control measures needed to attain water quality standards in place by 2017 and a final goal of having 100% of the measures in place by 2025. EPA is using an accountability framework to implement the TMDL. This framework includes four elements: watershed implementation plans (WIPs), two-year milestones, EPA tracking and assessment, and backstop federal actions if Bay jurisdictions do not meet their commitments. Examples of potential backstop federal actions include expanding CWA permit coverage to unregulated sources, conditioning or redirecting EPA grants, and requiring additional pollutant load reductions from point sources.

WIPs
Bay jurisdictions each created WIPs, which detailed specific steps they planned to take to meet and maintain their pollutant allocations under the TMDL. Bay jurisdictions developed WIPs in three phases and submitted them to EPA in 2010 (Phase I), 2012 (Phase II), and 2019 (Phase III). Phase I and II WIPs described specific actions and controls to be implemented by 2017 and 2025 to achieve applicable water quality standards. Phase II WIPs built upon Phase I WIPs by including more specific local actions. Phase III WIPs include refined actions and controls the jurisdictions intend to take through 2025 to meet the goals of the TMDL (see “Phase III WIPs”).

Milestones
Bay jurisdictions submitted their first set of milestones to EPA in 2012. These milestones identify short-term goals on an interim two-year basis, which can be used to assess progress toward the longer-term goals. The most recent set of milestones covers 2022-2023.

2017 Midpoint Assessment
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL called for a midpoint assessment in 2017 to review jurisdictions’ progress toward meeting the goals established in the TMDL. According to data submitted by Bay jurisdictions and assessed by EPA, jurisdictions collectively surpassed the 2017 interim goals for reducing phosphorus and sediment, but they did not achieve the 2017 interim goal for reducing nitrogen. Reductions of specific pollutants in individual Bay jurisdictions varied widely.

EPA also assessed the Bay jurisdictions’ implementation of programs to achieve pollution reductions across sectors and found that achievements and shortfalls varied. The wastewater sector in particular had much success, achieving its 2025 load reduction goals 10 years ahead of schedule through treatment plant upgrades, technology advances, and nutrient discharge limitations in CWA discharge permits. Efforts to reduce nitrogen deposition from atmospheric sources (e.g., power plants and vehicles) were also on track to meet the 2025 TMDL goals. However, while jurisdictions had improved their urban/suburban stormwater regulatory programs, EPA reported that overall loads in the sector continued to increase due to population growth and development. EPA also found that, in some cases, jurisdictions were not making sufficient progress in implementing their planned policies and programs in the agricultural sector and were falling short of meeting the pollution reduction goals in that sector.

As part of the 2017 assessment, EPA identified Delaware’s agricultural sector, Maryland’s urban/suburban stormwater sector, New York’s wastewater sector, and Pennsylvania’s trading/offsets sectors as needing enhanced oversight. This means EPA identified specific concerns with the jurisdictions’ implementation of strategies to meet TMDL goals. The agency may take additional actions to ensure that the jurisdiction stays on track.

In addition, EPA identified two sectors in Pennsylvania— agriculture and urban/suburban stormwater—as requiring backstop action levels, meaning the agency had substantial concerns with actions taken to meet the TMDL goals. For these two sectors, EPA has taken actions intended to get the jurisdiction on track, such as establishing an expectation for more frequent and detailed reporting and an expectation that Chesapeake Bay funds provided to Pennsylvania would be applied to specific priority watersheds.

Phase III WIPs
In 2019, EPA received final Phase III WIPs from Bay jurisdictions specifying actions they plan to implement between 2019 and 2025 to achieve the TMDL goals. Bay jurisdictions incorporated midpoint assessment results and new science and data, such as improved modeling tools, higher-resolution land cover data, additional monitoring data, and greater variety of approved best management practices (BMPs) in their Phase III WIPs. Bay jurisdictions also considered other factors, such as population growth, land use changes, and climate change. In 2018, a committee composed of EPA and other Bay partners revised nitrogen and phosphorus targets to reflect refinements to the most recent version of the Chesapeake Bay watershed model. Some of the revised targets require additional pollution reductions beyond the original 2025 goals, whereas other targets require lesser reductions. The new targets reflect that pollution controls in some areas may be more effective than similar controls in other areas.

EPA’s evaluations of the Bay jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs indicated that both New York’s and Pennsylvania’s plans were deficient in certain areas. While New York submitted an amended plan, which EPA found would meet the state’s portion of the 2025 goal, EPA found that Pennsylvania’s amended plan did not meet the state’s portion of the 2025 goal. Other Bay jurisdictions and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued EPA in 2020 for failing to enforce provisions of the CWA by not requiring Pennsylvania to develop a plan to fully meet pollution reduction goals. (The lawsuit initially included claims regarding New York’s plan and EPA’s review of that plan, but those claims were dismissed after EPA approved New York’s amended plan.) In April 2023, EPA reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in which EPA proposed to increase compliance and enforcement efforts, prioritize its efforts in certain Pennsylvania jurisdictions that contribute the most pollution or have the largest impacts, and determine whether certain stormwater dischargers or animal feeding operations should be designated as significant contributors of pollutants that are therefore subject to permitting requirements.

Progress Toward 2025 Goals
Although the Bay jurisdictions have made progress in implementing practices and controls to achieve TMDL goals, EPA indicates that the jurisdictions are “off course” in meeting their goals. Bay jurisdictions have reported that, as of 2021, they have BMPs in place to achieve 49% of the nitrogen reductions, 64% of the phosphorus reductions, and 100% of the sediment reductions needed to attain applicable water quality standards when compared to the 2009 baseline established in the Bay TMDL. In FY2024, EPA plans to evaluate progress toward meeting the 2022-2023 milestone commitments.

Challenges
EPA and other stakeholders acknowledge that, despite progress in reducing pollutants to the Bay, challenges in achieving the TMDL goals and improving the Bay’s water quality remain. While jurisdictions’ efforts have prevented a significant increase in pollution, they face challenges in meeting targets due to factors such as land use changes, population growth, changes in climate, and the voluntary nature of BMPs implemented to address nonpoint source pollution. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) estimates that 27% of the Bay area met water quality standards in 1985, improving to the mid-30% range by 2020.

In May 2023, the CBP’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), an independent entity that provides scientific and technical advice to CBP, found that (1) efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of nutrients have not resulted in sufficient levels of BMP implementation to meet the TMDL, and (2) the implementation that has occurred has not been as effective at producing the pollutant reductions as expected, meaning more controls would be needed to achieve the target pollutant reductions. In addition, while nutrient and sediment reductions have led to some water quality improvements in some portions of the Bay, no significant improvement has been measured in the majority of the water quality standards established for the various Bay habitats (especially in deep waters), suggesting a lagging response. STAC concluded that ongoing changes may require thinking differently about what constitutes a “restored” Chesapeake Bay. It also suggested potential opportunities for improvements. For example, prioritizing management actions in areas or habitats where pollution reduction limits might be achieved first and yield more immediate impacts on living resources may magnify the impacts of TMDL implementation.

Congressional Interest
Congress has funded Bay restoration efforts through EPA and other agencies for decades. In FY2023, Congress appropriated $92.0 million to EPA for the CBP. In addition, Congress provided $238.0 million in supplemental appropriations through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) to be provided in equal amounts in each of FY2022 through FY2026. The President’s FY2024 budget requests $92.1 million for CBP. Congress may consider additional oversight of the CBP and its efforts to restore the Bay as the 2025 TMDL goal approaches.

Enjoy!

"The only thing that’s worse than hiring a corporate lawyer or an accountant to be a university president is to hire someone who was both." - @ass_deans

CRS Report: 'East Palestine, OH, Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Shipment by Rail: Frequently Asked Questions' And More!

Ben Goldman, a CRS Analyst in Transportation Policy, produced this brief (7 pages) but important report, 'East Palestine, OH, Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Shipment by Rail: Frequently Asked Questions'.

Download CRS_Report_East_Palestine_OH_Hazmet_FAQ

The picture and video below are not from the CRS report.

Summary
On February 3, 2023, a freight train carrying hazardous materials operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation derailed in the town of East Palestine, OH. The derailment involved a fire and damaged several railcars, but no deaths or injuries were initially reported. Emergency responders intentionally released a quantity of vinyl chloride, a flammable gas, from some of the damaged railcars to prevent them from exploding and then burned the gas to dispose of it. This action required the evacuation of many residents in and around East Palestine due to potential airborne exposure to toxic combustion byproducts. Once cleared to return to their homes, some residents complained of respiratory illnesses and the deaths of wild and domesticated animals.

The incident is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board. Cleanup efforts are being monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. The derailment and the response to it have prompted calls for legislative and regulatory action related to the safe transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) by rail. This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) report focuses on the federal safety standards, voluntary industry guidelines, railroad operating practices that may be considered in understanding how and why this derailment occurred, and how to prevent similar derailments in the future. It also provides a brief summary of past legislative responses to railroad safety issues.

Read on...

Here are a video and photo from USATODAY:

https://tinyurl.com/yxbaetxc

“The only presidents I want to see are dead presidents in my wallet. They’re using East Palestine like China and Russia and the U.S. are using Ukraine. It’s a proxy war.” - Joe Botinovch, East Palestine flower shop owner. (in Politico.

Enjoy!

CRS Insight Report: 'Hurricane Ian Recovery - Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'

Lauren R. Stienstra, Elizabeth M. Webster, Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter and Diane P. Horn assembled the CRS Insight report (30 September 2022): 'Hurricane Ian Recovery: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'

Download CRS_Insight_Report_Hurrican_Ian_FEMA_Resources_30Sept2022

Insight reports have embedded URLs that may not show up in text that is pasted in. I will paste the introduction.

Introduction
On September 28, 2022 Hurricane Ian made landfall as a Category 4 major hurricane near Cayo Costa, Florida. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the storm has caused an extremely dangerous storm surge, winds, and flooding across the Florida Peninsula, and later, the South Carolina coast. On September 25, 2022, President Joseph R. Biden issued an emergency declaration for Florida under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.) to support state and local efforts to save lives, protect property, and avert the incident from becoming a major disaster. On September 29, 2022, the President signed a major disaster declaration for the incident and authorized a suite of disaster assistance programs, including Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. Several counties have been authorized to receive Individual Assistance and Public Assistance—Category A (debris removal), and even more have been authorized to receive Public Assistance—Category B (emergency protective measures.) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) has been made available statewide. The situation in Florida is still dynamic; additional declarations for other counties and designated areas (or additional forms of assistance for existing declarations) may be forthcoming if the President determines that federal assistance is necessary to support state and local recovery. Later that same day, the President additionally authorized an emergency declaration for South Carolina under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.).

Information about state and county disaster assistance authorizations is published in FEMA’s declaration database.

The photo is from NPR:

FEMA’s Hurricane Ian webpage provides information on and directions to apply for disaster assistance.

Some of the links to CRS reprts are broken. In that case, search on the CRS Reports page.

Best of luck!

"When a butterfly flutters its wings in one part of the world, it can eventually cause a hurricane in another." ~ Edward Norton Lorenz

CRS InFocus Report: 'Recent Developments in Everglades Restoration'

Anna E. Normand and Pervaze A. Sheikh updated (30 August 2022) CRS InFocus report: 'Recent Developments in Everglades Restoration'. I have pasted the entire document below the graphic.

Download CRS_InFocus_Rpt_Recent_Devlpments_Everglades_Restor._30August2022

Here's a map - not from the CRS report. I believe it's from the National Park Service.

Overview
What Is the Everglades? The Everglades is a unique network of subtropical wetlands in South Florida. Due in part to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water supply and flood control projects (as well as agricultural and urban runoff), the ecosystem was degraded and was approximately half its historical size by the end of the 20th century. The ecosystem is home to Everglades National Park and unique species, including 67 species listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.).

What Is CERP? Congress approved the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000; P.L. 106-541). CERP is a framework under which the federal government, with the State of Florida, is attempting to restore the Everglades and improve the timing, distribution, and quality of the water flowing south from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. Under CERP, the federal government, through USACE and the Department of the Interior (DOI), is to fund half the costs of restoration; the State of Florida is to contribute the other half. Several tribal and local agencies also are involved in this restoration effort. Originally, CERP was to include 60 projects to be completed over 30 years at a cost of $8.2 billion in 2000 dollars (equivalent to $13.2 billion in 2021 by accounting for inflation). Subsequent reports to Congress projected CERP would take approximately 50 years from its authorization to implement at a total cost of $23.2 billion (in FY2020 dollars) due to inflation, changes in project scope and schedule, and new project authorizations. As of FY2022, the federal government has provided $3.5 billion and the State of Florida has spent an estimated $5.3 billion on CERP in nominal dollars (some of Florida’s funding has not been officially credited toward its cost share).

CERP is expected to cost $23.2 billion (FY2020 dollars) and take until 2050 to complete.

Outside of CERP, USACE has performed complementary efforts to restore the Everglades (most of which predate CERP). Construction of a major project, Kissimmee River Restoration, was completed in July 2021 after 22 years. The federal government has spent over $3.8 billion (nominal dollars) on these non-CERP projects.

CERP Projects Must Be Authorized by Congress
WRDA 2000 approved CERP and the process for its implementation. The law also authorized several pilot projects. Subsequent projects require USACE to study and produce a project implementation report (PIR) and obtain congressional authorization before they can receive federal appropriations for construction, including credit or reimbursement for nonfederal work undertaken in advance.

Several laws subsequent to WRDA 2000 authorized projects contemplated under CERP. Some projects received appropriations and are under construction. Studies for other CERP projects are in progress (see Table 1).

Selected USACE Authorizations
Central Everglades Planning Project. The Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) is a CERP project that Congress authorized in WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114- 322). CEPP prioritizes restoration projects (e.g., CEPP South, CEPP North, and CEPP New Water) in the central portion of the Everglades and aims to address issues associated with the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of freshwater flows south of Lake Okeechobee into the central Everglades and Everglades National Park. Congress initiated construction for CEPP with FY2020 appropriations.

Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir Storage Project. WRDA 2018 (Title I of P.L. 115-270) authorized the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir Storage Project (EAA Storage), which nonfederal sponsors proposed as an addendum to CEPP. EAA Storage aims to provide capacity to store around 350,000 acre-feet of water coming from Lake Okeechobee and a stormwater treatment area (i.e., a wetland area that removes excess nutrients to improve water quality).

WRDA 2020. WRDA 2020 (Division AA of P.L. 116-260) authorized two CERP projects―Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project for construction and modifications to the Caloosahatchee River West Basin Storage Reservoir. It also authorized two non-CERP activities―Canal 111 South Dade Project and a study at Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River. It combined CEPP and EAA Storage into one project. It authorized USACE to enter into an agreement for a nonfederal sponsor to pursue construction of one CERP project on its own.

Congressional Interest
Appropriations. Following project authorization, the timing and level of federal and nonfederal funding affect project implementation and completion. In FY2022 annual appropriations, Congress provided USACE with $350.6 million for CERP and $2.0 million for non-CERP Everglades study and construction activities. FY2022 annual appropriations also included $9.0 million for USACE operation and maintenance (O&M) activities in the Everglades. In FY2022, USACE also allocated $1.1 billion to Everglades restoration activities out of the $1.9 billion that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided for USACE aquatic ecosystem restoration construction. For FY2023, the Administration’s USACE budget request included $405.4 million for CERP, $14.3 million for non-CERP Everglades study and construction activities, and $10.7 million for Everglades O&M activities.

DOI implements CERP, conducts science to support restoration, and manages and restores wildlife habitat in the ecosystem. In FY2022, Congress provided $8.2 million and $56.0 million for DOI CERP and non-CERP Everglades activities, respectively. The Administration’s DOI FY2023 budget request included $8.3 million for CERP and $60.6 million for non-CERP Everglades activities

Lake Okeechobee/Herbert Hoover Dike. Water storage and discharges from Lake Okeechobee, managed by USACE, affect the Everglades ecosystem. According to a regulation schedule, USACE may discharge water at certain times and quantities east and west to estuaries and south to the EAA and greater Everglades ecosystem. The Herbert Hoover Dike (HH Dike) is an earthen dam that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. Since 2001, USACE has conducted modification on HH Dike to address structural issues associated with the dike. HH Dike repairs are not categorized as Everglades restoration, but many stakeholders consider them essential to broader restoration efforts in the Everglades ecosystem. HH Dike repairs required USACE to alter discharge regulations and increased discharges from the lake during high-water events. Higher releases of nutrient-rich water from Lake Okeechobee to canals flowing to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries have contributed to harmful algal blooms and have increased sediment in the estuaries and surrounding coastlines. According to USACE, following modification of HH Dike, increased capacity to store water in Lake Okeechobee and changes to regulating discharges from the lake could aid in addressing water quality in canals flowing to the estuaries.

As of September 2021, USACE anticipated completing dike repairs by the end of 2022. Section 1106 of WRDA 2018 directed USACE to expedite the update of the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule to coincide with completion of HH Dike and to consider all relevant aspects of CERP, including projects not yet constructed (e.g., EAA Storage) in its operating procedures. WRDA 2020 provided further direction to USACE on water management efforts within Lake Okeechobee and authorized a national harmful algal bloom demonstration program with the lake as a focus area (FY2022 appropriations provided the first funding for the program). USACE expects to finalize new discharge regulations for the Lake Okeechobee System Operating Manual (LOSOM) by January 2023 to account for the completed HH dike construction. In August 2021, USACE announced a preferred alternative for the new schedule. In July 2022, USACE released a draft environmental impact statement for LOSOM identifying a preferred alternative, with public comments due in mid-September 2022.

WRDA 2022. In 2022, the House and Senate passed different versions of WRDA 2022 (H.R. 7776). The House- passed version would authorize a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Everglade’s northern estuaries. Both chambers’ versions would authorize a study for resiliency improvements to existing projects in central and southern Florida. These provisions include limitations on how these activities may impact CERP progress. The House-passed version also would require an update on CERP, LOSOM, and other Everglades activities to be sent to the authorizing committees. Both chambers’ versions would require future accounting updates to CERP nonfederal sponsors and alter how CERP nonfederal cash contributions are calculated and their payment timeline (provisions in the two versions vary). The Senate version also would increase the authorization of appropriations amount for the Indian River Lagoon project.

Enjoy!

"In Florida, it's not the winter that coming. It's the ocean." - @weswolfe in Florida Politics 

John Waldman Opines: 'Restoring Retired Rivers'

Although I am an Easterner by birth and childhood (New York City and its Long Island suburbs) I "learned my water" in the arid West (AZ, NV, NM) for the last 16 years in the wet Pacific Northwest (OR and northern CA). When someone mentions taking out dams to 'free' spawning fish (salmon) I don't think of rivers like the Peconic, Penobscot and fish like herring and Atlantic salmon. And European streams - really?

So I  have enjoyed our recent issue of Water Resources IMPACT that just hit the streets. Its theme is: 'Dams: Past, Present and Future' guest-edited by Lisa Beutler. The articles by Francisco Campos-López and Pao Fernández Garrido (Europe) and George Jackman (New York) exposed me to some new territory. But I missed the last article by John Waldman of Queens College of the City University of New York in NYC.

Here is a PDF of his article, 'Restoring Retired Rivers':

Download Restoring_Retired_Rivers_IMPACT_May_June_2022

Professor Waldman also authored the book, Running Silver: Restoring Atlantic Rivers And Their Great Fish Migrations. 

Enjoy!

"We didn’t hire you to discover the truth, find meaning, or make the world a better place with your research. We hired you to get grants with overhead that returns to the college!" - @ass_deans