Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee July 23, 2008 Meeting SUMMARY OF DECISION, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Highlights, Decisions, and Action Items ¦ DECISION: The Nutrient Subcommittee approved the revised Nutrient Subcommittee and Workgroup work plans and schedules for the next 12 months, with the understanding that the work plans will continue to be updated and changed as necessary. ¦ DECISION: The Nutrient Subcommittee will plan to touch base in one year on the progress made by the jurisdictions in the way of tracking and reporting implementation practices. ¦ ACTION: Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff will organize the lists of tracking and reporting related issues, barriers, solutions, and actions identified by the Nutrient Subcommittee during the meeting (Section V below). In cooperation with Workgroup chairs, staff will determine which Workgroup, or other group (Implementation Committee), should address each issue and circulate the plan to the NSC for comment. ¦ ACTION: The Nutrient Subcommittee Chair and Nutrient Subcommittee Workgroup Chairs will be asked to finalize the tracking and reporting action plan and the list of issues assigned to the workgroups. Workgroups (and others) will then address the issues/topics as they fit their overall work plan and schedule. ¦ ACTION: Nutrient Subcommittee members will review the revised New Development Taskgroup Report and send any additional comments by July 30th to Reggie Parrish ¦ DECISION: Following review (by July 30th) by Nutrient Subcommittee members, the Stormwater Workgroup will present the New Development Taskgroup Report to the Implementation Committee for acceptance and action. ¦ ACTION: Sally Bradley will send Nutrient Subcommittee members the web site link to the revised draft New Development Taskgroup Report for comment by July 30th. Handouts and Presentations ¦ Agenda ¦ Attachment A: Revised NSC Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment B: Forestry Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment C: Revised Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment D: Watershed Technical Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment E: Revised Urban Stormwater Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment F: Revised Wastewater Treatment Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment G: Revised Sediment Workgroup Work Plan and Schedule ¦ Attachment H: Reporting and Tracking Questions for Jurisdictions ------- ¦ Attachment I: 1985-2007 BMP Implementation Vs Tributary Strategy Targets by Jurisdiction ¦ Tracking and Reporting Nonpoint Source Practices and Programs - Presentation by Jeff Sweeney ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in Delaware ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in DC ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in New York ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in West Virginia ¦ Status of Reporting and Tracking in Pennsylvania ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in Virginia ¦ Status of Tracking and Reporting in Maryland ¦ NSC Workgroup Updates ¦ Revised New Development Taskgroup Report I. Welcome and Introductions ¦ Dave Hansen, the new Nutrient Subcommittee Chair, welcomed everyone to the meeting and initiated introductions. II. Revised Subcommittee/Workgroup Work Plans Since the last Nutrient Subcommittee meeting, the Nutrient Subcommittee's Workgroups have been revising their work plans and schedules based on NSC members' comments. The revised workgroup 12-month rolling schedules are found in Attachments A - G. ¦ The work plans will continue to be updated and revised based on forthcoming issues, always looking 12 months ahead. DECISION: The Nutrient Subcommittee approved the revised Nutrient Subcommittee and Workgroup work plans and schedules for the next 12 months, with the understanding that the work plans will continue to be updated and changed as necessary. III. Tracking/Reporting Overview Jeff Sweeney provided an overview of tracking and reporting in the nonpoint source sector. His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/NSC 07-23- 08 Presentation 2 9165.pdf. ¦ Jurisdictions' tracking and reporting information is used to communicate progress in nutrient and sediment reduction through graphs and charts on the Bay Program website. Reported information is also used by Maryland's Bay Stat and is included in a report to Congress on Bay Program accountability. ¦ In addition to the data being used for accountability purposes, it is also used for modeling and will be crucial for the establishment of the Bay TMDL. ¦ Tracking data are used in models to understand cause and effect relationships in the monitoring program. 2 ------- ¦ BMP implementation is critical in determining what it will take to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution and meet the goals. ¦ Jeff Sweeney is aware some best management practices that are being implemented on the ground but have not yet been reported, so they cannot be counted toward the nutrient and sediment reduction goals. ¦ The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) is undergoing a project to extend and improve the flow of nonpoint source data between the Bay Program and partner jurisdictions. o NEIEN is building nodes and standardized reporting templates for each jurisdiction that will support information exchanges in an automated fashion, o The data that the Bay Program receives via the network nodes will be fed into the input decks for the Watershed Model. Discussion ¦ Tanya Spano, MWCOG, said that the COG region wants to focus on the developed land and see where the data are coming from to enhance credibility. ¦ Tanya Spano and Randy Sovic, WV DEP, suggested relabeling the implementation graphs in Jeffs presentation to say "As of 2007" rather than "2007" to avoid confusion that the data is only for the single year of 2007. ¦ Jim Curatolo, USC, pointed out that the node software is not available to the people in the state agencies that collect the data. ¦ Norm Goulet, NVRC, believes the protocols that are developed for NEIEN transactions should be made at the local level and should be able to be transmitted digitally to the states. ¦ Reggie Parrish, EPA CBPO, added that another issue with tracking and reporting is keeping up on BMP maintenance to ensure that the BMPs that are reported are continuing to do their job effectively. ¦ Tanya Spano suggested that we elevate the problems with tracking and reporting to the Implementation Committee in order for them to be addressed at a higher level. ¦ Bill Keeling, VA DCR, suggested that recommendations made to higher committees have state support and technical backing. IV. Status of Tracking and Reporting in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Jurisdictions Dave Hansen explained that the purpose of this session is to hear from states about some of their issues and barriers with tracking and reporting in order to work together to address the problems. New York Jim Curatolo, Upper Susquehanna Coalition (USC), discussed the status of tracking and reporting in New York. ¦ New York primarily handles agricultural data. The Upper Susquehanna Coalition tracks farm parameters and BMPs. ¦ The Coalition provides data to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office after doing quality control checks on the data. 3 ------- ¦ USC is developing an Access-based program that will feed the data into GIS. ¦ USC developed a BMP list that is equivalent to the Chesapeake Bay Program's BMPs list to ensure standardization. ¦ New York does not see the benefits of automating the reporting process but is willing to do so if that is what is requested. ¦ Someone at USC will attempt to mine the urban stormwater BMPs that are on paper. ¦ USC only tracks implementation that falls under state funding and special contracts or grants outside of Farm Bill work. ¦ Jim Curatolo believes the Coalition's tracking and reporting approach is accounting for about 95 percent of the BMPs being implemented in the New York portion of the basin. ¦ Every year, the lead person from each county updates new BMPs that were implemented, including the voluntary BMPs, at the farms throughout each respective county. ¦ USC's GIS analyst has volunteered to share their approach to capturing tracking information with the other Chesapeake Bay Program partners. Pennsylvania Kenn Pattison, PA DEP, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in Pennsylvania. ¦ Pennsylvania tracks BMP implementation by funding source, believing that this will prevent double-counting, but it does have flaws. o Nutrient management, for example, is not typically funded with cost share funds. ¦ Kenn believes that Pennsylvania uses a conservative approach to reporting. ¦ Kenn has not been successful at identifying and capturing BMPs that were implemented voluntarily without funding. ¦ Pennsylvania's NEIEN repository is complete. It has been populated with information from NRCS, Growing Greener, and other sources. The next step will be to have people review the input process and make changes to improve the system. ¦ The state is developing a system that will allow conservation districts to enter data into databases that will be tied into NEIEN. ¦ Pennsylvania is in favor of NEIEN, but Kenn cautioned that it will likely take a few years to get the system fully up and running. ¦ Pennsylvania struggles with how to deal with practices that may no longer be in place. ¦ Kenn is also concerned with everyone reporting everything under the same BMP name. ¦ PA DEP only requires them to check what is implemented under the grant process. ¦ Pennsylvania faces a serious staff shortage which affects how much data can be compiled. ¦ In 2006, Pennsylvania pulled out historical records in their stormwater management program. Kenn developed a listing of project acres and disturbed acres in the stormwater plan and submitted the information to the Bay Program. As a precaution, Kenn picked the low percentage of BMPs. ¦ Kenn is not aware of any plans being in place to better track stormwater BMP implementation. 4 ------- ¦ Pennsylvania's tracking and reporting protocols do not always match Bay Program reporting requirements. Maryland Paul Emmart, MDE, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in Maryland. ¦ Robin Pellicano at MDE is the primary contact for reporting. She compiles information from MDA and DNR. ¦ Urban and agricultural BMPs come from five sources. Some are county-level and some are from the agricultural census. NRCS and FSA data are integrated. ¦ Generally, the quality of the data is good. ¦ There is an issue with what level the data is reported at. ¦ There is a lot of historical data that is not captured, oftentimes because it is not electronic. Further, there are not always the necessary resources and/or staffing to capture this information. ¦ Stream restoration and erosion and sediment control in the urban sector have been challenging to track. ¦ Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost Share Program (MACS) conducts reviews and spot checks to ensure BMPs are being maintained and used. ¦ Maryland wishes for the NEIEN project to move forward, with the Chesapeake Bay Program Office taking on the role as a catalyst and leader. ¦ Marya Levelev, MDE, added some information about tracking and reporting in the point source sector. o The Wastewater Treatment Workgroup is collecting data on municipal and industrial non-significant facilities, o Maryland has discovered about 10 additional non-significant municipal facilities that were not previously captured, o In order to report the non-significant industrial facility data, more staffing is needed. The 10 significant industrial facilities are, and have been, reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. There are 250+ industrial facilities, but the permit applications of each one would have to be reviewed to find out whether or not they discharging nutrients and sediments, o There are people in charge of doing quality assurance and quality control of the data. ¦ Marya asked if the Chesapeake Bay Program Office would have staff who could help them to go through reports and get the necessary data to EPA. Delaware Jennifer Volk, DE DNREC, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in Delaware. ¦ Delaware tracks primarily agricultural data and little to no wastewater (on-site treatment system/septic system) data. ¦ Jennifer asks for data twice per year, but few practices are updated that frequently. ¦ In 2007, an inventory was done that included interviewing organizations to determine how data collection was handled. The result was that there were varying levels of data management, from paper files to geo-databases. ¦ Delaware is challenged with getting data from sources that they do not know about, such as voluntary practices implemented by farmers, homeowners, or nonprofits. 5 ------- However, their foremost concern is improving tracking and reporting from sources that they are aware of. ¦ Delaware is currently developing a stormwater and wastewater database. ¦ Jennifer pointed out that there may also be data out there that would be useful to know about, but if Delaware does not ask for it, it will not be reported. ¦ The Delaware Water Resources Agency at the University of Delaware proposed a GIS approach to estimate drainage areas to existing stormwater BMPs in northern Delaware. ¦ Implementation is typically only verified when cost share money or permits are involved. Inspections only occur when a problem is reported. ¦ Delaware is not using NEIEN but will try to, although it will not be an easy transition. Virginia Bill Keeling, VA DCR, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in Virginia. ¦ Virginia gets most of its information from Virginia's agricultural cost share tracking program. Other sources include state and federal agencies. Too often data requests are ignored. ¦ Virginia, like many of the other states, also mentioned a challenge in tracking BMPs that are implemented voluntarily and not reported to any agency. ¦ Voluntary BMPs could be tracked, but staff does not have the time to verify the practices in order for them to be accurately tracked. ¦ Virginia's quality assurance process involves spot checking a randomly selected record from the cost share database. ¦ Virginia finds it difficult to meet the new end-of-calendar-year reporting deadline. ¦ Virginia has sent schema and an instance file in June to the Bay Program and is awaiting acceptance. The remaining work is mapping local and state data into the schemes. West Virginia Randy Sovic, WV DEP, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in West Virginia. ¦ West Virginia reports BMPs consistently with what is in Attachment I. ¦ West Virginia receives their BMP implementation data from multiple sources, including state agencies, conservation districts, and even the private sector that Alana Hartman calls directly for the information. ¦ West Virginia struggles with capturing practices that are implemented voluntarily and urban BMPs. ¦ Challenges to tracking include no requirements, no funding to track and report, government distrust, and lack of awareness about the importance of tracking. ¦ NRCS's spot checking procedure is documented in West Virginia's BMP reporting QAPP. BMPs installed under state implementation grants are visually inspected. ¦ There is no staffing support to electronically compile point source NPDES data and do quality assurance. ¦ West Virginia has been struggling to meet the new reporting deadline set by the Bay Program. ¦ West Virginia intends to implement the NEIEN system that Pennsylvania built and expects it to be operational in 2009. 6 ------- ¦ West Virginia is looking for technical support and staffing support to meet existing reporting requirements. District of Columbia Collin Burrell, DC DOE, discussed the status of tracking and reporting in DC. ¦ DC has one major wastewater treatment facility, Blue Plains, whose information is reported to the Bay Program on a regular basis. o Tanya Spano added that COG has managed the Blue Plains data for DC because of the interjurisdictional input to Blue Plains, o Because of the interjurisdictional contributions, there are some upcoming changes that may result in reallocations of flows. The Nutrient Subcommittee should be aware that the assigned loads from Blue Plains to Maryland, Virginia, and DC may change. ¦ DC DOE's permit tracking system tracks BMP implementation. Tree plantings are reported by DC's Urban Forestry Administration and Casey Trees. ¦ DC does not track, or struggles with tracking, activities on private lands, street sweeping benefits, urban nutrient management data, erosion and sediment control practices, and forest buffers. ¦ Structural BMPs are inspected by DC DOE to ensure they are functioning properly. This is not done as frequently as it should be. ¦ DC hopes to geocode their database of BMPs in order to be able to report by watershed. ¦ DC is involved in the NEIEN system and hopes to have their node up this fall to exchange non-agricultural practice implementation. ¦ DC is looking for additional technical and/or financial resources to develop a more robust database, to increase inspection and improve inspector coordination with database managers, and to reduce double counting. V. Taking Tracking/Reporting to the Next Level Issues and Barriers ¦ Inefficient transfer of tracking information between local and state agencies and the Chesapeake Bay Program. ¦ Ensuring BMPs are maintained to be as efficient as they are reported to be. ¦ Capturing historic data, which is often not electronic. ¦ Lack of the necessary resources and staff to collect and compile data. ¦ Dealing with practices that may no longer be in place. ¦ Ensuring we are all reporting the same thing under the same name. ¦ Quality assurance and quality control. ¦ Tracking voluntary, new, innovative, and non-structural practices that may not be tied to an organization or a grant and are therefore not reported. ¦ Risk of double counting BMPs. ¦ Accurately capturing manure and poultry litter that is transported both within and outside of the watershed. ¦ Capturing non-significant industrial facilities data which are only available through hard copy permit applications. 7 ------- ¦ Earning the trust of leery farmers, and others, who do not want to be involved in government efforts and programs. ¦ Convincing local conservation agencies of the importance to them for accurately and comprehensively track their implementation efforts. ¦ Not having a BMP reporting requirement. ¦ Reporting nonpoint source urban BMPs. ¦ Reporting septic systems. ¦ Meeting the Bay Program's end-of-calendar-year reporting deadline. ¦ Lack of awareness about the importance of tracking. ¦ Addressing privacy/data sharing issues with the agricultural sector. ¦ Different conservation practices that the partners know are being implemented but for some reasons are not being tracked and reported. ¦ Concerns about how BMP tracking and reporting will operate under the Chesapeake Action Plan. ¦ Concerns about the effectiveness of the twice yearly reporting. ¦ Concerns about conflicts between the States' Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants conditions and deliverables and the Chesapeake Bay Program's grant guidance. Solutions ¦ Develop NEIEN protocols at the local level and transmit the information electronically. ¦ Prioritize the issues and barriers that need addressing. ¦ Put in a firewall, such as latitude and longitude coordinates, to prevent double counting. ¦ Express to farmers the benefits of implementing and reporting agricultural best management practices that will put a better face on agriculture, and further express to all localities in general the benefits to them, such as getting out from under local TMDLs in their own local streams. ¦ Use a centralized database in all of the states. ¦ The Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the EPA Region 3 office need to coordinate on what is required in the NEIEN grants. ¦ Set a deadline when data must be reported to the Bay Program that is suitable for the Bay Program as well as the jurisdictions. ¦ Allocate funding money based on performance. ¦ Coordinate private sector and state tacking and reporting systems. Suggested NSC and Workgroup Assignments ¦ Chesapeake Bay Program Office will invest the ability to help provide staffing to the jurisdictions to collect and compile data. ¦ The NSC should address the issue of manure and poultry litter transportation around and outside of the watershed: where is it going and where the release points are. ¦ Support NEIEN efforts. ¦ The NSC will review Delaware Water Resource Agency's proposed approach to estimate drainage areas to existing stormwater BMPs in northern Delaware. 8 ------- ¦ The Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup should work on convincing farmers to implement and report best management practices which will help to give agriculture a better face. ¦ The Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff will look at the value of historic data and come back to the Nutrient Subcommittee with recommendations on whether to spend time gathering this data or move forward with new efforts. ¦ The NSC Source Workgroups and the Watershed Technical Workgroup will look into how to capture new, innovative, and non-structural practices that do not fit into the database and are not tracked. ¦ Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff will look into the list of air BMPs that are put together years ago by an air ad hoc group. ¦ The Nutrient Subcommittee will follow through with the jurisdictions on the progress being made in tracking and reporting, starting with the next update in one year. Next Steps and Issues to Elevate to the Implementation Committee ¦ USC's GIS analyst has volunteered to share their approach to capturing tracking information with the Bay Program. ¦ The Nutrient Subcommittee will continue to highlight jurisdictions' successes to help others move forward. DECISION: The Nutrient Subcommittee will plan to touch base in one year on the progress made by the jurisdictions in the way of tracking and reporting implementation practices. ACTION: Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff will organize the lists of tracking and reporting related issues, barriers, solutions, and actions by Nutrient Subcommittee Workgroup, or other group (Implementation Committee), and circulate the plan to the NSC for comment. ACTION: The Nutrient Subcommittee Chair and Nutrient Subcommittee Workgroup Chairs will be asked to finalize the tracking and reporting action plan and the list of issues assigned to the workgroups during their scheduled September 24, 2008 conference call. VI. Updates and Announcements ¦ The New Development Taskgroup Report has been revised based on the comments received. Additional comments are due by July 30th to Reggie Parrish after which the report will be moved up to the Implementation Committee for review. ACTION: Nutrient Subcommittee members will review the revised New Development Taskgroup Report and send any additional comments by July 30th to Reggie Parrish DECISION: Following review (by July 30th) by Nutrient Subcommittee members, the Stormwater Workgroup will present the New Development Taskgroup Report to the Implementation Committee for acceptance and action. 9 ------- ACTION: Sally Bradley will send Nutrient Subcommittee members the web site link to the revised draft New Development Taskgroup Report for comment by July 30th. VII. Next Nutrient Subcommittee Meeting The next Nutrient Subcommittee conference call is scheduled for 10 AM-12 PM on Wednesday, August 27th with the specific topics to be determined. The next Nutrient Subcommittee chair/Nutrient Subcommittee Workgroup chairs conference call is scheduled for September 24th with a focus on review and finalizing the tracking and reporting action plan and review of the Subcommittee's and workgroups' actions in the coming months. The next Nutrient Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 22nd with the meeting focused on review of the proposed BMP definitions and effectiveness estimates from Phase two of the UMD/MAWP BMP Project. Participants Dave Hansen UDEL Rich Batiuk EPA/CBPO Sara Parr CRC/CBPO Sally Bradley CRC/CBPO Bill Keeling VADCR Fred Samadani MDA Dan Wilson Monteco Corp Jennifer Volk DEDNREC Olivia Devereux UMD/CBPO Collin Burrell DDOE Randy Sovic WV DEP Reggie Parrish EPA/CBPO Melissa Fagan CRC/STAC Mark Dubin UMD/CBPO Bill Angstadt DMAA David Kindig VADCR Paul Emmart MDE Marya Levelev MDE Normand Goulet NVRC Jeff Sweeney UMD/CBPO On the Phone: Karl Huber VADCR Jim Curatolo use Tanya Spano MW COG Russ Perkinson VADCR di hansen@udel. edu batiuk.richard@epa.gov sparr@chesapeakebav.net sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net William.keeling@dcr.virginia.gov samadaf@mda.state.md.us dwilson@monteco.com Jennifer.volk@state.de.us odevereux@umd. edu collin.burrell@dc. gov r sovi c@ wvdep. org parrish.reginald@epa.gov faganm@si.edu mdubin@chesapeakebav.net angstadtconsulting@aol. com david.kindig@dcr.virginia.gov pemmart@mde. state, md. us mlevelev@mde. state, md.us ngoul et@novaregi on. org i sweenev@chesapeakebav.net karl.huber@dcr.virginia.gov iac3@htva.net tspano@mwcog.org russ.perkinson@dcr.virginia.gov 10 ------- |