Letter Extending Credit Grant

							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
           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%.
                   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.
                   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.
                    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.
    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.
 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
 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.
 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.
              Ag NPS Compliance Initiative
            Spring 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.
            Ag NPS Compliance Initiative
          Spring 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.
Cost-effective Reductions Using Market Tools –
                Nutrient Trading

    Ann Smith, DEP Water Planning Office
                 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
  Certified Credit Generating Activities include:
Agricultural BMPS   No-till, cover crops, riparian buffer, stream
                    bank fencing, rotational grazing, field lane
                    stabilization, manure storages, mortality
                    composters, poultry manure export

Manure Technology   Bion Environmental Technologies- Dairy
                    Manure Processing
Point Source        Milton Regional Sewer Authority
Pending Proposals   Technologies: Cove Area Regional
                    Digester, ElectroCell, IeP, EnergyWorks,
                    Bion

                    BMPs: Lycoming CD, Lancaster CD,
                    Capital RC&D, American Farm Land Trust
                    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.
                    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.
                   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).
                                                      Estimated County Dairy Manure Nitrogen Loads
                                                       and Projected Enhanced Digester Reductions


Estimated Nitrogen Load in Millions of Pounds   120
                                                          Total Nitrogen Load

                                                100       Nitrogen Load Reductions                    40 Counties
                                                                                                    with 42 Digesters

                                                80                              13 Top Counties
                                                                                with 32 Digesters         83.6

                                                60
                                                                                      64.4
                                                       2 Top Counties
                                                40     with 14 Digesters



                                                20           28.7
                                                                                     20.6                 26.8
                                                              9.2
                                                 0
         Proposed Rulemaking

          25. Pa. Code Chapter 102
Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater
                Management


                 Ken Murin
      Bureau of Watershed Management
  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.
   Existing requirements for
    accelerated erosion and
   sediment control clarified
• Definitions
• Plan requirements
• Chapter 93 antidegradation implementation
  requirements
• Permitting requirements
• Site stabilization
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.
 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
     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
     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
 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.
                        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