Planning for October 22‐23: What the WQGIT Needs to Know and Decide about the Midpoint Assessmentabout the Midpoint Assessment
Presentation to the WQGITOn Behalf of the Ad Hoc Planning Team
September 24, 2012Updated to Reflect WQGIT Input on 9/24Updated to Reflect WQGIT Input on 9/24
Big Picture Question for October 22‐23Big Picture Question for October 22 23
Where do we as a Partnership want to b i d ?be in 2017 and 2025?
2
What We Also Need to Be Able to b bAnswer by 4 pm October 23
How are we addressing adaptive management? What is the midpoint assessment? What is the midpoint assessment?
• How does it relate to the 60% by 2017 goal?• How does it relate to the accountability framework described in the Bay TMDL?• Who is the lead for the midpoint assessment and related deliverables?• What is the approximate schedule?
What barriers to implementation need to be addressed to help meet the 60% by 2017 goal or in the midpoint assessment for the Phase III WIPs?
Guiding Principles – What are they and how will they be applied? What are the Workgroups’ priorities for the midpoint assessment?
h i i i dd h b i i l i ?• Do these priorities address the barriers to implementation?• How do they relate to the Guiding Principles?• Roughly speaking, how much of a difference would it make in load, expected reductions, or implementation
decisions in each state? (speaking generally)• What resources and how much time would it take to address this priority?
A th d id t thi i it h ti f i ith h i b ?• Are there downsides to this priority, such as generating confusion with changing numbers?• What would happen if this change were not made as part of the midpoint assessment?• Based on the above, does the WQGIT agree this should be address in the midpoint assessment?• If yes, what are the next steps, who is taking them on, and by when?
What does the WQGIT need to communicate to the PSC? How should the WQGIT communicate issues related to the midpoint assessment to our partners
and to the public?
3Surgeon General’s Warning: Reading small font may lead to blindness or temporary loss of sanity
We Can Begin to Answer Some of h dThese Questions Today
How are we addressing adaptive management? What is the midpoint assessment?
• How does it relate to the 60% by 2017 goal?• How does it relate to the accountability framework described in the Bay TMDL?• Who is the lead for the midpoint assessment and related deliverables?Who is the lead for the midpoint assessment and related deliverables?• What is the approximate schedule?
What barriers to implementation need to be addressed to help meet the 60% by 2017 goal or in the midpoint assessment for the Phase III WIPs?
Guiding Principles – What are they and how will they be applied? Guiding Principles What are they and how will they be applied? What are the Workgroups’ priorities for the midpoint assessment?
• Do these priorities address the barriers to implementation?
• How do they relate to the Guiding Principles?• Roughly speaking, how much of a difference would it make in load, expected reductions, or implementation decisions in g y p g, , p , p
each state? (speaking generally)• What resources and how much time would it take to address this priority?• Are there downsides to this priority, such as generating confusion with changing numbers?• What would happen if this change were not made as part of the midpoint assessment?• Based on the above, does the WQGIT agree this should be address in the midpoint assessment?
If h h h i ki h d b h ?• If yes, what are the next steps, who is taking them on, and by when? What does the WQGIT need to communicate to the PSC? How should the WQGIT communicate issues related to the midpoint assessment to our partners and to the
public? 4
How Are We Addressing Adaptive ?Management?
Set Loads to meet WQS (basin targets)
Adjust plansand possibly TMDL
Evaluate and
ReviewGoals andStrategies
(basin targets)
Annual progress
TMDL
Translate the Strategy
Adjust Actions
Develop implementationPl h i f
Annual progress assessments,
2‐year milestone adjustments
Align Plan Operationswith Partners
Monitor andAssess Progress
Plans that inform the TMDL
and staged implementation
Execute Programs and Initiatives
Phase II WIPsSystematically fill identified
gaps through 2‐
5Source: Shared almost identical slide with the WQSC in July 2009
g p gyear milestones
CBP’s Decision Framework
6
Staged Implementation
Propose increased Increased Propose new Implement Examples of
3.535
40
y
budget to legislature
program budget
Increased controls
legislative authorities
Rulemakingregulatory controls Some Planned Controls
35
7.5
10
325
30
liver
ed to
Bay
OnsiteW t t
Load ReductionSchedule
26
20
35
27.5
2020
20
25
30
35
40
Deliv
ered
to B
ay
TOTALAgricultureDeveloped
9.5
10.5
9
125.52
10
15
20
gen
Load
s De
WastewaterDevelopedAgricultureInterim
Targets
2015
10
54
66
5.57
1.520.50
5
10
15
20
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
Nitro
gen
Load
s D Developed
WastewaterOnsite
6.5
3.5
0
5
10
Nitro
g
Final TargetsMilestones for Assessing
Progress
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025Year
7
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025YearStage 1 Implementation Stage 2 Implementation
Source: Presentation to PSC in October 2009
What is the Midpoint Assessment?What is the Midpoint Assessment?
Ultimate Goal:Ultimate Goal: • Ensure Partnership has all practices in place by 2025 to attain water quality standards in the Bay q y y
How?• Take stock of latest science, data, tools (including models), BMPs, and lessons learned from progress to date
• Findings from Midpoint Assessment will help jurisdictions to prepare for the Phase III WIPs, which will guide milestones and implementation between 2018 and 2025milestones and implementation between 2018 and 2025
8
How Does the Midpoint Assessment l h l?Relate to the 60% goal?
Moving Forward on Parallel TracksImplementing 60% by 2017 2010: Phase I WIPs
Midpoint Assessment
Moving Forward on Parallel Tracks2010
2010: Phase I WIPs 2011 & 2012: Phase II WIPs 2012‐2013 Milestones
2012: Gather Partnership input and set priorities
2014‐2015 Milestones 2016‐2017 Milestones Annual progress runs
As directed by WQGIT, gather data, develop methods
As appropriate, refine and test tools Annual progress runs
Tracked using Watershed Model Phase 5.3.2
tools Set planning targets for Phase
III WIPs Develop Phase III WIPs and Develop Phase III WIPs and
2018‐2019 milestones92017
How Does the Midpoint Assessment l h b l k?Relate to the Accountability Framework?
1. WatershedImplementationPlans identifynutrient and sediment targets that meet water
Components of Bay TMDL Accountability
quality standards.
with programmatic and pollutant reduction
Milestones2. 2‐Year
35
27.5
2020
15
10
54
66
5.57
1.520.50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025Year
yFramework
pollutant reduction commitments
Assess P
3.Track and
Progress implementing WIPs and milestones
4. Federal Actions
10
if insufficient Watershed Implementation Plans or 2‐year milestonesSource: Chesapeake Bay TMDL Section 7
Framework Informed by Decision d lSupport and Assessment Tools
1. WatershedLand Change
ModelImplementationPlans identifynutrient and sediment targets that meet water
ModelWatershed Model
quality standards.
with programmatic and pollutant reduction
Milestones2. 2‐Year
35
27.5
2020
15
10
54
66
5.57
1.520.50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025Year
ScenarioMonitoring
Data pollutant reduction commitments
Assess P
3.Track and
BuilderData
Progress implementing WIPs and milestones
4. Federal Actions
BayTASNEIEN
11
if insufficient Watershed Implementation Plans or 2‐year milestones
Who Is the Lead?Deliverable Proposed LeadDeliverable Proposed Lead
Midpoint Assessment Priorities
Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (WQGIT)
Midpoint Assessment Guiding Principles
Principles’ Staff Committee, with input from WQGIT and Management Board
Midpoint Assessment CBP Partnership Specific roles for WorkgroupsMidpoint Assessment Deliverables
CBP Partnership. Specific roles for Workgroups, Modeling Team, etc.
2-Year Milestones Bay Jurisdictions Federal Agencies2 Year Milestones Bay Jurisdictions, Federal Agencies
Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans Bay Jurisdictions, with input from local partnersp
Evaluation & Oversight of WIPs and Milestones U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A P ibl R i i
12
Any Possible Revisions to Bay TMDL U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Note: Partnership members in addition to the lead may contribute to deliverables
Working Draft of Schedule( b h )(Dates Subject to Change)
Input for the midpoint assessment from WQGIT, WQGIT Workgroups, Modeling Workgroup othersModeling Workgroup, others• Identification of topics (August 2012)• Priorities (September 18, 2012)
Partnership development of Guiding Principles: Partnership development of Guiding Principles:• August and September: Discussion and feedback solicited from WQGIT• September 12: Discussion and feedback solicited from Management Board• September 27: Deadline for Management Board comments on Principles• Fall, TBD: Introduce Guiding Principles to PSC, g p• Key question: will these Principles help the Partnership set priorities?
October 9 WQGIT call: • WQGIT approval of October 22‐23 agenda
October 15: Materials available for October 22‐23 meeting WQGIT Meeting to set priorities, flesh out schedule and develop work
plan for midpoint assessment (October 22‐23, 2012)• Use of draft versions of Guiding Principles to scope extent of the midpoint
assessment
PSC approval of the Guiding Principles (Winter 2013) 13
Working Draft of Schedule( b h )(Dates Subject to Change)
BMP expert panel and workgroup findings and recommendations (2012 and on)and on)
As appropriate, refinements to decision support tools (2012 and on)
Partnership testing of these refinements and, as appropriate, tool difi ti i t thi t ti (P t h t d t l t 6modifications in response to this testing (Partners have suggested at least 6
months)
Development of Phase III Planning Targets, as necessary
l f d f d f l h h ll d l Development of draft and final Phase III WIPs that will guide implementation between 2018 and 2025, upon receipt of Phase III WIP planning targets• Some Partners have indicated need 18 months between completion of any model
updates and submission of Phase III WIPs• In 2010 letter, EPA stated draft Phase III WIPs due June 1, 2017 and final due
November 1, 2017
EPA revisions, as appropriate, to the Bay TMDL
14
Working Draft of Guiding Principles ( h b h )(see attachment; subject to change)
1. Keep the focus on implementation and maintain stable tracking and reporting through 2017 (parallel tracks)
2. Enhance decision support and assessment tools to2. Enhance decision support and assessment tools to enable successful engagement of local partners
3. Incorporate verification of practices into existing accountability tools and reporting protocolsaccountability tools and reporting protocols
4. Address emerging issues that may impact current strategies and future plans
5. Prioritize midpoint assessment actions and adaptive management to ensure Phase III WIPs meet water quality goalsq y g
15
Workgroup Priorities and Relation to d lGuiding Principles
See Attachment WG MPA Priorities 9.24.12.pdf and Priority _ p yInput by Principle_9.21.12.xls
Workgroups have similar priorities
Most priorities address to Principle 2, enabling successful engagement with local partners, and Principle 4, addressing
i iemerging issues
Many priorities address multiple principles
f b h k d l Before October 22, Chesapeake Bay Program modeling team will estimate level of effort associated with Workgroup prioritiesp
16
Suggested Agenda Items for October 22‐23 Meeting
Stage‐setting questions:• What barriers to implementation need to be addressed to help meet 60%
by 2017 goal and/or in the midpoint assessment for the Phase III WIPs?• Revisit answers to other upfront questions discussed today, as needed
Discuss Workgroups’ priorities• Panel of Workgroup Chairs present priorities• WQGIT members discuss whether and how to move forward with these
priorities (see next slide) What does the WQGIT need to communicate to the PSC? How should the WQGIT communicate issues related to the midpoint How should the WQGIT communicate issues related to the midpoint
assessment to our partners and to the public? Recap and decisions on next steps Remember: We aren’t going to answer all questions regarding the
midpoint assessment. Our goal is to have a path forward.17
WQGIT Discussion Would Answer:WQGIT Discussion Would Answer: Do priorities address barriers to implementation? How do the priorities align with the Guiding Principles? Roughly speaking, how much of a difference would it make in load,
expected reductions, or implementation decisions in each state? (speaking generally)g y)
What resources and how much time would it take to address this priority? Are there downsides to this priority, such as generating confusion with
changing numbers? h ld h f h h d f h d What would happen if this change were not made as part of the midpoint
assessment? Based on the above, does the WQGIT agree this should be address in the
midpoint assessment?p If yes, what are the next steps, who is taking them on, and by when?
Provide dates by which workgroups, others would come back to WQGIT with more fleshed out work plans
18
Midpoint Assessment: One Bite at a TimeMidpoint Assessment: One Bite at a Time
’ ll d h d
19
We aren’t going to answer all questions regarding the midpoint assessment by October 23. Our goal is to have a path forward.
Feedback Requested fromWQGIT:Feedback Requested from WQGIT:
Are these the right questions to be asking before e t ese t e g t quest o s to be as g be o eand at October 22‐23?• What do we not need to address?• What questions are missing?
Do you agree with some of the preliminary answers provided today? • If not, what do we need to revisit?
Wh ( i l b k d ) dWhat (materials, background, resources) do you need to help prepare and experience a productive meeting?productive meeting?
20
Many Thanks to the Ad Hoc Planning Teamg
