Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting November 16, 2007

Transcription

1 Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting November 16, 2007 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup is joined by a few new members, including Russ Perkinson and and Moira Croghan from Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, as well as Mary Kuo, TMDL Team Leader, from EPA Region 3. Since the last Reevaluation Technical Workgroup meeting on October 25 th, the meeting minutes have been finalized, the TMDLs timeline has been updated, an issues chart was developed, and the roles, responsibilities, and protocols document was revised to reflect the discussions of workgroup members in October. Action Items from October 25 th Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting Clint Boschen, Tetra Tech, provided an outline of what the Chesapeake Bay Reassessment Report may look like. o It does not include the sub-allocations. They will have to be added if they will be a part of the TMDL development report. o The outline is modeled after the Potomac PCB TMDL report. o Unique to the Chesapeake Bay, the outline addresses how to integrate the past Chesapeake Bay restoration and modeling efforts and the unique aspects of the modeling framework. o The outline is fairly general. Bulleted items may be subsections or simply notes of information that needs to be included in the sections. o Arthur Butt, VA DEQ, participated in the Potomac TMDL and noted that the document changed up through the last minute. The TMDL itself was lean on technical components, such as the modeling aspect, because that information was separated out into another document. Arthur added that the reasonable assurance section took the longest. There was a lot of give and take about how to organize it due to the varying state programs. o Rich Batiuk suggested that next step for the outline should be starting to identify and write the sections that can be written now. o Clint responded that we can start to make assignments but we need to keep in mind that it is a living document. o Ron Entringer, NY DEC, pointed out that we will have two different issues nutrients will be similar to PCBs but sediments could get us into complications. The sooner we decide how a sediment TMDs will be done, the better. o Moira Croghan, VA DCR, said that given that Tributary Strategies will be done in 2011 and that we plan to sub-allocate to nonpoint sources up through 1

2 the watershed, she would like more time to review the plans with management in order for them to realize that these discussions are happening right now. o The TMDLs report will outline how a strategy for implementation may appear, providing reasonable assurance and Tributary Strategy evidence. The workgroup will further discuss the implementation and Tributary Strategy issue in the future. Sue McDowell sent out a revised Gantt chart with an updated annotated list of activities. o Ron Entringer thought that it was unreasonable to have basin allocations by October. Time should be built in for confirmation of what s going on and allowing time for the public to weigh in. The sediment issue makes it difficult for NY to get everything done by October. Ron will think about a more appropriate timeline. o Sue McDowell noted that we do recognize the need to add items and detail to the timeline and will continue to do so. Based on the workgroup s conversation in October, a table of categorized issues was developed that illustrates data/info needs, timeframe, and decision-makers. ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the Chesapeake Bay Reassessment Report outline and transmit comments to Sue McDowell via , identifying sections that we can start to write. Members will volunteer themselves to write sections. ACTION: States should begin to summarize their state programs that will contribute to the reasonable assurance documentation. ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the Gantt timeline chart and send comments and suggested revisions to Sue McDowell via . ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the issue table and provide feedback to Sue McDowell via by November 26 th. What is the Scope/Framework of this Effort? To What Sources Should we Allocate? The CBP Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Issue Paper: What is the geographic scope of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL lays out three options for o Option 1 sets us up to definitely meet our legal requirements, developing a TMDL for the Bay and its tidal waters for the 78 Bay segments. o Option 2 is the same as Option 1 but goes further up into the watershed, with a more comprehensive plan for the Bay that includes the headwaters. o Option 3 is a negotiated timeframe for doing the TMDLs that are not under legal obligation. PA reminded the workgroup that the chosen option must maintain a do no harm principle. 2

3 Ron Entringer pointed out that it s hard to do a waste load allocation to a place that is not in a segment. NY did a gross TMDL such as Option 1 but they are now revisiting the Long Island TMDL and looking to do allocations up into CT and the headwater states. For allocations and TMDLs, it is difficult to address the various components, such as the challenge of sediments, so we have to separate components somehow and assess them differently. Dave Montali, WV, pointed out that the listing of some waters is based on the downstream impact of the Chesapeake Bay. Are the things listed now directly impaired or are some historically listed due to their contribution to a downstream impairment? o They are all locally, directly impaired. o Rich Batiuk added the importance of differentiating between the old and new impairments. The partnership works to connect impairments with the upstream waters. From a reasonable assurance perspective, if we don t allocate further up into the watershed, we will have a very weak case of having reasonable assurance that we will get the nonpoint source reductions. Charles Martin, VA, noted that VA has a 2011 deadline for their TMDLs. o Sue McDowell reassured VA that we are keeping their deadline in mind. Nauth Panday, MD, pointed out that we also have to consider if we go up into the watershed, that MD has numerous separate nontidal listings. If we do TMDLs for nontidal waters, we need to make sure local water quality standards are being met with the appropriate tools. o Option 3 may provide more time to think through the nontidal issues. o MD is under the obligation to address nontidal TMDLs by Nauth hopes we can address the Bay TMDLs alongside the local nontidal TMDLs but there is limited time for that. o The Bay standards do not go far enough to protect the nontidal waters for MD. Hassan Mirsajadi, DE, has established TMDLs for watersheds to protect local water quality. They view the Bay TMDL as additional control to protect downstream water quality. DE may not need to have watershed-wide TMDLs because they already have one in place. PA would resist the allocations beyond Option 1. With permits from PA s strategy for point source allowable loads, they could have reasonable assurance that they could meet those cap loads. It would be detrimental to their on-the-ground efforts if caps were changed so they are asking for flexibility under a gross load that the state is responsible for. Monir Chowdhury, DC, wants the TMDLs to be divided up for the watershed in a consistent manner for all jurisdictions. The permanence of the cap loads will define WV s situation. Moira Croghan added that VA would be advocates of Option 2 or 3 but would like more time to discuss it. VA is close to allocations at the jurisdictional (county) level. The workgroup s recommendations for the geographic scope will be brought before the Water Quality Steering Committee at its February 2008 meeting. Bob Koroncai, EPA, pointed out that we are all hoping for similar allocations. The major distinction between the states is that if we do a detailed TMDL, it provides 3

4 some states with a muscle for writing permits. For other states, they are well on their way to meeting allocations. But does the extra muscle and detail hurt implementation in those particular states? o Pat Buckley, PA, claimed that for an individual MS4, it does hurt PA. PA envisions that any loads allocated to individual MS4s would be done consistently with local TMDLs. Implementation would be hindered because the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model is not adequately calibrated down to the local level. Counties do not have the implementing authority for MS4s. Bob Koroncai asked if it would at least be informative to have allocations to the county? Sub-allocations could then find their way into the MS4 permits. Ron Entringer pointed out that NY has given a lump number for urban stormwater, for example, and focused on a percent reduction that needed to be captured in their stormwater management program. States will still have control on how they write load allocations and write permits. Bob Koroncai clarified that we have to write the TMDLs in a way that informs the MS4 permitting. It may be different from one state to another how the TMDL is written. States should recognize how they would write their MS4 permits in light of the TMDLs. How the sediment reductions would be in specificity and goals will vary among the states. o The workgroup will further discuss at what scale to allocate sediment for MS4s, agriculture, and wastewater treatment plants. Until then, the workgroup will attempt to grasp the significance of the MS4s issue. Bob Koroncai noted his concern with Option 1 because he does not see how it is different from what is currently happening. WV s Opekan Creek TMDL allowed 1 million tons per year, whereas USGS says the Potomac can only hold 2 million tons per year. Local impacts and Bay impacts may be very different. Bob Koroncai suggested that states think about what scale makes the most sense for their respective state for allocating to the different major sources, at least for agriculture and significant wastewater treatment plants. Nauth Panday pointed out that BODs would have to be included if TMDLs go up into nontidal waters. o Ron Entringer asked that the workgroup focus on the critical issues that apply across the watershed. TMDLs are not necessary for every segment and every water quality concern. o Bill Brown stated that this issue is why PA tries to keep their local and Bay TMDLs separate. o Nauth stated his support for Option 1 in light of the complications of nontidal waters, MS4s, etc., focusing on the major tidal waters. He wants to nest his local impairments in the tidal cap loads. o Ed Reilly, NY, clarified that Option 2 focuses on the TMDL for the Bay waters but looking at the background loads from the nontidal waters and allocating to the nontidal waters to meet the water quality standards in the 4

5 Bay. It doesn t say to do a TMDL for every segment in the nontidal segments. ACTION: Sue McDowell will provide more details to the workgroup members on the timeline and technical capabilities of the options prior to the December 17 th workgroup meeting when the workgroup will try to come to a resolution on the appropriate geographic scope of the TMDLs. ACTION: Workgroup members will think about what scale makes the most sense for their respective states to allocate to the different major sources, at least for agriculture and significant wastewater treatment plants. The workgroup will continue its discussion at its December 17 th meeting. ACTION: Workgroup members/states will share with one another how they are working with MS4 allocations now. December Briefing on Chesapeake Bay Models Sue McDowell asked the workgroup members for input on what modeling issues they are interested in hearing about at the workgroup s December 17 th model-focused meeting. Ron Entringer said that NY is very interested in how transport factors changed from Phase 4.3 to Phase 5. Moira Croghan said that VA is most interested in learning about the recent calibration information and the specifics on the differences between the two phases of the model. They hope to understand states delivered loads and needed reductions. Dave Montali would like a 101 on the model because he is not as familiar with the model as others. He will have questions regarding the kinds of sources, how we get source information, and how they are represented, including basic questions of how the model portrays existing information. Bill Brown would like the workgroup to see the new calibration stations to get an idea of whether we are losing accuracy in the model as we get up into added stations further up into the watershed. Hassan Mirsajadi would like to see assumptions that have gone into the model and its limitations. ACTION: Workgroup members will send additional requests regarding agenda items for the modeling meeting on December 17 th to Sue McDowell. Next Steps ACTION: Sue McDowell will send out the link to the unlinked Reevaluation Technical Workgroup webpage. ACTION: Ron Entringer and Dinorah Dalmasy will help Sue McDowell and Rich Batiuk refine the timeline and issue chart. 5

6 ACTION: Save the Date: CB Models briefing and Q&A (send questions in advance for consideration by modelers) December 17, 2007, 10am 2pm Model Discussion; 2:30 4:00 PM continued discussion on scope and scale of TMDLs. Participants Sue McDowell EPA Region 3 mcdowell.susan@epa.gov Clint Boschen Tetra Tech clint.boschen@tetratech-ffx.com Rich Batiuk EPA/CBPO batiuk.richard@epa.gov Pat Buckley PA DEP pbuckley@state.pa.us Nauth Panday MDE npanday@mde.state.md.us Francoise Brasier EPA HQ brasier.francoise@epa.gov Mike Haire EPA HQ haire.michael@epa.gov Bill Brown PA DEP willbrown@state.pa.us Dinorah Dalmasy MDE ddalmasy@mde.state.md.us Monir Chowdhury DC DOE monir.chowdhury@dc.gov Ed Reilly NY DEC exreilly@gw.dec.state.ny.us Charles Martin VA DEQ chmartin@deq.virginia.gov Felix Locicero EPA Region 2 locicero.felix@epa.gov Dave Montali WV DEP dmontali@wvdep.org Hassan Mirsajadi DE DNREC hassan.mirsajadi@state.de.us Chris Day EPA Region 3 day.christopher@epa.gov Mary Kuo EPA Region 3 kuo.mary@epa.gov Tom Henry EPA Region 3 henry.thomas@epa.gov Bob Koroncai EPA Region 3 koroncai.robert@epa.gov Ron Entringer NY DEC raentrin@gw.dec.state.ny.us Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpattison@state.pa.us Dave Montali WV DEP dmontali@wvdep.org Moira Croghan VA DCR moira.croghan@dcr.virginia.gov Russ Perkinson VA DCR russ.perkinson@dcr.virginia.gov Arthur Butt VA DEQ ajbutt@deq.virginia.gov 6