1. Update on Chesapeake Bay Program Developments Briefing to the Water Resources Technical Committee July 9, 2009 Briefing to the Water Resources Technical Committee July 9, 2009

2. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)2 EPA/CBPO Presentation COG Policy Principles: COG Policy Principles: –Holistic Requirements –Equitable Responsibility –Sound Science –Communication and Voice Note Key Issues for COG Region Note Key Issues for COG Region

3. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)3 Key Issues for COG Region Slide #3 – CBP Reoganization Slide #3 – CBP Reoganization –Focus on Fed/State implementation – Good –Still lacks clear input/role for local entities that actually do implementation Slide #5 – Executive Order Slide #5 – Executive Order –Federal attention to Ches. Bay – Good –Mentions consultation with Bay Jurisdictions (i.e., States/DC) & public – but not mention of local governments/agencies Slide #6 – Section 202 Reports Slide #6 – Section 202 Reports –Interagency coordination – Good –Doesn’t appear to require that cross-media issues be addressed (i.e., air and agriculture)

4. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)4 Key Issues for COG Region Slide #9 – TMDL & SIPs Process Slide #9 – TMDL & SIPs Process –Iterative process – Good –Compressed schedule & inadequate time for proper review/analysis is troublesome –Concern that key modeling tools won’t be ready/available in time for reviews - least of all for applications (ref. later slides for details) WSM (Phase 4.3 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.3) – Used to develop TMDL basin/state allocations (now through May 2010) WSM (Phase 4.3 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.3) – Used to develop TMDL basin/state allocations (now through May 2010) Scenario Builder – Used to verify that State Implementation Plans (SIPs) meet basin/state allocations (Nov. 2009 – May 2010) Scenario Builder – Used to verify that State Implementation Plans (SIPs) meet basin/state allocations (Nov. 2009 – May 2010)

5. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)5 Key Issues for COG Region Slide #10 – Purpose of SIPs Slide #10 – Purpose of SIPs –Retaining flexibility in SIPs versus TMDL allocations – Good –Need local flexibility too –Adaptive Management – Good –How this will actually work is still uncertain (e.g., Stage 1 versus Stage 2 implementation) –Critical that public investments for major capital programs be protected from constant 2-Year Milestone updates Slide #11 – Content of SIPs Slide #11 – Content of SIPs –Obligations from all source sectors – Good –How to ensure full Equity uncertain (e.g., CWA limitations)

6. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)6 Key Issues for COG Region Slide #12 – Adaptive Management Cycle Slide #12 – Adaptive Management Cycle –Use of Adaptive Management – Good –How to retain flexibility and be able to change SIPs & 2- Year Milestones (vs. TMDL Allocations & Suballocations) is uncertain Elements of SIPs & 2-Year Milestones will be crucial to making progress while retaining flexibility Elements of SIPs & 2-Year Milestones will be crucial to making progress while retaining flexibility –Addressing program/funding gaps – Good –No acknowledgement that other options could be pursued is troublesome E.g., UAA and/or Adjusting 2025 Implementation Deadline options - versus requiring even more from WWTPs & other sectors E.g., UAA and/or Adjusting 2025 Implementation Deadline options - versus requiring even more from WWTPs & other sectors

7. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)7 Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] Bay TMDL Development Bay TMDL Development –Still on schedule overall [very compressed, slipping] –Draft major basin/state load allocations – Targets (July) & Agreed upon allocations (Oct.) - (vs. Sept. 2009) [Appears that agreement is not likely] [Appears that agreement is not likely] –State SIPs – Drafts by Jan. 2010 –Bay TMDL – Dec. 31, 2010 –92 TMDLs (i.e., by river segments/Designated Uses/by State) –Scenarios – Fully Regulatory, Others, & Revising E3 –UAA Process – Dropped; now Affordability Analysis [no info.] –WSM & Scenario Builder [reference later slides]

8. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)8 Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] Bay TMDL Developments Bay TMDL Developments –2-Year Milestones –SIPs Full Implementation End Date – Year 2025 or Earlier Full Implementation End Date – Year 2025 or Earlier Results: MD – 2.5 times current implementation rates; VA- 3 times current implementation rates (feasible/affordable??) Results: MD – 2.5 times current implementation rates; VA- 3 times current implementation rates (feasible/affordable??) Regulatory Implications???? Regulatory Implications???? No UAA No UAA Upcoming Events Upcoming Events –PSC Meeting – July 22 nd

9. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)9 Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] Allocation/Modeling Issues – CB4 Deep Water & CBB3-5 Open Water are key drivers Allocation/Modeling Issues – CB4 Deep Water & CBB3-5 Open Water are key drivers Sector Assumptions in Modeling Scenarios – Still under development (e.g., E3 for WWTPs vs. ‘Fully Regulated’) Sector Assumptions in Modeling Scenarios – Still under development (e.g., E3 for WWTPs vs. ‘Fully Regulated’) Daily Load – 3 calculation options (final TBD) [no update] Daily Load – 3 calculation options (final TBD) [no update] –365-Average / Multiplier / Variable Daily Load –EPA wants consistency rather than state to chose –Implications/impacts not clear yet WWTP versus CSO Loads / Permitting / Potential fines WWTP versus CSO Loads / Permitting / Potential fines

10. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)10 Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] Allocation Methodology Allocation Methodology –Focus on assessing ‘attainment’ given multiple standards & Designated Uses –How to account for Atmospheric Deposition? Use federal standards - 2030 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Use federal standards - 2030 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Similar to 2003 allocations – but range of air control options not provided [Issue raised by COG staff] Similar to 2003 allocations – but range of air control options not provided [Issue raised by COG staff] Voluntary efforts beyond federal requir.’s will be credited [How? TBD] Voluntary efforts beyond federal requir.’s will be credited [How? TBD] Exceeds 2025 deadline Exceeds 2025 deadline –Target Load Options Still under development – July through Sept. 2009 Still under development – July through Sept. 2009 Desire to evaluate point source vs. other sources separately Desire to evaluate point source vs. other sources separately Allocation curves – Working to develop criteria for determine Level of Effort, Maximum implementation caps, equity issues, etc. Allocation curves – Working to develop criteria for determine Level of Effort, Maximum implementation caps, equity issues, etc. –Bottom Line - Not clear yet what implications might be Does appear to recognize WWTP contributions – Good Does appear to recognize WWTP contributions – Good Renews focus on other sectors – Air / Stormwater / Agriculture [???] Renews focus on other sectors – Air / Stormwater / Agriculture [???]

11. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)11 TMDL Outreach/Meetings Focus on ‘TMDL 101’ Focus on ‘TMDL 101’ Start - August 2009 Start - August 2009 Use of Web site, articles, other media Use of Web site, articles, other media Outreach Outreach –MACO – Aug. 12 th –Va. House Comm. On Ag., Ches. Bay & Nat. Resources – Aug. 26 th –Ches. Watershed Forum – Oct. 9-11 th –Others – COG Region (TBD) (in lieu of indiv. meetings) In addition to: In addition to: –State SIP Public Meetings (Nov. 2009 – May 2010?) –Bay TMDL Public Review (June – Sept. 2010)

12. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)12 CBP Scenario Builder Under development by CBP modeling staff 2008-2009 Under development by CBP modeling staff 2008-2009 Dual purpose Dual purpose –Mechanism for input of state data to watershed model –On-line support tool for anyone to do scenario analysis (successor to COAST, Vortex) On-line interface not finished On-line interface not finished

13. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)13 Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria Assessment Procedures Effects Allocations Airshed Model Land Use Change Model Scenario Builder Sparrow

14. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)14 Scenario Builder Phases 1Land use and Nutrient Inputs 1Land use and Nutrient Inputs 2BMPs, point source, septic 2BMPs, point source, septic 3NEIEN implementation 3NEIEN implementation 4Summarized reports 4Summarized reports 5Web interface 5Web interface

15. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)15 Scenario Builder Uses Not HSPF, so output is not the same as watershed model Not HSPF, so output is not the same as watershed model Produces edge of field loads, not delivered loads Produces edge of field loads, not delivered loads –No attenuation processes modelled –No riverine processes modelled –Not clear how much support there will be for “transparency”

16. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)16 Phase 1 – Land use and Nutrient Inputs Phase 1.0 Phase 1.0 –Completed 4/2009 for phase 5.2 –Operational with a combination of hand work, SQL queries, and C# –Some bad data –A few bugs –Held constant and operational for phase 5.2 scenarios Phase 1.6 Phase 1.6 –To be completed 8/2009 –Still a combination of hand work, SQL, and C# –Corrects bugs and data from phase 1.0 –Used to test Phase 1 and the watershed model

17. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)17 Phase 2 – BMPs, land use, point source, and septic Phase 2.0 Phase 2.0 –To be completed 10/2009 for phase 5.3 –Efficiency BMPs –Land use Change BMPs –Manure transport –Animal Feed BMPs Phase 2.1 Phase 2.1 –Incorporate point source and septic –No completion date set

18. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)18 Watershed Model Schedule Phase 5.2 Scenarios Phase 5.2 Scenarios –No action for several years – next week –E3, Maximum Feasible – August Testing with scenario builder Testing with scenario builder –August, testing with SB 1.6 –October, testing with SB 2.0 Phase 5.3 Phase 5.3 –December Final SB 2.0 –Calibration complete 1/1/2010

19. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)19 CBP Documentation of N, P Data Produced by Olivia Devereaux in June 09 Produced by Olivia Devereaux in June 09 –100-pages plus document is available Approximately 95 % of information addresses ag issues Approximately 95 % of information addresses ag issues –E.g., use of NASS date, animal confinement issues, nitrogen fixation, manure issues, etc. –Does address how the watershed model calculates septic loads, nutrient loads in urban areas –No BMP documentation for now

20. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)20 Septic System Loads 8.92 lbs N/person/year x.4 8.92 lbs N/person/year x.4 –(assumes 60% attenuation from edge of field to edge of stream) # of people on septic in particular jurisdiction extrapolated from 1990 Census data # of people on septic in particular jurisdiction extrapolated from 1990 Census data –(assumes same proportion of population served by septic systems today as was estimated in 1990) BMPs for this practice include: BMPs for this practice include: –connection to sewer system (100 %) –Use of denitrifcation systems (50%) –Use of pump-outs (5%)

21. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)21 Urban Land Use Loads Based on assumption of turfgrass fertilization Based on assumption of turfgrass fertilization Turfgrass acreage calculated as difference between total pervious acres and urban forest acres (as estimated by Claggett from satellite analysis data) Turfgrass acreage calculated as difference between total pervious acres and urban forest acres (as estimated by Claggett from satellite analysis data) Relationship to calibration (Pitt data) is not clear Relationship to calibration (Pitt data) is not clear

22. WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)22 Wrap-Up Questions? Questions? Recommendations: Recommendations: 1.Timeframe/focus (audience) for COG- region TMDL meeting 2.WRTC request to CBPO to provide draft WSM 5.3 & Scenaerio Builder to COG staff 3.Other issues to raise to CBPC?