Update on Chesapeake Bay Program Developments Briefing to

Update on Chesapeake Bay Program Developments Briefing to the Water Resources Technical Committee July 9, 2009 WRTC Meeting (7/9/09)

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

Key Issues for COG Region n 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 – – 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 – Interagency coordination – Good – Doesn’t appear to require that cross-media issues be addressed (i. e. , air and agriculture) WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 3

Key Issues for COG Region n 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) n n 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) WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 4

Key Issues for COG Region n 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 n Slide #11 – Content of SIPs – Obligations from all source sectors – Good – How to ensure full Equity uncertain (e. g. , CWA limitations) WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 5

Key Issues for COG Region n 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 n 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 n E. g. , UAA and/or Adjusting 2025 Implementation Deadline options - versus requiring even more from WWTPs & other sectors WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 6

Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] n 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) n [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 E 3 UAA Process – Dropped; now Affordability Analysis [no info. ] WSM & Scenario Builder [reference later slides] WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 7

Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] n Bay TMDL Developments – 2 -Year Milestones – SIPs n n n Full Implementation End Date – Year 2025 or Earlier Results: MD – 2. 5 times current implementation rates; VA- 3 times current implementation rates (feasible/affordable? ? ) Regulatory Implications? ? No UAA Upcoming Events – PSC Meeting – July 22 nd WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 8

Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] n n n Allocation/Modeling Issues – CB 4 Deep Water & CBB 3 -5 Open Water are key drivers Sector Assumptions in Modeling Scenarios – Still under development (e. g. , E 3 for WWTPs vs. ‘Fully Regulated’) 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 n WWTP versus CSO Loads / Permitting / Potential fines WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 9

Water Quality Steering Committee [updates] n Allocation Methodology – Focus on assessing ‘attainment’ given multiple standards & Designated Uses – How to account for Atmospheric Deposition? n n 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] Voluntary efforts beyond federal requir. ’s will be credited [How? TBD] Exceeds 2025 deadline – Target Load Options n n n Still under development – July through Sept. 2009 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. – Bottom Line - Not clear yet what implications might be n n Does appear to recognize WWTP contributions – Good Renews focus on other sectors – Air / Stormwater / Agriculture WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) [? ? ? ] 10

TMDL Outreach/Meetings n Focus on ‘TMDL 101’ Start - August 2009 Use of Web site, articles, other media Outreach n In addition to: n n n – 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) – State SIP Public Meetings (Nov. 2009 – May 2010? ) – Bay TMDL Public Review (June – Sept. 2010) WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 11

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

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

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

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

Phase 1 – Land use and Nutrient Inputs n Phase 1. 0 n Phase 1. 6 – 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 – – 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 WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 16

Phase 2 – BMPs, land use, point source, and septic n Phase 2. 0 – To be completed 10/2009 for phase 5. 3 – Efficiency BMPs – Land use Change BMPs – Manure transport – Animal Feed BMPs n Phase 2. 1 – Incorporate point source and septic – No completion date set WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 17

Watershed Model Schedule n Phase 5. 2 Scenarios – No action for several years – next week – E 3, Maximum Feasible – August n Testing with scenario builder – August, testing with SB 1. 6 – October, testing with SB 2. 0 n Phase 5. 3 – December Final SB 2. 0 – Calibration complete 1/1/2010 WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 18

CBP Documentation of N, P Data n Produced by Olivia Devereaux in June 09 – 100 -pages plus document is available n 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 WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 19

Septic System Loads n n n 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 – (assumes same proportion of population served by septic systems today as was estimated in 1990) BMPs for this practice include: – connection to sewer system (100 %) – Use of denitrifcation systems (50%) WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 20 – Use of pump-outs (5%)

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

Wrap-Up n n Questions? Recommendations: 1. Timeframe/focus (audience) for COGregion 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? WRTC Meeting (7/9/09) 22