Chesapeake K;i\ Total Maximum Daih Load
for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment
I raWished In ilu-1 .S. I
:ncs
A-
X>£—
Shawn M. Garvln, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency
Region 3
Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Proteclion Agency
_ Region 2 _ •
Technical Appendices
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
Contents
SECTION 1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 TMDLs and the CWA 1-2
1.2 History of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL 1-3
1.2.1 Regulatory and Management Initiatives 1-3
1.2.2 Partnership Commitment to Develop the Chesapeake Bay TMDL 1-8
1.2.3 President's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 1-10
1.3 Bay TMDL Process, Partner Coordination and Responsibilities 1-11
1.3.1 CBP Partnership and Organizational Structure 1-11
1.4 Legal Framework for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL 1-15
1.4.1 What is a TMDL? 1-15
1.4.2 Why is EPA establishing this TMDL? 1-16
SECTION 2. Watershed and Impairment Description 2-1
2.1 General Watershed Setting 2-1
2.2 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Scope 2-6
2.2.1 Pollutants of Concern 2-7
2.2.2 Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme 2-7
2.2.3 Jurisdictions' 2008 303(d) Listings '. 2-14
2.2.4 2008 303(d) Listing Segments Compared to Consent Decree and MOU Segments 2-15
SECTION 3. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards 3-1
3.1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Criteria and Designated Uses 3-2
3.1.1 Tidal Water Designated Uses 3-4
3.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen Criteria 3-9
3.1.3 Chlorophyll a Criteria 3-11
3.1.4 Water Clarity /Underwater Bay Grasses Criteria.... 3-11
3.2 Jurisdictions' Current Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Regulations 3-15
3.2.1 Delaware 3-15
3.2.2 District of Columbia 3-15
3.2.3 Maryland 3-16
3.2.4 Virginia 3-17
3.3 Assessing Attainment of Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards 3-18
3.3.1 Defining Total Exceedances 3-18
3.3.2 Defining Allowable Exceedances 3-20
3.3.3 Assessing Criteria Attainment 3-22
SECTION 4. Sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and Sediment to the Chesapeake Bay 4-1
4.1 Jurisdiction Loading Contributions 4-1
4.2 Major River Basin Contributions 4-3
4.3 Pollutant Source Sector Contributions 4-5
4.4 Regulated Point Sources 4-6
4.4.1 Significant and Nonsignificant Municipal and Industrial Facilities 4-7
4.4.2 Basinwide NPDES Permitting Approach 4-8
4.5 Regulated Point Source Load Summaries 4-9
December 29, 2010
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
4.5.1 Municipal Wastewater Discharging Facilities 4-9
4.5.2 Industrial Discharge Facilities 4-13
4.5.3 Combined Sewer Overflows 4-17
4.5.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows 4-21
4.5.5 NPDES Permitted Stormwater 4-22
4.5.6 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 4-25
4.6 Nonpoint Sources 4-28
4.6.1 Agriculture 4-29
4.6.2 Atmospheric Deposition 4-33
4.6.3 Forest Lands 4-36
4.6.4 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems 4-37
4.6.5 Nonregulated Stormwater Runoff 4-38
4.6.6 Oceanic Inputs 4-39
4.6.7 Streambank and Tidal Shoreline Erosion 4-41
4.6.8 Tidal Resuspension 4-42
4.6.9 Wildlife 4-43
4.6.10 Natural Background 4-44
SECTION 5. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring and Modeling Frameworks 5-1
5.1 Technical Monitoring and Modeling Requirements 5-1
5.2 Bay Monitoring Framework Overview 5-2
5.2.1 Partnership's Chesapeake Bay Tidal Monitoring Network 5-3
5.2.2 Partnership's Watershed Monitoring Network 5-12
5.2.3 Data Quality and Access 5-14
5.2.4 Data Submission and Quality Assurance 5-16
5.2.5 Monitoring Applications in Chesapeake Bay TMDL Development 5-18
5.3 Modeling Framework Overview . 5-18
5.4 Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model 5-21
5.5 Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model 5-24
5.5.1 Motivations for Developing Future Land Use Estimates 5-24
5.5.2 Scale of Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model Future Land Use Estimates 5-24
5.5.3 Components of Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model Future Land Use Estimates 5-26
5.6 Chesapeake Bay SPARROW Model 5-27
5.7 Chesapeake Bay Scenario Builder 5-28
5.8 Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model 5-30
5.8.1 Bay Watershed Model Segmentation 5-30
5.8.2 Bay Watershed Model Setup 5-32
5.8.3 Pollutant Source Representation : 5-37
5.8.4 Calibration. 5-38
5.9 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model 5-38
5.9.1 Nonpoint Source Loads ; 5-41
5.9.2 Point Source Loads 5-41
5.9.3 Atmospheric Loads 5-41
5.9.4 Bank Loads 5-42
5.9.5 Wetlands 5-42
5.9.6 Model Setup 5-42
5.10 Chesapeake Bay Criteria Assessment Program 5-43
5.11 Climate Change Simulation 5-43
December 29, 2010
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
SECTION 6. Establishing the Allocations for the Basin-Jurisdictions 6-1
6.1 Establishing the Overall Model Parameters 6-2
6.1.1 Hydrologic Period 6-2
6.1.2 Seasonal Variation 6-3
6.1.3 Daily Loads 6-5
6.2 Establishing the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Related Model Parameters 6-8
6.2.1 Critical Conditions • 6-8
6.2.2 Assessment Procedures for DO and Chlorophyll a Standards 6-9
6.2.3 Addressing Reduced Sensitivity to Load Reductions at Low Nonattainment Percentages 6-10
6.2.4 Margin of Safety , 6-13
6.3 Methodology for Establishing the Basin-Jurisdiction Allocations for Nitrogen and
Phosphorus 6-16
6.3.1 Accounting for Relative Effectiveness of the Major River Basins on Tidal WaterQuality 6-17
6.3.2 Determining Controllable Load 6-20
6.3.3 Relating Relative Impact to Needed Controls (Allocations) 6-24
6.4 Establishing the Basin-Jurisdiction Allocations for Nitrogen and Phosphorus 6-25
6.4.1 Setting the Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Allocation 6-26
6.4.2 Determining the Basin wide Nitrogen and Phosphorus Target Load Based on Dissolved
Oxygen 6-28
6.4.3 Allocating Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads to Jurisdictions within the Bay Watershed 6-30
6.4.4 Resolving Dissolved Oxygen and Chlorophyll a Nonattaining Bay Segments 6-32
6.4.5 Allocation Considerations for the Headwater Jurisdictions (New York and West Virginia) 6-38
6.4.6 Nitrogen-to-Phosphorus Exchanges 6-39
6.5 Establishing the Sediment-Related Model Parameters 6-41
6.5.1 Critical Conditions for Water Clarity and SAV , 6-41
6.5.2 Assessment Procedures for the Clarity and SAV Standards 6-42
6.5.3 Addressing Reduced Sensitivity to Load Reductions at Low Nonattainment Percentages 6-43
6.5.4 Explicit Margin of Safety for Sediment 6-44
6.6 Establishing the Basin-Jurisdiction Allocations for Sediment 6-44
6.6.1 Methodology for Determining Sediment Allocations 6-45
6.6.2 Addressing Water Clarity/SAV Nonattaining Segments 6-45
6.7 Basin-Jurisdiction Allocations to Achieve the Bay WQS 6-48
6.7.1 Basin-Jurisdiction Allocations Tables 6-48
6.7.2 Correction of the West Virginia Sediment Allocation 6-48
6.8 Attainment of the District of Columbia pH Water Quality Standard 6-49
SECTION 7. Reasonable Assurance and Accountability Framework 7-1
7.1 Reasonable Assurance 7-1
7.1.1 Overview of the Accountability Framework 7-2
7.1.2 Federal Strategy 7-3
7.1.3 Funding 7-4
7.1.4 Air Emission Reductions 7-4
7.2 Accountability Framework..... 7-4
7.2.1 Watershed Implementation Plans 7-6
7.2.2 Two-Year Milestones 7-8
7.2.3 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Tracking and Accountability System 7-10
7.2.4 Federal EPA Actions, 7-11
December 29, 2010
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
SECTION 8. Watershed Implementation Plan Evaluation and Resultant Allocations 8-1
8.1 WIP Evaluation Methodology 8-3
8.1.1 Quantitative Evaluation of the Final Phase I WIPs 8-3
8.1.2 Qualitative Evaluation of the Final Phase I WIPs 8-4
8.2 WIP Evaluation Results 8-5
8.2.1 Target Allocation Attainment 8-5
8.2.2 Reasonable Assurance 8-9
8.3 Allocation Methodology 8-9
8.3.1 Backstop Allocation Methodology 8-10
8.3.2 Backstop Adjustment (Allocation Shift) Methodology 8-10
8.3.3 Assumptions Supporting the Allocations 8-12
8.4 Allocations by Jurisdiction 8-17
8.4.1 Delaware 8-17
8.4.2 District of Columbia ., 8-19
8.4.3 Maryland 8-20
8.4.4 New York 8-22
8.4.5 Pennsylvania 8-24
8.4.6 Virginia 8-27
8.4.7 West Virginia 8-30
8.5 Allocation Summary Chart 8-33
SECTION 9. Chesapeake Bay TMDLs 9-1
9.1 Bay Segment Annual and Daily Allocations to Meet WQS 9-1
SECTION 10. Implementation and Adaptive Management 10-1
10.1 Future Growth 10-1
10.1.1 Designating Target Loads'for New or Increased Sources 10-1
10.1.2 Offset Programs 10-1
10.1.3 Additional Offset Program Features 10-2
10.1.4 EPA's Oversight Role of Jurisdictions' Offset Programs 10-3
10.2 Water Quality Trading 10-3
10.3 Future Modifications to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL 10-4
10.4 Federal Facilities and Lands 10-5
10.5 Factoring in Effects from Continued Climate Change 10-7
10.6 Sediment behind the Susquehanna River Dams 10-7
10.7 Filter Feeders 10-8
SECTION 11. Public Participation 11-1
11.1 Stakeholder and Local Government Outreach and Involvement 11-1
11.1.1 Open Collaboration with Stakeholders 11-1
11.1.2 Outreach to Local Governments and Elected Officials 11-1
11.1.3 Local Pilots '. H-2
11.2 Public Outreach 11-2
11.2.1 Public Meetings 11-2
11.2.2 Webinars to Expand Audiences 11-4
11.2.3 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Website 11-5
11.2.4 Public Notices 11-5
iv December 29, 2010
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
11.3 Responses to Public Comments 11-5
11.4 Interaction with States, D.C. on Watershed Implementation Plans 11-6
SECTION 12. References 12-1
SECTION 13. Glossary 13-1
SECTION 14. Abbreviations 14-1
Appendices
Appendix A Chesapeake Bay TMDL Contributors
Appendix B Index of Documents Supporting the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix C Record of Chesapeake Bay TMDL Related Chesapeake Bay Program Committee,
Team and Workgroup and Partner/Stakeholder Meetings
Appendix D Evaluation of the Most Protective Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria
Appendix E Summary of Initial Climate Change Impacts on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Flows and Loads
Appendix F Determination of the Hydrologic Period for Model Application
Appendix G Determination of Critical Conditions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix H Criteria Assessment Procedures using Model Scenario Output with Bay
Monitoring Data
Appendix I Documentation of the Reduced Sensitivity to Load Reductions at Low
Nonattainment Percentages
Appendix J Key Chesapeake Bay TMDL Reference and Management Model Scenarios:
Definitions and Descriptions
Appendix K Allocation Methodology for Relating Relative Impact to Needed Controls
Appendix L Setting the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Allocations
Appendix M Chesapeake Bay Water Quality/Sediment Transport Model Management Scenario
Attainment Assessment Results and 2008 303(d) Chesapeake Bay List
Assessment Results
Appendix M-l Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
Appendix M-2 Chesapeake Bay Chlorophyll a Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
Appendix M-3 Chesapeake Bay Water Clarity/SAV Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
Appendix M-4 Chesapeake Bay Segments 2008 303(d) List Assessment
Results
Appendix N Resolution of Segments Failing to Attain the Applicable Criteria
v December 29, 2010
-------
Chesapeake BayTMDL
Appendix O Setting the Chlorophyll a Criteria-Based Nutrient Allocations for the James River
Watershed
Appendix P Setting the Water Clarity/SAV Criteria-Based Sediment Allocations
Appendix Q Detailed Annual Chesapeake Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs
Appendix R Chesapeake Bay TMDL Daily WLAs and LAs
Appendix S Offsets for New or Increased Loadings of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment to
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Appendix T Sediment behind the Susquehanna Dams Technical Documentation
Appendix U Accounting for the Benefits of Filter Feeder Restoration Technical
Documentation
Appendix V Best Management Practice (BMP) Implementation Rates for Final Scenarios
Appendix W Responses to Public Comments Received on the September 24, 2010, Draft
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix X Staged Implementation Approach for Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the
Virginia James River Basin
vi December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix A.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Contributors
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL resulted from the collaborative expertise, input, and feedback of
many individuals. Advice, technical information and guidance was provided by the multitude of
Chesapeake Bay Program partnering agencies and institutions, local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, businesses, many other involved stakeholders, and the general
public. Their individual and collective contributions are acknowledged here.
Following are full member rosters, as of June 2010, of the various Chesapeake Bay Program
partnership's teams, workgroups, and committees who worked collaboratively in support of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
(Includes formal members—six watershed states, the District of Columbia, Chesapeake
Bay Commission, two river basin commissions, and EPA—and actively involved
stakeholder representatives)
Robert Koroncai - Co-chair, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3
Dave Hansen - Co-chair, University of Delaware
Frank Coale - Chair, Agricultural Workgroup, University of Maryland
Normand Goulet - Chair, Urban Stormwater Workgroup, Northern Virginia Regional Planning
Commission
Jeffrey Halka - Chair, Sediment Workgroup, Maryland Geological Survey
Rebecca Hanmer - Chair, Forestry Workgroup, EPA Retired
Bill Keeling - Chair, Watershed Technical Workgroup, Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
Tanya Spano - Chair, Wastewater Treatment Workgroup, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Katharine Antos - Goal Team Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Rachel Streusand - Team Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Rich Batiuk - EPA Region 3
Steve Bieber - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Joel Blomquist - U.S. Geological Survey
Patricia Buckley - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Collin Burrell - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Monir Chowdhury - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Lee Currey - Maryland Department of the Environment
James Davis-Martin - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Chris Day - EPA Region 3
Rachel Diamond - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Ron Entringer - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Richard Eskin - Maryland Department of the Environment
Krista Grigg - U.S. Navy
Mike Haire - EPA Office of Water
Carlton Hay wood - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
A-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Dave Heicher - Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Rick Hill - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Beth Horsey - Maryland Department of Agriculture
William Hunley - Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Ruth Izraeli - EPA Region 2
John Kennedy - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Teresa Koon - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Felix Locicero - EPA Region 2
Charles Martin - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Beth McGee - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Bruce Michael - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Matt Monroe - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Dave Montali - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Russell Morgan - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Kenn Pattison - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Russ Perkinson - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Alan Pollock - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Chris Pomeroy - AquaLaw, PLC
Marel Raub - Chesapeake Bay Commission
John Rhoderick - Maryland Department of Agriculture
John Schneider - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Mohsin Siddique - District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
Jennifer Sincock - EPA Region 3
Randolph Sovic - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Ann Swanson - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Jennifer Volk - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Agriculture Workgroup
Frank Coale - Chair, University of Maryland
John Bricker - Vice Chair, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Mark Dubin - Coordinator, University of Maryland
Victoria Kilbert - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Bill Angstadt - Delaware-Maryland Agribusiness Association
Jim Baird - American Farmland Trust
Tom Basden - West Virginia University
Hobey Bauhan - Virginia Poultry Association
Doug Beegle - Pennsylvania State University
Troy Bishop - Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District
Kenneth Bounds - Mid-Atlantic Farm Credit
Betsy Bowles - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Chris Brosch - University of Maryland-College Park
Suzan Bulbulkaya - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Valerie Connelly - Maryland Farm Bureau
Renato Cuizon - Maryland Department of Agriculture
Jim Curatolo - Upper Susquehanna Coalition
A-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Jason Dalrymple - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Mark Davis - Delaware Department of Agriculture
Don Fiesta - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Suzy Friedman - Center for Conservation Incentives at Environmental Defense
Doug Goodlander - Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission
Mark Goodson - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Beth Horsey - Maryland Department of Agriculture
Tom Juengst - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Quirine Ketterings - Cornell University
Teresa Koon - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Katie Kyger Frazier - Virginia Agribusiness Council
Sarah Lane - University of Maryland
Chris Lawrence - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jacqueline Lendrum - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Bud Malone - University of Delaware
Susan Marquart - Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts
Robert McAfee - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Eileen McLellan - Environmental Defense Fund
Don McNutt - Lancaster County Conservation District
Matt Mullin - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Joel Myers - Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance
Jennifer Nelson - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Doug Parker - University of Maryland
Molly Payne Pugh - Virginia Grain Producers Producers Association
Tim Pilkowski - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Marel Raub - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Herb Reed - University of Maryland Cooperative Extension
Christina Richmond - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Aaron Ristow - Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District
William Rohrer - Delaware Department of Agriculture
Paul Salon - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bill Satterfield - Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.
Tim Sexton - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Kelly Shenk - EPA Region 3
Tom Simpson - Watershed Stewardship, Inc.
Wilmer Stoneman - Virginia Farm Bureau
Pat Stuntz - Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
John Timmons - Delaware Pork Producers Association
Les Vough - University of Maryland
Chad Wentz - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Isaac Wolford - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Hank Zygmunt - EPA Region 3
A-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Forestry Workgroup
Rebecca Hamner - Chair, EPA Retired
Sally Claggett - Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service
Rachel Streusand - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Alice Baird - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Robert Corletta - District of Columbia Department of Transportation
Tracey Coulter - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Tim Culbreth - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Dean Cumbia - Virginia Department of Forestry
Matthew Ehrhart - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Rob Farrell - Virginia Department of Forestry
Robert Feldt - Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service
Anne Hairston-Strang - Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service
Craig Highfield - Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Brian LeCouteur - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Becca Madsen - U.S. Forest Service
Rich Mason - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Derrick McDonald - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Jim McElfish - Environmental Law Institute
Heather Montgomery - Potomac Conservancy
Gary Moore - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Judy Okay - U.S. Forest Service
Matt Poirot - Virginia Department of Forestry
James Remuzzi - Sustainable Solutions, LLC
Frank Rodgers - Cacapon Institute - West Virginia
Kelly Shenk - EPA Region 3
Gary Speiran - U.S. Geological Survey
Eric Sprague - Pinchot Institute
Karen Sykes - U.S. Forest Service
Al Todd - U.S. Forest Service
Don VanHassent - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Brad Williams - Virginia Department of Forestry
Diane Wilson - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Faren Wolter - Piedmont Environmental Council
Sediment Workgroup
Jeffrey Halka - Chair, Maryland Geological Survey
Lewis Linker - Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Victoria Kilbert, Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Joe Berg - Biohabitats
Grace Brush - Johns Hopkins University
Thomas Cronin - U.S. Geological Survey
Lee Currey - Maryland Department of the Environment
Jason Ericson - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Allen Gellis - U.S. Geological Survey
A-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Julie Herman - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Timothy Karikari - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Mike Langland - U.S. Geological Survey
Doug Levin - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Audra Luscher - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Kevin McGonigal - Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Erik Michelsen - South River Federation
Laurie Olah - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Cindy Palinkas - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Kenn Pattison - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Scott Phillips - U.S. Geological Survey
Larry Sanford - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Sean Smith - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Chris Spaur - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jeff Trulick - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jennifer Volk - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
David Wilson - Maryland Eastern Shore RC&D Office Natural Resources Conservation Service
Urban and Suburban Stormwater Workgroup
Normand Goulet - Chair, Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission
Jenny Molloy - Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Rachel Streusand - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Meg Andrews - Maryland Department of Transportation
Marc Aveni - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Joseph Battiata - Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc.
Ron Bowen - Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works
Leslie Burks - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Walter Caldwell - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Jen Campagnini - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Eric Capps - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
John Carlock - Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
R. Scott Christie - Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Kim Coble - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Larry Coffman - LNSB, LLLP Stormwater Services Group
Meosotis Curtis - Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection
Andrew Dinsmore - EPA Region 3
Paula Estornell - EPA Region 3
Peter Freehafer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Bruce Gilmore - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Robert Goo - EPA Office of Water
Ted Graham - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Lisa Grippo - U.S. Navy
Lee Hill - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Timothy Karikari - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Beth Krumrine - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Ken Murin - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
A-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Ken Pensyl - Maryland Department of the Environment
Karuna Pujara - Maryland State Highway Administration
Mary Searing - Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works
Kelly Shenk - EPA Region 3
Bill Stack - Baltimore City Department of Public Works
Steve Stewart - Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource
Management
Dennis Stum - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Burt Tuxford - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Mary Lynn Wilhere - Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Sherry Wilkins - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Wastewater Treatment Workgroup
Tanya Spano - Chair, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Ning Zhou - Coordinator, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Victoria Kilbert - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Allan Brockenbrough - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Art Buehler - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Peter Freehafer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Patricia Gleason - EPA Region 3
Anthony Hummel - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Maureen Krudner - EPA Region 2
Marya Levelev - Maryland Department of the Environment
Lee McDonnell - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Randolph Sovic - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Edwal Stone - Maryland Department of the Environment
John Wetherell - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Watershed Technical Workgroup
Bill Keeling - Chair (former), Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Jing Wu -Coordinator, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Rachel Streusand - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Mark Bennett - U.S. Geological Survey
Sheila Besse - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Lee Currey - Maryland Department of the Environment
Peter Freehafer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Normand Goulet - Northern Virginia Regional Commission
Ted Graham - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Alana Hartman - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Beth Horsey - Maryland Department of Agriculture
Lewis Linker - EPA Region 3
Kenn Pattison - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Robin Pellicano - Maryland Department of the Environment
Diana Reynolds - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Gary Shenk - EPA Region 3
A-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Kelly Shenk - EPA Region 3
Tom Simpson - Watershed Stewardship, Inc.
Helen Stewart - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Sweeney - University of Maryland
Jennifer Volk - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Nutrient Subcommittee (Former)
Dave Hansen - Chair, University of Delaware
Rich Batiuk - Subcommittee Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Steve Bieber - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Collin Burrell - District of Columbia Department of the F.nvironment
Sally Claggett - U.S. Forest Service
Mark Dubin - University of Maryland
Ron Entringer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Normand Goulet - Northern Virginia Regional Commission
Jeffrey Halka - Maryland Geological Survey
Dean Hively - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Beth Horsey - Maryland Department of Agriculture
Bill Keeling - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
David Kindig - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Mike Langland - U.S. Geological Survey
Marya Levelev - Maryland Department of the Environment
Mart Monroe - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Gene Odato - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Reggie Parrish - EPA Region 3
Kenn Pattison - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Russ Perkinson - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Steele Phillips - Farmer, Dorchester County, Maryland, Retired
William Rohrer - Delaware Department of Agriculture
Fred Samadani - Maryland Department of Agriculture
Kelly Shenk - EPA Region 3
Tom Simpson - University of Maryland
Randolph Sovic - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Tanya Spano - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Helen Stewart - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Sweeney - University of Maryland
Don VanHassent - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jennifer Volk - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Scientific and Technical Analysis and Reporting Team
Bill Dennison - Chair, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Mark Bennett - Vice Chair, U.S. Geological Survey
Peter Tango - Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey
Michael Barnes - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Aaron Gorka - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
A-7 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Brian Burch - EPA Region 3
Mike Land - National Park Service
Lewis Linker - EPA Region 3
John Wolf- U.S. Geological Survey
Criteria Assessments and Procedures Workgroup
Peter Tango - Chair, U.S. Geological Survey
Cheryl Atkinson - EPA Region 3
Harry Augustine - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Mark Barath - EPA Region 3
Tom Barron - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Stephen Cioccia - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Richard Eskin - Maryland Department of the Environment
Sherm Garrison - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Darryl Glover - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Rick Hoffman - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Jackie Johnson - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Jeni Keisman - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Larry Merrill - EPA Region 3
Bruce Michael - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Ken Moore - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Shah Nawaz - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Jennifer Palmore - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Tom Parham - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Elgin Perry - Statistics Consultant
Charlie Poukish - Maryland Department of the Environment
Tish Robertson - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Matt Rowe - Maryland Department of the Environment
John Schneider- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Gary Shenk - EPA Region 3
Donald Smith - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Scott Stoner - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Matt Stover - Maryland Department of the Environment
Bryant Thomas - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Mark Trice - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
David Wolanski - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Modeling Workgroup
Lewis Linker - Chair, EPA Region 3
Mark Bennett - U.S. Geological Survey
Steve Bieber - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Bill Brown - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Arthur Butt - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Carl Cerco - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC
Monir Chowdhury - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
A-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Lee Currey - Maryland Department of the Environment
Robin Dennis - EPA/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Bill Keeling - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Ross Mandel - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Kenn Pattison - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Gary Shenk - EPA Region 3
Helen Stewart - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Peter Tango - U.S. Geological Survey
Harry Wang - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Nontidal Water Quality Workgroup
Scott Phillips - Chair, U.S. Geological Survey
Katie Foreman - Coordinator, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Aaron Gorka - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Joel Blomquist - U.S. Geological Survey
Dan Boward - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
John Brakebill - U.S. Geological Survey
Emery Cleaves - Maryland Geological Survey
Ron Entringer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Richard Eskin - Maryland Department of the Environment
Peter Freehafer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
George Harman - Maryland Department of the Environment
Carlton Haywood - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Rick Hoffman - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Ken Hyer - U.S. Geological Survey
Ron Klauda - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mike Langland - U.S. Geological Survey
Mary Ellen Ley - U.S. Geological Survey
Mike Mallonee - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Kevin McGonigal - Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Larry Merrill - EPA Region 3
Bruce Michael - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Hassan Mirsajadi - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Matt Monroe - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Douglas Moyer - U.S. Geological Survey
Charley Poukish - Maryland Department of the Environment
William Romano - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Gary Shenk - EPA Region 3
Peter Tango - U.S. Geological Survey
Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup
Walter Boynton - Chair, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Jeni Keisman - Coordinator, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Aaron Gorka - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Eva Bailey - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
A-9 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Peter Bergstrom - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Claire Buchanan - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Ben Cole - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Daniel Dauer - Old Dominion University
Bill Dennison - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Rebecca Golden - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Carlton Haywood - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Rick Hoffman - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
William Hunley - Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Renee Karrh - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Michael Koterba - U.S. Geological Survey/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Rich Lacouture - Morgan State University
Jurate Landwehr - U.S. Geological Survey
Mary Ellen Ley - U.S. Geological Survey
Roberto Llanso - Versar, Inc.
Bruce Michael - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Elgin Perry - Statistics Consultant
William Romano - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Peter Tango - U.S. Geological Survey
Mark Trice - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Caroline Wicks - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science Partnership
Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee (Former)
Carlton Haywood - Chair, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Peter Tango - Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey
Katie Foreman - Staff, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Jacob Goodwin - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Joseph Beaman - Maryland Department of the Environment
Peter Bergstrom - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Steve Bieber - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Claire Buchanan - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Brian Burch - EPA Region 3
Bob Campbell - National Park Service
Bill Dennison - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Mike Fritz - EPA Region 3
Rick Hoffman - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Kate Hopkins - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
David Jasinski - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Jackie Johnson - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Jeni Keisman - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Margaret Kerchner - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Mary Ellen Ley - U.S. Geological Survey
Lewis Linker - EPA Region 3
Ben Longstaff - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science Partnership
A-10 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Mike Mallonee - Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Margaret McBride - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Bruce Michael - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Hassan Mirsajadi - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Matt Monroe - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Derek Orner - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Scott Phillips - U.S. Geological Survey
Gary Shenk - EPA Region 3
Richard Shertzer - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
John Sherwell - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Nita Sylvester - EPA Region 3
Bob Wood - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cooperative Oxford Laboratory
Management Board
James Edward - Chair, EPA Region 3
Carin Bisland - Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Kristin Foringer - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Russell Baxter - Virginia Depart of Environmental Quality
Patricia Buckley - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Sally Claggett - U.S. Forest Service
Frank Dawson - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jim Elliott - Hunton & Williams, Citizen Advisory Committee
Peter Freehafer - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
James Geiger - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jennifer Guerrero - U.S. Department of Defense
Amy Guise - U.S. Army Corps Engineers
Jon Hall - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Hamid Karimi - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Mary Ann Lisanti - Harford County Council, Local Government Advisory Committee
John Maounis - National Park Service
Jennifer Pauer - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Scott Phillips- U.S. Geological Survey
Peyton Robertson - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John Schneider - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Ann Swanson - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Denice Wardrop - Pennsylvania State University, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
Principals' Staff Committee
Shawn Garvin - Chair, EPA Region 3
Carin Bisland - Coordinator, EPA Region 3
Kristin Foringer - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
David Anderson - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
Doug Domenech - Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources
Gus Douglas - West Virginia Department of Agriculture
James Edward - EPA Region 3
A-ll December 29,2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Carl Garrison - Virginia Department of Forestry
Alexander Grannis - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
John Griffin - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Richard Hall - Maryland Department of Planning
Buddy Hance - Maryland Department of Agriculture
John Hanger - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Todd Haymore - Virginia Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry
Randy Huffman - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
David Johnson - Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Leonard Jordan - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Beverley K. Swaim-Staley - Maryland Department of Transportation
Edwin Kee - Delaware Department of Agriculture
Teresa Koon - West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Pat Montanio - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Marvin Moriarty - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Collin O'Mara - Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
David Paylor - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Christine Porter - U.S. Department of Defense
John Quigley - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Russell Redding - Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Dennis Reidenbach - National Park Service
David Russ - U.S. Geological Survey
Ann Swanson - Chesapeake Bay Commission
Christohpe Tulou - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Shari Wilson - Maryland Department of the Environment
Scientific And Technical Advisory Committee
Denice Wardrop - STAC Chair, Pennsylvania State University
Christopher Pyke - STAC Vice Chair, U.S. Green Building Council
Kevin Sellner - STAC Executive Secretary, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Liz Van Dolah - Staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
District of Columbia
Ted Graham - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Maryland
Bill Dennison - University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science
Russ Brinsfield - University of Maryland, Wye Research Center
Pennsylvania
Raymond Najjar - Pennsylvania State University
Virginia
Kirk Havens - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Charlie Bott - Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Delaware
David Hansen - University of Delaware
A-12 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
New York
Robert Howarth - Cornell University
Weixing Zhu - State University of New York-Binghamton
West Virginia
Jeffery Skousen - West Virginia University
Louis McDonald - West Virginia University
At-large Appointees
Charles Abdalla - Pennsylvania State University
Paul Bukaveckas - Virginia Commonwealth University
Donna Marie Bikovic - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Paul Bukaveckas - Virginia Commonwealth University
Randy Chambers - College of William and Mary
Carl Friedrichs - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Marjy Friedrichs - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Cindy Gilmour - Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Doug Lipton - University of Maryland
Mark Luckenbach - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Margaret Mulholland - Old Dominion University
Michael Paolisso - University of Maryland
Vikram Pattarkine - PEACE USA
James Pease - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
John Randolph - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
David Sample - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
David Secor - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Lisa Wainger - University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Don Weller - Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Claire Welty - University of Maryland Baltimore County
Federal Agency Appointees
Kurt Gottschalk - U.S. Department of Agriculture
Susan Julius - EPA Office of Research and Development
Robert Hirsch - U.S. Geological Survey
Ali Sadeghi - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Local Government Advisory Committee
Mary Ann Lisanti - Chair, Harford County Council
Sally Thomas - Vice Chair, Albermarle County Board of Supervisors
Rick Keister - Coordinator, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Diane Davis - District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Sheila Finlayson - City of Annapolis
Richard Gray - City of Lancaster
Penny Gross - Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
Adriana Hochberg - City Government - District of Columbia
Doug Hoke - York County
Gerald Hyland - Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
A-13 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix A - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Mary Labert - McAdoo Borough
Stephen Mallette - Accomack County Board of Supervisors
Craig Moe - City of Laurel
Kelly Porter - Seat Pleasant City Council
Susan Roltsch - County of Prince William
Ann Simonetti - Marysville Borough
John V. Thomas - Hampden Township
Tommy Wells - Council of the District of Columbia
Jeff Wheeland - Lycoming County
James Wheeler - Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors
Robert Willey - Town of Easton
Bruce Williams - City of Takoma Park
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Jim Elliott - Chair, Hunton & Williams
Nikki Tinsley - Vice Chair, NT, Inc.
Jessica Blackburn - Coordinator, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Bill Achor-Cargill, Inc.
Nancy Alexander - Merge Computer Group
Jess Cadwallender - Greener Oil Company
Nina Beth Cardin - Chesapeake Covenant Community
John Dawes - Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds
Robert Etgen - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
Christina Everett - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Eileen Filler-Corn - Albers & Company
Victor Funk - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Retired
Rebecca Hanmer - EPA, Retired
Verna Harrison - The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
Stella Koch - Audubon Naturalist Society
Patricia Levin - Franklin & Marshall College
Bill Martin - U.S. Patent Office, Retired
Betsy Quant - Canoe Susquehanna
Jeremy Rothwell - Young Delegate Mentor
Charlie Stek - Senator Paul Sarbanes Staff, Retired
Charles Sydnor - Enterprise Community Partners
Neil Wilkie - Davidson Capital Group
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Many dedicated people at Tetra Tech, Inc. provided assistance to EPA and the jurisdictions in
developing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Phase I WIPs including but not limited to the
following: Clint Boschen, Kimberly Brewer, Krista Carlson, Jim Collins, Melissa DeSantis,
Mustafa Faizullabhoy, Martin Hurd, Lisa Koehler, Jessica Koenig, Jon Ludwig, Kelly Meadows,
Jennifer McDonnell, Elsa Mittelholtz, Aileen Molloy, Andrew Parker, Teresa Rafi, Vladislav
Royzman, Mark Sievers, Jeff Strong, Barry Tonning, and Peter Von Lowe.
A-14 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix B.
Index of Documents Supporting the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
This index of documents (with URL links for direct electronic access) includes materials EPA
and its seven watershed jurisdictions! partners relied upon during development of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL. These documents include but are not limited to data, analyses,
computer programs, computer model code, scientific/technical references used or cited in the
main Bay TMDL document, correspondence, agreements, directives, strategies, plans,
independent peer reviews, workshop proceedings, and other supporting materials. Access to
advance briefing materials, presentations, issue papers, and summaries of relevant partnership
meetings and conference calls related to development of the Bay TMDL are fully cataloged in
Appendix C.
The listed documents are organized by subcategories by date of publication to assist the reader in
locating documents of interest. For each listed document, full reference citation (in the case of a
formal publication) and URL address for direct web-based electronic access to the document are
provided. In the case of reference to data, the data repository and the URL address for direct
electric access to the data are provided. Some of the individual documents are listed in multiple
categories to aid the readers to get access the correct documents.
The ultimate objective of this appendix is to ensure direct public access to the full array of data,
documentation, models, tools, and computer programming that supported development of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Chesapeake Bay Program Research Phase (1975-1982) Synthesis and
Recommendations Documents
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. September 1983.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2405.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action—
Appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I3262.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental
Change. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
hnp://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 13260.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings and
Recommendations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 13278.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13280.pdf
B-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay Agreements, Directives, Memoranda of
Understanding Relevant to Bay Water Quality
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2006. Resolution to Enhance the Role and Voice ofAgriculture
in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership. September 22, 2006. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/2006 ec Agriculture Resolution.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2006. Memorandum of Understanding among Chesapeake
Executive Council, Headwater State Jurisdictions and Members of the Lawn Care Product
Manufacturing Industry Regarding the Healthy Lawns and Clean Water Initiative: Reducing
Nutrient Losses from Lawn Through a Public-Private Stewardship Partnership. September 22,
2006. Annapolis, Maryland.
http:/Av\v\v.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2605.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2006. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 06-1
Protecting the Forests of the Chesapeake Watershed. September 22, 2006. Annapolis, Maryland.
2006.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2604.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2005. Adoption Statement—Reducing Animal Manure and
Poultry Litter Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annapolis, Maryland. November 29,
2005.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.netyinfo/pressreleascs/ec2005/doc-manure adopt_statcment_l l-28.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2005. Chesapeake Watershed Education Agreement. Annapolis,
Maryland. 2005.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publ ications/cbp_27902.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2005. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 04-3
Building New Partnerships and New Markets for Agricultural Animal Manure and Poultry Litter
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annapolis, Maryland. January 10, 2005.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12590.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2005. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 04-2
Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals—Next Steps. Annapolis, Maryland.
January 10, 2005. http:/Avvvw.chcsapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_ 12588.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2005. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 04-1
Funding the Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annapolis, Maryland. 2005.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_ 12586.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2003. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 03-1
Expanded Riparian Forest Buffer Goals. Annapolis, Maryland. 2003.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 12610.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2003. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 03-2
Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals. Annapolis, Maryland. 2003.
http://wvvw.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 12611 .pdf
B-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Secretary Tayloe Murphy. 2003. "Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load
Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals." Memorandum
to the Principals' Staff Committee members and representatives of the Chesapeake Bay
headwater states. Virginia Office of the Governor, Natural Resources Secretariat, Richmond,
Virginia. April 25, 2003.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 28933.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2002. Resolution to Enhance the Role of the United States
Department of Agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership. Annapolis, Maryland. 2002.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2574.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2002. Acceptance Statement for the 2002 Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Participation Action Plan. Annapolis, Maryland. 2002.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/info/pressreleases/cc2002/lgac acceptance statement final.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2001. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 01-1
Managing Storm Waters on State, Federal and District-owned Lands and Facilities. Annapolis,
Maryland. 2001.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2105.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council and Headwater States Governors. 2000. Memorandum Among the
State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, the Stale of Maryland, the State of New York, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia, and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the Cooperative Efforts for the
Protection of the Chesapeake Bay and Its Rivers. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/waterqualitvcriteria/DQC wq_finalmou.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2000. Chesapeake 2000. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis,
Maryland.
http://vvww.chesapeakebaY.net/pubs/chesapeake2000agreement.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1998. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 98-2
Chesapeake 2000. Annapolis, Maryland. 1998.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12109.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1998. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 98-3
Accelerating Bay Restoration Through Implementation of Innovative Technologies. Annapolis,
Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_ 12463.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1998. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 98-4
Interstate Animal Waste Distribution and Use Technology. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2465.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council: Adoption Statement—Community Watershed Initiative.
Annapolis, Maryland. 1998.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 12467.pdf
B-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1997. Directive 97-\—Baywvde Nutrient Reduction Progress
and Future Directions. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD. 1997.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l 2471 .pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1997. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 97-2
Wetlands Protection and Restoration Goals. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://wwvv.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l2473.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1997. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 97-3
Community Watershed Initiative. Annapolis, Maryland. 1997. http://www.chesapeakebav.net
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1996. Adoption Statement—Strategy for Increasing Basin-wide
Public Access to Chesapeake Bay Information. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/piiblications/cbp_ 12485.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1996. Adoption Statement—Local Government Participation
Action Plan. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I3407.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council: Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 95-1—Local
Government Partnership Initiative. Annapolis, Maryland. 1995.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publ ications/cbp 12489.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1995. Adoption Statement on Riparian Forest Buffers.
Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publ ications/cbp_ 13403. pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1995. Adoption Statement on Land, Growth, and Stewardship.
Annapolis, Maryland. 1995.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2482.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1994. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 94-2—
Reciprocal Agricultural Certification Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 12494.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1994. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 94-3—
Framework for Habitat Restoration. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12497.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1993. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 93-5—
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Initiative. Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2455.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1993. Directive 93-3—Adoption Statement on Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2503.pdf
B-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1993. Directive 93-1—Joint Tributary Strategy Statement.
Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12501 .pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1992. Amendments to the Chesapeake bay Agreement.
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis. Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l2507.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1987. Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp 12510.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Partnership. 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983. Chesapeake Bay
Partnership, Washington, DC. 1983.
http://wvvw.chesapeakebay.iiet/content/publications/cbp_l 2512.pdf
Federal Agency Partnership Documents
Chesapeake Bay Federal Partners. 2007. Resolution to Enhance Federal Cooperative
Conservation in the Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. October 7, 2005.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2089.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Federal Partners. 1998. Federal Agencies' Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan.
Annapolis, Maryland. November 5, 1998.
http://www.criesapeakebav.net/content/publ ications/cbp_l 2078. pdf
Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State College,
Pennsylvania, the Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III. June 5, 1996.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12550.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program: Federal Agencies Agreement on Ecosystem Management in the
Chesapeake Bay. Annapolis, Maryland. July 14, 1994.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l 2453.pdf
Chesapeake Executive Council: Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States
Department of Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council. Annapolis, Maryland.
January 25, 1994.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2525.pdf
Presidential Chesapeake Bay Executive Order
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. 2010. Fiscal Year 2011 Action Plan:
Executive Order 13508 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
September 30, 2010.
hnp://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=20IQ%2f9%2fChesapeake+EO+Action+PI
an+FY2Qll.pdf
B-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA841-R-10-002. May 12, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/chesbay502/pdf/chesbay guidance-all.pdf
Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. 2010. Strategy for Protecting and
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. May 12, 2010.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?tlle=2010%2f5%2fChesapeake+EO+Strategv%
20.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to
Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202a of
Executive Order 13508. November 24, 2009.
hnp://executiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/fHe.axd?tlle=2009%2fl I%2f202a+Water+Qualitv+Rep
ort.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Focusing Resources to Restore and Protect the
Chesapeake Bay and its Tributary Waters: Executive Order 13508, Section 202b Report.
November 24, 2009.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/filc.axd7fi le=2009%2fl I%2f202b+Targeting+Resource
s+Report.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. 2009. Storm Water Management at Federal Facilities & on Federal
Lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202(c) of
Executive Order 13508. November 23, 2009.
hup://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=20Q9%2fl I%2f202c+Federal+Stormwater
+Report.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Landscape Conservation & Public Access in the
Chesapeake Bay Region: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202(e) of Executive Order 13508.
November 23, 2009.
http://e.\ecutiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/file.axd?nie=2009%2fll%2f202e+Access+%26+Lands
capes+Report.pdf
U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Strengthening Science
and Decision Support for Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed: A
Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202f of Executive Order 13508. November 23, 2009.
hnp://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.netyfile.axd?file=2009%2fl I%2f202f+Scientific+Support+
Report.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Habitat and Research
Activities to Protect and Restore Chesapeake Bay Living Resources and Water Quality: A
Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202g of Executive Order 13508. November 23, 2009.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/flle.axd?file=2009%2fll%2t202g+Habitat+%26+Livin
g+Resource+Report.pdf
Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. May 12, 2009.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/BlogEngine. Web/file.a.\d?file=2009%2f8%2Oesapea
ke+Executive+Order.pdf
B-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Section 203: Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Executive Order 13508:
Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. May 12, 2009. Page 3.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/EO/file.axd?file=2009%2f8%2fChesapeake+Executive
+Qrder.pdf
The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A
Draft Report Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/File.axd?file=2009%2tP%2f202(a)+Water+Ouality+Dra
ft+Report.pdf
Chesapeake Action Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Strengthening the Management. Coordination,
and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program: Report to Congress. CBP/TRS-292-08.
Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. July 2008.
http://cap.chesapeakebay.net/docs/EPA Chesapeake Bay CAP.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program Authorizing Legislation
Clean Water Act. 1972.
http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf
Clean Water Act Section 117: Chesapeake Bay. Page 26.
http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational Structure
Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay Program Governance—Managing the Partnership
for a Restored and Protected Watershed and Bay. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 2009.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/_03-13-09 J-iandoiit_4 1Q155.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Related Chesapeake Bay Program
Partnership Websites
Chesapeake Bay TMDL website: http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
Chesapeake Bay Program partnership website: http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Executive Order website: http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net
ChesapeakeStat website: http://stat.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Criteria Related Documents
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries:
20 JO Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum. May 2010. EPA 903-R-
B-7 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
10-002. CBP/TRS 301-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://wwvv.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_51366.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria assessment procedures
computer programming code. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Monitoring/CriteriaAssessiTient/
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Application of reference curves in dissolved
oxygen criteria assessment. STAC Review and Recommendations for the Chesapeake Bay
Program. STAC Publication 09-005. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD. 2009.
http://www'.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/biore fcurvesreview.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Rationale Supporting Application of a
Reference Curve for Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Deep Channel Dissolved Oxygen
Criterion: Briefing Document for the CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's Peer
Review Team. August 6, 2009. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. CBP Response To the June 19, 2009 Technical Memorandum
Submitted by Malcolm Pirnie on behalf of V/MAMWA. July 16, 2009.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Application of Reference Curves for
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Assessment: Chesapeake Bay Program Office Review and
Recommendations: Briefing Document for the CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee's Peer Review Team. July 2, 2009. http://\vww.chesapeakebay.net
Keisman, Jeni: 2009. Revisiting the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Criteria Biological
Reference Curves: Briefing for the CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Review
Team. July 2, 2009. http://\vww.chesapeakebay.net
Bell, Clifton. 2009. Review of CFD and Reference Curve Revisions. Malcolm Pirnie. June 19,
2009. http://wvvw.chesapeakebaY.net
Virginia and Maryland Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc. 2009. Review of
Reference Curve Issues. June 19, 2009. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2008. Assessing the Feasibility of Developing a
Four-Dimensional (4-D) Interpolator for Use in Impaired Waters Listing Assessment. December
2008. http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/4dreport.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen,
Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-2008
Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum. EPA 903-R-08-001. CBP/TRS
290-08. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD. 2008.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 47637.pdf
B-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Colligan, M.A. 2007. Addendum to Chesapeake Bay Regional Criteria (NOAA confirmation of
concurrence of the 2007 Bay criteria addendum). National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA. September 5, 2007.
http://ww\v.chesapeakebay.net
Lape, J. 2007. Re: U.S. EPA Region III Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen,
Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries -2007
Addendum. Memorandum. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. August 20, 2007.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-
2007 Addendum. EPA 903-R-07-003. CBP/TRS 285-07. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 27849.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-
2007 Chlorophyll a Criteria Addendum. EPA 903-R-07-005. CBP/TRS 288-07. Region 3
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://wvvw.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 20138.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2006. The Cumulative Frequency Diagram
Method for Determining Water Quality Attainment: Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program
STAC Panel to Review Chesapeake Bay Analytical Tools. STAC Publication 06-003.
Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Research
Consortium, Edgewater, MD. 2006.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/CFD STAC Final.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-
2004 Addendum. EPA 903-R-04-005. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland. 2004.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/contentypublications/cbp 13268.pdf
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. James River Alternatives Analysis.
Addendum #4. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA.
http://vvvvw.chesapeakebay.net
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species
Act Biological Opinion—Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity
and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-2007 Chlorophyll a
Criteria Addendum. F/NER/2003/00961. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region,
Gloucester, Massachusetts. 2003.
http://vvww.nero.noaa.gov/prot res/section7/EPA-signedBOs/ChesapeakeBay20()4-
signedBO.pdf
B-9 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological Evaluation for the Issuance of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the
Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland.
http://\vwvv.chesapeakeba\.net/content/publications/cbp_2893 5.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. EPA
903-R-03-002. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 2003.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13142.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2002. Review of DRAFT Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity, and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and
Tidal Tributaries. July 2002.
http://vv\vvv.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/FinalCri teriaReviewReport.pdf
Linker, L., G. Shenk, P. Wang, C. Cerco, A. Butt, P. Tango, and R. Savage. 2002. A Comparison of
Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Calibration with 1985-1994 Observed Data and Method of
Application to Water Quality Criteria. Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://w\vvv .chesapeakebay.net/contentypublications/cbp 13134.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program Interpolator Code. 2000. Interpolator - Chesapeake Bay and Tidal
Tributary River Interpolator Tool. April 2000.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/cims/interpolator.pdf
Batiuk, R.A., P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V.
Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K., A.
Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Water Quality and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical
Synthesis. EPA 903-R-00-014. CBP/TRS 245/00. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 2000.
http://\v\v\v.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13051 .pdf
Jordan, S.J., C. Stenger, M. Olson, R. Batiuk, and K. Mountford. 1992. Chesapeake Bay
dissolved oxygen goal for restoration of living resource habitats: A synthesis of living resource
requirements with guidelines for their use in evaluating model results and monitoring
information. CBP/TRS 88-93. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, MD. 1992.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I2299.pdf
Batiuk, R.A., R. Orth, K. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver, V. Carter, N.B.
Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar, and S. Bieber. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS
83/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 1992.
http://\vwvv.chesapeakebay.net
B-10 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Funderburk, S.L., S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D.R. Riley (eds): Habitat Requirements fat-
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 1991 Second Edition. Living Resources Subcommittee,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 1991. http://vvw\v.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1987. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources Task Force, Annapolis, MD. 1987.
http://nepis.epa.gOV/t-:xe/ZvPURL.cgi7Dockev-2000WBYD.txt
Chesapeake Bay Segmentation Scheme
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries-
2008 Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum. EPA 903-R-08-001.
CBP/TRS 290-08. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://\vvvvv.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_47637.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation Schemes:
Revision, decisions and rationales, 1983-2003--2005 Addendum. EPA 903-R-05-004. CBP/TRS
278/06. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http •.//WAVw.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_ 13378.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation Schemes:
Revision, decisions and rationales. 1983-2003. EPA 903-R-04-008. CBP/TRS 268/04.
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp_ 13272.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action—
Appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
hup://w ww.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13262.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Use Attainability
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries:
2010 Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum. EPA 903-R-10-002.
CBP/TRS 301-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 51366.pd
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Technical Support Document for Identification of
Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability-2004 Addendum. EPA 903-R-04-006.
Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 2004.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13270.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Technical Support Document for Identification of
Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R-03-004. Region 3 Chesapeake
B-ll December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l 3218.pdf
Jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Regulations
Maryland: Code of Maryland Title 26 Subtitle 08, Chapter 2.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/dsd.state.md/md-ch2-quality-
2005113Q.pdf.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/26 Chapters.htm
Virginia: Code of Virginia 9 62.1 -44.15 3a; VAC 25-260 Virginia WQS
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqs/
Delaware: 7 Delaware Code Section 6010; 7 Delaware Administrative Code 7401.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/de/de_3_wqs.pdf
District of Columbia DC Municipal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 11.
http://www.epa.aov/waterscience/standardsAvqslibrary/dc/dc 3 register.pdf
Jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay Tidal Waters 1996/1998 303(d) Lists
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: 1996 303(d) Lists for
the Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributaries.
hnp://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Librarv/Water/303(d)list.pdf
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control: 1998 303(d) Lists for
the Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributaries.
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Library/Water/303(d)list.pdf
District of Columbia Department of Environment. 1998. List of Water Bodies Required to Be
Listed Under 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. September 28, 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Maryland Department of Environment: 1998 Additions to Maryland's 303(d) List.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/prograiTis/ResearchCenter/ReportsandPublications/WaterPublication
s/Docuinents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/water/303dlisl I998add.pdf
Maryland's 1996 and 1998 303(d) Lists.
hnp://www.inde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/lntegrated303dReports/Documents/www.m
de.state.md.us/assets/document/l996 19981ist.pdf
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Impaired Waters: 1998 303(d) Total
Maximum Daily Load Priority List, http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay Tidal Waters 2008 303(d) Lists
Delaware Division of Water Quality: Watershed Assessment Section 305(b) and 303(d) Reports.
http://www.wr.dnrec.delaw'are.gov/lnformation/Otherlnfo/Pages/WatershedAssessinent305band
303dReports.aspx
B-12 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
District of Columbia Department of the Environment. Methodology for the Development of the
2008 Section 303(d) List and the 2008 Section 303(d) List of Impaired District of Columbia
Waters. March 31,2008.
http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/inforination2/public.notice$/08_Draft Sect.303(d).pdf
Maryland Department of Environment: Maryland's 2008 Integrated Report.
http://www.iTide.state.ind.iis/programs/Water/TMDL/lntegrated303dReports/Pages/programs/wat
erprograms/tmdl/maryland%20303%20dlist/2008 final 303d list.aspx
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: Final 2008 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report.
http://www.deq. state. va.us/wqa/ir2008. html
Criteria Assessments Supporting the Jurisdictions' Bay Tidal Waters
2008 303(d) Lists
Chesapeake Bay Program Interpolator Code. 2000. Interpolator - Chesapeake Bay and Tidal
Tributary River Interpolator Tool. April 2000.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/cims/interpolator.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria assessment procedures
computer programming code. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebav.net/Monitoring/CritcriaAssessment/
Chesapeake Bay Lawsuits, Settlements and Consent Decrees
Fowler, et al, v. EPA: Settlement Agreement. January 5, 2009.
http://www.cbf.org/Document. Doc?id=512
Decision On Petition For Rulemaking To Address Nutrient Pollution From Significant Point
Sources In The Chesapeake Bay Watershed. June 13, 2005. Chesapeake Bay Foundation Petition
and U.S. Environmental Agency Response.
http://www.epa.gov/ow/cbfpetition/petition.pdf
Welsh, D.L. 2004. Letter to Kendle P. Philbrick Re: Re: Memorandum of Understanding
Between the State of Maryland and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
HI, Regarding Sections 303(d) and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. U.S. EPA Region 3,
Philadelphia, PA. November 1, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Philbrick, K.P. 2004.Letter to Donald S. Welsh Re: Memorandum of Understanding Between the
State of Maryland and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Regarding Sections 303(d) and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. Maryland Department of the
Environment, Baltimore, MD. September 2, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl/
U.S. District Court: Consent Decree: District of Columbia v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. C.A. No. 1:98CV00758. June 13, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl/
B-13 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: American Canoe Association and the
American Littoral Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. C.A. No. 98-979-A. June
11, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Maryland and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Regarding Section 303(d) and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act.
1998. http://wvvw.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl/
U.S. District Court: Consent Decree: Delaware v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. C.A.
No. 98-591 (SLR). August 4, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Chesapeake Bay Cap Load Allocations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M.
Garvin to the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals' Staff Committee Members, August 13, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reR3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/Ches Bay Sediment Letter.PDF
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M.
Garvin to the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals' Staff Committee Members, July 1, 2010.
http://vvww.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/HonorableShariTWilson-701122302-0001 .pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Letter from Region 3, Acting Administrator
William C. Early to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources,
November 3, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/tmdl_implementation letter I I0409.pdf
Murphy, W. T. 2003. Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations
and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals. April 25, 2003, Memorandum
to the Principals' Staff Committee members and representatives of the Chesapeake Bay
headwater states. Virginia Office of the Governor, Natural Resources Secretariate, Richmond,
Virginia, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 28933.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Setting and Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin
Nutrient and Sediment Loads: The Collaborative Process, Technical Tools and Innovative
Approaches. EPA 903-R-03-007. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland. 2003.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I9713.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Progress and Future
Directions—Nutrient Reevaluation Summary Report. October 1997. CBP/TRS 189/97. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I2305.pdf
Perciasepe, R. 1992. Nutrient Reevaluation Load Allocations. Memorandum to the Principals'
Staff Committee Members. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. October
14, 1992. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
B-14 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay Sediment Cap Load Allocations
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. An Introduction to Sediment sheds:
Sediment and Its Relationship to Chesapeake Bay Water Clarity. STAC Workshop Report,
January 30-31, 2007, Annapolis, Maryland. STAC Publication 07-002. 2007.
http://wvvw.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l 3374.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment Workgroup. 2007. An Introduction to Sedimentshed:
Sediment and Its Relationship to Chesapeake Bay Water Clarity. CBP-TRS-286-07. Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publ ications/cbp_l 3372.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Tidal Sediments Mini-Workshop. Annapolis,
Maryland. May 28-29, 2009.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/tidalsediment.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2007. An Introduction to
Sedimentsheds: Sediment and its Relationship to Chesapeake Bay Water Clarity. January 30-31,
2007, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.orR/stac/sedworkshop.htiTil
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2006. Quantifying the Role of Stream
Restoration in Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reductions. November 14, 2006, Laurel, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/StreamBMPWorkshop.html
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Best Management Practices for Sediment Control and Water
Clarity Enhancement. Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee's Sediment Workgroup,
Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13369.pdtUSGS
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake Bay
and Watershed: Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4123.
http://www.rngs.rnd.gov/coastal/pub/wTir03-4123.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Workshop: Urban Stormwater Sediment:
Sources, Impacts and Control. April 29, 2005, Washington, DC.
http://www.chesapeake.ora/stac/USWorkshoD.html
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Loads
Science and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Workshop on Atmospheric Deposition of
Nitrogen. STAC Publication 09-001.
http://www .chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/atmosphericnitrogen. report.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Workshop: Atmospheric Deposition of
Nitrogen: Estimating local emission sources, near-field deposition, and fate on the landscape.
May 30, 2007. State University of New York, Binghamton, NY.
http://wwvv.chesapeake.org/stac/AtmosphericNDepositionWorkshop.htinl
B-15 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Critical Period
Tetra Tech. 2010. Assessing the Critical Period for the Development of the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL. Fairfax, Virginia. September 22, 2010. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Tetra Tech. 2009. Methods to Determine Critical Period. Fairfax, Virginia. September 23, 2009.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay Program: Response To the June 19, 2009 Technical Memorandum Submitted
by Malcolm Pirnie on behalf of V/MAMWA. July 16, 2009. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Bell, Clifton (Malcolm Pirnie): Review of CFD and Reference Curve Revisions. June 19, 2009.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Nitrogen/Phosphorus Exchanges
Wang, P. and Lewis C. Linker. 2009. Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Control Trade-
offs Using a Water Quality Model with a Response Surface Method. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 135(3):171-177.
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cizi7170852
Wang P, L Linker, D Jasinski, WC Dennison, G Shenk, R Batiuk. 2006. Forecast of Summer
Anoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. In: Spaulding ML (ed) Estuarine and Coastal Modeling:
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling held in
Charleston, South Carolina, from October 31 to November 2, 2005. American Society of Civil
Engineers, http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Wang P, R Batiuk, L Linker, G Shenk. 2001. Assessment of best management practices for
improvement of dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay estuary. Water Science and Technology.
44(7): 173-80. http://www.chesapeakebav.net
Chesapeake Bay Program Best Management Practices
U.S. EPA. 2010. Estimates of County-Level Nitrogen and Phosphorus Data For Use In Modeling
Pollutant Reduction: Documentation For Scenario Builder Version 2.2. December 2010.
CBP/TRS 903R100004 Bin # 304.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/SB V22 Final I2_3l_2010.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Protocol for the Development, Review, and Approval of
Loading and Effectiveness Estimates for Nutrient and Sediment Controls in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model. Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Goal Implementation Team, March
15, 2010, Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/Nutrient-Sediment Control Review Protocol.pdf
Simpson, T. and S. Weammert. 2009. Developing Best Management Practice Definitions and
Effectiveness Estimates for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed: Final Report. December 2009, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/BMP ASSESSMENT REPORT.pdf
B-16 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2008. Requested Review of Procedures of the
UMD/MAWP Best Management Practice Project: Year 2. STAC BMP Efficiencies Task Group
October 20, 2008. STAC Publication 08-005.
http://w\vw.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/bmpreviewyear2.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2008. Workshop: Chesapeake Bay Cover Crop
Enhancement Conference. December 18-19, 2008.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/ccec. html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Requested Review of Procedures for the
MAWQ/UMD Best Management Practice Project. STAC BMP Efficiencies Task Group, July
19, 2007. hnp://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/BMP%20Efficiencies%20ReDort%20072007.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Workshop: Understanding Fertilizer Sales
and Reporting Information. May 1, 2007. Frederick, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/ferti lizerdataworkshop.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Workshop: Quantifying the Role of
Wetlands in Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reductions in Chesapeake Bay. April 4, 2007,
Annapolis, MD.
http://www. chesapeake.org/stac/Workshops/WetlandsBMPA genda.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Best Management Practices for Sediment Control and Water
Clarity Enhancement. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chcsapeakebay.net/content/publ ications/cbp_l 3369.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Developing a Protocol for Development
and Review of Reduction Efficiencies for Best Management Practices: Test Case of Pasture
Management. Workshop. Laurel, Maryland. October 27-28, 2009.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/pasturemiit.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Urban Tree Canopy. May 24, 2004.
Annapolis, Maryland. STAC Publication 04-005.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/UTCReport.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2003. Innovation in Agricultural
Conservation in Chesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress and Addressing Future Challenges.
May 5-6, 2003, Beltsville, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/lnnovativeAg.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Non-nutritive Feed Issues in Chicken
Production: Workshop Report. Easton, Maryland. October 2, 2001.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/AqReport.PDF
B-17 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay Model Documentation and Independent Scientific
Peer Reviews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.3 Community Watershed
Model. EPA 903S10002 - CBP/TRS-303-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis MD. http://\vw\v.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htiTi
U.S. EPA. 2010. Estimates of County-Level Nitrogen and Phosphorus Data For Use In Modeling
Pollutant Reduction: Documentation For Scenario Builder Version 2.2. December 2010. EPA
CBP/TRS 903R100004 Bin # 304, Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/SB V22 Final 12 31 20IO.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2010. Review of Land-Use and Land Cover
Dataset and Methodology. September 2010.
http://vvww.chesapeake.org/stac/Piibs/landuserev3.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2010. STAC Review of the Water Clarity and
SAV Components of the Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality and Sediment Transport
Model, March 9-10, 2010. March 2010.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/savclarityreview.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. Response of the Modeling Subcommittee to the Second STAC
Review of the Phase 5 Community Watershed Model. Annapolis, MD. January 28, 2009.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcomiriittee/iridsc/Response Chesapcake_Bay Watersh
ed Modeling Review l-09.pdf
Preston, S.D., Alexander, R.B., Woodside, M.D., and Hamilton, P.A. 2009. SPARROW
Modeling—Enhancing Understanding of the Nation's Water Quality. U.S. Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 2009-3019, 6 p.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3019/
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Land Change Modeling Technical Review.
November 25, 2008. Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.onz/stac/Pubs/cblcm report.pdf
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 2008. The Chesapeake Bay Land Change
Model. April 2008. Washington, DC.
http://wAvw.mwcog.org/Liploads/coiriiriittee-documents/bV5tV19Y20080422092127.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Phase V
Review. STAC Publication 08-003. February 20, 2008.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/2ndPhaseVReportFinal.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Airshed. February 7, 2008. Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/inaps/cbp_ 17Q28.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. NOAA Atmospheric Sciences
Modeling Division: Response to the Third Peer Review of the CMAQ Model. April 30, 2007.
B-18 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/cmaq/CMAO Third Review Final
Report-Response.pdf
Aiyyer, A., D. Cohan, A. Russell, W. Stockwell, S. Tanrikulu, W. Vizuete, and J. Wilczak. 2007.
Final Report: Third Peer Review of the CMAQ Model. February 20, 2007.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/crnaq/CMAQ Third Review_Final
Report.pdf
Brakebill, J.W., and Preston, S.D. 2007. Factors Affecting the Distribution and Transport of
Nutrients in Phillips. 2007, Synthesis of U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Chesapeake Bay
Ecosystem and Implications for Environmental Management. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1316, 63p.
http://Dubs.usgs.aov/circ/circ 1316/html/circ 1316chap3.html
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2007. Request for A Second STAC Review of the Chesapeake Bay
Program Phase 5 Community Watershed Model. 2007. Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/Questions Posed Watershed Model
_Reviewers 2008.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition. EPA/100/B-
06/002. May 2006.
http://www.epa.aov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2006. Workshop: Modeling in the Chesapeake
Bay Program: 2010 and Beyond. January 17-18, 2006, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/201 OModeling.html
Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee. 2005. Response to the 2005 STAC
Watershed Model Review. December 1, 2005. Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcoinmittee/mdsc/Response Chesapeake Bay W'atersh
ed ModelingEffort_Review%20-%202005.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee: Review of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Modeling Effort. June 2005.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/STACp5ModReviewRep.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. NOAA Atmospheric Sciences
Modeling Division: Response to the Second Peer Review of the CMAQ Model. 31 August 2005.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/siibcommittee/mdsc/cinaq/CMAQ Scd Peer_Rev July 5
-Response.pdf
Amar, P., D. Chock, A. Hansen, M. Moran, A. Russell, D. Steyn, and W. Stockwell. 2005. Final
Report: Second Peer Review of the CMAQ Model. July 2005.
hrtp://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/cinaq/CMAQ Scd Peer Rev July 5.pdf
Cerco, C.F. and M.R. Noel. 2005. Assessing a Ten-Fold Increase in the Chesapeake Bay Native
Oyster Population: A Report to the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. July 2005.
www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_l 3358.pdf
B-19 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Review of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Modeling Effort. June 2005.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcoiTimittee/mdsc/Review of the Chesapeake Bay_W
atershed Modeling Effort 2005.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2005. Watershed Model Phase 5 Peer Review Group: Model Review
Questions Posed. May, 2005. Annapolis, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/Ouestions_Posed to the_Watershed_
Mode %20Reviewers.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Understanding the "Lag Times"
Affecting the Improvement of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay. May 19-20, 2004, Annapolis,
MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/LagTimeWorkshop.html
Cerco CF, MR Noel (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency): The 2002 Chesapeake Bay
Eutrophication Model. July 2004. EPA 903-R-04-004.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/content/publ ications/cbp_26167.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2004. Workshop: Coupling Water Quality and
Upper Tropic Level Modeling for Chesapeake Bay. January 8-9, 2004, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.ora/stac/ModelCouplingWorkshop.html
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2003. Final Report Summary: December 2003 Peer Review of the
CMAQ Model. August 2004.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/cmaq/final report 001.pdF
Kalin, L. and M.M. Hantush. 2003. Evaluation of Sediment Transport Models and Comparative
Application of Two Watershed Models. EPA/600/R-03/139. September 2003.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r03139/600r03139.pdf
Linker, L., G. Shenk, P. Wang, C. Cerco, A. Butt, P. Tango, and R. Savage. 2002. A Comparison
of Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Calibration with 1985-1994 Observed Data and Method of
Application to Water Quality Criteria. Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13134.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2002. Workshop: Suspension Feeders: A
Workshop to Assess What We Know, Don't Know, and Need to Know to Determine Their
Effects on Water Quality. March 18-19, 2002, Lithicum, MD.
http://w\vw.chesapeake.org/stac/filterfeeders.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee: Review of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality
Model. February 2000.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/Model Report.pdf
B-20 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Linker, Lewis C., Gary W. Shenk, R.L. Dennis, and J.L. Sweeney. 1999. Cross-Media Models
for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Airshed. November, 1999.
http://w\vw.chesapeakebay.net/mod sc.htm.
Chesapeake Bay Program: CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data modeling.aspx
Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/comminee msc_projects.aspx'?menuitem=16525#stm
Chesapeake Bay Program: Questions Posed to the Reviewers of the Simulation of SAV and
Clarity in Shallow Waters.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/Ouestions Posed the SAV-C'laritv Reviewers 1 l-09.doc
Chesapeake Bay Models Source Code, Calibration Results, and
Databases Documentation
Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Source Code via the Chesapeake Community
Modeling Program Website
http://ches.communitvmodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/datalibrary.php
Scenario Builder Documentation, Source Code, and Database
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebav.net/Modeling/ScenarioBuilder/Scenario Builder/
Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.3 Watershed Model Scenario Inputs and Outputs
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/phase5/Phase53 Loads-Acres-BMPs/
Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Calibration Results
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/Modeling/phase5/Phase%205.3%20Calibration/Calibration_pdf/all_v
alidation.pdf.
Chesapeake Bay Land Use Data Documentation and Access
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Land Cover Data (CBLCD) Series.
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebav.net/Gis/CBLCD Series/
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2010. Review of Land-Use and Land Cover
Dataset and Methodology. September 2010.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/landuserev3.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model
Review. November 2008.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/cblcm report.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Kick-off Session for Developing Land
Use Projections and Alternative Future Scenarios for the Phase 5 Model.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/workshop.html
B-21 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Workshop: Integrated Land Use and
Watershed Management. March 7, 2005, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/IWLUPWorkshop.html
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program Documentation
Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-Quality Sampling Progress Report,
Calendar Year 2009. 10 p. 2010.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/msc/ntwqwg/FY09 Nontidal^Network Sjj
mmary.pdf
Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team. 2009. Recommendations to improve coordinated
nontidal monitoring, assessment and communication activities in support of the Chesapeake Bay
restoration: A report addressing STAC recommendations for monitoring reallocation.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 52993.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Development and Implementation of a
Process for Establishing Chesapeake Bay Program's Monitoring Program Priorities and
Objectives. March 2009.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/STACReviewPrioritiesFinal3-09.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Nontidal Water Quality Monitoring. November 2008. Chapter
V of Recommended Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis in the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring
Program, Revision 1-Draft.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/subcommittee/msc/amqawg/Chapter%205%20Nov%2008
%20Final.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2009. Workshop: Developing "Comparable"
Small Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Protocols. April 23-24, 2009.
http://wvvw.chesapeake.org/stac/siTiallwtrshdmonitoring.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Workshop: Evaluating the Design and
Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Shallow Water Monitoring Program. November 30-
December 1, 2007, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/SWMWorkshop.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2007. Developing Environmental
Indicators for Assessing the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. February 20, 2007,
Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/indicatorsworkshop.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2007. Thresholds and Non-Linear
Trajectories in Recovery of Eutrophic Coastal Ecosystems. February 14-15, 2007, Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/thresholds.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2006. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and
Technical Assessment Committee Monitoring, Assessment, and Indicator Review Subcommittee
B-22 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Meeting Report. September 2006.
http://www.chesapcake.org/stac/Pubs/STACIndicatorReview9-12-06.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Recommendations for Refinement of a
Spatially Representative Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. STAC Publication 05-006. August 2005.
http://www.chesapeake.oru/stac/Pubs/NTMonNetworkRep.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Final report of the Chesapeake Bay
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's workshop: Evaluating the Design and
Implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Shallow Water Monitoring Program. STAC Publication
05-003. May 1,2005.
http://www.criesapeakebav.net/content/publications/cbp I3286.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Assessing Progress and Effectiveness
through Monitoring Rivers and Streams. Report to the Task Force on Analysis of Non-tidal
Water Quality Modeling Results. STAC Publication 05-005.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/msc/ntwqwg/NT WOM_stac_Report.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2005. Recommendations for Refinement of a
Spatially Representative Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Report to the Task Force on Analysis of Non-tidal Water Quality Modeling Results.
STAC Publication 05-006.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/NTIVIonNetvvorkRep.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2004. Design of a Monitoring Network for
Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. November 22, 2004.
http://www.chesapeake.Org/stac/S WMMaterials/DraftDesignReport.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Establishing a Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Watershed Water-
Quality Network. 28 p.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/subcoiTimittee/insc/ntwqwg/Nontidal Monitoring Report.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Present Status and Future Trends in
Estuarine Monitoring Using Remote Sensing Technology: Satellite, Airborne, In-Situ.
Annapolis, Maryland. January 7-8, 2002.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/Reinote%20Sensing-revised.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Technical Review of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Basinwide Monitoring Program. December 2000.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/STAC-MonitoringStrategy.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1996. Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Monitoring Strategy: From
Airsheds To Living Resource Populations. November 1996.
http://nepis.eDa.gov/E.\e/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=2001831 Y.txt
B-23 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program Atlas-Volume 1: Water
Quality and Other Physiochemical Monitoring Programs. CBP/TRS 34/89. Annapolis, MD.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZYPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000VWBC.txt
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program Atlas-Volume II:
Biological and Living Resource Monitoring Programs. CBP/TRS 35/89. Annapolis, MD.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPURL.cgi7Dockey-2000VW22.txt
Chesapeake Bay Quality Assurance Program Documentation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Quality Management Plan for the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office. October 2010.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/CBPQ QMP 2010 final.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Data Analysis Issues Tracking System.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/DAlTS 9 21 IO.pdf
Small, Tamara D., Melissa R. Ide. Jennifer M. Keesee (NOAA National Estuarine Research
Reserve). 2010. NERRS Centralized Data Management Operations Manual. Version 6.3.
February 2010. http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/documents/manual.pdf
Michael, Bruce, Mark Trice, Ben Cole, and Matt Hall (Maryland Department of Natural
Resources). 2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Maryland DNR Chesapeake Bay
Shallow Water Monitoring Program for the period July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. July 2009.
http://inddnr.chesapeakebav.net/evesonthebay/documents/MdDNR_SWM_QAPP 2009final.pdf
College of William and Mary, School of Marine Science. 2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan
for the Rappahannock, Corrotoman and York Rivers & Potomac River Virginia Embayments
Shallow Water Monitoring (For the Period: January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009). 2009.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/VlMS_2009 RappPotYork QAPP Fin
al All Edits.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. June 2005.
http://ww\v.epa.gov/region3/esc/qa/pdf/qmp-chesbay.pdf.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1996. Recommended Guidelines for Sampling and Analyses in the
Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program. CBP/TRS 148/96, EPA 903-R-96-006. August 1996.
www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 13101 .pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audits and Coordinated Split Sample
Programs
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2010 Final Report. May 2010.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/2010 Blind Audit 'Report.pdf
B-24 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Zimmerman. Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2009. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2009 Final Report. July 2009.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/piibs/2009_Blind Audit Report.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2008 Final Report. June 2008.
http://arcliive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/2Q08 Blind Audit_Rcport.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2007. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2007 Final Report. June 2007.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2Q07 Blind Audit Report.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2006. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2006 Final Report. August 2006.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006_Blind Audit_Report.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2005 Final Report. June 2005.
http://archive.criesapeakebay.net/pubs/2005 Blind Audit Report.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2004. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year
2004 Final Report. June 2004.
http://archive.chcsapeakebav.net/pubs/2004 Blind Audit Report.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe: Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: Fiscal Year 2003
Final Report. July 7, 2003.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/doc-BlindAudit2Q03.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2003. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: 2002 Final
Report. February 28, 2003.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/Dubs/quality assurance/doc-BlindAuditText20023.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2003. Chesapeake Bay Program Mainstem Coordinated Split Sample
Program Report, May 2001 to May 2002. January, 2003.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/subcomiTiittee/msc/amqawg/doc-MainsplitSuiTi01-02.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 2002. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit: 2001 Final
Report. November 2002.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/doc-blind audit 2001.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2002. Procedures for Sampling and Analyzing Mainstream and
Tributary Coordinated Split Samples. February 25, 2002.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.nct/pubs/qualitv_assurance/doc-cssp-procedures.pdf
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2000. The 1998 - 1999 Split Sample Study
for Chesapeake Bay Program Phytoplankton, Microzooplankton and Mesozooplankton
Monitoring. June 8, 2000.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/doc-PhvtoMicroSplit06-OO.pdf
B-25 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2000. Split Sampling Study for the
Maryland and Virginia Mesozooplankton Monitoring Programs: Final Report. ICPRB Report 00-
3. June 2000.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/quality assurance/doc-MesosplitreportQ6-OO.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999. Chesapeake Bay Program Mainstem Coordinated Split Sample
Program Report 1994-1998. EPA-903-R-99-024.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/doc-cssp9498.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl and Carolyn Keefe. 1998. Chesapeake Bay Program Blind Audit Nutrient
Results. November 20, 1998.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/doc-1998BlindAudit.PDF
Analytical Methods Comparison Studies
Salley, Betty A. 1995. A Comparison of Preservation Techniques for Dissolved Nutrient
Analyses. March 1995. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/quality assurance/A%20Cornparison%20of[l/o20Preservali
on%20Techniques.pdf
Salley, Betty A. and Kevin Curling. 1984. Comparison Study of Five Instruments Measuring
Dissolved Organic Carbon for the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program. December 8, 1994.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/Comparison%20Study%20of%20Five
%20lnstruments.pdf
Salley, Betty, Kevin Curling, Bruce Neilson. 1992. A Comparison of Two Methods of Measuring
Dissolved Organic Carbon. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/Comparison%20of%20Two%20Metho
ds%20of%20Measuring%20Dissolved%20Organic%20Carbon.pdf
Zimmerman, Carl F. 1990. Estuarine Nutrient Analyses: A Comparison of Sample Handling
Techniques and the Analyses of Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Chlorophyll a. University of
Maryland Center for Estuarine and Environmental Studies, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
Solomons, MD.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/Estuarine%20Nutrient%20Analyses.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1987. Nitrogen and Phosphorous Determinations in Estuarine Waters:
A Comparison of Methods Used in Chesapeake Bay Monitoring. CBP/TRS/7/87. August 1987.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/Nitrogen%20Phosphorus%20Determin
ations%20in%20Estuarine%20Waters.pdf
Salley, Betty A., Julie G. Bradshaw, Bruce J. Neilson. 1986. Results of Comparative Studies of
Preservation Techniques for Nutrient Analysis on Water Samples. September 24, 1986. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/qualitv assurance/Nutrient%20Analysis%20on%20Water
%20Samples.pdf
B-26 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1986. Methodological Comparisons for Nitrogen and Chlorophyll
Determinations in Estuarine Water Samples. 1986.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/quality assurance/Methodological%20Comparisons%20f
p%20Nitroaen Chlorophyll.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Biological Resource Monitoring
Data Access
Chesapeake Bay Program: Chesapeake Bay Program Data Hub
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/dataandtools.aspx7rnenuitemH4872
Chesapeake Bay Program: CBP Water Quality Database (1984-present).
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data waterquality.aspx
Chesapeake Bay Program: Living Resources Data Sets.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/data/historicaldb/livinaresourcesmain.htm
Chesapeake Bay Program: Map of Mainstem and Tributary Stations.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/maps/2004-149.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program: Online Water Quality Data Dictionary.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/data/data dict.cfm?DB CQDE=CBP WQDB
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1993. Guide to Using Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality
Monitoring. CBP/TRS 78/92. March 1993. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/\vquser.pdt'
Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment 2009: A
Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. April 2010.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_505l3.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment 2008: A
Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. March 2009.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 46582.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment 2007: A
Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. March 2008. CBP/TRS-291-08. EPA-903-R-08-002.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 26038.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2007. Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health& Restoration Assessment Part
One: Ecosystem Health. A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. CBP/TRS/283/07. EPA 903
R-07-001.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp I5548.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health& Restoration Assessment Part
Two: Restoration Efforts. A Report to the Citizens of the Bay Region. CBP/TRS/284/07. EPA
B-27 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
903 R-07-002. 2006.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12894.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Assessments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of
Sediment in the Upper Monocacy River Watershed Frederick and Carroll Counties, Maryland.
December 3, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/MD TMDLs/MonocacvRiver/UppcrMoncacySedAL DR.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load
Sediment in the Lower Monocacy River Watershed Frederick, Carroll, and Montgomery
Counties Maryland. March 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/MD TMDLs/MonocacyRiver/LowerMonocacvSedAL DR.pdF
U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Responding to
Climate Change in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Draft Report Fulfilling Section 202(d) of
Executive Order 13508. November 19, 2009.
http://executiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/file.axd?file=2009%2fl I %2f202d+Climate+Change+R
eport.pdf
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2009. Monitoring Progress in
Addressing Climate Change across the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. May 22, 2009. Columbia,
Maryland. hrtp://www.chesapeake.org/stac/workshop.html
Virginia Governor's Commission on Climate Change: Final Report: A Climate Change Action
Plan. December 15,2008.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/info/docuinents/climate/CCC Final Report-
Final I2l52008.pdf
Science and Technical Advisory Committee. 2008. Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay
State-of-the-Science Review and Recommendations. STAC Publication 08-004. September
2008. http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/climchangereport.pdf
The Maryland Climate Change Commission: Climate Action Plan. August 27, 2008.
http://www.mdclimatechange.us/
Chesapeake Bay Economic/Cost Effectiveness Evaluation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2010. The Economic Argument for Cleaning Up the Bay and Its
Rivers. November 2010.
http://www.cbf.org/Docuinent.Doc?id=591
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2004. Cost Effective Strategies for the Bay: 6 Smart Investments
for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction. December 2004. Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesbay. state. va.us/Publications/cost%20effective.pdf
B-28 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Economic Analyses of Nutrient and Sediment
Reduction Actions to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 2004.
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/ecoanalvses.htm
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel. 2004. Saving a National Treasure:
Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
http://archivc.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/blueribbon/Blue_RibbonJfullreport.pdr
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2003. The Cost of a Clean Bay: Assessing Funding Needs
Throughout the Watershed. January 2003. Annapolis, MD.
http://www.chesbay. state. va.us/Publications/C2K. funding.pdf
Chesapeake Bay NPDES Permitting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Urban Stormwater Approach for the Mid-Atlantic
Region and Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 3,
Philadelphia, PA. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/
Linker, L.C. 2005. Labile and Refractory Organic Nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay Wastewater
Treatment Plants: Measurement and Model Simulation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. http://www.chesapeakebay.net
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. NPDES Permitting Approach for Discharges of
Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed—December 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA. 2004.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 28937.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Memorandum from James Hanlon to Jon
Capacasa, March 3, 2004. Annual Permit Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Permits
Designed to Protect Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from Excess Nutrient Loading under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/npdes/pdf/cries bay nutrients hanlon.pdf
Linker, Lewis C. 2003. A Comparison of Estimated Water Quality Effects of Monthly and
Annual Based Load Point Source Load Reductions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
http://nsgd.aso.uri.edu/riu/riuc04001/pdffiles/papers/21334.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Science and Technical Advisory Committee. 2007. Bioavailability of Organic Nitrogen from
Treated Wastewater. February 2007. STAC Publication 07-001.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/OrganicNitrouenReport.pdf'
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Maximizing the Dual Benefits of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Processes: Reducing Nutrients and Emerging
B-29 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Contaminants. Washington. DC. May 12-13. 2008.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/edcworkshop.html
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop: Technical and Economical Feasibility
ofNutrient Removal Limits of Treatment, Herndon. Virginia. May 20-21. 2003.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/workshop.html
Chesapeake Bay Onsite Waste Treatment Systems
CH2M Hill: Anne Arundel County Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems.
http ://w ww .chesapeakebay .net
Vandivort, Tamara and Clement Solomon (West Virginia University): WRI-71: Performance
Evaluation of Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment Options: Final Report. Assistance ID
Number: CB-97327301-0. April 14, 2010. http://www.chesapeakebav.net
WEFTEC 2008 Workshop: Demonstrated Processes for Limit of Technology Nutrient Removal -
Achievable Limits and Statistical Reliability. Workshop at WEFTEC 2008, Chicago, October 18,
2008.
http://www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&femplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&
Contentl 0=11812
University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center: Community Financing for Septic System
Management in the Inland Bays Watershed A White Paper Report. January 29, 2008.
http://www.efc.umd.edu/pdf/DE_Septic Report.pdf
EPA Published TMDL Related Guidance
Hanlon, J.A. and D. Keehner. 2010. Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum:
Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm
Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs. November 12. 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Options for Expressing Daily Loads in TMDLs.
June 22, 2007. Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, Washington, DC.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/2007_Q6_26_tmdl_draft dailyJoa
ds tech-2.pdf
Grumbles, B.H. 2006. Memorandum-Establishing TMDL Daily Loads in Light of the Decisions
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. EPA, el al. No.
05-5015, (April 25, 2006) and Implications for NPDES Permits. November 15, 2006.
http://www.fedcenter.gov/ kd/go.cfm?destination=Showltem<emlD=6204
Wayland, R.H. and J. Hanlon. 2002. Memorandum: Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load
(TDML) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit
Requirements Based on Those WLAs. November 22. 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection
B-30 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Agency, Washington, DC.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/final-wwtmdl.pdf
Suffm, C.H. 2002. Memorandum: EPA Review of 202 Section 303(d) Lists and Guidelines for
Reviewing TMDLs under Existing Regulations issues in 1992. May 20, 2002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/csmemo.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Guidelines for Reviewing TMDLs under Existing
Regulations Issues in 1992. May 20, 2002.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/final52002.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs: First
Edition. EPA 841-R-00-002.
http://wwvv.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pathogen all.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Draft Guidance for Water-Quality Based
Decisions: the TMDL Process. EPA 841-D-99-001.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/propguidjjuidance.cfm
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. 1998. Report of the
Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. EPA 100-R-
98-006. July 1998.
http://water.epa.gov/lavvsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/trndl/upload/2004_l2_14_tmdl _faca_facaall.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. 1998. EPA 100-R-98-006. June 1998.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cvvaytmdl/upload/2Q04 12 14 tmdl faca_facaall.pdf
Perciasepe, R. 1997. Memorandum: New Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). August 8, 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lavvsguidance/cvva/tmdl/ratepace.cfin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidelines for Reviewing TMDLs under Existing
Regulations Issues in 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://vvvvvv.epa.gov/owovv7tindl/giiidance/final52Q02.htinl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. U.S. EPA Protocol for Developing Sediment
TMDLs-First Edition. 841 B-99-004. October 1999.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
http://vvww.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/sediment/pdf/sediment.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. U.S. EPA Protocol for Developing Nutrient
TMDLs-First Edition. 841 B-99-007. November 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
http://vvvvvv.epa.gov/ovvow/tmdl/niitrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf
B-31 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Related Correspondence
Jackson, L.P. 2010. Response to Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell. July 15, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl
McDonnell, R.F.: Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. June 15, 2010.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pptpdf/bav6151 Ogovltrepa.pdf
Garvin, Shawn M.: EPA letter to the Principals' Staff Committee. December 29, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/bav letter 12Q9.pdf
Garvin, Shawn M.: EPA letter to Principals' Staff Committee: Schedule for TMDL
Implementation. June 11, 2010.
http://www.epa. gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/TM DLScheduleLetter.pdf
Early, William C.: EPA letter to the Principals' Staff Committee. November 4, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/tmdl implementation letter 110409.pdf
Early, William C.: EPA letter to the Principals' Staff Committee. November 3, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/Bay TMDL Loads_Letter.pdf
Welsh, Donald S.: EPA letter to the Principals' Staff Committee. September 11, 2008.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/EPARegionllllettertoPSC091108.pdf
Other TMDL Related Documentation
Freedman, Paul L. 2003. Navigating the TMDL Process: Evaluation and Improvements. October
2003. Water Environment Research Foundation
http://www.werf.org
Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water
Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management.
Water Science and Technology Board, and National Resource Council. The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
http://www.nas.org
Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL Document
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: September 24, 2010 Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Document.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/drafttmdlexec.html
Chesapeake Bay States' Tributary Strategies and Related
Implementation Plans
Delaware Tributary Strategy
http://www.criesapeakebav.net/wqctributarvde.htm
B-32 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2000. Pollution Control
Plans. Introducing Our Pollution Control Strategies. Dover, DE.
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/scctions/watershed/ws/pcs.htm
District of Columbia Tributary Strategy
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/waterqualitycriteria/doc-
DC Tributary Strategy 2004 public version 071204.pdf
Maryland Tributary Strategy
http://www.dnr.state.ind.us/bay/tribstrat/
New York Tributary Strategy
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/wqctributarynv.htm
Pennsylvania Tributary Strategy
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/hosting/pawatersheds/chesapeakebay/docs/TribStrategy.pdf
Bryant, L. Preston. 2009. Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up Plan: Progress Report.
December 2009. Richmond, VA.
http://lcg2.state.va.iis/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/RD4712009/$file/RD471 .pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Tributary
Strategy. January 2005. Richmond, VA.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.netypubs/VA%20ts statewide AH%202005.pdf
Virginia Tributary Strategy
http://www.naturalresources. virginia.gov/lnitiati vcs/TributaryStrategies/FinalizedTribStrats/ts_st
atewide All.pdf
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. Commonwealth of Virginia - Tributary
Restoration Strategy for the Rappahannock River and Northern Neck Coastal Basins. Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA.
http://www.deq.state.va.us/pdt7strategies/rapp.pdf
West Virginia Tributary Strategy
http://www.wvnet.org/
Chesapeake Bay Watershed States' Final Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plans
Delaware
http://www.wr.dnrec.delaware.gov/lnformation/WatershedInfo/Documents/Chesapeake%20Phas
ft%201%20WlP/DE PHASE1 WIPwAppendices I1292010.pdf
District of Columbia
http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/frames.asp?doc=/ddoe/lib/ddoe/tindl/Final_District_ot^Coluimbia W'lP
Rav TMDL.pdf
B-33 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Maryland
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLHome/Pages/Final Bay W1P 2010.
aspx
New York
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water pdf/cbavstratfinal.pdf
Pennsylvania
http://files.dep.state.pa.iis/Water/Chesapeake%20Bay%20Program/ChesapeakePortalFiles/WlPs/
Chesapeake%20Bav%20WIP%20%20November%2029.%202010.pdf
Virginia: Commonwealth of Virginia: Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plan Revision of the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Sediment Reduction
Tributary Strategy. November 29, 2010.
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil and waler/documents/vatindlwip.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/rea3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/finalWlPS/VirginiaWlPPortfolioNov292010.pdf
West Virginia: http://www.wvca.us/bav/tmdl.cfm
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans Related
Documentation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 2010. Evaluation of Final WIPs. December 29, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 2010. Evaluation of Draft WIPs. September 24, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/WIPEVALUATIONS/PortfolioOfDraftWIPs.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Guide for EPA's Evaluation of Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plans. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/Guide for EPA WIP Evaluation 4-2-IO.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M.
Garvin to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources, December 29,
2009.
http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/bav letter 1209.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Letter from Region 3, Acting Administrator
William C. Early to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources,
November 4, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/tmdl implementation letter 110409.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Correspondence: November 12 WIP Submissions
Follow-Up Emails from EPA Senior Management to Bay Jurisdictions.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl
B-34 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Correspondence: November Post-Closure Meeting
Follow-Up Emails from EPA Senior Management to Bay Jurisdictions.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Correspondence: October/November Pre-Closure
Meeting Emails from EPA Senior Managers to Bay Jurisdictions.
http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebavtmdl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Correspondence: September/October Emails from
EPA Senior Managers to Bay Jurisdictions: Discussion of follow up actions from initial staff-
level WIP meetings, http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmd 1
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Workshop. 2010. Exemplary Strategies to Protect
and Restore Urban Watersheds: Preparing for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Watershed
Implementation Plans.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stormwater.html
Two-year Milestones
Chesapeake Bay Program: 2011 Milestones for Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus. 2010.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC 2009 allmilestones.pdf
Monthly Bay TMDL Webinars
Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Streams, Creeks, Rivers and Chesapeake Bay.
September 28, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/DraftTMDLPresentationWEBINAR9281OFINA
L corrected.pdf
District of Columbia Department of Environment. 2010. Update on the District of Columbia's
WIP for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. August 19th, 2010.
http://ww\v. epa. gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/Wl Pwebinarcoinp2.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 6 in Webinar
Series. August 19, 2010. http:/Avvvw.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/Webinar6-gksDraft-
rev2.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 5 in Webinar
Series. JulyS, 2010.
http://www.epa.uov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/BavTMDLWebinar UpdateS 070810.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 4 in Webinar
Series. June?, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/TMDLWebinar 0607IO_Update4_final.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 3 in Webinar
Series. May 17,2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdfchesbav/TMDLWebinar 051710 Update3 final.pdf
B-35 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 2 in Webinar
Series. March 25, 2010.
http://w\vvv.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdt7pdf chesbay/TMPLWebinar325Final.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Bay Models Webinar: A Guide to Better Understanding and How to
Get Involved for the Bay Watershed Agricultural Community. March 22, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/AgBavTMDLWebinarPresentationFinal322_2Q
IQ.pdf
Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring Local Waters and the Chesapeake Bay. No. 1 in Webinar
Series. February 25, 2010. http:/Avww.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/CBTMDLwebinar2-
25-10-final-final.ppt
2009 Public Meetings
Fredericksburg, VA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/Fredericksburg.pdf
Penn Laird, VA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 16, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/PennLaird.pdf
Chesapeake, VA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 15, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/Chesapeake.pdf
Williamsburg, VA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 15, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/Williainsburg.pdf
Falls Church, VA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 14, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/2009mtgsummaries/FallsChurch.pdf
Wye Mills, MD Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 11, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/2009rntgsumrnaries/WveMills.pdf
Laurel, DE Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 10, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf _chesbay/2009mtgsummaries/Delaware.pdf
Volk, Jennifer: Delaware's Efforts to Improve Water Quality in the Chesapeake. December 10,
2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/DE CBPTMDL 121009a.pdf
Baltimore, MD Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 8, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/Baltimore.pdf
Eskin, Richard A.: Understanding and Moving to Implementation of the Bay TMDL: WIPs and
Milestones. December 8, 2009.
http://www.epa. gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbav/BavTMDLPublicMeetingMD_120809Eskiri final
.pdf
B-36 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Binghamton, NY Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. December 1, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdt7pdf chesbay/2009iTitgsummaries/Bmghamton.pdf
New York Next Steps and Watershed Implementation Plans Susquehanna and Chemung River
Basins. December 1. 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/FinalNewYorkRAEl 2 1 09.pdf
Challenges of Nutrient Reduction in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin. December 1, 2009.
http://wvvw.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdt7pdt' chesbav/ChcsapeakeBayTMDLPresentationPP97Dec 120
09.pdf
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: Virginia Virginia's Approach s to
Developing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan. December 2009.
http://wwvv.epa.aov/reg3vvapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/BayTMDLDecMeetings 12809JVA.pdf
Lancaster, PA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 23, 2009.
http://www.epa.Kov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/Lancaster.pdf
State College, PA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 19, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/StateCollege.pdf
Williamsport, PA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 18, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/2009mtgsummaries/Williamsport.pdf
Wilkes Barre, PA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 17, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/2009mtgsummaries/WilkesBarre.pdf
Washington, DC Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 16, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesba\72Q09mtgsummaries/WashingtonDC.pdf
Martinsburg, West Virginia Chesapeake Bay TMDL Public Meeting Summary. November 4,
2009. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/2009mtgsuiTimaries/Martinsburg.pdf
Introducing the Chesapeake TMDL Process to Virginia. October 2, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf7pdf chesbav/Bav TMDL WebinarCollated 10-02-
09 vl.pdf
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Plotting the path to restored Bay water quality. August 4, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/Webcast Aug42009_v3.pdf
2010 Public Meetings
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring West Virginia's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Romney, WV. November 4, 2010.
http:/Avww.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/WVRomneyEPAPresentati
nn Nov4.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Restoring
West Virginia's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Martinsburg, WV. November 3, 2010.
B-37 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/piibmtgagendas2Q 10/W VMartinsburgEPAPrese
ntation Nov3.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring New York's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Binghamton, NY. October 27, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/NYElmiraEPAPresentation
10 25 2010.pdf
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2010. Draft New York State Watershed
Implementation Plan For Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load. October 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/NYDraftCBayPlan.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring New York's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Elmira, NY. October 26, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbav/piibrntgagendas2Q10/N YElmiraEPAPresentation
10 25 201Q.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Pennsylvania's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Ashley, PA. October 21, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/pubmtgagendas2010/TMDL PA ASHLEY.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Pennsylvania's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Williamsport, PA. October 20, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/pubmtgagendas2010/TMDL PA WILLIAMSP
ORT.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Pennsylvania's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. State College, PA. October 19, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/TMDL PA STATE COL
LEGE.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Pennsylvania's Waterways and Chesapeake Bay. Lancaster, PA. October 18, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubrntgagendas2010/TMDL PA LANCASTER
.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Maryland's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Hagerstown, MD. October 14, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas20IO/MDHagerstownEPAPresen
tation.pdf
State of Maryland. 2010. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan. Annapolis,
Maryland. October 13, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdfj;hesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/PublicMeetingPresentation
MD annapolisW1P2010.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Maryland's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Annapolis, MD. October 13, 2010.
B-38 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
http://www.epa. gov/reg3vvapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas20 1 0/MDAnnapolisEPAPresenta
tion.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Maryland's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Easton, MD. October 12, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubrntgagendas2010/MDEastonEPAPresentatio
n.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Delaware's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Georgetown, DE. October 1 1, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf j:hesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/DEGeorgetownEPAPresen
tation revised.pdf
State of Delaware. 2010. Delaware's Role in Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its Waterways.
Dover, Delaware. 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/rea3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas20IO/DEChesapeakeWIP 101 I I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Virginia's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Hampton, VA. October 7, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/VAHamptonEPAPresentati
on.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Virginia's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Richmond, VA. October 6, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubintgagendas2010/VARichmondEPAPresenta
tion.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Virginia's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Annandale VA. October 5, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubrntgagendas2010/VAAnnandaleEPApresenta
tion.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Virginia's waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Harrisonburg, VA. October 4, 2010.
http://vvww.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/VAHarrisonburgEPAprese
ntation.pdf
Commonwealth of Virginia. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation
Plan. Richmond. Virginia. 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbav/pubmtgagendas2010/PublicMeetingPresentation
VA WIP20IO.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL:
Restoring the District District's waterways s and Chesapeake Bay. Public Meeting: District of
Columbia. September 29, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3vvapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/dcpublicineetingrakmods.pdf
B-39 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
D.C. Draft Phase 1 WIP. September 29, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/DCZoomeeting9_29.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III. 2010. Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL:
Restoring Streams, Creeks, Rivers and Chesapeake Bay. September 28, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf chesbay/DraftTMDLPresentationWEBINAR92810FlNA
L corrected.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Draft TMDL: Overview of the Draft TMDL and WIP Evaluations. September
24,2010.
http://www.epa.gov/rejg3wapd/pdt7pdf chesbay/BayDraftTMDLBriefingSlides9241 OCalls3.pdf
Federal Register Notices
Federal Register Notice: Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the public review of the
Draft Total Maximum Daily Load for the Chesapeake Bay. September 22, 2010.
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/09/22/2010-23678/clean-water-act-section-303d-
notice-for-the-public-review-of-the-draft-total-maximuiTi-dailv-load-tiTidl
Federal Register Notice: Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Preliminary Notice of Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Development for the Chesapeake Bay. September 17, 2009.
http://www.federalregister.gOV/articles/2009/09/l 7/E9-22410/clean-water-act-section-303d-
preliminarv-notice-of-total-maximum-dailv-load-tiTidl-development-for-the
Compliance and Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html
Independent Programmatic Reviews
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Program Independent Evaluation.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 51032.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2008. EPA Needs to Better Report Chesapeake Bay
Challenges: A Summary Report, 08-P-0199, July 2008. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/200807l4-08-P-0199.pdf
Government Accountability Office. 2008. Chesapeake Bay Program, Recent Actions Are
Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, GAO-08-1033T, July
2008; Washington, DC.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081033t.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2008. Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight
of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 08-P-0049, January 2008.
Washington, DC.
rittp://www.eDa.gov/oig/reports/2008/20080108-08-P-0049.pdf
B-40 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix B - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2007. Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed
Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, 2007-P-00031, September 2007. Washington, DC.
http://vv\vw.epa.aov/oig/reports/2007/20070910-2007-P-00031 .pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2007. Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Generally Comply With Major Clean Water Act Permits, 2007-P-00032, September 2007.
Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.aov/oiu/reports/2007/20070905-2007-P-00032.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2007. EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act
Requirements to Reduce Air Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed, 2007-P-
00009, February 2007. Washington, DC.
http://www.cpa.tiov/oig/rcports/2007/20070228-20Q7-P-00009.pdf
Office of Management and Budget. 2006. Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART),
Program Assessment, Chesapeake Bay Program, November 2006. Washington, DC.
http://wvvw.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectiTiore/detail/IQ004302.2006.html
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General and USDA OIGs. 2006. Saving the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources, 2007-P-
00004, November 2006. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/oiiz/reports/2007/20061120-2007-P-00004.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General. 2006. EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake
Bay, 2006-P-00032, September 6, 2006. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060906-2006-P-00032 glance.pdf
Government Accountability Office. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are
Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, GAO-06-96, October 28,
2005.
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0696high.pdf
B-41 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix C - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix C.
Record of Chesapeake Bay TMDL Related Chesapeake Bay Program Committee, Team
and Workgroup and Partner/Stakeholder Meetings
This appendix presents the dates of Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) committee, team, and
workgroup meetings since 2005 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a directly related topic
was on the agenda (Table C-l). A URL is provided to access the Chesapeake Bay Program
website's calendar of events and each meeting's respective agenda, advance briefing materials,
presentations or meeting summary.
This appendix also documents the record of Chesapeake Bay Program committee/workgroup and
stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal topic of the
meeting (Table C-2). The abbreviations used in Table C-2 are explained in Tables C-3 (EPA
staff names) and C-4 (organizations).
December 29, 2010
-------
Table C-1. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda
Date
January 10, 2005
January 1 1 , 2005
January 12, 2005
January 25, 2005
February 15, 2005
February 17, 2005
February 22, 2005
February 23, 2005
April 4, 2005
April 5, 2005
April 28, 2005
May 3, 2005
May 5, 2005
June 7, 2005
June 21, 2005
June 22, 2005
July 12, 2005
July 13, 2005
July 14, 2005
July 2 1,2005
July 21, 2005
July 28, 2005
August 3, 2005
August 18, 2005
August 24, 2005
Group
Executive Council
Modeling Subcommittee
Modeling Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Implementation
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Modeling Subcommittee
Modeling Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Modeling Subcommittee
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Implementation
Committee
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Water-Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5851&DefaultView=all&RequestDa1e=01/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5937&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5858&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5802&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5749&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.c1m?EventDetails=5507&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=5755&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/1 7/2005
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5721&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5932&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-5933&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5803&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5934&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6366&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5935&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5756&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6371&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5976&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5977&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6363&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5512&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6393&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay. net/calendar. cfm?EventDetails=6480&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6483&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6527&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5728&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/17/2005
T3
•o
IT)
Q.
x'
n
I
n
O)
T3
n
O)
*r
n
CD
o
NJ
O
ro
n
n>
3
cr
o>
-
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
September 13-14,
2005
September 28, 2005
October 3, 2005
October 11, 2005
October 13, 2005
October 26, 2005
October 27, 2005
November 21 , 2005
December 7, 2005
December 13-1 4,
2005
December 19, 2005
December 21, 2005
January 9, 2006
January 19, 2006
January 23, 2006
January 24-25, 2006
February 23, 2006
February 27, 2006
March 14-1 5, 2006
March 20, 2006
April 4-5, 2006
April 17, 2006
Group
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Principals' Staff
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
URL
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Meetlnfo/Sept05Mins.pdf
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5729&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6619&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5980&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5672&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5730&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=5806&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6844&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=5950&DefaultView=all&RequestDate= 12/1 7/2005
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Meetlnfo/Dec05Mins.pdf
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=6845&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/17/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6957&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/1 7/2005
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6934&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 7/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6832&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 7/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6935&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 7/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6940&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 7/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6985&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6936&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/1 7/2006
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Meetlnfo/Mar06Mins.pdf
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6937&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/17/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7065&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=4/1 7/2006
ittp://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6938&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/01/2006
D
Q.
X
O
I
O
T3
n>
O)
03
QJ
O
Ul
o
(D
3
cr
n>
-^
NJ
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
April 25, 2006
April 27, 2006
May 16, 2006
May 22, 2006
May 24, 2006
June 7-8, 2006
June 29, 2006
July 18-19, 2006
July 27, 2006
August 2 1,2006
August 28, 2006
August 30, 2006
September 6, 2006
September 18, 2006
September 27, 2006
October 2, 2006
October 16, 2006
October 17-1 8, 2006
October 26, 2006
November 2, 2006
November 6, 2006
November 14-15,
2006
December 12, 2006
December 13, 2006
January 9-10, 2007
Group
Water Quality
Assessment Workgroup
Sediment Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality
Assessment Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Modeling Subcommittee
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7293&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6986&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7072&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=7290&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6848&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7081&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6987&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=7066&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7453&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7455&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.ctm?EventDetails=7569&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7450&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7460&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7456&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6896&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=6776&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7457&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=7067&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6988&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/21/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=6777&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6777&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=7684&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=6989&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/01/2006
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6763&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/21/2006
http.7/archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7849&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/01/2007
Q.
x'
n
i
n
3-
(/>
O)
(D
3
cr
CO
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
January 16, 2007
March 1,2007
March 5, 2007
March 6-7, 2007
March 8, 2007
March 26, 2007
March 30, 2007
April 3-4, 2007
June 4, 2007
June 6, 2007
June 12-13, 2007
June 20-2 1,2007
July 10-11,2007
July 23, 2007
July 24, 2007
August 6, 2007
August 27, 2007
September 11, 2007
September 17, 2007
October 1,2007
October 9, 2007
Group
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workshop
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Wastewater Treatment
Workgroup
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Principals' Staff
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8083&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/01/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8045&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/01/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7819&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/01/2007
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Meetlnfo/March07Minutes.pdf
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7896&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 1/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8087&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/01/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=8269&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8028&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7823&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8255&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/1 8/2007
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Meetlnfo/Jun07Minutes.pdf
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8501&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8678&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8823&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8813&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8816&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8824&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/1 8/2007
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/meetings
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8825&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9029&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9034&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/1 8/2007
•o
-a
o
n>
3
cr
n>
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
October 1 5, 2007
October 15, 2007
October 25, 2007
November 16, 2007
November 19, 2007
December 11-12,
2007
December 17, 2007
December 17, 2007
December 18, 2007
January 8, 2008
January 10,2008
January 22, 2008
January 23, 2008
January 24, 2008
January 3 1,2008
February 7, 2008
February 28, 2008
March 5, 2008
March 13, 2008
March 17, 2008
Group
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8030&DefaultView-all&ReqLiestDate-1 0/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8826&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9098&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=91 94&DefaultView=all&RequestDate= 1 1/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8827&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/18/2007
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/December2007quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9246&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8829&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/1 8/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9212&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/18/2007
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9046&DefaultView=all&RequestDate-01/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9301&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9043&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9159&DefaultView=all&RequestDate-01/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9302&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9296&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9356&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9369&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9374&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9370&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 8/2008
http.7/archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9377&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/18/2008
•a
T3
Q.
x'
n
i
n
QJ
T3
n
01
7?
fD
CD
ai
n
(71
n
0>
ro
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
March 19, 2008
March 25-26, 2008
March 26, 2008
March 27, 2008
April 8, 2008
ApriM 0,2008
April 22-23, 2008
April 28-29, 2008
May 19, 2008
May 27, 2008
June 2, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 5, 2008
June 18-19, 2008
June 19, 2008
June 24, 2008
July 2, 2008
July 3, 2008
July 14, 2008
July 17, 2008
Group
Principals' Staff
Committee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Nutrient Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9413&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 8/2008
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/march2008quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9161&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9422&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9414&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9471&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9376&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/18/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9316&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/1 8/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9486&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9537&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9155&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/20/2008
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/june2008quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9538&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9553&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9539&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=9233&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9048&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9540&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9639&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9541&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
•o
TO
0>
3
Q.
x'
n
I
o
0)
T3
ro
CD
n
o
n>
n
n>
3
a-
n>
-
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
or a
July 21, 2008
July 23, 2008
August 4, 2008
August 6, 2008
August 14, 2008
August 19, 2008
August 19, 2008
August 2 1-22, 2008
September 8-9,
2008
September 12, 2008
September 16-17,
2008
September 18, 2008
September 22, 2008
September 25, 2008
September 29, 2008
October 6, 2008
October 9, 2008
October 20, 2008
October 20, 2008
Group
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Reasonable Assurance
Workgroup
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Reasonable Assurance
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Reasonable Assurance
Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Modeling Subcommittee
Reasonable Assurance
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
I URL " 1
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9534&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9734&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9725&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9735&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9543&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9619&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9736&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9299&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9721&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9733&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/september2008quarteriy.html
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9728&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http.7/archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9784&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9546&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9536&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9157&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9547&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=9780&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-10/20/2008
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9773&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
r>
I
n
m
in
fa
T3
n
O)
CD
01
n
00
o
n>
o
o>
3
a-
ISJ
ID
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
October 22, 2008
October 23, 2008
October 30, 2008
October 31 , 2008
November 6-7, 2008
November 1 9, 2008
November 20, 2008
November 20, 2008
November 21, 2008
November 26, 2008
December 4, 2008
Decembers, 2008
December 9-10,
2008
December 11, 2008
December 11, 2008
December 1 5, 2008
December 18, 2008
December 18, 2008
January 6-7, 2009
January 8, 2009
Group
Nutrient Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Chesapeake Executive
Council
Sediment Workgroup
Wastewater Treatment
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Tributary Strategy
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Chesapeake Action Plan
Partners Meeting
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9168&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9548&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9775&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9865&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9795&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9922&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=9777&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=:9923&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/20/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9800&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9916&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/28/2008
http.7/archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9778&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9158&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/28/2008
http://wv\w.chesapeake.org/stac/december08quarterly.html
http://archive. chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=9226&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9981&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/28/2008
http://archive. chesapeakebay.net/calendar. cfm?EventDetails=9774&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9211&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/1 9/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar. cfm?EventDetails=9779&DefaultView=all&RequestDate= 12/28/2008
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9964&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9895&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
T3
-a
n
3
a.
x'
0
I
o
a)
T3
n>
CD
ai
n
IX)
o
fD
o
fD
3
cr
ft>
-
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2 Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
January 12, 2009
January 13, 2009
January 1 3, 2009
January 14, 2009
January 15, 2009
January 22, 2009
January 26, 2009
February 2, 2009
February 5, 2009
February 9, 2009
February 17, 2009
February 17, 2009
February 18, 2009
February 19-20,
2009
February 23, 2009
February 24, 2009
February 25, 2009
February 26, 2009
March 9, 2009
Group
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Sediment Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Wastewater Treatment
Workgroup
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Steering
Committee
URL ~ ~ ~ 1
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9901&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails-9980&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-01/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10020&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net;calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10091&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9983&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/1 1/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9896&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net;calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9903&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9913&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9897&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9904&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9984&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10119&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10149&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.netycalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9867&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9920&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9955&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9817&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-02/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9872&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9921&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/30/2009
T3
O>
n
I
n
n>
in
Ol
T3
ID
01
7T
fD
CD
OJ
r>
i-»
o
o
fO
n
(D
3
O"
n>
-^
NJ
IO
ISJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
March 10-11,2009
March 16, 2009
April 6, 2009
April 6, 2009
April 7-8, 2009
April 15-16, 2009
April 16-1 7, 2009
April 20-21, 2009
April 23-24, 2009
April 24, 2009
May 18, 2009
June 1 , 2009
June 9, 2009
June 9, 2009
June 16, 2009
June 22, 2009
June 23, 2009
July 6, 2009
July 8, 2009
July 20, 2009
July 22, 2009
Group
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Steering
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Steering
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Principals' Staff
Committee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Criteria
Assessment Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Wastewater Workgroup
Modeling Subcommittee
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Modeling Subcommittee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Principals' Staff
Committee
URL
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/march09quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10153&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9914&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10096&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9965&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10097&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9868&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10103&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9991&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10238&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/1 1/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10241&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=9915&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10305&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=1 031 9&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/1 1/2009
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/june09quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10242&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10335&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10345&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9966&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10243&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10348&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/30/2009
T3
T3
n>
3
Q.
x"
o
I
o
OJ
T3
CD
QJ
n
O
n>
o
n
3
cr
ro
ID
ro
o
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
or a
Date
August 24, 2009
September 3, 2009
September 8-9,
2009
September 9, 2009
September 1 0, 2009
September 14, 2009
September 15, 2009
September 17-18,
2009
September 19, 2009
September 21 , 2009
September 29-30,
2009
October 5, 2009
October 6-7, 2009
October 8, 2009
October 9, 2009
October 19, 2009
October 22, 2009
October 23, 2009
October 27, 2009
Group
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee/Local
Government Advisory
Committee
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Modeling Subcommittee
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Sediment Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
I URL " ~~ 1
http.>/archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10403&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/30/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10406&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/sept09quarterly.html
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10244&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10402&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/30/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10458&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10408&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=9874
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10193&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/30/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10412&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.ne1/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10404&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/30/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10491&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/31/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-9967&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-10/31/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10476&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/31/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10492&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/31/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10245&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/31/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10526&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/26/2009
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10431&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9959&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=10/26/2009
T3
T3
13
Q.
x'
n
i
n
QJ
-a
n
QJ
00
01
n
M
ISJ
a
n
n
m
3
cr
m
-i
ro
10
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
November 2, 2009
November 5-6, 2009
November 18, 2009
November 20, 2009
November 30, 2009
December 8-9, 2009
December 14, 2009
December 15, 2009
December 18, 2009
December 18, 2009
January 11, 2010
February 1, 2010
Februarys, 2010
February 12, 2010
February 17, 2010
March 11,2010
March 15,2010
March 23, 2010
March 29, 2010
March 29, 2010
March 31 -April 1,
2010
Group
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Wastewater Workgroup
CAP-TMDL Tech call
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Nonpoint BMP
Workgroup
Sediment Workgroup
Urban Stormwater
Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Reevaluation Technical
Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Management Board
Agriculture Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Modeling Subcommittee
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10527&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9871&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10547&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10554&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10558&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/26/2009
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/dec09quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10572&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10573&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 2/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10537&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9962&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/26/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10248&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=01/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10589&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/26/2010
http://archive. chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?eventdetails=1 0636
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10249&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10113&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=02/28/2009
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10555&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10251&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10619&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10714&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10679&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=03/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10657&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
n
3
Q.
X
O
n
:T
o>
T3
n>
so
03
O)
r>
I-*
U>
O
n>
o
n>
3
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
or a
Date
April 5-6, 2010
April?, 2010
ApnIS, 2010
April 12, 2010
April 19, 2010
April 19,2010
April 21, 2010
April 22, 2010
April 22-24, 2010
April 26, 2010
April 27, 2010
April 28, 2010
April 29-30, 2010
May3, 2010
May5, 2010
May 10, 2010
May 17, 2010
May 21, 2010
May 24, 2010
May 26, 2010
May 27, 2010
June 1,2010
Group
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Forestry Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Management Board
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Wastewater Workgroup
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Agriculture Workgroup
Stormwater Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Forestry Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
CB Atmospheric
Deposition Meeting
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Urban/Suburban
Stormwater Workgroup
Agriculture Workgroup
Water Quality Goal
mplementation Team
I URL " " ~ — |
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10559&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10715&DefaultView-all&RequestDate 04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10556&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10736&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http. //arch ive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lei idai.cfm?EventDetails-10620&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10738&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10590&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10746&DefaultView-all&RequestDate 04/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=10637
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10737&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10747&DefaultView-all&RequestDate 04/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10775&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10740&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=04/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10609&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10778&DefaultView=all&ReauestDate 05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.neVcalendar.cfm?EventDetails=10776&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10252&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10859&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10851&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10858&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=05/26/2010
fittp.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails-10862&DefaultView-all&RequestDate-05/26/2010
http.//archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfrn?EventDetails=10850&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/26/2010
T3
T3
n>
^
Q.
x'
n
i
n
CD
01
n
o
ro
n
n>
3
NJ
O
-------
Table C-2. Record of CBP Office committee, team, and workgroup meetings/conference calls where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or a
directly related topic was on the meeting/conference call agenda (continued)
Date
June?, 2010
June 8-9, 2010
June 17, 2010
June 21, 2010
July 6, 2010
July 12, 2010
July 13, 2010
July 15-16, 2010
July 20, 2010
July 21, 2010
July 22, 2010
August 5-6, 2010
August 16, 2010
September 13, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 21, 2010
October 25, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 18-19,
2010
Decembers, 2010
December 1, 2010
Decembers, 2010
December 14-15,
2010
Group
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Management Board
Wastewater Workgroup
Water Quality GIT
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Modeling Subcommittee
Citizen Advisory Meeting
Management Board
Wastewater Workgroup
Sediment Workgroup
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Sediment Workgroup
Principals' Staff
Committee
Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team
Point Source Workgroup
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Watershed Technical
Workgroup
Analytical Methods and
Quality Assurance
Workgroup
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
URL
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10852&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/26/2010
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/june10quarterly.html
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10866&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10879&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=06/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10933&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10929&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10658&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EvehtDetails=10562&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10929&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10941&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10939&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=07/26/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=10861
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/ca lendar.cfm?EventDetails=10936&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=08/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10937&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=09/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=11023&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=11035&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay. net/calendar. cfm?EventDetails=10254&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 0/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=11080&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=10557&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 1/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=10986
http.7/archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=11111&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=12/20/2010
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=1 1 1 1 3&DefaultView=all&RequestDate=1 2/20/201 0
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/dec10quarterly.html
Q.
x'
n
I
n
o>
•o
(D
01
CD
01
n
n
n>
3
a-
rt>
NJ
O
-------
Table C-3. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings
topic of the meeting
since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
Date
January 9, 2008
January 10, 2008
January 15, 2008
January 1 8, 2008
January 23, 2008
February 21, 2008
March 10, 2008
March 19,2008
March 21 , 2008
March 28, 2008
April 10,2008
April 1 1 , 2008
April 22-23, 2008
May 3, 2008
June 6, 2008
June 16, 2008
June 19,2008
August 19, 2008
August 2 1,2008
August 26, 2008
September 17, 2008
September 18, 2008
September 29, 2008
October 7, 2008
October 17, 2008
October 20, 2008
October 24, 2008
October 30, 2009
November 6-7, 2008
November 18, 2008
November 19, 2008
Meeting
VADEQ
DE DNREC
WVDEP, WVDA, WVCA
PA DEP
CBP STAC
CBP CAC
Bay Funders Network
CBP PSC
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
MDE
CBP RTWG
PA DEP
CBP WQSC
CBP STAC
EPA HQs briefing with Ben Grumbles
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
CBP PSC
Reasonable Assurance Action Team
CBP LGAC
Congressional Staff Bay Briefing and Boat Tour
CBP STAC
CBP USWG
CBP WQSC
PA Public Television
Society of Environmental Journalists
CBP WQSC
MDE and MDNR
I CBP RTWG
CBP WQSC
Harrisburg Homebuilders
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Location
Richmond, VA
Dover, DE
Charleston, WV
Harrisburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Annapolis, MD
Williamsport, PA
Fairfield, PA
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Montross, VA
Annapolis, MD
Annandale, VA
Edgewater, MD
Ashburn, VA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
State College, PA
Roanoke, VA
Conference Call
Baltimore, MD
Rockville, MD
Shepherdstown, WV
Harrisburg, PA
Harrisburg, PA
EPA/CBPO staff
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB, LL
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB, JS
RB, JS
RB, BK
BK, RB, JS, etc.
RB
BK, JS, JC, DW, etc.
DE, BK, RB, JS
RB
CD, JS
RB
RB
JS
JS, AD, RP, KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, KA, JS
RB, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
RB
I >
•a
T3
n>
a.
x*
n
i
n
cu
T3
n>
O)
CO
QJ
n
h-»
ffl
ro
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
November 20, 2008
December 15, 2008
January 6, 2009
January 6, 2009
January 12, 2009
January 23, 2009
January 26, 2009
February 4, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 9, 2009
February 11,2009
February 11,2009
February 13, 2009
February 19, 2009
February 20, 2009
February 23, 2009
February 26, 2009
February 27, 2009
March 5, 2009
March 9, 2009
March 12, 2009
March 18, 2009
March 23, 2009
March 24, 2009
April 1,2009
April 6, 2009
April 7, 2009
April 14-15, 2009
April 20, 2009
April 30, 2009
May 8, 2009
Meeting
CBP Executive Council
CBP WQSC
VA DEQ, OCR
CBP Modeling Subcommittee
CBP WQSC
PA Chamber of Commerce
CBP WQSC
NYSDEC
MD Tributary Teams Annual Meeting
CBP WQSC
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
DC DOE
PADEP
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
CBP CAC
CBP WQSC
CBP LGAC
DE DNREC
PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee
CBP WQSC
WVDEP
MDNR
Senator Brubaker (PA)
CBP LGAC
VA Environmental Forum
CBP WQSC
CBP Modeling Subcommittee
CBP WQSC
CBP PSC
Bay TMDL/Stormwater Webinar
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Location
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Albany, NY
Baltimore, MD
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Harrisburg, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Dover, DE
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Charleston, WV
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Lexington, VA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Lancaster, PA
Montross, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Washington, D.C.
EPA/CBPO staff
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB, BK
LL, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB, BK
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK
RB, BK, CD
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
BK, RB, JS
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
RB
BK
RB
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
LL, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, KA, etc.
AD, JS
BK
-o
•a
n>
a.
x°
n
I
n
ro
QJ
03
01
n
O
n>
3
tr
n>
NJ
o
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake
topic of the meeting (continued)
Bay TMDL was a principal
Date
May 12, 2009
May 13, 2009
May 15, 2009
May 18, 2009
May 20, 2009
May 21, 2009
May 28-29, 2009
June 1 , 2009
June 9, 2009
June 16, 2009
June 22, 2009
July 1,2009
July 6, 2009
July 7, 2009
July 9, 2009
July 9, 2009
July 10, 2009
July 20, 2009
July 22, 2009
August 4, 2009
August 4, 2009
August 4, 2009
August 6, 2009
August 10, 2009
August 11, 2009
August 12, 2009
August 20, 2009
August 24, 2009
August 25, 2009
August 27, 2009
Meeting
CBP Executive Council
TMDL/NPS/WQS States Meeting
Bay Funders Network
CBP WQSC
Senator Brubaker (PA)
NPDES States Meeting
CBP STAC
Bay Executive Order Meeting
Harrisburg Chamber of Commerce
CBP STAC
CBP WQSC
WEF 2009 Nutrient Removal Conference
CBP WQSC
Municipal Water Quality Meeting
PA DEP - Executive Order
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Water Resources
Technical Committee
PA Transportation and Agricultural Group (Legacy Sediments)
CBP WQSC
CBP PSC
USDA NRCS
Environmental Defense Fund
CBP LGAC webinar
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
CBP WQSC
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Maryland Association of Counties
Lancaster Chamber of Commerce
CBP WQSC
Congressional Staff Bay Briefing and Boat Tour
VA House of Delegates Natural Resources Committee - Chesapeake
Bay Subcommittee
Location
Mount Vernon, VA
Martinsburg, WV
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Lancaster, PA
Gettysburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Arlington, VA
Harrisburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Lancaster, PA
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Chesapeake, VA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Ocean City, MD
Lancaster, PA
Conference Call
Mason Neck, VA
Gloucester, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
BK, RB, etc.
JS
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
JS
RB
BK
BK
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
BK
KA
BK, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc
BK, RB, KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, SH
BK, RB, KA, JS, SH
BK, RB
KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
BK
JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
RB
•a
n>
13
Q.
x°
n
i
n
3-
n>
in
QJ
n
OJ
CD
OJ
r>
i-»
00
o
IB
n
to
JJ3
O
l-»
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
August 27, 2009
Septembers, 2009
September 8-9, 2009
September 9, 2009
September 9, 2009
September 10, 2009
September 14, 2009
September 17-1 8, 2009
September 2 1,2009
September 23, 2009
September 29-30, 2009
October 2, 2009
October 5, 2009
October 5, 2009
October 9, 2009
October 9-1 0,2009
October 16, 2009
October 19, 2009
October 2 1,2009
October 22, 2009
October 23, 2009
October 27, 2009
October 28, 2009
November 2, 2009
November 2, 2009
November 4, 2009
November 4, 2009
November 4, 2009
Meeting
U.S. Department of Defense Chesapeake Quality Management Board
PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee
CBP STAC
CBP WQSC
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Water Resources
Technical Committee
CBP WQSC
CBP LGAC & CAC
CBP WQSC
Susquehanna River Basin Commission Water Quality Advisory
Committee
CBP WQSC
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
CBP WQGIT
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc.
CBP WQGIT
Chesapeake Watershed Forum
Pennsylvania State Senate/House members
CBP WQGIT
Lancaster County Agriculture Forum
Regulatory Update: Water Pollution Controls
CBP PSC
USGS Chesapeake Bay Science Workshop
Anne Arundel County, MD
CBP WQGIT
National TMDL Conference
WV Region 9, local officials for planning, stormwater, wastewater, and
economic development
Eastern Panhandle Home Builders Association
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Location
Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Williamsburg, VA
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Lancaster, PA
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Lancaster, PA
Richmond, VA
Conference Call
Towson, MD
Conference Call
Shepherdstown, WV
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Bird-in-Hand, PA
Richmond, VA
Washington, D.C.
Shepherdstown, WV
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Martinsburg, WV
Martinsburg, WV
Martinsburg, WV
EPA/CBPO staff
KA
BK
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
KA, RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
BK, RB, KA, etc.
BK, RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
JS, KZ
RP
BK, RB, KA
RB
RB, KS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
JS
BK, RB, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS, etc.
O.
x°
n
i
o
QJ
73
n>
01
CD
QJ
n
i->
UD
n
(V
3
NJ
ID
ISJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued) HP
Date
November 5, 2009
November 5, 2009
November 5, 2009
November 5, 2009
November 6, 2009
November 16, 2009
November 16, 2009
November 17, 2009
November 18, 2009
November 18, 2009
November 1 8, 2009
November 1 8, 2009
November 19, 2009
November 1 9, 2009
November 19, 2009
November 23, 2009
November 23, 2009
November 23, 2009
November 30, 2009
December 1 , 2009
December 1 , 2009
December 2, 2009
December 2, 2009
December 4, 2009
December 4, 2009
December 8, 2009
December 8, 2009
December 8, 2009
December 9, 2009
Meeting
WV environmental and watershed groups at Freshwater Institute
Planning and utility directors at USDA offices
Agricultural representatives at the WV Department of Agriculture
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
CBP CAC
CBP WQGIT
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Pennsylvania Builders Association
Environmental/conservation groups at Chesapeake Bay Foundation
office
Pennsylvania Municipal Authority Association
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Lycoming County officials
NRCS State Technical Committee meeting
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
MDE, DNR, MDA, MDP Meeting on Bay TMDL and WIPs for Counties
and Conservation Districts
Lancaster County government officials
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
CBP WQGIT
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
NY wastewater treatment operators
Rappahannock River Basin Comm.
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Water Resources Planning in MD: Hosted by CBF, MACo, MD
Municipal League
CBP LGAC
CBP STAC
PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Rappahannock River Symposium
Location
Shepherdstown, WV
Martinsburg, WV
Moorefield, WV
Moorefield, WV
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Lemoyne, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Wormleysburg, PA
Williamsport, PA
Williamsport, PA
State College, PA
State College, PA
Baltimore, MD
Lancaster, PA
Lancaster, PA
Conference Call
Binghamton, NY
Binghamton, NY
Richmond, VA
Owego, NY
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Baltimore, MD
Fredericksburg, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
BK, RB, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS, etc.
BK, RB, JS
RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, KA, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, JS
KA
BK, RB, JS, SH
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, KA, TD
BK, KA, TD
RB
BK, KA, TD
KA
RB
RB
BK
BK, RB, JS
BK
I >
-a
•a
a>
3
a.
x"
n
i
n
in
tu
T3
DO
DJ
n
M
o
a
n>
n
fD
3
cr
to
-
ro
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
December 10, 2009
December 10, 2009
December 10, 2009
December 10, 2009
December 1 1 , 2009
December 11, 2009
December 14, 2009
December 14, 2009
December 14, 2009
December 14, 2009
December 15, 2009
December 15, 2009
December 15, 2009
December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009
December 17, 2009
December 17, 2009
December 17, 2009
December 17, 2009
December 18, 2009
December 18, 2009
January 7, 2010
Januarys, 2010
January 10-12, 2010
January 11,2010
January 12, 2010
Meeting
Delaware and Maryland Homebuilders
Seaford, DE local officials and wastewater treatment plant operators
Delaware and Maryland agricultural representatives at Delaware
Poultry Industry office
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Maryland and Delaware environmental/watershed/conservation groups
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
CBP WQGIT
Virginia environmental/watershed/conservation groups at CBF office
Prince William County staff, planning commissioners, Board members,
nonprofit conservation groups, Northern Virginia Industry
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Virginia Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
National Academy of Sciences
Waste Solutions Forum steering committee meeting
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Region 3 State Nonpoint Source Managers Meeting
Homebuilders Association of Virginia
VA Watershed Implementation Plan stakeholder group
Rivanna River Basin Commission - Local government officials and
environmental groups
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
George Washington Regional Commission
VAMWA
Maryland Association of Counties
World Resources Institute
Choose Clean Water Conference
CBP WQGIT
VA General Assembly Joint Commission on Administrative Rules
Location
Grasonville, MD
Seaford, DE
Georgetown, DE
Laurel, DE
Annapolis, MD
Wye Mills, MD
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
Prince William, VA
Falls Church, VA
Chesapeake, VA
Williamsburg, VA
Williamsburg, VA
Washington, D.C.
Harrisonburg, VA
Penn Laird, VA
Frederick, MD
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Fredericksburg, VA
Fredericksburg, VA
Fredericksburg, VA
Cambridge, MD
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
BK, KA, JS
BK, KA, JS
BK, KA, JS, HZ
BK, KA, JS
BK, RB, JS, HZ
BK, RB, JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
KA
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
BK, RB, TD
RB, TD
RB, TD
KA
RB, PG
BK, RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
T3
•a
ro
3
a.
x'
n
I
o
a>
T3
n
oo
ai
O
n
n
3
O"
fD
N-l
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
January 20, 2010
January 20, 2010
January 29, 2010
February 2, 2010
February 5, 2010
Februarys, 2010
February 12,2010
February 18, 2010
February 19,2010
February 22, 2010
February 23, 2010
February 24, 2010
February 25, 2010
March 1,2010
March 3,2010
March 3, 2010
March 4, 2010
March 4, 2010
March 6, 2010
March 9, 2010
March 9-1 0,2010
March 11,2010
March 12, 2010
March 13,2010
March 15, 2010
March 17,2010
March 22, 2010
Meeting
VA House of Delegates Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay, and
Agriculture Committee/Senate Natural Resources, Conservation and
Agriculture Committee
Symposium on Integrated Modeling and Analysis to Support the
Management and Restoration of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
American Academy of Environmental Engineering
CBP Modeling Subcommittee
CBP LGAC
MDE Meeting on Bay TMDL and WIPs
CBP WQGIT
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Waste Solutions Forum steering committee meeting
University of Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Commission
MDE and MDNR meeting on WIP
Bay TMDL Monthly Webinar
CBP WQGIT
Maryland Association of Counties
Conewago Watershed Advisory Team Meeting webinar
Pennsylvania General Assembly Legislators Retreat
WIP Pilots with Anne Arundel and Caroline Counties
Public engagement with Tributary Teams
PA Senate Ag & Rural Affairs and Environmental Resources & Energy
Committees
CBP STAC
CBP CAC
Metropolitan Council of Governments
State of Our Watersheds Conference
CBP WQGIT
PA Senate Ag & Rural Affairs and Environmental Resources & Energy
Committees
Bay TMDL Webinar for the Agricultural Community
Location
Richmond, VA
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Conference Call
Blacksburg, VA
Charlottesville, VA
College Park, MD
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Webinar
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Webinar
Bedford Springs, PA
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Baltimore, MD
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
EPA/CBPO staff
RB
MH, LL, GS
RB
LL
JL
KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
RB
RB
BK, RB
MF
RB, BK, TD
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
KA
KA
RB
MF
MF and JL
BK
RB, LL, GS
RB
KA
JL
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, JC
RB, BK, etc
T3
T3
a.
x
n
i
n
QJ
T3
fl>
ai
^-
tn
ao
tu
n
NJ
NJ
s
B
a-
a>
NJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
March 25, 2010
March 25, 2010
March 25, 2010
March 29, 2010
March 29 -30, 2010
March 31, 2010
March 31 -April 1,2010
April 5-6, 2010
April 7, 20 10
April 7, 20 10
April 9, 2010
April 9, 2010
April 12,2010
April 19, 2010
April 23, 2010
April 26, 2010
April 27, 2010
May 3-5, 2010
May 3, 2010
May 6, 2010
May 6, 2010
May 6, 2010
May 7, 2010
May 10, 2010
May 10, 2010
May 11,2010
May 11 -13, 2010
May 12, 2010
May 13, 2010
May 13, 2010
Meeting
W1P Pilot with Anne Arundel County
Bay TMDL Monthly Webinar
PA Association of Environmental Professionals - Eastern & Central
Divisions
CBP WQGIT
Farm Pilot Project Coordination (FPPC) Regional Summit
PA WIP Stakeholder meeting
CBP Modeling Subcommittee
CBP WQGIT
WIP Pilot with Anne Arundel County
VA Environmental Forum
USDA/EPA Chesapeake Bay Models Meeting
Draft Chesapeake Bay Federal Land Management Guidance
Document (Section 502 Guidance)
CBP WQGIT
CBP WQGIT
CBP LGAC
CBP WQGIT
WIP Pilot with Anne Arundel County
American Planning Association (Virginia Chapter) Conference
PA Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee
American Planning Association (DE/MD Chapter) Conference
Bay TMDL Webinar for the Homebuilders/Developers Community
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Urban/Suburban/Rural Workgroup
Choose Clean Water Coalition Roundtable
CBP WQGIT
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Agriculture Workgroup
PA Water Resources Advisory Committee
Region 3 NPS/TMDL/WQM/WQS/NPDES Annual Meeting
Positive Growth Alliance - DE congressional meeting
WIP Pilot with Caroline County
LGAC/STAC Stormwater Meeting
Location
Annapolis, MD
Webinar
Fort Washington, PA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Gettysburg, PA
Annapolis, MD
Lexington, VA
Annapolis, MD
Webinar
Conference Call
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Norfolk
Harrisburg, PA
Dover, DE
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Gettysburg, PA
Conference Call
Denton, MD
Washington, D.C.
EPA/CBPO staff
MF
RB, BK, TD
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
MD
SH, BK
LL, GS, etc
BK, RB, JS, etc.
MF
BK
BK, LL, GS, etc
KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
JS
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
MF
KA
SH
KA
BK, RB, etc.
SH
JeffC
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
SH
SH
JS
BK, JM
MF
BK
T3
T3
n>
D
g.
x
O
I
o
HI
•a
ro
QJ
00
a>
n
NJ
UJ
o
n>
o
n>
3
a-
NJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
May 13, 2010
May 13, 2010
May 14, 2010
May 17, 2010
May 17, 2010
May 24, 2010
May 25, 2010
May 25, 2010
June 1,2010
June 2, 2010
June 3, 2010
June 7, 2010
June 7, 2010
June 8-9, 2010
June 10, 2010
June 10, 2010
June 10, 2010
June 11, 2010
June 14, 2010
June 15, 2010
June 15, 2010
June 15, 2010
June 16,2010
June 16, 2010
June 17, 2010
June 17, 2010
June 18, 2010
June 21, 2010
June 23, 2010
July6, 2010
Meeting
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Management Team
ASIWPCA Watershed Ad Hoc Committee
Western Maryland Local Government Exchange
Bay TMDL Webinar
CBP WQGIT
CBP WQGIT
USDA/EPA meeting on Nutrient Trading Tool/Comet-VR and
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Management Team
CBP WQGIT
VA Association of Counties Environmental Policy Committee
CBP Executive Council
Bay TMDL Webinar
CBP WQGIT
CBP STAC
WIP Pilot with Anne Arundel County
Rappahannock Nutrient Cooperative Business Advisory Council
LEAD Maryland Panel
Tidal States Call with MDNR, MDE, VADEQ, VADCR, and DC DoE
CBP WQGIT: co-regulators only
EPA Region 3 State/Interstate Water Directors Meeting
VA Stakeholders Advisory Group
MD Public Meeting on WIP
Center for Watershed Protection Watershed Treatment Model
Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland
Beyond Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: Lowering Barriers to
Achieving Multiple Environmental Goals,
CBP Management Board
MD Public Meeting on WIP
TMDL Seminar for USDA Undersecretary
MD Public Meeting on WIP
CBP WQGIT
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Hagerstown, MD
Webinar
Conference Call
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Charlottesville, VA
Baltimore, MD
Webinar
Conference Call
Kent Island, MD
Annapolis, MD
Fredericksburg, VA
Solomons, MD
Conference Call
Conference Call
Stauton, VA
Richmond, VA
Hagerstown, MD
Webinar
Waldorf, MD
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Washington, D.C.
Denton, MD
Conference Call
EPA/CBPO staff
SH
BK
KAorMF
BK, RB, etc.
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
SH
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RBorKA
SG
BK, RB, etc.
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB
MF
KA
MF
BK, RB
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB, MM, TD
KA, Jeff C
MF
Staff
KA
KA
RB
MF
BK
MF
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
•o
TJ
n>
3
g.
x'
n
i
o
Q)
T3
n>
CD
111
n
o
n>
o
n>
O"
NJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
JulyS, 2010
July 9, 2010
July 12, 2010
July 12, 2010
July 13, 2010
July 14, 2010
July 19, 2010
July 20, 2010
July 20, 2010
July 20, 2010
July 21, 2010
July 26, 2010
July 29, 2010
July 30, 2010
July 30, 2010
August 4, 2010
Augusts, 2010
Augusts, 2010
August 10, 2010
August 11, 20 10
August 11, 2010
August 11, 20 10
August 16, 2010
August 18, 2010
August 19, 2010
August 19, 2010
August 23, 2010
August 24, 2010
August 25, 2010
Meeting
Bay TMDL Webinar
W1P Pilot with Anne Arundel County
CBP WQGIT
NYSDEC, NYSDA, USDA, USC meeting on WIP
CBP Modeling Subcommittee
PA DEP meeting on WIP
USDA Leadership Conference
CBP Management Board
MDE and MDNR meeting on WIP
Virginia Legislature - House Agriculture, Natural Resrouces and
Chesapeake Committee
Industry Coffee with EPA HQs
CBP WQGIT: co-regulators only
WIP Pilot discussion with Anne Arundel County
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Water Resources
Technical Committee
WIP Pilot with Caroline County
PA DEP meeting on WIP
PA DEP meeting on WIP
CBP WQGIT: co-regulators only
MDE meeting on stormwater/WlP
PA DEP meeting on WIP
VA DEQ/DCR WIP discussion
Patuxent River Commission, Tributary Team for the Patuxent River
CBP WQGIT
MDE and MDNR meeting on WIP
Bay TMDL Webinar
DE DNREC meeting on WIP
CBP WQGIT: co-regulators only
VA OCR and DEQ meeting on WIP
Annual Army Chesapeake Bay Meeting
Location
Webinar
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
NY
Annapolis, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Richmond, VA
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Denton, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Richmond, VA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Webinar
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
FortA.P. Hill, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
BK, RB, etc.
MF
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
Rl
LL
KS, SH
RB
BK
MF, KA,
JeffC
BK
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
MF
JE
MF
SH
SH
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
MF, JM
SH
JeffC, KA, AC, MD, JM,
etc.
MF
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
KA, MF. KS
BK, RB, etc.
KA, KS, MD
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
KA, MD
GS
73
0>
D
Q_
x"
o
I
n
tU
T3
CD
01
n
ro
tn
O
(D
n
ro
3
O"
ro
-
NJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake
topic of the meeting (continued)
Bay TMDL was a principal
Date
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
Septembers, 2010
September 13, 2010
September 14-15, 2010
September 15, 2010
September 15, 2010
September 16, 2010
September 18, 2010
September 20, 2010
September 21, 2010
September 21, 2010
September 21, 2010
September 22, 2010
September 22, 2010
September 23, 2010
September 23, 2010
September 23, 2010
September 24, 2010
September 24, 2010
September 28, 2010
September 28, 2010
September 29, 2010
September 29, 2010
September 30, 2010
Meeting
MDE, DNR, MDA meeting on input decks/WIP
WIP Pilot discussion with Anne Arundel County
Congressional Staff Bay Briefing and Boat Tour
National Academy of Sciences - Independent Evaluator Panel
CBP WQGIT
CBP STAC
Council on Environmental Quality/Chesapeake Bay Federal Leadship
Committee
Sierra Club "Healling Our Waters" Public Forum
WIP Pilots with Caroline County
Virginia Environmental Assembly
EPA conference call with WV to discuss high-level comments on draft
WIP
EPA meeting with MD to discuss high-level comments on draft WIP
EPA conference call with PA to discuss high-level comments on draft
WIP
EPA conference call with DE to discuss high-level comments on draft
WIP
CBP Management Board
Virginia Water Environment Association
EPA conference call with VA to discuss high-level comments on draft
WIP
EPA conference call with DC to discuss high-level comments on draft
WIP
Congressional Briefings for Environmental and Agriculture Committees
Bay TMDL Briefing for Environmental/Fishing Community
CBP Advisory Committees
Bay TMDL Webinar
PA WIP Management Stakeholder Team meeting
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
EPA Federal Advisory Committee on Agriculture
Location
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Washington, D.C.
Hampton, VA
Denton, MD
Virginia Beach, VA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Hampton, VA
Conference Call
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Conference Call
Webinar
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
EPA/CBPO staff
MF, MD
MF
RB, JE, TL, JeffC
JeffC, RB, JW
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RB, RW
RB, JE, CB
JeffC
MF
JeffC
RW, LE, KA, etc.
JE, MF
BK, JC, KA, GwenS
SG, JC, KA
JE, RW, CB, JeffC
JeffC
JeffC, AC, KA
JC, RP, KA
JeffC
JeffC
JE
BK, RB, etc.
BK, SH, GwenS
BK, RB, JS, LM, PG, SH,
JimC, TL, GwenS
BK, RB, LM, JS, RP, TL
RB
T3
•a
n>
13
a.
x°
O
I
O
m
t/l
a)
•a
n
CD
ai
n
M
(Tl
O
ID
n
n>
or
ID
ro
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
September 30, 2010
September 30, 2010
September 30, 2010
October 4, 2010
October 4, 2010
October 4, 2010
October 4, 2010
Octobers, 2010
October 5, 2010
Octobers, 2010
October 5, 2010
October 5, 2010
October 6, 2010
Octobers, 2010
Octobers, 2010
Octobers, 2010
October 7, 2010
October 7, 2010
October 7, 2010
Meeting
EPA meeting with DE to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
PA Agriculture Stakeholder Workgroup meeting
EPA conference call with WV to discuss detailed comments on draft
WIP
EPA meeting with MD to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
Virginia agriculture stakeholders
Virginia environmental groups/stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
PA WIP Point Source Stakeholder Workgroup Meeting
Virginia environmental groups/stakeholders
Virginia local government stakeholders
Virginia developers and homebuilders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Virginia wastewater treatment operators
Virginia developers and homebuilders
Virginia State Legislators
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
EPA meeting with PA to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
EPA meeting with VA to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
Virginia environmental groups/stakeholders
Location
Dover, DE
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Harrisonburg, VA
Harrisonburg, VA
Harrisonburg, VA
Harrisburg, PA
Fairfax, VA
Fairfax, VA
Fairfax, VA
Annandale, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Richmond, VA
Harrisburg, PA
Richmond, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
SG, KA, PG, KS, MD
SH, GwenS, MD, KS
LE, KA, JM, BT, EM
JE, MF, KA, etc.
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
SH, GwenS
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, PG, TL,
JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GS, GB,
JeffC
KA, SH, KS, MD, JM,
etc.
AC, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
Q.
x"
n
I
n
o>
T3
fD
00
DJ
n
O
fD
O
ro
o
l~»
o
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake
topic of the meeting (continued)
Bay TMDL was a principal
Date
October?, 2010
October?, 2010
October?, 2010
October 11, 2010
October 11, 2010
October 11, 2010
October 11, 2010
October 12, 2010
October 12,2010
October 12, 2010
October 12, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
October 15, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 18, 2010
October 18, 2010
Meeting
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Delaware agriculture stakeholders
Delaware local government stakeholders
Delaware developers and homebuilders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
PA WIP Stormwater Stakeholder Meeting
Maryland environmental groups/stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Listening Session
EPA Call with NY to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
Maryland developers and homebuilders
Maryland State Legislators
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
EPA conference call with PA to discuss Stormwater - WIP
EPA conference call with MD, DC, and VA to discuss Blue Plains
Maryland local government stakeholders
Maryland agriculture stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Listening Session
EPA weekly call with VA to discuss WIP
EPA call with WV to discuss offsets/growth/trading in WIP
Pennsylvania local government stakeholders
Pennsylvania agriculture stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Pennsylvania legislative delegation
Chesapeake-Bay Focused EMS conference for Federal Facilities
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Webinar
Hampton, VA
Georgetown, DE
Seaford, DE
Seaford, DE
Georgetown, DE
Harrisburg, PA
Easton, MD
Easton, MD
Richmond, VA
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Conference Call
Annapolis, MD
Frederick, MD
Hagerstown, MD
Washington, D.C
Conference Call
Conference Call
Lancaster, PA
Lancaster, PA
Lancaster, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Greenbelt, MD
EPA/CBPO staff
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS,
GB, JeffC
RB, BK, LM, GwenS, TL
RB, BK, LM, GwenS, TL
RB, BK, LM, GwenS, TL
RB, BK, LM, GwenS TL
SH, JM, EM
RB, BK, LM, GwenS TL
RB, BK, LM, GwenS, TL
RH, JM, KW
Rl, KA
RB, BK, LM, JS
RB, BK, LM, JS, CF
RB, BK, LM, JS, TL
JC, KA, SH, JM, EM
RP, MF, BT
RB, BK, LM, JS
RB, BK, LM, JS, TL
RB, BK, LM, JS, TL
RH, JM, KW
JeffC, AC, KA, KD, NZ,
JeffS
RW, KevinD
RB, BK, SH, TD
RB, BK, SH, TD
RB, BK, SH, TD
RB, BK, SH, TD, JC
Staff
Q.
x'
n
i
n
:3-
n>
in
O)
QJ
CD
CD
O)
O
NJ
00
O
n>
n
n
3
a-
ro
o
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
October 19, 2010
October 19, 2010
October 19, 2010
October 19, 2010
October 19, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 20, 2010
October 21, 2010
October 21, 2010
October 21, 2010
October 22, 2010
October 25, 2010
October 25, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
October 27, 2010
October 27, 2010
October 27, 2010
October 27, 2010
October 27, 2010
October 29, 2010
November 1,2010
Meeting
Pennsylvania Municipal Authority Association
Pennsylvania environmental groups/stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
Pennsylvania agriculture stakeholders
Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Listening Session
EPA conference call with MD to discuss Stormwater - WIP
EPA meeting with DC to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
EPA conference call with NY to discuss agriculture - WIP
Richmond, VA Mayor's Office
Pennsylvania Builders Association
Lycoming County officials
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Listening Session
CBP PSC
EPA weekly call with VA to discuss WIP
EPA conference call with NY to discuss wastewater - WIP
CBP WQGIT
EPA call with MD to discuss trading/offsets/growth
EPA meeting with VA to discuss agriculture - WIP
OMB/CEQ TMDL Briefing
Bay Model Briefing for Senators Warner and Webb staff
New York wastewater treatment operators
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Stormwater Listening Session
Virginia Water Commission
Chemung County Stormwater Coalition
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
New York Farm Bureau
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
EPA meeting with VA to discuss detailed comments on draft WIP
Sierra Club TMDL/WIP Forum
Location
Harrisburg, PA
Harrisburg, PA
State College, PA
State College, PA
Baltimore, MD
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
Williamsport, PA
Williamsport, PA
Williamsport, PA
Ashley, PA
Salisbury, MD
Baltimore, MD
Conference Call
Conference Call
Conference Call
Conference Call
Richmond, VA
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Elmira, NY
Elmira, NY
Lancaster, PA
Richmond, VA
Horseheads, NY
Apalachin, NY
Apalachin, NY
Binghamton, NY
Annapolis, MD
Virginia Beach, VA
EPA/CBPO staff
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RH, JM, KW
MF, JM
RP, JM, BT
Rl, KS, MD, KA
JeffC
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RB, BK, SH, TD, LM
RH, JM, KW
JE, RW, CB, GS
JeffC, AC, KA
Rl, BT, KA
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
RW, KevinD, MF
JeffC, AC, KS, MD
CF, KA, JE
JeffC, GS, LK
RB, BK, PG, DS
RB, BK, PG, DS
RH, JM, KW
JeffC
RB, BK, PG, DS
RB, BK, PG, DS
RB, BK, PG, DS
RB, BK, PG, DS
JeffC, AC, KA, etc.
JeffC
•o
T3
X
n
i
n
3-
n>
i/i
o>
QJ
n>
CD
QJ
n
rvj
UD
O
ID
O
n>
or
NJ
O
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued) r r
Date
November 1, 2010
November 2, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 4, 2010
November 4, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
Novembers, 2010
November 9, 2010
Novembers, 2010
November 10, 2010
November 10, 2010
November 10, 2010
November 10, 2010
November 12-1 3, 2010
November 16, 2010
November 16, 2010
November 18, 2010
November 18, 2010
November19, 2010
Meeting
EPA conference call with NY to discuss stormwater - WIP
EPA conference call with PA on non-cost share BMPs
EPA "closure" meeting with PA on final WIP
EPA conference call with DE to discuss trading/offsets/growth - WIP
EPA "closure" conference call with DC to discuss final WIP
West Virginia environmental groups/stakeholders
West Virginia developers and homebuilders
West Virginia local government stakeholders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Commission
EPA weekly conference call with VA to discuss final WIP
West Virginia agriculture stakeholders
West Virginia local government stakeholders
West Virginia developers and homebuilders
Bay TMDL Public Meeting & Webinar
EPA "closure" conference call with WV to discuss final WIP
Virginia Association of Counties Annual Conference
EPA "closure" meeting with MD to discuss final WIP
EPA conference call with PA on non-cost share BMPs
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Urban/Suburban/Rural Workgroup
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Agriculture Workgroup
EPA weekly conference call with VA to discuss final WIP
EPA "closure" meeting with DE to discuss final WIP
EPA "closure" conference call with NY to discuss final WIP
EPA conference call with PA on non-cost share BMPs
2010 Watershed Forum
CBP WQGIT
PA Chesapeake Bay WIP Wastewater workgroup
CBP CAC
EPA conference call with PA on non-cost share BMPs
EPA "closure" meeting with VA to discuss final WIP
Location
Conference Call
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Conference Call
Shepherdstown, WV
Martinsburg, WV
Martinsburg, WV
Martinsburg, WV
Montross, VA
Conference Call
Romney, WV
Romney, WV
Romney, WV
Romney, WV
Conference Call
Hot Springs, VA
Annapolis, MD
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Conference Call
Dover, DE
Conference Call
Conference Call
Shepherdstown, WV
Conference Call
Harrisburg, PA
Washington, D.C.
Conference Call
Washington, D.C.
EPA/CBPO staff
Rl, JM, KA
SH, KS, KA, MD
JC, KA, SH, KS
RW, KevinD, PG
JC, RP, KA
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB
JeffC
JeffC, AC, KA, KS
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB, RW
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB RW
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB, RW
RB, BK, JS, JG, GB, RW
RW, LE, KA
JeffC
JE, MF, KA, etc.
KS, MD, SH, JS
SH, LP, LO; JS called in
SH, LP, MD
JeffC, AC, KA
SG, PG, KA
Rl, KA, etc.
KS, MD, SH, JS
Staff
BK, RB, KA, JS, etc.
SH, BT, N2, LP all called
in
RB, JE
KS
JeffC, KA, AC, RW, KS
T3
T3
n>
n
i
n
n>
t/i
OJ
T3
ro
OJ
;*•
n>
ro
O)
n
OJ
o
o
0>
n
n>
3
cr
o
l->
o
-------
Table C-4. Record of CBP committee/workgroup and stakeholder meetings since 2008 where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was a principal
topic of the meeting (continued)
Date
November 23, 2010
November 24 ,20 10
Decembers, 2010
December 14, 2010
Meeting
EPA conference call with PA on non-cost share BMPs
EPA discussion with PA on closing the gap
CBP LGAC
CBP STAC
Location
Conference Call
conference call
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
EPA/CBPO staff
MD
SH, MD, KA, CB
RB, CB
RB, RW
T3
•a
n
3
Q.
x'
n
i
o
Di
-o
ID
01
CO
Bl
n
co
o
CD
n
ro
cr
a>
o
p-»
o
-------
Appendix C - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table C-5. EPA staff name abbreviations key
EPA staff
abbreviation
AC
AD
BK
BT
CB
CD
CF
DE
DM
DS
DW
EM
GB
GS
GwenS
HZ
JC
JE
JeffC
JeffS
JimC
JG
JL
JM
Name
Ann Carkcuff
Andrew Dinsmore
Bob Koroncai
Brian Trulear
Carin Bisland
Chris Day
Chuck Fox
Diana Esher
Dave McGuigan
David Sternberg
Don Welsh
Evelyn MacKnight
Greg Barranco
Gary Shenk
Gwen Supplee
Hank Zygmunt
Jon Capacasa
Jim Edward
Jeff Corbin
Jeff Sweeney
Jim Curtin
Jessica Greathouse
Jeff Lape
Jenny Molloy
EPA staff
abbreviation
JS
JW
KA
KD
KS
KW
KZ
LK
LL
LM
LO
LP
MD
MF
MH
PG
RB
RH
Rl
RP
RW
SG
SH
TD
TL
Name
Jennifer Sincock
Julie Winters
Katherine Antos
Kevin DeBell
Kelly Shenk
Kevin Weiss
Kyle Zieba
LaRonda Koffi
Lewis Linker
Linda Miller
Liz Ottinger
Lucinda Power
Mark Dubin
Mike Fritz
Mike Haire
Peter Gold
Rich Batiuk
Rachel Herbert
Ruth Izraeli
Reggie Parrish
Rob Wood
Shawn Garvin
Suzanne Hall Trevena
Thomas Damm
Travis Loop
C-32
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix C - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table C-4. Organization abbreviations key
Abbreviations
ASWIPCA
CAC
CBP
DC DOE
DE DNREC
EPA
HQ
LGAC
MDA
MDE
MDNR
MDP
NPDES
NRCS
NYSDA
NYSDEC
PADEP
PSC
RTWG
STAC
use
USDA
uses
USWG
VADCR
VADEQ
VAMWA
WEF
WQGIT
WQM
WQS
WQSC
WVCA
WVDA
WVDEP
Organization
Association of States Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
Citizens Advisory Committee
Chesapeake Bay Program
District of Columbia Department of Environment
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters
Local Government Advisory Committee
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Maryland Department of Environment
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Department of Planning
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Resources Conservation Service
New York State Department of Agriculture
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Principles' Staff Committee
Re-evaluation Technical Workgroup
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
Urban Stormwater Workgroup
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Municipal Wastewater Authorities
Water Environmental Federation
Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Standards
Water Quality Steering Committee
West Virginia Conservation Agency
West Virginia Department of Agriculture
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
C-33
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix D - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix D.
Evaluation of the Most Protective Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria
As outlined in the criteria assessment documentation in Section 3.4.3 and shown in Table D-l,
seven different dissolved oxygen criteria are to be assessed to determine attainment of the open-
water, deep-water, and deep-channel designated uses (USEPA 2003). Using the available
monitoring data, only one temporal averaging period can be assessed for each designated-use
type (USEPA 2003, 2007). Because the monitoring data are not available to assess all seven
criteria or an assessment protocol has not been developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program
partners and published by EPA, it raises the question of whether the three assessed criteria are
more or less protective of all four Chesapeake Bay designated uses than the four criteria that are
not able to be assessed.
Table D-1. Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen criteria assessed with observed data for developing
the jurisdictions' the 303(d) lists and criteria that are not evaluated because of insufficient
data/lack of published assessment protocols
Designated use
Open water
Deep water
Deep channel
Instantaneous
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Assessed
1 -day mean
No Criterion
Insufficient Data
No Criterion
7-day mean
Insufficient Data
No Criterion
No Criterion
30-day mean
Assessed
Assessed
No Criterion
Because of insufficient monitoring data or lack of published assessment protocols or both, it is
difficult to comprehensively evaluate the protectiveness of the assessed criteria strictly on'the
basis of monitoring data, because the unassessed criteria cannot be directly evaluated. A multi-
partner effort is underway to develop criteria assessment protocols based on the available
monitoring data, but those protocols will not be complete, peer reviewed, and published until
2011 at the earliest.
The full set of seven dissolved oxygen criteria can be assessed through direct evaluation of the
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (Bay Water Quality Model)
output. The assessments will not agree precisely with the 303(d) or Bay TMDL-related criteria
assessment because neither of those criteria assessments uses model outputs directly (see Section
6.2.4). However, assuming that the temporal variability of dissolved oxygen in the Chesapeake
Bay is reasonably well-characterized in the Bay Water Quality model, the relative protectiveness
of different criteria evaluated directly using Bay Water Quality Model output would approximate
the relative protectiveness of three dissolved oxygen criteria evaluated using monitoring data.
All seven dissolved oxygen criteria were assessed using the direct outputs from a series of Bay
Water Quality Model scenarios. That work was completed in November 2008 using the Phase
5.1 version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. The Bay Water Quality Model has not
been modified since completion of the work described here. Because the analysis is focused on
evaluating temporal variability of dissolved oxygen in the Bay Water Quality Model outputs and
uses only the Bay Watershed Model for generation of different loading scenario input decks, the
findings are still relevant even with use of the Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model in developing the
Bay TMDL.
D-l
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix D - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figures D-l and D-2 show the average dissolved oxygen criteria nonattainment of'eight
mainstem Chesapeake Bay segments for three scenarios lor the 19% 1998 period. The moderate
reduction scenario approximates 2009 loads and the large reduction scenario approximates the
Bay TMDL cap loads.
Plrwt modi) ottmtmMit of nen«tt«lnm«nt—molnmm w«r«o*
cpwiwttw
DDQOpen Wjter Summer fnstjntan
ODD Open Water Weekly
iDOOpen Water Summer Monthly
CillbrnttdModil
Modtrttt Reduction
Lsrtl» Rtductlon
Figure D-1. Direct model assessment of open-water dissolved oxygen criteria nonattainment
for the eight mainstem Chesapeake Bay segments.
DlrMtmod*) «»«*t»m*m «f n«nMt«lnm«m—m«ln»Hm
d««p w«« «nd rttff «h«nn*(
DDO Deep Water Instantaneous
DDO Deep Water Daily
• DO Deep Water Monthly
HDD D««p Channel Instantaneous
Callbrattd Modtl
Modcrctt Reduction
L«rci» Rtriucrlon
Figure D-2. Direct model assessment of deep-water and deep-channel dissolved oxygen criteria
nonattainment for the eight mainstem Chesapeake Bay segments.
D-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix D - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
For both open-water and deep-water designated uses, the 30-day mean criteria had the highest
nonattamment in all three scenarios (Figures D-l and D-2). The 30-day mean open-water and
deep-water criteria are, therefore, protective of the other two sets of non-assessed dissolved
oxygen criteria (open-water 7-day and instantaneous minimum, deep-water 1-day mean and
instantaneous minimum) on average for the eight mainstem Bay segments. Only one dissolved
oxygen criterion applies to the deep-channel designated use, and it is assessed using monitoring
data. The deep-channel criterion is also more protective, on the basis of the levels of
nonattamment recorded in Figures D-l and D-2, than all the other six open-water and deep-water
criteria.
Looking at the results of criteria assessment of the individual designated uses strengthens those
findings considerably. Using the criteria nonattainment percentages for the moderate reduction
scenario and the 1996-1998 assessment period, the 30-day mean, 7-day mean, and instantaneous
minimum criteria are compared across 53 of the 92 Bay segments with the open-water
designated use. During the 1996-1998 assessment period, those 53 segments did not attain all
three open-water criteria. In all 53 segments, the 30-day mean open-water criterion had the
highest nonattainment percentage compared to the 7-day mean and 1-day mean open-water
criteria (Table D-2). In the 16 Bay segments that did not attain all three deep-water criteria
during the same 3-year period, the 30-day mean deep-water criterion had the highest
nonattainment percentage in all 16 segments compared with the deep-water 1-day mean and
instantaneous minimum criteria (Table D-3).
Because this is a direct assessment of the Bay Water Quality Model output using inputs from the
Phase 5.1 Bay Watershed Model and because the water quality criteria and assessment protocols
that existed in 2008, the nonattainment values will not match with nonattainment in other parts of
this document.
EPA used direct assessment of Bay Water Quality Model outputs to document that the three
dissolved oxygen criteria that are assessed by Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of
Columbia using Bay water quality monitoring data—open-water 30-day mean, deep-water
30-day mean, and deep-channel instantaneous minimum—are the most restrictive and, therefore,
most protective criteria. Those three criteria, applied during the summer period, are protective of
the other four dissolved oxygen criteria across all four designated uses, across a range of nutrient
reduction scenarios, and in all areas of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries and
embayments.
D'3 December 29,2010
-------
Appendix D - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table D-2. Comparison of open-water dissolved oxygen 30-day mean, 7-day mean, and
instantaneous criteria for the moderate reduction scenario and the 1996-1998 assessment period
across Bay segments for identification of the most protection criterion
Ches Bay segment
BI2MH
C11TF
CB1TF
CB2OH
CB5MH
CB6PH
CB7PH
CDDOH
CHOMH1
CHOMH2
CHOOH
CHOTF
CHSMH
CHSOH
CHSTF
CMDOH
CNDOH
CRRMH
DCATF
EBEMH
EL10H
ELIPH
ELKOH
FSBMH
HNGMH
JMSPH
JMSTF
JMSTFL
LCHMH
MA1MH
MAGMH
MANMH
MD5MH
MOBPH
NANMH
NANOH
PAXOH
PAXTF
PIAMH
PO10H
POCMH
POTOH
SA10H
SA20H
SASOH
30-day mean
3.56%
0.02%
0.03%
1 .48%
0.01%
0.24%
0.57%
24.87%
7.24%
34.10%
2804%
2032%
065%
4668%
63.24%
48.35%
3586%
0 25%
2.67%
1.19%
9.96%
2751%
9 1 3%
813%
1 .09%
1 .07%
022%
027%
10.24%
0.55%
3.74%
048%
0.01%
1 26%
570%
004%
10.68%
0.95%
1.93%
3.83%
1.14%
3.55%
1 0.46%
8.85%
9.95%
7-day mean
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
20.59%
1 96%
28.45%
24.18%
14.31%
0 00%
36.62%
60.63%
41.64%
30.44%
0 00%
0.09%
0 00%
3.44%
1654%
2 93%
2.35%
0 00%
0 00%
000%
0 00%
6.17%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%,
0 00%
3.09%
0 00%
0.49%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0.03%
0 00%
1 28%
1.54%
1 27%
Instantaneous
minimum
0.00%
0.00%
0 00%
0 10%
0.00%
0 00%
0 00%
19.19%
2.53%
25.47%
23.20%
1396%
0 .12%
34.53%
5721%
37.15%
27 75%
0 00%
029%
0 00%
4 .14%
13.56%
377%
283%
0.13%
0 00%
0.13%
0.17%
701%
0 00%
0.00%
0 00%
0 00%
0.02%
395%
0 00%
003%
0 00%
0 00%
0.04%
0.41%
0.03%
1 36%
2.19%
1 81%
Most protective
criterion
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
D-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix D-Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Ches Bay segment
SEVMH
TA1MH
TA2MH
TAMMH
TANMH
TAVMH
VPCMH
YRKMH
30-day mean
438%
1 1 93%
1 20%
11 34%
12.85%
15.43%
1 .62%
7.42%
7-day mean
0.77%
699%
0 00%
6.50%
6.76%
7.17%
0.08%
2.89%
Instantaneous
minimum
1 54%
739%
0 00 /,:
7.00%
6.66%
5.76%
0.59%
3.19%
Most protective
criterion
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
Table D-3. Comparison of deep-water dissolved oxygen 30-day mean, 1-day mean and
instantaneous criteria for the moderate reduction scenario and the 1996-1998 assessment period
across Bay segments for identification of the most protection criterion.
Ches Bay segment
CB3MH
CB4MH
CB5MH
CB7PH
CHSMH
EASMH
MD5MH
PA1MH
PA2MH
PATMH
PAXMH
POMMH
POMMH
POTMH
RPPMH
SBEMH
30-day mean
1 .86%
1 1 45%
2.22%
2.21%
1431%
18.11%
6 08%
0 11%
811%
29 12%
0.63%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.01%
42 50%
1-day mean
060%
10.21%
1 55%
0 99%
12.37%
16.84%
5.52%
0 00%
782%
2775%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
35.44%
Instantaneous
minimum
0.29%
3.00%
001%
077%
660%
9.91%
001%
0 00%
344%
1975%
0.10%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
0 00%
22.34%
Most protective
criterion
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
30-day mean
References
UShPA (U.S. Hnvironmental Protection Agency). 2003. Ambient Water Oualitv Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen. Water ('larily and ('liloroplivll i\for the ('hesapeake Hay ami Its Tidal
Trihutarii's. l-PA l)03-R-03-()()2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3
Chesapeake Bu\ Program Office. Annapolis. MD.
USI PA (U.S. l-nvironmenUil Protection Agency). 2007. Amhienl Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygpn, Water (larity and ('hlorophyll a for the ('hesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Trihuturk's 2oo~ Addendum. l-:PA 903-R-07-003. CBP/TRS 285-07. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis. ML).
D-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix E - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix E.
Summary of Initial Climate Change Impacts on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Flows
and Loads
I he potential effects of climate change have not been explicitly accounted for in the current
Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations. besond application of a 10-year hydrologic period, because
of knoun limitations in the current suite of Chesapeake Bay models to fully simulate the effects
ot climate change. A preliminary assessment of climate change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay
was conducted, in parallel, using an earlier version of the Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model and tools developed for LPA's BASINS 4 system including the Climate Assessment Tool
(C'A'I ). l;lo\\s and associated nutrient and sediment loads were assessed in all river basins of the
Chesapeake Bay with three key climate change scenarios reflecting the range of potential
changes in temperature and precipitation in the year 2030. The three key scenarios came from a
larger set of 42 climate change scenarios that \\ere evaluated from 7 Global Climate Models
((i('Ms). 2 scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change SRHS (Special
Report on Lmissions Scenarios) storylines, and 3 assumptions about precipitation intensity in the
largest events. The 42 climate change scenarios were run on the Phase 5 Watershed Model of the
Monocacv River watershed, a subbasin of the Potomac River watershed in the Piedmont region.
using a 2030 estimated land use based on a sophisticated land use model containing
socioeconomic estimates of development throughout the watershed. The results provide an
indication of likely precipitation and How patterns under future potential climate conditions.
Downscaling of (iCM temperature and precipitation data sets were provided by the Consortium
for Atlantic Regional Assessment (http:/7\vww.cara.psu.edu/). Weather data reflecting each
climate change scenario were created by modifying a 16-year period of historical data of
precipitation and temperature from 1984 to 2000. The climate change simulation provided for
low. medium, and high climate change effects projected out to 2030.
The Susquehanna River Basin covers almost half the Chesapeake watershed and has a major
influence on Hows and loads to the Chesapeake. The Susquehanna River responses were
examined with an annual average time series of flows and loads reported as a percent difference
of the 2030 climate scenarios to the 2000 Base Scenario. Generally flows were seen to decrease
in the climate change scenarios despite the higher climate change precipitation inputs. Decreased
flows were due to the increased estimates in temperature which, in turn, increased the simulated
evapotranspiration in the Susquehanna River watershed.
In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the 2030 estimated temperatures are about 1.5 degrees Celsius
higher over the current temperatures. That estimate is relatively consistent in the different GCMs
and has a high degree of certainty, l.stimated precipitation increases among the seven global
climate models are about 2 percent over current conditions, especially at higher rainfall events,
and that is estimated \\ith a moderate degree of certainty. How the temperature and precipitation
increases affect flow and associated nutrient and sediment loads in the watershed depends on the
hydrologic balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration.
Temperature increases tend to increase evapotranspiration in watersheds, and that can offset
increases in precipitation. That seems to be the case in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Current
estimates ol the medians of the different scenarios run have an annual average flow, nitrogen.
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix E - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
and phosphorus load decrease of-6.0 percent. -1.6 percent, and -2.1 percent, respectively.
Because sediment loads increase with higher rainfall events, the median of the nine scenario
estimates for sediment is for an increase of 4.9 percent. Figures E-l through K-4 show annual
average time series of flow, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads, respectively, for the three
climate change scenarios compared to the 2000 Base Scenario.
For all three scenarios, flow is decreased in the high-flow winter period, although for two of the
scenarios, summer flows are higher (Figure E-l). That could be because of the flash 30% and
flash 10% precipitation conditions used in the scenarios as summer precipitation is characterized
by short-term, high-precipitation thunderstorm events.
Susquehanna Average Monthly Flow
5 i
4.5
3.5
in
u- 25
U
05
2000 Base
Max(ECHM-B2)
Median (HDCM - B2)
Min(CSIRO-A2)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure E-1. Average annual time series of flow (cubic feet per second or CFS) for the 2000 Base
Scenario and the maximum, median, and minimum climate change scenarios.
Total nitrogen loads follow the overall flow conditions, and they are generally depressed in the
winter high-load period of nitrogen (Figure E-2).
E-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix E - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Susquehanna Average Monthly Total Nitrogen
20
2000 Base
Max(ECHM -B2)
Median (HDCM - B2)
Min (CSIRO-A2)
= 10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure E-2. Average annual time series of total nitrogen loads (millions of pounds per year)
for the 2000 Base Scenario and the maximum, median, and minimum climate change scenarios.
The total phosphorus time series is similar to total nitrogen but is somewhat more responsive to
episodic high flows in the two Hash 10% and flash 30% precipitation conditions (Figure E->3).
Susquehanna Average Monthly Total Phosphorus
••- 2000 Base
• Max iECHM -B2)
Median (HDCM - 82)
• Min (CSIRO-A2)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure E-3. Average annual time series of total phosphorus loads (millions of pounds per year)
for the 2000 Base Scenario and the maximum, median, and minimum climate change scenarios.
E-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix E - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) can increase
three orders of magnitude from low-flow to extreme high-flow conditions, particularly in the
larger rivers. Combined with higher flows, the higher TSS concentrations generate estimates of
TSS loads under the flash 10% and flash 30% conditions that are episodic and flashy in nature
(Figure E-4).
Susquehanna Average Monthly Total Suspended Solids
2000 Base
Max (ECHM • B2)
Median (HDCM-B2)
Win (CSIRO-A2)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure E-4. Average annual time series of total suspended solids loads (millions of tons per year)
of the 2000 Base Scenario and the maximum, median, and minimum climate change scenarios
Overall, the model simulation-based findings show the potential range of response of flows and
loads to climate change, at least over a relatively short planning hori/on of 20 years. If the
historic and model trends hold true with respect to precipitation trends increasing in the larger
events, and if estimated increases in evapotranspiration with higher temperature outweigh
estimated 2030 increases in precipitation, the flow and nutrient loads in the Chesapeake Bay
should experience relative declines on an annual average basis. However, the increased
precipitation and its related flows could increase sediment loads.
E-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix F.
Determination of the Hydrologic Period for Model Application
Section 6.1.1 defined the hydrologic period for application of the suite of Chesapeake Bay
models and reported that the 10-year period 1991-2000 was selected on the basis of a number of
criteria. This appendix documents the analyses behind the selection of the hydrologic averaging
period.
The hydrologic period ibr modeling purposes represents a typical or representative long-term
hydrologic condition for the \vaterbody. The hydrologic period is used for expressing average
annual loads from various sources. It is not to be confused with the critical period, which defines
a period of high stress (see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.4.1 and Appendix G). It is important that the
selected hydrologie period is representative of the long-term hydrology in each area of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed so that no one area is modeled with a particularly high or low loading
or an unrepresentative mix of point and nonpoint sources. The selection of a representative
hydrologic averaging period ensures that the balance between point and nonpoint source loading
and the balance between different geographic areas are appropriate.
Because of the long history of stream flow and water quality monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners were in the position of selecting a period for
model application representative of typical hydrologic conditions from among the 21 contiguous
model simulation years—1985 to 2005. The partners first selected 10 years as the appropriate
number of years for the hydrologic period and then selected the best contiguous 10-year period.
Methods
Monitored stream/river tlow was used exclusively as the indicator of hydrology. Three other
criteria were investigated and evaluated by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team but were not used.
1. Rainfall: Stream/river flow was judged to be a better overall indicator than rainfall as
flow integrates the effects of evapotranspiration and snowpack effects of temperature.
Flow is also more tractable to work with because the nine river input monitoring stations
characterize flows and pollutant loads from 80 percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
whereas approximately 500 rainfall stations are across the entire Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
2. Water quality: Observed water quality was considered as an ancillary criterion but was
eventually rejected. Observed water quality is dependent, in part, on management actions
taken throughout the Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team decided that the criteria for selecting the hydrologic period should
be independent of management actions.
3. Modeled loads: The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office performed an analysis of
modeled loads to investigate the change in the fraction of load by major river basin and
pollutant loading source sectors for different hydrologic averaging periods. This criterion
was also rejected by the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team because it
incorporated the effects from management actions and not just hydrology.
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The objective of selecting a hydrologic period is to ensure that the period has flow statistics that
were representative of the long-term flow statistics and that the representativeness held across
different areas of the Bay watershed. Flow statistics for periods of different length and starting
years were considered. To judge the overall representativeness, several statistics were calculated.
1. Mean flow anomaly: This statistic is the absolute value of the difference between the
mean flow value for any given period and the long-term mean, divided by the long-term
mean. If the mean flow value for a candidate period were equal to the long-term mean,
the value of this indicator would be zero. If the mean flow value for a candidate period
were either zero or twice the long-term mean, the value would be one.
2. Standard deviation anomaly: Similar to the mean anomaly, this statistic is the absolute
value of the difference between the standard deviation of a candidate period and the long-
term standard deviation divided by the long-term standard deviation.
3. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test statistic: The K-S test is a common nonparametric
method of comparing two distributions. The cumulative frequency distributions of two
populations are plotted together, and the maximum distance between the two distributions
on the probability axis is used at the test statistic, commonly known as D. From that test
statistic, P values are generally calculated and hypothesis tests run. In the analyses for
selecting the hydrologic period, a candidate period distribution is compared to a long-
term distribution. For this work, the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team decided to
use the D statistic. The D is monotonically related to the P value in this case because the
number of observations was constant across analyses and the distribution of the D values
was more suited to this work. The D statistic was calculated for the daily flow for an
estimate of the agreement in short-term events and for the annual flow for an estimate of
the agreement in inter-annual variability.
The nine river input stations compose the set of farthest-downstream, well-monitored flow
stations on significant rivers flowing to the Chesapeake Bay, measuring river flow close to the
point where the free-flowing river enters the Bay's tidally influenced waters. The analysis used a
30-year flow period that was common to all nine stations and also a long-term flow that used
different flow period lengths for each major river basin (Table F-l). In both analyses, only years
without missing data were used. At the time of this analysis, the last full year record of flow data
was 2006, so the 30-year analysis used all data from 1977 to 2006.
Table F-1. The nine major Chesapeake Bay river flow gage stations used In the determination of
the Chesapeake Bay TMDL hydrologic period
Gage ID
1668000
1646502
2037500
1674500
1673000
1491000
1578310
2041650
1594440
Flow gage station description
Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, VA
Potomac River (Adjusted) near Washington, DC
James River near Richmond, VA
Mattaponi River near Beulahville, VA
Pamunkey River near Hanover, VA
Choptank River near Greensboro, MD
Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD
Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA
Patuxtent River near Bowie, MD
Full years in the
30-year record*
30
30
30
28
30
30
30
30
29
Full years in long-
term record
99
77
72
64
65
60
40
37
29
' The 30-year record is 1977-2006.
F-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Selecting the Number of Years
Ten years was selected as an appropriate length of time as the following analysis showed that
most of the 12 possible 10-year contiguous periods are statistically similar to the long-term flow
record.
To reduce the dimensionality of the analysis, the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
recommended using a statistic that combined the mean and standard deviation of a given
candidate period compared to the same statistics for the 30-year period. The combined statistic
allows depiction of a single statistic rather than multiple statistics for easier interpretation. The
combination statistic was simply the average of the mean flow anomaly and the standard
deviation anomaly described above. The flow and standard deviation anomalies were calculated
separately for each of the nine river stations and then averaged. Lower values of the combined
statistic correspond to more representative periods.
Because the hydrologic period had to be within the Chesapeake Bay model simulation period of
1985-2005, only periods that fell within that 21-year window were considered. The combined
statistic was calculated for each instance of each window length that occurred within the
modeling period. For example, the statistic was calculated for two 20-year periods. 1985-2004
and 1986-2006 and for 16 6-year periods, 1985-1990. 1986 1991. ...2000-2005. For each
candidate hydrologic period length, the minimum, maximum, and average values of the
combined statistic were tabulated and are plotted in Figure F-l.
Figure F-l illustrates that when using 10 or more contiguous years, all possible candidate periods
are score relatively well using the combined metric. With fewer than 10 years, there is a mix of
periods that score well and periods that score poorly. A 10-year period was chosen by the Water
Quality Goal Implementation Team as a robust choice for the length of the hydrologic period.
Selecting the Ten-Year Period
There are 12 possible 10-year contiguous periods from 1985 to 2005. Although the above
analysis suggests that any of the periods might be acceptable, a more detailed analysis showed
that some regional differences and overall statistical differences exist between the candidates. As
with selecting the number of years, a combined statistic reduced the dimensionality to make the
analysis more tractable. For the analysis, the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team agreed
on developing a statistic that combined mean anomaly, standard deviation anomaly, and the D
statistic for daily and annual How. Those four statistics were normalized by the average value of
each statistical type individually and then averaged so that the overall score for all 10-year
periods centered around one. The averages were plotted separately for each of the nine major
river basins.
F-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake BayTMDL
Min, Mean, Max Weighted Averge Absolute Mean and Standard Deviation
Fraction for different period lengths vs 30-year flow
20
25
5 10 15
M
Period length
Figure F-1. Range of values of the combined flow statistic for different period lengths.
For example, the mean anomaly in the James River Basin for 1985-1994 was divided by the
average mean anomaly of all twelve 10-year periods in the James River Basin. The standard
deviation anomaly and D statistics for 1985-1994 were divided by the average of their
counterparts for all twelve 10-year periods. The four values were averaged to get an overall score
for 1985-1994 in the James River Basin. That process was repeated for each basin and for the
flow-weighted average of all nine major river basins for each candidate period. Both the 30-year
flow and the long-term flow were considered. The results are shown in Figure F-2.
In Figure F-2, the statistics are all compared to the average, so the average value is one. Lower
values reflect better statistical fit to the long-term data set, so values below one are the better
candidates for a representative hydrologic period. The thick black line in Figure F-2 is the flow-
weighted average of the values for the individual major river basins and, therefore, the best
overall indication of statistical fit.
Another consideration is the size of the spread around the flow-weighted average. A tighter
distribution means that the good statistical fit holds across all major river basins and is not an
unrepresentative hydrologic period for any major river basin. The candidate periods 1987-1996,
1988-1997, 1990-1999, and 1991-2000 are all better than average in terms of the statistical fit
(Figure F-2). However, the first three candidate periods—1987-1996, 1988-1997, and 1990-
1999—all have individual major river basins that are not good statistical fits. The period 1991-
2000 has the tightest overall grouping meaning that it is representative across all major river
basins (Figure F-2).
F-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Combinationof Total Flow, Standard Deviation,
Daily Frequency, and Annual Frequency - 30 year flow
-•-SUSQUEHANNA
-•- POTOMAC
JAMES
—RAPPAHANNOCK
-•-APPOMATTOX
-•-PAMUNKEY
MATTAPOM
-•-PATUXENT
CHOPTANK
weighted average
1985- 1986- 1987- 1988- 1989- 1990- 1991- 1992- 1993- 1994-1995- 1996-
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Combination of Flow, Standard Deviation,
Daily Frequency, and Annual Frequency - Long Term
2.5 i
SUSQUEHANNA
POTOMAC
JAMES
-RAPPAHANNOCK
-APPOMATTOX
PAMUNKEY
-MATTAPONI
-PATUXENT
-CHOPTANK
weighted average
1985- 1986- 1987- 1988- 1989- 1990- 1991-1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996-
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure F-2. The combined statistic for the candidate 10-year periods by the nine major river basins for the
30-year flow record (a) and the available long term flow record (b).
F-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix F - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The 10-year hydrologic assessment period from 1991 to 2000 was selected by the Water Quality
Goal Team for the following reasons:
• It was one of the 10-year periods within the 1985-2005 Chesapeake Bay model simulation
period that was closest to an integrated metric of long-term flow.
• Each of the nine major river basins had statistics that were particularly representative of the
long-term flow for both the 30-year flow record and available long-term flow record.
• It overlaps several years with the previous 2003 tributary strategy allocation assessment
period (1985-1994) facilitating comparisons between the two assessments.
• It incorporates more recent years than previous 2003 assessment period (1985-1994).
• It encompasses the complete decade of 1991-2000, which is a straightforward span of time
to communicate to the public,
• It overlaps with the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model calibration period (1993-2000),
which is important for the accuracy of the model predictions.
• The 10-year period encompasses the 3-year critical period (1993-1995) for the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL as explained in Section 6.2.1 and documented in Appendix G.
F-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix G.
Determination of Critical Conditions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL must be developed to attain applicable water quality standards.
Critical conditions for stream flow pollutant loading and water quality parameters must be taken
into account. All approvable TMDLs must be established in a manner that reflects Critical
Conditions. Critical conditions are represented by the combination of loading, waterbody
conditions, and other environmental conditions that result in impairment and violation of water
quality standards. Critical conditions for an individual TMDL typically depend on applicable
water quality standards, characteristics of the observed impairments, source type and behavior,
pollutant, and waterbody type. In establishing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, it was necessary to
define a Critical Period, a period during which hydrologic, temperature, environmental, flow,
and other such conditions result in a waterbody experiencing critical conditions with respect to
an identified impairment (e.g., summer low flow, winter high flow). The approach chosen in the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL was to select a 3-year period as the critical period.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal Implementation Team decided that the
critical period would be selected from the previously selected hydrologic period 1991-2000
because that time frame is representative of long-term hydrology, is within the model calibration
period, and would facilitate modeling operations (see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.5.1 and Appendix F).
A 3-year period was selected to coincide with the Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria
assessment period (USEPA 2003).
The Water Quality Goal Implementation Team also agreed that the critical period should be
representative of an approximate 10-year return period. The return period is defined as the
average period of time expected to elapse between occurrences of events at a certain site. A
10-year event is an event of such size that over a long period, the average time between events of
equal or greater magnitude is 10 years. The team believed that 10 years was a good balance
between guarding against extreme events (greater than 10-year return frequency) and ensuring
attainment during more frequent critical events (occurring within less than a 10-year period). The
selection of a 10-year return period was also based on the commonly applied 10-year return
period for application of the 7Q10 low flow conditions. Finally, the 10-year return period is also
consistent with the critical periods selected for other TMDLs developed and published by the
Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions.
The following sections discuss the process for determining the critical period on the basis of
determining the return period for each of the 3-year time frames within the selected 1991-2000
hydrologic period using various methods. A critical period was selected for assessing
achievement of the jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen (DO) and water
clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) water quality standards. As described below, there
was no basis for selecting a specific 3-year critical period for assessment of achievement of the
jurisdictions" numerical chlorophyll a water quality standard.
G-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Approaches Used in Previous TMDLs to Select the Critical Period
To determine if there is a consistent approach to establishing a critical period among the
Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions, each jurisdiction's water quality standards were
reviewed, the seven watershed jurisdictions were polled, and previously completed TMDLs were
referenced.
Generally, the jurisdictions' water quality standards do not address a method for establishing the
critical hydrologic period. Further. EPA does not have specific guidance or regulations on how to
determine critical period. EPA only requires that critical conditions and seasonal variations are
considered [40 CFR 130.7(c)(l)]. EPA Region 3 has not required any specific method for
determining critical conditions and seasonal variations as long as the critical condition captures
the worst case scenario or the most vulnerable environmental conditions in the waterbody in
which the loading expressed in the TMDL for the pollutant of concern will continue to meet
water quality standards.
In polling the jurisdictions regarding their approaches to determining the hydrology critical
period, all jurisdictions reported that the determination is dependent on the pollutant, the water
quality standards, the TMDL endpoint, and the amount of flow data available. All jurisdictions
reported that the critical period was determined using a representative data set capturing a range
of high, low, and average flows. Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia reported
selecting the critical period by using a dry year, an average year, and a wet year. Maryland also
indicated that in some TMDLs, time-variable models use the worst condition in the calibration
period. Although, nutrient TMDLs with steady-state models use 7Q10 flows as the critical
period. Delaware reported using the 7Q10 for free-flowing streams and using the monthly or
seasonally average as the critical condition for the calibration period for tidal streams.
Pennsylvania reported recently beginning to use the growing season average as the critical period
for nutrient TMDLs. West Virginia watershed TMDLs use representative precipitation-induced
flow data over a 6-year period with high, low, and average conditions.
A review of TMDLs completed for tidal influenced streams and estuaries along the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts revealed that there is no consistent method for determining the critical period. That
review was not intended to be exhaustive but to reveal general patterns of methodology across
the country. Most TMDLs used a critical period that was protective during low flows, rather than
high flows, the condition of interest for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
The most commonly identified method for establishing the critical period was the use of 7Q10
flows. The Louisiana Standard Operating Procedures for Louisiana TMDL Technical
Procedures (LDEQ 2009) specifically outlines the summer critical conditions as 7Q10 or 0.1
cubic feet per second (cfs), whichever is greater, or for tidal streams one-third of the average or
typical flow averaged over one tidal cycle. Similarly, winter critical conditions are 7Q10 of 1 cfs,
whichever is greater, or for tidal streams one-third of the average or typical flow averaged over
one tidal cycle.
Other examples of using 7Q10 flows include the following:
• Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for Nanticoke River and Broad Creek,
Delaware (DNREC 1998). The model for this DO, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus
TMDL was developed and calibrated using hydrologic and hydrodynamic from 1992. a dry
G-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
year. Hydrodynamic Model was run using 7Q10 flows, water quality model was run using
1992 pollutant loads.
• Organic Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Rabbit Creek and Dog River,
Alabama (ADEM 2005). The hydrology of the LSPC model was calibrated for the period
of record, October 1, 1996, through September 30,2000. For the purposes of this TMDL
the 2000-year was used as the critical low-flow period. 2000 was a relatively dry year and
was one of the periods over which the models were calibrated, lending confidence to the
simulations. The period of the model simulation was from 2000 to 2001. This period was
selected on the basis of the availability and relevance of the observed data to the current
conditions in the watershed. The model was calibrated for the year 2000, which represented
both high- and low-flow periods. In 2000 flows were very low and near critical 7Q10
conditions, while in 2001 flows were higher.
• TMDL Bayou Sara/Norton Creek - Mobile River Basin Organic Enrichment/DO
(ADEM 1996). Summer (May-November) TMDL critical conditions and MOS were
established as 7Q10 flows and 30 degrees Celsius (°C). The winter (December-April)
TMDL critical conditions and MOS were established as 7Q2 and 20 °C.
• Total Maximum Daily Load Cooper River, Wando River, Charleston Harbor System
South Carolina (SCDHEC 2002). Critical conditions for this DO TMDL were determined
in the model by setting water quality parameters to represent 75/25 percentiles. The
average spring and neap tidal conditions were evaluated with freshwater inflow set to
approximate a 7Q10 recurrence, and algal processes were turned off. The model was
calibrated to a 3-day period and validated on a 2-day period in 1993. The seasonal critical
period was considered to be the low-flow, high-temperature conditions associated with
summer and early fall.
• Total Maximum Daily Load Ashley River, South Carolina (SCDEHC 2003). The
recommended critical flow period includes setting uncontrolled freshwater inflows to 7Q10
flows and selecting the seaward tidal boundary to represent a full lunar month including
both spring and neap tides. Those conditions approach worst-case conditions for the impact
of point sources on river DO levels. The wasteloads determined for the critical conditions
are considered to be protective of the river DO standard when river flow is equal to or
greater than 7Q10 because higher flows would provide greater dilution. Higher river flows
are expected during wet weather, so the wasteloads should be protective under those
conditions.
Another common method for determining the critical period was selecting a 3-year time span on
the basis of precipitation, selected to include a wet year, a dry year, and a normal year. Some
examples of this approach include the following:
t Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for Indian River, Indian River Bay and
Rehoboth Bay, Delaware (DNREC 1998). This is a nitrogen and phosphorus TMDL The
baseline period was established as 1988 through 1990. The hydrologic condition of the year
1988 was considered to represent a dry year, 1989 a wet year, and 1990 a normal year. No
indication of the full data set from which the baseline period was established was given.
• Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Baltimore Harbor in
Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, and Howard Counties and Baltimore City
Maryland (MDE 2006). The baseline conditions scenario represents the observed
G'3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
conditions of the Harbor and its tributaries 1995-1997. Simulating the system for 3 years
accounts for various loading and hydrologic conditions, which represent possible critical
conditions and seasonal variations of the system. For example, the 1995-1997 period
includes an average year (1995), a wet year (1996) and a dry year (1997).
• Total Maximum Daily Load Organic Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen Threemile Creek,
Alabama (ADEM 2006). The hydrology of the LSPC model was calibrated for the period
of record, October 1, 1996, through September 30, 2000. The period of the model
simulation was from 2000 to 2001. That period was selected on the basis of the availability
and relevance of the observed data to the current conditions in the watershed. The model
was calibrated for the year 2000, which represented both high and low-flow periods. The
model was simulated from May 2000 through April 2001 to account for both summer
(May-November) and winter (December-April) conditions. In the natural conditions
model, two critical periods were selected to establish seasonal TMDLs. A period during
June 2000 was simulated under natural conditions, which resulted in a minimum DO
concentration of 1.91 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at a 5-foot depth. That June event defines
critical conditions in Threemile Creek during the summer season. A period during April of
2001, the model simulated natural condition is 2.26 mg/L at a 5-foot depth and defines the
winter critical period. A low-flow period with high temperatures for both summer and
winter seasons was used to represent the worst-case conditions.
• Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nutrients/Biochemical Oxygen Demand for the
Anacostia River Basin, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland and
the District of Columbia. (MDE and DC DOE 2008). The critical condition and
seasonally was accounted for in the TMDL analysis by the choice of simulation period,
1995-1997. That 3-year period represents a relatively dry year (1995), a wet year (1996),
and an average year (1997), based on precipitation data, and accounts for various
hydrological conditions including the critical condition.
Two TMDLs used the period of the worst hypoxia as the critical period. DO exceedances for
Long Island Sound were dominated by point sources. Further details regarding the TMDLs
follow:
• A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for
Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound (NYSDEC and CTDEP 2000). Annual surveys
from 1986 to 1998 and a review of historical data indicated that the 1988-1989 modeling
time frame was the most severe period of hypoxia on record. As a result, model simulations
of reduced nitrogen inputs were used to predict water quality conditions that would result
during the same physical conditions that exist during the 1988-1989 period. The use of
1988-1989 worst-case scenario was considered an implicit margin of safety.
• Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area
Including Waterbodies Currently Impaired Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen: the Lower
Peconic River and Tidal Tributaries; Western Flanders Bay and Lower Sawmill
Creek; and Meetinghouse Creek, Terrys Creek and Tributaries (Peconic Estuary
Program 2007). The Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model was calibrated
using an 8-year period from October 1, 1988, to September 30, 1996 and validated using
the 6-year period from October 1, 196, through September 30, 2002. Model calibration and
verification included all seasons of the year, as well as extreme wet and dry years.
G-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Monitoring data indicated that the October 2000 to September 2002 time frame was the
most severe period of hypoxia on record from 1988 to 2002. October 1, 2000, to September
30. 2002, was selected as the critical period for the TMDL model runs.
In some cases, the data set either does not contain a critical year or several years are included to
capture a range of temperature and flow concentrations. The TMDLs for The Little Assawoman
Bav and Tributaries and Ponds of the Indian River. Indian River Bay, and Rehoboth Bay
(DNREC 2004) is an example of the former. There was no worst year for DO, nitrogen and
phosphorus during the 3-year period in question, so the average over the three summers was used
as the critical (design) condition. The TMDL for Nutrients in the Lower Charles River Basin,
Massachusetts (MassDEP and USEPA 2007) is an example of the latter. A continuous. 5-year
simulation was run. The 1998-2002 period was selected because it represented some of the
lowest summer flows throughout the 23-year period of record. Low flows at or near the 7Q10
flow value were observed during three of the summers during the selected critical period.
Two of the TMDLs reviewed had limited data sets, so the critical period was chosen on the basis
of the period with the most data available. Examples of this approach follow:
• Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for the Upper and Middle
Chester River, Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, Maryland (MDE 2006). The models
were calibrated to the period of 1997-1999, which was the most recent period for which all
of the needed data were available and consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program
modeling efforts of the Tributary Strategies. Only the output from 1997 was used to
investigate different nutrient loading scenarios and calculate the annual average and
growing season TMDLs for the Upper and Middle Chester rivers because in 1999, the
region experienced extreme weather conditions (prolonged drought followed by Hurricane
Floyd) resulting in atypically high flows and loads. On the basis of the flow gauge, it was
determined that the flow in 1997 was representative of the average annual flow and loads.
The timeframe selected includes representative wet and dry periods, accounting for
seasonality and critical conditions.
• Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Oxygen in Mill Creek, Northampton
County, Virginia (VADEQ 2009). The observations show that the instantaneous DO
levels fell below the water quality criterion of 4 mg/L minimum repeatedly throughout the
period of 1997-2003. Because the nutrients data in the watershed were not available, an
interactive approach of calibration of watershed and in-stream water quality model was
conducted using all available in-stream monitoring data. The water quality model was
calibrated in Mill Creek using the observation data. A 6-year model simulation (1998-
2003) was conducted. Seasonal variations involved changes in surface runoff, stream flow,
and water quality condition as a result of hydrologic and climatologic patterns. Those were
accounted for by using this long-term simulation to estimate the current load and reduction
targets.
Initial Analysis by Malcolm Pirnie
The consulting firm Malcolm Pirnie, representing the stakeholders from the Maryland
Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies. Inc. (MAMWA) and the Virginia Association
of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc. (VAMWA) conducted an independent analysis of the
G-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
inflows to the Chesapeake Bay to determine whether the initially selected critical period of
1996-1998 might represent a hydrologic condition with a longer return period than 10 years
(Malcolm Pirnie 2009).
Malcolm Pirnie analyzed the flows from the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers, which together
contribute most of the flow to the Chesapeake Bay. for the period 1967 through 2009. The
average daily inflow from January through May was calculated for each year and for each 3-year
period within the 42-year period of record. January through May was selected as the period of
interest because studies have indicated that the magnitude and extent of hypoxia in the
Chesapeake Bay is largely controlled by freshwater and nutrient inputs during the preceding
winter and spring months (freshet).
Results indicated that 1996-1998 had the highest average January through May inflow over the
entire period of record and would result in a return period of 40 years. The year 1996 had
January through May inflows in the 93rd percentile and 1998 had flows in the 98Ih percentile.
High flows in 1996 were attributed to rainfall on winter snowpack in January 1996, resulting in
an event know as the Big Melt.
On the basis of those results, Malcolm Pirnie indicated that the critical condition would be too
extreme if 1996-1998 were selected as the critical period. Malcolm Pirnie recommended using
1993-1995 or 1994-1996 as the critical period because they represent return flows much closer
to a 10-year return period.
Replication of Malcolm Pirnie Results
To confirm the results of the Malcolm Pirnie analysis, Tetra Tech staff replicated the approach
used in the Malcolm Pirnie flow analysis. The analysis was repeated using both the flow data
presented in the Malcolm Pirnie technical memo (Malcolm Pirnie 2009) and the raw flow data
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the replicated 3-year averages based on the
flows in the technical memo did not match exactly what was presented in the technical memo,
the minor discrepancies did not affect the percentile calculations. Similarly, the 3-year running
averages using the raw USGS data resulted in minor discrepancies from the Malcolm Pirnie
results. Despite the small differences, Tetra Tech's replication yielded the same results as the
Malcolm Pirnie technical memo (Malcolm Pirnie 2009).
Analysis to Support Critical Period Selection
Additional analyses were performed to further explore the options for the selection of the critical
period.
Preliminary analysis included an exploration of the results of including the nine major rivers in
the flow analysis and expanding the combinations of different monthly flow durations beyond
January to May to include other monthly duration combinations from September through July.
Data were analyzed for 1978 through 2009 because the Patuxent flow gage did not begin until
1977. Refer to Table G-l for the gages used in the analysis and the period for which data was
available. Running 3-year average flows were calculated for 25 different month combinations for
the entire period of evaluation. The probability of each 3-year flow average was determined
G-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
using the Weibull Plotting Position. The return period is the inverse of the probability. That
method differed from the approach in the Malcolm Pirnie analysis (Malcolm Pirnie 2009), which
used percentile ranks. A regression was also performed on the 3-year flow averages to determine
if there was a correlation with the DO percent exceedances. The percent DO exceedances were
provided by EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and represent volume exceedances.
The analysis was run with and without the use of tributary multipliers, which the CBPO
developed because flows from different tributaries do not affect conditions in the Bay equally.
Those factors are the estuarine delivery factors presented in the Section 6.3.1. The CBPO
multipliers were translated to a 0.0 to 1.0 scale and are included in Table G-2. Without the
multipliers, the Susquehanna and Potomac rivers contribute approximately 80 percent of the flow
to the Bay. With the multipliers, the two rivers contribute approximately 95 percent of the
effective load.
Table G-1. Flow gages and period of available data
Gage ID
1668000
1646502
2037500
1674500
1673000
1491000
1578310
2041650
1 594440
Description
Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, VA
Potomac River (Adjusted) near Washington, DC
James River near Richmond, VA
Mattaponi River near Beulahville, VA
Pamunkey River near Hanover, VA
Choptank River near Greensboro, MD
Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD
Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA
Patuxtent River near Bowie, MD
Start
9/19/1907
3/1/1930
10/1/1934
9/19/1941
10/1/1941
1/1/1948
10/1/1967
10/1/1969
6/27/1977
End
8/25/2009
7/31/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
8/25/2009
Table G-2. Chesapeake Bay tributaries flow multiplier ratios
Major river basin
Appomattox
Choptank
James
Mattaponi
Pamunkey
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
Susquehanna
Multiplier
0.533111028
6.929861533
0.533111028
0.798423188
0.798423188
3.093385849
6.188243619
2.809613056
10.3187158
Adjusted ratio
0.017
0.217
0.017
0.025
0.025
0.097
0.193
0.088
0.322
1.000
Source: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
G-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
1978-2009 APPOMATTOX, 2.0%
CHOPTANK. 0,2%
JAMES. 11.2%
MATTAPONI, 0.8%
PAMUNKEY. 1.5%
PATUXENT. 0.6%
POTOMAC 502.19.7%
SUSQUEHANNA, 61 3%
RAPPAHANNOCK, 2.7%
Figure G-1. Tributary flow contributions without multiplier ratios.
1978-2009
After Multipliers
SUSQUEHANNA. 81.7%
CHOPTANK, 02%
APPOMATTOX. 01%
JAMES, 08%
MATTAPONI. 0.1%
PAMUNKEY, 02%
PATUXENT, 0.2%
RAPPAHANNOCK. 1 0%
POTOMAC_502,15.8%
Figure G-2. Tributary flow contributions with the multiplier ratios.
G-8
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Results of the analysis, as shown in Tables G-3 and G-4, indicate that the monthly span should
be extended beyond the January through May period suggested in the Malcolm Pirnie analysis
(Malcolm Pirnie 2009) because the 3-year flow averages with the highest correlation to DO
exceedances generally included longer monthly spans. The 3-year average flow with the highest
correlation to DO exceedances was September through June. Findings also suggest that 1996-
1998 had closer to a 15-year return period for months when flow was more closely correlated
with DO exceedances. The other possible critical periods 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 had
generally lower than 10-year return periods and return periods greater than 10 years when flow
was not strongly correlated with DO exceedances. Return periods greater than 6 years are
highlighted in Tables G-3 and G-4, and only 3-year average flows with at least one monthly
interval with a 6-year or greater return period are shown. There were no 3-year average flows
with return periods greater than 6 years for any of the years between 1978 and 1991.
Table G-3. Return periods and R2 correlation between various monthly durations and DO percent
exceedances without the Tributary Multiplier Ratio.
% DO Exceedences --> 25.87% 2592% 2426% 2784% 26 0!r>,. 3i!i-\ .'.'t
Interval
SEP-JUNE
NOV-JUNE
SEP-JULY
NOV JULY
DEC-JUNE
SEP-MAY
DEC-JULY
OCT-JUNE
OCT-JULY
NOV-MAY
SEP-APR
OCT-MAY
DEC-MAY
JAN-JUNE
JAN-JULY
NOV-APR
OCT-APR
SEP-MAR
DEC-APR
NOV-MAR
JAN-MAY
OCT-MAR
DEC-MAR
JAN-APR
JAN-MAR
R2
0 54
053
053
052
052
051
051
0 50
049
048
048
046
046
; .'.4
0 44
044
042
042
040
0 39
0 37
036
0 36
032
026
1992-1994 1993-1995 1994-1996 1996-1998 1997-1999 2003-2005 2004-2006
Return Period
4 43
620
443
>j /',;
7 75
443
620
5 17
5 17
620
4 43
5 17
1033
1033
620
775
5 17
282
10 33
3 10
10 33
282
344
:;i on
5 17
620
775
5 17
7.75
620
620
775
620
620
775
5 17
775
775
620
5 17
1033
775
344
r, -n,
344
775
344
517
1550
620
344
5 17
344
4 43
443
3 88
4 .•!•'.
4 43
443
5 17
344
443
5 17
4 43
4 43
443
344
3 88
5 17
620
620
4 43
775
620
1033
1550
"ii no
1550
1550
31 00
1550
31 00
1550
1550
31 00
1550
31 00
:;i ;;o
31 00
:-;i oo
31 00
31 00
15 50
31 00
31 00
31 00
31 00
31 00
1033
31 00
258
207
258
207
2 38
3 10
221
238
221
3 10
3 10
.' n.'
282
2.58
221
3 10
3.10
4 43
3 10
4 43
3.10
3 88
4 43
344
775
31 00
1550
31 00
31 00
1550
31 00
15 50
31 00
31 00
15 50
31 00
10.33
620
517
775
1550
1550
31 00
620
443
1033
10 33
388
388
775
4 43
1033
5 17
388
775
388
775
775
4 43
10 33
620
388
221
282
5 17
620
1033
443
775
2 21
775
238
258
G-9
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table G-4. Return
exceedances with
periods and R2 correlation between various monthly durations and DO percent
the Tributary Multiplier Ratio
% DO Exceedences -- -> 25 87='o 25 92H 24 26°'a 2784=4 2605% 3111% 2724%
Interval
SEP-JUNE
NOV-jUNE
DEC-JUNE
SEP-JULY
NOV-JULY
DEC-JULY
OCT-JUNE
SEP-MAY
OCT-JULY
NOV-MAY
SEP-APR
JAN-JULY
JAN-JUNE
DEC-MAY
OCT-MAY
NOV-APR
SEP-MAR
OCT-APR
DEC-APR
NOV-MAR
JAN-MAY
DEC-MAR
OCT-MAR
jAN-APR
JAN-MAR
R2
053
053
:
052
052
051
049
049
46
046
0 46
046
046
045
0 44
042
041
041
040
0 38
0 37
037
035
0 32
•1
1992-1994 1993-'995 1994-1996 1996-1S98 199^-1999 2003-2005 2004-2006
Return Period
443
5 17
620
388
5 17
5 17
5 17
443
5 17
620
4 43
1033
10 33
7 75
5 17
775
207
5 17
1550
2 58
1550
258
238
•
;
5 17
6 20
775
5 17
620
620
6 20
5 17
620
775
5 17
5 17
6 20
620
3 10
620
31 00
3 10
775
344
3 10
-
388
344
443
-
344
4 43
388
3 88
3 88
4 43
344
443
4 43
5 17
-
3 88
--
344
443
5 17
6 20
6 20
443
6 20
10 33
775
1550
10 33
15 50
1550
15 5C
1 75
'
31 00
31 00
31 00
15 50
15 50
-
10 33
10 33
31 00
31 00
•
10 33
31 00
221
1 94
1 94
207
1 94
1 94
207
2 58
1 94
238
282
1 55
1 82
221
2 21
2 58
443
2 58
2 58
3 44
2 38
3 88
.:,.
2 58
775
31 00
- :
31 00
31 00
31 00
31 00
31 00
31 00
'
1550
31 00
1550
5 17
6 20
1033
31 00
15 50
31 00
775
1550
5 17
"• • J
1033
5 17
620
1550
775
4 43
15 50
10 33
775
7 75
1550
1033
5 17
1550
388
282
443
775
620
31 00
775
5 17
1033
2 82
1033
1550
344
282
Analysis of Critical Period Using the Log Pearson III Method
Alter determining the return period using the Weibull Plotting Position method, a second
method, the Log Pearson III Method (U.S. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data
1982; Ponce 1989), was used to determine whether the return period changed significantly
depending on the method of calculation. The Log Pearson III method provides a smooth fit
through the plotting position data and in essence smoothens out the predicted values. That
analysis was conducted over the same 1978 through 2009 period and focused on monthly spans
with the highest correlation between flow and DO exceedances. Results in Table G-5 and Table
G-6 show that there are some changes in the return periods, but the conclusion in terms of
candidate years remains the same. This method of determining the return period was used in
subsequent analyses.
G-10
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table G-5. Log Pearson
Without Multiplier
method for determining return period, without Tributary Multiplier Ratio.
% DO Exceedences
Year
Sep-June
Nov-June
Sep-July
Nov-July
Dec-June
Sep-May
Dec-July
Oct-June
Flow (Sep-June) (cfs)
Flow (Nov-June) (cfs)
i !:>w (! iep iuly (Tifsi
Flow (Nov-July) (cfs)
Flow (Dec-June) (cfs)
Flow (Sep-May) (cfs)
Flow (Dec-July) (cfs)
Flow (Oct-June) (cfs)
2587%
1992-1994
4 38
745
4 16
6.79
9 19
4.90
839
544
81.791
97.725
76.755
89,756
104.233
86,706
94.451
88,780
25.92%
1993-1995
490
790
479
753
911
574
866
615
83.254
98.368
78,432
90.753
104,117
88.203
94.829
89,746
2426%
1994-1996
377
546
405
602
668
380
726
-1 (,()
80,099
94.810
76.487
88,724
100.461
83.278
92,906
87.057
27 84%
1996-1998
1799
2071
1677
18.95
19.70
17.77
18.14
19.99
95.684
108.161
89,677
99,399
111.988
100.501
101.658
101.106
31.11%
2003-2005
3480
1') 0"
3603
20.33
\', ,",<<
2383
1724
21 57
101.516
107.300
96,200
100.142
109,418
103.783
101.107
101,688
27.24%
2004-2006
1237
5 36
14 15
659
4 24
11 69
497
7 16
',2 1 06
94,664
88,110
89,485
95,653
96,146
89.709
91.140
Table G-6. Log Pearson
With Multiplier
method for determining return period, with Tributary Multiplier Ratio.
% DO Exceedences
Year
Sep-June
Nov-June
Sep-July
Nov-July
Dec-June
Sep-May
Dec-July
Oct-June
Flow (Sep-June) (cfs)
Flow (Nov-June) (cfs)
Flow (Sep-July) (cfs)
Flow (Nov-July) (cfs)
Flow (Dec-June) (cfs)
Flow (Sep-May) (cfs)
Flow (Dec-July) (cfs)
Flow (Oct-June) (cfs)
25.87%
1992-1994
439
747
4 19
685
9 17
492
8.38
540
19,682
23,429
18.494
21.550
24,860
20897
22568
21,337
25.92%
1993-1995
5 17
8.19
483
7.48
927
632
8.39
6.41
20,141
23.668
18,892
21,739
24,893
21,462
22,569
21.662
24.26%
1994-1996
387
5.70
404
598
676
408
7.08
467
19,338
22.837
18,400
21.292
24.069
20.265
22.178
20.998
27.84%
1996-1998
1321
1684
1221
16.06
16.02
1312
1458
16.09
22,251
25,294
20,891
23,285
26,006
23,415
23.659
23,689
31 11%
2003-2005
3552
19.21
36 18
21 37
17.64
2442
1876
22.11
24,445
25,648
23,136
23.910
26,242
25,103
24.214
24,436
27 24%
2004-2006
1876
852
21 53
1034
6 88
17 15
8 73
10 74
23.100
23,779
22,147
22.535
24,110
24.122
22.671
22,921
Analysis of Critical Period Using Expanded Flow Data
Given some concern that the 30-year period from 1978 through 2009 was of insufficient length
to fully capture the return period over the full period of flow data and was artificially lowering
the most extreme return period to 30 years, an extended analysis was performed for the years
1930 through 2009 but only included the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers. The Potomac and
Susquehanna rivers account for almost 80 percent of the total flow to the Chesapeake Bay, and if
the CBPO allocation multipliers are used, those two rivers account for almost 95 percent of the
total inflow to the Chesapeake Bay. Hence, those two flow gages were considered sufficient for
analysis purposes. The two USGS flow gages are described in Table G-l.
G-ll
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The Susquehanna River at Conowingo gage flow data runs from October 1, 1967, to the present.
The period before October 1, 1967, was patched using data from the Susquehanna River at
Harrisburg gage (01570500 - October 1, 1890, to August 25, 2009) using a simple drainage area
ratio method. The daily freshwater inflow from the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers were
weighed using the adjusted tributary multipliers provided by the CBPO (Table G-7).
Table G-7. Adjusted tributary flow multiplier ratios
Gage
Potomac
Susquehanna
Multiplier
6.188
10.317
Adjusted ratio
0.375
0.625
Source EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
The analysis using the extended period followed the same procedure as previous analyses except
that the data were extended back to 1930, only the weighted flow data based on multipliers were
used, and the Log Pearson III method was used to determine the return period. Table G-8 lists
the return periods for each of the monthly intervals for the extended period, with return periods
greater than 6 years highlighted.
Table G-8. Extended period (1930-2009) return periods
<* DO Exceedences
Year
jan-july
ian-june
jan-may
jan-apr
Ian-mar
dec-|uly
dec-iune
dec-may
dec-apr
dec-mar
noy.july
nou-iune
nov-may
nov-apr
nov-mar
oct-july
oct-iune
oct-may
ocl-apr
oct-mar
sep-july
sep-june
sep-may
sep-apr
sep-mar
24.97%
1991-1993
2.69
3 05
4.61
7.48
2.18
303
3.35
4.76
696
2 68
1 66
3.39
468
6.51
2.84
3.64
4.12
5.69
766
342
339
386
4.93
6.60
3,25
25 87%
I992-I994
11 80
13 72
2498
39 45
i .'4
> .".•
9.90
16.77
20 14
3.49
2.08
rt •'!
13 11
1624
3.43
6.50
698
9.02
10.82
2.92
5 40
581
7 51
8.70
2 74
25 <-V "..
1993-1995
8 95
9 84
19 13
i-1 1.1
4 32
9 15
9 98
17 73
2389
542
<,<./
15.60
1983
5 51
738
803
10.95
14 96
4 50
6 73
727
931
11 93
4 31
24 26%
I 934 1996
f 72
X 1-1
10.56
10.82
I 3 '.1
'..'
752
920
•i 10
987
263
710
848
846
890
627
591
706
708
725
506
487
564
568
5 78
22 58%
1995-1997
1.77
1 69
1 69
I C.I
•1 ,H
.' li'j
2.62
2.76
301
7.27
3.11
1 18
343
3.78
8 28
3.71
3.72
4.C9
4.40
8 82
4 18
4 26
4 62
4.90
9.16
27 84%
1996-1998
1628
17 59
2543
16.67
4660
15.66
17.02
2309
1601
31.16
275
2060
28.01
1926
34.04
1835
1990
25.80
18.91
29.23
17.56
18 29
21 90
17 28
2334
31.11%
2003-2005
11.76
0 71
720
7.48
5 51
20 18
19.14
16 70
16 48
13 94
1 35
2544
21 32
21 02
17 98
1? Ul
.1 ! 12
26.88
26.38
.'c n
69 44
62 21
5634
52 38
.1.. IS
27 24%
2004-2006
4 37
303
273
3 59
433
9 8»
7.95
8 14
999
13.60
1.31
1069
11 48
15,07
1783
18 23
1537
1645
19.62
2225
3808
30 6S
34 77
4022
4320
The monthly intervals with high correlations with DO exceedances are September - June,
November-June, December-June, September-July, and December-July. Table G-9 highlights
the return periods for the monthly intervals with high correlations with DO exceedances.
G-12
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table G-9. Return periods for monthly intervals highly correlated to Chesapeake Bay DO criteria
exceedances
Interval
September-June
November- June
December-June
September - July
December - July
1992-1994
5.81
8.92
9.90
5.40
920
1993-1995
7.27
9.67
9.98
6.73
9.15
1994-1996
4.87
7.10
7.52
5.06
7.92
1996-1998
18.29
20.60
17.02
17.56
15.66
Analysis of Critical Period using De-Trended Flow Data
As previously noted, initial analysis of the 3-year average flows from 1978 through 2009 did not
reveal any 3-year periods before 1992 with return periods greater than 6 years for the monthly
intervals included in the analysis. This indicates a potential increasing trend in flow volume over
the last several decades. De-trending removes any flow trends over time and allows for an equal
comparison of current and historic flows. It can remove the effects of urbanization and other
impacts, which are apparent in the flow data.
The first step in de-trending was to determine if there is a significant trend in the flow data. The
slope of the trend line is 0.1878. The Kendall Tau ranking correlation coefficient was used to
determine if this is a statistically significant trend. The Tau value can range between -1 and 1,
with a positive number indicating an increasing trend and a negative number indicating a
decreasing trend. The flow data from 1930 through 2009 had a positive Tau value. A p-value
< 0.05 indicates a statistically significant trend. The time-series flow data had a p-value of
0.0042, which is statistically significant. Figure G-3 shows the trend line in the raw data.
After establishing that a statistically significant increasing trend exists in the flow data, a de-
trended time-series was developed. Two different methods were used to fit a trend line through
the time-series data—Linear Least Squares Regression, and the Locally Weighted Scatter Plot
Smoothing (LOWESS) (Helsel and Hirsch 2002; NIST and SEMATECH 2006).
The linear regression trend line was estimated by fitting the time-series data using a trend line of
the form y = mx + c (where m is the slope, c is the intercept, y being the dependent variable.
i.e., flow, and .v the independent variable time). The LOWESS fit is determined by specifying a
smoothening parameter, which defines the subset of data that will be used for the local fit. The
LOESS technique performs a weighted least square regression fit (on a subset of points) in a
moving range around the x value (time), where the values in the moving range are weighted
according to their distance from this x value. For that analysis, a smoothening parameter of
0.33 was found to fit the data trend reasonably well. Details of the LOWESS computation are at:
http://www.itl.nist.uov/div898/handbook/pmd/sectionl/dep/depl44.htm.
The residuals were then calculated for each method (i.e., the difference between the observed
and predicted values along the trend line). Finally, the residuals were added to the last point in
the time series (the maximum value) to generate a de-trended time series. To confirm that no
trend exists in the resulting de-trended time series using the linear regression approach, the linear
slope was calculated. The slope was zero, indicating that there was no remaining trend. For the
G-13
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
de-trended time-series using the LOWESS regression, the presence of no trend in the time-series
was confirmed using a p-value. The p-value of the de-trended data was 1.2376, indicating a
statistically insignificant trend (p-value < 0.05 is significant). Figure G-4 plots the de-trended
data.
S « 8
8 13 Qi
Potomac»Susquehan na
•Lineai[y:0 1878X* 23786]
LOWESS |alpha=0 333]
Figure G-3. Raw flow data with trend line.
'0000
Linear [y = fl.Ox * 31307, R2 = 0)
Figure G-4. De-trended data with slope of zero.
G-14
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake BayTMDL
Linear Regression to Determine Return Period
Using the linear regression de-trended data yielded revised return periods, which are in Table G-
10. Table G-l 1 highlights return periods for the monthly spans with the highest correlation to
DO exceedances.
Table G-10. De-trending analysis results using linear regression
% DO Exceedences
Year
jan-july
jan-june
jan-may
|an-apr
jan-mar
dec-|uly
dec-june
dec-may
dec-apr
dec-mar
nov-iuly
nov-june
nov-may
nov-apr
nov-mar
oct-july
oct-june
oct-may
oct-apr
ocl-mar
sep July
sep-june
sep-may
sep-apr
sep-mar
25 87%
1992-1994
7 53
8 57
16 31
26 99
2 67
6 52
7 38
11 05
1693
2 83
2 80
635
9 00
1256
275
4 31
4 64
6 42
8 37
229
3 75
4 00
4 91
6 53
2 14
25 92%
1993-1995
5 51
562
11 91
2235
6 34
7 36
11 80
1929
4 30
4 80
703
10 18
1641
4 30
4 71
526
7 83
10 70
342
4 39
4 73
6 67
8 84
3 23
24 26%
1994-1996
5 14
4 89
6 84
7 73
9 85
4 95
4 83
6 33
6 92
8 35
3 61
4 60
563
6 16
7 17
4 05
3 96
4 53
4 77
5 25
345
3 31
3 79
4 01
4 29
22 58%
1995-1997
1 41
1 39
1 41
1 54
3 28
1 95
1 95
2 06
2 28
544
4 36
229
244
2 77
640
2 48
2 58
•
3 12
6 83
2 81
2 87
3 13
348
7 21
27 84%
1996-1998
902
982
15 37
10 27
34 34
9 54
10 73
I!
11 43
26 43
369
14 35
19 11
15 06
29 15
12 57
13 54
18 18
14 50
23.92
11 30
13 01
If 1 3
i;
19 30
31 11%
2003-2005
605
528
388
4 50
392
11 75
11 13
9 18
10 39
967
1 46
1547
1324
14 98
1342
19 18
1836
1663
18 16
1597
40 03
4241
3744
3963
3286
2T4-.
i i .
249
1 97
•
246
3 10
5 74
4 48
4 57
6 93
945
1 41
6 38
9 32
1306
9 92
8 54
13 31
16 78
21 57
• :
20 99
. •
:
Table G-11. Return periods for monthly intervals highly correlated to Chesapeake Bay DO criteria
exceedances using linear regression de-trended flow data.
Interval
September-June
November-June
December-June
September-July
December-July
1992-1994
4.00
6.35
7.38
3.75
6.52
1993-1995
4.73
7.03
7.36
4.39
6.34
1994-1996
3.31
4.60
483
3.45
4.95
1996-1998
13.01
14.35
10.73
11.30
9.54
LOWESS Polynomial Regression
Using LOWESS regression to de-trend the data, the 3-year return periods were recalculated
(Tables G-l2 and G-l3).
G-15
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table G-12. De-trending analysis results using LOWESS polynomial regression
Year
jan-july
jan-june
jan-may
jan-apr
J.iM ITM!
dec-july
dec-June
dec-may
dec-apr
dec-mar
nov-july
nov-june
nov-may
nov-apr
nov-mar
oct-july
oct-june
oct-may
oct-apr
oct-mar
sep-juty
sep-june
sep-may
sep-apr
24.97%
1991-1993
2.25
2.57
3.88
6.54
1.98
2.61
2 99
4.23
6.39
2.39
1.73
3.02
4.13
5.91
2.47
3 16
3.63
4.95
7.36
3.10
3.00
3.32
446
6.09
25 87%
1992-1994
11 24
13.21
23,61
38 98
I
921
9.92
17.41
21 35
3.18
2.15
8.93
14.14
1753
3.08
6 30
683
'• ' "
2.57
4.97
5.35
7 18
H r,u
2.37
25.92%
1993-1995
8.10
9.07
1729
3242
3.95
8 92
9.82
18.11
25 19
4,99
3.58
9.61
1691
2263
4 99
7.20
795
1 1.49
16.16
4.14
6.38
7.02
927
12.46
3.87
24 26%
1994-1996
733
6.67
8 59
9.11
13.24
7.01
655
8 19
8 30
9.93
2.65
6.16
7.59
7.72
8.85
528
4.91
5 97
6.17
6.83
444
421
4.63
4.76
.' <
1995-1997
1.42
1.40
1.44
1.58
3.61
/ 6
205
2.15
.' .-.4
6.51
3.13
2.47
2 62
300
7.67
2 81
2.85
' i'i,
3 4d
» .«
3.18
3.24
3.51
4.01
HI:'',
27.84%
1996-1998
11 81
13.47
18.30
12 20
4-'. .'.;•
12.92
1452
19.58
13 25
35.53
2 sr
18.92
28 85
1797
•1J . '
r •
2009
28 12
1797
33.96
lii i ,ii
IB .'I,
22 56
11, 1 1
2551
3 1 1 1 %
2003-2005
7.30
626
4.16
4.73
4.14
1591
1478
11 04
1200
11.54
1.30
19.92
17 34
1760
1687
31 63
30.32
/ i 10
22 ' '
19.30
81.73
8260
73.13
59 JO
44 82
2724%
2004-2006
2.60
1 98
1.88
253
3.21
7.02
4.95
492
7 63
11 12
1.31
7.68
7.96
10 73
16.58
14 98
11.10
11 96
16.49
20 54
36.71
29.70
34 38
40 07
4849
Table G-13. Return periods for monthly intervals highly correlated to Chesapeake Bay DO criteria
exceedances using LOWESS polynomial regression de-trended flow data
Interval
September-June
November-June
December-June
September-July
December-July
1992-1994
535
8.93
9.92
4.97
9.21
1993-1995
7.02
9.61
9.82
6.38
8.92
1994-1996
4.21
6.16
6.55
4.44
7.01
1996-1998
18.26
18.92
14.52
16.66
12.92
Summary of Analyses
No strict guidance exists on determining the critical period; however, the general approach is to
determine the critical period for TMDLs on the basis of data availability, capturing the worst
conditions in the period of record, capturing a range of flows, or 7QIO flow. The availability of
many decades of flow and water quality monitoring data in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
allowed the opportunity to select a critical period from a group of candidate periods, so there is
some freedom to follow a very rational approach to the selection of the period. It is EPA's best
professional judgment that a 10-year return period captures a good balance between guarding
against extreme events and ensuring attainment during more frequent critical events.
The analyses presented here take into account two methods of calculating probability, two
methods of giving weight to more effective basins, two periods to calculate long-term
probability, and two de-trending methods. All methods are more or less relevant and are
considered as a group to determine the critical period most indicative of a 10-year return period.
Of the candidate periods, 1996-1998 and 1993-1995 are closest to the 10-year return period.
Table G-14 below summarizes the results from the two candidate periods.
G-16
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table G-14. Summary of results for 1993-1995 and 1996-1998 periods
Year
Median (High r^)
Mean (High r*)
Median (All monthly spans)
Mean (All monthly spans)
Overall range 1993-1995
Year
Median (High r")
Mean (High r2)
Median (All monthly spans)
Mean (All monthly spans)
Overall range 1996-1998
All tributaries (1978-2009)
Without
multiplier
Node-
trending
With
multiplier
Node-
trending
Potomac + Susquehanna (1930-2009)
With multiplier
No De-
trending
With
multiplier
De-trended
(Linear
regression)
With
multiplier
De-trended
(LOWESS)
1993-1995
7.53
684
7.48
6.99
7.27
7.39
9.31
11.28
6.34
5.97
662
8.05
8.92
8.35
9.07
11.26
5.97-11.28
1996-1998
18.95
1882
16.02
14.87
17.56
1524
19.26
21.63
11.3
11.78
14.35
15.57
16.66
16.26
18.26
21.05
11.30-21.63
Using the above table to compare 1993-1995 and 1996-1998, it is clear that in all methods of
determining the return period, the 1996-1998 period has a return period of greater than 10 years.
The period 1993-1995 is generally evaluated to be slightly below a 10-year return period, but the
overall range incorporates the 10-year period. The Water Quality Goal Implementation Team
selected 1993-1995 as the most appropriate critical period for assessment of the jurisdictions'
DO water quality standards because it was the most consistent with existing Chesapeake Bay
watershed jurisdictions' practices.
Critical Period for Water Clarity/SAV Standards Assessment
SAV responds negatively to the same suite of environmental factors that result in low to no DO
conditions -high-flow periods yielding elevated loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments
(Dennison et al. 1993; Kemp 2004). High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus within the estuarine
water column results in high level of algae, which block sunlight from reaching the SAV leaves.
The same high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus also fuel the growth of epiphytes or
microscopic plants on the surface of the SAV leaves, also directly blocking sunlight. Sediment in
the form of total suspended solids further reduces that amount of sunlight reaching the SAV
leaves. Therefore, the critical period of 1993-1995 that was selected for assessing the
jurisdictions' DO water quality standards was also selected as the same critical period for
assessing the water clarity/SAV water quality standards.
Critical Period for Chlorophyll a Standards Assessment
Algae, measured as chlorophyll a, responds to a multitude of different environmental factors,
parameters, and conditions including the following:
• Nitrogen and phosphorus loads
• Water column temperature
G-17
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• pH conditions
• Local nutrient conditions (e.g., fluxes of nutrients from the bottom sediments)
• River flow influences on dilution of existing algae populations
• River flow, bathymetry, and other factors influencing residence time
• Local weather conditions (e.g., wind, percentage of sunlight)
• Other conditions and parameters not well understood in the current state of the science
Some of those same factors influence DO conditions, while others are unique to algae. As
documented below, by applying the same methodology used to determine the critical period for
DO (and water clarity/SAV) water quality standards assessment, a specific 3-year critical period
appropriate for assessing the chlorophyll a water quality standards was not supported by the
analyses.
Using the same methodology as was used to determine the DO critical period for the entire
Chesapeake Bay, a flow analysis was conducted to support the selection of a critical period for
the James River on the basis of the correlation between flow and chlorophyll a violations.
Flow from USGS Gage 02037500 - James River near Richmond, Virginia, was analyzed for the
period 1935-2009. De-trending was unnecessary because no trend was detected from the flow
time series. The average annual flows and running 3-year average flows were calculated for the
James River. The 3-year averages were used to determine the corresponding exceedance
probabilities and return period for the flows. The exceedance probability was determined using
both the Weibull Plotting Position and the Log Pearson III Method. The return period is defined
as the inverse of the exceedance probability. Table G-15 summarizes the flow and return period
using both the Weibull Plotting Position and Log Pearson III Method. Although the analysis
includes all years between 1935 and 2009, only the years 1985 through 2006 are shown below,
because those are the years with available data on water quality criteria violations.
To determine whether a correlation exists between 3-year mean annual flows and the percent
violations for chlorophyll a, two methods were used: the R-squared value and Kendall's Tau.
Chlorophyll a violations were tested for both the spring and summer by individual segments and
for the James River as a whole for the years 1985-2006. Table G-16 summarizes the results of
the analyses. Generally, a strong correlation does not exist between the percent chlorophyll a
violations and the 3-year average flow. The two exceptions were JMSTFL - Spring and
JMSTFU - Summer, which had statistically significant correlations but were shown to have an
inverse relationship between flow and chlorophyll a violations. Because the James River did not
exhibit a correlation between high flow and chlorophyll a violations, a critical period was not
selected on the basis of those factors..
Within the selected 1991-2000 hydrologic period, the return periods for the three year
assessment periods were generally four years or less for the James River, well below the 10-year
return frequency selected by the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (Table G-15). The
exceptions were 1994-1996 with about an 8 year return period and 1996-1998 with a 15 year
return period. These return periods were derived using both the the Weibull Plotting Position
and the Log Pearson III Method. This evaluation of return periods also did not support selection
of a critical period for the James River.
G-18 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake BayTMDL
Table G-15. James River 3-year flow averages and return period
Assessment
Period
1985-1987
1986-1988
1987-1989
1988-1990
1989-1991
1990-1992
1991-1993
1992-1994
1993-1995
1994-1996
1995-1997
1996-1998
1997-1999
1998-2000
1 999-2001
2000-2002
2001-2003
2002-2004
2003-2005
2004-2006
James River flow
(cfs)
7,057
5,780
7,386
7,073
8,018
7,270
7,502
8,011
8,012
8,836
8,225
9,526
7,211
6,645
4,240
3,975
7,277
9,235
10,320
7,701
Flow
rank
36
53
28
35
19
30
25
21
20
10
17
5
31
41
72
74
29
7
3
22
Weibull return period
(yr)
2.08
1.42
2.68
2.14
3.95
2.50
3.00
3.57
3.75
7.50
4.41
15.00
2.42
1.83
1.04
1.01
2.59
10.71
25.00
3.41
Log Pearson III return
period
(yr)
2.37
1.36
2.88
2.39
4.36
2.67
3.08
4.34
4.34
8.24
4.93
14.56
2.57
1.92
1.03
1.02
2.69
10.99
30.50
3.48
Because a specific 3-year critical period appropriate for assessment of the chlorophyll a water
quality standards in the tidal James River was not supported by these analyses—e.g., no critical
period was selected—EPA determined the need to evaluate all eight 3-year periods in the 1991-
2000 hydrologic period to assess attainment of the chlorophyll a water quality standards in the
tidal James River.
Table G-16. Correlation analyses for flow and chlorophyll a violations
Segment
Spring-Whole James
Summer-Whole James
Spring-JMSMH
Spring-JMSOH
Spring-JMSPH
Spring-JMSTFL
Spring-JMSTFU
Summer-JMSMH
Summer-JMSOH
Summer-JMSPH
Summer-JMSTFL
Summer-JMSTFU
p-value
0.4180
0.4966
0.7188
0.0250
0.9204
0.0058
0.1616
0.6242
0.5824
0.6242
0.0644
0.0001
Kendall Tau
-0.14
-0.12
0.06
-0.37
0.02
-0.45
-0.23
0.08
0.09
0.08
-0.31
-0.63
Level of significance
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
<0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
<0.01
Rz
0.008
0.061
0.029
0.274
0.084
0.519
0.117
0.027
0.004
0.015
0.219
0.519
G-19
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
References
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 1996. TMDL Bayou Sara/Norton
Creek - Mobile River Basin Organic Enrichment/DO. Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2005. Organic
Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Rabbit Creek and Dog River. Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL.
ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2006. Total Maximum Daily
Load Organic Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen Threemile Creek, Alabama. Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery AL.
Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter. S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom,
and R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation habitat
requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43:86-94.
DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 1998. Total
Maximum Daily Load Analysis for Indian River, Indian River Bay and Re hoboth Bay,
Delaware. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,
DE.
DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 1998. Total
Maximum Daily Load Analysis for Nanticoke River and Broad Creek, Delaware. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2004.
TMDLsfor The Little Assawoman Bay and Tributaries and Ponds of the Indian River, Indian
River Bay, andRehoboth Bay. Prepared by ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, DE, and J.E. Edinger
Associates, Inc., Wayne. PA.
Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Techniques of Water-Re sources Investigations oj the
United States Geological Survey. Chapter A3: Statistical methods in water resources. Book 4,
Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation.
Kemp, W.M., R.A. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L.
Karrh, E. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C.
Stevenson, and D.J. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in
Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries
27:363-377.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2009. Technical Memorandum: Analysis oj January-May Inflows to the
Chesapeake Bay During the 1996-98 Period. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Newport News, VA.
MassDEP and USEPA (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, New England Region). 2007. TMDL for Nutrients in the
Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
G-20 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Protection, Worcester. MA, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England
Region Boston, MA.
MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2006. Total Maximum Daily Loads of
Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Baltimore Harbor in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, and
Howard Counties and Baltimore City, Maryland. Maryland Department of the Environment,
Baltimore, MD.
MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2006. Total Maximum Daily Loads of
Nitrogen and Phosphorus for the Upper and Middle Chester River, Kent and Queen Anne 's
Counties, Maryland. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.
MDE and DC DOE (Maryland Department of the Environment and District of Columbia
Department of the Environment). 2008. Total Maximum Daily Loads of
Nutrients/Biochemical Oxygen Demand for the Anacostia River Basin, Montgomery and
Prince George 's Counties, Maryland and The District of Columbia. Maryland Department of
the Environment. Baltimore, MD, and District of Columbia Department of the Environment.
Washington, DC.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and SEMATECH. 2006. e-Handbookof
Statistical Methods. U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration.
.Updated: 7/18/2006.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) and CTDEP
(Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. A Total Maximum Daily Load
Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, and Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Peconic Estuary Program. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen in the Peconic Estuary
Program Study Area Including Waterbodies Currently Impaired Due to Low Dissolved
Oxygen: The Lower Peconic River and Tidal Tributaries; Western Flanders Bay and Lower
Sawmill Creek; and Meetinghouse Creek, Terrys Creek and Tributaries. Peconic Estuary
Program, Yaphank, NY.
Ponce, V.M. 1989. Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Inc.. New
York, NY.
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2002. Total
Maximum Daily Load Cooper River, Wando River, Charleston Harbor System, South
Carolina. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Charleston, SC.
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2003. Total
Maximum Daily Load Ashley River, South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, Charleston, SC.
G-21 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix G - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2009. Total Maximum Daily Load for
Dissolved Oxygen in Mill Creek, Northampton County, Virginia. Prepared by Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
U.S. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. 1982. Guidelines for determining flood-
flow frequency. Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of Water Data
Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 183 p.,
.
G-22 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix H - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix H.
Criteria Assessment Procedures using Model Scenario Output with Bay Monitoring Data
Scenarios representing different nutrient and sediment loading conditions were run using the
Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.3 Watershed Model (Bay Watershed Model) and the resultant model
scenario output was used as input into the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment
Transport Model (Bay Water Quality Model) to evaluate the response of critical water quality
parameters, specifically dissolved oxygen, water clarity, underwater bay grasses, and
chlorophyll a. To determine whether the loading scenarios met the applicable Bay jurisdictions'
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, the Bay Water Quality Model's simulated water quality
response for each variable was used to increase/decrease the corresponding observed monitoring
values collected during the same 1991-2000 hydrological period. In other words, the Bay Water
Quality model was used to estimate the change in Bay water quality that would result from
various loading scenarios. The model-simulated change in water quality was then used to adjust
the actual Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring data. Figure H-l provides an example of the
relationship between the calibration (cal) and scenario (E3) Bay Water Quality Model outputs
described above, as well as their relationship to hypothetical monitoring observations (Data) over
the same 10-year period.
a "~ Data
— Model (cal)
7 - - Model (3E)
6
5
0%
10%
20%
30% 40% 50% 60%
percent less than
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source: Linker et al 2002
Figure H-1. Frequency distribution of hypothetical observed data (blue), model calibration (solid red) and
model scenario (dashed) for a designated use.
H-l
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix H - Chesapeake BayTMDL
In the simplest terms, the following steps were taken to apply the Bay "Water Quality Model
outputs to predict Bay water quality:
1. Calibrate the Bay Water Quality Model to actual monitoring data.
2. Run a Bay Water Quality Model simulation for a given loading scenario (usually a
management scenario resulting in lower loads relative to the calibration scenario) through
the Bay Watershed and Bay Water Quality models.
3. Determine the simulated change in water quality from the calibration scenario to the
given loading scenario.
4. Apply the change in water quality as predicted by the Bay Water Quality Model to the
actual historical water quality monitoring data, and evaluate attainment based on this
scenario modified data set.
In following those steps, the scenario assessment process uses both model simulated outputs and
observed water quality monitoring data.
For a more detailed description of the model calibration process (Step 1 above), and the process
of constructing management scenarios to simulate reduced loads to the Bay Water Quality Model
(step 2 above), see Sections 5 and 6, respectively. More detailed descriptions of Steps 3 and 4 are
summarized below.
To determine the expected effect of reduced pollutant loads on a water quality parameter such as
dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a (Step 3 above), the simulated parameter concentrations from
the Bay Water Quality Model's calibration scenario are compared to the parameter
concentrations from a given load reduction scenario. This is accomplished by relating each
month's worth of values from the calibration scenario for a given location to the same month's
worth of values from the load reduction scenario at the same location. The resulting linear
regression equation represents the degree of change (in dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a
concentration) from the calibration scenario to the load reduction scenario. In Figure H-2, a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (x axis) in the calibration
scenario becomes 3.6 mg/L (y axis) in the load reduction scenario.
Regressions are generated for all Bay Water Quality Model cells that match up with the long-
term Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tidal tributary water quality monitoring stations and vertical
sampling locations through the water column. The regressions are generated using all Bay Water
Quality Model simulated values (hourly for dissolved oxygen; daily for chlorophyll a) for the
month when the historical monitoring observation occurred. The result is a unique linear
regression equation for each monitoring location and month (Figure H-3).
H-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix H - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Example Regression
10
d 9
E 8
§ 7
o
y =0.7414x + 2.1324 ^i****"
34567
Calibration Scenario DO (mg/L)
10
Figure H-2. Hypothetical example of a linear regression between model calibration (x axis) and scenario
(y axis) data.
r
Open Water
r
r
t t
Shallow Water
Deep Water
Deep Channel
Seasonally Unavailable
Figure H-3. Individual regression equation generated for each monitoring station location and month.
Once the relationship between the calibration and a given loading scenario is established, that
relationship is used to generate a scenario-modified \a\ue for each observation in the historical
monitoring data set spanning 1991-2000 (step 4 above). Those scenario-modified values
represent an estimate of the concentration that would have been observed under the conditions of
nutrient and sediment management represented by the scenario. In that manner, each observed
concentration for dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a in the 1991-2000 data set is replaced with a
scenario-modified' concentration for the same sampling location and date.
H-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix H - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figure H-4 illustrates the modification of hypothetical historical monitoring data using a
regression generated with the described procedure. The result is shown on a frequency plot so
that changes in the prediction of attainment can be seen. The perpendicular blue lines in the
lower-left portion of the graph illustrate the predicted change in dissolved oxygen from the
hypothetical historical monitoring data (solid line) to the E3 scenario (dashed line). In this case,
the incidence of dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 2.0 mg/L is predicted to decrease
from 20 percent to 10 percent.
For a full discussion of this procedure, see A Comparison of Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model
Calibration With 1985-1994 Observed Data and Method of Application to Water Quality
Criteria (Linker et al. 2002).
o%
10%
20%
30% 40% 50% 60%
percent less than
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source Linker et al 2002
Figure H-4. Frequency distribution of hypothetical summer DO concentrations, as observed (solid blue line)
and as simulated using a regression equation generated from water quality model scenarios.
Reference
Linker, L., G. Shenk, P. Wang, C. Cerco, A. Butt, P. Tango, and R. Savage. 2002. A Comparison
of Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Calibration with 1985-1994 Observed Data and Method
of Application to Water Quality Criteria. Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
MD.
H-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix I.
Documentation of the Reduced Sensitivity to Load Reductions at Low Nonattainment
Percentages
The C'hesapeake Bay water quality criteria adopted by the four Bay jurisdictions into their
respective water quality standards (WQS) regulations provide for allowable exceedances of each
set of dissolved oxygen (DO), water clarity and chlorophyll a criteria defined through application
of a biological or default reference curve (USEPA 2003). Figure 1-1 depicts this concept in
yellow as allowable exceedance of the criterion concentration. To compare the Chesapeake Bay
Water Quality Model results with the Bay jurisdictions WQS, the model results for each scenario
and for each modeled segment are analyzed to determine the percent of time and space that the
modeled DO results exceed the allowable concentration. For any modeled result where the
exceedance in space and time (shown in Figure 1-1 as the red line) exceeds the allowable
exceedance (shown in Figure 1-1 as the yellow area), that segment is considered in
nonattaimnent. That amount of nonattainrnent is shown in the figure as the area in white between
the red line and the yellow area and is typically displayed in model results as percent of
nonattainment for that segment. The amount of nonattainrnent is reported to the whole number
percent. The yellow area below the blue reference curve reflects the amount of allowable criteria
exceedance. The area between the blue reference curve and the red cumulative frequency
distribution (CFD) curve is the amount of unallowable criteria exceedance, defined here as the
red area.
Area of Criteria
Exceedence
Area of Allowable
Criteria
Exceedence
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
Source: USEPA 2003
Figure 1-1. Illustration of the application of a reference curve to the cumulative frequency distribution curve
to assess Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria attainment.
l-l
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figure 1-2 below displays Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model results showing percent
nonattainment of the 30-day mean open-water DO criterion of the Maryland portion of the lower
central Chesapeake Bay segment CB5MH_MD for various basinwide nitrogen and phosphorus
loading levels.
UJ
<
<
o
UJ
O
X
o
Q
jj!
o
CO
6",
5".
MODEL RESULTS CBS - MD
O
o
o
o
o o
o
o o o
324TN 30STN 248TN 200TN 1S1TN 1SOTN 17»TN 170TN 141TN 113TN I5TN 8«TN
24.1TP U.STP H.tTP 16TP 14.4TP 12.8TP 12.7TP 11.3TP 8.STP 7.1TP S.7TP 4.4TP
BASIN WIDE LOAD (MILLION POUNDS PER YEAR)
Source: Appendix M
Figure I-2. Example of DO criteria nonattainment results from a wide range of total nitrogen (TN) and total
phosphorus (TP) loading Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model scenarios.
As can be seen in Figure I-2, there is a notable improvement in the percent DO criterion
nonattainment as the loads are reduced until approximately I percent nonattainment. At and
below a basinwide loading level of 190 million pounds per year total nitrogen (TN) and 12.7
million pounds per year total phosphorus (TP). the 1 percent nonattainment is persistent through
consecutive reductions in loading levels and remains consistent until a loading level of 58
million pounds per year TN and 4.4 million pounds per year of TP is reached. While this is one
of the more extreme examples of persistent levels of 1 percent nonattainment over a wider range
of reduced nitrogen and phosphorus loads, this general observation of persistent nonattainment at
1 percent is fairly common to the Bay Water Quality Model DO results as described and
documented below.
Clear evidence of small, yet persistent percentage of model projected DO criteria nonattainment
over a wide range of reduced nitrogen and phosphorus loads across a wide range of segments and
designated uses, all of which are responding to nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions, is
documented within this appendix. Given that this has been observed in a wide variety of different
segments across all three designated uses—open-water, deep-water, and deep-channel—
nonattainment percentages projected by the Bay Water Quality Model rounded to 1 percent were
considered to be in attainment fora segment's designated use for purposes of developing the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
A separate validation of the findings described above was undertaken to confirm that 1 percent
was the correct percentage below which the designated use-segment could be considered in
attainment and is provided in this appendix.
1-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Reporting of Criteria Nonattainment Percentages
Chesapeake Bay modeling results for DO, chlorophyll a, and water clarity criteria nonattainment
percentages are rounded to whole numbers. This is a common scientific practice and principle
for conveying data to the public and is fully consistent with how many others report modeling
output.
Documenting Attainment for 1 Percent Nonattainment Criteria Values
The Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria adopted by Maryland. Virginia, Delaware, and the
District of Columbia into their respective WQS regulations already provides for allowable
exceedances of each set of DO, water clarity and chlorophyll a criteria defined through
application of a biological or default reference curve (USEPA 2003). What is being addressed
here is how to address I percent nonattainment DO, water clarity, and chlorophyll a criteria
values assessed using the CFD-based criteria assessment procedures in the face of clear
evidence: (I) for persistence over large simulated load reductions across numerous segments and
designated uses: and (2) reduced sensitivity to load reductions at and below the I percent
nonattainment level.
Evaluation of Residual 1.499 Percent or Less DO Criteria Nonattainment
Values
There is clear evidence for a residual of I percent DO criteria nonattainment across a large span
of model-simulated load reductions across a number of tidal Bay segments and designated uses
(Table I-1). Within the Bay TMDL document and supporting appendices, the reported criteria
attainment values already account for the allowable exceedances documented in each Bay
jurisdiction's respective Chesapeake Bay WQS regulations. These reported criteria attainment
values also account for any restoration variances adopted by the Bay jurisdictions into their WQS
regulations. All the values that are colored green denote full attainment of the respective criteria,
DO in this case.
For illustration purposes only, as observed in the DO stoplight plot spreadsheet dated May 24,
2010, shared with members of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team, 21 designated use-segments have the recorded model scenario-
transformed monitoring data nonattainment values between 0.0 percent and 1.5 percent across a
range of model scenarios. (Note that all the values reported in Table 1-1 would round to 0 percent
or 1 percent.) Those model scenarios had loading levels that spanned 9 to 151 million pounds of
nitrogen and comparable ranges of phosphorus loading levels (Table 1-1).
1-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake BayTMDL
Table 1-1. The range of DO criteria nonattainment percentages across different model simulated
nitrogen load ranges for 21 Chesapeake Bay segments-designated uses
Chesapeake Bay
segment
CB7
CHOMH1
CSHMH
DCATF
PAXTF
DCPTF
MAGMH
MOBPH
PIAMH
TANMH
YRKMH
CB3MH
CB5MH
CHSMH
EASMH
MD5MH
MAGMH
PATMH
VA5MH
CB3MH
EASMH
Designated
use
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Open-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-channel
Deep-channel
Criteria nonattainment
range3
<%)
0.5-0.0
0.1-0.0
0.8-0.1
1.2-0.1
1.0-0.6
0.6-0.2
1.3-0.3
1.0-0.0
0.1-0.1
1.5-0.1
1.0-0.4
0.6-0.0
1.5-0.0
0.5-0.4
0.8-0.2
1.5-0.1
0.5-0.5
1.1-0.1
0.7-0.0
0.2-0.1
1.3-0.0
Model simulated nitrogen
load range (million
pounds/yr)
200-141
254-179
342-309
191-179
190-179
309-254
342-191
342-200
191-179
342-309
191-170
254-179
254-141
170-141
200-170
191-141
170-141
200-190
254-179
200-190
190-170
Source: The DO criteria attainment detailed stoplight spreadsheet dated May 24, 2010 presented to the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Water Quality Goal Implementation Team during the Team's May 24, 2010, conference call.
Note:
a. Each 0.0% value in this column is colored in red in the original May 24, 2010 stoplight plot spreadsheet, denoting a
very low percentage of nonattainment was recorded below 0.1%.
Small, yet persistent percentage of DO criteria nonattainment are observed across a wide range
of segments and designated uses, all of which are responding to nutrient load reductions. There is
not comparable evidence of persistent percentages of DO criteria nonattainment above 1 percent
across a wide range of segments and designated uses for segments responding to nutrient load
reductions. Several open-water segments exist where the same percentage nonattainment persists
across a wide set of nutrient loading reductions—e.g., Gunpowder River (GUNOH) at 5 percent
from 342 TN to 85 TN, Wicomico River (WICMH) at 5 percent from 191 TN to 85 TN, several
segments in Pocomoke River at 5 percent from 179 TN to 85 TN (see Appendix M). However,
all those segments have been identified as having poor local responses to load reductions in the
Bay Water Quality Model scenarios on the basis of poor linear regressions. Other lines of
evidence, separate from the model-generated outputs were used to determine attainment and
develop the respective Bay segment TMDL (see Appendix N). The cause for the persistent
percentages (poor linear regressions) is different from the small, yet persistent percentages
(reduced sensitivity when approaching water quality criteria attainment) being addressed in this
appendix.
1-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Analysis of DO Criteria Attainment Sensitivity to Simulated Load
Reductions
A separate validation of the findings described above was undertaken to confirm that 1 percent
was the correct percentage below which the designated use-segment could be considered in
attainment. This analysis involves plotting the change in unallowable DO criterion exceedance or
red tireu under the reference curve (see Figure 1-1) per loading unit against the starting red area.
The change in red area between two scenarios is divided by the change in load. For this analysis,
the changes in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) loads are combined into a single measure, load
units, enabling the calculation of change in red area per change in load:
load units = (N + 10 x />) / 2) Equation I-1
This single measure, when plotted against starting red area, allows a direct comparison of
sensitivity of the analysis system to nitrogen and phosphorus load changes across different
levels of nonattainment. To get a true sensitivity, calculations involving scenarios that attained
the applicable UO criteria were not included. Twelve scenarios were used with eight 3-year
periods for a total of 96 possible sensitivity assessments per designated-use segment, decreased
by the number of assessments that attained the applicable DO criterion.
This analysis was not amenable to tidal tributary segments as the nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings are basinwide and not specific to an individual tidal tributary. Further, some of the
existing scenarios used for this analysis have varying levels of nitrogen and phosphorus load
reductions between different tributaries.
The CB7PH open-water segment provides a clear example of a decrease in sensitivity to nitrogen
and phosphorus load reductions as criteria nonattainment approaches zero. The highest
sensitivity to load reductions is with the highest red area, but there is still considerable sensitivity
to nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions through approximately 0.2 percent (Figure 1-3).
Another example is the CB2OH open-water segment, where a sharp drop off occurs in sensitivity
to nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions near 1 percent (Figure 1-4).
A counter-example is the CB5MH open-water segment, where the sensitivity to load reductions
is relatively constant throughout the model-simulated range of load reductions (Figure 1-5).
A large number of segments could be analyzed (see Table 1-1), but it is most appropriate to focus
on those designated-use segments most important to the Bay TMDL—those requiring significant
basinwide nutrient reductions to come in attainment with the respective DO criterion. Those
designated use-segments are CB3MH, CB4MH, and CB5MH for deep-water and deep-channel
and POTMH for deep-channel.
1 The analysis system referred to here is the combination of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment
Transport Model, the procedures for using differences in Bay model scenarios outputs to transform Bay water
quality monitoring data, and the EPA-published Bay criteria assessment procedures.
~ US December 29,2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CB7PH Open Water
0.0000
0.0%
2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Red Area
10.0%
12.0%
Figure I-3. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB7PH open-water.
CB2OH Open Water
0.0006
0.0000
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%
Red Area
Figure 1-4. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB2OH open-water.
1-6
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figure 1-5. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB5MH open-water.
The CB3MH deep-water segment has consistently reducing sensitivity to nitrogen and
phosphorus load reductions and no high sensitivity examples above 1 percent red area
(Figure 1-6). The CB4MH deep-water designated use-segment shows relatively consistent
sensitivity across a wide range of red area (Figure 1-7). The CB5MH deep-water designated use-
segment (Figure 1-8) and the POTMH deep-water designated use-segment (Figure 1-9) are
relatively constant across wide ranges but have a clear reduction in sensitivity to load reductions
around 1 percent.
The deep-channel designated use-segment plots are similar to the deep-water designated use-
segment plots. The CB3MH deep-channel designated use-segment also shows a consistent range
of sensitivity throughout multiple ranges of red area but has low sensitivity to further load
reductions at 1-1.5 percent red area (Figure I-10). The CB4MH deep-channel designated use-
segment shows a clear drop off in sensitivity to load reductions at 1 percent (Figures 1-11 and
1-12). The CB5MH deep-channel designated use-segment has no basis to make the judgment
because no red area values are less than 15 percent (Figure 1-13).
Although there is some discretion involved in the judgment of exactly when sensitivity to further
load reductions becomes low, there is a general decrease in sensitivity when the red area is low.
One percent is a relatively consistent level at which sensitivity decreases significantly across
many of the principal designated use-segments used for decision making in the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL (Table 1-2). At the nonattainment values of 1 percent (or less), there is a significant drop
off in the sensitivity—further reduction in DO criteria nonattainment—of these designated use-
segments to further load reductions. The analysis system is not sensitive to the effects of further
load reductions at the 1 percent or less nonattainment level. This finding is fully consistent w ith
findings from the parallel analysis summarized in Table 1-1 for a wider array of designated use-
segments.
1-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CB3MH Deep Water
00000
00%
1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
4.0% 5 0% 60%
Red Area
70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 1-6. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB3MH deep-water.
5
0
1
i
s
1
*
•a
~Z
1
'
o
i)
D
i)
0
0
0
o
D
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000
0.(
CB4MH Deep Water
*
* •
^* »
,
.••..."-.
* # *
*•• •* « ** * * * *
* •• ^ *
•r ^^k v
*
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CBSMH Deep Water
1
i.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0°/<
4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%
Red Area
Figure I-8. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CBSMH deep-water.
POTMH Deep Water
00000
0.0%
20%
40%
60% 8 0%
Red Area
100%
12 0%
14.0%
Figure I-9. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment POTMH deep-water.
I-9
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CB3MH Deep Channel
00025
00000
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 100% 12.0% 140% 16.0% 18.0% 200%
Red Area
Figure 1-10. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB3MH deep-channel.
CB4MH Deep Channel
0.0100
I 0.0050
f" 0.0040
g 00030
« 0 0020 - 4*
1 0.0010 *•***
•
0.0000
0.0%
10.0% 20.0%
30.0% 40.0%
Red Area
500%
60.0%
700%
Figure 1-11. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CB4MH deep-channel.
I-10
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CB4MH Deep Channel
o 0001
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
4.0% 5.0% 6.0%
Red Area
7.0% 8.0% 90% 100%
Figure 1-12. Expanded view of the Figure 1-11 focusing down on the 0-10% red area for segment CB4MH
deep-channel to illustrate the drop off in sensitivity at the 1-1.5% of red area.
CB5MH Deep Channel
00001
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 150% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Red Area
Figure 1-13. Load sensitivity (unallowable DO criteria exceedances per load unit) vs. red area
(unallowable DO criteria exceedances) for designated use-segment CBSMH deep-channel.
l-ll
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table 1-2. Summary of findings from the analysis of red area with low sensitivity to load reductions
for the Chesapeake Bay designated use
Chesapeake Bay segment
CB3MH
CB4MH
CB5MH
POTMH
CB3MH
CB4MH
CB5MH
Designated use
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-water
Deep-channel
Deep-channel
Deep-channel
Red area with low sensitivity to load
reductions
(%)
0.2
0
1
1
1-1.5
1
N/A
Sources: Figures I-6 through 1-13 in this appendix
Water Clarity Criteria
Only one segment displayed a small, yet persistent percentage of model projected water
clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) criteria nonattainment over a range of reduced
nitrogen and phosphorus loads—the Appomattox River segment (APPTF) in Virginia's James
River Basin. In the case of that segment, no observed SAV has been mapped since the early
1970s, but historical acreages were observed back in the 1950s. That tidal fresh segment
(salinities from 0 to 0.5 ppt) was one of the very few tidal fresh segments that did not exhibit a
positive response (increased water clarity, increased SAV acreage) to model simulated
reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. For the reasons unique to this segment, EPA
considered 1 percent nonattainment of the water clarity/SAV criteria in attainment for the Bay
segment's shallow water bay grass designated use for purposes of developing the Bay TMDL.
Chlorophyll a Criteria
In the case of assessment of the chlorophyll a criteria in the tidal James River in Virginia, there
was very limited evidence of a reduced sensitivity when approaching the criteria values as
compared with the suite of DO criteria as described above for across multiple designated uses
and segments. As illustrated in Figure 1-14, there is a clear, positive response to reduced nitrogen
and phosphorus loads, with a stepwise flattening of the response approaching full attainment. In
developing the James River basin allocations under the Bay TMDL, the vast majority of the
spring and summer season 3-year periods came into full attainment at the established nitrogen
and phosphorus allocations of 23.5 million pounds of nitrogen per year and 2.35 million pounds
of phosphorus per year (see Section 6.2.3 and Appendix O). EPA considered 1 percent
nonattainment of the applicable segment and season-specific chlorophyll a criteria in attainment
for only a limited number of segment/season/3-year period combinations given the evidence,
though limited, of reduced sensitivity when approaching full attainment of the criteria values.
1-12
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
JMSMH Summer 1997-1999
Figure 1-14. Example of the middle James River segment's summer chlorophyll a criteria nonattainment
results from a wide range of TN and TP loading Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model scenarios.
Application in Development of the Bay TMDL
DO Criteria
Because such findings have been observed in a wide variety of different segments across all
three designated uses—open-water, deep-water, and deep-channel—and confirmed through an
independent analysis, DO criteria nonattainment percentages rounded to I percent were
considered in attainment for that Bay segment's designated use for purposes of developing the
Bay TMDL. For those designated use-segments for which a jurisdiction has adopted a restoration
variance that sets attainment at a percentage of the non-allowable criteria exceedances, the
I percent nonattainment described above does not apply to assessment of the restoration variance
percentage. For example, Maryland's designated use-segment CB4MH deep water has a
restoration variance of 7 percent. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model-based criteria
attainment assessment results showing 8 percent nonattainment would still be considered in
nonattainment.
Chlorophyll a and Water Clarity/SA V Criteria
In the case of the chlorophyll a criteria assessments, EPA considered nonattainment percentages
rounded to I percent in attainment only for a select set of segment/season/3-year period
combinations given the more limited evidence of reduced sensitivity when approaching full
attainment of the criteria values compared with DO. Only one Bay segment had unique
circumstances that supported EPA's considering water clarity/SAV criteria nonattainment
percentages rounded to 1 percent to be in attainment.
1-13
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix I - Chesapeake BayTMDL
References
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
1-14 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix J
Key Chesapeake Bay TMDL Reference and Management Modeling Scenarios: Definitions
and Descriptions
1985 Scenario
The 1985 scenario uses the estimated 1985 land uses, NPS loadings, animal numbers.
atmospheric deposition, and point source loads. This scenario estimates the highest loads of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the Bay in recent time (using a constant 1991-2000
hydrology). The Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus.
and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4, and J-6, respectively.
2009 Scenario
The 2009 scenario uses the estimated 2009 land uses, NPS loadings, animal numbers,
atmospheric deposition, and point source loads as well as the best management practices tracked
and reported by the seven watershed jurisdictions through 2009. The 2009 year was chosen as
the baseline for the TMDL, as it was the most recent year for which complete implementation
data (BMPs, waster loads, etc.) was available during the Bay TMDL development process. Phase
5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for
this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4, and J-6, respectively.
Tributary Strategy Scenario
The Tributary Strategy scenario estimates the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads through
model simulations of full implementation of the seven jurisdictions' 2004-2005 tributary
strategies throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This scenario included an accounting for
all the tributary strategy BMPs on a 2010 land use, and the 2010 estimated permitted loads for all
the significant and non-significant wastewater dischargers, as described in Table J-l.
Adjustments to the jurisdictions' tributary strategies developed in 2004 and 2005 to reflect
changes in State laws or policies (e.g.. permitting of significant wastewater discharge facilities)
since development of the initial set of jurisdictional tributary strategies were also included in this
scenario's input decks. Atmospheric deposition inputs were from the Community Multi-scale Air
Quality Model's 12 km grid with an estimated 2010 deposition and included simulations of the
State Implementation Plans to reach the 2010 Air Quality Standards. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this scenario are listed
in Tables J-2, J-4, and J-6, respectively.
J-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-1. Wastewater discharge facilities and combined sewer overflows (CSO) assumptions for
the Tributary Strategy, Everything by Everyone Everywhere (E3) and the 2010 No Action scenarios
Scenario
Definition
Concentration
Significant
Municipal
Plants
Significant
Industrial
Plants
Non-
significant
Municipal
Plants
Non-
significant
Industrial
Plants
Flow
CSO
Tributary Strategy
Latest jurisdiction
tributary strategy
Latest jurisdiction
tributary strategy
BOD=5 mg/l, DO=5
mg/l and TSS=5 mg/l
Latest jurisdiction
tributary strategy
BOD=5 mg/l, DO=5
mg/l and TSS=5 mg/l
2006 data or more
recently submitted
non-significant facility
data
BOD=30 mg/l, DO=4.5
mg/l and TSS=25 or
45 mg/l
Tetra Tech estimated
non-significant
industrial data
BOD=30 mg/l, DO4.5
mg/l and TSS=25 or
45 mg/l
Tributary strategy
flows for significant
facilities.
2006 data or more
recently submitted
data for non-significant
facilities
Long Term Control
Plan-full
mplementation
E3
Level of Technology
Everywhere
Tier 4 Level
TN=3andTP=0.1
BOD=3 mg/l, D0=6
mg/l and TSS=5 mg/l
TN=3 and TP=0.1 or
tributary strategy level
if less for industrial
facilities
BOD=3 mg/l, D0=6
mg/l and TSS=5 mg/l
TN=8 mg/L and TP=2
mg/L for municipal
plants
Current level adjusted
by the same rates used
for sig industrial plants
BOD =5 mg/l, D0=5
mg/l and TSS= 8 mg/l
Tetra Tech estimated
non-significant
industrial data adjusted
by the percentage of
equivalent reduction
from No-Action (18
mg/l TN, 3mg/l TP) to
E3(3mg/ITN,0.1 mg/l
TP)
BOD =5 mg/l, D0=5
mg/l and TSS= 8 mg/l
Same as tributary
strategy scenario
100% CSO overflow
reduction
2010 No Action
No management action.
Secondary Treatment at
the same level
everywhere with
tributary strategy flows
TN=18mg/landTP=3
mg/l
BOD=30 mg/l, D0=4.5
mg/l and TSS= 15 mg/l
Highest Loads on
record, or tributary
strategy loads if greater
BOD=30 mg/l, D0=4.5
mg/l and TSS= 15 mg/l
TN=18mg/landTP=3
mg/l
BOD=30 mg/l, D0=4.5
mg/l and TSS= 15 mg/l
Tetra Tech estimated
non-significant industrial
data.
BOD=30 mg/l, D0=4.5
mg/l and TSS=25 or 45
mg/l
Same as tributary
strategy scenario
2003 Estimates
Notes: E3 - everyone, everything, everywhere, TN - total nitrogen, TP - total phosphorus, BOD - biological oxygen
demand, DO - dissolved oxygen, TSS - total suspended solids, CSO- combined sewer overflow
J-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
1985 No Action Scenario
The No Action scenario estimates nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads under the conditions
of minimal to no pollution reduction controls on sources and nonpoint sources using a 1985 land
use and human and agricultural animal populations. Major widespread management practices
that would not already be in place such as nutrient management and conservation tillage were
eliminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment/discharging facilities were set at primary
treatment with no nutrient removal and with no phosphate detergent ban. Atmospheric deposition
loads were set to 1985 levels of emissions and controls. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables
J-2, J-4, and J-6, respectively.
The No Action scenario is used with the H3 scenario to define "controllable" loads, the
difference between No Action and E3 loads. No Action and E3 scenario conditions can be
determined for historic years (beginning 1985), current year, or projected future (through 2030)
by changing the underlying land use, associated pollutant loadings and population estimates. All
past practices, programs, and treatment upgrades that currently exist are credited toward the
needed reductions from the No Action "baseline".
1985 No Action Wastewater Treatment/Discharging Facilities
• No Action Significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities
- Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows
- Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg/l TN
- Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg/l TP
- BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l
• No Action Significant industrial dischargers
Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows
- Highest Loads on record or Tributary Strategy loads if greater
- BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l
• No Action Nonsignificant municipal wastewater treatment facilities
- Flow = Tributary Strategy flows
- Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg/l TN
- Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg/l TP
- BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l
1985 No Action Combined Sewer Overflows
• Flow = current base condition flow
• Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg/l TN
• Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg/l TP
• BOD = 200 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 45 mg/l.
J-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
1985 No Action On-site Waste Treatment Systems
There are no nitrogen and phosphorus control practices and programs in the No Action scenario
throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for on-site waste treatment systems.
1985 No Action Atmospheric Deposition
The 2020 CMAQ Scenario is used for atmospheric deposition in both the E3 and No-Action
scenarios in determining the "controllable" load (see Appendix L). This approach allows for the
agreed to Bay TMDL air reductions to be already considered in the nitrogen load reductions
needed to achieve the Bay water quality standards.
1985 No Action Urban Practices
There are no nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment control practices and programs in the No
Action scenario throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for the urban sector.
1985 No Action Agricultural Practices
There are no nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment control practices and programs in the No
Action scenario throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for agricultural lands and operations.
1985 No Action Forestry Practices
There are no nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment control practices and programs in the No
Action scenario throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed on forest lands where there could be
environmental impacts from timber harvesting and dirt and gravel roads.
2010 No Action Scenario
This scenario estimates nutrient and sediment loads under the conditions of minimal to no
pollution reduction controls on point sources and nonpoint sources using a 2010 land use and
population. Major widespread management practices such as nutrient management and
conservation tillage were eliminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment facilities were set at
primary treatment (no nutrient removal) with no phosphate detergent ban. Atmospheric
deposition loads were set to 1985 levels of emissions and controls. See the above description of
the 1985 No Action Scenario for further details. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4,
and J-6, respectively.
Everyone, Everything, Everywhere (E3) Scenario
The E3 Scenario is an estimate of the application of management actions to the fullest possible
extent practicable (this is not Limit of Technology). The E3 scenario is a "what-if' scenario of
watershed conditions with the theoretical maximum practicable levels of managed controls on all
pollutant load sources. There are no cost and few physical limitations to implementing BMPs for
point and nonpoint sources in the E3 scenario. This scenario is used with the No Action scenario
J-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
to define "controllable" loads, the difference between No Action and E3 loads. Phase 5.3
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this
scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4, and J-6. respectively.
"Controllable" loads are considered when allocating the target loads needed to meet water
quality standards to different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Target cap allocations
also take into consideration the relative impacts of load reductions from regions throughout the
watershed on water quality standards. Differences between No Action and E3 scenario loads
provide equity among regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in that the assumptions for point
source controls and nonpoint source practice and program implementation levels for each
scenario are spatially universal. Differences among regions occur because of more "inherent"
differences in, for example, animal and human populations, the number and types of point source
facilities, agricultural land uses and areas, urban land areas, atmospheric deposition, etc.
Generally, E3 implementation levels and their associated reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment could not be achieved for many practices, programs, and control technologies when
considering physical limitations and required participation levels. E3 includes most technologies,
practices and programs that have been reported by jurisdictions as part of annual model
assessments. Tributary Strategies, and two-year milestones.
For most non-point source BMPs, it was assumed that the load from every available acre of the
relevant land area was being controlled by a suite of existing or innovative practices. In addition,
management programs converted land uses from those with high yielding nitrogen, phosphorus.
and sediment loads to those with lower. E3 does not include the entire suite of practices, but
rather, fully implements only those practices that have been estimated to produce greater
reductions than alternative practices that could be applied to the same land base.
The current definition of E3 includes a greater number of types of practices than historic E3
scenarios. E3 load reductions could be exceeded through greater effectiveness of practices and
technologies in the future because of, for example, employment of new technologies and greater
efforts on operation and maintenance. For point sources, nutrient control technologies are
assumed to apply to all dischargers.
E3 Wastewater Discharging Facilities
• E3 Significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities
- Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows
- Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg/1 TN
- Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg/1 TP
- BOD = 3 mg/1, DO = 6 mg/1 and TSS = 5 mg/1
• E3 Significant industrial dischargers
- Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows
- Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg/1 TN or Tributary Strategy concentration if less
- Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg/1 TP or Tributary Strategy concentration if
less
- BOD = 3 mg/1, DO = 6 mg/1 and TSS = 5 mg/1
J-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• E3 Non-significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities
- Flow = Design or 2006 flow if design is not available
- Nitrogen effluent concentration = 8 mg/l TN or Tributary Strategy concentration if less
- Phosphorus effluent concentration = 2 mg/l TP or Tributary Strategy concentration if
less
- BOD = 5 mg/l, DO = 5 mg/l and TSS = 8 mg/l
• E3 Nonsignificant industrial wastewater treatment facilities
- Applies the percentage of equivalent reduction from No Action (18 mg/l TN, 3mg/l TP)
to E3 (3 mg/I TN. O.I mg/l TP) to the 2010 load estimates.
E3 Combined Sewer Overflows
• 100% overflow reduction through storage and treatment, separation or other practices.
Storage and treatment is assumed in current model scenarios.
E3 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems
• E3 Septic system connections
- 10% of septic systems retired and connected to wastewater treatment facilities.
• E3 Septic denitrification and maintenance
- Remaining septic systems after connections employ denitrification technologies and are
maintained through regular pumping to achieve a 55% TN load reduction at the edge-
of-septic-field.
- Septic systems are maintained by a responsible management entity or in perpetuity
through a maintenance contract.
E3 Atmospheric Deposition
• E3 atmospheric deposition uses the Chesapeake Bay Program's air scenario that shows the
maximum reductions in deposition a projection to 2020 called the Maximum Feasible
Scenario (see Appendix L).
• The Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal Implementation Team decided to use
the same atmospheric deposition for both the E3 and No Action scenarios in the allocation
methodology.
• The 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario represents incremental improvements and control
options (beyond 2020 CAIR) that might be available to states for application by 2020 to
meet a more stringent ozone standard, stricter than 0.08 ppm - such as the proposed
0.070 ppm ozone standard of January 2010.
• Emissions projections for the 2020 E3 scenario assume the following:
- National/regional and available State Implementation Plans (SIP) for NOx reductions -
with lower ozone season nested emission caps in OTC states; targeting use of
maximum controls for coal fired power plants in or near non-attainment areas.
- Electric Generating Units (ECU):
• CAIR second phase in place, in coordination with earlier NOx SIP call.
J-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
. NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP).
• Regional Haze Rule and guidelines for Best Available retrofit Technology (BART)
for reducing regional haze.
• Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in place.
- Non-EGU point sources:
• New supplemental controls, such as low NOx burners, plus increased control
measure efficiencies on planned controls and step up of controls to maximum
efficiency measures, e.g., replacing SNCRs (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction)
with SCRs (Selective Catalytic Reduction) control technology.
• Solid Waste Rules - Hospital/Medical Waste Incinerator Regulations
- On-Road mobile sources:
• On-Road Light Duty Mobile Sources - Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards and the
Gasoline Sulfur Program which affects SUV's, pickups and vans which are subject
to same national emission standards as cars.
• On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Rule - Tier 4: New emission standards on diesel
engines starting with the 2010 model year for NOx, plus increased penetration of
diesel retrofits and continuous inspection and maintenance using remote onboard
diagnostic systems.
- Clean Air Non-Road Diesel Rule:
• Off-road diesel engine vehicle rule, reduced NOx emissions from marine vessels in
coastal shipping lanes, and locomotive diesels (phased in by 2014) require controls
on new engines.
• Off-road large spark ignition engine rules affect recreational vehicles (marine and
land based).
- Area (nonpoint area) sources: switching to natural gas and low sulfur fuel.
• E3 Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions
- Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of application, litter
treatment, bio-filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste
storage or treatment facilities.
- The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confined animal housing and waste
storage as well as lower emissions from fertilized soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia
deposition.
E3 Urban Practices
• E3 Forest conservation & urban growth reduction
- All projected loss of forest from development is retained or planted in forest.
• E3 Riparian forest buffers on urban
- 10% of pervious riparian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands)
associated with urban lands are buffered as forest for each modeled hydrologic segment
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
- The area of un-buffered riparian land is determined using the best available data: 1)
1:24K National Hydrography Dataset; and 2) 2001 land cover.
J-7 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• E3 Tree planting on urban
- Forest conservation and urban riparian forest buffers account for tree plantings in the
urban sector.
• E3 Stormwater Management
- Regions with karst topography (low permeability) and Coastal Plain Lowlands (high
groundwater)
• 50% of areas - impervious cover reduction.
• 30% of area - filtering practices designed to reduce TN by 40%, IP by 60% and
SED by 80% from a pre-BMP condition.
• 20% of area - infiltration practices designed to reduce TN by 85%, TP by 85% and
sediment by 95% from a pre-BMP condition.
- Ultra-urban regions - defined as high- and medium-intensity land cover
• 50% of areas - impervious cover reductions, e.g. cisterns and collections systems to
capture rainwater for reuse.
• 30% of area - filtering practices, e.g., sand filters, bio-retention, and dry wells.
• 20% of area - infiltration practices, e.g., infiltration trenches and basins.
- Other urban/suburban regions
• 10% of areas - impervious cover reduction.
• 30% of area - filtering practices, e.g. sand filters, bio-retention.
• 60% of area - infiltration practices.
• E3 Erosion & sediment controls
- Controls of the runoff from all bare-construction land use areas are assumed to be at a
level so that the construction loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge-of-
stream loads from pervious urban under E3 conditions.
• E3 Nutrient management on urban
- All pervious urban acres are under nutrient management.
• E3 Controls on extractive (active and abandoned mines)
- Controls of the runoff from all extractive land use areas are assumed to be to a degree
so that the loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge-of-stream loads from
pervious urban under E3 conditions.
E3 Agricultural Practices
• E3 Conservation tillage
- All row crops are conservation-tilled.
• E3 Enhanced nutrient management applications
- All cropland is under enhanced nutrient management - the hybrid of reduced
application rate and decision agriculture.
- Long-term, adaptive management approach with continuous improvement.
J-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
E3 Riparian forest buffers on agriculture
- Riparian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands) associated with
agricultural lands are buffered as forest.
- This equates to 15% of cropland and 10% of pasture land including the pasture stream
corridor for each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
- The area of un-buffered riparian land is determined using the best available data:
1) 1:24K National Hydrography Dataset; and 2) 2001 land cover.
- Current implementation of riparian grass buffers is considered converted to riparian
forest buffers.
E3 Wetland restoration
- 5% of available agricultural acres in crops and grazed for each modeled hydrologic
segment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
E3 Carbon sequestration / alternative crops
- 5% of the available row crop acres for each modeled hydrologic segment in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
- Program is replacement of row crops with long-term grasses that serve as a carbon
bank.
E3 Agricultural land retirement
- Retirement of highly credible land is considered in the E3 practices of riparian forest
buffers, wetland restoration, and carbon sequestration practices which typically have
equal or greater environmental benefits.
E3 Tree planting on agriculture
- Tree planting is considered in the E3 practice of riparian forest buffers which typically
have equal or greater environmental benefits.
E3 Conservation Plans (non-nutrient management)
- Conservation Plans are fully implemented on all agricultural land (row crops, hay,
alfalfa, and pasture).
E3 Cover crops and commodity cover crops
- Early-planting rye cover crops with drilled seeding on all relevant row crops.
- The watershed-wide average of 81 % of row crops are not associated with small-grain
production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
- p Early-planting wheat commodity cover crops with drilled seeding on remaining row
crops (associated with small-grain production).
• The watershed-wide average of 19% of row crops associated with small-grain
production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
E3 Pasture Management
- Stream Access Control with Fencing - Exclusion fencing is assumed to protect the
stream corridor area designated as the degraded landuse and the area between the
J"9 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
stream bank and fence is converted to (and is part of) the agricultural forest buffer
determination.
- Prescribed grazing - All upland pasture area is assumed to be under prescribed grazing.
- Dairy Precision Feeding and Forage Management (also listed under E3 Dairy Precision
Feeding) - All dairy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted manure of
TN = 24% and TP = 28% from a pre-feed management condition.
• Management approaches may include increased productivity and use of on-farm
grass forage.
- Horse pasture management benefits are the same as those for fencing and prescribed
grazing practices for livestock in general.
E3 Animal waste management/runoff control
- Controls of runoff of manure nutrients from the production area of animal feeding
operations is assumed to be at a level so that loads are equal to the nutrient and
sediment edge-of-stream loads associated with hay that does not receive fertilizer
applications.
- Other practices typically associated with animal waste management and runoff control,
that may affect runoff from the production area, are addressed separately in the E3
scenario. These include Poultry and Swine Phytase, Dairy Precision Feeding, Manure
Transport, and Ammonia Emissions Reductions.
E3 Poultry phytase
- The phosphorus content in the manure of all poultry is reduced by 32% from a pre-feed
management condition.
E3 Swine phytase
- The phosphorus content in excreted manure of all swine is reduced from a pre-feed
management condition by 17%.
E3 Dairy Precision Feeding
- All dairy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted manure of TN = 24%
and TP = 28% from a pre-feed management condition.
E3 Ammonia emissions reductions
- Also under E3 Atmospheric Deposition - Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions
- Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of application, litter
treatment, bio-filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste
storage or treatment facilities.
- The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confined animal housing and waste
storage as well as lower emissions from fertilized soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia
deposition.
E3 Nursery Management
- All nursery operations are managed through a number of practices to protect water
quality including properly addressing nutrient management and incorporating erosion
and sedimentation controls.
MO December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
- Controls are to a degree so that runoff from nursery areas is equal to the nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment edge-of-stream loads from hay that does not receive fertilizer
applications.
E3 Forest Harvest Practices
• E3 Forest harvesting practices
- Controls of runoff from the disturbed area of timber harvest operations is assumed to be
at a level so that the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads are equal to edge-of-
stream loads associated with the forest/woody landuse.
- It's assumed these BMPs, designed to minimize the environmental impacts from timber
harvesting (such as road building and cutting/thinning operations), are properly
installed on all harvested lands with no measurable increase in nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment discharge.
All Forest with Current Air Scenario
This scenario uses an all forest land use and estimated atmospheric deposition loads for the 1991 -
2000 period, and represents estimated loads with maximum reductions on the land including the
elimination of fertilizer, point source, and manure loads. However, this scenario has loads greater
than a pristine scenario which would have reduced input atmospheric deposition loads by about an
order of magnitude. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-3, J-5, and J-7, respectively.
Base Calibration Scenario
The Base Calibration Scenario is used in data correction procedures and represents the
calibration of the time series of land uses, loads, and hydrology over the ten year simulation
period (1991-2001) used for TMDL scenarios. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4.
and J-6, respectively.
Allocation Scenario
The Allocation Scenario characterizes the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads necessary to
achieve the Bay jurisdictions' Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. This scenario, ultimately
replaced by the final Bay TMDL allocations listed in Section 9, is provided for documentation
purposes. The Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Table J-8.
190/12.7 Loading Scenario
This scenario of 190 million pounds nitrogen and 12.7 million pounds phosphorus delivered to
the Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads
that were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake
Ml December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this scenario are
listed in Tables J-3, J-5, and J-7, respectively.
179/12 Loading Scenario
This scenario of 179 million pounds nitrogen and 12 million pounds phosphorus delivered to the
Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads that
were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are
listed in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.
170/11.3 Loading Scenario
This scenario of 170 million pounds nitrogen and 11.3 million pounds phosphorus delivered to
the Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads
that were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. Phase 5.3
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this
scenario are listed in Tables J-3, J-5, and J-7, respectively.
James Level of Effort Potomac Scenario
This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the tidal James
River's chlorophyll a water quality standards. The 190/I2.7 Loading Scenario was used as a base
for this scenario and all other basins but the James River basin received the nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings that were allocated as part of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. In the James
River basin, the nitrogen and phosphorus loads were equivalent to the same level of effort as
Virginia's portion of the Potomac for the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for this scenario are listed
in Tables J-3, J-5, and J-7, respectively.
James Yz Level of Effort Potomac Scenario
This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the tidal James
River's chlorophyll a water quality standards. The 190/12.7 Loading Scenario was used as a base
for this scenario and all other basins but the James received the nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings that were allocated as part of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. In the James River basin,
the nitrogen and phosphorus loads are equivalent to the level of effort halfway between
Virginia's portion of the Potomac River basin and the James River basin for the 190/12.7
Loading Scenario. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.
Please note that in some cases the scenario loads reported in this Appendix may differ slightly
from loads reported in other documentation, such as in the stoplight plots in Appendix M. This is
because the scenario loads in this Appendix have the latest updated input load information but
the stoplight plots in Appendix M contain scenarios that were dated and in some cases corrected
with new information. For example, the scoping scenarios of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario,
J-12 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake BayTMDL
179/12 Loading Scenario, and 170/11 Loading Scenario were developed with appropriate factors
of an early Tributary Strategy Scenario which has been updated since the stoplight assessments
were run.
Table J-2. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin and Scenario
Scenario
1985
Base
Calibration
2009
2010 No-
Action
Tributary
Strateav
Eastern Shore (hAS) ~~ "* —
James
Potom
Rappal
Susquc
Wester
Patuxe
York Ri
Totals(
State
Basin
DE
MD
PA
VA
River E
VA
WV
4.59
16.55
0.57
2.15
4.77
16.35
0.54
2.20
4.15
12.42
0.44
2.00
4.98
17.70
0.49
2.41
3.16
9.84
0.31
1.03
201 OE3
2 22
7.18
0.20
0.79
Jasln(JAM) — ~
42.47
0.02
36.82
0.02
31.52
0.02
49.11
0.02
27.51
0.02
ac Klver Basin (POT)
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
lannoc
VA
ihanna
MD
NY
PA
6.22
29.56
7.23
30.14
8.08
5.41
26.96
6.95
28.36
7.79
2.86
18.77
6.23
20.31
5.91
9.78
32.96
6.69
33.53
6.37
2.26
16.10
4.24
16.38
4.78
16.45
0.02
1.47
11.42
3.50
13.31
3.61
k River Basin (RAP) J
8.92
8.35
6.94
9.33
5.62
River Basin (SUS)
2.29
16.87
127.49
2.02
15.02
118.86
1.54
10.95
101.65
1.75
11.03
119.29
1.26
9.56
71.09
n Shore (WES)
MD
PA
nt Rive
MD
ver Bas
VA
Trillions
rDC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
Chesapeake B.
Total
27.00
0.04
17.75
0.04
14.00
0.03
36.64
0.04
9.84
0.01
r Basin (PAT)
4.16
3.86
3.09
6.01
2.78
>ln (YOR)
7.60
7.37
6.44
8.49
5.09
s Ibs/year) '"' — —'
6.22
4.59
79.56
16.87
135.34
91.27
8.11
23.85
42.49
81.23
8.92
146.65
27.04
4.16
7.60
5.41
4.77
66.95
15.02
126.39
83.10
7.81
23.85
36.84
75.47
8.35
135.90
17.79
3.86
7.37
2.86
4.15
49.81
10.95
108.35
67.21
5.93
19.01
31.54
54'.07
6.94
114.14
14.03
3.09
6.44
9.78
4.98
95.05
11.03
126.51
102.86
6.39
25.58
49.12
89.33
9.33
132.07
36.68
6.01
8.49
2.26
3.16
39.82
9.56
75.66
55.65
4.80
14.34
27.53
43.76
5.62
81.92
9.85
2.78
5.09
4.39
0.87
6.39
56.89
5.99
0.01
2.03
3.83
1.47
2 22
27.49
6.39
60.59
38.78
3.63
10.39
16.47
33.31
4.39
64.15
6.00
2.03
3.83
ay Total(milllons Ibs/year)
341.95
309.44
249.26
356.61
190.90
140.57
J-13
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-3. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin and
Scenario
190/12.7
179/12
170/11.3
James L.O.E.
1/2 Potomac
James L.O.E.
Potomac
All Forest
Eastern Shore
DE
MD
PA
VA
3.14
9.76
0.31
1.02
2.85
8.88
0.28
0.93
2.57
8.00
0.25
0.84
3.14
9.76
0.31
1.02
3.14
9.76
0.31
1.02
0.58
2.65
0.09
0.22
James River Basin
VA
VW
26.55
0.02
25.99
0.02
25.43
0.02
23.47
0.02
21.51
0.02
7.26
0.01
Potomac River Basin
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
2.31
16.48
4.34
16.77
4.89
2.21
15.72
4.14
16.00
4.67
2.10
14.96
3.94
15.23
4.44
2.31
16.48
4.34
16.77
4.89
2.31
16.48
4.34
16.77
4.89
0.06
4.66
1.03
5.22
1.84
Rappahannock River Basin
VA
5.87
5.54
5.22
5.87
5.87
2.20
Susquehanna River Basin
MD
NY
PA
1.25
9.44
70.20
1.17
8.85
65.87
1.09
8.27
61.54
1.25
9.44
70.20
1.25
9.44
70.20
0.50
2.88
23.52
Western Shore
MD
PA
9.45
0.01
9.08
0.01
8.71
0.01
9.45
0.01
9.45
0.01
2.29
0.00
Patuxent River Basin
MD
2.77
2.63
2.49
2.77
2.77
0.88
York River Basin
Totals
State
Basin
Chesap
VA
5.37
millions Ibs/year
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
2.31
3.14
39.70
9.44
74.86
55.58
4.91
14.23
26.57
44.79
5.87
80.88
9.46
2.77
5.37
5.10
4.83
5.37
5.37
1.85
2.21
2.85
37.48
8.85
70.30
53.56
4.69
12.94
26.01
42.73
5.54
75.89
9.09
2.63
5.10
2.10
2.57
35.26
8.27
65.74
51.54
4.46
11.66
25.45
40.67
5.22
70.90
8.72
2.49
4.83
2.31
3.14
39.70
9.44
74.86
52.51
4.91
14.23
23.49
44.79
5.87
80.88
9.46
2.77
5.37
2.31
3.14
39.70
9.44
74.86
50.55
4.91
14.23
21.53
44.79
5.87
80.88
9.46
2.77
5.37
0.06
0.58
10.98
2.88
24.63
16.74
1.85
3.54
7.27
12.80
2.20
26.90
2.30
0.88
1.85
eake Bay Total(milllons Ibs/year)
189.94 179.94 169.95 186.86 184.90 57.72
J-14
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake BayTMDL
Table J-4. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin and
Scenario
1985
Eastern Shore
James
Potoma
DE
MD
PA
VA
0.37
1.70
0.02
0.26
Base
Calibration
2009
2010
No-Action
Tributary
Strateav
0.38
1.59
0.02
0.25
0.32
1.17
0.02
0.19
0.45
2.00
0.02
0.30
0.27
1.04
0.01
0.13
River Basin ' ~
VA
VW
6.47
0.01
4.32
0.01
3.25
0.01
7.52
0.01
3.28
0.01
c Kiver Basin '
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
0.10
1.48
0.57
2.18
0.85
0.10
1.24
0.54
2.09
0.91
0.09
1.01
0.54
2.01
0.82
1.58
3.56
0.61
4.97
0.92
0.11
1.03
0.38
1.70
0.54
201 OE3
0.19
0.83
0.01
0.12
1.55
0.01
0.05
0.63
0.33
0.98
0.37
Rappahannock River Basin
Susque
Westerr
Patuxer
York Rh
Totals(n
State
Basin
Chesapc
VA
1.29
1.24
1.08
1.65
0.94
hanna kiver Basin
MD
NY
PA
i Shore
MD
PA
0.09
1.07
4.48
0.07
0.98
3.79
0.06
0.80
3.41
0.07
0.97
5.25
1.62
0.00
0.87
0.00
0.77
0.00
3.63
0.00
0.06
0.65
2.65
0.68
0.00
t River Basin ' '
MD
0.48
0.36
0.29
0.83
/er Basin ' '
VA
1.02
lilllons Ibs/vear
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
»ake Ba
0.10
0.37
5.37
1.07
5.07
11.24
0.86
2.36
6.49
5.19
1.29
5.64
1.62
0.48
1.02
0.76
0.62
1.16
0.10
0.38
4.13
0.98
4.36
8.67
0.93
2.23
4.34
4.90
1.24
4.84
0.87
0.36
0.76
0.09
0.32
3.31
0.80
3.97
7.15
0.83
1.70
3.26
4.46
1.08
4.27
0.77
0.29
0.62
1.58
0.45
10.10
0.97
5.89
15.60
0.93
2.77
7.53
' 11.64
1.65
6.29
3.63
0.83
1.16
0.29
0.59
0.11
0.27
3.10
0.65
3.04
6.64
0.55
1.45
3.29
3.76
0.94
3.36
0.68
0.29
0.59
1 rotai(miiiions Ibs/year)
24.10
19.54
16.46
35.51
0.60
0.04
0.43
1.76
0.25
0.00
0.13
0.35
0.05
0.19
1.88
0.43
2.10
3.60
0.38
1.15
1.55
2.36
0.60
2 24
0.25
0.13
0.35
14.36 I 8.63
J-15
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-5. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin and
Scenario
190/12.7
179/12
170/11.3
James L.O.E.
1/2 Potomac
James L.O.E.
Potomac
All Forest
Eastern Shore(EAS)
DE
MD
PA
VA
0.29
1.10
0.01
0.14
James River Basin(JAW
VA
WV
2.67
0.01
0.27
1.02
0.01
0.13
0.25
0.94
0.01
0.12
0.29
1.10
0.01
0.14
0.29
1.10
0.01
0.14
0.05
0.22
0.00
0.02
2.57
0.01
2.47
0.01
2.34
0.01
2.21
0.01
0.90
0.01
Potomac River Basin(POT)
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
0.10
0.95
0.35
1.56
0.50
0.09
0.90
0.33
1.48
0.47
0.09
0.85
0.31
1.39
0.45
0.10
0.95
0.35
1.56
0.50
0.10
0.95
0.35
1.56
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.13
0.40
0.27
Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)
VA
0.91
0.85
0.78
0.91
0.91
0.30
Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)
MD
NY
PA
0.05
0.56
2.28
0.05
0.53
2.17
0.04
0.51
2.06
0.05
0.56
2.28
0.05
0.56
2.28
0.01
0.31
1.04
Western Shore(WES)
MD
PA
0.45
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.15
0.00
Patuxent River Basin(PAT)
MD
0.21
0.20 | 0.18
0.21
0.21
0.07
York River Basln(YOR)
VA 0.54 0.51
Totals
State
Basin
Chesa
millions Ibs/year
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
0.10
0.29
2.75
0.56
2.64
5.82
0.51
1.53
2.68
3.46
0.91
2.89
0.45
0.21
0.54
0.48
0.54
0.54
0.21
0.09
0.27
2.58
0.53
2.52
5.53
0.48
1.42
2.58
3.27
0.85
2.75
0.42
0.20
0.51
0.09
0.25
2.41
0.51
2.39
5.24
0.45
1.31
2.47
3.09
0.78
2.62
0.40
0.18
0.48
0.10
0.29
2.75
0.56
2.64
5.48
0.51
1.53
2.35
3.46
0.91
2.89
0.45
0.21
0.54
0.10
0.29
2.75
0.56
2.64
5.36
0.51
1.53
2.22
3.46
0.91
2.89
0.45
0.21
0.54
0.00
0.05
0.71
0.31
1.17
1.84
0.28
0.30
0.91
1.06
0.30
1.36
0.15
0.07
0.21
eake Bay Total(milllons Ibs/year)
12.67
12.00
11.33
12.33
12.20
4.36
J-16
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-6. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State
Basin and Scenario
Easter
James
1985
Base
Calibration
2009
2010
No-Action
Tributary
Strategy
2010 E3
n Shore " — ' — -
DE
MD
PA
VA
76.68
260.20
38.73
22.16
76.96
243.41
37.04
20.21
64.78
185.80
31.66
16.38
93.67
294.98
40.47
21.99
54.75
156.99
20.12
10.30
31.13
126.05
19.52
8.83
River Basin '
VA
WV
1562.90
29.45
1473.21
28.81
1247.04
28.52
1506.04
28.59
1004.70
18.21
691.16
14.62
Potomac Kiver Basin
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
22.54
923.43
323.32
1296.91
426.22
29.86
866.58
303.02
1204.65
384.14
32.00
781.47
309.61
1092.77
349.86
100.95
1036.36
391.39
1346.84
418.46
10.31
665.62
226.28
823.32
230.02
Kappahannocx River Basin
VA
890.56 | 840.71
754.27
852.79
688.86
4.12
471.50
225.46
607.61
166.15
634.32
susquehanna River Basin
Wester
MD
NY
PA
106.49
400.98
2718.95
96.35
336.60
2386.77
73.29
337.27
2286.39
100.82
344.28
2899.89
63.55
310.74
1756.33
53.72
212.05
1589.07
n snore
MD
PA
311.80
0.93
266.86
0.89
239.00
0.77
325.15
1.11
204.99
0.49
105.10
0.56
Patuxent River Basin
MD
YorkR
182.30 I 171.33
114.46
158.87
103.34
60.57
ver Basin
VA
208.88
179.78
145.18
201.47
114.12
83.19
lotaisjmilllons Ibs/year)
State
Basin
Chesap
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
WV
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
eake B
22.54
76.68
1784.21
400.98
3081.93
3981.40
455.67
397.76
1592.34
2992.42
890.56
3226.43
312.73
182.30
208.88
29.86
76.96
1644.53
336.60
2727.72
3718.57
412.96
377.62
1502.02
2788.26
840.71
2819.72
267.75
171.33
179.78
32.00
64.78
1394.02
337.27
2628.42
3255.65
378.38
298.62
1275.56
2565.72
754.27
2696.94
239.76
114.46
145.18
100.95
93.67
1916.18
344.28
3332.86
3929.11
447.04
451.11
1534.62
3293.99
852.79
3345.00
326.26
158.87
201.47
10.31
54.75
1194.48
310.74
2003.23
2641.31
248.23
242.17
1022.91
1955.55
688.86
2130.62
205.48
103.34
114.12
ay TotaKmlllions Ibs/year)
9803.41
8947.19
8090.52
10164.10
6463.06
4.12
31.13
816.94
212.05
1834.60
2025.11
180.77
185.53
705.78
1474.84
634.32
1854.84
105.65
60.57
83.19
5104.72
J-17
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-7. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin
and Scenario
190/12.7
179/12
170/11.3
James L.O.E.
1/2 Potomac
James L.O.E.
Potomac
All Forest
Eastern Shore(EAS)
DE
MD
PA
VA
59.35
170.16
21.81
11.17
53.25
152.68
19.57
10.02
47.15
135.20
17.33
8.87
59.35
170.16
21.81
11.17
59.35
170.16
21.81
11.17
43.17
51.17
7.11
2.63
James River Basin(JAM)
VA
VW
893.92
16.20
875.04
15.86
856.15
15.52
833.04
15.10
809.93
14.68
388.49
11.68
Potomac River Basin(POT)
DC
MD
PA
VA
VW
9.73
627.64
213.37
776.35
216.90
9.36
604.39
205.46
747.58
208.86
9.00
581.13
197.56
718.82
200.83
9.73
627.64
213.37
776.35
216.90
9.73
627.64
213.37
776.35
216.90
2.44
263.33
99.70
274.89
120.38
Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)
VA
678.31
657.13
635.96
678.31
678.31
506.66
Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)
MD
NY
PA
59.65
291.65
1648.48
58.51
286.08
1616.97
57.37
280.51
1585.46
59.65
291.65
1648.48
59.65
291.65
1648.48
24.85
186.12
1044.88
Western Shore(WES)
MD
PA
150.73
0.36
144.46
0.35
138.20
0.33
150.73
0.36
150.73
0.36
84.11
0.06
Patuxent River Basin(PAT)
MD
81.84
78.75
75.67
81.84
81.84
64.89
York River Basin(YOR)
Totals
State
Basin
Chesa
VA
105.98
millions Ibs/year
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
VW
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
9.73
59.35
1090.01
291.65
1884.03
2465.72
233.10
262.48
910.12
1843.98
678.31
1999.78
151.09
81.84
105.98
101.56
97.13
105.98
105.98
61.29
9.36
53.25
1038.79
286.08
1842.36
2391.33
224.72
235.52
890.90
1775.66
657.13
1961.56
144.81
78.75
101.56
9.00
47.15
987.56
280.51
1800.68
2316.94
216.34
208.55
871.67
1707.35
635.96
1923.33
138.53
75.67
97.13
9.73
59.35
1090.01
291.65
1884.03
2404.84
231.99
262.48
848.14
1843.98
678.31
1999.78
151.09
81.84
105.98
9.73
59.35
1090.01
291.65
1884.03
2381.73
231.58
262.48
824.61
1843.98
678.31
1999.78
151.09
81.84
105.98
2.44
43.17
488.34
186.12
1151.75
1233.96
132.06
104.08
400.16
760.74
506.66
1255.85
84.17
64.89
61.29
eake Bay Total(millions Ibs/year)
6033.58
5845.89
5658.19
5971.60
5948.07
3237.84
J-18
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix J - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table J-8. Delivered Total Allocation Scenario Loads (millions Ibs/year) by State Basin
Eastern
Allocation Scenario
(Nitrogen)
Allocation Scenario
(Phosphorus)
Allocation Scenario
(TSS) (ranae)
Shorei bAS) " ~-
DE
MD
PA
VA
2.95
9.71
0.28
1.21
0.26
1.09
0.01
0.16
58-64
166-182
21-23
11-12
James Klver Basln(JAM)
Potoma
VA
VW
23.48
0.02
2.34
0.01
837-920
15-17
c River Basin(POT)
DC
MD
PA
VA
VW
2.32
15.70
4.72
17.46
4.67
0.12
0.90
0.42
1.47
0.74
10-11
654-719
221-243
810-891
226-248
KappanannocK River Basin(RAP)
Susque
Westerr
VA
hanna F
MD
NY
PA
i Shore
MD
PA
5.84
0.90
liver Basin(SUS)
1.08
8.23
71.74
0.05
0.52
2.31
WES)
9.74
0.02
0.46
0.001
681-750
60-66
293-322
1660-1826
155-170
0.37-0.41
Paiuxent River Basin(PAT)
MD
2.85
0.21
York Klver Basln(YOR)
VA | 5.41
0.54
82-90
107-118
loialsiminions ibs/vear)
State
Basin
Bay Tot,
DC
DE
MD
NY
PA
VA
VW
EAS
JAM
POT
RAP
SUS
WES
PAT
YOR
iKmilllo
2.32
2.95
39.09
8.23
76.77
53.40
4.68
14.15
23.50
44.88
5.84
81.06
9.76
2.85
5.41
0.12
0.26
2.72
0.52
2.74
5.41
0.75
1.53
2.35
3.66
0.90
2.88
0.46
0.21
0.54
10-11
58-64
1,116-1,228
293-322
1,903-2,093
2,446-2,691
241-265
256 -281
852-937
1,920-2,113
681-750
2,013-2,214
155-171
82-90
107-118
ns ibs/yr)
187.44
12.52 | 6,066-6,673
J-19
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix K.
Allocation Methodology to Relate Relative Impact to Needed Controls
Introduction
The nutrient allocation procedures agreed to by five of the seven Bay watershed partners and
followed by EPA are described in Section 6.4 of the main document. The reader should be
familiar with Section 6.4 before reading this appendix. The goal of this appendix is to expand the
options that were considered before selecting the final procedures and to provide rationale for the
final decisions. Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this appendix is based on
the Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model and is the same information that was used to
inform the decisions in the spring and summer of 2009 using the Phase 5.2 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model, which had known limitations. Many of the values given in this appendix will
be different from the final version as these decisions were not revisited with Phase 5.3 Bay
Watershed Model.
Relative Effectiveness Options
Section 6.3.1 of the main document is a discussion of the relative effectiveness of major basins in
improving dissolved oxygen in the critical areas of the tidal waters of the Chesapeake.
Relative effectiveness is a combination of riverine effectiveness, also known as a delivery factor,
which is expressed as
• pounds of reduction reaching tidal waters/pounds of reduction to the local river and
estuarine effectiveness, which is expressed as
• improvement in dissolved oxygen/pounds of reduction reaching tidal waters Multiplying
the two together gives
• improvement in dissolved oxygen/pounds of reduction to the local river
Riverine Effectiveness Options
No options were considered in calculating riverine delivery factors. The principles of calculating
delivery factors in the Chesapeake Bay Program watershed models are long-standing and have
been approved several times by Chesapeake Bay Program workgroups and subcommittees.
These principles were also reviewed in the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee sponsored independent scientific peer reviews of the Phase 5 Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model in 2007 and 2009. Nitrogen delivery factors are calculated for each river
segment. Nitrogen levels are lowered naturally in river systems through denitrification, providing
a long-run removal of nitrogen. Phosphorus and sediment do not undergo a similar process to
denitrification and do not have long-run removal mechanisms other than delivery through the
river system and burial. Burial is offset by scour, both of which are episodic in nature. That does
not hold true in reservoir systems, where burial is much more significant and is not offset by
scour to a great degree. Because of the lack of spatially and temporally detailed phosphorus and
sediment data that would be needed to precisely calibrate scour and burial on the segment scale.
the calculation of delivery factors for phosphorus and sediment is closed around reservoirs rather
K-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
than segment by segment. That is, all segments upstream of a reservoir or an entrance to the tidal
system and downstream of other reservoirs receive the same riverine delivery factor.
Geographic Grouping of Estuarine Effectiveness
The estuarine effectiveness is calculated by comparing the dissolved oxygen simulated in the
Bay of the calibration run to the dissolved oxygen simulated in the Bay when a given watershed
area has reduced loads relative to the calibration loads. The effectiveness for that given area is
then calculated by dividing the improvement in dissolved oxygen by the reduction delivered
loads. A choice has to be made regarding the geographic areas to test.
Each area along the estuary would theoretically have a different estuarine effectiveness, but there
are limitations to what can be effectively calculated. If the area tested has a low total load and,
therefore, a small change in going to a reduced load, the estuarine model might not be able to
resolve the change in dissolved oxygen. Tested areas must be aggregated up to a reasonably large
load to be able to record the change. Also, the estuarine model takes a few days to complete a
run, and it would be time-prohibitive to make 100 or so more runs.
There is no difference in estuarine effectiveness between loads in the same nontidal watershed.
Loads from areas just west of Washington, DC, would have the same estuarine effectiveness as
loads from West Virginia because they enter the tidal waters at the same point, although they
would have different overall effectiveness scores because of the differences in their riverine
effectiveness. Therefore, the head of tide of large river systems is a natural place to define a
discrete watershed. The estuarine portion of major river systems like the Potomac and
Rappahannock would have significantly different effects on the critical area for dissolved oxygen
and also have large enough loads to resolve these differences, so those areas are another
reasonable place to lump geographically. The Eastern Shore is not amenable to simple rules like
this because there are no large nontidal river systems connected to large estuarine river systems.
There are, however significant differences in estuarine effectiveness between the northernmost
and southernmost portions of the Eastern Shore. The Eastern Shore was therefore divided in to
four sections.
The final geographic breakout, as a balance between the desire to calculate a different
effectiveness where a distinction exists and the limiting factors of computer run time and the
ability of the estuarine model to resolve the oxygen effect of small differences in loading are
Susquehanna Rapp Above Fall Line Upper East Shore
West Shore Rapp Below Fall Line Middle East Shore
Patuxent Above Fall Line York Above Fall Line Lower East Shore
Patuxent Below Fall Line York Below Fall Line East Shore VA
Potomac Above Fall Line James Above Fall Line
Potomac Below Fall Line James Below Fall Line
To be clear, the allocation calculations are split between those geographic areas within
jurisdictions, resulting in 30 different spatial units. The allocations, however, are expressed on
the jurisdiction and major river basin scale. That is, there is a calculation of Maryland Potomac
above and below the fall line, but the allocation is expressed only as Maryland Potomac.
K-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Choice of the Critical Designated Uses and Segments for Calculating
Relative Effectiveness
To estimate the estuarine effectiveness, the change in dissolved oxygen must be calculated for a
relevant area of the Chesapeake Bay. The most persistent areas of dissolved oxygen violations
are in the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay from roughly the Bay Bridge between Annapolis and
Kent Island, Maryland, south to the mouth of the Potomac River and also the lower tidal
Potomac River. The deep-water and deep-channel designated uses are impaired at a higher rate
than the open-water designates use and also better integrators of baywide rather than local loads.
The deep-water and deep-channel designated uses of CB3MH, CB4MH. and CB5MH and the
deep-water designated use of POTMH MD were selected as the most appropriate grouping to
use in calculating estuarine relative effectiveness for the following reasons:
1. These segments and designated uses had high levels of impairment
2. They are centrally located
3. They represent a large group of segments and a large volume of the Bay
4. Deep-water and deep-channel designated uses are good geographic integrators
Further tests of other combinations showed that the estuarine effectiveness was not particularly
sensitive to the addition or subtraction of any given designated use.
Metric for Relative Effectiveness
To estimate the change in dissolved oxygen an appropriate metric of dissolved oxygen must be
calculated that is sensitive to load changes across a wide array of segments, designated uses, and
impairment levels and is relevant to the assessment of dissolved oxygen criteria. Three metrics
were investigated:
1. Percent nonattainment.
2. Average dissolved oxygen during the summer assessment period
3. 25lh percentile (quartile) of dissolved oxygen during the summer assessment period
Three criteria were applied in determining which of these make the best metric
1. Relevance to attainment of dissolved oxygen standards
2. Broad applicability to designated uses and water quality segments
3. Linearity of response—does the first pound have the same effect as the last?
Percent nonattainment is clearly the most relevant metric to standards attainment, although other
measures of dissolved oxygen are certainly also relevant. The quartile is more relevant than the
average in that EPA is estimating increases in the lower values of oxygen.
Percent nonattainment is applicable only to areas that are not in attainment in the calibration and
do not come into attainment when simulating a reduction in any single basin, which is a
considerable limitation. Average dissolved oxygen is not an appropriate measure for many open-
water segments. An impaired open-water segment might have average dissolved oxygen near
saturation but experience large swings between super saturation and low oxygen. A load
reduction might not change the average but improve the water quality by reducing the variability
K-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
of oxygen levels and the frequency of low values. The quartile is applicable to all segments and
all designated uses.
Linearity of response is a crucial component. If a metric responded much more to the first pound
of reduction than to the last, smaller basins would be estimated to have a greater pound-for-
pound influence than larger basins. To determine the linearity of the response to the three
candidate metrics, a run was made with the Susquehanna at half the level of reduction normally
used to calculate estuarine effectiveness. In general, across multiple segments and designated
uses, the response for all three metrics was mostly linear. There was not a significant difference
between the metrics on this count.
The average was judged to be not suitable because of its limited applicability. The percent
nonattainment was judged to be slightly more relevant than the quartile, but the quartile was
selected as the appropriate metric because of its universal applicability.
Level of Effort Options
Section 6.3 of the main document describes the expression of level of effort as between the two
extreme scenarios of No Action scenario and E3. Selection of those two scenarios is an
expression of the third principle under Section 6.3 that all previous reductions are credited
toward achieving the allocations.
Atmospheric Deposition
The atmospheric deposition options and rationale for choosing the air allocation is documented
in Section 6.4.1. The method of incorporation is to hold atmospheric deposition constant through
the bookend scenarios of No Action and E3, and through all the prospective management
scenarios unless specific actions are called for in state plans that go beyond the federal levels.
One example of states going beyond the federal level is that the E3 has atmospheric deposition
set to a level that incorporates reduced agricultural emissions and other possible state actions.
That allows the jurisdictions to be responsible strictly for the reductions that they can control and
not for federal actions on atmospheric deposition.
Scenario Options
The E3 scenario was selected as the appropriate lower end of loading rather than other candidate
scenarios such as the Current Programs, Maximum Feasible, or All Forest. Current Programs
could be used as the lower end and an assessment made of how far efforts had to increase beyond
current programs, but doing so would violate the expression of equity described above because
jurisdictions that had already achieved significant reductions would have to do proportionately
more than jurisdictions that have not. Maximum Feasible would be a similar expression as E3
and would meet the equity provision, but it was judged to be much more subjective and,
therefore, inferior to E3 as a metric. The All Forest scenario would be an expression of
anthropogenic, rather than controllable loads. The All Forest was used in the 2003 goal setting.
Basing the allocation method on E3 recognizes that various sources have different possible levels
of reduction. An allocation based on anthropogenic load could require levels of reduction beyond
E3. For example, if an allocation required all loads to go 60 percent of the way toward All
K-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Forest, certain theoretical land uses that can achieve only a 50 percent reduction at E3 would not
be able to achieve the allocations, while wastewater treatment plants would be able to achieve a
much larger than 60 percent reduction from No Action. Those distortions would increase at
smaller scales as sources become more dominant locally.
The No Action scenario was chosen as the upper end to follow the principle of accounting for
previous reductions. Using a starting point that incorporated management practices or higher
levels of treatment would give a disadvantage to jurisdictions that had implemented the actions.
Allocation Method Options
Section 6.3.1 describes the method used to relate relative effectiveness to reduction effort. With
that basic outline there is an infinite number of ways to define the allocation and still meet water
quality standards. The major decisions to be made are the number of lines that represent different
source categories and the shapes of those lines. The options were discussed in the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (WQGIT) and the Principals' Staff
Committee, and agreement was reached between EPA and five of the seven jurisdictional
partners.
Number of Allocation Lines
During the allocation process, the WQGIT recognized that different source categories had
different abilities to make progress toward an E3 level of implementation. Figure K-l is a plot of
implementation progress through 2009 plotted on the same vertical axis as the allocation charts.
Percent of E3 from No Action.
2009 implementation as a percentage between
2010 No Action and E3
0
0
<
1
.2
Jl
<*
o I
3s
s
M
8
l
100%
80%
60V.
40%
20%
fmj
\r/»
ITN
TP
Agriculture
Developed
WWTP
Fi3ure K-1. 2009 implementation by sector.
The 2009 implementation represents the choices that the jurisdictions have made to date.
Presumably taking into account the same types of criteria that will be used to make decisions on
restoration spending in the future.
There is a clear separation between the sources in that jurisdictions have chosen to set
wastewater treatment plants at a level closer to E3, relative to No Action, than either agriculture
K-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
or developed land. There is also a separation between agriculture and developed land, but it is
not as large as the separation between \vastewater treatment plants and all other sources. With
that information, the decision was made to use two lines, one for wastewater treatment plants and
one or all other sources.
Shape of the Allocation Lines
Several allocation line shapes were discussed with the three main shapes being
I. Straight: This is the most straightforward expression of the allocation principle
stated under section 6.3 that areas with a greater pound for pound effect on
water quality should do more.
2. Hockey Stick: It was recognized that a natural maximum existed for some
sources, particularly with waste water treatment where a given technology could
reach a concentration that could be expressed as a percentage from No Action to
B3. A hockey stick line has a maximum for watershed areas in the range of
relative effectiveness and slopes down for lower levels of relative effectiveness.
3. Z-curve: Similar to the hockey stick but also recognizing that a natural
minimum also might exist. Again, related to wastewater treatment plants, a
given technology producing a known concentration can be seen as a minimum
technology that should be implemented.
As reported in more detail in Section 6.3.3 the wastewater line was set first in a hockey stick
shape such that the upper 50 percent of the relative effectiveness values were at a maximum
attainment percentage, according to a given concentration and the rest sloped off to a minimum
value also based on a concentration. The straight line for all other sources was set such that a
zero relative effectiveness would have a 20 percent lower value on the percent controllable axis
than the area with the maximum relative effectiveness value. The intercept for all other sources
was set such that the water quality standards were attained. Figure K-2, which is also Figure 6-7
in the main document, is the implementation of this method for nitrogen.
To make the above decision, the partnership was presented with several options for constructing
the lines. Basin-jurisdiction loads were calculated for each option.
Table K-l is a sample of options that were explored using the Phase 5.2 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model. Several more options were generated before the final decision was made.
K-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
-AllOther
WWTP
100% r
Nitrogen -- Phase 5.3 -- Goal=190
e
i
20%
10%
0%
456
Relative Effectiveness
10
Figure K-2 Allocation methodology example showing the hockey stick and straight line reductions
approaches, respectively, to wastewater (red line) and all other sources (blue line).
Table K-1: Initial options presented to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Goal
Implementation Team on September 30, 2009
^•^B Lines 22 2 22
I 3-8mg/l 3-8 mg/l 3-8 mg/l HS 3-8 mg/l HS 3-8 mg/l Z
20% 10% 20% 10% 20% Largest
DO goal 200
DC Potm
DEEsh
MDEsh
MD Patux
MD Potm
MD Susq
MDWsh
NY Susq
PA Potm
PA Susq
VAEsh
VA James
VA Potm
VARap
VAYork
WVPotm
Total
282
5.12
1254
3.26
14.73
0.81
10.18
10.54
4.76
6796
1.60
28.84
1685
6.54
6.55
565
198.77
200
282
5.21
12.76
3.25
1452
083
10 15
1041
458
68 59
1.59
28.14
1647
6 37
632
5.44
197.46
200
2.37
5.25
1281
315
1410
0.83
1015
10.54
4.83
68.81
1.61
28.49
1609
6.49
6.53
5.71
197.76
200
2.37
534
13.03
313
13.89
0.85
10.11
1041
4.65
69.44
1.61
2778
15.72
6.32
6.30
5.50
196.45
200 Difference 2010Noact E3 load TS load
237
5.21
12.70
3.27
1429
0.82
10 12
1055
483
68.37
1.60
2958
1650
6.60
672
5.73
199.27
16%
4%
4%
4%
6%
4%
1%
1%
5%
2%
1%
6%
7%
4%
6%
5%
1%
9.68
9.28
2394
6.57
3031
1.35
3650
1636
7.08
121.19
3.25
5263
33.05
10.61
10.54
8.32
380.66
1 53
345
825
215
9.65
061
6.15
778
312
4923
088
15.80
10.72
4.33
4.05
376
131.45
2 12
6.43
1384
3 17
1466
097
949
868
4.31
6886
167
2885
1581
649
648
5.69
197.53
K-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix K - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Calculation of Equivalent Allocation Options
For any given level of water quality, an infinite number of lines can be drawn on the allocation
plots like Figure K-2. To calculate an equivalent line to an existing line, it is necessary to meet
the condition of
^\(DeliveredLoad}x.(EstnarineDeliver\>} = C
or the sum of all delivered loads for each state/basin/fall-line combination times its estuarine
delivery factor must equal a constant for the family of lines that meets the same water quality.
Fxpanding the delivered load term to create an equation between relative effectiveness and
delivered load gives
£ (£3, + (NoBMP, - £3, Xl - mX. - b}}EstuarineDelivery, = C
where
.V, is the relative effectiveness
£3, and NoBMP, are the loads for that state/basin/fall-line/sector for the two scenarios
m and b are the slope and intercept of the line and the only unknowns
Ciiven a slope or an intercept, the above equation can be solved numerically for the other
parameter of the line. This equation was implemented in MS Excel for multiple lines with
enforced maximum and minimum to accommodate the decisions above.
K-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix L.
Setting the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Allocations
Atmospheric Deposition Nitrogen Inputs Compared to Other Nitrogen
Sources
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is the highest nitrogen input load in the Chesapeake
watershed (Figure L-l). Other nutrient input loads are fertilizer, manures, point sources, and
septic systems. Over the 1985 to 2005 Chesapeake Bay model simulation period, the Chesapeake
watershed average atmospheric deposition loads of nitrogen have been declining, particularly
those of oxidized nitrogen.
>,
!/>
JS
'o
•
c
0
I
•
i
o
_J
«•
3
Q.
C
C
•
0)
0
i
z
3
o
1-
1000
900
800
700
600
cnn
Ann
300
200
100
0
19
—•—Point sources
Atmospheric Deposition
-•— N Manure
^
^ ^
—-^- — -*— ~~ ' ' '
>tt»»>«.
*~-« — •— * — » « t + « ^
80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure L-1. 20-year (1986-2005) time series of atmospheric, fertilizer, manure, and wastewater treatment plant
nitrogen input loads to the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model.
Atmospheric Deposition Inputs
Atmospheric loads of nitrogen are from chemical species of oxidized nitrogen, also called NOx,
and from reduced forms of nitrogen deposition, also called ammonia (NH3). Oxidized forms of
nitrogen deposition originate from conditions of high heat and pressure and are formed from
eutrophically inert diatomic atmospheric nitrogen. The principle sources of NOx are air
emissions from industrial-sized boilers such as electric power plants and internal combustion
engines in cars, trucks, locomotives, airplanes, and the like.
L-l
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Reduced nitrogen, or ammonia, is responsible for approximately one-third of the total nitrogen
emissions that eventually end up as loads to the Bay. Ammonia sources are predominately
agricultural, and ammonia is released into the air by volatilization of ammonia from manures and
emissions from ammonia based fertilizers. Minor sources include mobile sources, slip ammonia
released as a by-product of emission controls on NOx at power plants and industrial processes.
Two types of deposition are differentiated and both are tracked through the Chesapeake models
and atmospheric deposition monitoring networks as input daily. The first is wet deposition,
which occurs during precipitation events and contributes only to nitrogen loads during days of
rain or snow. The other is dry deposition, which occurs continuously and is input at a constant
rate daily into the Bay Watershed and Bay Water Quality models.
Because the Bay Watershed and Bay Water Quality models are mass balance models, all sources
of nutrient inputs to the tidal Bay have to be accounted for including phosphorus and organic
forms of nutrients. For phosphorus and organic nutrients, the models estimate loads to open
water only, on the assumption that all phosphorus and organic nutrients are derived from aeolian
or wind processes that result in no net change in organic nitrogen on terrestrial surfaces but result
in a net gain when deposited on water surfaces.
Organic nitrogen is represented as wet fall only, i.e., dissolved organic nitrogen (DON). The
magnitude of dry fall organic nitrogen is not well characterized in the literature, but the latest
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model simulations with updated chemical
mechanisms do include peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN, CH3COOONO2) and an organic nitrate group
(NTR). The NTR represents several organic nitrates that are produced from ozone
photochemistry. Both of these species are relatively small in magnitude and both are biologically
labile. Therefore, the dryfall PAN and NTR are lumped into the oxidized nitrogen atmospheric
deposition dryfall inputs. Table L-5 shows the estimated atmospheric deposition loads to the
Bay's tidal surface waters of the different nutrient species.
Air sources contribute about a third of the total nitrogen loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay
by depositing directly onto the Bay's tidal surface waters and onto the surrounding Bay
watershed. Direct nitrogen atmospheric deposition to the Bay's tidal surface waters is estimated
to be 6 to 8 percent of the total (air and non-air) nitrogen load delivered to the Bay. The
atmospheric nitrogen deposited onto the watershed and subsequently transported to the Bay is
estimated to account for 25 to 28 percent of the total nitrogen loadings to the Bay.
Atmospheric Deposition Input Trends
Between 1985 and 2005, the simulation period of the Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model,
atmospheric deposition loads of nitrate have tended to decrease overall in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Over that 20-year period, nitrate loads have decreased by about 30 percent
(Figure L-2); however, considerable variability exists across the Bay watershed, with the greatest
reductions occurring in the northern and western portions. In Figure L-2, the average annual
concentration is used as an adjustment to smooth out the high and low rainfall years, which bring
different amounts of deposition load to the Bay watershed, primarily from the volume of
precipitation. Use of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), nitrate (NOs), and ammonia
concentrations provides a reasonable estimate of the trend in atmospheric deposition.
L-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L- Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figure L-2. Trend of estimated average NO;,. NH^ and DIN deposition concentrations input to the Phase 5.3
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.
Much of the reduction has been due to point source air emission reductions, particularly from
electric generating units (EGUs) as shown in Figure L-3. More rapid declines in air emissions are
expected between 2008 to 2010 as the Clean Air Transport Rule (previously the Clean Air
Interstate Rule [CAIR]) controls on power plant emissions and the air quality standards for ozone
and particulate matter come into enforcement deadlines by 2010 (Figure L-3). Further reductions
are expected with the reduced ozone air quality standard announced in August 2010. Reductions
from mobile sources are another large contributor to the downward trend. Reductions from
mobile sources will continue past the year 2020 as large off-road diesel and marine diesel fleets
are replaced.
Table L-l shows the estimated portion of deposited NOX loads on the Chesapeake Bay watershed
from four sectors including EGUs, mobile sources, industry, and all other sources. From 1990 to
2010, considerable reductions have been made in the electrical generation sector. In addition,
both on road and off-road mobile sources have ongoing fleet turnover and replacement, which is
putting cleaner spark and diesel engines in service; that is expected to continue beyond 2020.
Note that some NOx sources like mobile sources seem to increase in percentage relative to other
sources like EGUs. Both sources are actually decreasing and the total projected deposition load
in 2020 is less than 1990, however, EGU emission reductions are relatively more than mobile
reductions.
Average ammonia atmospheric deposition loads over the Chesapeake Bay watershed have
followed the trend in overall manure loads in the watershed and have remained steady over the
1985 to 2005 simulation period (Figure L-2). Ammonia deposition is very site specific and
strongly influenced by local emissions. Local and regional trends in manure, such as the rise of
poultry animal units in the Eastern Shore and Shenandoah, and dairy's diminishment in the
northern portions of the watershed in the late 1980s, affect regional ammonia deposition in the
Bay watershed.
L-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
20
15
10
NO,
Projected with CAIR"
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 Till! 1 1-
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2010 2016 2020
St*JK» ==A
Figure L-3. Estimated nationwide emissions of NOx and SO? from EGUs since 1980 and estimated emissions
to 2020.
Table L-1. Estimated portion of atmospherically deposited NOx loads on the Chesapeake
watershed from four sectors including EGUs, mobile sources, industry, and all other
sources in 1990 and projected out to 2020
Sectors
Power Plants (EGUs)
Mobile Sources (on-road)
Industry
Other (off-road construction;
residential & commercial)
1990
40%
30%
8%
21%
2020 (Preliminary)
17%
32%
20%
31%
The Bay's NOx airshed—the area where emission sources that contribute the most airborne
nitrates to the Bay originate—is about 570,000 square miles, or seven times the size of the Bay's
watershed. The ammonia airshed is slightly smaller (Figure L-4). Close to 50 percent of the NOx
deposition to the Bay is from air emission sources located in the seven Bay watershed
jurisdictions. Another 25 percent of the atmospheric deposition load to the Chesapeake Bay
watershed is from the remaining area in the airshed and the remaining 25 percent of deposition is
from the area outside the airshed. The ammonia airshed is similar to the NOx airshed, but
slightly smaller (Figure L-4).
CBP Airshed Model
The Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model is a combination of a regression model of wet deposition
(Grimm and Lynch 2005) and a continental-scale air quality model of North America called the
CMAQ for estimates of dry deposition (Dennis et al. 2007; Mameedi et al. 2007). The Bay
Airshed Model is represented in Figure L-5.
L-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
REDUCED
OXIDIZED
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Figure L-4. The oxidized nitrogen airshed (blue line) is the principle area of NOX emissions that contribute
nitrogen deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The reduced nitrogen airshed (red line) of
ammonia deposition is slightly smaller.
Combining
a regression
model of
wetfall
deposition...
NOx SIP Reg +
Tiei II Mobile +
Heavy Duty Diesel Regs
2020
ox-N Dep °'o Change fioni 19SO
...with
CMAQ
estimates
of dry
deposition
for the
base..
Itmtunnt t*vn
CPA
so! •*< * • •
If !•«,•«
...and using the
power of the
CMAQ model for
scenarios.
Figure L-5. The Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model is a combination of a regression model of wet deposition and
the Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model of dry deposition.
L-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The regression and deterministic airshed models that provide atmospheric deposition input
estimates, have gone through a series of refinements with increasingly sophisticated models of
both applied over time (Linker et al. 2000: Grimm and Lynch 2000, 2005; Lynch and Grimm
2003). The amount and timing of the wet atmospheric deposition input in the Phase 5.3 Bay
Watershed Model is hourly, and is related to the timing and amount of hourly rainfall in the
Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model precipitation input data. The dry deposition estimates are
monthly constants that are input daily and are based on the CMAQ model (Dennis et al. 2007;
Hamcedi et al. 2007).
Wet Deposition Regression Model
Wet deposition is simulated using a regression model developed by Grimm and Lynch (2000.
2005; Lynch and Grimm 2003). The regression model provides hourly wet deposition loads to
each land segment on the basis of each land segment's rainfall. The regression model uses 29
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring stations and 6 AIRMoN stations
to form a regression of wetfall deposition in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed over the entire
simulation period (Figure L-6).
Figure L-6. Atmospheric deposition monitoring stations used in developing the wet deposition regression
model.
L-6
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L- Chesapeake Bay TMDL
To improve the accuracy of the regression estimates over previous regression analyses (Linker et
al. 2000) a number of improvements in the sampling and representation of spatial and temporal
patterns of land use activities and intensities and of emission levels were made. Also, detailed
meteorological data were assimilated into the regression model to identify contributing emission
source areas and to estimate the impact of the contributions on daily deposition rates on a per-
event basis.
This version of the regression model included nine additional NADP/NTN sites in the regression
estimates (DE99, MD07, MD08, MD15, MD99, PA47, VA10, VA27, VA98, and VA99) that
were placed in operation in and around the Chesapeake Bay watershed since 2001, providing a
comprehensive representation of agricultural influences.
Refinements also involved developing a more accurate and comprehensive representation of the
spatial and temporal distribution and intensity of livestock production and other agricultural
activities across the Bay watershed. An improved accounting of livestock production activities
was achieved by combining county- and watershed unit-specific livestock production statistics
with high-resolution (30 meters) land use data from the USGS's National Land Cover Database
(NLCD). Estimates of local ammonia emissions from fertilizers and manure applications to
croplands were also assimilated into the model using EPA inventories and high resolution NLCD
to identify likely cropland areas. Last, localized estimates for NH3 and NOX emissions for the
Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model domain and surrounding states were developed by
combining facility and county-specific emissions reports from the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) database with the NLCD classifications.
For each day of rain, wetfall atmospheric deposition is estimated by the regression that has the
general form
LoglO(c) = b0 + biloglO(ppt) + £b2sseason + b3v3 + ... + bnvn +e
where
c = daily wet-fall ionic concentration (mg/L)
b0 = intercept
ppt = daily precipitation volume (inches)
bi = coefficient for precipitation term
season = vector of 5 binary indicator variables encoding the 6 bi-monthly seasons
b2S = vector of 5 coefficients for season terms
vs.. Vn = additional predictors selected through stepwise regression
o National Land Cover Data (NLCD)
• Within proximities of 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 8.0, and 16.1 km of each NADP/NTN
site: open water, forested, residential, industrial/transportation, croplands,
and vegetated wetlands
° Local emission levels of ammonia and nitrous oxides from EPA National
Emission Trends (NET)
• County emission totals 1985-2005
• County containing each NADP/NTN monitoring site and for the nearest
three counties
ba.. bn = coefficients corresponding to v3.. Vn
L-7 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The daily precipitation nitrate and ammonium concentration models were developed using a
linear least-squares regression approach and single-event precipitation chemistry data from the
29 NADP/NTN sites and six AIRMoN stations in Figure L-6. The most significant variables in
both models included precipitation volume, the number of days since the last event, seasonality,
latitude, and the proportion of land within 8 km covered by forests or devoted to transportation
and industry. (Local and regional ammonia and nitrogen oxides emissions were not as well
correlated as land cover.) The abilities of these variables to predict wet deposition arise primarily
from their relationship to either (I) the spatial and temporal distribution of emissions of
ammonium and nitrate precursors from sources within or upwind of the Bay watershed; or (2)
the chronology and characteristics of precipitation events. Modeled concentrations compared
very well with event chemistry data collected at six NADP/AIRMoN sites within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. Wet deposition estimates were also consistent with observed deposition at
selected sites.
Volume, duration, and frequency of precipitation events have obvious roles in determining wet
deposition rates. However, these parameters alone do not completely describe all of the
characteristics of a precipitation event. In particular the intersection of a precipitation event and a
volume of air with a particular history is also important in determining wet deposition flux, so
the interactions between storm trajectories and emission sources were also incorporated into the
wet deposition regression model.
Using metrological data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction's North American
Regional Reanalysis (NARR), components were added to daily ammonium and nitrate wet
deposition models that predict the rate at which emissions from area and point sources are emitted,
dispersed, and transported to specific deposition locations. Surface and upper-level vertical and
horizontal air movement data from the NARR allowed estimates of the extent to which emissions
were transported and mixed into surface and upper-level atmospheric layers; and, thereby, enabled
construction more realistic multilevel air mass trajectories with which to predict the movement of
emissions from multiple source locations to deposition points of interest.
Dry Deposition - Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ)
The CMAQ Model is a fully developed air simulation of North American (Dennis et al. 2007;
Hameedi et al. 2007). The CMAQ model simulates atmospheric deposition to the Chesapeake
Bay watershed (indirect deposition) and tidal Bay (direct deposition) for every hour of every day
for the representative year. A variety of input files are needed that contain information pertaining
to the modeling domain which is all North America. Those include hourly emissions estimates
and meteorological data in every grid cell and a set of pollutant concentrations to initialize the
model and to specify concentrations along the modeling domain boundaries. The initial and
boundary concentrations were obtained from output of a global chemistry model.
The CMAQ model simulation period is for one year, 2002, because 2002 is characterized as an
average precipitation year and, therefore, an average deposition year. The 2002 CMAQ
simulation year was used to provide the monthly dry deposition estimate for all years of the 1985
to 2005 Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model simulation. Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model dry
deposition input estimates are derived from the CMAQ model as monthly average inputs
expressed as a daily load.
L-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
An adjustment for the 20-year trend in atmospheric deposition loads was applied by using the trend
developed in the wet deposition regression model, and assuming the dry deposition trend to be the
same as the wet in the separate nitrate and ammonia estimates. Figure L-7 shows the 12-k.m grid
used to provide better resolution of the Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model's atmospheric
deposition loads. The improved spatial resolution of direct atmospheric deposition of loads to tidal
surface waters and the atmospheric deposition of loads to the watershed adjacent to tidal waters
from metropolitan and mobile sources was an important improvement (STAC 2007).
Legend
I Ptuie S drilrug* area
CMAO 1!km domain
Figure L-7. The CMAQ model's 12-km grid over the Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model domain.
L-9
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Organic Nitrogen Deposition
The Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model accounts for estimated loads of atmospheric organic
nitrogen to the open water land use on the assumption that all organic nitrogen is derived from
aeolian or wind processes that result in no net change in organic nitrogen on terrestrial surfaces
but do result in a net gain when deposited on water surfaces. Organic nitrogen is represented as
wet fall only, i.e., DON. The magnitude of dry fall organic nitrogen is unknown.
Dry fa 11 Organic Nitrogen Deposition
The dryfall organic nitrogen is likely to be sorbed onto large and small particles or even to be
particles themselves, like pollen. Such dryfall organic carbon species can be involved in long-
range transport, such as the pollens and organic nitrates found on the dust coming over from
Africa, but EPA does not have a good estimate of the fraction of the dry deposition that these
particles compose.
Also, the latest CMAQ simulations with updated chemical mechanisms include peroxyacyl
nitrates (PAN, CH3COOONO2) and an NTR. The NTR represents several organic nitrates that
are produced from ozone photochemistry. Both of these species are relatively small in
magnitude, and both are biologically labile. Therefore, the dryfall PAN and NTR are lumped into
the oxidized nitrogen atmospheric deposition dryfall inputs.
Wetfall Organic Nitrogen Deposition
In the 1992 Phase 2 version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, organic nitrogen was
assumed to be about 670 micrograms per liter (ug/L) (as nitrogen) based on data summarized by
Smullen et al. (1982). The data showed considerable seasonal variability. The organic nitrogen
load was constant in all watershed model segments. An equivalent annual load was used in the
tributary model with application of the seasonal variability suggested by Smullen et al. (1982).
Organic nitrogen measurements from Bermuda are calculated at about 100 ug/L (as nitrogen)
(Knap et al. 1986). Moper and Zita (1987) reported an average DON concentration from the
western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico of about 100 ug/L (as nitrogen). That is consistent with the
reported range from the North Sea and northeast Atlantic of between 90 ug/L to 120 ug/L
(Scudlark and Church 1993). Scudlark et al. (1996) reported an annual volume-weighted average
DON concentration in the mid-Atlantic coastal areas to be about 130 ug/L (as nitrogen).
Measurements in this study are consistent with the interannual variation (maximum in spring)
reported by Smullen et al. (1982).
A later study identified methodological problems with some of the previous studies and suggests
the wet deposition of organic nitrogen in the Chesapeake watershed would be closer to 50 ug/L
on an annual average basis (Keene et al. 2002). This study also documented the highest
concentrations of organic nitrogen in the spring.
On the basis of Keene et al. (2002), a value of 50 ug/L (as nitrogen) was selected as
representative of an average annual wet deposition concentration to the watershed and tidal
waters with the seasonal loading pattern suggested by Smullen (1982) and Scudlark et al. (1996).
That applies an average concentration of 40 ug/L from July to March in rainfall and an average
L-10 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
concentration of 80 ug/L from April to June. The load of organic nitrogen would depend on the
precipitation in a particular land segment, but assuming 40 inches of precipitation, the load
would he on the order of 0.4 Ib/ac-yr.
Total Atmospheric Deposition Inputs of Nitrogen from Wet and Dry
Deposition
The annual rate of total atmospheric deposition to Phase 5 land segments is shown in Figure L-8
and Table L-2.
Table L-2. Annual average atmospheric deposition of reduced DIN, oxidized DIN and total DIN on
land segments in the entire Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay watershed model
Land Segment
A10001
A10003
A10005
A11001
A24001
A24003
A24005
A24009
A24011
C51071
C51165
Total
NH4
2.50
1.68
5.62
0.24
0.41
1.02
2.02
0.40
1.60
0.17
0.45
264.07
NO3
3.21
2.87
4.55
0.44
1.37
2.99
4.42
1 29
1.64
0.53
0.28
556.59
Total DIN
5.71
4.55
10.16
0.68
1.78
4.01
6.44
1.69
3.25
0.69
0.72
820.66
Organic and Inorganic Phosphorus Deposition
The Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model accounts for estimated loads of atmospheric organic and
inorganic phosphorus to the open water land use on the assumption that, like organic nitrogen,
the load is derived from aeolian or wind processes that result in no net change in organic
nitrogen on terrestrial surfaces but do result in a net gain when deposited on water surfaces.
Following Smullen (1982), annual loads of organic and inorganic phosphorus are set at 47 ug/L
and 16 ug/L, respectively. Seasonally, those loads are treated in the same way as organic
nitrogen, assuming that organic phosphorus will follow a pattern similar to organic nitrogen and
that an aeolian source of inorganic phosphorus might well increase during the bare ground of
spring agricultural practices. Accordingly, organic and inorganic phosphorus concentrations are
set at 74 ug/L and 25 ug/L, respectively, from April to June, and at half those concentrations for
the other nine months of the year.
L-ll
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Total Nitrogen (pounds/acre)
ty 7.8-110
4P 11 1 - 128
^ 129-146
4P 147-175
dP 176-256
Figure L-8. Annual average DIN atmospheric deposition on land segments in the entire Phase 6.3
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model domain.
L-12
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
CMAQ Airshed Scenarios
The CMAQ model also provides estimates of nitrogen deposition resulting from changes in
emissions from utility, mobile, and industrial sources due to management actions or growth. For
the CMAQ model the base deposition year is 2002 and scenarios include the management
actions required by the Clean Air Act in 2010, 2020, and 2030. The future year scenarios reflect
emissions reductions from national control programs for both stationary and mobile sources,
including the CAIR, the Tier-2 Vehicle Rule, the Nonroad Engine Rule, the Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engine Rule, and the Locomotive/Marine Engine Rule. Although CAIR has been remanded to
EPA, it will remain in place pending a rulemaking to replace it. It is unclear how the replacement
rule will compare to the remanded rule. However. EPA anticipates that NOx emissions
reductions close to those originally projected will occur.
To develop a Bay watershed model scenario using one of the CMAQ model air scenarios below,
a monthly factor is determined by the CMAQ model by comparing the CMAQ model's
atmospheric deposition loads in the scenario year to the CMAQ 2002 base year. The CMAQ
scenario factor is then used to adjust the base atmospheric deposition conditions in the Phase 5.3
Bay Watershed Model over the 1991 to 2000 scenario years.
CMAQ 2010 Scenario
The 2010 Scenario represents emission reductions from regulations implemented through the
Clean Air Act authority to meet National Ambient Air Quality standards for criteria pollutants in
2010. This includes National, Regional and available State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for NOx
reductions. Other components of the 2010 Scenario include Tier 1 vehicle emission standards
reaching high penetration in the vehicle fleet for on-road light duty mobile sources along with
Tier 2 vehicle emission standards that were fully phased in by the 2006 model year and will
begin to show an impact in 2010. For EGUs the 2010 controls assume that the NOx SIP call,
NOx Budget Trading Program, and the CAIR program that regulates the ozone season NOx are
all in place and that the CAIR program is designed for annual NOx reductions to match the
ozone season reductions under the 2010 CAIR first phase conditions.
CMAQ 2020 Scenario
The 2020 Scenario has all components of the 2010 Scenario and includes the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR), the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) used for reducing regional haze
and the off-road diesel and heavy-duty diesel regulations. The 2020 scenario represents emission
reductions from regulations implemented through the Clean Air Act authority to meet National
Ambient Air Quality standards for criteria pollutants in 2020. Those include:
• On-Road mobile sources: For on-road light duty mobile sources, this includes Tier 2
vehicle emissions standards and the Gasoline Sulfur Program that affects SUVs pickups,
and vans, which are now subject to same national emission standards as cars.
• On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Rule - Tier 4: New emission standards on diesel engines
starting with the 2010 model year for NOx, plus some diesel engine retrofits.
L-13 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• Clean Air Non-Road Diesel Rule: Off-road diesel engine vehicle rule, commercial marine
diesels. and locomotive diesels (phased in by 2014) require controls on new engines. Off-
road large spark ignition engine rules affect recreational vehicles (marine and land-based).
• EGUs: CAIR second phase in place (in coordination with earlier NOx SIP call); Regional
Haze Rule and guidelines for BART for reducing regional haze; CAMR all in place.
• Non-EGUs: Solid Waste Rules (Hospital/Medical Waste Incinerator Regulations).
CMAQ 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario
The 2020 Maximum Feasible scenario includes additional aggressive ECU, industry, and mobile
source controls. Emissions projections were developed that represented incremental
improvements and control options (beyond 2020 CAIR) that might be available to states to meet
a more stringent ozone standard. The more stringent standard is due to a reconsideration of the
national ambient air quality standards for ozone that were promulgated in 2008 along with a
review of the secondary national ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.
The new ozone standard was proposed in 2010 of between 0.070 ppm and 0.060 ppm. EPA now
expects that the ozone standards will be final by the end of July 2011. The 2020 Maximum
Feasible Scenario was designed to meet a 0.070 ppm ozone standard, which is less than the 0.075
ppm ozone standard in place since 2008.
Incremental control measures for five sectors were developed:
• EGUs: lower ozone season nested emission caps in OTC states; targeting use of maximum
controls for coal fired power plants in or near non-attainment areas.
• Non-EGU point sources: new supplemental controls, such as low NOx burners, plus
increased control measure efficiencies on planned controls and step up of controls to
maximum efficiency measures, e.g., replacing SNCRs (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction)
with SCRs (Selective Catalytic Reduction) control technology.
• Area (nonpoint area) sources: switching to natural gas and low sulfur fuel.
• On-Road mobile sources: increased penetration of diesel retrofits and continuous.
Inspection and maintenance using remote onboard diagnostic systems.
• Non-Road mobile sources: increased penetration of diesel retrofits and engine rebuilds.
• Reduced NOx emissions from marine vessels in coastal shipping lanes.
The 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario also includes a reduction of ammonia deposition of 15
percent from estimated ammonia emission programs in the Bay watershed jurisdictions.
Estimates of up to about 30 percent ammonia emission reductions from manures can be achieved
through rapid incorporation of manures in to soils at the time of application, biofilters on poultry
houses, and other management practices (Mark Dubin 2009, personal communication). From a
state and sector analysis of NOx emissions and deposition, an estimated 50 percent of emissions
from Bay states becomes deposition to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, along with a further 50
percent of the ammonia deposition load coming from outside the Bay watershed. Assuming that
only 50 percent of the emissions are from watershed sources, a 30 percent reduction of emissions
results in an estimated 15 percent decrease in wet and dry ammonia deposition for the Maximum
L-14 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Feasible Scenario from ammonia emission control management practices in the Bay watershed
jurisdictions.
CMAQ 2030 Scenario
The 2030 scenario is in some areas a further decrease in emissions beyond the 2020 Maximum
Feasible Scenario due to continuing fleet replacement of heavy diesels, off road diesels, and
mobile sources of all types. These emission decreases are offset by continued growth in the
Chesapeake Bay region. The emissions projections assume continued stringent controls are in
place, such as:
• Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards fully penetrated in the fleet.
• Heavy Duty Diesel vehicle fleet fully replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicle that comply
with new standards.
• Qn-Road mobile sources: Increased penetration of diesel retrofits maintained.
• Non-Road mobile sources capped at 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario levels.
• EGUs and Non-EGUs emissions capped at 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario levels.
• Area sources emissions capped at 2020 Maximum Feasible Scenario levels, assuming
energy efficiency and control efficiencies keep up with growth.
• Marine Vessels: Further reductions in NOx emissions from marine vessels in coastal
shipping lanes.
Atmospheric Deposition Loads to the Watershed and Tidal Bay
Nitrogen loads atmospherically deposited to the Chesapeake Bay watershed by jurisdiction and
by nitrogen species of wet and dry deposition for key scenarios are tabulated in Table L-3.
Table L-4 lists the loads delivered to the Bay from the key scenarios, in millions of pounds,
using the Phase 5.2-August 2009 version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.
All the scenarios in Table L-4 use the 2002 scenario as a base year. The point sources, human
and animal populations, septic system loads and so on, are the same 2002 levels in all these
scenarios. Only the atmospheric deposition changes. The 1985 CMAQ scenario uses the trend of
atmospheric deposition described in Figure L-2, and the same trend was used for the 2002
atmospheric deposition in the 2002 scenario. The scenarios of 2010, 2020, 2020 Maximum
Feasible, and 2030 used estimated atmospheric deposition loads from the CMAQ model.
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen to the Tidal Chesapeake Bay
The regression and CMAQ models provide estimates of direct atmospheric deposition to the
Bay's tidal surface waters. Table L-5 lists the estimates of direct atmospheric deposition to the
Bay's tidal surfaces for seven key scenarios.
Two key factors in the relative increase in the estimated reduced nitrogen deposition over time
are the downward pressure on oxidized nitrogen emissions and the lack of controls on ammonia
emissions. It is notable that changes in atmospheric chemistry of SO\ and NO\ in the seven key
L-15 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table L-3. Atmospheric deposition loads of nitrogen (millions of pounds as nitrogen) to the
Chesapeake watershed for key scenarios by jurisdiction
STATE Chesapeake
Total Nitrogen
1985 Scenario
1985-2000 Calibration
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
Dry NOx Deposition
1985 Scenario
1985-2000 Calibration
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
Dry NHj Deposition
7985 Scenario
1985-2000 Calibration
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
Wet NOx Deposition
1985 Scenario
1985-2000 Calibration
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
Wet NH3 Deposition
7985 Scenario
1985-2000 Calibration
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
DE
78
71
6.5
63
66
65
7.4
3.1
26
22
16
13
1.1
1 0
2 1
22
2.3
3.0
3.7
39
48
1.6
13
1 1
07
0.6
05
05
09
10
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.1
DC
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
04
0.4
04
05
04
0.3
02
01
0.1
0.1
f) 1
01
0.1
01
01
01
01
0.1
01
01
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
01
0.1
0.1
0.1
01
0.1
MD
974
840
730
596
546
51 9
569
51 0
422
35.2
231
166
14.3
137
122
121
12.1
15.8
18.7
19.4
23.9
222
17.9
14 1
94
72
6.4
62
120
11.8
11.7
11.3
12.0
11.8
130
NY
537
460
395
306
262
248
261
231
192
16.2
108
79
6.9
67
50
47
4.5
53
56
5.8
66
170
13.9
11.0
73
53
4.7
46
87
82
78
73
74
74
81
PA
221
192
7
2
167.3
133
117
111
121
102
84
71
46
32
28
27
25
?r>
25
32
36
37
45
63
51
40
26
19
16
16
30
30
29
28
29
28
32
3
6
7
4
1
f)
3
2
r.
2
o
3
3
4
.0
5
.2
5
4
7
B
7
3
B
7
9
3
7
3
2
6
2
WV
306
26.2
225
172
15.3
14.5
15.4
157
13.1
10.9
6.7
4.8
4.2
4.1
2 ci
2.8
2.8
3.7
4.4
45
5.2
8.1
66
52
3.4
2.5
22
22
39
37
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.6
39
VA
179
159
142
112
99
95
100
97
83
71
46
33
.">
28
18
18
18
24
29
29
34
42
35.
29
19
14.
13
13.
22.
22
22.
21.
22
22.
24
Watershed
8
3
3
8
9
0
0
5
2
8
1
3
G
9
2
5
7
8
2
8
0
0
4
4
6
7
3
0
0
3
5
7
7
4
1
591
515
451
360
320
304
327
293
245
207
135
96
84
81
65
65
65
84
98
100
120
154
126
101
67
49
44
43
78
77
76
73
76
75
82
8
•i
6
2
6
3
6
1!
4
8
4
5
5
G
8
7
7
7
3
7
3
4
g
8
2
6
1
3
6
4
4
0
1
1
4
Source: Phase 5.2-August 2009 Version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Note This table does not include the 15 percent decrease in wet and dry ammonia deposition for the Maximum
Feasible scenario due to ammonia emission.
scenarios also affect ammonia dry deposition. In the scenarios with decreased SO\ and NOx
emissions, the dry deposition of ammonia increases, even though the total nitrogen deposition is
decreasing. The interplay of how decreased SO\ and NOx emissions affect an increase
dry deposition is seen in Figure L-9.
L-16
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table L-4 Total nitrogen delivered to the Bay (millions pounds per year) from the nine major river
basins under different key CMAQ atmospheric deposition scenarios.
Basins
Susquehanna
West Shore
Potomac
Patuxent
Rappahannock
James
York
East Shore MD-DE
East Shore VA
Total
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
1985
Scenario
160.4
15.7
77.0
4.8
11.0
37.9
9.3
31.6
3.0
350.7
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
2002
Scenario
148.1
15.3
72.2
4.5
9.8
36.7
8.9
29.8
2.9
328.1
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
2010
Scenario
141.4
15.07
69.4
4.4
10.0
35.6
8.6
29.2
2.8
316.5
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
2020
Scenario
138.7
15.0
68.3
4.3
9.8
35.2
8.4
29.2
2.8
311.7
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
2020
Maximum
Feasible
Scenario
137.6
14.9
67.9
4.3
9.8
35.
8.4
29.1
2.8
309.7
CMAQ
Atmo.
Deposition
2030
Scenario
139.3
15.0
68.6
4.3
9.8
35.1
8.4
29.7
2.8
313.0
Note: All the scenarios were applied to a 2002 Base condition of land use, BMPs, and point source discharges in
order to show the relative effect of changing atmospheric deposition. ^"c^es, m
Table L-5. Direct atmospheric deposition loads of nitrogen (millions of pounds as nitroqen) to
Chesapeake Bay's tidal surface waters for seven key scenarios
Scenario
1985 Scenario
2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum
Feasible Scenario
2020 Max Feas w/
15%NH4Drop
2030 Scenario
e
x •-
2 §
6.57
4.81
3.27
2.56
2.30
2.30
2.22
x|
o -5
fr*
Q Q
13.15
10.04
6.85
5.11
4.48
4.48
4.30
si
2 w
•SJ o
5 o
3.34
3.57
3.49
3.72
3.64
3.09
3.96
.0
M W
E" §"
00
1.97
2.12
2.76
3.24
3.41
2.90
4.08
u
IB
O> C
oc.2
C 0> X
"• o> <5
ill
H 2 Q
25.03
20.54
16.37
14.63
13.83
12.77
14.56
u
1 = 1
O D) 2
fit
520
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
c
0)
O)
ii
^ tf)
^ §•
26.08
21.59
17.42
15.68
14.88
13.82
15.61
*i
5o
0.33
0.33 '
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
o m
O1" Q.
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDi
Base
NOX & SO2 Control
Equally
Opposition
Dry
Deposition
Ftgur* L-» D*cr*«Md SOi and NOi •mwsKMW taiM* mcr»**#d NH] dry deposition.
How the percentage ot ammonia, or reduced atmospheric deposition, to total nitrogen deposition
is vli.iiit'intJ can he seen in I ahlc 1 -* I .-r the 1985 Scenario, the percent ammonia deposition
compared to the total DIN deposition *as estimated to be 21 percent. For the 2010 and 2030
..in.'s. the percentage of ammonia deposition to the tidal Chesapeake was estimated to
increase to IX percent lor the 2010 scenario and 55 percent for the 2U>0 scenario. The respective
estimated ammonia deposition on the watershed tor these same three scenarios — 1985. 2010. and
.ire 24 percent, 44 percent, and 64 percent
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen to the Coastal Ocean
I he ( M \'.> M.>del allows us to estimate atmospheric deposition loads to the coastal ocean at the
mouth ot the ( hcsapeakc Ha> . which contributes to the, coastal ocean nutrient budgets made b\
others, (Kennel ct al 200*>. Howarth ct al 1995. Howarth 1998). The estimated distribution of
2(M)I atmospheric deposition loads to North America and adjacent coastal ocean is shown in
I injure I -I" Howarth ( IWX) reported that atmospheric deposition loads are roughl\ equivalent
to watershed loads in the northeast I nited States (Maine to \ irgimai Howarth ( 1998) estimated
that the watershed inputs ot nitrogen to the northeast coastal waters lo be 0.27 leragram. Inputs
Ir. mi direct atmospheric deposition to coastal waters arc 021 leragram. and inputs from deep
in upwellmg are I <4 teragrams, fof a total input to the coastal ocean of 2.02 teragrams
L 18
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
I, 30
Figure L-10 Estimated 2001 annual total deposition of mtro9*o ikg-HHa) to North America and *d>ac*nt
coastal ocean based on outputs from the CMAQ Air Quality Model M km i M km grid
That has implications tor the fixed-ivean boundan addition used in the C hcsapcakc Ba> \X Met
Qualit> Sediment 1 ransport Model \tmospheric deposition total nitrogen loads to the consul
ocean are estimated to be about 6.63 kg ha in the Base C ax: 2002 scenario i fable 1 -M I hat
correlates to 43.8 million kilograms of total nitrogen deposition to a region of the occan that can
exchange waters uith the Chesapeake i I able 1 -o> In the case of the 2 foe the five ke> ». M \u
Table L-€ Atmospheric deposition load* of nitrogen (kg per hectare) to the coastal water area
shown in Figure L-11 for key scenarios
Scenario
Ba»« 2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020Scenano
" 2020 Maximum Feasible
^2030 Scenario
Dry depes.tvn
332
259
226
210
213
Wtol depositxx)
;•
268
249
235
240
Total deposition
663
527 H
<
445
453
L 19
Deten>bef 29 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
I o determine i'MA(J estimates of atmospheric deposition to the coastal ocean region affecting
nitrogen loads through the ocean boundary EPA assigned boundaries as shown in Figure L-l 1
that correspond to the proximate region of the coastal ocean exchanging waters with the
( liesapeake Ba\. The boundary is adjacent to the shore, and is inside, or west, of the Gulf
Stream. To account for the prevailing north to south current along the coast, the coastal ocean
boundary includes more of the coastal waters north of the Chesapeake Bay mouth.
I stimatcd atmospheric deposition loads to the coastal waters are listed in Table L- 7 for key
scenarios. The loads to the coastal ocean in kilograms per hectare for the CMAQ Base 2002
scenario are shown in Figure L-l 2. Table L-8 lists the relative reduction of atmospheric
deposition of nitrogen in coastal waters versus the Base Calibration scenario.
14.00190
12.25
III '
875
700
5.25
350
175
o oo 101
kq/ha 220
279
Figure L-11. Boundaries of the coastal ocean region used to adjust the ocean boundary conditions in the
Chesapeake Bay WQSTM
L-20
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table L-7. Total atmospheric deposition loads of nitrogen (millions of kg) to coastal waters for key
scenarios
Scenario
Base 2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
Dry deposition
21.90
17.12
1494
13.87
14.06
Wet deposition
21 89
1771
1645
1550
1588
Total deposition
43.80
3482
31 39
2937
2995
Layer 1 DD_OXNJTOTv+WD J)XNJTOTv+DD_REDN JTOTv+WD_REDN_TOTi
v-cctm_N1a_2002afmed \X32soa v3.4beta3_newt>iog12km.yeartysum.dep
0.00063
kg/ha 168
PAVE
January 1.00:00:00
Min- 1.729 at (274,64). Max- 41.308 at (226.105)
Figure L-12. Nitrogen atmospheric deposition loads (kg/ha) to the coastal ocean region for the Base 2002
scenario.
L-21
December 29. 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table L-8. Adjustment of the ocean boundary load for all nitrogen species for key CMAQ Model
scenarios' deposition to coastal waters adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay mouth
Scenario
Base 2002 Scenario
2010 Scenario
2020 Scenario
2020 Maximum Feasible
2030 Scenario
% Reduction of
ocean boundary
0%
2.1%
2.9%
3.5%
3.3%
Adjustment of Ocean Boundary Concentrations in the WQSTM from
Reductions in Atmospheric Deposition to Coastal Waters and Internal Bay
Load Changes
Ocean boundary concentrations of the Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model state-
variables are set based on monthly observations at the Bay mouth water quality monitoring
stations. The exchange of materials at the Bay mouth/ocean boundary follows the two layer
flows of the estuary. Net outflow occurs predominantly at the upper and southern boundaries
with the ebb tides, while net inflow occurs predominantly at the lower and northern boundaries.
The ocean boundary values govern the inflowing flux of ocean nutrients and sediment to the
Bay. Specifically, adjustments are made to the ocean boundary conditions to adjust for changes
in loads in the Chesapeake and for changes in atmospheric deposition.
Adjustment of Nutrient Boundary Conditions Due to Load Reductions in the
Chesapeake
Previous versions of the Bay Water Quality Model (8k grid version) found that a 90 percent
reduction in nitrogen load from the watershed produced a 10 percent reduction in inflowing
nitrogen concentration at the Bay mouth. Likewise, a 90 percent phosphorus load reduction
produced a 5 percent reduction in inflowing phosphorus.
Accordingly, for each load reduction scenario, the percent reduction (or increase) of total
nitrogen and total phosphorus loads in the entire Bay versus the Base Calibration scenario is
calculated
TN reduction = 100 * (TN Base Calibration scenario - TN scenario) / TN Base Calibration
scenario
TP reduction = 100 * (TP Base Calibration scenario - TP scenario) / TP Base Calibration
scenario
EPA further calculates the following factors:
TN Factor =1-0.1 * TN reduction/90
TP Factor = 1 - 0.05 * TP reduction/90
L-22 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
EPA then uses the TN factor and TP factor to multiply the Base Calibration ocean boundary
concentrations of all the nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient species in each boundary cell, with the
only exception of the cells in the southern boundary, because the southern Bay cells have
predominantly outflows. No adjustments are made to ocean boundary sediment because it
responds do different dynamics, and the source of the ocean input is primarily from courser
particles entrained in the southbound long-shore current.
Adjustment of Nutrient Boundary Conditions from Atmospheric Deposition
Load Reductions in the Coastal Shelf
If a load reduction scenario involves reducing nitrogen load from the atmosphere, a further
adjustment in the boundary conditions is done. A reduction of nitrogen atmospheric deposition
on the coastal ocean adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay causes reductions of nitrogen
concentrations in the shelf waters and thereby, reduction to inputs of nitrogen to the Bay.
For example, with the 2020 Clean-Air scenario, the reduction of atmospheric deposition of
nitrogen versus the Base Calibration scenario in the shelf waters is 0.029 (Table L-8). In that
case, the ocean boundary TN factor is further reduced by the third term on the right-hand side of
the following equation:
TN Factor = 1 - 0.1 * TN reduction/90 - 0.029 * 26/32
In the above formula, the 0.029 is multiplied with a ratio of 26 to 32. That is based on the average
salinity at the boundary to be 26 ppt, and the average salinity of shelf waters to be 32 ppt. The ratio
of 26 to 32 represents the ratio of the incoming ocean water over the sum of the incoming water
and the freshwater going out the boundary (i.e., the mixing water at the boundary).
Allocation of Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen to Tidal Waters
In determining the allowable loading from air deposition, EPA separated the nitrogen deposition
into two discreet parcels: (1) deposition occurring on the land and non-tidal waters which is
subsequently transported to the Bay, also called indirect deposition; and (2) atmospheric
deposition occurring directly onto the Bay's tidal surface waters also called direct deposition
(Figure L-l3).
The deposition on the land becomes part of the allocated load to the jurisdictions because the air
deposition on the land becomes mixed with the nitrogen loadings from the land based sources
and, therefore, becomes indistinguishable from land based sources. Furthermore, once the
nitrogen is deposited on the land, it would be managed and controlled along with other sources
of nitrogen that are present on that parcel of land. That is also called the referenced allocation as
Clean Air Act mandates nationwide reductions, as estimated in the CMAQ 2020 scenario, are
required to reduce the air deposition to the watershed and are assumed to be in place as the Bay
watershed jurisdictions finalize and implement their Watershed Implementation Plans to reduce
nitrogen loads further with land-based Best Management Practices (BMPs). In contrast, the
nitrogen deposition directly to the Bay's tidal surface waters is a direct loading with no land-
based management controls and, therefore, needs to be linked directly back to the air sources and
air controls as EPA's allocation of atmospheric nitrogen deposition.
L-23 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
EPA Referenced Allocation of
Depositiortlojhe Watershed
Legend
Phase 5 Study Aiea
^] State Boundary
Phase 5 Land Use
|^| Water
I! Urban
| Extractive
m| Bare
J Deciduous Forest
m Evergreen Forest
| Mixed Forest
^] Agriculture
J Grass
PA Allocation of Deposition
to Tidal Waters
0 20 40
Figure L-13. EPA's reference allocation of nitrogen atmospheric deposition to the Bay watershed and the
allocation of nitrogen atmospheric deposition direct to Bay's tidal surface waters.
EPA included an explicit basinwide nitrogen allocation, which was determined to be 15.7 million
pounds of atmospheric deposition loads direct to Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributary surface
waters. Activities associated with implementation of federal Clean Air Act regulations by EPA
and the jurisdictions through 2020 will ensure achievement of this allocation. This nitrogen
atmospheric deposition allocation is already accounted for within the jurisdiction and major river
basin nitrogen allocations. Any additional nitrogen reductions realized through more stringent air
pollution controls at the jurisdictional level, beyond federal requirements to meet air quality
standards, may be credited to the individual jurisdictions through future revisions to the
jurisdictions' Watershed Implementation Plans, 2-year milestones, and the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL tracking and accounting framework.
L-24
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
In determining the amount of air controls to be used as a basis for the air allocation, EPA relied
on current laws and regulations under the Clean Air Act. These requirements, together with
national air modeling analysis, provided the resulting allocated load to air from direct deposition
to the tidal waters of the Bay and its tidal tributaries.
The air allocation scenario represents emission reductions due to regulations implemented
through the Clean Air Act authority to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria
pollutants in 2020. The air allocation scenario includes:
• TheCAMR.
• The BART used for reducing regional haze, and the off-road diesel and heavy duty diesel
regulations.
• On-Road mobile sources: For On-Road Light Duty Mobile Sources this includes Tier 2
vehicle emissions standards and the Gasoline Sulfur Program, which affects SUVs pickups.
and vans, which are now subject to same national emission standards as cars.
• On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Rule - Tier 4: New emission standards on diesel engines
starting with the 2010 model year for NOx, plus some diesel engine retrofits.
• Clean Air Non-Road Diesel Rule: Off-road diesel engine vehicle rule, commercial marine
diesels, and locomotive diesels (phased in by 2014) require controls on new engines.
• EGUs: CAIR second phase in place (in coordination with earlier NOx SIP call).
• Non-EGUs: Solid Waste Rules (Hospital and Medical Waste Incinerator Regulations).
The controls described above were modeled using the national air models (CMAQ) and the
amount of deposition direct to the Chesapeake Bay's tidal surface waters was determined. On the
basis of the air allocation scenario as described above, the nitrogen deposition direct to tidal
surface waters is 15.7 million pounds per year. Therefore, the air allocation for the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL is 15.7 million pounds per year of nitrogen.
EPA anticipates that the loading cap of 15.7 million pounds of atmospheric deposition loads
direct to Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributary surface waters will be achieved through
implementation of federal Clean Air Act regulations by EPA and the states through 2020.
Projected reductions in atmospheric deposition loads to the surrounding watershed over this
same period are already accounted for within the individual jurisdiction and major river basin
nitrogen load allocations. Any additional nitrogen reductions realized through more stringent air
pollution controls at the jurisdiction level, beyond minimum federal requirements, as for example
in ammonia deposition reductions, may be credited to the individual jurisdictions through future
revisions to the jurisdictions' Watershed Implementation Plans, 2-year milestones and the Bay
TMDL tracking and accounting framework.
Crediting the States with Additional Air Controls
As mentioned above, it is possible, that individual or statewide air emission reductions, beyond
those used to derive the air deposition allocation may be achieved by a state. In this case, for the
purpose of evaluating the 2-year milestone progress, the state can be credited with the reductions
that would result for its portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA will use the following
L-25 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
steps to determine, with the state, the amount of nitrogen credit to apply to air emission controls
that go beyond the air allocation scenario described above.
1) Determine whether the emission source for which the state is seeking credit already
assessed credit for reductions in the State's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving
the State's air quality standards)
All of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed states are in nonattainment of current air quality standards.
When new air quality standards for ozone are complete in July 2011, the gap between current air
quality conditions and air quality standard achievement is expected to grow. Since the
Chesapeake Bay Program tracks the SIP management actions in an ongoing series of scenarios
designed to track expanded SIP implementation in the watershed and credit these additional air
reductions in the two-year milestones, the inclusion of air emissions reductions that are already
captured in the SIP will double count the reduction. Examples of air reductions that are not in the
SIPs are reductions in any ammonia emissions and reductions in NOx emissions that are not
needed for air quality standard achievement.
2) Determine whether the emission reduction is a state-wide emission or point source
Currently only a state-wide source emission reduction can be applied in the Phase I Watershed
Implementation Plans. As modeling capacity to handle air to water trading develops, the
capability to handle the specificity of latitude and longitude of point source emissions that are
being reduced will be applied in the Chesapeake models.
3) Determine if the emission controls will impact NOx and/or NH3 emission
There are situations in some air management actions where, for example, a NOx point source
emission is reduced, which in turn reduces the ammonia slip emissions (ammonia slip occurs
with NOx control technologies). States might be provided additional credit if both are reduced.
4) Determine the annual average emission reduction
Estimates are needed of the emission reduction on an annual average basis, and whether the
emission reduction occurs year round or is seasonal. Estimates of current emissions, which serve
as a baseline for the reduction, are also needed.
It should be noted that the reduction in nitrogen loads to the Bay can be orders of magnitude less
than the actual reduction in air emissions. Operationally, the emission reductions could be
discounted by the following:
1. Discounting the mass of NO2 measured in air programs to the "as N" units used in water
programs and in the WIP
2. Discounting for what is deposited within the State from the emissions reduced based on a
CMAQ State and sector analysis (also, the reduced deposition in other States will be
calculated if operationally possible)
3. Discounting for estimated attenuation from the land
4. Discounting for estimated attenuation in the rivers.
L-26 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
References
Dennis, R., R. Haeuber, T. Blett, J. Cosby, C. Driscoll, J. Sickles, and J. Johnson. 2007. Sulfur
and nitrogen deposition on ecosystems in the United States. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association. December 2007.
Fennel, Katja; Wilkin, John; Levin, Julia; Moisan, John; O'Reilly, John; Haidvogel, Dale, 2006.
Nitrogen cycling in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Results from a three dimensional model for
the North Atlantic nitrogen budget Global Biogeochemical Cycles Vol. 20 GB3007, 14 PP.,
2006 doi: 10.1029/2005GB002456.
Grimm, J.W., and J.A. Lynch. 2000. Enhanced wet deposition estimates for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed using modeled precipitation inputs. DNR Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater
Programs ( BWP-MANTA-AD-99-2.
Grimm, J.W., and J.A. Lynch. 2005. Improved daily precipitation nitrate and ammonium
concentration models for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Pollution
!35(2005):445-455.
Hameedi, J., H. Paerl, M. Kennish, and D. Whitall. 2007. Nitrogen deposition in U.S. coastal
bays and estuaries. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. December 2007.
Howarth, R.W. 1998. An assessment of human influences on fluxes of nitrogen from the
terrestrial landscape to the estuaries and continental shelves of the North Atlantic Ocean:
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 52:213-223.
Howarth, R.W.. G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. Townsend, N. Jaworski, K. Lajtha. J.A. Downing, E.R.
Elmgren, N. Caraco, T. Jordan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, P. Murdoch, Zhao-
liang, HZhu. 1995. Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine N & P fluxes for the drainages to
the North Atlantic Ocean: Natural and human influences. Biogeochemistry 35(1):75-139.
Keene W.C. 1; Montag J.A.; Maben J.R.; Southwell M.; Leonard J.; Church T.M.; Moody J.L.;
Galloway J.N., 2002. Organic nitrogen in precipitation over Eastern North America.
Atmospheric Environment 36:28, September 2002, pp. 4529-4540.
Knap, A., T. Jickells, et al. 1986. "Significance of atmospheric-derived fixed nitrogen on
productivity of the Sargasso Sea." Nature 320(March 13): 158-160.
Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, R.L. Dennis, and J.S. Sweeney. 2000. Cross-Media Models of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Airshed: Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling 1(1-4):91-
122.
Lynch, J.A., and J.W. Grimm. 2003. Improved Daily Nitrate and Ammonium Concentration
Models for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Annapolis, MD.
Mopper, Kenneth; Zita, Rob G. 1987. Free amino acids in marine rains: Evidence for oxidation
and potential role in nitrogen cycling. Nature 325(15):246-249.
L-27 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix L- Chesapeake Bay TMDL
STAC (Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee). 2007. Workshop on Atmospheric
Deposition of Nitrogen: Estimating Local Emission Sources, Near-field Deposition, and Fate
on the Landscape. May 30, 2007 SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, New York.
Scudlark, J. R. and T. M. Church. 1993. Atmospheric input of inorganic nitrogen to Delaware
Bay. Estuaries 16(4):747-754.
Scudlark, J.R., K.M. Russel, et al. 1996. Dissolved Organic Nitrogen in Precipitation:
Collection, Analysis, and Atmospheric Flux. Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Annapolis, MD.
Smullen, J.T., J.L. Taft, and J. Macknis. 1982. Nutrient and sediment loads to the tidal
Chesapeake Bay System. In U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
L-28 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix M - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix M.
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality/Sediment Transport Model Management Scenario Criteria
Attainment Assessment Results and 2008 303(d) List Assessment Results
This appendix presents the Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria attainment assessment results
of various Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (Bay Water Quality
Model) management scenarios in the stoplight format used by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and its partner jurisdictions in developing the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. The stoplight
spreadsheets summarize the percentage of space and time exceeding the four Bay jurisdictions'
water quality criteria for each of the 92 Chesapeake Bay segments. The spreadsheets are
produced from an assessment of Bay Water Quality Model outputs and Bay water quality
monitoring data as described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.4.4. The spreadsheets were used to evaluate
whether a management scenario met all applicable criteria across all designated use-segments.
Green highlighted percentages represent attainment of the applicable water quality standards.
Red highlighted percentages represent a violation or an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards. The assessment results provided in this appendix are in three spreadsheets:
• Appendix M-l: Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment Assessment
Results (AppendixMl DO Stoplight.xls)
• Appendix M-2: Chesapeake Bay Chlorophyll a Criteria Attainment Assessment Results
(AppendixM2_Chlor Stoplight.xls)
• Appendix M-3: Chesapeake Bay SAV/Water Clarity Criteria Attainment Assessment
Results (AppendixM3_SAV-Clarity_StopIight.xls)
The loading values in appendices M-l and M-2 were derived in one of two ways. Loading values
for the 1985 Scenario, 2009 Scenario, Tributary Strategy, and E3 2010 Scenario were derived
from explicit management scenarios and described further in Appendix J. Loading values for the
remaining scenarios were calculated as ratios of existing management scenarios to achieve
particular basinwide loading targets.
This appendix also contains the Chesapeake Bay segments 2008 303(d) list assessment results
spreadsheet.
Interpreting the Spreadsheets
Appendix M-1: Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
The dissolved oxygen water quality criteria stoplight plots describe the degree of nonattainment
(as percent of volume and time) of dissolved oxygen water quality criteria for each Chesapeake
Bay segment by designated use criteria. The dissolved oxygen criteria attainment assessment
results are based on assessing the open-water 30-day mean, deep-water 30-day mean, and deep-
channel instantaneous minimum criteria during the June I through September 30 summer period
(see Table 3-4 in Section 3.1.2). The green highlighted percentages represent attainment of the
applicable dissolved oxygen criterion. The red highlighted percentages represent nonattainment
of dissolved oxygen criterion. The rows show the percent nonattainment by Bay segment. The
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix M - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
columns show the percent nonattainment by the respective Bay Water Quality Model scenario
and are listed from left to right in descending order of loading values for total nitrogen (TN),
total phosphorous (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS). The Bay Water Quality scenarios are
grouped by 3-year water quality model assessment windows and are ordered chronologically.
The Bay Water Quality Model scenarios marked with an asterisk (*) had loading values derived
from the key management scenario spreadsheets (see Appendix J). All other scenarios' loading
values were calculated as ratios of existing management scenarios to achieve particular
basinwide loading targets. The critical period for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was selected as
1993-1995 for assessment of the dissolved oxygen criteria (see Section 6.2.1).
Appendix M-2: Chesapeake Bay Chlorophyll a Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
The chlorophyll a water quality criteria stoplight plots show the percent nonattainment of
chlorophyll a (CL) criteria by two periods: CL Spring Seasonal (March 1 through May 31) and
CL Summer Seasonal (July 1 through September 30). The green highlighted percentages
represent attainment of chlorophyll a criteria. The red highlighted percentages represent
nonattainment of chlorophyll a criteria. The rows show percent nonattainment by Bay segment.
The columns show the percent attainment by Bay Water Quality Model scenario and are listed
from left to right in descending order by loading values forTN and TP. The Bay Water Quality
Model scenarios are grouped by 3-year water quality model assessment windows and are ordered
chronologically. For the allocation scenarios specific to the James River Basin, loading values
were calculated as ratios of existing management scenarios to achieve particular loading targets.
Analyses failed to identify a critical period for the chlorophyll a water quality criteria, so all
3-year periods had equal weight in the Bay TMDL assessment (see Section 6.2.1).
Appendix M-3: Chesapeake Bay SAV/Water Clarity Criteria Attainment
Assessment Results
The submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)Avater clarity stoplight spreadsheets describe the degree
of nonattainment (as percent of SAV acreage + water clarity acres—see Section 6.4.4 and
Appendix P) of SAV/water clarity criteria for each of the Bay segments assigned a shallow-water
bay grass designated use. The green highlighted percentages represent the percent nonattainment
of SAV/water clarity criteria. The red highlighted percentages represent the percent
nonattainment of SAV/water clarity criteria. The rows show the percent nonattainment by Bay
segment. The columns show the percent nonattainment by Bay Water Quality Model scenario
and are listed from left to right in descending order of loading values for TN, TP, and TSS.
The Bay Water Quality scenarios are grouped by 3-year water quality model assessment
windows and are ordered chronologically. The Bay Water Quality Model scenarios marked with
an asterisk (*) had loading values derived from the key management scenario spreadsheets (see
Appendix J). All other scenarios' loading values were calculated as ratios of existing
management scenarios to achieve particular basinwide loading targets. The critical period for the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL was selected as 1993-1995 for assessment of the SAV/water clarity
criteria (see Section 6.4.1).
M-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix M - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix M-4: Chesapeake Bay Segments 2008 303(d) List Assessment
Results
The following are short descriptions of the information/data in each column in the Appendix M-4
Chesapeake Bay segments 2008 303(d) list assessment results spreadsheet
(AppendixM4_Bay_Segments_2008_303d.xls). Green means the criterion/designated use was
attained; red means the criterion/designated use was not attained; and yellow means insufficient
data for criterion assessment or no published criteria assessment protocol. The key to each
lettered column of information and data are as follows:
A: Chesapeake Bay segment
B: Jurisdiction
C: Designated used: MSN-migratory spawning and nursery; SWSAV-shallow-water bay grass,
OW- open water; DW-deep-water; DC-deep-channel
D: Season for criteria application: Summer-June 1 through September 30; Rest of year (ROY)-
October 1 through May 31
E: 30-day mean dissolved oxygen criterion with the value being the applicable criterion
F: 7-day mean dissolved oxygen criterion with the value being the applicable criterion
G: 1-day mean dissolved oxygen criterion with the value being the applicable criterion
H: Instantaneous minimum dissolved oxygen criterion with the value being the applicable
criterion
I: Temperature based dissolved oxygen criterion protective of shortnose sturgeon (species listed
as endangered)
J: Numerical chlorophyll a criteria assessment results
K: SAV restoration acreage criteria assessment results with the value being the applicable SAV
restoration acreage
L: Water clarity acreage assessment results
M: Combined SAV restoration acreage + water clarity acreage assessment results
N: Water clarity criteria assessment results
O: Description of criteria attainment assessment results by designated use-segment
P: 303(d) listing category
Q: Benthic community impairment status
M-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix N.
Resolution of Segments Failing to Attain the Jurisdictions' Water Quality Standards
Segments failing to attain the Dissolved Oxygen Standards
In the process of determining the target nitrogen and phosphorous load allocations, it was
observed that in a limited number of Chesapeake Bay segments, poor dissolved oxygen (DO)
conditions appeared to persist even under scenarios of dramatically reduced nitrogen and
phosphorous loads. A series of systematic diagnostic analyses were conducted to determine the
drivers of such persistent violations. The findings of those analyses, summarized in Section
6.4.4, are described in more detail here.
The most important analyses to explain the anomalous results in these segments were to
determine whether the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model (WQM) effectively simulated
historical conditions and improvement in those conditions with reduced loads. If the WQM was
determined to be non responsive in the affected Bay segments, additional lines of evidence were
explored to determine whether the apparent nonattainment represented an area of real concern, or
whether those segments could reasonably be expected to show sufficient improvement to attain
water quality standards (WQS) given the nitrogen and phosphorous load reductions. Each Bay
segment was evaluated to determine the following:
1. Whether violations of the DO criteria were isolated or widespread
2. Whether the Chesapeake Bay WQM effectively simulated historical conditions
and improvement in those conditions with reduced loads
3. Whether nearby Bay segments also exhibited persistent or widespread hypoxia
(low to minimal DO levels)
Gunpowder River
The DO criteria nonattainment in the tidal Gunpowder River (GUNOH) was driven by two
converging factors. First, the historical water quality DO monitoring data for this location show
that the water in the Gunpowder River is generally well-oxygenated in the summertime, with
only a single instance of hypoxia observed (July 1994) over the course of 10 consecutive
summers from 1991 to 2000 that violated the open-water criterion of 5.0 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) (red line in Figure N-l). Recall that the assessment process includes overlaying the
improvement in water quality predicted by the model onto the observed water quality from the
hydrologic period. For that reason, anomalous observed water quality measures can be critical to
the assessment results.
N-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
WT2.1
GO
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Load reductions reduce hypoxia:
CB4.3C (mid-water column)
cu
c
O
o
(/>
CO
LLJ
CO
O
Q
DO (mg/L), calibration run
Figure N-2. Example of a regression plot showing Bay WQM performance consistent with historical water
quality monitoring DO observations in the lower central Chesapeake Bay segment CB4MH at station CB4.3C.
The regression equation that is used to scenario-modify DO concentrations (for a description of
the scenario-modification procedure, see Section 6.2.2) is generated from a comparison of DO
concentrations simulated in the calibration scenario with those simulated in a management
scenario such as E3. When little change is observed in DO concentrations between the two
scenarios, the resulting regression equation reflects it (Figure N-3). When simulated DO
concentrations are consistently at or above 8 mg/L in the calibration scenario, the Bay WQM
generally does not show dramatic improvements in concentrations with reduced pollutant loads.
Furthermore, when the resulting regression equation is applied to a DO concentration well
outside the range of the simulated data, it can cause a DO response that does not accurately
reflect the information provided by the Bay WQM.
In the case of Gunpowder River monitoring station WT2.1 for July 1994, the Bay WQM-
simulated DO concentrations fell between about 8 and 10 mg/L for the calibration scenario as
well as the numerous reduced loading management scenarios. In Figure N-3, the pink symbols
and line represent the calibration scenario DO concentrations; the light blue symbols and black
line show the change in DO concentrations from the calibration to the E3 scenario. The red
arrows show the predicted change in an initial DO concentration of 4.5 mg/L. In that case, a
N-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
historical observation of 4.5 mg/L was scenario-modified to a concentration of 4.4 mg/L for the
E3 scenario.
cell 10576 (WT2.1) July 1994
11
10
9
8 —
LU
3456
calibration DO (mg/L)
10
Figure N-3. Bay WQM scenario DO concentrations and regression for station WT2.1 in the Gunpowder River.
As is shown here, even at the E3 scenario (for a description of management scenarios, see
Appendix J) only a slight increase in DO concentrations is observed across the range of
simulated concentrations. Typically, a greater response—in the form of higher DO
concentrations—is observed when the initial (i.e., calibration) DO concentrations are low (i.e.,
less than 5 mg/L). In such a case, when the linear regression representing the relationship
between the calibration and E3 DO concentrations is extrapolated far below the range of
simulated conditions, the result suggests that under E3 conditions, hypoxia could actually get
worse rather than better. That prediction is not an accurate representation of model simulations;
rather it is the effect of extrapolating the regression equation well outside the range of the
simulations from which it was generated. Such was the case for July 1994, when a historical
observation of 4.5 mg/L was scenario-modified to a concentration of 4.4 mg/L under the
dramatically reduced load conditions of the E3 scenario.
Examination of nearby segments—the Bush River (BSHOH), the upper Chesapeake Bay
(CB2OH), and the Middle River (MIDON)—showed attainment of DO WQS under historical
loading conditions and under all load reduction scenarios (Figure N-4).
N-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Cbseg
"81 -TM
BasA
Scenario
309TN.
19.6TP,
8950TSS
•93--9S
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Scei.
248TN.
16.6TP.
8110TSS
•93-'95
DO Open
Water
SumitKM
Monll.lv
Option A
200TN.
15TP,
B390TSS
i! firy
Stateay
191TN
14.4TP.
6462 TSS
Scenario
190TN,
13TP.
6173TSS
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
DO Open
Water
Sum
Monthly
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
110
Scenario
190TN
12.6TP,
6030TSS
05
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
179
Loading
Scenario
179TN
1?.OTP,
5610TSS
•95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Seen
170TN
I1.3TP,
5650TSS
••9S
DO Open
Water
Summei
Monthly
mn
Scciuuio
141TN
8.5TP,
5D60TSS
•B'J
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0% 0*. n% o*. 0% ov> 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0*Xi
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0V, 0% 0% 0%
5% 5*> 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Figure N-4. Open-water DO criteria attainment stoplight plot of the Gunpowder River segment GUNOH and
nearby segments.
In summary, the incidence of hypoxia in the tidal Gunpowder River was isolated. In that single,
isolated case, the Bay WQM was unable to provide information on the magnitude of expected
improvement in DO conditions with reduced nitrogen and phosphorous loads in the region.
Examination of nearby segments showed consistent attainment of DO WQS under historical
(Base) and reduced loading scenarios. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the open-water
designated use of GUNOH will attain DO WQS under the basinwide target allocation of 190
million pounds per year total nitrogen (TN) and 12.7 million pounds per year total phosphorus
(TP).
Manokin River
In the Manokin River (MANMH), violations of the segment's open-water DO WQS for the years
1991-2000 were limited to three measurements, ranging from 4.7 to 4.9 mg/L, taken during one
sampling event in July 1995 (Figure N-5).
The isolated, marginal violations of the DO WQS under historical conditions were scenario-
modified to greater nonattainment under simulated load reductions. At the same time, adjacent
and nearby segments—Tangier Sound (TANMH), Big Annemessex River (BIGMH), and the
lower Pocomoke River (POCMH)—all attained their respective DO WQS under historical
conditions and reduced loading scenarios (Figure N-6).
Further examination of the performance of the Bay WQM in the vicinity of water quality
monitoring station ET8.1 (MANMH's single tidal monitoring station) showed lower—rather
than higher—DO concentrations under reduced loading scenarios (Figure N-7).
The grid location that represents the Manokin River's single monitoring station is shallow and
directly adjacent to the land. The highlighted cell (cell 6705) in Figure N-8 coincides with the
location of long-term fixed station ET8.1. In such cases, the Bay WQM often struggles to
integrate the multiple, interacting drivers of a parameter such as DO. Further investigation
showed that chlorophyll a concentrations in cell 6705 decreased to zero (or less) at the E3
scenario (data not shown). If chlorophyll a concentrations had increased in concert with lower
DO concentrations, a temporal anomaly in pollutant loads to cell 6705 or its vicinity would have
N-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
been suspected. However, the combination of nonexistent chlorophyll a concentrations and low
DO concentrations observed here indicates that the WQM struggled to integrate the effect of
reduced loads on the feedbacks among multiple drivers of DO concentrations.
10
9
8
7
? 8
O)
E 5
ET8.1
t
I t»
I
* * It . *
• I *
It I • t
11
4
3
1
o
10 15 20 25
sampling event
30
35
40
Source: http://www diesapeakebay.net
Figure N-5. Summertime DO observations (dark blue symbols) at water quality monitoring station ET8.1 in
the Manokin River 1991-2000.
Cbseg
"91 -DO
Base
Scenario
309TN,
19.5TP,
8950TSS
'93--9S
DO
Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
2009
Scenaiio
248TN,
16.6TP.
8110TSS
•93-'95
DO
Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Target
Load
Option A
200TN,
15TP,
6390TSS
'93-'95
DO
Open
Water
Summer
Tributaiy
SMtogy
191TN
14.4TP,
6462
TSS
'93--9S
DO Open
Water
Summer
Inly
190/13
Loading
Scenario
190TN.
13TP,
6123TSS
•93.-95
DO Open
Water
Summer
190
Loading
Scenano
190TN
12.6TP.
6030TSS
•93--9S
DO
Open
Water
Summer
179
Loading
Scenario
179TN
12.0TP,
5510TSS
•93-95
DO
Open
Water
Summer
Moult 'Ulily
170
Loading
3cei
170TN
11.3TP.
5650TSS
•93--95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
E3 2010
Scenario
•M1TM
8.5TP,
soeorss
'93-495
DO
Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
TANMH 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BIGMH 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
POCMH 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% OSi 0% 0% 0V,
Figure N-6. Open-water DO criteria attainment stoplight plot ol the Manokin River segment MANMH and
nearby segments.
N-6
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
6705 (ET8.1) DO July 1995
calibration
E3 scenario
34567
calibration DO (mg/L)
10
Figure N-7. Regression plot for the Bay WQM cell (6705) corresponding to the MANMH water quality
monitoring station (ET8.1).
,,
X
7236
, Location of ET8.1
™'«" •»
««,».,«, »«) '
«00
""° Mttl »« >efm «*'
>M. ;
» cm woi «>r
tTOJ • 8601
'
TOB .
6E03
6441
6*42
.
.
Figure N-8. Chesapeake Bay WQM grid for the Manokin River and a portion of Tangier Bay.
N-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Given the isolated nature of DO criteria violations in MANMH under historical conditions, the
poor performance of the WQM, and the unimpaired nature of adjacent waterbodies under
historical conditions and simulated reduced loadings, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to
expect full attainment of the DO WQS in MANMH at the basinwide target allocation of 190
million pounds per year TN and 12.7 million pounds per year TP.
Maryland Portion of the Anacostia River
In the Maryland portion of the tidal Anacostia River (ANATF_MD), substantial violations of the
segment's open-water DO WQS were observed historically, with particularly serious violations
occurring at station ANAOI in August 1993 and July 1994 (Figure N-9).
ANA01 DO
cruise
Source: http://www.chesapeakebay net
Figure N-9. Summertime water quality DO monitoring observations at Maryland's tidal Anacostia River water
quality monitoring station ANA01 1991-2000.
Table N-l shows the modeled DO violations under a model calibration scenario and under a
lower loading scenario of 179 million pounds per year of nitrogen and 12 million pounds per
year of phosphorus. The majority of the historical violations were estimated to improve
substantially or even reach full attainment with further load reductions. However, for the two
months during the critical period with the most serious violations—August 1993 and July
1994—no improvement in DO WQS nonattainment percentage was predicted (Table N-l).
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table N-1. Monthly open-water DO criteria nonattainment
percentages for ANATF_MD in the 1993-1995 critical period
year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
month
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
0
7
8
9
violation rate
calibration
0.0%
20.3%
1000%
53.6%
797%
100.0%
20.3%
203%
1000%
100.0%
00%
0.0%
179TN, 12TP
0.0%
10.1%
1000%
116%
00%
100.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
00%
00%
00%
For those months, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) analysts compared Bay WQM
simulated DO concentration with historical water quality monitoring observations. For July
1994, model simulated DO concentrations at Bay WQM grid cell 6443—the location coincident
with monitoring station ANA01—ranged from 7.2 to 13.0 mg/L. In contrast, monitoring
observations for the same month ranged from 1.0 to 3.8 mg/L. Similar results were found for the
month of August 1993, when Bay WQM-simulated DO concentrations for cell 6443 ranged from
7.5 to 15.5 mg/L while historical observations at the same location (ANAOI) ranged from 0.5 to
4.4 mg/L. Because the Bay WQM did not simulate severe hypoxia in the region for those
summer months, it was not able to provide a sufficient estimate of the magnitude of DO response
to be expected with nitrogen and phosphorous load reductions.
CBPO analysts also considered the attainment status of the two downstream segments closest to
ANATF MD: the District of Columbia's portion of the Anacostia River (ANATF_DC) and the
District's portion of the tidal Potomac River (POTTF_DC) (Figure N-10). Unlike segment
ANATF_MD, ANATF DC and POTTF_DC both attained their respective DO WQS at the
target basinwide allocation of 190 million pounds per year TN and 12.7 million pounds per year
TP.
Given the lack of Bay WQM fit in this segment and the Bay WQM-projected DO WQS
attainment of the two segments immediately downstream, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to
expect attainment of the DO WQS in Maryland's tidal Anacostia River at the basinwide target
allocation of 190 million pounds per year TN and 12.7 million pounds per year TP.
In addition, EPA approved in June 2008, a established by Maryland and the District of
Columbia. The TMDL will address any localized water quality impairments.
N-9
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Cbseg
1985
Scenario
342TN,
24.1 TP.
9790TSS
•93-95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
"91 --00
Base
Scenario
309TN,
19.5TP,
8950TSS
•93-"95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
2009
Scenario
24STN,
16.6TP,
8110TSS
•93-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Target
Load
Option A
200TN,
15TP,
6390TSS
•93-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Tributary
Stategy
191TN
14.4TP,
6462 TSS
•93--95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
190/13
Loading
Scenario
190TN,
13TP,
6123TSS
'93-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN
12.6TP,
6030TSS
•93.'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
DCATF 38% 28% 10% 14% 1% 2% 1%
DCPTF 10% 0% 0% 0% U%
MDATF 34% 39% 19% 18% 12% 12% 12%
Figure N-10. Open-water DO criteria nonattainment in ANANTF MD MDATF and nearby Bay segments.
TN, TP, and total suspended sediment loads (TSS) are in million pounds per year.
West Branch Elizabeth River
Violations of the DO WQS were not uncommon in the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River
(WBEMH), particularly in the early half of the 1991-2000 decade. Violations of the 5.0 mg/L
open-water DO criterion (red line in Figure N-l 1) were common during summer months,
particularly at depths below 0.5 meter.
WBE1 1991-2000
0.5m —•— 2m -*— 3m —*— 4m
cruise
Figure N-11. Summertime DO concentrations observed at water quality monitoring station WBE1 in
segment WBEMH 1991-2000.
N-10
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Some of the violations improved with model-simulated load reductions such as those represented
in Table N-2; however, for two months in particular—July 1993 and July 1994—no
improvement in monthly violation rate was observed under scenario-modified conditions.
Table N-2. Monthly open-water DO criteria nonattainment
percentages for water quality monitoring station WBE1
in the 1993-1995 critical period
year
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
month
6
7
8
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
violation rate
calibration
0.0%
459%
00%
00%
1000%
492%
00%
0.0%
00%
0.0%
00%
179TN, 12TP
00%
459%
00%
0.0%
1000%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
0.0%
00%
Further investigation of model performance in WBEMH showed that the Bay WQM failed to
simulate the range of DO concentrations observed at WBE1 for either of these months. While the
Bay WQM consistently simulated concentrations greater than 7 mg/L for the Bay WQM cell at
station WBE1, monitoring observations for the same month and year were below 5.0 mg/L. In
Figure N-l2, the pink symbols represent DO concentrations for the calibration scenario; blue
symbols and line represent DO concentrations and linear regression for the 179 TN. 12 TP load
reduction scenario. Dark blue symbols represent DO observations for July 1994 at depths
ranging from 0.5 to 3 meters.
As described for previous segments, when the range of Bay WQM simulations falls in this range,
the model fails to provide an estimate of improvement in hypoxic conditions with load
reductions.
When Bay WQM simulations do not span the range of hypoxic conditions observed, additional
lines of evidence such as the attainment of nearby segments are considered in determining the
necessity for further load reductions. In the case of WBEMH, adjacent and nearby segments
attained their respective open-water DO WQS at or before the basinwide target nitrogen and
phosphorous allocations (Figure N-I3).
N-ll
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
WQM Ce« 257 (WBE1) July 1994
WQM data
45678
calibration DO (mg/L)
11
Figure N-12. Chesapeake Bay WQM simulations at WQM cell 257 and observations
at water quality monitoring station WBE1 for July 1994.
Cbseg
JMSPH
EBEMH
JMSMH
SBEMH
WBEMH
"01 -'00
B.isn
Scenario
309TN.
19.5TP,
8950T3S
'03-'05
00 Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
4%
0%
23%
OK
35%
11%
70G9
Scenario
248TN,
16.6TP,
8110TSS
•03'OS
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
18%
0%
16%
15%
Target
Load
Option A
?OOTN.
15TP,
6390T3S
•03-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Mont lily
0%
0%
5%
0%
8%
8%
Tribi it ,iry
Stategy
191TN
14.4TP,
6462 TSS
'03 -'05
00 Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
M
0%
0%
8%
100/13
ilMf)
Scenario
190TN.
13TP.
6123TSS
•03-'06
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
Cl1*
0%
0%
8%
Ln,vilng
Scenario
190TN
12.6TP,
G030TSS
•03-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
170
Lnftding
Scenario
170TN
12.0TP,
5510TSS
'03--05
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B%
170
•lino
Scenario
170TN
11.3TP.
5650TSS
193-'05
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
E3 ?mn
Scenario
141TN
8.5TP,
506DTSS
'03 '95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Figure N-13. Attainment of the open-water DO WQS for WBEMH and nearby Bay segments under
progressively stringent load reduction scenarios.
While the periodic occurrence of hypoxia in the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River remains
a matter of concern, in this case the WQM provided no information on the magnitude of
response in DO concentrations to be expected with load reductions. Considering the attainment
of DO WQS observed in adjacent segments well before the target basinwide allocation, EPA
concludes that it is reasonable to expect attainment of the DO WQS in Western Branch of the
Elizabeth River at the basinwide target allocation of 190 million pounds per year TN and 12.7
million pounds per year TP.
N-12
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Upper Pamunkey River
DO concentrations at station TF4.2 in the upper Pamunkey River (PMKTF) occasionally
violated this segment's open-water DO criterion of 4.0 mg/L (Figure N-14). Violations during
the 1993-1995 critical period were moderate and limited to the summer of 1995.
TF4.2
J —•— 0.5m -•— 3m —*— 5m • 7m * 8m
\\
summer cruise
Source: http://www chesapeakebay net
Figure N-14. Summertime monitored DO concentrations (mg/L) at station TF4.2 in segment PMKTF.
A closer look at DO violations occurring in July and August of 1995 (Table N-3) showed that
while DO concentrations in August improved sufficiently to attain WQS with simulated load
reductions, no improvement was observed in the July 1995 violation rate.
Investigation of the Bay WQM-derived regression for July 1995 revealed that as with other small
tidal tributaries discussed in this section, simulated DO concentrations for the calibration
scenario did not match historical observations for the same month and location in the upper
Pamunkey River. In Figure N-l 5, DO concentrations for the 190 TN, 12.7 TP load reduction
scenario (blue symbols and linear regression line) showed little or no improvement compared
with those of the calibration scenario (pink symbols). DO concentrations for both scenarios were
greater than those observed at station TF4.2.
It is also worth noting that the observed violations were only marginally lower than the 4.0 mg/L
criterion. Furthermore, the two segments immediately downstream from PMKTF—the lower
Pamunkey River (PMKOH) and the mesohaline York River (YRKMH)—attained their
respective open-water DO WQS at or before the target load allocation (Figure N-16).
N-13
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l -Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table N-3. Monthly open-water DO criteria nonattainment
percentages for water quality monitoring station TF4.2 in
segment PMKTF in the summer months of 1993-1995 critical period
year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
month
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
violation rate
calibration
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
0.0%
00%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
190TN.12.7TP
00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
00%
PMKTF (1803) July 1995
WQM data
2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13
calibration DO (mg/L)
Figure N-15. Simulated DO concentrations for cell 1803, the Bay WQM grid cell coincident with monitoring
station TF4.2 in segment PMKTF.
N-14
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Cbseg
"01 '00
Bate
Seen
309TN.
STP
8950TSS
•93--9S
DO Qpnn
Water
Suminei
Mnnihlv
2008
Scenario
748TN,
IfifiTP
8110TSS
•93--8!»
DO r
Water
Sun-
Torgot
Option A
700TN,
1hTP
6390TSS
Tributary
Stategy
191TN
14.4TP
6J6?
TSS
DO Open
Water
Summer
DO Open
Water
Summer
.ihlv
190/13
Loading
Scenario
190TN.
mp
6123TSS
•ttJ--Sb
DO Open
W.iter
Summer
Monihlv
•~>» J 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PMKTF 11% 5% 5% 5% 5%
YKKMH , 24% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Sew i
190TN
1?fiTP.
6030TSS
'93--H&
DO Open
Water
Sliiii
Monlhly
0%
5%
1%
179
•ling
Scenario
179TN
:TP
TSS
at.
DO Open
Water
Summer
i lily
170
Loading
Scenario
170TN
IIP.
5650TSS
•sa-'ut,
DO Op Ail
Water
Summer
shlv
E3?010
Scenario
141TN
TP.
5060TSS
'9a--ab
DO Open
Wntei
Sun«ner
Mnnthlv
0% 0% 0%
5% 2% 1%
1% 0% U%
Figure N-16. Attainment of the open-water DO WQS for PMKTF and nearby Bay segments under
progressively stringent load reduction scenarios.
Given the mismatch between historical water quality monitoring observations and the Bay WQM
simulations in the segment, the complete lack of response in DO concentrations with simulated
load reductions, the moderate nature of violations observed in PMKTF for the critical period, and
the attainment of the two nearest downstream segments at or before the target basinwide
allocation, EPA concludes that it is reasonable to expect attainment of the DO WQS in upper
Pamunkey River at the basinwide target allocation of 190 million pounds per year TM and 12.7
million pounds per year TP.
Wicomico River
Moderate excursions below the open-water criterion for Wicomico (WICMH) of 5.0 mg/L were
not uncommon in summer months (Figure N-l 7) between 1991-2000; however, few were
extensive enough to cause high percentages of WQS nonattainment. For the 1993-1995 critical
period, two months—June and July 1994—had extensive violations of the DO criterion.
ET7.1
4
• I
.
4-°
3.0 r
2.0
10
0.0
; 4 .
f~ ~T
////////////////////
*£
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
While the historical violations present in July 1994 were resolved under scenario-modified
conditions of the target basinwide allocation (190 TN, 12.7 TP Loading Scenario), DO
concentrations in June 1994 showed no improvement in violation rate, even under the extensive
load reductions of the E3 Scenario (Table N-4).
Table N-4. Monthly open-water DO criteria nonattainment percentages for water quality monitoring
station ET7.1 in segment WICMH in the summer months of 1993-1995 critical period.
WICMH
year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
month
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
violation rate
calibration
00%
55%
00%
00%
1000%
1000%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
0.0%
00%
190TN,
12.7TP
00%
00%
00%
00%
1000%
00%
00%
00%
00%
00%
0.0%
00%
E3
00% -
1.9%
00%
00%
1000%
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
0.0%
00%
Further investigation of the conditions causing the persistent violation revealed that DO
concentrations simulated by the Bay WQM's Calibration Scenario for grid cell 7658 are higher
than those observed at station ET7.1 for June 1994. In Figure N-l 8, the DO concentrations
observed at station ET7.1 (dark blue symbols) are shown for June 1994. The E3 linear regression
falls below those monitoring observations, illustrating the predicted decrease in scenario-
modified DO concentrations. Furthermore, DO concentrations in the location were generally
similar to (or sometimes even lower than) calibration conditions. In other words, no
improvement in DO concentrations was observed at the location when even dramatically reduced
loads were simulated. As a result, the mildly hypoxic conditions observed in June 1994 were
scenario-modified to lower, rather than higher, values with reduced nitrogen and phosphorous
loads.
In contrast with predictions for WICMH, adjacent Tangier Sound (TANMH) and other nearby
segments attained DO WQS at or before the target basinwide load allocation (Figure N-l9).
As with other segments described herein, the Bay WQM effectively simulated neither the
observed historical conditions nor the expected improvement in those conditions with reduced
nitrogen and phosphorous loads in this small, shallow region of the Wicomico River. Given the
moderate nature of the observed violations the unimpaired condition of adjacent and nearby
segments and the considerable level of effort already required of this river basin with the current
N-16
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
target load allocation, EPA considers that it is reasonable to expect W1CMH to attain WQS at the
target load allocations.
WQM cell 7658 (surface ET7.1) June 1994
3456
calibration DO (mg/L)
10
Figure N-18. Simulated DO concentrations for the Calibration Scenario (pink symbols with 1:1 linear
regression line) compared to those for the E3 Scenario (blue symbols and blue linear regression line).
Cbseg
1985
Scenario
342TN,
21,1 TP,
9790TSS
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
"01 --00
Base
Scwi.ii in
30STN,
19.5TP,
8050TSS
•93-'O5
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
2000
Scenaiio
2/18TN,
16.8TP,
8110TSS
DO Opnn
Water
Summer
Monl
Target
Load
Optk>i< A
200TN,
15TP.
630DTSS
•93-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
Monthly
Tributary
Stateqy
1B1TN
1-1.1TP,
8462
TSS
DO Open
Water
Surnmei
Monthly
190/13
Loading
Scenwio
11WTN,
13TP.
6123TSS
•93--9S
DO Open
Water
Summer
r-KBMH 0% 0% U% 0% 0% OH
M»' 0% OH OH OH 0% OH
OH OH OH OH OH
^^^^B 11<* 11H 11H JSH 5H 5H
Lojdmq
Scenario
180TN
12.6TP,
6030TSS
•93--9S
DO Opnn
Water
Summer
Monthly
OH
OH
5%
1/9
Loading
Scenario
174TN
12.0TP,
6510TSS
•93.'95
DO Opnn
Water
Summer
Monthly
1/0
Loading
Scenario
WOTN
11.3TP,
S650TSS
DO Opon
Water
Summer
Scenario
V11TN
8.BTP,
506QTSS
•93-'95
DO Open
Water
Summer
OH 0% UH
OH 1H 1H
OH OH OH
5H 5H 5%
Figure N-19. Attainment of the open-water DO WQS for WICMH and nearby Bay segments under
progressively stringent load reduction scenarios.
Magothy River
The Magothy River (MAGMH) is a small, shallow tidal tributary adjacent to the upper-central
Chesapeake Bay segment CB3MH. The Magothy River is represented by one long-term fixed
monitoring station, WT6.1. The narrow, embayment-l ike nature of the Magothy River is evident
in the portion of the Bay WQM grid that represents it; the entire tributary is represented by only
five WQM cells. The grid cell representing station WT6.1 highlighted in Figure N-20.
N-17
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Figure N-20. Chesapeake Bay WQM grid for the Magothy River
and the adjoining portion of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay.
Severely hypoxic conditions are common during the summer months in the Magothy River
(Figure N-21). Low DO concentrations are often exacerbated by water column stratification,
which prevents the vertical mixing that would otherwise re-oxygenate bottom waters.
Concentrations often fell below the deep-water criterion of 3.0 mg/L (red line), particularly at
depths greater than 2 to 3 meters (Figure N-21). The documented presence of an upper
pycnocline boundary in the Magothy River recently led EPA and Maryland to recommend
adding a Summer Deep Water designated use to the Magothy River (USEPA 2010). However.
even when the deep-water criterion of 3.0 mg/L is applied to stratified bottom waters,
nonattainment of the DO WQS persists with simulated load reductions at the level of the target
basinwide allocation (see Figure N-23).
WT6.1
O.Sm • 1m • 2m • 3m * 4m - 5m |
cruise
Source: http://www.chesapeakebay net
Figure N-21. DO concentrations observed at station WT6.1 in segment MAGMH during summer months
1991-2000.
N-18
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Further investigation of the persistent nonattainment of DO WQS observed in MAGMH showed
that while violations occurring in some summer months improved with load reductions, hypoxic
conditions in other months improved to a much lesser degree or not at all (Table N-5). In
particular, violations of the DO criterion that occurred in September 1994 showed no
improvement, even when loads were reduced to the 179 TN, 12 TP level.
Table N-5: Summer monthly violation rates for MAGMH
during the 1993-1995 critical assessment period
MAGMH
year
1993
1994
1995
1995
1995
month
6
9
7
8
9
violation rate
observed
44.9%
449%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
179TN
12 TP
0.0%
449%
0.0%
0.0%
44.9%
The performance of the Bay WQM in the location of the MAGMH monitoring station was
examined. As illustrated in Figure N-22, simulated DO concentrations in the WQM cell
representing the bottom depths at station WT6.1 were consistently higher than 5.0 mg/L for
September 1994. However, historical measurements for the lower depths at station WT6.1
showed concentrations less than 3.0 mg/L. In Figure N-22, the Calibration Scenario (pink
symbols and regression line) is compared with the 179 TN, 12.0 TP Loading Scenario (light blue
symbols and linear regression). Historical observations (dark blue circles) fall well outside the
range of simulations. As described previously, the failure of the Bay WQM to simulate hypoxic
conditions affects its ability to predict the magnitude of improvement that will occur in DO
concentrations when nitrogen and phosphorous loads are reduced.
The inability of the Bay WQM to simulate the hypoxic conditions observed during summer
months in the Magothy River reduces its ability to predict the magnitude of improvement in DO
concentrations that can be expected as nitrogen and phosphorous loads are reduced. However,
the Bay WQM much more effectively simulates historical conditions and, therefore, predicted
improvements, in nearby deeper, wider regions of the Chesapeake Bay. Thus, the predicted
attainment of WQS in the deep-water designated use of CB3MH. well before the target
basinwide load allocation (see Figure N-23), can help to inform expectations of attainment for
the Magothy River.
N-19
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
WQM cell19393 (WT6.1 bottom) Sept 1994
3456
8 9 10
Figure N-22. Simulated DO concentrations in grid cell 19393 of the Bay WQM for September 1994.
Load I Strttegy [ looting I LuvJny | Looduvg Loan
Scenario Sctnnno
Bat*
Sc*n«rio
3UUTN.
IMOTM
Figure N-23. Predicted attainment of DO WQS for the summer deep-water designated use in CB3MH and
MAGMH.
While the severely hypoxic conditions commonly observed in the Magothy River during the
summer months remain a matter of concern. EPA lacks data to effectively predict the recovery of
the Magothy River in those months when the Bay water quality fails to simulate historical
conditions. However, given attainment of adjacent deep-waters of CB3MH. and the extensive
load reductions already required of the Magothy River basin for the target basinwide allocation
of ll>0 million pounds per year TN and 12.7 million pounds per year TP, EPA anticipates that the
MA(iMH deep-water designated use will attain WQS when the target load allocation is
achieved.
Resolution of Segments Failing to Attain the SAV/Water Clarity
Criteria
After assessing attainment of the combined submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)Avater clarity
criteria on the basis of Bay Water Qualit\ Sediment Transport Model outputs for the nitrogen
and phosphorous Allocation Scenario (190 TN 12.7 TP), four Bay segments were initially found
to be in nonattainment of the SAV water clarity criteria.
N-20
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
On the basis of recent observed SAV acre or allowance of 1 percent nonattainment of the water
clarity criteria (see Section 6.6.2 and Appendix 1), the four remaining segments were judged to
actually be currently in attainment. Those segments are the Mattawoman Creek (MATTF). the
Gunpowder River (GUNOH), the Appomattox River (APPTF), and Virginia's portion of the
lower Potomac River (POTMH VA).
Virginia Middle Potomac River
The SAV restoration acreage criterion is for 4,250 acres for Virginia's portion of the middle
Potomac River (POTMH_VA) (Figure N-24). At the nitrogen and phosphorous Allocation
Scenario loading levels, the segment was at 10 percent nonattainment. Nonattainment was
persistent and was estimated to be 9 percent at E3 Scenario and 6 percent at the All Forest
Scenario nitrogen and phosphorous and sediment load levels. With its high SAV restoration
acreage criterion and the low levels of SAV acres estimated by the assessment approach
described in Appendix P for the segment, the estimated level of attainment is largely achieved
through water clarity acres only. As a consequence of the high SAV restoration acreage criterion.
the calculated water clarity acreage-based criterion is also very high—10,625 acres. However.
the available shallow-water area out to the maximum application depth of 2 meters is less than
the water clarity acres criterion for this segment.
The observed SAV record shows overall improvement in SAV coverage in recent years. Because
the 1993-1995 SAV coverage was close to its lowest recorded acreage, EPA used the recent
observed SAV area (2004-2005) in the SAV/water clarity criteria assessment procedure
described in Appendix P. Starting with this SAV acreage, more consistent with recent years of
observed SAV acreage (Figure N-25), Virginia's portion of the lower Potomac River achieved its
SAV/water clarity WQS at the sediment allocation levels.
Figure N-24. The location of the different embay ments of Virginia's portion of the lower Potomac River
(above left) and its representation of the Nomini Bay region of the segment by the Chesapeake Bay WQM
(above right).
N-21
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Potomac Virginia Mesohaine
< 300
>
»
I...III..11
Source: http://www vims edu/bio/sav
Figure N-25. Observed SAV acres in Virginia' lower Potomac River segment
Mattawoman Tidal Fresh—MA TTF
Initially, the Mattawoman Creek (Figure N-26) appeared to be in nonattainment of its SAV/water
clarity standards on the basis of Bay WQM simulation of the nitrogen and phosphorous
Allocation Scenario loading levels. Subsequently, a fuller analysis that included the recent SAV
monitoring data found that the Mattawoman Creek segment had 877 acres of observed SAV in
2008, and 866 acres in 2009 (Figure N-27). Both recent years of observed SAV exceeded the 792
acres SAV restoration acreage criterion. From the recent observed SAV data and the upward
trend of SAV expected with continued nitrogen and phosphorous and sediment reduction in the
Mattawoman Creek, those other lines of evidence supported the finding that the sediment
allocations for this segment will achieve the SAV standards.
PISTF
MATTF
Figure N-26. The location of Mattawoman Creek in the upper Potomac River (above left)
and the Chesapeake Bay WQM representation of Mattawoman Creek (above right).
N-22
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Mattawoman Observed SAV Acros
.Mill..Ill
Figure N-27. The observed SAV data for Mattawoman Creek from 1971 to 2009.
Gunpowder River
Initially, the Gunpowder River (GUNOH) (Figure N-28) appeared to be in nonattainment of its
SAV/water clarity standards according to the Bay WQM simulation of the nitrogen and
phosphorous Allocation Scenario loading levels. Subsequent analysis found that the Gunpowder
River segment had essentially reached its SAV restoration acreage criterion of 2.432 acres in
recent years (2000, 2004) and found a generally increasing trend of SAV expansion as nitrogen
and phosphorous and sediment loads continue to decrease toward the allocation scenario loads
(Figure N-29). Consequently, that other line of evidence supports the finding that further
sediment reductions beyond the phosphorus-based sediment loads within the nitrogen and
phosphorous Allocation Scenario would be unwarranted.
Figure N-28. The location of the Gunpowder River (above left) and the
Chesapeake Bay WQM representation of Gunpowder River (above right).
N-23
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
IIMMI
2NKI
2UOU
1500
IIHMI
Gunpowder River Oligohaline (GUNOH)
Bay Grass Acreage
D
Goal
^
'••
! .
a
Z
0) criteria onlv. is estimated at the
Sediment Allocation Scenario loading level. Allowance of I percent persistent nonattainment of
the water claritv criteria moves the segment into attainment.
JMSTF2
APPTF
J
Figure N-30 The location of the Appomattox River In the upper tidal James
River (above left) and its representation by the Chesapeake Bay WQM (above
right).
N-24
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix N-l - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
References
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and C Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries: 20 JO Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum. May
2010. EPA 903-R-10-002. CBP/TRS 301-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
N-25 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix O - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix O.
Setting the Chlorophyll a Criteria-Based Nutrient Allocations for the James River
Watershed
The initial Draft Target Load Allocation of!90 million pounds per year (mpy) total nitrogen
(TN) and 12.7 mpy total phosphorus (TP) was determined on the basis of attainment of
Chesapeake Bay basinwide numeric dissolved oxygen standards. At that loading level, an
assessment of predicted chlorophyll a concentrations showed nonattainment of Virginia's
numeric chlorophyll a water quality standard (WQS) in the James River for several 3-year
assessment periods, in multiple segments and in both spring and summer seasons (see Figure
O-l). The narrative rationale for Virginia's numeric chlorophyll « criteria (see Table O-l) is
described in EPA's 2003 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. Water ('lurity
and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (USEPA 2003a).
Cbseg
JMSTFL
JMSTFU
JMSOH
JMSMH
JMSPH
Cbseg
JMSTFL
JMSTFU
JMSOH
JMSMH
JMSPH
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN.
127TP.
6030TSS
CL
Spring
Staaonal
0%
3%
,,.
Summer
Seaaonal
0%
0%
0%
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN.
127TP.
6030TSS
192-'94
CL
Spring
Seasonal
O'X.
1%
Seaional
0%
0%
0%
0%
190
Loading
Scenar 10
190TN.
127TP.
6C30TSS
•93-'95
CL
Spring
Seaaonal
0%
0%
0%
CL
Summer
Seasonal
0%
0%
0%
0%
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN,
12.7TP,
6030TSS
•94-'96
CL
Spring
Staaonal
0%
0%
Staaonal
0%
0%
0%
o°x
190
Loading
Scenario
1SOTN
I27TP
6030TSS
•95-'97
CL
Spring
Seasonal
0%
0%
0%
Seasonal
5%
0%
0%
0%
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN,
12.7TP.
6030TSS
•98--9B
CL
Spring
Staaonal
4%
0%
0%
Summer
Staaonal
15%
0
0%
0%
0%
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN,
127TP,
6030TSS
•97-'99
CL
Spring
Staaonal
0%
0%
0%
0%
SumLr
15%
0%
O'X,
15%
190
Loading
Scenario
190TN.
12.7TP,
6030TSS
•98--00
CL
Sprlnu
Seasonal
5%
0%
0%
&%
O'X,
14%
11%
For this scenario, the James River Basin allocation is 26.6 mpy TN and 2.7 mpy TP.
Failure to attain WQS is shown in red text as percent nonattainment
Figure O-1. Attainment of numeric chlorophyll a WQS in the James River at the draft
Target Load Chesapeake Bay basinwide allocation of 190 mpy TN and 12.7 mpy TP.
O-l
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix O - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Table O-1. James River numeric chlorophyll a criteria
Segment
JMSTFU
JMSTFL
JMSOH
JMSMH
JMSPH
Seasonal mean criterion (M9/L)
spring/summer
10/15
15/23
15/22
12/10
12/10
pg/L = micrograms per liter
To identify the level of load reductions necessary to achieve chlorophyll a WQS in the James
River, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program's (CBP's) modeling and monitoring teams investigated
the underlying drivers of those remaining instances of nonattainment.
Determining Chlorophyll a attainment for spring in the Tidal Fresh
James River
First, the drivers of nonattainment in the lower tidal fresh James during the spring for the three
assessment periods spanning 1993-1997 were examined. For all three assessment periods, failure
to attain the WQS at draft target loading levels was driven by conditions and estimated levels of
improvement in the spring of 1995 at stations TF5.5 and TF5.5A, where chlorophyll a
concentrations exceeding the seasonal mean chlorophyll a criterion of 15 ug/L were observed.
Stations TF5 5 and TF5 5A are marked with black dots and circled in red.
Figure O-2. James Tidal Fresh Lower (JMSTFL) segment of the James River, with long-term fixed monitoring
stations shown.
CBP analysts next investigated whether the estuarine Water Quality Sediment Transport Model
(WQSTM) was sufficiently calibrated to observed conditions in that region of the James River.
A comparison of observed values at station TF5.5 with those generated by the WQSTM during
its calibration run demonstrated that the WQSTM simulated the range of surface chlorophyll a
conditions experienced in the region in 1995 (Figure O-3).
0-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix 0 - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
56920 Grid (Run 417)
Chlorophyll TF5.5 Surface
Years
Figure O-3. Plot comparing WQSTM-simulated surface chlorophyll a values (red line)
with historical observations (blue dots). For the year 1995 (circled in black),
simulated values captured the range of observed conditions.
Furthermore, a comparison of the WQSTM's response to load reductions in the region showed a
consistent response in the form of a reduction of undesirable surface chlorophyll a levels
(i.e., those exceeding the seasonal mean criterion) when loads were reduced (see Table O-2).
From those lines of evidence, it was determined that this instance of nonattainment represented a
best available estimate of remaining nonattainment in the JMSTFL for the spring seasons of
1993-1995, 1994-1996, and 1995-1997 periods. Those periods reached attainment of WQS with
the 770 77V, 11.3TP Loading Scenario, for which James River Basin loads were 25.5 mpy TN
and 2.5 mpy TP. At that loading level, some individual surface chlorophyll a values exceeded the
seasonal mean criterion, but the average seasonal degree of criteria violation fell within the
allowable exceedance of I percent.
Table 0-2. Observed and scenario-modified chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/L) at stations TF5.5
(a) and TF5.5A (b) in the spring of 1995. The 26.6 TN, 2.7 TP loading level represents James River
Basin load reductions for the global 190 TN, 12.7 TP loading.
(a)
TF5.5
Month
March 1995
April 1995
May 1995
observed
51
302
9.1
26.6 TN
2.7 TP
5.5
188
7.7
25.5 TN
2.5 TP
5.6
17.7
72
(b)
TF5.5A
Month
March 1995
April 1995
May 1995
observed
48.7
38.8
7.7
26.6 TN
2.7 TP
29.7
21.8
9.6
25.5 TN
2.5 TP
26.8
20.3
9.2
0-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix 0 - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Verification of the violations described above, and determination of their resolution at the James
River-specific loading level of 25.5 mpy TN and 2.5 mpy TP, enabled EPA CBP analysts to
confirm a minimum required reduction scenario for James River to this loading level.
Determining the remaining Chlorophyll a attainment in the James
River
Remaining violations at the 25.5 mpy TN/2.5 mpy TP loading level (170 Loading Scenario) were
investigated. To determine the maximum necessary additional loading reductions, analysts
focused on the greatest remaining levels of nonattainment—those occurring for the summer
season in JMSTFL, JMSMH, and JMSPH (see Figure O-4).
JMSOH
0%
JMSMH
CW4
0*.
014
JMSPH
0%
OH
Cbseg
Silmmtr
itiicnii
Simimtr
SMionil
swienti
Stimrmr
S.HOn.l
s««icrnl
Stiwntl
t>i)mm«r
Stllon.l
JMSTFL
0%
11%
11%
JMSThU
0%
0%
0%
JMSOH
0«*
0%
0%
JMSVH
0%
0%
12%
12%
JMCPH
Crtd
9%
For this scenario, the James River Basin allocation is 25 5 mpy TN and 25 mpy Tl
Failure to attain WQS is shown in red text as percent nonattainment.
Figure O-4. Attainment of numeric chlorophyll a WQS in the James River at the
Chesapeake Bay basinwide loading level of 170 mpy TN and 11.3 mpy TP.
Using the same systematic procedure employed for the JMSTFL violations described above, the
12 percent nonattainment observed for JMSMH in the summers of 1997-1999 and 1998-2000
was examined. The primary driver of the nonattainment was traced to conditions occurring at
James River monitoring stations LE5.2 and LE5.3 in September 1999. Examination of observed
and scenario-modified data for the summer of 1999 in the region of LE5.2 and LE5.3 showed
that individual historical observations did in some cases exceed the summer seasonal mean
criterion of 10 ug/L for JMSMH. But more importantly, the regression equations used to
scenario-modify chlorophyll a concentrations (for details on the scenario-modification
procedure, see Section 6.4) at the stations in September 1999 were generating higher
chlorophyll a concentrations with reduced loads rather than lower concentrations.
0-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix 0 - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
A comparison of the WQSTM simulation against observed values at LE5.3 showed that the
WQSTM simulated the range of surface chlorophyll a conditions observed in 1999 (see Figure
O-5). For the year 1999 (circled in black), simulated values captured the range of observed
conditions.
56920 Grid (Run 417)
Chlorophyll LE5.3 Surface
Figure O-5. Plot comparing WQSTM-simulated surface chlorophyll a values (red line) with historical
observations (blue dots).
A closer look at simulated surface conditions at LE5.2 and LE5.3 in the summer of 1999 showed
that from June through early September, simulated chlorophyll a concentrations were within the
range or moderately lower than observed surface chlorophyll a values and that chlorophyll a
concentrations consistently declined when loads were reduced. However, an anomaly occurred in
some driver of the model simulation that caused poor scenario performance in the latter half of
September 1999 at LE5.2 (see Figure O-6) and, to a lesser degree, LE5.3 (not shown).
Specifically, chlorophyll a concentrations suddenly increased in all scenarios, and concentrations
for the load reduction scenarios increased to even higher levels than for the calibration scenario.
For most of the summer, load reduction scenarios such as the 179 TN/12.0 TP loading scenario
(light blue symbols and line. 180 TN) and the E3 scenario (dark blue symbols and line, E3)
simulated consistently reduced surface chlorophyll a concentrations relative to the calibration
scenario (pink symbols and line, calib). After September 15, load reduction scenarios generated
higher chlorophyll a concentrations than the calibration scenario. As a result, regression
equations used to scenario-modify chlorophyll a observations from September 1999 generated
higher chlorophyll a concentrations under reduced loading scenarios.
0-5
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix 0 - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
LCi 2 (731) Summer 1999
(b)
Li6.2(/31|g«p 1MB
n
Z
v
at
05
0 5 ID 15 70 75 M 35 40 45 SO 55 80 65 70 V. SO 85 90 95
Summer Day sept15m
16 2 26
calibration In(chla)
Figure O-6. Plot of simulated surface chlorophyll a concentrations for WQSTM cell 731 (location of station
LES.2) during the summer of 1999 (a), and resulting regression plot for September 1999 LE5.2 chlorophyll a (b).
The effect of that anomaly was to generate flawed regression equations for the September period
which caused chlorophyll a observations to be scenario-modified to higher rather than lower
concentrations under reduced-load scenarios (see Table O-3).
Table O-3. Observed, scenario-modified (190 TN), and refined scenario-modifed chlorophyll a
concentrations at LE5.2 in summer 1999
LE5.2
Month
July 1999
August 1999
September 1999
chlorophyll a
(M9/L)
Observed
11.1
6.19
14.0
190TN
8.94
5.34
23.7
1 90 TN, refined
8.94
5.34
10.8
When the anomalous data generated after September 15 were removed from the analysis, the
resulting regression equations better reflected the information provided by the WQSTM with
regard to predicted improvements in chlorophyll a concentrations with reduced pollutant loads.
Using the refined regression for September 1999, the percent nonattainment of 12 percent for
JMSMH in the summer 1997-1999 and 1998-2000 summer periods shown in Figure O-5
declined to only 2 percent at the 170 Loading Scenario level of 25.5 mpy TN and 2.5 mpy TP for
the James River Basin.
As with the violations described for JMSTFL above, the newly verified nonattainment levels
were used to identify further load reductions required to achieve attainment of summer seasonal
WQS in JMSMH. Scenarios were generated with progressively more stringent load reductions.
Attainment of summer seasonal chlorophyll a WQS was achieved in JMSMH for the 1997-1999
and 1998-2000 assessment periods at the 23.5 TN. 2.35 TP loading level for the James River
Basin (see Figure O-7).
0-6
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix O - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
SI
-'I
;u
JMSPH
Cbseg
JMSTFL
JMSTFU
JMSOH
JMSMH
JMSPH
23.5 TN
2.35 TP
•91 --93
i-L Sptinq
0%
1"A
0%
Sumrntr
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
23 5 TN
2.35 TP
•9Z-'94
CL Spring
If*
0%
0%
0%
0%
n
Summer
0%
mi
0%
0%
0%
•gs-^o
CL spring
0%
0%
o%
0%
>
Summer
0V
mi
0%
m.
0°X
2.35 TP
•94-'90
CLSpnng
0%
0%
01*
0%
0%
.
Summer
0
0%
C4
Summer
6%
0%
0%
Crtfc
0%
•97 -'99
CL Spring
D%
0%
0%
0%
•:i
Summer
6%
0%
1%
9%
23.5 TN
•98-'00
CL Spring
0%
0%
0%
0%
cu
Summer
2%
Figure O-7. Attainment stoplight plot of James River chlorophyll a WQS for the 23.5 TN,
2.35 TP load reduction scenario. Highlighted fields show attainment in JMSMH for
summers 1997-1999 and 1998-2000.
At that load reduction level, two blocks of nonattainment remained: JMSTFL summer for the
assessment periods 1995-1997 through 1998-2000. and JMSPH summer for the assessment
periods 1997-1999 and 1998-2000.
Summer nonattainment in JMSPH for assessment periods 1997-1999 and 1998-2000 was traced
to conditions at station LE5.4W in the summer of 1999. Chlorophyll a concentrations in that
region consistently exceeded the summer seasonal mean criterion for JMSPH of 10 ug/L (see
Table O-4).
Table O-4. Observed and scenario-modified chlorophyll a concentrations at LE5.5-W in the
summer of 1999
LE5.5W
Month
July 1999 cruise 1
July 1999 cruise 2
Aug 1999 cruise 1
Aug 1999 cruise 2
September 1999
chlorophyll a
(M9/L)
Observed
14.7
22.7
12.9
14.2
39.2
26.6 TN, 2.7 TP
11.9
19.3
9.98
11.0
15.5
25.5 TN/2.5 TP
11.3
18.3
9.48
10.4
14.0
When historical observations fall well outside the range of concentrations simulated by the water
quality model, the WQSTM's ability to estimate the predicted magnitude of response to reduced
loads is compromised. Some of the concentrations observed at LE5.5W in the summer of 1999
were within the range of the WQSTM simulations. However, the September 1999 observation of
39.2 ug/L was well outside the range of simulated conditions, reducing confidence in estimates
of expected improvement in chlorophyll a concentrations. While concern remains regarding such
clear violations of chlorophyll a WQS, insufficient information exists to justify further load
0-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix 0 - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
reductions from estimates of remaining nonattainment for JMSPH in the 1997-1999 and 1998-
2000 assessment periods.
The case of remaining summer nonattainment in JMSTFL is similar to that of JMSPH but even
more pronounced. Remaining nonattainment could be traced back to summer conditions in 1997
and 1998, when surface chlorophyll a concentrations regularly exceeded the summer seasonal
mean criterion of 23 ug/L. In Figure O-3, summer observations ranging from about 50 to more
than 100 pg/L can be seen to far exceed the WQSTM's simulated average summer conditions for
the region. Similarly, conditions at station TF5.5A ranged from 75.6 to 113 ug/L in the summer
of 1997. Such bloom conditions exceed the range of simulated conditions to such a degree that it
is difficult to predict the expected magnitude of improvement with load reductions. Therefore,
insufficient information exists to justify further load reductions on the basis of estimates of
remaining nonattainment for JMSTFL in those summer assessment periods.
Using the information gained from the analyses described above, the chlorophyll a-based
nutrient load allocations for the James River Basin were set at 23.5 mpy TN and 2.35 mpy TP.
At that load allocation, verified events of nonattainment in JMSTFL for the spring seasons of
1993-1995, 1994-1996, and 1995-1997, as well as verified events of nonattainment in JMSMH
for the summer seasons of 1997-1999 and 1998-2000, were resolved. Regions with remaining
instances of nonattainment (i.e., JMSTFL and JMSPH summer seasonal conditions) will be
closely monitored in coming years to ensure that the allocated load reductions result in the
conditions necessary to achieve attainment of chlorophyll a WQS.
0-8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix P. Setting the Water Clarity/SAV Criteria-Based Sediment Allocations
Appendix P is comprised of the following written appendix coupled with a spreadsheet
(Appendix P SAV Coverage 1971- 2009 Spreadsheet.xls) that shows observed SAV for Bay
segments in 1971-2009. The observed SAV areas from 102 segments are aggregated into SAV areas
for the 8 tidal basins for each year.
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix P.
Setting the SAV/Water Clarity Criteria Based Sediment Allocations
Introduction
The scale of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership's models extend from the extreme of the
continental scale of the Community Multiscale Air Quality Bay Airshed Model and watershed-
wide scale of the Phase 5.3 Bay Watershed Model to the other extreme of the narrow ribbon of
shallow water adjacent to the Bay's more than 11,000 miles of tidal shoreline. The ribbon of
shallow water of 2 meters or less in depth is the region where the jurisdictions' submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV)Avater clarity criteria are applied to assess protection of the shallow-
water bay grass designated use. This region of a convoluted shoreline is spatially and temporally
more heterogeneous than the rest of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport
Model (WQSTM) domain covering the open and contiguous waters of the Chesapeake. Episodic
loads from shoreline erosion, resuspension. and watershed inputs all transit this narrow band of
land and water interface.
The challenge of assessing SAV and water clarity criteria at these scales has only recently been
taken up by the Chesapeake Bay Program partnerships in the past 5 years. Monitoring, modeling
and research in these shallow-water systems is in its relative infancy compared to the more
mature environmental science surrounding dissolved oxygen in eutrophic estuarine ecosystems.
In addition, while moving toward these finer scales, the retention of system-wide representation
of loading sources, boundary conditions must be preserved.
Key Model Refinements in Simulating Water Clarity-SAV
The Bay Water Quality Model used in setting the 2003 Chesapeake Bay nutrient and sediment
allocations (Cerco and Noel 2004; Linker et al. 2000: Cerco et al. 2004) was refined to include
full sediment transport of four classes of inert particulates approximating the settling and
transport behavior of sand, silt, clay, and a sediment fraction of slowly settling clay. The
resulting Chesapeake Bay WQSTM was capable of resolving turbidity maximum zones in the
Bay and appropriately setting the boundary conditions for the shallow water region of the
SAV/water clarity criteria. Resuspension of sediment was generated by currents, both tidal and
residual, and by waves. Additional refinements included high resolution at half-meter depths of
the shallow-water SAV growth areas (Figure P-l). an advanced optics model of underwater light
attenuation, improvements to the SAV simulation, and refinements to shoreline erosion. Those
model refinements and additions are shown schematically in Figure P-2.
P-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Depth and area independent of
model grid
Water column and
sediment properties are
shared
SAV Model Cell J, K
[Sediments
[Sediments
[Model Grid Cell I |
Source: Cerco et al. 2010
Figure P-1. A schematic of the half-meter depths of the SAV sub-grid unit cells mapped to the WQSTM grid
cell, which provides light attenuation and other model state variables the SAV growth cell.
Source: Cerco et al. 2010
Figure P-2. A schematic of the WQSTM refinements applied for the simulation of the SAV/water clarity water
quality standard.
P-2
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Refinements to Shore Erosion Estimates
Consistent temporal and spatial data for erosion rates, bank heights, shoreline protection, and
sediment type were needed for the entire Chesapeake Bay to better estimate the role of shoreline
erosion in the overall sediment budget (Hennessee et al. 2006; Hardaway et al. 1992). The
refined shoreline sediment load estimates included both bank load (e.g.. fastland erosion) and
nearshore erosion (Figure P-3). Spatially explicit erosion rates by reach that allowed for variance
with bank height, shoreline orientation, and sediment composition were calculated. Best
estimates of the actual shoreline lengths were used, including reduced erosion rates for enclosed
minor inlets where reduced wave and current erosion would be expected. The different shoreline
loading estimates were then incorporated into the appropriate WQSTM cells.
Mean Sea Level
Nearshore
fcroslon (35%)
Source: Hopkins and Halka 2007
Figure P-3. Example of fastland and nearshore components of the shoreline sediment loads.
For unprotected shorelines the shoreline erosion computation was as follows:
• Eroded Fastland Volume = Shoreline Length * Elevation * Erosion Rate/Day
• Total Eroded (Fastland + Nearshore) = Fastland Mass / 0.65
• Eroded Silt/Clay Mass = Total Eroded Volume * Bulk Density * Silt Clay %
• Different silt/clay proportions for bank and marsh sources (Applied to Maryland portion
tidal shoreline only)
• Different silt/clay proportions for north and south banks of each major river (Applied to
Virginia tidal shoreline only)
For protected shorelines everywhere, the assumption was that fastland erosion was eliminated,
but that nearshore erosion continued. Nearshore erosion was estimated for protected shorelines
by using adjacent or nearby unprotected shoreline.
P-3
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Simulating SAV
The unit SAV simulation computes SAV density (mass unit area) as a function of irradiance
and nutrients for SAV shoot and roots as shown in Figure P-4. Irradiance and epiphytes are
calculated separately, and the SAV model full} interacts \\ith \vatercolumn and bed sediments
(sec l-'igure P-4).
Epiphytes
Phytoplankton
SAV Shoots
Dissolved
Nutrients
Water Column
Sediments
P articulate
Nutrients
SAV Roots
Dissolved
Nutrients
Paniculate
Nutrients
Submerged Aquatie Vegetation Model
I
Source Cerco 2009
Figure P-4. The Chesapeake Bay WQSTM's SAV unit model.
The current simulation of SAV considers light to be the sole determinant of SAV abundance, but
other factors such as composition of bottom substrate, SAV community structure, and seed bank
availability are significant. Those factors are not explicitly simulated in the WQSTM but are
accounted for via an empirical probability of success.
The probability function was empirically set to best represent SAV biomass under current
nutrient loads and adjusted to improve the probability of SAV growth under conditions that are
more representative of mid-!900s Chesapeake nutrient loads (Hagy et al. 2004). The use of the
empirically set probability function for SAV allowed appropriate SAV levels to best simulate
water clarity, which was solely used to assess the water clarity criteria. Moving forward, in the
next generation of the Bay Model, the probabilit} function will be replaced with salient first
principal forcing functions.
P-4
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Process of Assessing the Water Clarity-SAV Criteria
Three methods are used to assess attainment of the Bay jurisdictions' SAV/water clarity water
quality standards. Any one of the following three methods can be used to determine whether the
SAV and water clarity goal is achieved. The SAV/water clarity criteria assessment applied to the
Bay WQSTM scenario output is always on the combined SAV and water clarity criteria
assessment method.
Using only acres oj SAV coverage: A segment attains the goal if the SAV acreage of
single best year in the segment is met in the preceding 3 years (including the current year)
(USEPA2003).
Using only water clarity acres: A segment attains the goal if the single best year water
clarity acreage in the preceding 3 years exceeds 2.5 times the SAV restoration acreage.
The water clarity acres for a year are assessed on the basis of the arithmetic mean of
monthly water clarity in the criteria months that meets the water clarity criteria (see
Section 3.1.4, Table 3-5 of the TMDL Report) (USEPA 2007).
Using combined SAV and water clarity achievement: This method considers both the
achieved SAV acreage and water clarity acre in a segment. In the assessment, the water
clarity acre can be converted to an SAV-equivalent acre by dividing the water clarity acre
by 2.5, which will be credited along with the SAV coverage estimated by regression
model.
Estimating SAV/Water Clarity in a WQSTM Loading Scenario
In the combined SAV and water clarity assessment, both the SAV acres and water clarity acres
need to be estimated in load-reduction scenarios. The light extinction coefficient, Ke, is the
metric used to measure water clarity. The Ke in a load-reduction scenario is estimated using the
Chesapeake Bay WQSTM. The SAV area in a load reduction scenario is estimated from a
regression model.
Ke Assessment by the WQSTM
The simulated Ke in the WQSTM is based on the amounts of simulated clay, silt, sand, organic
particulates, and dissolved organic matters in a model cell. Because the simulated Ke is an
imperfect representation of the observed Ke, a data-correction method is used to obtain an
adjusted scenario Ke in each shallow cell for the target loading scenario. While several more
sophisticated data correction methods were tried, a simple proportional adjustment of the
shallow-water Ke to the nearest observed water quality monitoring station was found to provide
the best shallow-water data correction as determined by independent, shallow-water monitoring
sites.
The shallow-water bay grass designated-use habitat is considered the are located between the
2-meter depth contour and the adjacent shoreline. A segment consists of Bay WQSTM cells.
Because of inconsistency between the model cell boundary and the 2-meter contour area, EPA
remapped and extended the model cells to cover tidal water up to the shoreline, and subdivided
the area into 0 0.5 meters, 0.5-1.0 meters, 1.0-1.5 meters, and 1.5-2.0 meter depths. For each
half-meter contour area, EPA applies corresponding Ke criteria (see Section 3, Table 3-5). Note
P-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
that the areas of defined no-growth /one are excluded from the cell segment area in the
assessment.
Credit of SA V Area Based on Observed SA V Area
The projected SAV acreage in a target scenario is based on a regression of observed SAV in the
Ba> segments \\hich, together, compose the major tributaries and the nutrient and sediment loads
from each corresponding land basin (i.e.. the major subwatershed) of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, which pro\ides loads to the collective set of segments (Table P-l).
Through the Baywide SAV aerial survev. the partners have access to annual SAV distribution
and abundance data for almost everv year in the past 30 years. The attached Excel file. Appendix
P SAV Coverage 1971-2009 Spreadsheet.xls. shows observed SAV for Bay segments in 1971-
2009. The observed SAV areas from 102 segments are aggregated into SAV areas for the 8 tidal
basins for each year.
Total nitrogen (TN). total phosphorus (TP). and total suspended sediment (TSS) loads from the 8
major basins are estimated from the Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model's progress
scenarios under years 1985. 1987. 1992. 1998. 2002. 2005. 2007. and 2009 management
conditions.
Linear regression of SAV versus load of TN or TP or TSS. respectively, is conducted for each
basin, yields
SAV - m Load - h
where, coefficient m is the slope and h is the intercept from the linear regression. The results are
presented in Table P-l
1-or individual basins, we use the regression of SAV with Load component TN or TP or TSS,
which has the highest R2 of regression
I he Bay IMDL's critical period of 1993 1995 is our reference for the TMDL. The load in the
reference year tor each basin can be estimated from Ba> Watershed Model calibration, and the
corresponding SAV is known from the observation. They also have the relationship
SAV ref=m Load ret- h.
A projected SAV of the basin in a load reduction scenario is calculated as follows:
Proj SAV ~ m Proj load - h
Therefore, Proj SAV SAV ret = m (Proj load - Load ref)
We can calculate the ratio
Rate Proj SAV SAV ret = (Proj SAV - SAV ref) SAV ref + 1 = m (Proj load -
Load ref) SAV ref - I = (m
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Thus, the projected SAV of this basin for the target loading scenario can also be estimated by
Proj_SAV - Rate * SAV ref.
EPA assumes that the rate calculated from a major river basin is applicable to individual Bay
segments contained within that basin. That rate is then used to calculate projected SAV in the
reference hydrology year for each Bay segment within that basin:
Proj SAV (seg) = Rate x SAV_ref (seg).
The projected SAV in segments is then used for SAV credit in the assessment.
Table P-1. Results of linear regression of SAV versus TN, TP, and TSS loads for 8 major basins
Basin
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
York
York
York
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
Rappahannock
James
James
James
MD Western Shore
MD Western Shore
MD Western Shore
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Component
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
TN
TS
TP
R2
0.8983
0.8049
0.6847
0.9068
0.8769
0.8449
0.0468
0.8948
0.7539
01615
05769
0.3518
0.5900
0.5425
0.6609
0.9624
0.8763
0.7467
0.5437
0.7106
0.5361
0.5940
0.5693
0.3253
Slope
-4.16E+02
-2.77E+01
-8.54E+03
-285E+02
-2.13E+01
-1.28E+04
1.09E+03
-8.81E+01
-9.38E-I-03
-1.87E+03
-2.29E+02
-2.18E+04
-6.93E+02
-8.42E+00
-5.44E+03
-8.54E+00
-3.59E-01
-3.27E+01
-2.35E+02
-4.79E+01
-3.50E+03
-2.02E+02
-3.66E+00
-1.38E+03
Intercept
6.43E+04
9.11E+04
5.12E+04
282E+04
683E+04
7.04E+04
1.79E+03
2.65E+04
1 .79E+04
769E+04
1.20E+05
8.09E+04
6.57E+03
7.88E+03
7.68E+03
3.81 E+02
5.89E+02
2.21 E+02
6.11E+03
1 .49E+04
5.17E+03
9.31 E+02
7.66E+02
689E+02
Assessing Attainment of the SAV/Water Clarity Standard
Before the assessment, EPA converted the SAV restoration goal acreage (sec Section 3.1.4,
Table 3-6 of the TMDL Report) with a factor of 2.5 to establish the water clarity acre for each
Bay segment.
For individual months, EPA compared the monthly average Ke in a cell at four depth-interval
areas (0-0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-1.5, and 1.5-2.0) with the applicable water clarity criterion for the four
P-7
December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
application depths (i.e.. 0.5. 1.0. 1.5, and 2.0). respectively If it meets the criterion for that
depth, the area is accounted. Adding the area achiev ing the water clarity criterion for each depth
of all cells in the segment. v ields the total area achiev ing the \sater claritv criterion for the
month. Averaging (using arithmetic mean) the monthlv achieving areas in the criteria months
(i.e., SAV growing seasons—see Section 3.1.4. Table 3.5 of the TMDL Report) produces the
water clariu acres for that year for each segment. If the water clarity acre is smaller than the
SAV area. 1: PA uses 2.5 of the assessed SAV area as the total water clarity acre from the
combined SA V/\\aier claritv assessment in the >ear. If the water clarity acre is greater than the
SAV area, HPA credits I 5 of the assessed SAV area, into the total water clarity acre ot this year
for this combined SAV water clarit) assessment.
Finally, the water clarit} acre in single best >ear of the 3 consecutive assessment years (i.e.,
1993-1995 hydrology years) is regarded as the achieved water clarity acreage. If the achieved
water clarity acre was greater than the water clarity acre goal (i.e., 2.5 times SAV acre goal), the
combined SAV, water clarity criteria were projected to be achieved in this segment under model
loading scenario. Otherwise, i.e.. the achieved water claritv acre is less than the water clarity acre
goal, a percent violation is calculated as follows:
100 * (water clarity acre goal - water clarity acre) water clarity acre goal.
References
Cerco, C., S.C. Kim. and M.R. Noel. 2010. The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model. A
Report to the US Environmental Protection Agencv and to the US Army Corps of Engineer
Baltimore District. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg. MD.
C erco, C.F., M. Noel, and L. Linker. 2004. Managing for water clarity in Chesapeake Bay. AS(. 'E
Journal of Environmental Engineering 130( 6): I -12.
Cerco. C.F. and M.R. Noel. 2004. The 2(M2 Chesapeake Ba\ Eutrophication Model EPA 903-
R-04-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv. Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis. MD.
Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe. and K.V Wood 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay,
1950 2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries 27:
634-658.
Mardaway, C.S . G R. Thomas, J.B. Glover. J.B Smithson. M.R. Berman. and A.K. Kenne.
1992. Bank Erosion Studv. Special report in Applied Marine Science ami Ocean Engineering
No. 319. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point. VA.
Hennessee. L.. K. Offerman. and J Halka. 2006. Suspended Sediment Load Contributed bv
Shore Erosion (. 'hesapeake Bay, Maryland Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report No.
06-03. Maryland Geological Survev. Baltimore. MD.
Hopkins, K.. and J. Halka. 2007 Developing Shoreline Sediment Erosion Estimates for the
Chesapeake Bay. In Proceedings of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 200"
('(inference
P 8 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix P - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, R.L. Dennis, and J.S. Sweeney. 2000. Cross-Media Models of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Airshed. Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling 1(1-4):91-
122 (March-December 2000).
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Technical Support Document for
Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R-03-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries—2007 Addendum. EPA 903-R-07-003. CBP/TRS 285-07. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
p-9 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix Q - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix Q. Detailed Annual Chesapeake Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs
Appendix Q is an allocation spreadsheet (Appendix Q_Annual TMDLs_final.xls) that contains
components of the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs that were developed for total nitrogen (TN), total
phosphorus (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS) (sediment). Detailed source allocations of
successful TMDL scenarios are provided as wasteload allocations (WLAs) for individual and
aggregate point sources and load allocations (LAs) for specific nonpoint source sectors. The
TMDL components and supporting information are presented in tabular format in separate pages
of the allocation spreadsheet. Each page is formatted so that the user may select from one of the
pull-down menus in the table header to view specific details regarding a particular stream or
pollutant source. Appendix Q is comprised of the following tables:
• Introduction - The Introduction provides a description of each of the tables included in
the allocation spreadsheet.
• Watershed Map and Major Basins - This table presents a listing of the 92 impaired
segments with the corresponding Jurisdiction, CB Segment Name, and Major Basin.
Additionally, two figures are provided showing the location of the 92 impaired segments
and also the location of the major river basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• Annual TMDLs_92 Segments - This table contains the components of the TMDL
equation for the 92 impaired segments for TN, TP, and TSS, in average annual terms.
Nitrogen and phosphorus have an implicit margin of safety (MOS) while sediment has
both an implicit and explicit MOS.
• Annual Individual WLAs - This table contains individual WLAs for the 478 significant
point sources permitted to discharge throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed as well as
10 MS4 point sources permitted to discharge in Virginia. Individual WLAs are presented
as edge of stream (EOS) and delivered load for each of the 92 impaired segments by
NPDES permit number for TN, TP, and TSS.
• Annual Aggregate WLAs - This table contains aggregate WLAs for specific permitted
sectors that discharge throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Aggregate WLAs are
presented as delivered load for each of the 92 impaired segments by NPDES permit
number for TN, TP, and TSS. Additionally, aggregate WLAs are presented as EOS load
for wastewater aggregates for each of the 92 impaired segments by NPDES permit
number for TN, TP, and TSS.
• Annual Land Based LAs - This table contains detailed Land Based LAs for specific
nonpoint source sectors: agriculture, forest, nontidal atmospheric deposition, onsite
septic, and urban. Land Based LAs are presented as delivered load for each of the 92
impaired segments by jurisdiction and by nonpoint source sector for TN, TP, and TSS.
• NPDES Permit Inventory - This table contains the NPDES permit inventory for all
permits addressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Each permit is listed by jurisdiction,
facility name, NPDES permit number, significant or nonsignificant, discharge type, SIC
Code, SIC Description, Location by County, Receiving Water, Major Model River Basin,
Bay Segment, Land River Segment, Number Land River Segment, WIP defined flow,
latitude, and longitude.
• NPDES Permit Inventory Notes - This table provides notes containing additional
information for certain permits listed in the NPDES Permit Inventory tab.
Q-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix R - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix R. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Daily WLAs and LAs
Appendix R is an allocation spreadsheet (Appendix R_Daily TMDLs_fmal.xls) that contains
components of the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs that were developed for total nitrogen (TN), total
phosphorus (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS) (sediment). Detailed source allocations of
successful TMDL scenarios are provided as wasteload allocations (WLAs) for individual and
aggregate point sources and load allocations (LAs) for specific nonpoint source sectors. The
TMDL components and supporting information are presented in tabular format in separate pages
of the allocation spreadsheet. Each page is formatted so that the user may select from one of the
pull-down menus in the table header to view specific details regarding a particular stream or
pollutant source. Appendix R is comprised of the following tables:
• Introduction - The Introduction provides a description of each of the tables included in
the allocation spreadsheet.
• Watershed Map and Major Basins - This table presents a listing of the 92 impaired
segments with the corresponding Jurisdiction, CB Segment Name, and Major Basin.
Additionally, two figures are provided showing the location of the 92 impaired segments
and also the location of the major river basins in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• Daily TMDLs_92 Segments - This table contains the components of the TMDL equation
for the 92 impaired segments for TN, TP, and TSS, in daily loads. Nitrogen and
phosphorus have an implicit margin of safety (MOS) while sediment has both an implicit
and explicit MOS.
• Daily Individual WLAs - This table contains daily individual WLAs for the 478
significant point sources permitted to discharge throughout the Chesapeake Bay
watershed as well as 10 MS4 point sources permitted to discharge in Virginia. Individual
WLAs are presented as edge of stream (EOS) and delivered load for each of the 92
impaired segments by NPDES permit number for TN, TP, and TSS.
• Daily Aggregate WLAs - This table contains daily aggregate WLAs for specific
permitted sectors that discharge throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Aggregate
WLAs are presented as delivered load for each of the 92 impaired segments by NPDES
permit number for TN, TP, and TSS. Additionally, aggregate WLAs are presented as
EOS load for wastewater aggregates for each of the 92 impaired segments by NPDES
permit number for TN, TP, and TSS.
• Daily Land Based LAs - This table contains daily Land Based LAs for specific nonpoint
source sectors: agriculture, forest, nontidal atmospheric deposition, onsite septic, and
urban. Land Based LAs are presented as delivered load for each of the 92 impaired
segments by jurisdiction and by nonpoint source sector for TN, TP, and TSS.
• NPDES Permit Inventory - This table contains the NPDES permit inventory for all
permits addressed in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Each permit is listed by jurisdiction,
facility name, NPDES permit number, significant or nonsignificant, discharge type, SIC
Code, SIC Description, Location by County, Receiving Water, Major Model River Basin,
Bay Segment, Land River Segment, Number Land River Segment, WIP defined flow,
latitude, and longitude.
• NPDES Permit Inventory Notes - This table provides notes containing additional
information for certain permits listed in the NPDES Permit Inventory tab.
R-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix S - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix S.
Offsetting New or Increased Loadings of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment to the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
As an assumption of the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions to account for
and manage new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.
As explained in Section 10.1, where the TMDL does not provide a specific allocation to
accommodate new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment, a jurisdiction may
accommodate such new or increased loadings only through a mechanism allowing for
quantifiable and accountable offsets of the new or increased load in an amount necessary to
implement the TMDL and applicable water quality standards (WQS) in the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries.
Therefore, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL assumes and EPA expects that the jurisdictions will
accommodate any new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment that lack a
specific allocation in the TMDL with appropriate offsets supported by credible and transparent
offset programs subject to EPA and independent oversight. This appendix provides details of
common elements from which EPA expects the jurisdictions to develop and implement offset
programs.
Source Documents
The common elements are based on, and consistent with, the following documents provided or
made available to the jurisdictions:
National Guidance
• Water Quality Trading Policy, EPA, 2003
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/finalpolicv2003.pdf).
• Water Quality Trading Toolkit for NPDES Permit Writers, EPA, 2007
(http://www.epa.uov/owow/watcrshed/tradinu/WQTToolkit.html).
Regional/Chesapeake Bay Specific Documents
• Expectations Letter, EPA Region 3 to Principals' Staff Committee, Nov. 4, 2009
(http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/
tmdl implementation letter 110409.pdf).
• Federal Actions Letter, EPA Region 3 to Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions, Dec. 29, 2009
(http://www.epa.gov/reHion3/chesapeake/bay letter I209.pdf).
• A Guide for EPA 's Evaluation of Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans, EPA Region 3,
Apr. 2, 2010 (http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/Guide for EPA W1P Evaluation 4-
2-IQ.pdf).
S-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix S - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• Strategy for Protecting ami Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Federal Leadership
Committee, May 12, 2010 (http://executiveorder.chesapeakebav.net/category/Reports-
Documents.aspx).
Definitions
The terms used in this appendix are to be interpreted consistently with the above-listed source
documents, unless specifically defined below.
1. Offset. For purposes of"the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, means (n.) a reduction in the loading
of a pollutant of concern from a source or sources that is used to compensate for the
loading of the pollutant of concern from a different point or nonpoint source in a manner
consistent with meeting WQS; or (v.) compensating for the loading of a pollutant of
concern from a point or nonpoint source with a reduction in the loading from a different
source or sources, in a manner consistent with meeting WQS.
2. Credit. For purposes of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, means a measured unit of nitrogen,
phosphorus, or sediment pollutant reduction per unit of time at a location designated and
standardized by the jurisdiction that can be generated, sold, or traded as part of an offset.
3. Offsets Baseline. For purposes of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, means the amount of
pollutant loading allowed by wasteload allocation (WLA) or load allocation (LA) that
applies to individual credit generators in the absence of offsets. Sources generating
credits are expected to first achieve their applicable offset baselines before credits may be
generated.
4. New or Increased Loading of nitrogen, phosphorus or sediment. For purposes of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL means, for a point or nonpoint sources meeting its Chesapeake
Bay TMDL WLA or LA as of the date of establishment or modification of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL, any nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment loading from the point or
nonpoint source in an amount greater than reflected by WLAs or LAs in the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL; for a point or nonpoint sources not meeting its Chesapeake Bay TMDL
WLA or LA as of the date of establishment or modification of the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL, any nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment loading from the point or nonpoint source
in an amount greater than reflected by WLAs or LAs in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, after
the point in time the source begins meeting its WLA or LA.
Common Elements
As an assumption of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, EPA expects that offset credits will be
generated under programs that are consistent with the common elements described below. Those
common elements are not presented here as regulatory requirements. However, EPA believes
that in the aggregate, they will help to ensure that offsets are achieved through reliable pollution
controls and that the goals of the Bay TMDL are met. EPA recognizes the value that consistent
offset programs will have in promoting effective regional implementation of the TMDL.
1. Authority. That legal authority exists to authorize the new or increased loading of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment on the basis of offsetting reductions from another
point or nonpoint source and to implement, monitor, and enforce such offsets.
S-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix S - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
2. Offsets Baseline (for credit generators). That any point or nonpoint source generating a
credit has implemented practices or met any reductions necessary to be consistent with
the Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations:
(a) For point sources generating credits, the TMDL assumes that the offsets
baseline is the water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) included in
that discharger's permit consistent with the applicable WLA in the TMDL.
For some point sources, the baseline will be a numeric limitation; for
others, it will be a suite of BMPs determined to be protective of WQS.
(b) For nonpoint sources generating credits, baseline options should be
consistent with the TMDL LA for the appropriate sector and may be
further defined in terms of load, geographic scale, minimum practices,
schedule of implementation and/or time needed to facilitate improved
environmental compliance with WQS.
3. Minimum Controls (for credit users}. That any point or nonpoint source using a credit has
implemented certain minimum controls:
(a) For point sources using credits, that the discharger using a credit will meet
on-site any relevant minimum technology-based standards or secondary
treatment standards.
(b) For nonpoint sources using credits, that the source has met all federal,
state, and local requirements applicable to nonpoint sources.
4. Eligibility. Inclusion in the basis and record for any offset, any additional criteria the
jurisdiction will use to determine when a point source or nonpoint source may generate
credits. Inclusion of a statement defining the eligibility requirements for and acceptable
roles of aggregators or third parties in generation, sale, and purchase of offsets on behalf
of others.
5. Credit Calculation and Verification: Ensuring that credits are quantified using
appropriate metrics and are routinely verified to ensure that they are producing expected
reductions, including the following:
(a) Appropriately quantifying pollutant loading credits generated and ensuring
that offsets acquired reflect load reductions equivalent to or greater than
the new or increased loadings being offset, including the following:
i. Accounting for the equivalency of pollutants to compensate for
changes in pollutant form, e.g., total nitrogen versus dissolved
nitrogen;
ii. Accounting for uncertainty of source reductions due to factors such
as practice efficiencies related to the use of BMPs, a lack of
required monitoring or reporting compared to other sources, and/or
the lack of regulation of the source by federal, state and/or local
regulations;
iii. Accounting for any distance between the generating and acquiring
sources that could affect water quality including the potential for
S-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix S — Chesapeake Bay TMDL
water chemistry variations and other delivery factors that could
cause pollutant attenuation;
iv. Accounting rules for inclusion of practices implemented through
public cost-share incentives; and
v. Accounting for degradation in the effectiveness of a practice over
the projected term of the practice.
(b) Validating that proposed activities to create reductions (e.g., treatment or
BMP installation) are expected to generate the credits offered for offsets,
including identifying the metrics and data used to quantify the offset/credit
generated and the period for credits.
(c) Verifying that the credit was and continues to be generated, via
monitoring, inspection, reporting, or some other mechanism, including
articulating the frequency of on-site or other monitoring and the entity
responsible for conducting monitoring or inspections.
(d) Articulating whether third parties may verify and certify credits and
offsets within and between jurisdictions.
6. Safeguards. Inclusion in the basis and record for any offset, safeguards to ensure that the
entire delivered load is accounted for and that water quality will be protected, such as the
following:
(a) Prohibiting the use of offsets where such use would cause or contribute to
exceedances of WQS, TMDLs, WLAs or LAs in affected receiving
waters, locally or elsewhere;
(b) Restricting the use or generation of offsets by an unpermitted point source
or a source that is not in compliance with its NPDES permit or a
jurisdiction equivalent, or other federal or state law or regulation;
(c) Protecting affected communities from disproportionate harm arising from
offsets; and
(d) Ensuring temporal consistency between the period when a credit or offset
is generated and when it is used. As provided for in EPA's Water Quality
Trading Toolkit, "credits should not be used before the time frame in
which they are generated." That includes any credits expected to be
generated under a contract between a new discharger and a generating
source, or credits generated under an in-lieu fee program in which the
jurisdiction uses discharger paid fees to achieve loadings reductions
beyond baseline. For NPDES dischargers, credits should be created and
used within the periods that are used to determine compliance with
effluent limitations. The permitting authority may have discretion to
determine the appropriate averaging period for WQBELs, depending on
the pollutants of concern and other watershed specific factors. The
permitting authority should decide whether and when a credit expires.
S-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix S - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
7. Certification and Enforceability. Designating the process to be used and the institutional
entity responsible for credit/offset program operation and certification, and ensuring the
enforceability of Clean Water Act discharge permits and offset transactions, including the
following:
(a) Requiring that any offsets, along with the enforceable WQBELs based on
the applicable WLA (e.g., zero for new dischargers), will be included and
recorded in the NPDES permit.
(b) Estimating annually the increased pollutant loading from nonpoint sources
and discharges from point sources that will not be permitted, acquiring
offsets needed to fully offset such increases, and recording those offsets in
an appropriate instrument.
(c) Determining whether offsets may occur without reopening or modifying a
NPDES permit to incorporate the offset transaction.
(d) Ensuring that transactions can be enforced by the jurisdiction. Articulating
how transactions can otherwise be protected by the jurisdiction, for
example through a credit reserve insurance account, if failure by the offset
generator occurs.
(e) Determining whether a civilly enforceable agreement exists between an
offset generator and an offset user.
(f) Ensuring that an NPDES permittee remains accountable for meeting the
WQBEL(s) in its permit, for example through a standard condition in all
NPDES permits within a jurisdiction.
8. Accountability and Tracking. Developing accountability and tracking system(s) that are
holistic and focused on performance outcomes while providing maximum transparency,
operational efficiency, and accessibility to all interested parties. Such system(s) should
demonstrate the following:
(a) An appropriate offset baseline is used to generate credits.
(b) The offset is quantified and verified according to standards established by
the jurisdiction.
(c) The offset or credit is sold to no more than one purchaser at a time.
(d) The nutrient delivery equivalency of the offset generated and the offset
consumed both in terms of the equivalency of pollutants and appropriate
attenuation.
(e) The locations(s) of the offset, including where the offset or credit is
generated.
(f) Authentication of ownership.
(g) The NPDES permit number or other identification of the purchaser of the
offset or credit.
(h) Documentation of agreements between parties to the offset transaction.
S-5 December 29,2010
-------
Appendix S - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
(i) Whether sufficient offsets will be acquired over the period of the new or
increased loading.
G) Compliance status of NPDES parties.
(k) The results of monitoring and verification for each offset.
(1) Time frames for regular review and evaluation of the offset program.
9. Nutrient-impaired Segments. In addition to the safeguards in 6 above, ensuring that
offsets in nutrient-impaired water segments
(a) Result in progress toward attainment of WQS in the impaired segment;
(b) Do not result in exceedances of WQS in the purchaser's impaired
segment; and
(c) Do not increase delivery loads in downstream impaired segments, do not
violate WQS in any intermediary segments, and do not violate local WQS.
10. Credit Banking. Appropriate roles and operating practices of credit banks should be
specified. It is recommended that credit banking on a basin or interstate basis be
authorized subject to meeting the elements noted above. Expectations concerning
necessary costs and reasonable expenses of banks that acquire and sell credits should be
described.
The Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions also can consider whether to use the additional offset program
features discussed in Section 10.1.3 to build their offset programs for new or increased loadings
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Those include net improvement offsets, aggregated
programmatic credits, and a reserve-offset hybrid.
In developing and implementing their offset programs, EPA encourages jurisdictions to consult
with EPA to facilitate alignment with the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. EPA
intends to fulfill its various oversight responsibilities of these offset programs by conducting
periodic audits and evaluations as detailed in Section 10.1.4. Where questions or concerns arise,
EPA will use its oversight authorities to ensure that offsets and offset programs are fully
consistent with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.
S-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix T - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix T.
Sediments behind the Susquehanna Dams Technical Documentation
Assessment of the Susquehanna River Reservoir Trapping Capacity
and the Potential Effect on the Chesapeake Bay
Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc., 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22030
Introduction
In developing the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), EPA must account for
a vast array of dynamics that affect the loadings to the Chesapeake Bay and how to appropriately
assign load allocations to each state. A large influencing factor in sediment and nutrient loads to
the Chesapeake Bay are the dams along the lower Susquehanna River, which retain large
quantities of sediment in their reservoirs. The three major dams along the lower Susquehanna
River are the Safe Harbor Dam, Holtwood Dam, and the Conowingo Dam. This document looks
at the dams' effects on the pollutant loads to the Chesapeake Bay and how those loads will
change when the dams no longer function to trap sediment.
Sediment Trapping and Storage Capacity
Annually, the reservoir system traps approximately 70 percent of the sediment passing through
the system (Langland and Hainly 1997). The trapping capacity is the ability of a reservoir to
continue storing sediment before reaching an equilibrium, after which the amount of sediment
flowing into the reservoir equals the amount leaving the reservoir, and the stored volume of
sediment is relatively static. The sediment storage capacity is the actual maximum amount of
sediment that can be stored in a reservoir when it is at equilibrium.
Safe Harbor Dam (Lake Clarke) and Holtwood Dam (Lake Aldred)
Lake Clarke and Lake Aldred have no remaining sediment trapping capacity. The two lakes have
been in long-term equilibrium for 50 years or more.
Conowingo Dam and Reservoir
The Conowingo Reservoir is divided into three parts: upper, middle and lower. The upper and
middle portions of the reservoir are in long-term equilibrium. Other than temporary increases in
sediment storage due to scour events, there is no remaining storage capacity (Langland 2009a).
The lower part of the reservoir is the final 4 miles from just above Broad Creek to the
Conowingo Dam. Between 1996 and 2008, 12,000,000 tons of sediment were deposited in the
Conowingo Reservoir, primarily in the lower part (Langland 2009a). The total amount of
sediment stored in the lower part of the reservoir was 103,000,000 tons by 2008 (Langland
2009a). The lower part of the Conowingo Reservoir is the only section of the entire three-
T-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix T - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
reservoir system that has not reached long-term sediment storage equilibrium. Some trapping
capacity remains in this portion of the reservoir.
Expected Time Remaining until Sediment Storage Capacity Is
Reached
The sediment storage capacity of Conowingo Reservoir has been decreasing since 1929, except
during temporary scour events, such as the one during the Big Melt in January 2006 (Langland
2009a). The average reservoir sediment-deposition rate from 1959 to 2008 was 2,000,000 tons
per year (Langland 2009). The long-term trapping efficiency of the Conowingo Reservoir has
remained relatively stable at around 55 percent for the last 30 years (Michael Langland, USGS,
personal communication, November 4, 2009).
According to the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) most recent study, 20,000 acre-feet of
sediment storage remain in the Conowingo Reservoir from Hennery Island to the dam; this
translates to 30.000.000 tons of sediment (Langland 2009a). Given the rate of transport is
3,000,000 tons per year, and the rate of deposition is 2,000,000 tons per year, if there are no
major scouring events in the Conowingo Reservoir and the sediment input does not change, the
remaining capacity will be filled in 15-20 years (Langland 2009a). Once the sediment storage
capacity is reached, sediment loads transported downstream past the reservoir will approach the
loads transported from upstream (Langland 2009a).
However, because Langland notes that the time until the reservoir reaches capacity is affected by
three factors—sediment transport into the reservoir, scour removal events, and sediment trapping
efficiency—the time until steady state conditions are reached could be extended to 25-30 years
(Langland 2009b). That assumes sediment transport decreases from 3.2 to 2.5 million tons/year,
statistically expected scour events occur, and the long-term trapping efficiency remains at 55
percent (Langland 2009b).
It should be noted that the sediment trapping efficiency of the reservoir is highly variable,
depending on rainfall. During drought conditions, the trapping efficiency can increase to 85
percent, and during wet periods, the trapping efficiency can fall to 40 percent (Michael
Langland, USGS, personal communication January 15, 2010).
Effects on Chesapeake Bay Once Sediment Storage Capacity is
Reached
As of 1997 the Susquehanna River contributed roughly 50 percent of the fresh water discharge to
the Chesapeake Bay and about 66 percent of the annual nitrogen load, 40 percent of the
phosphorus load, and 25 percent of the suspended sediment load from non-tidal parts of the Bay
(Langland and Hainly 1997).
According to USGS water quality sampling in 1985-1989, pollutant loads in the Susquehanna
River increase substantially below Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: total nitrogen increased 42 percent,
total phosphorus increased 49 percent, and total suspended sediment increased 50 percent
compared to loads at Harrisburg (Reed et al. 1997). The increased load is a result of more
urbanized areas, agrochemical fertilizers and manure, and fewer forested areas (Reed et al.
T-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix T - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
1997). A significant percentage of those pollutant loads are captured by sediment deposition
behind the dams, primarily the Conowingo Dam.
Once the Conowingo Reservoir reaches the sediment trapping capacity, the sediment and
nutrient loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay via the Susquehanna River will equal the load
delivered into the reservoir system (Langland and Cronin 2003). Once storage capacity is
reached, the nitrogen load will increase by 2 percent; the phosphorus load will increase by 40
percent; and the suspended sediment load will increase by at least 150 percent (Langland and
Cronin 2003).
Proposed Activities to Address Sediment Build up Behind the Dam
Dredging
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission Sediment Task Force examined the issue of finding
options to address the sediment accumulation behind the Conowingo Dam and concluded that
dredging may provide the needed sediment storage capacity behind the dams (SRBC 2002).
In 2009 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Baltimore District received funds to
conduct a study of sediment management in the Conowingo Reservoir. The investigation could
be developed as a Sediment Management Plan, to prioritize areas for work and make
recommendations to implement sediment reduction options (Compton 2009). The study
approach outlined by the USACE is conceptual, and the final components will be determined
with input from the cost-share sponsor. The USACE has not yet found a cost-share partner for
this feasibility study (Anna Compton, USACE Baltimore District, personal communication,
December 22, 2009).
Conowingo Hydroelectric Project Relicensing Process
The Conowingo Hydroelectric Project is undergoing relicensing. On February 4, 2010 FERC
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) accepted Exelon's Revised Study Plan, including the
requested study Sediment Introduction and Transport (Sediment and Nutrient Loading) which
will address "the effects of the Conowingo Project and its operation on upstream sediment and
nutrient accumulation, sediment transport past the project, and sediment deposition and
distribution upstream and downstream of the projects" (Exelon Corporation 2009). Specific tasks
include a review of existing information regarding sediment and nutrient storage capacity,
accumulation rates, scouring events, and such, in the Conowingo Reservoir; an analysis of the
effects of project operations on habitat and substrate below the dam; and a review of watershed-
based management efforts and load reduction successes. Exelon noted that the "estimated cost in
1995 dollars of dredging to simply keep up with annual sediment inflow (estimated to be 2.3
million cubic yards per year at the time) was $28 million per year. Using Means Cost Indices the
comparable 2009 cost would be $48.44 million.
Cost Comparison of Dredging and Other Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategies
Comparisons with cost estimates for dredging Baltimore Harbor and Channels from the Dredged
Material Management Plan and Final Tiered Environmental Impact Statement (Weston
Solutions 2005) reveal that dredging costs are highly variable, and. to a large extent, depend on
T-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix!-Chesapeake Bay TMDL
the selected destination and use of the dredged materials. Costs can be as little as $12/yd3 for
artificial island creation or beach nourishment and as much as $69/yd3 if dredged materials are
taken to a confined disposal facility (Weston Solutions 2005). The sediment management
feasibility study proposed by the USAGE, and awaiting a cost-share sponsor, is likely the best
mechanism to determine the true cost of dredging the Conowingo Reservoir.
Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Commission 2004) outlines the six most
cost-effective practices to reduce nutrient and sediment loading to the Chesapeake Bay. Table
T-l summarizes the six selected practices and their estimated costs and compares them to the
estimated costs of dredging the Conowingo Reservoir. Rough estimate calculations of dredging
costs at Conowingo were based on the cost assumptions used by Exelon and SRBC and the
assumption that 1 yd3 of sediment weighs 0.945 tons. It is not known, at this time, what is
included in Exelon's estimate of the cost to dredge; an assumption was made that the costs
include disposal of the dredged materials, and any other associated costs.
Table T-1. Cost-Effective Strategies for Reducing Nitrogen and Sediment Loads to the Bay
Compared to Estimated Dredging Costs
Practice
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrades
Diet and Feed
Adjustments
Traditional Nutrient
Management
Enhanced Nutrient
Management
Conservation Tillage
Cover Crops
Rough estimate
calculations of dredging
costs
Dredge Conowingo
Reservoir
Annual nitrogen
reduction at maximum
feasible level of
implementation
35 million Ibs @
$8.56/lb
Under development
13.6 million Ibs @
$1.66/lb
23.7 million Ibs @
$4.41 /Ib
12.0 million lbs@
$1.57/lb
23.3 million Ibs @
$3.13/lb
Annual nitrogen
dredged based on
removal equal to annual
trapped amount
3 million Ibs @
$16.42/lb
Annual phosphorus
reduction at maximum
feasible level of
implementation
3 million Ibs @
$74.00/lb
0.22 million Ibs @ no
additional cost (poultry
only)
0.8 million Ibs @
$28.26/lb
0.8 million Ibs @
$95.79/lb
2.59 million Ibs @ no
additional cost
0.44 million Ibs @ no
additional cost
Annual phosphorus
dredged based on
removal equal to annual
trapped amount
3.48 million Ibs @
$14.1 5/lb
Annual sediment
reduction at maximum
feasible level of
implementation
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
1.68 million tons @ no
additional cost
0.22 million tons @ no
additional cost
Annual sediment
dredged based on
removal equal to annual
trapped amount
4,420 million Ibs @
$0.01/lb
Source: CBC 2004
T-4
December 29,2010
-------
Appendix T - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Proposal for Addressing the Sediment and Phosphorus Load in the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
EPA's intention is to assume the current trapping capacity will continue through the planning
horizon for the TMDL (through 2025). The Conowingo Reservoir is anticipated to reach a steady
state in 15 30 years, depending on future loading rates, scour events and trapping efficiency.
The steady state condition is at the limits of the planning horizon for the TMDLs and, depending
on conditions, could be well beyond the planning horizon.
Under these assumptions, the wasteload allocations (WLA) and load allocations (LA) would be
based on the current conditions at the dam. This represents a business-as-usual scenario in which
the future diminished trapping capacity behind the Conowingo Dam is not considered in
developing of the wasteload WLA and LA.
If future monitoring shows the trapping capacity of the dam is reduced, then EPA would consider
adjusting the Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York 2-year milestone loads based on the new
delivered loads. The adjusted loads would be compared to the 2-year milestone commitments to
determine if the states are meeting their target load obligations.
Future increases in sediment and phosphorus downstream of the dam can be minimized by
making implementation activities above the dam a management priority. This will decrease the
overall loads of sediment and phosphorus, and extend the time until trapping capacity is reached.
The states should work together to develop an implementation strategy for the Conowingo Dam
and take the opportunity to work with FERC during the relicensing process for Conowingo Dam.
References
Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2004. Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay: 6 Smart Investments
for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, MD.
Compton, A. 2009. Sediment behind the Dams. Presented at the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission Sediment Task Force Meeting, October 29, 2009. USACE, Baltimore, MD.
Exelon Corporation. 2009. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405; Filing of
Revised Study Plan. Prepared by Exelon Corporation. Washington, DC, for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Langland. M.J. 2009a. Bathymetry and Sediment-Storage Capacity Change in Three Reservoirs
on the Lower Susquehanna River, 1996-2008. U.S Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5110. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Langland, M.J. 2009b. Lower Susquehanna River Reservoir System Bathymetry. Presented at the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission Sediment Task Force Meeting, October 29, 2009,
Baltimore, MD.
Langland, M., and T. Cronin, eds. 2003. A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 03-4123. U.S. Geological Survey, New Cumberland, PA.
T-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix!-Chesapeake BayTMDL
Langland, M.J., and R.A. Hainly. 1997. Changes in Bottom-Surface Elevations in Three
Reservoirs on the Lower Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania and Maryland, Following the
January 1996 Flood—Implications for Nutrient and Sediment Loads to Chesapeake Bay.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4138. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, DC.
Reed, L.A., C.S. Takita, and G. Barton. 1997. Loads and Yields of Nutrients and Suspended
Sediment in the Susquehanna River Basin, 1985-1989. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 96-4099. U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA.
Seay, E.E.I 995. Managing Sediment and Nutrients in the Susquehanna River Basin. Publication
164. Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, PA.
SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission). 2002. Sediment Task Force Recommendations.
Publication 221. Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, PA.
Weston Solutions. 2005. Baltimore Harbor and Channels (MD and VA) Dredged Material
Management Plan and Final Tiered Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Weston
Solutions, West Chester, PA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,
Baltimore, MD.
T-6 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix U - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix U.
Accounting for the Benefits of Filter Feeder Restoration Technical Documentation
Strategies for Allocating Filter Feeder Nutrient Assimilation
into the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by Tetra Tech. Inc., 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax. VA 22030
Introduction
Filter feeders play an important role in the uptake of nutrients from the Chesapeake Bay and
have the potential to significantly improve water quality if present in large numbers. The current
goal for the Chesapeake Bay is to increase the native Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica,
population tenfold. A population increase of that magnitude could remove 10 million pounds of
nitrogen annually (Cerco and Noel 2005). Menhaden fish. Brevoortia tyrannus, are another filter
feeding organism in the Chesapeake Bay. This paper explores the options for incorporating the
effects of filter feeders into the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and implementation plans. As a way of
fostering management and restoration of filter feeders, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) intends to investigate future monitored levels of filter feeder populations and
incorporate that into EPA's model-based tracking of State progress in achieving the 2-year
milestones.
Current Harvest Situation
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) reports that the reduction1 fishery
harvested 85,000 metric tons of menhaden from the Chesapeake Bay in 2008 and 21,150 metric
tons from bait landings (ASMFC 2009b). The vast majority of the catch is in the Virginia portion
of the Chesapeake Bay using the purse seining method. Purse seining has been banned in the
Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay for decades, where menhaden are primarily harvested
via pound nets.
Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan (Chesapeake
Bay Reduction Harvest Cap Extension) extends the annual harvest cap established under
Addendum III at 109,020 metric tons on reduction fishery harvests from the Chesapeake Bay
(ASMFC 2009a). That will extend the cap through 2013. The cap was extended to allow further
investigation into the abundance of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. There is concern that
localized depletion of menhaden in the Bay is occurring. Stock assessments are conducted on a
coast-wide basis and not on the Bay individually, so the Bay population is unknown.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Annual Commercial Landings
Statistics (NMFS 2010), 249,485 pounds of eastern oyster were harvested in Maryland in 2008,
and in Virginia, 352,678 pounds of eastern oysters were harvested. Current oyster populations
are about I percent of the historic population. This is because of a number of factors including,
1 A reduction fishery takes the harvested fish and processes or "reduces" the fish into non-food products, typically to
fish meal and oil.
U-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix U - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
historical overharvesting, disease, loss of habitat, excess sedimentation from deforestation,
agricultural practices, urban development, and natural predation (CBP 2009).
Strategies to Increase Filter Feeder Populations in the Chesapeake
Bay
Menhaden Nutrient Assimilation
According to Brush et al. (2009), the Chesapeake Bay larval menhaden appear to feed on
zooplankton, then transition to phytoplankton as juveniles and return to higher zooplankton
consumption rates as adults (age 1+). Given calculated consumption rates for menhaden, based
on age, "adults are unlikely to significantly impact phytoplankton biomass and production on a
baywide basis" (Brush et al. 2009). Juvenile consumption of algae is estimated to be a few
percent of the daily phytoplankton biomass in the summer and fall, and up to 5 percent and 20
percent of daily productivity in the summer and fall, respectively" (Brush et al. 2009). Menhaden
might influence water quality on a smaller scale, such as an individual tributary, Bay segment, or
menhaden school (Brush et al. 2009). A menhaden simulation is fully operational in the Water
Quality and Sediment Transport Model of the Chesapeake Bay. and the model corroborates the
findings of Brush et al. (2009). Although the influence of menhaden on water quality is
estimated to be less than that of oyster filter feeders, even a small percentage of nutrient
assimilation or chlorophyll reduction in the Chesapeake Bay would ease the pressure in meeting
2-year milestones.
Oyster Nutrient Assimilation
Research shows that 700 to 5,500 pounds of total nitrogen are removed annually per 1,000,000
market-sized oysters harvested from the system. That is a wide range of biomass needed for
offsets. Assuming the 2:1 reduction requirement under Virginia's trading program, 3.6-28.5
million oysters would be needed to offset 10,000 pounds of total nitrogen (Stephenson 2008).
Stephenson (2009) estimates the cost of total nitrogen reduction from oyster assimilation at $0-
$100 per pound. In comparison, agricultural best management practices (BMPs) costs in Virginia
range from $4 to $200 per pound and urban stormwater BMPs can be $25 to more than $1,000
per pound or more (Stephenson 2009).
Oyster Restoration and Preservation
Sanctuaries are already part of the planning process in the Virginia Oyster Restoration Plan and
Maryland Priority Restoration Areas. Sanctuary areas could provide spawning areas to increase
the population of wild oysters.
The 2009 Maryland Oyster Restoration and Aquaculture Development Plan would increase
sanctuary areas from 9 percent to 24 percent of the remaining quality habitat (36,000 acres) in
certain locations: Magothy River, Chester River, the area between Patapsco and Back Rivers,
Upper St. Mary's River, Point Lookout, Little Choptank River, Upper Patuxent River, and the
area between Hooper Strait and Smith Island.
U-2 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix U - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
The Maryland Oyster Restoration and Aquaculture Development Plan also outlines 600,000
acres newly available for bottom leasing, including 95,524 acres of formerly off-limits natural
oyster bars, and develops Aquaculture Enterprise Zones, which are areas preapproved for leasing
(MDNR 2009).
Challenges to Increasing Oyster Populations
A limited amount of bottom is suitable and available as oyster habitat. The Oyster Management
Plan (CBP 2004) suggests that there are 10.000 to 20,000 acres of restorable habitat in Maryland
and about 28,500 acres in Virginia. Even within suitable habitat areas, disease mortality and
reduced fecundity are major inhibitors to population expansion.
There is a need to provide greater incentives for aquaculture of native oysters. Oyster
aquaculture is limited by the supply of disease-resistant seed oysters. Expansion of aquaculture
investment is not likely until more seed is available, which is limited by cost-effective market
production from seed (CBP 2004).
Accounting for Filter Feeders in the TMDL
EPA has based the filter feeder component of the TMDL on the current population of filter
feeders. Potential future population changes are not accounted for in the TMDL itself.
Restoration efforts have been underway for years to increase filter feeder populations with
minimal observed population change. The combined factors of disease, lack of suitable substrate
and excess nutrients fuel the growth of algae blooms that deplete oxygen in deeper waters and
can hinder the development of oysters. Until some of the stressors on the oyster population are
alleviated it is not practical to heavily rely on filter feeders to address the water quality issues in
the Chesapeake Bay. If future monitoring data indicate changes in the filter feeder population,
the 2-year milestone delivered load reductions can be adjusted accordingly. The adjusted loads
will be compared to the 2-year milestone commitments to ensure each state is meeting its
obligations.
Crediting Filter Feeder Benefits
During the 2-year milestone evaluation of filter feed populations, credits or debits for changes in
populations and associated nutrient assimilation can be assigned in one of two ways that EPA is
considering.
Under Option A, only the state responsible for the filter feeder changes would obtain a
credit/debit towards reaching its 2-year milestones. It would be possible for any state or the
District of Columbia to receive credit toward increasing filter feeder populations. Maryland and
Virginia can implement their programs directly. Nontidal states and the District of Columbia
could provide support to Maryland and Virginia programs to increase filter feeder populations.
Maryland and Virginia would have to ensure that any projects funded by other jurisdictions are
in addition to activities planned by Maryland or Virginia or both. To eliminate double counting,
each project credit must be properly assigned to the jurisdiction paying for the project.
U-3 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix U - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Under Option B. any nutrient credit/debit associated with a change in filter feeder populations
would be distributed proportionally across all the states and the District of Columbia, regardless
of the jurisdiction responsible for funding or implementing the project.
Under both options, the changes in filter feeder populations would be based on monitoring data.
To accurately assign credits to the appropriate jurisdiction and ensure milestones are reached,
restoration activities and population increases must be tracked and verified. Regardless of the
crediting option chosen, Maryland and Virginia should address filter feeder management in their
watershed implementation plans. HPA and the jurisdictions will work together to establish a
future strategy for crediting filter feeder benefits.
Other Issues of Concern
While increasing filter feeder populations can provide nutrient assimilation to mitigate the effects
of excess nutrients, it is not a method of pollutant source reduction. Because nutrient assimilation
can be considered an in-stream treatment technology by some regulators, there is some concern
that it might be used in lieu of advanced wastewatcr treatment technologies (Stephenson 2009).
Additionally, filter feeders reduce the pollutant downstream and pollutants are not reduced at or
near the source. Reliance on filter feeders to reduce nitrogen downstream could create a problem
with meeting local water quality standards in the upstream jurisdictions. Further consideration
should be given to address these issues.
References
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009a. Addendum IV to Amendment 1
to the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan, Chesapeake Bay Reduction Harvest
Cap Extension. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission) Atlantic Menhaden Plan Review Team.
2009b. 2009 Review of the Fishery Management Plan and State Compliance for the 2008
Atlantic Menhaden ^Brevoortia tyrannus> Fishery. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, Washington, DC.
Brush, M.J., R.J. Latour, E.A. Canuel, P.J. Lynch, and E.D. Condon. 2009. Modeling Atlantic
Menhaden in Support of Nutrient and Multispecies Management - Draft. College of William
and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
Cerco, C. and Noel, Mark. 2005. Assessing a Ten-Fold Increase in the Chesapeake Bay Native
Oyster Population: A Report to the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. July 2005. Annapolis,
MD
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2004. Oyster Management Plan. Chesapeake Bay Program,
Annapolis, MD.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009. Oyster Harvest.
. Accessed
January 26, 2010.
U-4 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix U - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2009. Maryland Oyster Restoration and
Aifuuculture Development Plan—Presentation. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Shellfish Division, Baltimore, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
2010. Annual Commercial Landings Statistics.
. Accessed
January 26, 2010.
Stephenson, K. 2008. Nutrient Offsets in Virginia: Update and Alternatives Analysis. Presented
at Virginia Rural Water Association Conference. March 18, 2008, Williamsburg, VA.
Stephenson, K. 2009. The Economics of Nutrient Harvest: Overview of Alternatives and
Challenges to Creating Incentives. Presented at Bioextractive Technologies for Nutrient
Remediation Workshop, December 14, 2009, Stamford, CT.
U-5 December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix V- Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix V. Best Management Practice (BMP) Implementation Rates for Final Scenarios
Appendix V is a spreadsheet (Appendix V - BMP Implementation Rates Assumed within WLAs
and LAs_approved.xlsx) that presents the percentage of best management practices (BMPs) that
are assumed to be in place in 2009 and within the TMDL WLAs and LAs for sources other than
wastewater treatment plants. The 2009 implementation percentages are derived from the
Chesapeake Bay Program 2009 progress run and, with the exception of annual practices (i.e.,
cover crops) that are reported separately each year, represent an accumulation of BMP percent
implementation from 1985 through 2009. The Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions report these data
annually to EPA.
Appendix V also presents the percentage of BMP implementation that is assumed within the
TMDL WLAs and LAs in each jurisdiction. With the exception of BMP implementation
percentages for AFO production area practices within West Virginia, which EPA increased as
part of its backstop allocation for agriculture, these percentages are based upon jurisdictions final
Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) input deck submissions designed to meet their nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment reduction targets.
Appendix V does not include a table for Maryland because final allocations proposed in
Maryland's WIP are derived using the method outlined in Appendix A of Maryland's WIP rather
than an input deck that was run through the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model.
The BMP implementation rates are derived from the relative areas where BMPs of different
sectors can be applied. The comparison of the 2009 and WIP BMP percent implementation rates
are provided to demonstrate the assumptions of the wasteload and load allocations in the TMDL.
The BMP percent implementation are divided into three categories:
1. Agricultural Practices
Nutrient management practices (Decision Agriculture, Enhanced Nutrient Management, and
Nutrient Management) combined represents the percent area in some form of nutrient
management on available crops. There is a separate percentage for nutrient management on
pasture. Other pasture BMPs are combined for the total coverage on pasture and nutrient
management pasture land uses. Other agriculture and animal agriculture BMP implementation
percentages are compared against the calculated available acres or animals for each BMP
individually.
2. Urban/Suburban Practices
Urban/Suburban stormwater management BMPs are combined for a total coverage of the total
acreage. Other Urban and septic BMP implementation percentages are compared to the relative
acreage or systems available for each BMP individually.
3. Resource Practices
Resource BMP implementation percentages are compared to the available land in the appropriate
modeled land uses for each BMP individually.
V-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix W - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Appendix W. Response to Comments
Appendix W is not included in this document as it totals over 3,000 pages. A separate hard copy
of the full Response to Comments is available in the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia. An
electronic copy of the Response to Comments is available on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
website.
W-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix X- Chesapeake BayTMDL
Appendix X.
Staged Implementation Approach for Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Virginia
James River Basin
With the exception of one portion of the tidal Potomac River, the tidal James River is unique
throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed in that ten chlorophyll-a water quality criteria
(5 segments*2 seasons) are applicable to protect local and tidal water quality conditions. In the
July 1, 2010 allocation of nutrients, EPA determined that attainment of these numeric
chlorophyll a criteria would require achievement of much lower levels of nutrients than
previously expected.
Specifically, in the July 2010 letter, EPA determined allocations for the James River in the
amounts of 23.48 million pounds per year of total nitrogen and 2.34 million pounds per year of
total phosphorus. To achieve the dissolved oxygen and water clarity criteria, EPA had previously
calculated that the levels of 26.8 million pounds per year of total nitrogen and 2.69 million
pounds per year of total phosphorus would be sufficient. [See TMDL Appendix O - Setting the
Chlorophyll a Criteria-Based Nutrient Allocations for the James River Watershed] Those higher
levels (to achieve DO) are roughly equivalent to the 2003 James River cap load allocation of
26.4 million pounds per year of total nitrogen and 3.41 million pounds per year of total
phosphorus. (Secretary Tayloe Murphy, 2003).
Up until the July 2010 allocation, Virginia had been working to implement past strategies to meet
the previous, higher 2003 cap load allocations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus for the James.
To achieve total nitrogen and total phosphorus allocations sufficient to comply with the current
chlorophyll-a criteria, absent significant reductions from other pollution sectors, it is estimated
that every significant municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facility in the river basin
(39 facilities) would have to install nutrient removal technologies at or below limit of technology
levels. In addition, due to the geographic location of the James River (southernmost river in the
Bay watershed), Bay circulation patterns, and strong tidal flushing from the Atlantic Ocean, total
nitrogen, total phosphorus and sediment loadings from the James River have a relatively small
impact on water quality in the mainstem Bay. For these reasons, a staged implementation approach
has been developed for implementing necessary nutrient reduction controls at wastewater facilities
in the James River Basin to achieve the wasteload allocations of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. As
part of that staged implementation approach, EPA is establishing in this TMDL the wasteload
allocations (WLA) for significant facilities in the James River as aggregate WLAs for total
nitrogen and total phosphorus (Table 9-4 in Section 9 of the TMDL Report).
Total nitrogen and total phosphorus allocations from the tributary strategy for the James River
sufficient to attain the dissolved oxygen criteria for the James River and Chesapeake Bay do not
concurrently provide for the attainment of the James River Chlorophyll a criteria. Therefore, it is
necessary in the TMDL to allocate more stringent total nitrogen and total phosphorus reductions
in the James River than previously expected to attain the Chlorophyll a criteria (an additional
3 million pounds per year and 0.3 million pounds per year respectively). To facilitate that staged
implementation approach, in this TMDL, EPA is establishing the more stringent wasteload
allocations (WLA) for significant facilities in the James River as aggregate WLAs for total
nitrogen and total phosphorus (Table 9-4 in Section 9 of the TMDL Report). The key
components of the implementation strategy include:
X-l December 29, 2010
-------
Appendix X - Chesapeake Bay TMDL
• Near-term (2011-2017) interim effluent limits and controls under the Watershed General
Permit for individual facilities implementing current and planned facility upgrades,
including sixteen upgrade projects at POTWs, to achieve those portions of the wasteload
allocations for total nitrogen and total phosphorus reductions that are based on the DO
standards attainment, plus reductions of an additional 1.6 million pounds of total nitrogen
and 200,000 pounds of total phosphorus.
• Achievement of 60% of the TMDLs overall total nitrogen and total phosphorus allocations
by 2017 and 100% of the wastewater treatment plant component by no later than January 1,
2023.
• Near-term aggregate Chlorophyll-o-based effluent limits for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus that apply under the Watershed General Permit to all 39 significant wastewater
facilities to achieve the remaining 40% of the load reductions needed to meet the applicable
aggregate wasteload allocations and the applicable Chlorophyll-a criteria with compliance
as soon as possible pursuant to 40 CFR 122.47. Existing information suggests that
compliance with this aggregate limit may not be possible until after 2017, but not later than
January 1, 2023.
• Sufficient time for the Commonwealth of Virginia to perform an engineering/cost
optimization study to establish which of the 39 facilities under the Watershed General
Permit, and in what order, will need to upgrade treatment to meet the aggregate
Chlorophyll-a-based limits.
• Establishment in 2017 of facility-specific effluent limits necessary to achieve reductions of
an additional 1.0 million pounds per year of TN and 250,000 pounds per year of TP by
January 1, 2022, and facility-specific TN and TP wasteload allocations, to inform the
permit requirements of the 2018 Watershed General Permit reissuance, for each of the
39 significant WWTPs as stringent as necessary to achieve the remaining load reductions
needed to meet the applicable Chlorophyll-a criteria. Also continue the enforceable
aggregate Chlorophyll-a-based effluent limits for TN and TP that apply to all 39 facilities,
with compliance required as soon as possible after 2017, based on present information, and
not later than January 1, 2023.
• Establishment in 2018 offacility-specific effluent limits for TN and TP based on the
facility WLAs established in 2017, as stringent as necessary to achieve the applicable
Chlorophyll-a water quality criteria, and facility-specific compliance schedules requiring
compliance with the effluent limitations for TN and TP limits as soon as possible, but not
later than January 1,2023
• EPA expects Virginia (and Virginia has committed) to reissue the Watershed General
Permit and fact sheet in 2012,2017 and 2018 to include all elements of the staged
implementation approach, including any schedule of interim milestones pursuant to
40 CFR 122.47. To guide issuance of adequate permits in the James River, EPA is
including the description of the projected schedule of the staged implementation approach
in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL as assumptions and requirements of the applicable James
River wasteload allocations. Federal law and regulation require that water quality-based
effluent limits in permits must be derived from and comply with the applicable water
quality standards and be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of TMDL
wasteload allocations. 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(A)&(B).
X-2 December 29, 2010
------- |