POTOMAC RIVER SHARED STRATEGY

JULY 24, 2001
MWCOG

Equity is a roguish thing.

For Law we ha\'e a measure, know what to trust to;

Equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor,
and as that is larger or narrower, so is Equity.

PURPOSE: To discuss the potential for a shared jurisdictional strategy to achieve upcoming nutrient
and sediment reduction goals in the Potomac River watershed.

PRESENTATIONS:

The following individuals presented on the respective topics. The presentations can be found at
www.chesapeakebav.net/nsc.htm under "Current Projects and Info":

Tom Simpson; "Thinking Ahead to Tributary Strategies"

Ted Graham; "Tributary Strategies - Do shared strategies make sense for the Potomac River
Basin?"

Carlton Haywood; "Lessons learned from the first Potomac Nutrient Strategy"

LOAD ALLOCATION DISCUSSION:

Below are key points from this discussion:

It was first suggested that this discussion be tabled until the groups had numbers to refer to.
Once the Water Quality Model is calibrated, those numbers will be available.

Source loading information is out there, and needs to be pulled together to get an adequate
baseline to work with.

This needs to be based on hard science, before policy decisions are made.

Need to focus on inter-jurisdictional loads.

Need to identify all sources, loads AND gaps.

A lot of equity issues are between developed and undeveloped lands, not thinking they need to
contribute as much toward a reduction. There is a Potomac Roundtable group in Virginia.
Their big focus is growth and development, and how to accommodate a no net increase. Some
areas don't want to grow, so there are competing interests.

It was suggested that each jurisdiction be given a goal reduction and then give that individual
jurisdictions the flexibility in deciding how they want to develop their strategy to meet their goal.
Allocations should be based on source loads initially to show the process of getting to the
numbers.

West Virginia voiced their support in this effort and everyone doing their part.

There needs to be a lot of open communication. The information from the Watershed Model

should be sent out now, so options can be developed before the Water Quality Model


-------
information.

Everyone needs to do a better job of involving the rural community. They are more sparse and
therefore are not typically as organized.

The main focus should be population growth and development (land use issues).

Everyone needs to first agree on water quality conditions; where it is now and where we want it

to go to. Agreement on the goal before allocations can be very beneficial.

Need to get the point sources together to see how they could get below a certain level. A

meeting without any state representatives may open up the discussion to talk about technology,

allocation, and costs. There was a concern that this may not be feasible.

Pennsylvania isn't sure if there will be the political support for a strategy specific to the

Potomac. They see no need to separate the Susquehanna and Potomac. Public relations is

very important to PA. as they don't border the Bay, so right now it's a struggle.

Four Allocation Issues were Identified:

Political concerns should not be an obstacle.

Equity, cost and ability need to be evaluated to get reductions by sector.

Those areas that haven't grown shouldn't be penalized.

There are cross-jurisdictional issues that can be very big, even if it means lower cost. There
needs to be a consistent phrase promoting a joint Potomac River Strategy effort.

POTENTIAL SHARED COMPONENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL STRATEGIES:

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

There are a lot of opportunities to build on existing programs going on in all the jurisdictions. Right now
there is an urban nutrient management activities pilot project with VA DCR in cooperation with
Extension. The information from this project can be passed on to the other jurisdictions. All the
jurisdictions are on the same page with not having a lot of urban nutrient management information, no
baseline for monitoring, or strong information on urban BMPs. Right now everyone has a different
mechanism for accounting. This should be a cooperative effort to get the most information. There
should be a media campaign for the entire region. We need to focus on the need first, then look at all
feasible strategies and which cost works best. A bridge should be built to the business sector to get
them involved in cutting edge technology. This can be beneficial to both parties involved. Public
seminars can be held for public land owners. Virginia is presently holding them, with an urban focus.
There needs to be a one day session that is nothing more than information sharing; a work day of
individuals doing outreach and education across the Potomac Watershed. Maryland is setting their
goals focusing on habitats. They would be willing to share their methodologies. An Urban Storm
Water Task Force developed a Directive on storm water. A big part of the Directive is demonstration
and education, so that is another resource. In communicating a message to the public, the link needs to
be to the Bay, but also to local streams. There should be a public land linkage to the local water
quality. People will care about what effects them; they aren't concerned with cap strategies. Education
needs to be extended beyond the public to engineers, politicians, etc. This is a fundamental problem

2


-------
right now.

NEXT STEPS/ACTION ITEMS:

Ad hoc groups have been established to further discuss the following topics before the next meeting.
Those individuals responsible for a topic are listed by the respective topic.

•	Problems and Implications of Criteria/Allocation Issues: Ted Graham, Rich Batiuk, Tom
Simpson, Steve Bieber, Collin Powers, Kenn Pattison, Tom Basden, Carlton Haygood, &
Lauren Wenzel.

•	Stakeholder Activities: Tanya Spano, Mary Apostolico, and Danielle Lucid.

"Potomac Congress" - a stakeholder conference. Each state should have their own meeting
first (similar to a caucus), and then there will be a joint meeting of the "Congress": Mary
Apostolico, Norm Goulet, Dave Bancroft, Danielle Lucid.

•	Information Exchange: Mary Apostolico, Norm Goulet, Dave Bancroft, Danielle Lucid.

QUESTIONS FOR LOCALITIES TO CONSIDER

What designated uses & criteria are valid & attainable?

What load limits are justified?

What constitutes "equitable" load allocations?

Who will prepare the Tributary Strategies?

How specific will they be?

Who sees that they are implemented?

How much will implementation cost?

Who will pay for it?

What rules will apply to permitting?

What defines attainment of standards?

What happens if we fall short?

NEXT MEETING:

September 25, 2001 from 10-3:00 p.m. atMWCOG.

PARTICIPANTS:

Mary Apostolico
David Bancroft
Tom basden

mpa@dcr.state.va.us
dbancroft@acb-online. org
tom.basden@mail.wvu.edu

3


-------
Rich Batiuk

batiuk.richard@epa.gov

Jerusalem Bekele

jerusalem.bekele@dc.gov

Steve Bieber

sbieber@mde.state.md.us

Patrick Bowen

patrick.bowen@wv.usda.gov

Teresa Byler

tbyler@wvsca. org

Bill Dickinson

wdickin953@aol.com

Mark Dubin

mdubin@state.pa.us

Gayle England

gayle.england@dc.gov

Norm Goulet

ngoulet@novaregion.org

Ted Graham

tgraham@mwcog.org

Carlton Haywood

chaywood@potomac-commission.org

Danielle Lucid

dlucid@dnr. state.md.us

Paul Massicot

pmassicot@dnr. state.md.us

Kenn Pattison

kpattison@state.pa.us

Collin Powers

chpowers@deq. state, va.us

Tanya Spano

tspano@mwcog. org

Bob Summers

bsummers@mde.state.md.us

Julie Trask

trask.julie@epa.gov

Lauren Wenzel

lwenzel@dnr.state.md.us

4


-------