Designated Uses Open Water/Deep Water/Deep Channel Designated Use boundaries Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Use long term averaged pycnocline upper/lower boundaries to establish use boundaries on segment by segment basis • Document the details of calculation of the pycnocline boundaries and how to apply to criteria attainment within the implementation guidelines chapter • Open water/deep water and deep water/deep channel uses boundaries defined by upper and lower boundaries of the pycnocline, respectively • Factor in positive effects of re-oxygenation of below pycnocline water with riverine and ocean waters into horizontal delineation of open water, deep water, and deep channel uses Issues Identified for Resolution • Work with Virginia colleagues on how far into the VA mainstem the deep water designated use should extend Recommendations from WO Standards Coordinators Team • Adopt the proposed draft revised horizontal delineation of open water, deep water and deep channel uses in Figure 1 as the draft to send out for the second round of review • Provide reviewers with notification that these general draft designated use delineations are subject to change during baywide UAA process and further revision/refinement during the states' water quality standards adoption processes • Identify within the text that special attention needs to be paid to whether a deep channel use needs to be added in the lower Chester River, Eastern Bay and lower Rappahannock during the baywide UAA process ------- Figure 1. Draft Tidal Water Designated Uses Open Water Deep Water Deep Channel ------- Designated Uses (Con't) Deep Channel Designated Use Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Recognize the seasonal anoxic region within the deep channel designated use • Insert the recommended language describing the seasonal anoxic region into the deep channel designated use definition language • Add in a narrative statement addressing the dissolved oxygen criterion for the seasonal anoxic region within the deep channel designated use • Set the upper boundary of the seasonal anoxic region as half the distance from the top of the deep channel boundary • Work out the final upper boundary and volume trie/spatial extent of the seasonal anoxic region through the baywide UAA process Issues Identified for Resolution • Determine if there is a simpler approach to addressing the seasonal anoxic region through site specific criteria modification Recommendations from WO Standards Coordinators Team • Conceptual illustration of the refined tidal water designated uses in Figure 2 updated to reflect seasonal anoxic region (Figure 3) • Site specific criteria modification is not an option to address the seasonal anoxic region given requirement not to change existing state designated uses ------- Figure 2. Refined Designated Uses for Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributary Waters A. Cross Section of Chesapeake Bay or Tidal Tributary Shallow Water- Open Water Deep Wate Deep Chann B. Oblique View of the "Chesapeake Bay" and its Tidal Tributaries ------- Figure 3. Proposed Designated Uses Incorporating the Seasonal Anoxic Region Shallow Water / / / V-.. Open Water Deep Water' . Seasonal Anoxic Region ------- Designated Uses (Con't) Public Friendly Names for the Designated Uses Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • None Issues Identified for Resolution • Communications Subcommittee to work with WQ Standards Coordinators Team to develop more public friendly, use being provided oriented names for the five designated uses Recommendation from the Communications Subcommittee • No changes recommended as the five terms will likely only be of importance to those on the inside of the standards adoption process; communications to stakeholders to make the habitat focus clear Recommendations from WO Standards Coordinators Team • Publish a CBP Communications Office edited version of the more habitat, use protected oriented definitions of the five designated uses in Table 1 within the revised draft designated use appendix ------- Table 1. Draft General Descriptions of the Five Proposed Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Uses Migratory Spawning and Nursery Designated Use Summary description: tidal freshwater to low salinity habitats in the upper reaches of many Bay tidal tributaries and the Susquehanna Flats/upper mainstem Chesapeake Bay supporting a wide array of migratory striped bass, perch, shad and herring during late winter to spring spawning season. Shallow Water Designated Use Summary description: nearshore and other shallow water habitats supporting a wide variety of fish and crab species dependent on underwater Bay grasses. Open Water Designated Use Summary description: surface water habitats extending out from the shallow areas along the shoreline across the tidal rivers and mainstem Bay supporting diverse populations of sportfish like striped bass, bluefish, mackerel, seatrout and more as well as important baitfish like menhaden and silversides. Deep Water Designated Use Summary description: transitional water column habitat between the well mixed surface waters and the very deep, narrower channels supporting fish like bay anchovy as well as many bottom feeding fish, crabs and other shellfish. Deep Channel Designated Use Summary description: very deep channel habitats where low dissolved oxygen conditions prevail during the summer months; important summer location of food (sediment dwelling worms, small clams) for bottom feeding fish and crabs and critical winter refuge habitat for striped bass, white perch, sturgeon and other fish. ------- Designated Uses (Con't) Shallow Water Designated Uses Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Set the outer boundary of the shallow water designated use as the water clarity criteria application depth • Evaluate attainment of the shallow water designated use based on the measurement of the water clarity criteria met at the established application depths • Set the existing use depths as the maximum depth of the composite 1971-1999 SAV beds • Drop areas where physical processes or conditions (wind, wave, bottom substrate) will prevent underwater Bay grasses from growing at the start; consider these areas as part of the open water designated use • Set the draft water clarity application depths based on the maximum depth of the composite historical (1930s-1960s) SAV beds on a Chesapeake Bay Program segment by segment basis • For CBP segments where either no historical photos exist or no SAV was mapped from available historical photos, set the application depth based on the existing use depth plus 0.5 meters • Use the resulting draft water clarity application depth as the starting point for the defining the shallow water designated use outer boundary through the baywide UAA process Issues Identified for Resolution • Developing the draft water clarity application depths Recommendations from Water Clarity Criteria Team • Recognize the historical composites are an extremely conservative estimate of Bay grasses distribution from 1930s-1960s: - Based on only 3-5 years of photography over that 40 year period - Photography collected for other purposes under conditions less then ideal for photointerpretation and mapping of Bay grass beds • Revise the existing SAV no grow exclusion zones to drop those delineated exclusion zones where Bay grasses were mapped through the interpretation of the historical photography-results in a much reduced set of exclusion zones (Figures 4 and 5) • Set the existing use based on the maximum depth of the 1978-2000 composite - Recognizes existing uses based on November 1975 to present time frame ------- Designated Uses (Con't) Shallow Water Designated Uses (Con't) Recommendations from Water Clarity Criteria Team (Con't) • Publish the proposed draft water clarity application depths in Table 2 for the second round of Bay criteria/uses review generated using the following decision rules recognizing the draft application depths are subject to further changes through the baywide UAA and states' water quality standards adoption processes: - Set the historical and 1978-2000 composite beds maximum depth by determining the deepest depth contour interval within which the composite bed area was greater than 10 percent of the potential Bay grasses habitat at the depth interval. The maximum depth is set at the deeper depth within the depth contour interval. - If a segment historical composite bed maximum depth is higher than that segment's corresponding 1978-2000 composite bed maximum depth, set the historical composite maximum depth as that segment's water clarity criteria application depth. - If a segment historical composite bed maximum depth is equal to or less than that segment's corresponding 1978-2000 composite bed maximum depth (including cases where no historical composite bed maximum depth could not be set due to no mapped Bay grasses or mapped grasses did not meet the 10 percent rule), set the 1978-2000 composite maximum depth plus 0.5 meters as that segment's water clarity criteria application depth. - If a segment's 1978-2000 composite bed maximum depth could not be established either due to no Bay grasses mapped over this time frame or the mapped Bay grasses did not meet the 10 percent rule, then set 0.5 meters as that segment's water clarity criteria application depth. • Recognize further small scale refinements to the underlying technical data are likely through the summer, but unlikely to cause any significant changes to proposed depths - The Potomac (parts of VA shoreline), Sassafras and Virginia eastern shore segments are still missing historical composite bed data; work in progress on these areas - Proposed revisions to the SAV no grow exclusion zone map undergoing review through the Living Resources Subcommittee's SAV Workgroup ------- Table 2. Recommended draft Chesapeake Bay water clarity criteria depth of application (meters) by Chesapeake Bay Program segment organized by relative geographic location. Chesapeake Bay Segment Historical Composite Max. Depth 1978-2000 Composite Max Depth Water Clarity Criteria Application Depth Northern Chesapeake Bay (CB1TF) 2 2 2 Upper Chesapeake Bay (CB20H) 1 1 1.5 Upper Central Chesapeake Bay (CB3MH) 2 1 2 Middle Central Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH) 2 * 2 Lower Central Chesapeake Bay (CB5MH) 2 2 2 Western Lower Chesapeake Bay (CB6PH) 2 2 2 Eastern Lower Chesapeake Bay (CB7PH) INC 2 2 Mouth of Chesapeake Bay (CB8MH) < * 0.5 Bush River (BSHOH) 0.5 0.5 1 Gunpowder River (GUNOH) 2 2 2 Middle River (MIDOH) 2 2 2 Back River (BACOH) < < 0.5 Patapsco River (PATMH) 2 * 2 Magothy River (MAGMH) 2 1 2 Severn River (SEVMH) 1 2 2 South River (SOUMH) 2 * 2 Rhode River (RHDMH) 0.5 * 0.5 West River (WSTMH) 1 0.5 1 Upper Patuxent River (PAXTF) < 2 2 Western Branch Patuxent River (WBRTF) < < - Middle Patuxent River (PAXOH) < * 0.5 Lower Patuxent River (PAXMH) 2 * 2 Upper Potomac River (POTTF) INC 2 2 Piscataway Creek (PISTF) < 2 2 ------- Chesapeake Bay Segment Historical Composite Max. Depth 1978-2000 Composite Max Depth Water Clarity Criteria Application Depth Mattawoman Creek (MATTF) * 2 2 Middle Potomac (POTOH) INC 2 2 Lower Potomac (POTMH) INC 0.5 1 Upper Rappahannock River (RPPTF) < * 0.5 Middle Rappahannock River (RPPOH) < < 0.5 Lower Rappahannock River (RPPMH) 2 * 2 Corrotoman River (CRRMH) 2 1 2 Piankatank River (PIAMH) 2 2 2 Upper Mattaponi River (MPNTF) < * 0.5 Lower Mattaponi River (MPNOH) < < 0.5 Upper Pamunkey River (PMKTF) < 0.5 1 Lower Pamunkey River (PMKOH) < < 0.5 Middle York River (YRKMH) * * 0.5 Lower York River (YRKPH) 2 1 2 Mobjack Bay (MOBPH) 2 2 2 Upper James River (JMSTF) 0.5 * 0.5 Appomattox River (APPTF) 0.5 < 0.5 Middle James River (JMSOH) < * 0.5 Chickahominy River (CHKOH) * 1 1.5 Lower James River (JMSMH) * * 0.5 Mouth of the James River (JMSPH) 2 1 2 Western Branch Elizabeth River (WBEMH) - - - Southern Branch Elizabeth River (SBEMH) - - - Eastern Branch Elizabeth River (EBEMH) - - - Middle Elizabeth River (ELIMH) - - - Lafayette River (LAFMH) - - - ------- Chesapeake Bay Segment Historical Composite Max. Depth 1978-2000 Composite Max Depth Water Clarity Criteria Application Depth Mouth of the Elizabeth River (ELIPH) - - - Northeast River (NORTF) 0.5 0.5 1 C&D Canal (C&DOH) - - - Bohemia River (BOHOH) * 0.5 1 Elk River (ELKOH) 0.5 2 2 Sassafras River (SASOH) INC 2 2 Upper Chester River (CHSTF) < < 0.5 Middle Chester River (CHSOH) * < 0.5 Lower Chester River (CHSMH) 2 1 2 Eastern Bay (EASMH) 2 1 2 Upper Choptank River (CHOTF) - - - Middle Choptank River (CHOOH) 0.5 < 0.5 Lower Choptank River (CHOMH1) 2 2 2 Mouth of the Choptank River (CHOMH2) 2 0.5 2 Little Choptank River (LCHMH) 2 1 2 Honga River (HNGMH) 2 1 2 Fishing Bay (FSBMH) * * 0.5 Upper Nanticoke River (NANTF) < < 0.5 Middle Nanticoke River (NANOH) * < 0.5 Lower Nanticoke River (NANMH) * < 0.5 Wicomico River (WICMH) * < 0.5 Manokin River (MANMH) 2 0.5 2 Big Annemessex River (BIGMH) 2 1 2 Upper Pocomoke River (POCTF) < < 0.5 Middle Pocomoke River (POCOH) < < 0.5 Lower Pocomoke River (POCMH) * 1 1.5 ------- Chesapeake Bay Segment Historical Composite Max. Depth 1978-2000 Composite Max Depth Water Clarity Criteria Application Depth Tangier Sound (TANMH) 2 2 2 INC = Historical composite mapping incomplete; work in progress. < = Segment was not surveyed or no Bay grasses were mapped. * = Acreage of Bay grasses mapped as a percent of total available habitat was less then 10 percent decision rule. ------- Designated Uses (Con't) Consistency in Seasonal Application of Designated Uses and DO Criteria Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • None Issues Identified for Resolution • Ensure consistency in the seasonal application of the deep water use, deep channel use and season anoxic region and the respective dissolved oxygen criteria Recommendations from WO Standards Cooixlinators and Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Teams • Apply the numeric deep water use and deep channel use and narrative seasonal anoxic region dissolved oxygen criteria to deep water use, deep channel use and seasonal anoxic region habitats from June 1st through September 30th • Apply the shallow/open water use dissolved oxygen criteria to deep water use and deep channel use habitats from October 1st through May 31st ------- Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Finalize the Full Array of Draft Designated Use Specific Dissolved Oxygen Criterion Values Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • None Issues Identified for Resolution • Revisit the instantaneous minimum dissolved oxygen criteria • Determine if all three (deep water) and all four (for shallow and open water) criteria values are required to ensure full protection of the designated use habitats or whether one or more of the values are the driving criteria and the others are redundant Recommendations from Water Clarity Criteria Team • Go out for the second round of review with the dissolved oxygen criteria summarized in Table 3 as the science-based set of criteria protective of the five proposed tidal water designated uses • Work on the second issue-possible redundant criterion values-over the course of the spring and summer, recognizing with the current Bay monitoring program design we can only assess the monthly and daily minimum criteria across all segments [we are not currently collecting the frequency of data needed to assess the weekly and daily average criteria] ------- Table 3. Draft Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen criteria. Designate d Use Criteria Concentration/ Duration Protection Being Provided Temporal Application Migratory spawning and nursery 7 day mean of 6 mg/L1 Survival/growth of larvae/juvenile tidal fresh res.fish. February-May 1 day minimum of 5 mg/L Survival and growth of larvae/juvenile migratory fish. Shallow/open water criteria apply June-January Shallow/ open water 30 day mean of 5 mg/L Growth of juvenile and adult fish and shellfish. All year round 7 day mean of 4 mg/L Survival/growth of open water fish larvae. 1 day minimum of 3 mg/L Survival of threatened/endangered sturgeon species. Deep water 30 day mean of 3 mg/L Survival and growth of Bay anchovy eggs and larvae. June-September daily average of 2.3 mg/L Survival of juvenile and adult fish and shellfish. 1 day minimum of 1.7 mg/L Survival of Bay anchovy eggs and larvae. Shallow/open water criteria apply October-May Deep channel 1 day minimum of 1 mg/L Survival of bottom dwelling worms and clams. June-September Shallow/open water criteria apply October-May 1. Applied to tidal fresh waters with long term averaged salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand. ------- Water Clarity Criteria Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Publish both the leaf surface (PLL) and the water column (PLW)-based water clarity values as Bay water clarity criteria. • Recommend that the states of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware and the District of Columbia adopt the water column-based criteria into their water quality standards. • The Bay water clarity criteria document will be revised to place emphasis on the water column-based set of criteria. • The implementation guidelines specific to the water clarity criteria will be revised to recommend the application of the water column-based criteria and provide guidance as to when the leaf surface-based criteria would be appropriate to use. Issues Identified for Resolution • None (see designated uses for resolution of the water clarity criteria application depth set of issues) Recommendations from Water Clarity Criteria Team • Go out for the second round of review with the water clarity criteria and underlying documentation/implementation guidelines reflecting the Water Quality Steering Committee's January 23-24 meeting decisions ------- Chlorophyll a Criteria Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Move forward with development of chlorophyll a criteria for well-flushed, open water reflecting the need to protect against specific water quality impairments • Develop guidance for where, when and how the open water-based chlorophyll a criteria will apply to poorly-flushed waters Issues Identified for Resolution • Development of set of chlorophyll a criteria ready for going out for review Recommendations from Chlorophyll Criteria Team • Go out for the second round of review with a set of chlorophyll a criteria based on protecting against impairments to zooplankton, oysters and fish communities - A number of corroborative lines of evidence have been compiled and synthesized in Table 4, including the reference phytoplankton community approach used as the basis of the original July 2001 draft Bay chlorophyll a criteria - Chlorophyll a thresholds protective of impairments to zooplankton, oysters and fish have been developed and are synthesized in Table 5 - An analysis of 1985-2001 and more recent 1999-2001 chlorophyll a concentrations from the Bay water quality monitoring program illustrates in Table 6 where we stand generally across all tidal waters • The team has a set of preliminary criteria values that, pending adding some additional results to Table 5, will form the basis for a draft set of Bay chlorophyll a criteria (will have the draft criteria and implementation guidelines ready by early April) • Set up for an additional round of review of the chlorophyll a criteria alone during the summer in advance of the fall Federal Register review if the Bay watershed partners feel there is a need given comments from the second round of review ------- Table 4. Comparison of the chlorophyll a concentrations derived from the collaborative lines of evidence ( g/L). Salinity Regime Historical Levels (mean) Ecosystem Trophic Status (mean) Reference Phytoplankton Community median 95th % Spring Tidal Fresh 3.7 3-9 8.3 12.1 Oligohaline 5.9 - 9.9 22.5 Mesohaline 7.2 2-7 5.7 26.8 Polyhaline 4.1 1-7 3.2 7.0 Summer Tidal Fresh 7.0 3-9 8.6 16.0 Oligohaline 7.6 - 6.4 22.6 Mesohaline 7.2 2-7 7.2 16.2 Polyhaline 3.7 1-7 4.4 8.8 ------- Table 5. Comparison of the chlorophyll a concentrations derived from the living resource community impairment threshold analyses ( g/L). Salinity Regime Zooplankton Community Impairment Oysters Community Impairment (Prorocen- trum minimum) Fish Community Impairment (Pfiesteria piscicida) Histogram of Grouped Data Moving Average of Individual Data Kolmogorov- Smirnov Analysis of Frequency Microcystis aeruginosa Spring Tidal Fresh 15-20 18 - - - Oligohaline - - - - 20 Mesohaline 30-40 27 - 35 20 Polyhaline 10-20 11 - 35 - Summer Tidal Fresh 20-30 22 35 - - Oligohaline 20-30 25 - - 30 Mesohaline 20-25 15 - 35 30 Polyhaline 15-20 12 - 35 - ------- Table 6. Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributary Median and 95th Percentile Surface Chlorophyll a Concentrations: 1985-200 and 1998-2000 1985 - 2000 1998 - 2000 Median 95th % Median 95th % Spring (March-May) Tidal Fresh 4.8 36.6 5.3 37.3 Oligohaline 9.1 65.0 9.7 65.0 Mesohaline 9.1 39.2 10.3 40.9 Polyhaline 6.7 35 5.3 20.9 Summer (July - September) Tidal Fresh 18.3 72.0 24.4 69.0 Oligohaline 14.2 84.5 15.9 85.2 Mesohaline 11.1 36.8 11.6 35.5 Polyhaline 7.4 16.0 9.3 17.3 ------- Criteria Attainment Decisions by the WO Steering Committee • Hold off on making a final decision on the temporal evaluation period that is independent of full consideration of the implications for the other components for defining attainment: magnitude, duration, frequency, assessment unit, and percentage of acceptable exceedences. • Use an interpolation assessment approach to determine criteria attainment. • Set the criteria attainment assessment unit as each applicable designated use within each of the 78 Chesapeake Bay Program segments. • Hold open the option for further sub-dividing the existing Chesapeake Bay Program segments to address smaller rivers/creeks/embayments according to jurisdictional need. • Hold open the option for merging together the existing Chesapeake Bay Program segments where compatible uses are adjacent to one another and there is a justification to do so, according to jurisdictional need. • Hold off on making a decision on the percentage of acceptable exceedences this is independent of full consideration of the implications for the other components for defining attainment: magnitude, duration, frequency, assessment unit, and temporal evaluation period. Issues Identified for Resolution • Define attainment by integrating magnitude, duration, frequency, spatial assessment unit, and temporal application period. Recommendations from Criteria Teams • Define criteria attainment by applying a cumulative frequency distribution approach (see Figures 6, 7 and 8 and the attached example for application to chlorophyll a criteria) - Effectively integrates magnitude, duration, frequency, space and time - Builds in an allowance for a limited number of exceedences based on biological effects information while ensuring protection of the designated use - Have gotten very positive feedback from EPA Headquarters on taking this approach • Proceed with work on definition of the criterion relevant reference curves • Include complete description of the cumulative frequency distribution approach within the round 2 criteria review draft document with examples to seek feedback from the Bay region community ------- CFD Application Scenario 1 Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Scenario 1 - Attainment is defined simply by the area under the curves. Figure A illustrates a generic example. Figure B illustrates an example where a large percentage of space exceeds the criteria less frequently. Figure C illustrates an example where a smaller percentage of space exceeds the criteria more frequently. Attainment is defined by the area under the curve. A specific amount of area under the curve is set aside for infrequent violations In either space or time. Any curve encompassing area greater than that amount would indicate lack of attainment for that spatial unit. In this way flexibility is allowed in that some violations could occur in either space or time and the criteria would still be attained. Curves B and C encompass the same amount of area and under this scenario and illustrate the same level of attainment. ------- CFD Application Scenario 2 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Spatial Exceedance Percentage (% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Spatial Exceedance Percentage (% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Spatial Exceedance Percentage (% Scenario 2 - Attainment is defined by the area under the curves, but 10 percent of space and/or time are allowed to exceed the criteria before the spatial unit is considered out of attainment. Figure A illustrates a generic example. Figure B illustrates an example where a large percentage of space exceeds the criteria less frequently. Figure C illustrates an example where a smaller percentage of space exceeds the criteria more frequently. Attainment is defined by the area under the curve. Ten percent of the area under the curve is allowed before the spatial unit is considered to be out of attainment. Any curve encompassing area greater than that amount would indicate lack of attainment for that spatial unit. This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 except that it Is less flexible because it forces an equal weight on both space and time and does not allow one to substitute for the other. Thus less space (or time) would need to exceed the threshold before the spatial uniti would be considered out of attainment. Curves B and C encompass the same amount of area and under this scenario and illustrate the same level of attainment. Not that that would not be true if the 10 percent rule were not equal for both space and time. ------- CFD Application Scenario 3 Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Spatial Exceedance Percentage (%) Scenario 3 - In this scenario a reference curve is defined based on ecological information that documents what is considered to be healthy conditions. Attainment is defined is in scenario 1, but the area of exceedance under the reference curve is not counted toward defining a spatial assessment unit as out of attainment. Figure A illustrates a generic example. Figure B illustrates an example where a large percentage of space exceeds the criteria less frequently. Figure C illustrates an example where a smaller percentage of space exceeds the criteria more frequently. Attainment is defined by the area between the reference curve and the CFD. Any spatial unit with area between the two curves that is greater than a specified amount would indicate lack of attainment for that spatial unit. This advantage of this scenario is that it is based on actual ecological information for defining an acceptable amount of exceedance for defining attainment. ------- Schedule for Publication of the Chesapeake Bay Criteria/Designated Uses Week Bay Criteria/Designated Use Document Action March 25 Water Quality Steering Committee reviews/approves revised draft Bay criteria/uses for second round of review via conference call April 15 Revised draft Bay criteria/uses document distributed by second round of Bay watershed partner review and independent scientific peer review June 10 Comments due from second round of review June 17 Partner, stakeholder and peer review comments compiled and distributed to criteria teams for review/response June 17- Teams generate responses, revise criteria/uses document text, tables, figures July 22 August 5 Revised final draft Bay criteria/used document produced August 19 Water Quality Steering Committee reviews/approves revised final draft Bay criteria/uses document for Federal Register review Sept. 2 EPA Office of Water sign-off on Federal Register publication Sept. 9 - Federal Register publication of the final draft Bay criteria/uses document for review Oct. 21 Oct. 28 Review comments compiled and distributed to teams for review/response Nov. 4 - Teams generate responses, revise criteria/uses document text, tables, figures Dec. 2 Dec. 16 Water Quality Steering Committee approves final Bay criteria/uses Jan. 6 EPA Office of Water approves final Bay criteria/uses Jan. 20 Federal register publication of the final Bay criteria uses ------- |